With latest developments is this something we should be concerned about?
Yes.
No :D
Definitely.
Thanks for clearing that up.
You may have to pay more, have what you like throttled, have what you don't like unthrottled etc etc.
It will stifle innovation and new smaller services that can challenge and keep price down.
As well as open to big money companies stifling things it introduces a form of policing.
There...
Quote from: mrdeeds on December 14, 2017, 07:50:39 PM
With latest developments is this something we should be concerned about?
Why don't you be concerned about it and the rest of us will get on with things
Quote from: Avondhu star on December 14, 2017, 08:36:07 PM
Quote from: mrdeeds on December 14, 2017, 07:50:39 PM
With latest developments is this something we should be concerned about?
Why don't you be concerned about it and the rest of us will get on with things
Well with the Trump, Brexit and Dublins dominance I'm not sure what to worry about the most.
Well if Trump is for it, it must be bad
It's a pity Obama or Hillary didn't think of it.....then it would have been great
Quote from: whitey on December 14, 2017, 08:46:28 PM
Well if Trump is for it, it must be bad
It's a pity Obama or Hillary didn't think of it.....then it would have been great
Obama did think of it. He implemented the rules preventing the telecommunications outfits from dictating speed of access. Which Trump is scrapping.
You think it's a good thing?
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-weijzcTFAm4/U7Z8_ZNYBII/AAAAAAAAhlE/MsuzgnYaYPQ/s1600/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now-infographic.png)
Quote from: J70 on December 14, 2017, 08:59:41 PM
Quote from: whitey on December 14, 2017, 08:46:28 PM
Well if Trump is for it, it must be bad
It's a pity Obama or Hillary didn't think of it.....then it would have been great
Obama did think of it. He implemented the rules preventing the telecommunications outfits from dictating speed of access. Which Trump is scrapping.
You think it's a good thing?
Anyone who thinks it's a good thing is an idiot. A don't throw around that word lightly either.
I listened to a debate last week and there was pros and cons to each side of the argument
Quote from: whitey on December 14, 2017, 10:03:46 PM
I listened to a debate last week and there was pros and cons to each side of the argument
Oh really? And what, pray tell, are the cons of net neutrality? (Comcast's inability to gouge their customers any more than they already do doesn't count)
What are the pros of losing net neutrality? I have read a few arguments and have yet to see a pro that is really a pro. Maybe piracy may reduce though maybe it won't. That is about all i can see and there are other better less radical ways to fight this.
I find it incredible how anyone who uses the internet could be against net neutrality other than if they had shares in an ISPS
Isps and governments.
Even netflix are against it but i think that is because comcast stiffed them so they can see what is coming.
Ajit Pai has a head on him you'd just love to thump, and these photo shoot things he does doesn't help him.
Both him and Brendan Carr worked directly for the big 3 in the past regarding regulation and law. america is really impressive just when you think everything is privatized they manage to find something else
Quote from: whitey on December 14, 2017, 10:03:46 PM
I listened to a debate last week and there was pros and cons to each side of the argument
What! Two sides to an argument!
This is getting murkier. Any Mossad involvement I wonder
the suspected cons would be that the current internet setup in not viable long term and the 'wrong' people are making billions out of it.
look at facebook it no more than Bebo + but does feck all for its cash it does not provide any of the facilities for the Internet but gets most of the cash same with google that rifles though other people stuff providing little or no content itself but it get to decide what you View . Bing is an even worse example of this , and neither of these companies even invented the search engine but again make away with most of the cash .
But yet we expect ISP to provide us with free service
Quote from: rosnarun on December 15, 2017, 10:48:24 AM
the suspected cons would be that the current internet setup in not viable long term and the 'wrong' people are making billions out of it.
look at facebook it no more than Bebo + but does feck all for its cash it does not provide any of the facilities for the Internet but gets most of the cash same with google that rifles though other people stuff providing little or no content itself but it get to decide what you View . Bing is an even worse example of this , and neither of these companies even invented the search engine but again make away with most of the cash .
But yet we expect ISP to provide us with free service
You get free service??
for internet access yes. for a telephone line no
Internet search before Google doesn't bear thinking about. Like trying to travel to the US without planes or ships.
Quote from: rosnarun on December 15, 2017, 10:48:24 AM
the suspected cons would be that the current internet setup in not viable long term and the 'wrong' people are making billions out of it.
look at facebook it no more than Bebo + but does feck all for its cash it does not provide any of the facilities for the Internet but gets most of the cash same with google that rifles though other people stuff providing little or no content itself but it get to decide what you View . Bing is an even worse example of this , and neither of these companies even invented the search engine but again make away with most of the cash .
But yet we expect ISP to provide us with free service
What a load of sh1te. ::) Do you actually know what net neutrality is? You also don't seem to understand the business models of the company products you mentioned.
Quote from: rosnarun on December 15, 2017, 01:04:43 PM
for internet access yes. for a telephone line no
It's well for some.
I pay $75/month for my home high speed connection and another fistful for my mobile phone data. Obviously more spending on top of that for particular subscription services such as Netflix, HBO, Sling etc.
The costs may increase now as charges are passed down by various online outfits to facilitate access to higher speed lanes.
Quote from: Syferus on December 15, 2017, 01:15:14 PM
Internet search before Google doesn't bear thinking about. Like trying to travel to the US without planes or ships.
Indeed. Google won because it was better than Alta Vista and Infoseek and the rest which preceded them back in the day. No one held a gun to anyone's head and made them use it.
Quote from: J70 on December 15, 2017, 01:48:24 PM
Quote from: Syferus on December 15, 2017, 01:15:14 PM
Internet search before Google doesn't bear thinking about. Like trying to travel to the US without planes or ships.
Indeed. Google won because it was better than Alta Vista and Infoseek and the rest which preceded them back in the day. No one held a gun to anyone's head and made them use it.
Askjeeves was and is still the best!
Quote from: thebigfella on December 15, 2017, 01:17:32 PM
Quote from: rosnarun on December 15, 2017, 10:48:24 AM
the suspected cons would be that the current internet setup in not viable long term and the 'wrong' people are making billions out of it.
look at facebook it no more than Bebo + but does feck all for its cash it does not provide any of the facilities for the Internet but gets most of the cash same with google that rifles though other people stuff providing little or no content itself but it get to decide what you View . Bing is an even worse example of this , and neither of these companies even invented the search engine but again make away with most of the cash .
But yet we expect ISP to provide us with free service
What a load of sh1te. ::) Do you actually know what net neutrality is? You also don't seem to understand the business models of the company products you mentioned.
yes im know what net neutraity is and I also know that the companies I mentioned are making extortionate profits and behave like monopolies and net neutral reinforces that while the companies they stole their model from go broke by limiting who can charge for what ar what stage of the process.
the internet as it now stand is not viable longterm. when content providers realize they are being taken for a ride .
Simple example I was paying sky 95 euro a month but now access the same programmes free over the net
Quote from: J70 on December 15, 2017, 01:45:19 PM
Quote from: rosnarun on December 15, 2017, 01:04:43 PM
for internet access yes. for a telephone line no
It's well for some.
I pay $75/month for my home high speed connection and another fistful for my mobile phone data. Obviously more spending on top of that for particular subscription services such as Netflix, HBO, Sling etc.
The costs may increase now as charges are passed down by various online outfits to facilitate access to higher speed lanes.
Still using Dial-up in Mayo.
Quote from: rosnarun on December 15, 2017, 04:32:56 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on December 15, 2017, 01:17:32 PM
Quote from: rosnarun on December 15, 2017, 10:48:24 AM
the suspected cons would be that the current internet setup in not viable long term and the 'wrong' people are making billions out of it.
look at facebook it no more than Bebo + but does feck all for its cash it does not provide any of the facilities for the Internet but gets most of the cash same with google that rifles though other people stuff providing little or no content itself but it get to decide what you View . Bing is an even worse example of this , and neither of these companies even invented the search engine but again make away with most of the cash .
But yet we expect ISP to provide us with free service
What a load of sh1te. ::) Do you actually know what net neutrality is? You also don't seem to understand the business models of the company products you mentioned.
yes im know what net neutraity is and I also know that the companies I mentioned are making extortionate profits and behave like monopolies and net neutral reinforces that while the companies they stole their model from go broke by limiting who can charge for what ar what stage of the process.
the internet as it now stand is not viable longterm. when content providers realize they are being taken for a ride .
Simple example I was paying sky 95 euro a month but now access the same programmes free over the net
What are you on about. Google offered a superior product and people made a conscious decision to use it over other search engines. People are free to choose other search engines if they like. There is no IP in the business models you believe they stole. The IP is in the "propriety algorithms" they developed. Technology is full of companies who never came up with the original ideas but just implement them better. Apple for example haven't come up with an original or innovative idea in decades...
While I would some issues with Google/Facebook's business practices; I think you need to understand what a monopoly is.
Quote from: rosnarun on December 15, 2017, 04:32:56 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on December 15, 2017, 01:17:32 PM
Quote from: rosnarun on December 15, 2017, 10:48:24 AM
the suspected cons would be that the current internet setup in not viable long term and the 'wrong' people are making billions out of it.
look at facebook it no more than Bebo + but does feck all for its cash it does not provide any of the facilities for the Internet but gets most of the cash same with google that rifles though other people stuff providing little or no content itself but it get to decide what you View . Bing is an even worse example of this , and neither of these companies even invented the search engine but again make away with most of the cash .
But yet we expect ISP to provide us with free service
What a load of sh1te. ::) Do you actually know what net neutrality is? You also don't seem to understand the business models of the company products you mentioned.
yes im know what net neutraity is and I also know that the companies I mentioned are making extortionate profits and behave like monopolies and net neutral reinforces that while the companies they stole their model from go broke by limiting who can charge for what ar what stage of the process.
the internet as it now stand is not viable longterm. when content providers realize they are being taken for a ride .
Simple example I was paying sky 95 euro a month but now access the same programmes free over the net
This will allow ISPs to provide restricted or reduced access to certain sites of their choosing, so if a small company comes up with a good idea and Google comes up with a shittier similar idea but uses their influence to make it hard for people to find the small company you can't tell anyone with a straight face this isn't monopolizing the industry