|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 30, 2016 6:00:20 GMT
I "Buy" something, and expect it delivered, then I suggest that the delivery charge be in the price of purchase, especially if there is no other delivery option.
Anything else is gouging?.
I Do NOT expect that unless I buy from company [xyz] and pay for "Premium delivery" I will receive artificially slow service.
Think Amazon....
If Amazon could quite easily deliver your stuff inside three days, but start putting it in a delay locker for a week unless you pay them extra, isnt that "wrong" in so many ways?.
Think my own truck.
I could deliver today at 9am, but unless you pay me extra, I am taking my lunch break before I ever look at your delivery schedule.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 30, 2016 14:33:09 GMT
I "Buy" something, and expect it delivered, then I suggest that the delivery charge be in the price of purchase, especially if there is no other delivery option. Anything else is gouging?. I Do NOT expect that unless I buy from company [xyz] and pay for "Premium delivery" I will receive artificially slow service. Think Amazon.... If Amazon could quite easily deliver your stuff inside three days, but start putting it in a delay locker for a week unless you pay them extra, isnt that "wrong" in so many ways?. Think my own truck. I could deliver today at 9am, but unless you pay me extra, I am taking my lunch break before I ever look at your delivery schedule. now add in, if I buy it from your mate, there is no extra charge, but if I buy it from your mate's competition, you charge him the extra. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 14, 2017 7:41:06 GMT
Time to bring this thread back to the news... Short video on site that has up to date info. www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42348041And you will do. If you want, you WILL pay, or you dont get. This could mean that, under extreme example, you may start having to pay "more" to get a "bundle" from your ISP for access to say Wikapedia. The same as "Basic" freeview channels are free to view on your TeeVee package, but, if you want Sky Atlantic/sport/F1 channels you pay more, the same may be with the internet package, you can get as many free adverts as you want, but getting to the serious stuff may either be behind a paywall, or extremely frustratingly slow. Companies that have provided previously free traffic through their servers to create the "web" of interconnected super highways may decide to make their access a "Toll road" access.... There is a slight disturbance in "The force", as TimBL will start spinning in his grave? This immage wont show here, but its worth viewing, if you want to see what an ISP in Portugal is offering as packages... pbs.twimg.com/media/DNGlrABUIAAr9RO.jpg |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 14, 2017 7:44:36 GMT
 This is what we are about to loose?. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 14, 2017 7:51:33 GMT
The sort of "Last word" from the above article...
Me and free speech, and me in Net Neutrality, same thing, I may not like what you have to say or provide, but, as long as it adheres to "Current" laws, I will defend your right to say or provide it.
The problem is with "Current" laws here, what will they be and is change for the good.
As you may have realised, this is IMPORTANT to me, because I was in at the start, when the Internet was created, and I worked as part of the team that helped create what we have today, and other than you basic subscription for access, it should be FREE.
Heck I grew up before the internet, I can now find a million things you didnt know you wanted to know within a few keystrokes, before that, you had to plan a trip to a Library and hope that no one else had taken the book you wanted out before you got there.
...?...
We dont know how lucky we are, I just hope we never find out?.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 14, 2017 15:48:32 GMT
This is what we are about to loose?. change the fourth word to "perfectly legal" and you will get the picture even more clearly. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Dec 15, 2017 16:29:39 GMT
In 1969, the first "internet" transmission was made between two university computers at a baud rate of 75bps. Between then and 2015 we've seen unbelievable advances in internet technologies that went from slow speed dial-up to constant internet connections at speeds well in excess of 100mbs for many users. We've gone from AOL and Prodigy to Google, Wikipedia, Netflix and Youtube. We can now bore the entire world with our mindless posts on Facebook and Twitter. Then, in 2015, the government took over control of the internet by giving us "net-neutrality". What advances have we seen in the internet between 2015 and 2017?
Some say the internet just died when the FCC ended net-neutrality. Others say it died in 2015 and was just reborn. I guess time will tell who is right.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 15, 2017 16:49:20 GMT
In 1969, the first "internet" transmission was made between two university computers at a baud rate of 75bps. Between then and 2015 we've seen unbelievable advances in internet technologies that went from slow speed dial-up to constant internet connections at speeds well in excess of 100mbs for many users. We've gone from AOL and Prodigy to Google, Wikipedia, Netflix and Youtube. We can now bore the entire world with our mindless posts on Facebook and Twitter. Then, in 2015, the government took over control of the internet by giving us "net-neutrality". What advances have we seen in the internet between 2015 and 2017? Some say the internet just died when the FCC ended net-neutrality. Others say it died in 2015 and was just reborn. I guess time will tell who is right. we've seen ISPs becoming content providers. we've seen entertainment businesses starting content provider branches in competition with dedicated content providers and attempting to establish content monopolies. we've seen various schemes to monetize the internet. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Dec 15, 2017 17:05:28 GMT
In 1969, the first "internet" transmission was made between two university computers at a baud rate of 75bps. Between then and 2015 we've seen unbelievable advances in internet technologies that went from slow speed dial-up to constant internet connections at speeds well in excess of 100mbs for many users. We've gone from AOL and Prodigy to Google, Wikipedia, Netflix and Youtube. We can now bore the entire world with our mindless posts on Facebook and Twitter. Then, in 2015, the government took over control of the internet by giving us "net-neutrality". What advances have we seen in the internet between 2015 and 2017? Some say the internet just died when the FCC ended net-neutrality. Others say it died in 2015 and was just reborn. I guess time will tell who is right. we've seen ISPs becoming content providers. we've seen entertainment businesses starting content provider branches in competition with dedicated content providers and attempting to establish content monopolies. we've seen various schemes to monetize the internet. So you're saying net-neutrality brought us content monopolies? Isn't that what it was alleged to prevent? Netflix and Amazon are still larger original content providers than Comcast and Verizon. Net-neutrality hasn't changed that one way or the other. In fact, since it was introduced two years ago, net-neutrality really hasn't done anything one way or the other. The internet ran just fine without the government's regulatory help. I suspect it will continue to do so. Net-neutrality is the government's attempt to fix a problem that doesn't exist. When the problem does exist, then we can take the necessary steps to correct it. Until then, if it aint broke, don't fix it. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 15, 2017 17:22:12 GMT
we've seen ISPs becoming content providers. we've seen entertainment businesses starting content provider branches in competition with dedicated content providers and attempting to establish content monopolies. we've seen various schemes to monetize the internet. So you're saying net-neutrality brought us content monopolies? Isn't that what it was alleged to prevent? Netflix and Amazon are still larger original content providers than Comcast and Verizon. Net-neutrality hasn't changed that one way or the other. In fact, since it was introduced two years ago, net-neutrality really hasn't done anything one way or the other. The internet ran just fine without the government's regulatory help. I suspect it will continue to do so. Net-neutrality is the government's attempt to fix a problem that doesn't exist. When the problem does exist, then we can take the necessary steps to correct it. Until then, if it aint broke, don't fix it. no, I'm saying there are ATTEMPTS to crate content monopolies. so far, they don't seem to be being very successful. however, that could change if content providers team up with ISPs to create toll roads for competing content providers. but if net neutrality hasn't done anything one way or another, why is it so important that it go away? I can understand "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" but this is more, "opening the barn door because the cows aren't out." |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 16, 2017 9:22:30 GMT
In 1969, the first "internet" transmission was made between two university computers at a baud rate of 75bps. Between then and 2015 we've seen unbelievable advances in internet technologies that went from slow speed dial-up to constant internet connections at speeds well in excess of 100mbs for many users. We've gone from AOL and Prodigy to Google, Wikipedia, Netflix and Youtube. We can now bore the entire world with our mindless posts on Facebook and Twitter. Then, in 2015, the government took over control of the internet by giving us "net-neutrality". What advances have we seen in the internet between 2015 and 2017? Some say the internet just died when the FCC ended net-neutrality. Others say it died in 2015 and was just reborn. I guess time will tell who is right. we've seen ISPs becoming content providers. we've seen entertainment businesses starting content provider branches in competition with dedicated content providers and attempting to establish content monopolies. we've seen various schemes to monetize the internet. We here have seen a roll out of OVER 100mbps speeds almost countrywide on average on Broadband, except some rather remote places, [-and the argument that if you live two hours away from the local shop you expect some delay in getting the daily newspaper so why demand high speed optical be piped 100 mile just for your own use....] We have seen a possible rollout in the near future of Internet 2.0, just search internet2 for that news, we have also seen a rollout of an almost constant WIFI signal, we have seen better Mobile speeds, ... And we have seen a lot of better computers that handle the bigger data rates. Since 2015, the world has progressed... Moores Law, its just that the progress is now in steps that you dont notice that much. When I was on 20mbps broadband speed, the jump to 40mbps was sizeable and noticeable. Now an extra 20mbps to my current almost 200mpbs is ... well .... just about enough to take away the disadvantage of all those bloody adverts that "certain" sites want you to see. In all, the data being processed over my own home network, considering I have two Uni students working on massive homework projects on computers running Terabytes of hard drives, and a College student running a games machine that lacks nothing in the needing stage for any game you care to mention, and I can still log on and process these message boards whilst all three of them are in full chatter in data transfer, with none of us getting any appreciable lag, including me playing "Live" on Asphalt Airborn at times, I think we are getting a lot of progress. Small note, My son has worked out the speed in which the entire contents of a one terabte hard drive can be transmitted over our home network compared to say just doing a USB lead between the two. Its not as long as you thought it would be. The main problem is the upload speeds... And Upload speeds are the next "Big thing" in internet terms, more and more people are using the Cloud, and that is getting attention. Plus in the last two years, streaming services have improved, you can now watch a full HD or even 4K movie on streaming if the net is quiet without it doing that circle of dots buffering thing?.. What we have been doing, is making the most of what we have got, and taking stock of what can be improved, how, why, when, and the extra roll out that means there has been one hell of a catchup in internet from all those outlying places that had dial up to get them all on some passable form of Broadband that is appreciably faster than dial up. The speeds may not have increased much, but, importantly, there are now more and more people daily getting access to all the speed that was there in the first place. And net neutrality means that once a Broadband wire is in place, you should be able to have a choice of who you sign up to as an ISP... If all you have is Comcast, may the Gwads shine favour on you?. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 16, 2017 9:38:54 GMT
we've seen ISPs becoming content providers. we've seen entertainment businesses starting content provider branches in competition with dedicated content providers and attempting to establish content monopolies. we've seen various schemes to monetize the internet. So you're saying net-neutrality brought us content monopolies? Isn't that what it was alleged to prevent? Netflix and Amazon are still larger original content providers than Comcast and Verizon. Net-neutrality hasn't changed that one way or the other. In fact, since it was introduced two years ago, net-neutrality really hasn't done anything one way or the other. The internet ran just fine without the government's regulatory help. I suspect it will continue to do so. Net-neutrality is the government's attempt to fix a problem that doesn't exist. When the problem does exist, then we can take the necessary steps to correct it. Until then, if it aint broke, don't fix it. When you know what some firms are "Planning" to do with what they have got, and the "wars" they can play by denial of service from one player to another across their network, and the "packages" charges and extra charges they COULD feasibly apply, the laws on neutrality have so far prevented a lot of having 200mbps to your door and available "Except at peak times when you will have to pay extra to get what you already got" type of DOS attacks on your own wallet?. And YES, the war of "Up to" speeds was going to be fought that way. As in, you pay for "Up to" 200mbps, but, unless you pay the "Gold" package and the promise of better service, you wont get that. In that, those who pay more will get better service, and that at the detriment of those who pay less, therefore, if you have 200mbps provided to two identical houses with identical equipment, both have identical speeds, but if both of them start watching different movies, the one who paid "I am better than my neighbours" prices will get preferential treatment for network traffic over his neighbour(s) who dont pay that extra "gold" package. "You pay for what you get", yeah, but in this case, I was already paying for it anyway, and now you want me to pay TWICE for what I was already getting?. Is that what you want?. because that was what you were going to get. Your own access speeds depressed to a crawl so some posh kid down the road can watch someone else zapping aWieNs on you-noob because he can. Unless, of course, you wanna pay for a better "package" than that kid is getting?.. This is nothing to do with the equipment you have, this is nothing to do with the superstructure involved, this is all down to how much you are prepared to pay for what you can already get. This is the same as the local road authority sectioning off the two outer lanes on a 6 lane road "Only for the rich", and making all favourite short cuts toll roads. Including the one and only bridge over the river which means a 20 to 50 to 100 mile round trip to the next bridge. The law was put in to foil the dirty tricks the Govts of the world could see coming... it was a case of fix it before its broke?. Like seeing the fat kid from down the road sitting on your fence. He may not have broke it yet, but that doesnt mean you just leave him bouncing up and down like that when you see him doing that.? |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Dec 16, 2017 14:15:26 GMT
As I said, if you have a problem you fix it. Net neutrality gave one agency in the United States government unprecedented regulatory control over every aspect of the Internet. Under our present administration, government regulations are being slashed. That's why net neutrality got the ax. We'll see how it plays out in the long run but I don't expect the "end of the Internet as we know it" as many are predicting.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 16, 2017 14:26:51 GMT
As I said, if you have a problem you fix it. Net neutrality gave one agency in the United States government unprecedented regulatory control over every aspect of the Internet. Under our present administration, government regulations are being slashed. That's why net neutrality got the ax. We'll see how it plays out in the long run but I don't expect the "end of the Internet as we know it" as many are predicting. ah, yes, the old "job killing regulations" meme. and what you said is " if it aint broke, don't fix it." along with words to the effect of "after it becomes a problem then we can worry about fixing it." whereas what Silver and I are saying is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Dec 16, 2017 15:11:42 GMT
I agree. Unfortunately, net neutrality was a ton of prevention for an ounce of cure.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 16, 2017 15:48:01 GMT
I agree. Unfortunately, net neutrality was a ton of prevention for an ounce of cure. time will tell. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 17, 2017 14:57:04 GMT
I agree. Unfortunately, net neutrality was a ton of prevention for an ounce of cure. time will tell. Unfortunately, it NEEDED a ton of prevention, as the internet surrounds all normal law, it has had fewer decades of care than the centuries of law we have carefully crafted to evolve what we have now, and there is not still any real international law force that polices the internet. The Intranet to this day is still the very wild wild unexplored country so far west of west its nearly the east?. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Dec 17, 2017 16:40:42 GMT
Unfortunately, it NEEDED a ton of prevention, as the internet surrounds all normal law, it has had fewer decades of care than the centuries of law we have carefully crafted to evolve what we have now, and there is not still any real international law force that polices the internet. The Intranet to this day is still the very wild wild unexplored country so far west of west its nearly the east?. And that's just what made it what it is today. All over-regulation will do is stifle it. As I mentioned before, there may be some areas that need to be regulated, but if you take an honest look at EVERYTHING net neutrality encompassed, it went far beyond those areas. To keep the FCC from becoming the runaway agency that the EPA became, nope had no choice. Putting an end to the FCC's regulatory power over the internet was an all or nothing choice. He could not just throw out part of the FCC's authority and keep the parts we like. If there are things that need to be regulated, such as an ISP's ability to throttle speed or charge some customers more than others, then this can, and should be addressed by laws passed in Congress (or other country's governmental bodies), not by giving one agency unbridled regulatory control over every aspect of the internet, as net neutrality did. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 17, 2017 16:59:03 GMT
Unfortunately, it NEEDED a ton of prevention, as the internet surrounds all normal law, it has had fewer decades of care than the centuries of law we have carefully crafted to evolve what we have now, and there is not still any real international law force that polices the internet. The Intranet to this day is still the very wild wild unexplored country so far west of west its nearly the east?. And that's just what made it what it is today. All over-regulation will do is stifle it. As I mentioned before, there may be some areas that need to be regulated, but if you take an honest look at EVERYTHING net neutrality encompassed, it went far beyond those areas. To keep the FCC from becoming the runaway agency that the EPA became, nope had no choice. Putting an end to the FCC's regulatory power over the internet was an all or nothing choice. He could not just throw out part of the FCC's authority and keep the parts we like. If there are things that need to be regulated, such as an ISP's ability to throttle speed or charge some customers more than others, then this can, and should be addressed by laws passed in Congress (or other country's governmental bodies), not by giving one agency unbridled regulatory control over every aspect of the internet, as net neutrality did. so what you are saying is the federal commuication commission should not be in charge of rules pertaining to internet communication? you'd rather congress had to pass onesy twosey rules in a haphazard piecemeal fashion after problems develop. you know, kind of like the rule that salesmen can't cold call people in the do-not-call list, which nobody enforces? |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Dec 17, 2017 17:09:44 GMT
And that's just what made it what it is today. All over-regulation will do is stifle it. As I mentioned before, there may be some areas that need to be regulated, but if you take an honest look at EVERYTHING net neutrality encompassed, it went far beyond those areas. To keep the FCC from becoming the runaway agency that the EPA became, nope had no choice. Putting an end to the FCC's regulatory power over the internet was an all or nothing choice. He could not just throw out part of the FCC's authority and keep the parts we like. If there are things that need to be regulated, such as an ISP's ability to throttle speed or charge some customers more than others, then this can, and should be addressed by laws passed in Congress (or other country's governmental bodies), not by giving one agency unbridled regulatory control over every aspect of the internet, as net neutrality did. so what you are saying is the federal commuication commission should not be in charge of rules pertaining to internet communication? you'd rather congress had to pass onesy twosey rules in a haphazard piecemeal fashion after problems develop. you know, kind of like the rule that salesmen can't cold call people in the do-not-call list, which nobody enforces? No, I'm not saying that at all. The FCC is the logical agency to regulate the internet. What I am saying is that the President doesn't just say to the FCC, here's the internet, go regulate it, as Obama did through the FCC. That's what we did with the EPA under the Clean Air Act. No control, no limits and no guidance. If what we inappropriately called "net-neutrality" is to be done the right way, congress needs to pass a bill granting that power to the FCC and also spelling out exactly what that power encompasses and what limitations are on that power. |
|
