GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - What you'll see if NET NEUTRALITY doesn't pass

RawAlex · 10-28-2007, 08:48 PM

Welcome to SCARE TACTICS 101.

None of the providers have suggested anything of the sort as pictured in that fake scare ad. The reality is they are looking at certain "up" features (such as high speed movie downloads, live shows, etc) as an upsell. To do that may require that networks are configured differently, allowing assured bandwidth to those paying more, and "what's left" for general users. None of them have suggested for a second that you wouldn't be able to access websites. Total fucking bullshit politics. Please link to anywhere that this is discussed by someone from a telcom.

Beyond that, net neutrality is a horseshit expression that too many people are using to cover all sorts of shit that shouldn't be there.

Example, Comcast starts blocking out certain bits of P2P in order to preserve network resources for regualr surfers. Suddently, the net neutrality people are all over it, saying that blocking anything is taking away net neutrality. Fucking idiots. Neutrality is to allow you to receive anything - but it isn't about allowing you to use high levels of bandwidth to provide service to others. You have a private connection, not a public or commercial connection.

I have had friends bitch to me about the lack of net neutrality that lead to the shutting down of Oink. Like they have any fucking clue what they are talking about. People have been brainwashed into thinking that illegal file sharing is some sort of Net Neutrality Right that they will lose if this important legislation isn't passed.

End consumers won't stand for it either. Plus, in markets where there is only one high speed carrier (say cable but no DSL or vis-versa) the FCC in the US would be loath to allow a monopoly to dramatically raise rates and lower services without serious levels of justification. Given a choice between a restricted access and an open access, most would go for open access. So if the cable provider goes to some sort of blocking scheme, the local DSL company just goes "all of the internet wide open" and the cable guys are fucked.

It doesn't make sense, so what's the issue?

10-28-2007, 08:48 PM
RawAlex So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In a house. Posts: 9,465	Welcome to SCARE TACTICS 101. None of the providers have suggested anything of the sort as pictured in that fake scare ad. The reality is they are looking at certain "up" features (such as high speed movie downloads, live shows, etc) as an upsell. To do that may require that networks are configured differently, allowing assured bandwidth to those paying more, and "what's left" for general users. None of them have suggested for a second that you wouldn't be able to access websites. Total fucking bullshit politics. Please link to anywhere that this is discussed by someone from a telcom. Beyond that, net neutrality is a horseshit expression that too many people are using to cover all sorts of shit that shouldn't be there. Example, Comcast starts blocking out certain bits of P2P in order to preserve network resources for regualr surfers. Suddently, the net neutrality people are all over it, saying that blocking anything is taking away net neutrality. Fucking idiots. Neutrality is to allow you to receive anything - but it isn't about allowing you to use high levels of bandwidth to provide service to others. You have a private connection, not a public or commercial connection. I have had friends bitch to me about the lack of net neutrality that lead to the shutting down of Oink. Like they have any fucking clue what they are talking about. People have been brainwashed into thinking that illegal file sharing is some sort of Net Neutrality Right that they will lose if this important legislation isn't passed. End consumers won't stand for it either. Plus, in markets where there is only one high speed carrier (say cable but no DSL or vis-versa) the FCC in the US would be loath to allow a monopoly to dramatically raise rates and lower services without serious levels of justification. Given a choice between a restricted access and an open access, most would go for open access. So if the cable provider goes to some sort of blocking scheme, the local DSL company just goes "all of the internet wide open" and the cable guys are fucked. It doesn't make sense, so what's the issue?