net neutrality

smurfing · 07-18-2007, 11:49 AM

i see this plastered all over the webs and we havent had any discussion here... wtf is this and is it good or bad?

on the one hand i see dipshits supporting it. on the other hand it sounds good if i understand it correctly. basically it means the internet companies cant allot more bandwidth to certain websites that pay them like google, yahoo, etc right?

theFoulLasagna · 07-18-2007, 11:59 AM

that's the way i understand it. i think it would be very bad to make the internet preferential based on a profit driven system. Not that it's bad for corporations to make money, but i'm just saying.

Sonic Johnny · 07-18-2007, 12:04 PM

as if netphoria isnt slow enough as it is...

smurfing · 07-18-2007, 12:13 PM

i guess theoretically google could pay them for better bandwidth allowing them to actually invest in more hardware which would make part of the internet faster and none slower

i know id hate if serious business places like microsoft's website were regulated to be just as laggy as anywhere else

Mo · 07-18-2007, 12:13 PM

YouTube is responsible for 10% of the worldwide internet traffic. Holy shit.

Pleasure|Contempt · 07-18-2007, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the antipop

YouTube is responsible for 10% of the worldwide internet traffic. Holy shit.

What's your source for this? I'm not skeptical, just curious.

Mo · 07-18-2007, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasure|Contempt

What's your source for this? I'm not skeptical, just curious.

Source.

I.e.

Future Boy · 07-18-2007, 09:01 PM

I thought it also allowed for the opposite, providers could charge for faster/better access to sites.

Nimrod's Son · 07-18-2007, 10:24 PM

it does. It's a terrible idea where only the big guys will survive as it punishes startups without the same capital.

07-18-2007, 11:49 AM	#1
smurfing Apocalyptic Poster Location: quit netphor til nov 5, 2007. Posts: 4,360	net neutrality i see this plastered all over the webs and we havent had any discussion here... wtf is this and is it good or bad? on the one hand i see dipshits supporting it. on the other hand it sounds good if i understand it correctly. basically it means the internet companies cant allot more bandwidth to certain websites that pay them like google, yahoo, etc right?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-18-2007, 11:59 AM	#2
theFoulLasagna Demi-God Location: smell the glove Posts: 360	that's the way i understand it. i think it would be very bad to make the internet preferential based on a profit driven system. Not that it's bad for corporations to make money, but i'm just saying.

07-18-2007, 12:04 PM	#3
Sonic Johnny Through Silver In Buds Location: Centralia Posts: 16,520	as if netphoria isnt slow enough as it is...

07-18-2007, 12:13 PM	#4
smurfing Apocalyptic Poster Location: quit netphor til nov 5, 2007. Posts: 4,360	i guess theoretically google could pay them for better bandwidth allowing them to actually invest in more hardware which would make part of the internet faster and none slower i know id hate if serious business places like microsoft's website were regulated to be just as laggy as anywhere else

07-18-2007, 12:13 PM	#5
Mo Immortal Posts: 20,988	YouTube is responsible for 10% of the worldwide internet traffic. Holy shit.

07-18-2007, 09:01 PM	#8
Future Boy The Man of Tomorrow Posts: 26,972	I thought it also allowed for the opposite, providers could charge for faster/better access to sites.

07-18-2007, 10:24 PM	#9
Nimrod's Son Master of Karate and Friendship Location: in your butt Posts: 72,943	it does. It's a terrible idea where only the big guys will survive as it punishes startups without the same capital.