So don't use the explanation of "big ISPs versus little websites." It's really not relevant. The content providers want to get the government to pass a law that will grant them a right to be on a network they didn't build, the ISPs don't want to extend that "right" on their private network, and moreover they don't want the government telling them what they can and can't do on their network.
As a related point, people construe this as "the big bad ISPs against the poor little websites." This is not a David and Goliath situation. On one side you have a bunch of (specifically tier 1) ISPs: AT&T, GX, and Qwest. On the other you have a bunch of content providers: Google, Microsoft and Amazon.
Would you appreciate that you're paying for the bandwidth, and yet you are *forced* to allow someone else to use it without paying? Although it's not directly analogous, that is essentially what is going on with Net Neutrality.The government is stepping in and saying "Content providers have an inherent right to be on your network, and you *must* allow them to be here."
The U.S. government has no right to regulate how we access or interact with a private network. How would you like it if someone passed a law that if you had a WiFi connection, you had to leave it open so that other people could access the Internet through it whenever they wanted?
2) The Internet is not something that just exists out there somewhere which your ISP simply provides you access to. Your ISP *is* the Internet. As are you. And I. And YouTube. It is the largest network in the world. But it is still that, a network. It is not a public resource.
That network has a limited amount of bandwidth. Just turning off Quality of Service controls is (big surprise) NOT going to improve your quality of service. Why do websites like YouTube and Amazon have an inherent "right" to exist on the multi-million dollar content distribution network which they did not build?
What it boils down to is double billing. These ISPs want to charge 2x for the same product. They want to charge me for bandwidth. Then they want to charge the websites I visit for the same band width. Sounds crooked to me.
You know, I would normally respond to your viewpoint with hostility, but I can thank you for representing yourself well; I appreciate it, and don't need to tell you to fuck off.
I liked the angle you came at this with; it is that sort of thoughtful approach that makes me love being a person.
Thank you. While I lean moderate Republican, I sometimes vote for the moderate Democrat if he/she is the better person for the job.
Also, thanks for the feedback. I teach at the college level, and I was thinking I was starting to make sense to the students. Good to know I still have that student-frustration skill sharp.
Your comments do not change a video and description of Net Nuetrality filled with straw men, fractured analogies, and irrelevant comparisons. Net Neutrality was a topic of the moment, sure, but your thoughts on such bring nothing to the table.
Ah, now THAT was a lucid, respectful argument. Naturally, I disagree, but I certainly do respect your point of view, and I hope at the least it goads folks to do their own research (and thinking) in order to reach a conclusion.
Yes, you are correct my message was mean-spirited. Yes, I enjoy making comments to those who also enjoy the relative anonymity of the internet. Yes, if I had more balls or less concern for my relative anonymity, I would submit video.
If you are a proponent of an open electronic playing field, you must accept that this is the way it is.
I do, and conversely you must accept an equal response. Note, however, that your well-stated argument does a lot more for both your credibility and your point of view than rudeness. You know, the whole flies and honey and vinegar argument. Thank you, and I do not mean that facetiously.
You're one of those Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling, aren't you? The ugly one? 'Cuz looking at your videos seems like you're with GLOW after they went bankrupt.
Thanks. You should always investigate things for yourself and reach your own conclusions. Always watch your sources, and take everybody's opinion with a grain of salt.
So don't use the explanation of "big ISPs versus little websites." It's really not relevant. The content providers want to get the government to pass a law that will grant them a right to be on a network they didn't build, the ISPs don't want to extend that "right" on their private network, and moreover they don't want the government telling them what they can and can't do on their network.
dreamscape86 5 years ago
As a related point, people construe this as "the big bad ISPs against the poor little websites." This is not a David and Goliath situation. On one side you have a bunch of (specifically tier 1) ISPs: AT&T, GX, and Qwest. On the other you have a bunch of content providers: Google, Microsoft and Amazon.
dreamscape86 5 years ago
Would you appreciate that you're paying for the bandwidth, and yet you are *forced* to allow someone else to use it without paying? Although it's not directly analogous, that is essentially what is going on with Net Neutrality.The government is stepping in and saying "Content providers have an inherent right to be on your network, and you *must* allow them to be here."
dreamscape86 5 years ago
The U.S. government has no right to regulate how we access or interact with a private network. How would you like it if someone passed a law that if you had a WiFi connection, you had to leave it open so that other people could access the Internet through it whenever they wanted?
dreamscape86 5 years ago
2) The Internet is not something that just exists out there somewhere which your ISP simply provides you access to. Your ISP *is* the Internet. As are you. And I. And YouTube. It is the largest network in the world. But it is still that, a network. It is not a public resource.
dreamscape86 5 years ago
That network has a limited amount of bandwidth. Just turning off Quality of Service controls is (big surprise) NOT going to improve your quality of service. Why do websites like YouTube and Amazon have an inherent "right" to exist on the multi-million dollar content distribution network which they did not build?
dreamscape86 5 years ago
The problems with the way you articulate Net Neutrality are the ones that I see the most often:
Bandwidth is not free, and the Internet is not a public resource.
1) It has cost ISPs (especially tier 1 ISPs) hundreds of millions of dollars to build the network that you enjoy for $29.99 a month.
dreamscape86 5 years ago
What it boils down to is double billing. These ISPs want to charge 2x for the same product. They want to charge me for bandwidth. Then they want to charge the websites I visit for the same band width. Sounds crooked to me.
Spoilage 5 years ago
You know, I would normally respond to your viewpoint with hostility, but I can thank you for representing yourself well; I appreciate it, and don't need to tell you to fuck off.
I liked the angle you came at this with; it is that sort of thoughtful approach that makes me love being a person.
abortedsoul 5 years ago
Excellent analysis, I truly believe net neutrality is a bi-partisan issue.
qazwas2001 5 years ago
IF I could get you one gift, it'd be a desklamp.
Gigolo8 5 years ago
If you knew how ugly I was, you'd be praising my decision NOT to use a desk lamp. Unless it was to put in front of my fat head.
TheFathead 5 years ago
wow you got a hater pretty fast
BETTHISNAMEAINTTAKEN 5 years ago
Your fragmented, lengthy and poor communication skills are truly Republican-esque.
killerbabies 5 years ago
Thank you. While I lean moderate Republican, I sometimes vote for the moderate Democrat if he/she is the better person for the job.
Also, thanks for the feedback. I teach at the college level, and I was thinking I was starting to make sense to the students. Good to know I still have that student-frustration skill sharp.
TheFathead 5 years ago
By the by, I love the political message all of your videos are pushing for. Good to know you have a vision for the future of your country.
Yes, I know you don't have any videos posted. That's my point. Isn't it great being rude to someone else when you think you're anonymous?
TheFathead 5 years ago
WOW... The dictionary definition of pwned. XD
PrinceZeris 5 years ago
Your comments do not change a video and description of Net Nuetrality filled with straw men, fractured analogies, and irrelevant comparisons. Net Neutrality was a topic of the moment, sure, but your thoughts on such bring nothing to the table.
killerbabies 5 years ago
Ah, now THAT was a lucid, respectful argument. Naturally, I disagree, but I certainly do respect your point of view, and I hope at the least it goads folks to do their own research (and thinking) in order to reach a conclusion.
TheFathead 5 years ago
Yes, you are correct my message was mean-spirited. Yes, I enjoy making comments to those who also enjoy the relative anonymity of the internet. Yes, if I had more balls or less concern for my relative anonymity, I would submit video.
If you are a proponent of an open electronic playing field, you must accept that this is the way it is.
killerbabies 5 years ago
I do, and conversely you must accept an equal response. Note, however, that your well-stated argument does a lot more for both your credibility and your point of view than rudeness. You know, the whole flies and honey and vinegar argument. Thank you, and I do not mean that facetiously.
TheFathead 5 years ago
... a quick responce?
Brink0War 5 years ago
You should've seen the long version ;)
TheFathead 5 years ago
hey you're the guy from those movies and ughh... lke the mask and all tat shit!
CaliFaintFightz 5 years ago
Yup, that's me.
You're one of those Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling, aren't you? The ugly one? 'Cuz looking at your videos seems like you're with GLOW after they went bankrupt.
TheFathead 5 years ago
finally a reasonable non-rabid supporter
BETTHISNAMEAINTTAKEN 5 years ago
Thanks. You should always investigate things for yourself and reach your own conclusions. Always watch your sources, and take everybody's opinion with a grain of salt.
TheFathead 5 years ago