Conquer Club

http://ipower.ning.com/netneutrality
Thoughts?

Knight of Orient wrote:http://ipower.ning.com/netneutrality
Thoughts?

If the internet ends, I WILL go on a violent rampage throughout Europe.

There's no way the internet is gonna die. If it did, how would we play risk?

if it dies than its back to shady pornshops for me

The mayans predicted that 2012 will be the end of an era.
They might be right

Wow i forgot about that...gotta admit that is some kinda coincidence

This is scary. Really scary. But, I'm gonna have to take the pessimists stance and say that it's going to happen. Sure, we all know about it, but there's not going to be widespread outrage, because the news media, especially TV news, the most-used source of news, is what stands to gain the most from this.

It's all doomed.

wcaclimbing wrote:The mayans predicted that 2012 will be the end of an era.
They might be right

On the basis that they are now all dead, I'm not sure I'd put a lot of confidence in their predictive abilities.

i bet 2012...usa will be a 3rd world country cause of war...
well actually a safe bet
30 years from now usa will def be a 3rd world country

lord voldemort wrote:i bet 2012...usa will be a 3rd world country cause of war...
well actually a safe bet
30 years from now usa will def be a 3rd world country

Have to hope you were being sarcastic, Moldymort

wcaclimbing wrote:The mayans predicted that 2012 will be the end of an era.
They might be right

Yes yes, we all know that. I started that line of opnion.

Im not 100% bought over by this. However assuming its true this would be a very big constratint on freedom of speech. The internet is not just a place to entertain you, its used to exchage information, voice opinions, contact people. This is something people should stand for and take.

However I dont see such a move being profitable for anyone, likethe video said the smaller sites on the internet wil shut down since people arnt willing to pay exta for something they dont need. Im guessing that 99% of the sites on the net dont have anymore that a few hunderd hits a week (if there lucky). NMOst people will stop visiting them since they would have to pay. So is MOST sites on the net shut down what good would the serch engines be? Google, yahoo have no reason to exist.

Also it will only take one smart company not to follow the crowed for the whole idea to fall throught.

This same conversation is going on under the heading DaGip is probably going to run with this...

But check this out, It has already started.
http://www.reuters.com/article/email/id ... 0720080117

This is in one sense really silly. It is like people worried about some strange idea the network TV stations are going to do when cable and satelite systems go online. By 2012, the global internet market will be too competitive to even allow them to think about non flat rate systems. They will never to really be able to go back to the "good old days."

In the "good old days" by the way, before internet, all serivces had a (not per byte) per hour charge. Compuserve, The Source, America Online, all had them. Once you had multiple access points to the internet the dial up per hour charges were no longer used in favor of the flat rate access systems.

Here are a few facts. By 2012 even WiFi will be a rare thing. Advanced wireless networks, provided by the cell phone providers will be capable of high speed internet access. Sprint, AT&T, Verison will all be going for your internet access. In this competition, significant pressure will be placed on the optical cable companies. They can always provide "better" serivce but if it comes at a cost then they might actually loose a customer.

tzor wrote:This is in one sense really silly. It is like people worried about some strange idea the network TV stations are going to do when cable and satelite systems go online. By 2012, the global internet market will be too competitive to even allow them to think about non flat rate systems. They will never to really be able to go back to the "good old days."

In the "good old days" by the way, before internet, all serivces had a (not per byte) per hour charge. Compuserve, The Source, America Online, all had them. Once you had multiple access points to the internet the dial up per hour charges were no longer used in favor of the flat rate access systems.

Here are a few facts. By 2012 even WiFi will be a rare thing. Advanced wireless networks, provided by the cell phone providers will be capable of high speed internet access. Sprint, AT&T, Verison will all be going for your internet access. In this competition, significant pressure will be placed on the optical cable companies. They can always provide "better" serivce but if it comes at a cost then they might actually loose a customer.

I don't think that this is a question of the global market, more of a regional one. And by region, I mean nations. The real core debate is a question of censorship? Does everyone agree to that? So therefore I don't believe that technology enters into it either.
But the article that I posted above does state that Time Warner is going to try billing based on internet usage. Which I do feel would make it even more so a question of censorship.
But I also think that it is silly to think that our internet will be taken away.

Juan_Bottom wrote:I don't think that this is a question of the global market, more of a regional one. And by region, I mean nations.

But the point remains, even on a national level this is still regional. Once it is possible for a cell phone provider to provide full internet service anywhere, it is in their own profit interest to do so. You will no longer be restricted by a single cable subscriber to quality of internet service. They will have to link together because as was the case with the old Compuserve and AOL they needed the content of the entire global internet to remain competitive.

There is no corporate reason for censorship on the global market. There is a corporate reason for bandwidth preference but this doesn't in and of itself spell the death of the internet which is currently working on the "hot potato" model of networking.

We could always boycott.

tzor wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:I don't think that this is a question of the global market, more of a regional one. And by region, I mean nations.

But the point remains, even on a national level this is still regional. Once it is possible for a cell phone provider to provide full internet service anywhere, it is in their own profit interest to do so. You will no longer be restricted by a single cable subscriber to quality of internet service. They will have to link together because as was the case with the old Compuserve and AOL they needed the content of the entire global internet to remain competitive.

There is no corporate reason for censorship on the global market. There is a corporate reason for bandwidth preference but this doesn't in and of itself spell the death of the internet which is currently working on the "hot potato" model of networking.

It isn't a question of whether or not to let someone on the web, it's about controlling what they want to look at once they've logged on. If each individual site costs money, then you're not gonna surf for info.

I can't see a reason for any internet provider to do this either though. Maybe someone else could enlighten us, TZOR. I can see why other corporations would love this, but not the web providers.

It wouldn't be good for business, which is why it won't happen.

I lost concentration straight away when I saw her cleavage.

suggs wrote:It wouldn't be good for business, which is why it won't happen.

The thing is, the internet isn't nearly as good for business as television. Like described in the article linked in the OP, ads on the internet don't have nearly the impact as ones on TV. Also, if a website becomes too commercialized, and the ads become too distracting, people leave for a less commercialized one, because there are essentially an unlimited amount of websites, all just as easy to access. With TV, there may be ad-free channels, but they cost more.

ISPs would actually benefit from this, because they could make much more money from advertising, on things like AOL's website (which would be much more popular once it's one of the few basic websites available to AOL users). In addition, the entertainment/information industry would benefit greatly if people switched away from using the internet, and went back to traditional, limited media -- media where ads are more effective, and therefore easier to sell for more.

Sure, websites like Google would suffer. Therefore those sites are likely supporters of net neutrality. But overall, more of the largest corporations would profit from the end of an anarchic, free internet than would suffer by it.

My point was really directed at the fact that the internet improves information and communication, and knowledge thus bringing us closer to a Perfect Market.
To simplify, instead of selling my comics ( ALERT!) down the local comic store for a hundred quid, i could now go on e bay and sell them all individually , and make a thousand quid.
Or, Merril Lynch can buy half of Africa with a click of the button -and all cos of geeks

suggs wrote:My point was really directed at the fact that the internet improves information and communication, and knowledge thus bringing us closer to a Perfect Market.
To simplify, instead of selling my comics ( ALERT!) down the local comic store for a hundred quid, i could now go on e bay and sell them all individually , and make a thousand quid.
Or, Merril Lynch can buy half of Africa with a click of the button -and all cos of geeks

Yeah, but the people in charge of this stuff don't care about the perfect market, and they definitely don't care what makes you more money. They only care about what makes them the most money.

That was my point (which i didn't bother to spell out).
It's the same thing, because of taxes.
The USA is (barring ridiculously small countries) the richest country in the world cos of business -which is taxed. I just gave the very small, and the very large scale examples.
The internet is great news for capitalism.

To advance another reason, one admitedly more "Jay -like" (aaaaaagh!), one could even take an "opium for the people" approach.
While we're all blathering away on the internet, we're not causing trouble...
I emphahsis that just a thought - I doubt that is the reason why the Net will be kept free, but its a possibility.

suggs wrote:That was my point (which i didn't bother to spell out).
It's the same thing, because of taxes.
The USA is (barring ridiculously small countries) the richest country in the world cos of business -which is taxed. I just gave the very small, and the very large scale examples.
The internet is great news for capitalism.

To advance another reason, one admitedly more "Jay -like" (aaaaaagh!), one could even take an "opium for the people" approach.
While we're all blathering away on the internet, we're not causing trouble...
I emphahsis that just a thought - I doubt that is the reason why the Net will be kept free, but its a possibility.

[grammar nazi edit] "opiate of the people" [/grammar nazi edit]