[QUOTE=xxncxx;23885617]Someone explain this better to me. In my understanding, they are saying that if you want faster internet you pay more? Don't we do that already?[/QUOTE]
I'm not really sure, but it's either:
A. You have to pay a monthly fee for a limited number of sites. Like Cable/Satallite TV.
B. It's optional, and you can pay for a faster connection on a individual site.
It sounds like both to be honest. I don't really know.
I'm going to be dicking around in the middle of the woods for the whole weekend.
With no internet.
Soon: Companies pay ISPs to reduce speed of their rivals.
Internet 2.0 :tinfoil:.
Bad idea.
For me, the internet ends in a couple hours. then comes back on again. I hate sleep.
seems like silly sensationalist overreactions
This is a bad thing because basically they want you to pay more than you are already doing- they effectively want to milk more money out of corporations\websites and it's users.
We are already paying enough as it is yet they desire more because of course- isp's are getting too strong with too many powers for their own good.
Do you really want to have to pay more money to visit Facepunch faster? Or that garry should have to pay a premium so users can access the net faster? What about that personal website you own? or accessing facebook.
Think about it guys- they are trying to corporatise the way we access the internet and for some people it's their lifeline.
Was hoping this was a badge boys thread.
I knew Google would eventually go the way of Microsoft and the other massive, greedy corporations. In the end the ones with the money always win, and supporters of net neutrality can't compete with hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying money.
People, please read the article:
[quote=Article] "could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if [b]the content's creators are willing to pay[/b] for the privilege."[/quote]
It's the website that pays more for a faster connection to users, not users paying more for a faster connection to websites.
This is still bad in that it means sites with more money get priority over smaller sites, but really, as long as normal sites that aren't paying for the speedboost are given a reasonable speed (i.e. what they have now) it's not hurting anyone. Another article on this said that it's possible user prices could raise universally as a result of this, however, and it is breaking down the concept of net neutrality. But this is not nearly as bad as anyone is making it out to be.
:siren:[highlight]THE CONSUMER'S PRICING IS NOT IMMEDIATELY AFFECTED BY THIS, WE DO NOT PAY FOR IT, THE WEBSITE IN QUESTION DOES[/highlight]:siren:
More clarity:
[quote=NYTimes]The charges could be paid by companies, like YouTube, owned by Google, for example, to Verizon, one of the nation’s leading Internet service providers, to ensure that its content received priority as it made its way to consumers. The agreement could eventually lead to higher charges for Internet users.[/quote]
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html?_r=1]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html?_r=1[/url]
God forbid, but honestly nothings really going to happen.
[QUOTE=Arrows;23885989]This is a bad thing because basically they want you to pay more than you are already doing- they effectively want to milk more money out of corporations\websites and it's users.
We are already paying enough as it is yet they desire more because of course- isp's are getting too strong with too many powers for their own good.
Do you really want to have to pay more money to visit Facepunch faster? Or that garry should have to pay a premium so users can access the net faster? What about that personal website you own? or accessing facebook.
Think about it guys- they are trying to corporatise the way we access the internet and for some people it's their lifeline.[/QUOTE]
You do not pay to isp.
Site owner pays to isp to boost their site speed.
This actually does scare me, and it seems like the logical next step for the providers. Make it so the websites pay you to connect them to the consumers, and effectively the internet turns into television; you no longer pay to connect to other computers/people, but services.
[editline]08:05PM[/editline]
Wouldn't this be very bad for any type of direct p2p connections?
"Huffington Post"
:v:
This is the start of a slow relentless slide. If the corps get their way, the Internet will be unrecognisable in 20 years. :saddowns:
It seems to me that, really, it doesn't matter what anyone does to the internet. If people really like it and want to keep it the way it is, then they will. Even if it becomes mangled by corporations and money-making schemes, it's not like there can only be one 'Internet'. There just is only one right now. Someone, somewhere could always just start a new network, and it would be the new internet.
I'm never truly worried about the safety of the internet because of that.
Has anyone else noticed how Google seems to be a little bit more of an asshole the past few years?
Ten bucks says no one buys into it.
I half expected it to be a Badage Boys thread, considering how attention grabbing it was.
[QUOTE=Applecrap;23887011]It seems to me that, really, it doesn't matter what anyone does to the internet. If people really like it and want to keep it the way it is, then they will. Even if it becomes mangled by corporations and money-making schemes, it's not like there can only be one 'Internet'. There just is only one right now. Someone, somewhere could always just start a new network, and it would be the new internet.
I'm never truly worried about the safety of the internet because of that.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and if it was actually designed, it'd probably be even better than this one.
Don't expect to have the internet be so convenient in the future, change is inevitable
Well if you don't like it make your own Internet.
It isn't happening guys - [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/05/gogle-denies-verizon-deal-net-neutrality[/url].
[quote=Google] The NYT is quite simply wrong. We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google or YouTube traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open Internet.[/quote]
[img]http://itsthoseguys.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/roday.jpg[/img]
I see....no changes in the imminent future.
I hate google. They're trying to monopolize the internet.
[editline]07:08AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cassettic;23888692]It isn't happening guys - [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/05/gogle-denies-verizon-deal-net-neutrality[/url].[/QUOTE]
Well that's a relief. How did NYT fuck up that bad?
I don't anything's going to happen on Monday.
This will be like 2012. Its a stupid theory to get bunch of people scared.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
