Net Neutrality

This could get interesting

It's coming no matter what we do. Comcast has already begun to rollout tiered pricing based on bandwidth usage.....

Now the Mayan calendar prophecy all makes sense... the world won't come to an end in 2012... just the internet.

I saw this on south park just last night

I say "GOOD!" If they move Porn and AOL to another space (like .PRN or .STUPID or something) then it might free up some bandwidth for those of us who use it to work!

I agree that there should be some specific way of categorizing the Porn industry on the Net, but I don't agree with limiting what sites we can see based on some package they throw together.

For fuck sakes Ricky...

I like the fine print at the bottom of the ad: "Full internet access available on request.... Full access does not include access to illegal materials."

So you have to probably pay more for full access AND you still are being limited because of someone's interpretation of 'illegal.'

I am calling total bs on this whole thing.

Paying more for more bandwidth is one things, and has existed for years. Paying to search Google? I don't buy it.

How would that free up bandwidth? If I'm accessing the web, I'm using bandwidth no matter what - be it large picture files and movies (pr0n, stupid kitten videos, etc.) or files for business, it's all the same pipes, no?

If they want to charge more for more bandwidth, that's fine - they can do so and already do. However, folks need to realize that it's rarely your inbound bandwidth that's the problem - it's the site you're accessing's ability to pump out the info, as well as all the servers, routers, and junk in between.

This is just Greedy cable companies hoping to make more $. It has nothing to do with fairness. I'm one of those evil internet users that they want to block, the kind of person who downloads a ton of movies / music / apps. Wife is the same and my 4 year old kid surfs NickJnr.com like it's no tomorrow. I'd imagine our monthly usage is more like 500gb than 40gb. No way in hell I'd be paying $1 a gb.

The girlie in the video has a nice rack.

I think that story is bogus. Here's the real story from yesterdays news about Time Warner metering content. 40gb Cap - $1 per GB thereafter.

http://hosted-communications.tmcnet.com/...gb-allotted.htm

Site's blocked at my work.

Pics or it didn't happen.

Did you click on the "Net Neutrality" link?

And as for GrayHam's observation.. I second that!

I did and our internal security page popped up, so I can't check out the video, page, or anything.

However, if someone were to do a screencap and then post said pic (not hotlinked), I could see it.

Just the way it works here.

You're right, of course... for a minute there I got all excited and thought they might actually endeavor to create completely different spaces or realms for stuff. I'm dreaming, but I swear... if you could take all of the porn off the internet, and move it to a separate "pRon net" with its own bandwidth, subscription services, domains, etc, then the pervs could frolic all they wanted and schools, families, office workers, etc would be free from email porn spam, pop-up windows, etc, and I would guess that at least half of the current bandwidth on the "corporate net" would free up.

I'm gonna invent that some day (after wireless power) and run for president.

Well someone already invented Wireless Power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_energy_transfer So I guess you have the Presidency still to go for!

I think throttling bandwidth usage is dumb.

As an employee for a Domain Registrar, I do think that the .XXX tld for Adult content would be the key to helping keep adult content in its place. But nobody is going to give up their sex.com or xxx.com domain that potentially sold for hundreds of thousands / millions of dollars and just hop over to .XXX without being forced.

First of all, it would be illegal to move all porn to one common domain suffix.

Who gets to decide what is considered porn and what is not? Porn falls under the legal auspices of protected "free speech".

Secondly and most importantly, the concept of "net neutrality" is government intervention and increased governmental control over the internet.

It is a very bad idea and should not be supported by the public. It is the public who will be screwed by any "net neutrality" type legislation.

I'll do it! Right after I implement the practical application of the wireless power that's already been invented...

So, would the $1 a GB be only for downloading, or would uploading also be counted? I don't download movies online as I just copy everything I like from Blockbuster online ('Sup, The Wire) but I'm uploading around 4GB of music everyday to private bittorrent music trackers like Waffles and What.CD. I download MAYBE 5 GB a month of music.

Also, does watching video on demand count as bandwidth? That would seriously piss me off.

It is the public who will be screwed by any "net neutrality" type of legislation.

The emphasis fixes that for you.

It's BS. Trying to put this into packages like what was described is like the phone company saying you can only call certain numbers unless you have the "unlimited" package. You're buying access to the internet, hot access to certain sites. The only thing your cost can be based on is speed and how much bandwidth you use. I'm thinking Google, Yahoo, MSNBC, MicroShaft, etc., etc., etc., would have a field day with the law suits if any one TRIED to do this.

Plus what about all the bazillion other sites out there? What package do they go in? And how often would the "packages" be updated with all the new sites coming on-line and old ones going off-line at the rate of hundreds (if not thousands) each day? It's an impossible task.

-G

I think it's been stated, but the add shown is a "mock-up", not an actual add. The actual service is Gb rated and not site dependent.

If it gets too bad I'll just not have internet at home... screw 'em.

btw- this test will only involve "new subscribers" to Time Warner, not existing customers.