The Telecom Bill passed. Network Neutrality is dead. Will porn downloads slow down? - GoFuckYourself.com

Pornwolf · 06-13-2006, 12:15 PM

Congress has passed a law that abandons the Internet's First Amendment -- a principle called Network Neutrality that prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding which Web sites work best for you -- based on what site pays them the most.

Do you think this is going to adversely affect us? I think we are still the main source of video traffic being pumped to surfers (if you don't include bittorrent), so this has to have some kind of effect.

Whatchu know?

Pornwolf · 06-13-2006, 12:17 PM

Here's a good video that explains what's happening:

http://www.coanews.org/internetfreed...age=netfreedom

MrJackMeHoff · 06-13-2006, 12:20 PM

where does it say this passed i cant find anything.. That video is edited to make it appear to be saying something worse. Funny..

AmateurFlix · 06-13-2006, 12:24 PM

I'd say I'm glad I don't run MGP's however I get the feeling this could end up affecting all adult sites

Quick Buck · 06-13-2006, 12:43 PM

net neutrality is like welfare for the internet.

1) The FCC comissioner has made it clear that they will not tolerate degredation of service.

2) The primary issue here is that there are gigantic networks that have to be built to sustain growth and continue to support consumer's demand for faster and faster and more bandwidth intensive uses of the net. Companies like att & verizon have to pay for those massive rollouts.

3) Nobody is asking sites like google and myspace and youtube to fork over "taxes" or "tolls" or "tariffs"... this is a bunch of conspiracy propaganda. These companies want to add additional capacity to their networks so that they can provide higher speed services to their users. Content providers who want to use the public internet are free to and will continue to be allowed to. Content providers who would like to get faster delivery (above and beyond that of which the net is capable) will need to enter into a contract with the companies who are laying down the pipes.

4) Customers arent willing to pay more for their broadband access than they currently do, so this cost simply cant be born by the consumer. So why is it that the companies who are going to bear the costs arent allowed to use these networks as they see fit.

At first I was wooed by all the net neutrality whining, but as I researched it more, read lots of articles, read the pros and cons and the actual bills and I am very much against it. True "net neutrality" will stymie the growth of the web because more and more people will simply climb onto the existing and barely sustainable pipes that are out there. This will cause everything to slow down.

So the real question is... do you want the entire internet to slow down? Or do you want to have an option to step above the crowd and penny up to be a faster content provider?

As a paysite operator (among other things) I would be more than happy to cough up a reasonable fee to guarantee a higher QOS into peoples homes when my $ is on the line.

Just imagine if free porn was slow to download but paysite porn was nice and fast.

my 2 cents.

tony286 · 06-13-2006, 12:51 PM

it hasnt gone to the senate yet, I thought

Quick Buck · 06-13-2006, 01:00 PM

correct tony. but the gfy congress has already begun screaming that the sky is falling.

Pleasurepays · 06-13-2006, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quick Buck

net neutrality is like welfare for the internet.

1) The FCC comissioner has made it clear that they will not tolerate degredation of service.

2) The primary issue here is that there are gigantic networks that have to be built to sustain growth and continue to support consumer's demand for faster and faster and more bandwidth intensive uses of the net. Companies like att & verizon have to pay for those massive rollouts.

3) Nobody is asking sites like google and myspace and youtube to fork over "taxes" or "tolls" or "tariffs"... this is a bunch of conspiracy propaganda. These companies want to add additional capacity to their networks so that they can provide higher speed services to their users. Content providers who want to use the public internet are free to and will continue to be allowed to. Content providers who would like to get faster delivery (above and beyond that of which the net is capable) will need to enter into a contract with the companies who are laying down the pipes.

4) Customers arent willing to pay more for their broadband access than they currently do, so this cost simply cant be born by the consumer. So why is it that the companies who are going to bear the costs arent allowed to use these networks as they see fit.

At first I was wooed by all the net neutrality whining, but as I researched it more, read lots of articles, read the pros and cons and the actual bills and I am very much against it. True "net neutrality" will stymie the growth of the web because more and more people will simply climb onto the existing and barely sustainable pipes that are out there. This will cause everything to slow down.

So the real question is... do you want the entire internet to slow down? Or do you want to have an option to step above the crowd and penny up to be a faster content provider?

As a paysite operator (among other things) I would be more than happy to cough up a reasonable fee to guarantee a higher QOS into peoples homes when my $ is on the line.

Just imagine if free porn was slow to download but paysite porn was nice and fast.

my 2 cents.

nice post.. thanks. helps put it into better perspective since all you ever really hear and read is biased reports and the usual "oh my god, they are taking away our freedoms... blah blah blah" - which is never the case.

Matt 26z · 06-13-2006, 01:30 PM

Couldn't someone like AT&T increase their DSL customer's speed from a 1500 plan up to 6000 when surfing certain sites that have paid? Technically they wouldn't be degrading anyone.

What if they had iTunes and Napster bid against each other for this increase in speed for AT&T DSL customers?

L-Pink · 06-13-2006, 01:34 PM

What a fuckin windfall .....

Phoenix · 06-13-2006, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quick Buck

net neutrality is like welfare for the internet.

1) The FCC comissioner has made it clear that they will not tolerate degredation of service.

2) The primary issue here is that there are gigantic networks that have to be built to sustain growth and continue to support consumer's demand for faster and faster and more bandwidth intensive uses of the net. Companies like att & verizon have to pay for those massive rollouts.

3) Nobody is asking sites like google and myspace and youtube to fork over "taxes" or "tolls" or "tariffs"... this is a bunch of conspiracy propaganda. These companies want to add additional capacity to their networks so that they can provide higher speed services to their users. Content providers who want to use the public internet are free to and will continue to be allowed to. Content providers who would like to get faster delivery (above and beyond that of which the net is capable) will need to enter into a contract with the companies who are laying down the pipes.

4) Customers arent willing to pay more for their broadband access than they currently do, so this cost simply cant be born by the consumer. So why is it that the companies who are going to bear the costs arent allowed to use these networks as they see fit.

At first I was wooed by all the net neutrality whining, but as I researched it more, read lots of articles, read the pros and cons and the actual bills and I am very much against it. True "net neutrality" will stymie the growth of the web because more and more people will simply climb onto the existing and barely sustainable pipes that are out there. This will cause everything to slow down.

So the real question is... do you want the entire internet to slow down? Or do you want to have an option to step above the crowd and penny up to be a faster content provider?

As a paysite operator (among other things) I would be more than happy to cough up a reasonable fee to guarantee a higher QOS into peoples homes when my $ is on the line.

Just imagine if free porn was slow to download but paysite porn was nice and fast.

my 2 cents.

nice post...i still need to read up more on this..but what you said makes sense

Quick Buck · 06-13-2006, 01:53 PM

and just 2 more cents..

the telecom bill that was mentiond here.. all it does is allow telecom companies to compete with cable companies in the tv market by being licensed state by state instead of being licensed per municipality.

in otherwords, att wants to do iptv...but if they want to do iptv in somewhere like say Texas... they have to negotiate with each and every municipality... thats like 1000's of municipalities in some states.

this bill really did nothing that will affect network operators.

06-13-2006, 12:15 PM	#1
Pornwolf Drunk and Unruly Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Hollywood Posts: 22,712	The Telecom Bill passed. Network Neutrality is dead. Will porn downloads slow down? Congress has passed a law that abandons the Internet's First Amendment -- a principle called Network Neutrality that prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding which Web sites work best for you -- based on what site pays them the most. Do you think this is going to adversely affect us? I think we are still the main source of video traffic being pumped to surfers (if you don't include bittorrent), so this has to have some kind of effect. Whatchu know? __________________ I've trusted my sites to them for over a decade... Webair, bitches.

06-13-2006, 12:17 PM	#2
Pornwolf Drunk and Unruly Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Hollywood Posts: 22,712	Here's a good video that explains what's happening: http://www.coanews.org/internetfreed...age=netfreedom __________________ I've trusted my sites to them for over a decade... Webair, bitches.

06-13-2006, 12:20 PM	#3
MrJackMeHoff Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: LOLLIPOP ISLAND =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Posts: 4,569	where does it say this passed i cant find anything.. That video is edited to make it appear to be saying something worse. Funny.. __________________ Last edited by MrJackMeHoff; 06-13-2006 at 12:21 PM..

06-13-2006, 12:24 PM	#4
AmateurFlix Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 7,762	I'd say I'm glad I don't run MGP's however I get the feeling this could end up affecting all adult sites __________________

06-13-2006, 12:43 PM	#5
Quick Buck Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Free-Trials.......... Weekly-Payouts..... 100+Sites Posts: 1,026	net neutrality is like welfare for the internet. 1) The FCC comissioner has made it clear that they will not tolerate degredation of service. 2) The primary issue here is that there are gigantic networks that have to be built to sustain growth and continue to support consumer's demand for faster and faster and more bandwidth intensive uses of the net. Companies like att & verizon have to pay for those massive rollouts. 3) Nobody is asking sites like google and myspace and youtube to fork over "taxes" or "tolls" or "tariffs"... this is a bunch of conspiracy propaganda. These companies want to add additional capacity to their networks so that they can provide higher speed services to their users. Content providers who want to use the public internet are free to and will continue to be allowed to. Content providers who would like to get faster delivery (above and beyond that of which the net is capable) will need to enter into a contract with the companies who are laying down the pipes. 4) Customers arent willing to pay more for their broadband access than they currently do, so this cost simply cant be born by the consumer. So why is it that the companies who are going to bear the costs arent allowed to use these networks as they see fit. At first I was wooed by all the net neutrality whining, but as I researched it more, read lots of articles, read the pros and cons and the actual bills and I am very much against it. True "net neutrality" will stymie the growth of the web because more and more people will simply climb onto the existing and barely sustainable pipes that are out there. This will cause everything to slow down. So the real question is... do you want the entire internet to slow down? Or do you want to have an option to step above the crowd and penny up to be a faster content provider? As a paysite operator (among other things) I would be more than happy to cough up a reasonable fee to guarantee a higher QOS into peoples homes when my $ is on the line. Just imagine if free porn was slow to download but paysite porn was nice and fast. my 2 cents. __________________ $50 FREE TRIALS! Every Day til 2008!!! Only at QuickBuck

06-13-2006, 12:51 PM	#6
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	it hasnt gone to the senate yet, I thought

06-13-2006, 01:00 PM	#7
Quick Buck Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Free-Trials.......... Weekly-Payouts..... 100+Sites Posts: 1,026	correct tony. but the gfy congress has already begun screaming that the sky is falling. __________________ $50 FREE TRIALS! Every Day til 2008!!! Only at QuickBuck

06-13-2006, 01:30 PM	#9
Matt 26z So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: ¤ª"˜¨๑۩۞۩๑¨˜"ª¤ Posts: 18,481	Couldn't someone like AT&T increase their DSL customer's speed from a 1500 plan up to 6000 when surfing certain sites that have paid? Technically they wouldn't be degrading anyone. What if they had iTunes and Napster bid against each other for this increase in speed for AT&T DSL customers?

06-13-2006, 01:34 PM	#10
L-Pink working on my tan Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Florida/Kentucky Posts: 39,151	What a fuckin windfall .....

06-13-2006, 01:53 PM	#12
Quick Buck Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Free-Trials.......... Weekly-Payouts..... 100+Sites Posts: 1,026	and just 2 more cents.. the telecom bill that was mentiond here.. all it does is allow telecom companies to compete with cable companies in the tv market by being licensed state by state instead of being licensed per municipality. in otherwords, att wants to do iptv...but if they want to do iptv in somewhere like say Texas... they have to negotiate with each and every municipality... thats like 1000's of municipalities in some states. this bill really did nothing that will affect network operators. __________________ $50 FREE TRIALS! Every Day til 2008!!! Only at QuickBuck