- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: In 11 days, net neutrality will be repealed, how will you celebrate?
Posted on 12/3/17 at 9:03 pm to Parmen
Posted on 12/3/17 at 9:03 pm to Parmen
quote:
In 11 days, net neutrality will be repealed, how will you celebrate?
I’ll pour out a cold one for Breitbart, Infowars, and all the other right wing media sites that will be hobbled by the globalist mega-Corp ISPs.
0
Posted on 12/3/17 at 9:03 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
Companies don't have unlimited funds. I'd imagine that most companies would choose to pay the toll for fast lane rather than better search results.
What he is trying to tell you is that Google will pay the toll for the fast lane and then you will be forced to use Google as your only search engine, and then Google will still censor your results
Posted on 12/3/17 at 9:05 pm to Salmon
quote:
What he is trying to tell you is that Google will pay the toll for the fast lane and then you will be forced to use Google as your only search engine, and then Google will still censor your results
So that;s why Google was against repealing NN?
Because it would be good for their business?
seriously, how stupid are you?
Posted on 12/3/17 at 9:05 pm to Salmon
quote:
What he is trying to tell you is that Google will pay the toll for the fast lane and then you will be forced to use Google as your only search engine, and then Google will still censor your results
This. I fail to see how making Google pay for a fast lane will change their behavior if they censor search results. Why would that make them stop? It's not a binary choice between paying for a fast lane or censoring results. The two aren't really even related.
Posted on 12/3/17 at 9:06 pm to Salmon
quote:
sure they are now tell me all the search engine options you have vs ISP options you have
I know of 3 I've only used two. I have at least 3 isps for my area and I believe several more.
Censoring is censoring you implied they weren't doing it before I said they were it's just about who gets paid. This is why I don't trust anyone in this debate. I don't trust the government nor google or Reddit. But Comcast sucks as well. Ultimately me getting mad changes nothing and my internet functioned just fine before this law which gives the government an immense amount of power.
Posted on 12/3/17 at 9:06 pm to CptBengal
quote:
So that;s why Google was against repealing NN?
Because it would be good for their business?
....yes?
Posted on 12/3/17 at 9:07 pm to Salmon
quote:
....yes?
I suggest you look at the corporate mission statement for Alphabet.
good luck.
Posted on 12/3/17 at 9:09 pm to Parmen
I call BS. There’s no way cptbengal got someone to marry him.
This post was edited on 12/3/17 at 9:10 pm
Posted on 12/3/17 at 9:09 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
Censoring is censoring you implied they weren't doing it before
Wrong. It certainly makes a huge difference in who is doing the censoring.
quote:
I know of 3 I've only used two.
It's way more than 3.
Posted on 12/3/17 at 9:09 pm to Salmon
quote:
What he is trying to tell you is that Google will pay the toll for the fast lane and then you will be forced to use Google as your only search engine, and then Google will still censor your results
I use google anyways. What I am telling you is that Google right now gets a cash influx from other companies i.e. They are in the black. Paying for the fast lane puts them in the red. Other companies will choose to pay for their fast lane rather than for their searches making them further in the red.
That is why google wants it
Posted on 12/3/17 at 9:11 pm to CptBengal
Is your argument that Google is for NN because NN is bad for their business?
How does that make sense?
Or did you just word that poorly?
How does that make sense?
Or did you just word that poorly?
Posted on 12/3/17 at 9:11 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
I use google anyways. What I am telling you is that Google right now gets a cash influx from other companies i.e. They are in the black. Paying for the fast lane puts them in the red. Other companies will choose to pay for their fast lane rather than for their searches making them further in the red.
That is why google wants it
Companies would be stupid to do that...pay for a fast lane, but you're never found because you don't appear on Google. Seems like a dumb strategy to me.
Posted on 12/3/17 at 9:11 pm to cameronml
quote:
What's your point? In one post you're saying ISPs should have the right to charge for their bandwidth and you're also acknowledging they already do. So what are you arguing for or against?
Sorry if my posts were confusing. I believe ISP's should be able to charge for bandwidth in a tiered system. Bandwidth is a commodity today. I also believe the market will handily take care of any issues that may arise.
I'm willing to pay extra for high-speed access to the whole of the internet. I'm also able to pay for that access. I don't think telecoms should provide this for free to the masses.
I hope this clears up any ambiguity I might have projected in my previous posts.
Posted on 12/3/17 at 9:12 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
That is why google wants it
well yeah, Google doesn't want to have to pay Comcast
Posted on 12/3/17 at 9:13 pm to TopJimmy
My ISP does charge for bandwidth. They charge for every 100gigs or so I use. Why should they also be allowed to charge me for allowing me to use that bandwidth on certain sites?
Posted on 12/3/17 at 9:14 pm to TopJimmy
quote:
I believe ISP's should be able to charge for bandwidth in a tiered system.
They do.
quote:
I don't think telecoms should provide this for free to the masses.
No one is saying anything should be free.
Posted on 12/3/17 at 9:16 pm to Greace
quote:
My ISP does charge for bandwidth. They charge for every 100gigs or so I use. Why should they also be allowed to charge me for allowing me to use that bandwidth on certain sites?
I'm not sure I understand. Your bandwidth is your bandwidth. Sounds like a shitty deal. Are you on satellite?
Posted on 12/3/17 at 9:17 pm to TopJimmy
Cable internet. I have a package that provides me with 100 down and 10 up along with a data cap of 100 gigs. Anything above 100 gigs cost me more money
Posted on 12/3/17 at 9:22 pm to TopJimmy
quote:
Sorry if my posts were confusing. I believe ISP's should be able to charge for bandwidth in a tiered system. Bandwidth is a commodity today. I also believe the market will handily take care of any issues that may arise.
I'm willing to pay extra for high-speed access to the whole of the internet. I'm also able to pay for that access. I don't think telecoms should provide this for free to the masses.
But they're already charging for speed in a tiered system. Considering your speed has a huge impact on how much bandwidth you could feasibly utilize, the system already works. The ISP's are now trying to triple dip by charging not just the customers based on speed, but then charging them extra for bandwidth (which they already had), and then extorting content providers on the back side.
Ending Net Neutrality is like appointing foxes guardians of all hen-houses, and wolves the caretakers of sheep.
Posted on 12/3/17 at 9:24 pm to Salmon
quote:
Is your argument that Google is for NN because NN is bad for their business?
How does that make sense?
Thats your fricking argument. Good god, seriously, how stupid are you?
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News