It’s another thing I’m curious about.
You gonna stick around or are you trolling?
"Well Johnny hogging up all rhe bandwitj is like eating all the cookies or using the hot water when your dad is in the shower.
Every in the house pays the same and has to share the hot water.
_"So using all the hot water doesn’t share. It’s like littering or cutting down all rhe trees in the forest or catching all the fish in the ocean. _
"Only this time it’s called bandwidth and bandwidth hogs are using it to sit around all day stealing music, stealing movies and playing video games and stuff. It costs everybody more because they are using it up.
"So just like daddy turned the hot water faucet UNDER your sink the Internet company decided to slow down how much the the playing games and stealing stuff websites can send people to their computers.
“The stealers and lazy gamers don’t like it. They want you and me and everyone else to pay more so that their websites don’t get slowed down.”
some won’t see a benefit. Some will get spanked. Understand?
So everyone who uses Netflix or Hulu or Youtube should pay more for their internet?
Routers, switches, fiber should be free. Internet system administrators should work for free. Installers should work for free. It should not cost more than dialup internet.
Put your strawman away.
Yeah, no, that’s not the issue at all.
are we now gonna hear about the evil ISPs. We know they are evil. so is big government.
It’s hard to have a discussion with someone who immediately jumps to the most extreme position.
Strawman arguments are lame.
ok. go. tell us what it’s all about.
I won’t jump.
to be honest, I never knew this definition of strawman or even red herring until I started debating libs.
To me a strawman was a useful construct that one starts with in order to find weaknesses that need to be fixed. But libs enlightened me.
Glad you learned something.
Avoidance of strawmen is generally advised if you want to have a reasonable conversation.
No one is claiming that service should be provided for free.
What what’s all about? Net neutrality? I didn’t claim to know what “it’s all about,” I asked if the solution to Gaius’s analogy is charging people who stream video more for their internet than people who don’t.
I hope you like the selection on Amazon Prime.
I for one am just going to wait and see how it works out. There will obviously be upsides and downsides to this. I think we should leave this new system in place for at least two years before we cast final judgement and decide whether to return to the old system or remain on this system.
There aren’t “old systems” and “new systems.” There is simply the internet with net neutrality and the internet without it.
Part of the reason it came about in the first place was that, without it, we were starting to see ISPs/Big Telecomms testing the waters throttling speeds, charging for limited internet data packages, cutting deals with sites/services to let their content remain unthrottled while throttling the speed at other services, etc.
The idea behind NN is that the money I pay for the internet should provide me with equal access to content at the same speed. NN says I will be able to access foxnews.com at the same speed I access cnn.com, and that my ISP will not restrict my access to one in favor of the other unless I pay extra to have access them both at the same speed.
NN was a reaction to the encroaching possibility that ISPs were going to further expand the cost of accessing information on the internet, on top of the services themselves already charging for access (like Netflix).
you will feel like a fool for being misled about the relationship between Amazon Prime and Amazon Fulfillment. The problems Identified were handling packaging, shipping problems… i.e. fulfillment problems.
While not all Prime products are handled by Amazon Fulfillment… most are.
But you believed the dummies. Good for you.
I’m talking about streaming services.
Here’s a more accurate description.
Democrat Matt lives in NYC and pays $60/month for high speed internet. He enjoys perusing CNN, MSNBC, DU, etc. He has lots of options for ISPs as he lives in a big city with competition.
Republican Van lives in rural Mississippi and pays $60/month for high speed internet. He enjoys reading TheBlaze, WND, Breitbart, and Fox. He only has 1 high speed internet option because he lives in the boonies and it’s just not worth many ISPs coming to the area.
Matt’s ISP cuts a deal with a Murdoch company and decides to charge a few extra dollars a month for a “premium politics package” so that websites like CNN MSNBC load as quickly as Fox and other right-leaning political sites, and maybe he gets access to their live TV shows. Matt can shop around and find another ISP that gives him what he wants for the original price.
Van’s ISP cuts a deal with TW and decides to charge a few extra dollars a month for a “premium politics package” so that websites like Fox and Breitbart load as quickly as CNN and other left-leaning sites, and maybe he gets access to Fox live as well. Van can’t shop around for internet because the only other options are slow or unreliable.
Net Neutrality says “no” to that practice, which is the kind of experimentation we’ve been seeing ISPs and Telecomms trying as of late. They both pay their ISP, they both get access to the content they choose all at the same speed.
NN doesn’t begrudge ISPs charging different rates for different flat speeds-just throttling some content, and charging extra for equal speed/access to that content. NN says “you don’t have to pay twice to get Netflix.”