|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 10, 2014 9:01:18 GMT
Perhaps a discussion needs to be formed over what neutrality means.... From here. www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27397857Its the most user friendly link to the subject. I have been following the discussions, but I have questions. If EVERYONE is given free access to the internet, I agree with the above statement. But they are not, they dont, and I have reservations.... AS that article says, there is first class and second class, and there is a difference... I pay for a current approx 60 to 100meg Broadband connection. Its not the fastest in the world, but its bloody brilliant compared to the initial 5mg I signed up for all those years ago. So should my data be given preference to someone who gets their broadband "Free"?... Too bloody right it should. If you have free, dont count the gift horses teeth?... Be happy with 10mb connection, your not paying for it, so dont mither me about why YOU cant get to that web page as fast as I can?... "Fair use". I agree. But define fair?... If you have a broadband connection equal to mine and you use it to stream films or something, heavy usage, day after day, and are therefore slowing down everyone else in the neighbourhood, then that akin to paying for First Class and expecting a whole carriage to yourself?... Or like going to a buffet and thinking all the food on display is there for you and you alone?... Not really fair on everyone else. So, my point is, their should be divisions into net neutrality. For everyone on the same price plan, same "Fair use" policy, as long as they do not exceed their agreed net usage, go ahead, claim fair use. But if you want more, then there should be a way to pay more, and get more, without bothering other people. If people want to pay for double speed, give then TWO lines?.... if people want to pay for a whole buffet for themself, there must be a way to cater for that. But for those paying half price, why are you now whining that I get more than you?.. I paid for it. Whats more, my own internet provider is providing "Free" upgrades to faster speed, again, "Fair use", we are now expected to stream some films per week, its how entertainment has progressed. But I do not expect to be paying for what I have if someone somewhere goes ahead and upgrades the lower price package to the same speed as me for free?.... If that is the case, I expect a price DROP in what I pay. My thoughts on the subject, if you want to pay for twice as much, they should let you, as long as there is enough to go around. Supply and demand. My own internet supplier is doing hardware upgrades in the area.... its part of what I pay for, to get the occasional upgrade, its called re-investing profit back into the infrastructure, good business sense, when you want to keep customers. I say Supply and Demand will fuel the outcome of this debate. If there is more demand, its up to the ISP's to react and find a way to get more ways to supply... As for those who want everything "Free", the internet is free. You are just paying for the technology that connects you. The local library is free. Do you expect them to supply a taxi for free every time you want to visit?... No?.. then pay for what you get. For those too impatient for upgrades to your own provider, then look elsewhere. The market is driven by supply and demand. If you cant buy enough milk from your local shop, you would go to the next shop, or a supermarket..... Not demand that its delivered to your door for free?..... The ability to connect to the internet is after all a "Luxury", its not a human right, the same way as driving a car is not a human right. Ok, I have maybe said enough.... anyone else is welcome to comment. I may change my mind if its proven that certain internet providers are charging the same rate to different people for different services?.... and have no plant to equalise that?... If that is true, then shame on them. If its true but the internet providers are half way through an upgrade program that is upgrading all of its customers to the same service just they aint got round to your house yet, please be patient.... see above, my connection is about between 60 to 100 meg, its halfway through an upgrade plan that is teetering on being available to me about a week next last thursday?... |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 10, 2014 10:33:08 GMT
There are so many aspects to the term "Net Neutrality" that it makes my head spin. As far as access and bandwidth go, I feel you should get what you pay for and pay for what you get. The internet is not public airwaves where resources are limited and there must be a governing body to make sure the radio spectrum is used fairly and to the good of the general population. The internet is not public airwaves. Its infrastructure was set up by private companies and can be expanded as much as money will provide. The people that want or require more bandwidth should pay for it. What I don't agree with is an ISP's right to slow down some traffic and not other. If I pay for 10 MB speed, then that's what I should get no matter what site I visit or how many movies I stream.
I also don't believe that anyone should have a right to free access. I understand that there are some aspects of society that require internet access but Facebook, Twitter and NetFlix is not one of them. If someone needs to use the internet for job searching or such, they can access it from public libraries which should also be able to restrict access to social media or video streaming sites.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 10, 2014 16:25:47 GMT
I am not sure net neutrality applies to whether or not your 200M connection goes faster than your neighbor's 2m connection.
it seems to me like it means that you have to be able to get both Netflix AND the citadel at 200M without Netflix having to pay extra for it.
as far as right to free access - internet access is not a necessity of life. therefore I am fine with it being free market, rather than socialized. if the residents of a municipality decide they want to have the city provide open wireless internet badly enough to be willing to pay taxes for it, I am fine with that. but I don't consider it a basic human right.
|
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Sept 10, 2014 16:44:54 GMT
Netneutrality is not a usercentric thing, it's a server centered thing.
It does not depend on how much i download, it depends on how much i download from WHERE.
That is wrong, if my provider promises me to carry signal, that is what they should do. If they have issues with my use, then they shouldn't have given me the contract they did.
|
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Sept 10, 2014 16:47:27 GMT
Example, the phonecompany says you can have unlimited calls locally, except to aunt Edna, because she's such a blabbermouth....
Plain wrong, these companies should revert back to signal carriers, nothing more.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 11, 2014 1:08:14 GMT
Example, the phonecompany says you can have unlimited calls locally, except to aunt Edna, because she's such a blabbermouth.... Plain wrong, these companies should revert back to signal carriers, nothing more. I suspect there's a big chunk of "so and so wants to sell their product to our customers, so we can gouge them for the privilege" going on. |
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Sept 11, 2014 4:50:48 GMT
My problem with this reasoning is that the reason I have a top-speed, unlimited contract, that is much more expensive than the base one IS because i want to use streaming services....
THEY ALREADY GET PAYED FOR CARRYING THAT STUFF, STOP TRYING TO HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 11, 2014 7:55:22 GMT
Throwing a spanner in the mix right now, I agree with "Free" internet...
Well, sort of.
That just a headline grabber statement, I agree with the idea that Schools, no mater where they are in the whole world, should be allowed some free resources for educational need.
As long as a member of staff is restricting that "Free" to educational needs, and not to check house prices in SW1, (london) or checking what the neighbours are wearing in SW2.[pron]
If its a genuine school, and not one of those bogus things set up to grant visa's to illegal immigrants, let them have free education internet.
At the suppliers cost.
As in, I aint so happy if they are going to tax everyone in the next 100 miles for the next century to pay for that if they are not allowing internet to everyone else.
If it has to be paid for, let that be a charitable concern that funds it.
I do a little woodworking, because I enjoy it, and certain items I can sell for profit, it helps pay for Christmas and Birthday presents.
A while ago, I am approached by a Charity that wants some Tables for a local charitable place.
Not one I maybe would seek out to support, but its a charity, I dont mind supporting all worthwhile charities...
My woodworking skills are required...
Fine, I can do a decent deal, I wont be making much... just enough to cover my own costs...
Oh no, they want them "Donated".
Sod off, I do enough charitable work that I volunteer for, I make the decision to whom I will donate.
If your doing the "I want them free" thing, the price which may have been generously cheap just went back up to full price.
Charity is one thing, but taking a grands worth of stock that I am using to support my family with away from me and using the old "Its for charity" scam?...
|
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Sept 11, 2014 8:13:23 GMT
That reminds me of a newspaper article of a dutch comedian a few years back.
The lions club/rotary of an affluent part of NL had gotten the idea that they would have a show by said comedian and the time and effort of the comedian and theatre etc. would be donated....The ticket money would then go to the charity.
As the comedian and his troupe were in general okay with giving up a weeks work, as was the theater providing the location, they said fine, BUT:
Since they were giving up 1/50th of their income to charity(ie. they do but 50 shows in a touring year), they said it was only fair that they people going to the show would do the same...
Guess if the rotary/lions guys were up for that...
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 11, 2014 8:21:24 GMT
...... Erm... Perhaps precious few?......
I have had Rants on here before about the shaking of tins around the workplace for charitable reasons, and how I object that I am held to public ridicule if I dont immediately throw a "accepted" donation into the tin..?..
....50p?.. you tight bar-steward, you can afford ten times that amount......
However, if its an evenings entertainment, I would not expect the acts to do it for free if I was getting away with a free ticket?....
And that ticket should reflect the effort put in to raising money for the charity.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 11, 2014 14:43:09 GMT
My problem with this reasoning is that the reason I have a top-speed, unlimited contract, that is much more expensive than the base one IS because i want to use streaming services.... THEY ALREADY GET PAYED FOR CARRYING THAT STUFF, STOP TRYING TO HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO. well, that's just unamerican... wait...  |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 11, 2014 14:47:35 GMT
...... Erm... Perhaps precious few?...... I have had Rants on here before about the shaking of tins around the workplace for charitable reasons, and how I object that I am held to public ridicule if I dont immediately throw a "accepted" donation into the tin..?.. ....50p?.. you tight bar-steward, you can afford ten times that amount...... However, if its an evenings entertainment, I would not expect the acts to do it for free if I was getting away with a free ticket?.... And that ticket should reflect the effort put in to raising money for the charity. so you do not want to make tables for free for a charitable organization that demands it of you, but schools should be able to demand internet access for free? that strikes me as a bit of a double standard. yes, schools should provide access to those parts of the web that are useful to students as part of the educational package - but they have a budget, and while it would be nice if the service provider did not profit from it, there is no reason why it should cost them to provide it. that said, I share your offense at "charitable organizations" that are based on their membership getting things for free. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 12, 2014 6:06:29 GMT
Market Forces rules apply, SUPPLY and demand, two different ideas.
I say schools should be "Given" internet access for free, Charitable donated if someone could manage to do that.....
There is a difference there?.. supplied is not demanded.
I do not demand that schools get, but if someone can set up a charity to fund the supplier, and if the supplier can manage to supply at Cost thats even better, and worthy of high praise.
I would not just rock up to the first supplier I thought of and start rolling out with the "You WILL do this, you WILL do that"...
More "Invite" them to take part, and then walk away if they refuse... everyone has their price, if the price is that the school gets plastered with Adverts for that ISP, then so be it, if the school is willing to pay that price, free advertising, I say its a good deal?...
But to just turn up at someone's business and walk away with stuff for free, on "Demand", thats unfair.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Sept 12, 2014 6:45:20 GMT
Market Forces rules apply, SUPPLY and demand, two different ideas. I say schools should be "Given" internet access for free, Charitable donated if someone could manage to do that..... There is a difference there?.. supplied is not demanded. I do not demand that schools get, but if someone can set up a charity to fund the supplier, and if the supplier can manage to supply at Cost thats even better, and worthy of high praise. I would not just rock up to the first supplier I thought of and start rolling out with the "You WILL do this, you WILL do that"... More "Invite" them to take part, and then walk away if they refuse... everyone has their price, if the price is that the school gets plastered with Adverts for that ISP, then so be it, if the school is willing to pay that price, free advertising, I say its a good deal?... But to just turn up at someone's business and walk away with stuff for free, on "Demand", thats unfair. My only question is why pick out internet for a special case? Why not free electricity? Or free water for the bathrooms? Where do we draw the line? |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 12, 2014 6:54:26 GMT
I pick on free internet because Education is a good thing for any society that has already grown past basic needs.
I would hope that they have already been provided aid where needed for the basics?...
Clean water priority number one.
Food and Shelter, number two.
Electricity, they can have solar panels for free basics.
Tinternet can come from satellites?....
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Sept 12, 2014 7:24:34 GMT
One prioritizes what one thinks is important. Recently, there's been some scandals here when entire schools (or even school districts) started supplying iPads or laptops to every student with the belief that their educations would benefit. They were, to put it simply, a disaster. In the case of the laptops, the ones in Brooklyn are currently sitting in a warehouse, awaiting disposal. The smart kids hacked them to bypass the kiddie filters to visit not-safe-for-school sites. The not-so-smart ones had to deal with crippling kiddie filters that degraded the performance to almost uselessness. The really not-so-smart ones broke them, lost them, sold them, or otherwise wasted the potential. They would have done better spending the money on paper, pens, or textbooks.  Access to the internet does not magically mean instant educational improvement. In fact, it may mean making the experience worse. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 12, 2014 14:14:00 GMT
Market Forces rules apply, SUPPLY and demand, two different ideas. I say schools should be "Given" internet access for free, Charitable donated if someone could manage to do that..... There is a difference there?.. supplied is not demanded. I do not demand that schools get, but if someone can set up a charity to fund the supplier, and if the supplier can manage to supply at Cost thats even better, and worthy of high praise. I would not just rock up to the first supplier I thought of and start rolling out with the "You WILL do this, you WILL do that"... More "Invite" them to take part, and then walk away if they refuse... everyone has their price, if the price is that the school gets plastered with Adverts for that ISP, then so be it, if the school is willing to pay that price, free advertising, I say its a good deal?... But to just turn up at someone's business and walk away with stuff for free, on "Demand", thats unfair. so you're saying there should be a way that one of the area's regional ISPs should be able to find an arrangement where the school received access. - that is a reasonable hope. we thought our fire stations were getting free cable TV - and then found out when Obama started trimming federal budgets that the fed was paying the bills. one station is still on a cable company that is not billing, but it took us a year to straighten out the billing for the other stations. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 12, 2014 14:15:32 GMT
I pick on free internet because Education is a good thing for any society that has already grown past basic needs. I would hope that they have already been provided aid where needed for the basics?... Clean water priority number one. Food and Shelter, number two. Electricity, they can have solar panels for free basics. Tinternet can come from satellites?.... I pay $80.00 a month for satellite internet. as I tell people, Satellite internet is a great deal - if you have no other options. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 12, 2014 14:35:48 GMT
Market Forces rules apply, SUPPLY and demand, two different ideas. I say schools should be "Given" internet access for free, Charitable donated if someone could manage to do that..... There is a difference there?.. supplied is not demanded. I do not demand that schools get, but if someone can set up a charity to fund the supplier, and if the supplier can manage to supply at Cost thats even better, and worthy of high praise. I would not just rock up to the first supplier I thought of and start rolling out with the "You WILL do this, you WILL do that"... More "Invite" them to take part, and then walk away if they refuse... everyone has their price, if the price is that the school gets plastered with Adverts for that ISP, then so be it, if the school is willing to pay that price, free advertising, I say its a good deal?... But to just turn up at someone's business and walk away with stuff for free, on "Demand", thats unfair. Following that line of thought, schools should also be given free text books, paper, electricity, water, lunches, building maintenance and anything else they need. Problem is, someone is going to have to pay for all that "free". In fact, someone is. Me. Out of my property tax bill, over $5000 per year goes to the local school districts. If they need internet, let them pay for it. If they can't afford to pay, they need to prioritize. But they won't when they have a bottomless pit of money by just increasing taxes. After all. It's for the children. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 12, 2014 15:01:44 GMT
Market Forces rules apply, SUPPLY and demand, two different ideas. I say schools should be "Given" internet access for free, Charitable donated if someone could manage to do that..... There is a difference there?.. supplied is not demanded. I do not demand that schools get, but if someone can set up a charity to fund the supplier, and if the supplier can manage to supply at Cost thats even better, and worthy of high praise. I would not just rock up to the first supplier I thought of and start rolling out with the "You WILL do this, you WILL do that"... More "Invite" them to take part, and then walk away if they refuse... everyone has their price, if the price is that the school gets plastered with Adverts for that ISP, then so be it, if the school is willing to pay that price, free advertising, I say its a good deal?... But to just turn up at someone's business and walk away with stuff for free, on "Demand", thats unfair. Following that line of thought, schools should also be given free text books, paper, electricity, water, lunches, building maintenance and anything else they need. Problem is, someone is going to have to pay for all that "free". In fact, someone is. Me. Out of my property tax bill, over $5000 per year goes to the local school districts. If they need internet, let them pay for it. If they can't afford to pay, they need to prioritize. But they won't when they have a bottomless pit of money by just increasing taxes. After all. It's for the children. dang. I think my total property tax bill is under $2,000 a year. |
|
