What you'll see if NET NEUTRALITY doesn't pass - GoFuckYourself.com

$5 submissions · 10-28-2007, 03:09 AM

Probably another package for "unfiltered" (read: porn allowed) access.

After Shock Media · 10-28-2007, 03:12 AM

Umm doubtfull.

More of a scare tactic I think.

Redrob · 10-28-2007, 04:36 AM

In my opinion, you are probably on the money.... I saw an article recently about Cox blocking P2P traffic if I remember correctly.

Moreover, Yellowpages.com has been selectively disconnecting websites they don't approve of.

I'm not sure the "unfiltered access" will be an option as they will want to maximize their "partners" traffic and limit bandwith problems.

Violetta · 10-28-2007, 04:45 AM

wtf is that shit? 60 websites? haha

Doug E · 10-28-2007, 04:55 AM

Thats exactly what theyd want to be doing. If that shit ever happens its Tyler Durden time on the telecoms.

$5 submissions · 10-28-2007, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockatansky

wtf is that shit? 60 websites? haha

Yep. Using the cable model on the Net.

bonkerz2007 · 10-28-2007, 05:35 PM

i don't think there's enough people that understand how hard the big company's are pushing for this. lots of political pockets are being lined in one way or another.

pocketkangaroo · 10-28-2007, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Umm doubtfull.

More of a scare tactic I think.

I don't think so. Big telecom companies are really fighting hard for this. They aren't innovative anymore so want to profit off the innovation and creativity of others. This way they can start charging you to use video sites, email services, etc. They can cut deals with "preferred sites". This is huge money for the telcos and how they'll butt their way into the loop.

tony286 · 10-28-2007, 06:09 PM

it should be interesting.

thonglife · 10-28-2007, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Moreover, Yellowpages.com has been selectively disconnecting websites they don't approve of.

This has gone on for years though in the print product. It was up to each directory publisher's discretion whether or not to allow escort ads. When they do, they don't allow real pictures to be used... thus the ever-so-famous drawn ads.

$5 submissions · 10-28-2007, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

I don't think so. Big telecom companies are really fighting hard for this. They aren't innovative anymore so want to profit off the innovation and creativity of others. This way they can start charging you to use video sites, email services, etc. They can cut deals with "preferred sites". This is huge money for the telcos and how they'll butt their way into the loop.

It would be FUCKED UP if the Internet turns out like how RADIO turned out. Radio used to be open until the FCC started apportioning radio frequencies.

Iron Fist · 10-28-2007, 06:32 PM

Yup.. Google is fighting this hard as well - since they stand to lose the most out of no neutrality.

B_Maverick · 10-28-2007, 06:33 PM

Hmmm...trying to turn the internet into cable TV. That's a bit disconcerting. I suppose, though that as long as I have options on how to connect to the internet, I can get around any filtering that cox tries to impose.

In a way, this would be like reverting back to AOL before they actually had a web browser. I think the marketplace has shown that unrestricted access is preferable to AOL filtered content.

I guess the real question is...how many people are going to switch to sattelite, or opt for the "unrestricted access" option?

From a corporate standpoint this concept makes sense...why not restrict access, and then charge more for less restrictions. This is obviously how cable tv works.

There is one big difference that might stop this from happening...Most people don't give a crap what is playing on channel 929. Their viewing is pretty much self-limited to a few channels and shows. On the other hand, when I search for something on google, I don't want to see narrowly filtered results. I want to see every website that has information on Ben Franklin...or Dam Building...or The Great Wall of China.

Hopefully the marketplace will never let this happen. The market seems to want less restrictions...not more.

minusonebit · 10-28-2007, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

Probably another package for "unfiltered" (read: porn allowed) access.

Great, it will be a step 10 or 20 years backwards in time. It will be like all of being on AOL again. Only this time, there will be no pesky, independent ISPs to run off to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Umm doubtfull.

More of a scare tactic I think.

Keep kidding yourself into thinking that.

minusonebit · 10-28-2007, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B_Maverick

Hmmm...trying to turn the internet into cable TV. That's a bit disconcerting. I suppose, though that as long as I have options on how to connect to the internet, I can get around any filtering that cox tries to impose.

In a way, this would be like reverting back to AOL before they actually had a web browser. I think the marketplace has shown that unrestricted access is preferable to AOL filtered content.

I guess the real question is...how many people are going to switch to sattelite, or opt for the "unrestricted access" option?

From a corporate standpoint this concept makes sense...why not restrict access, and then charge more for less restrictions. This is obviously how cable tv works.

There is one big difference that might stop this from happening...Most people don't give a crap what is playing on channel 929. Their viewing is pretty much self-limited to a few channels and shows. On the other hand, when I search for something on google, I don't want to see narrowly filtered results. I want to see every website that has information on Ben Franklin...or Dam Building...or The Great Wall of China.

Hopefully the marketplace will never let this happen. The market seems to want less restrictions...not more.

The marketplace wants freedom, equal access and no restrictions. corporations and the governments that they control would love to segregate the internet, break it up into a land of virtual toll roads where everyone deposits a quarter at every network boundary they encounter.

Freedom wont protect itself, it needs someone to protect it. The same is true with the marketplace. You mark my words, if this is allowed to go through, I dare say it will be one of the most significant moments in history you or I will live through. It will mark the exact moment in time that the human race begins its long journey back into the stone ages.

fatfoo · 10-28-2007, 06:41 PM

oh no! that sucks

Redrob · 10-28-2007, 07:30 PM

A very real possibility:

The piracy issue is going to force the internet into the cable model of content delivery if the piracy isn't stopped soon. The media industry giants will force the issue to protect their intellectual property rights.

minusonebit · 10-28-2007, 07:43 PM

http://www.techcomedy.com/calls/aolsucks.mp3

Bro Media - BANNED FOR LIFE · 10-28-2007, 07:45 PM

i got thinking, if they do pass so they can restrict content, ya know, force you to pay more to view a certian site, so technically can't that site sue because they are charging someone else to see their content that they use to make money?

also if it does pass, all the hackers will come up with a way around it

$5 submissions · 10-28-2007, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrob

A very real possibility:

The piracy issue is going to force the internet into the cable model of content delivery if the piracy isn't stopped soon. The media industry giants will force the issue to protect their intellectual property rights.

That's definitely one part of the equation

JD · 10-28-2007, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaysin

i got thinking, if they do pass so they can restrict content, ya know, force you to pay more to view a certain site, so technically can't that site sue because they are charging someone else to see their content that they use to make money?

also if it does pass, all the hackers will come up with a way around it

you sir are correct!

Bro Media - BANNED FOR LIFE · 10-28-2007, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD

you sir are correct!

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, 03:09 AM	#1
$5 submissions I help you SUCCEED Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Pearl of the Orient Seas Posts: 32,195	What you'll see if NET NEUTRALITY doesn't pass Probably another package for "unfiltered" (read: porn allowed) access. __________________ Need a NON-ADULT income stream? We build your YOUTUBE CHANNEL for only $20 per video! For Hire: $3/hour or $400 per month Marketing Specialist Virtual Assistants

10-28-2007, 03:12 AM	#2
After Shock Media It's coming look busy Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn". Posts: 35,299	Umm doubtfull. More of a scare tactic I think. __________________ [email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]

10-28-2007, 04:36 AM	#3
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,790	In my opinion, you are probably on the money.... I saw an article recently about Cox blocking P2P traffic if I remember correctly. Moreover, Yellowpages.com has been selectively disconnecting websites they don't approve of. I'm not sure the "unfiltered access" will be an option as they will want to maximize their "partners" traffic and limit bandwith problems. Last edited by Redrob; 10-28-2007 at 04:37 AM..

10-28-2007, 04:45 AM	#4
Violetta Affiliate Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 28,735	wtf is that shit? 60 websites? haha __________________ M&A Queen

10-28-2007, 06:32 PM	#12
Iron Fist Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 23,400	Yup.. Google is fighting this hard as well - since they stand to lose the most out of no neutrality. __________________ i like waffles

10-28-2007, 04:55 AM	#5
Doug E Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 511	Thats exactly what theyd want to be doing. If that shit ever happens its Tyler Durden time on the telecoms.

10-28-2007, 05:35 PM	#7
bonkerz2007 Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 794	i don't think there's enough people that understand how hard the big company's are pushing for this. lots of political pockets are being lined in one way or another.

10-28-2007, 06:09 PM	#9
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	it should be interesting.

10-28-2007, 06:33 PM	#13
B_Maverick Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 447	Hmmm...trying to turn the internet into cable TV. That's a bit disconcerting. I suppose, though that as long as I have options on how to connect to the internet, I can get around any filtering that cox tries to impose. In a way, this would be like reverting back to AOL before they actually had a web browser. I think the marketplace has shown that unrestricted access is preferable to AOL filtered content. I guess the real question is...how many people are going to switch to sattelite, or opt for the "unrestricted access" option? From a corporate standpoint this concept makes sense...why not restrict access, and then charge more for less restrictions. This is obviously how cable tv works. There is one big difference that might stop this from happening...Most people don't give a crap what is playing on channel 929. Their viewing is pretty much self-limited to a few channels and shows. On the other hand, when I search for something on google, I don't want to see narrowly filtered results. I want to see every website that has information on Ben Franklin...or Dam Building...or The Great Wall of China. Hopefully the marketplace will never let this happen. The market seems to want less restrictions...not more. __________________ Sig too big http://www.gofuckyourself.com/gfy_faqs.html Want to use a large banner in your sig??? Contact Eric about getting on as an advertiser - eric AT adult.com

10-28-2007, 06:41 PM	#16
fatfoo ICQ:649699063 Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 27,763	oh no! that sucks __________________ Send me an email: [email protected]

10-28-2007, 07:30 PM	#17
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,790	A very real possibility: The piracy issue is going to force the internet into the cable model of content delivery if the piracy isn't stopped soon. The media industry giants will force the issue to protect their intellectual property rights.

10-28-2007, 07:43 PM	#18
minusonebit So Fucking Banned Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: [email protected] Posts: 7,391	http://www.techcomedy.com/calls/aolsucks.mp3

10-28-2007, 07:45 PM	#19
Bro Media - BANNED FOR LIFE MOBILE PORN: IMOBILEPORN Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Tinseltown NL Posts: 16,502	i got thinking, if they do pass so they can restrict content, ya know, force you to pay more to view a certian site, so technically can't that site sue because they are charging someone else to see their content that they use to make money? also if it does pass, all the hackers will come up with a way around it

10-28-2007, 08:48 PM	#23
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?