Man, this is about as far from true as possible. Companies like Microsoft, Disney, Apple, and Yahoo! are funding a bill to MAKE NET "NEUTRALITY" a law. This would be the NEW LAW. They are backing this law because THESE huge businesses don't want to pay for their hi-bandwidth that they will use to stream video, etc. I made a blog about it for anyone interested.
JOIN THE FIGHT FOR A FREE INTERNET AND NET NEUTRALITY!
PLEASE CLICK ON MY PROFILE (...just click on my name...) AND VISIT MY "MY SPACE" SITE WHICH IS MENTIONED THERE. There you will find further videos, news and links!
A quick question - What is bandwidth? And for all those people out there who are going to say, "You dont know what bandwidth!?" Just shut up ok? Not everyone knows everything.
Great video and very informative...keep it up and do another one...
But this time make it shorter (you will lose people if you ramble on) secondly provide affirmative and positive steps for people to take to acheive your goal. Provide addresses to congress, names and create an online petition so poepl can sign it.There are online petition sites.
You are very passionate about this, now gather your info and create easy steps for people. Cheers bro...
That $20 is just for web hosting, I still pay a local ISP. I'm not rich by any means. I will pay for what access I can afford.
As for control. Do you really think that companies who build and "rent" the infrastructure, or use it, are going to control what you say? As soon as someone tries to control content, they will lose market share, then they will wise up and compete, or go out of business.
You're a damn IDIOT. So you're going to pay $20 here, $5 there, and more for different sites. Just STFU & stop talking here, we don't need your comments. They are crap, like your brain!!
If the operating companies of the backbones all agree with this idea and implement it, the user's say makes no difference. Nobody would loose market share, because there would be no other alternatives. I'm not talking about if the local ISP's did that, I'm talking about the ISP's ISPs doing this; the major providers. The majority of the internet would be controlled. I'm sure that it is not how any of the many people who designed the internet envisioned for it to work.
Okay, let's call it throughput. It still comes down to this: You want to get more than you pay for, OR, you want your favorite site to get more than it pays for. Since when is this a cause to fight for? I pay like $20 a month to give my listeners decent throughput with no ads, but that is my choice. If and when I use a "free" site or service, I accept the limitations. You get what you pay for, and things change. Both facts of life.
Ok so right now you pay your $20 a month. Are you really willing to pay that $20 a month to Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, and Quest so that you can reach those customers? We are talking about Free as is freedom of speech also. We want the internet to stay how it is and not give Comcast and the like more control.
it that passes it will mean no more free access to you favorite site and the one that is the most affected is the normal guys here that surf becouse we will have to pay more to surf (surfs up dude)
Okay, so paying for latency is the same thing as paying for (downloading) bandwidth. As for the little guys: I work for a small company and we compete against the big guys just fine. We 'little guys' on the net will just have to try harder to compete - that's what competition is. Competition also means that if they charge too much, they will lose customers to someone else that has better pricing.
No I don't think you are understanding it. Latency is how fast the data can travel. Not how much data can travel. What about all the free sites on the net that do not make money? What would happen if you could only connect to them at modem speed?
Why not? If Yahoo is willing to pay for more bandwidth (please explain the difference between bandwidth and latency) than Google, why shouldn't they get more? They are selling a product and competing with Google. Personally, I don't care for Yahoo. I have used Google from the beginning, but if Google wants to compete, then they need to pay for the infrastructure.
Everyone already pays for bandwidth and thats just fine. Paying for latency means you have to pay more to allow customers to download your stuff at reasonable speeds. Companies like Google and Yahoo can handle the extra fees. But what about all the little guys?
Cell phones have progressed because of competition among the companies who invent, market and distribute the technology.
If you build a faster toll road, you should be able to charge more for access to it.
This is all simple economics. Nothing is free. The internet isn't some tree growing around the world. The infrastructure was built by humans. They should be able to charge for thier efforts.
Yes they should be able to. The whole point is that they already are charging for it. They should not be allowed to divide up the internet based on how much a company pays.
What happens when these ISPs get into the content business, their own dating site? They would have a powerful tool with which to destroy competing sites, a very bad thing for capitalism.
The bill was defeated about a month ago with a healthy majority, but they'll keep putting it forward again, attaching pork or burying it in an unrelated bill at the last moment. Vigilance is crucial, but on the plus side if it does slip through, it'll probably be reversed soon after.
It hard to say how much this change would effect the world's internet. The whole issue is about latency. It will allow internet providers to put throttling on certain websites. Also, it won't cost extra for home computers directly. But I am assuming that some sites will either start or raise their fees to help pay for the new extra costs. Its hard to find good info about this. All I know is that I don't want internet providers to have more power over the internet.
There is two things being pushed in congress right now. The Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006, is the bad one to make the tiers. And the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2006 is the one that will provide protection for net neutrality.
Great job on being really informative. This is such a complex issue, and only because of the way that people present it. It's great to have the facts from someone who took the time to educate themself about this subject. Hopefully this video will inspire others to read more into the issue and take a stance.
the only ones who can support is the people from UUSS. but, where can all the resto of the world give theyr words and support? the internet is from all, we all build it. not only them.
Interesting you really get your point across, i had no idea about any of this, thast y i guess i get "time out" pages :(
SomeOne247 4 years ago
u should use teh webcam mic in these episodes :D just a suggestion
tyson484 5 years ago
Man, this is about as far from true as possible. Companies like Microsoft, Disney, Apple, and Yahoo! are funding a bill to MAKE NET "NEUTRALITY" a law. This would be the NEW LAW. They are backing this law because THESE huge businesses don't want to pay for their hi-bandwidth that they will use to stream video, etc. I made a blog about it for anyone interested.
burnvictim77 5 years ago
I like that you film from the waist up and use hand gestures to emphasize your points. It's subtle but it helps. Plus I like your shirt : )
pley 5 years ago
savetheinternet,i'm posting it everywhere i have a name on the internet,like myspace
walkingawaykl 5 years ago
Thanks Jason..The internet is like the ocean, the air, space..it can not be bought and sold.
dylanseadog 5 years ago
JOIN THE FIGHT FOR A FREE INTERNET AND NET NEUTRALITY!
PLEASE CLICK ON MY PROFILE (...just click on my name...) AND VISIT MY "MY SPACE" SITE WHICH IS MENTIONED THERE. There you will find further videos, news and links!
heikoxxxxxx 5 years ago
A quick question - What is bandwidth? And for all those people out there who are going to say, "You dont know what bandwidth!?" Just shut up ok? Not everyone knows everything.
Oblivious17 5 years ago
JASON...LISTEN TO ME!!!
Great video and very informative...keep it up and do another one...
But this time make it shorter (you will lose people if you ramble on) secondly provide affirmative and positive steps for people to take to acheive your goal. Provide addresses to congress, names and create an online petition so poepl can sign it.There are online petition sites.
You are very passionate about this, now gather your info and create easy steps for people. Cheers bro...
Paul
drumboi6 5 years ago
That $20 is just for web hosting, I still pay a local ISP. I'm not rich by any means. I will pay for what access I can afford.
As for control. Do you really think that companies who build and "rent" the infrastructure, or use it, are going to control what you say? As soon as someone tries to control content, they will lose market share, then they will wise up and compete, or go out of business.
jimfriesen 5 years ago
Ok so if they would lose market share if they did control content then why are they trying so hard to pass a bill to do just that?
jasonthenerd 5 years ago
You're a damn IDIOT. So you're going to pay $20 here, $5 there, and more for different sites. Just STFU & stop talking here, we don't need your comments. They are crap, like your brain!!
LABYRINTHOSdotORG 5 years ago
If the operating companies of the backbones all agree with this idea and implement it, the user's say makes no difference. Nobody would loose market share, because there would be no other alternatives. I'm not talking about if the local ISP's did that, I'm talking about the ISP's ISPs doing this; the major providers. The majority of the internet would be controlled. I'm sure that it is not how any of the many people who designed the internet envisioned for it to work.
cdspoo 5 years ago
Okay, let's call it throughput. It still comes down to this: You want to get more than you pay for, OR, you want your favorite site to get more than it pays for. Since when is this a cause to fight for? I pay like $20 a month to give my listeners decent throughput with no ads, but that is my choice. If and when I use a "free" site or service, I accept the limitations. You get what you pay for, and things change. Both facts of life.
jimfriesen 5 years ago
Ok so right now you pay your $20 a month. Are you really willing to pay that $20 a month to Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, and Quest so that you can reach those customers? We are talking about Free as is freedom of speech also. We want the internet to stay how it is and not give Comcast and the like more control.
jasonthenerd 5 years ago
it that passes it will mean no more free access to you favorite site and the one that is the most affected is the normal guys here that surf becouse we will have to pay more to surf (surfs up dude)
Marius2000 5 years ago
Very informative, thanks JN
FourRooms 5 years ago
Okay, so paying for latency is the same thing as paying for (downloading) bandwidth. As for the little guys: I work for a small company and we compete against the big guys just fine. We 'little guys' on the net will just have to try harder to compete - that's what competition is. Competition also means that if they charge too much, they will lose customers to someone else that has better pricing.
jimfriesen 5 years ago
No I don't think you are understanding it. Latency is how fast the data can travel. Not how much data can travel. What about all the free sites on the net that do not make money? What would happen if you could only connect to them at modem speed?
jasonthenerd 5 years ago
Why not? If Yahoo is willing to pay for more bandwidth (please explain the difference between bandwidth and latency) than Google, why shouldn't they get more? They are selling a product and competing with Google. Personally, I don't care for Yahoo. I have used Google from the beginning, but if Google wants to compete, then they need to pay for the infrastructure.
jimfriesen 5 years ago
Everyone already pays for bandwidth and thats just fine. Paying for latency means you have to pay more to allow customers to download your stuff at reasonable speeds. Companies like Google and Yahoo can handle the extra fees. But what about all the little guys?
jasonthenerd 5 years ago
Cell phones have progressed because of competition among the companies who invent, market and distribute the technology.
If you build a faster toll road, you should be able to charge more for access to it.
This is all simple economics. Nothing is free. The internet isn't some tree growing around the world. The infrastructure was built by humans. They should be able to charge for thier efforts.
jimfriesen 5 years ago
Yes they should be able to. The whole point is that they already are charging for it. They should not be allowed to divide up the internet based on how much a company pays.
jasonthenerd 5 years ago
:-) You know how much I love this video?
About as much as a fat kid loves cake.
I want to touch your hard drive. lol.
matsie 5 years ago
thanx for the info. long live nerds!
xgeronimo 5 years ago
What happens when these ISPs get into the content business, their own dating site? They would have a powerful tool with which to destroy competing sites, a very bad thing for capitalism.
The bill was defeated about a month ago with a healthy majority, but they'll keep putting it forward again, attaching pork or burying it in an unrelated bill at the last moment. Vigilance is crucial, but on the plus side if it does slip through, it'll probably be reversed soon after.
chrisbord 5 years ago
I really appreciate the fact that you made this video. It's very informative. Great job! I hope it helps to enlighten many uninformed individuals.
LittleBlueBunny 5 years ago
Sounds like the caste system.
Vichama 5 years ago
Is this worldwide? or is it just in the US?
And is it just for companies?
What about home computers?
caity28 5 years ago
It hard to say how much this change would effect the world's internet. The whole issue is about latency. It will allow internet providers to put throttling on certain websites. Also, it won't cost extra for home computers directly. But I am assuming that some sites will either start or raise their fees to help pay for the new extra costs. Its hard to find good info about this. All I know is that I don't want internet providers to have more power over the internet.
jasonthenerd 5 years ago
My bad.
angeldvst 5 years ago
The bill being pushed is to BAN Comcast/etc from setting up the tier system. Good vid tho.
angeldvst 5 years ago
There is two things being pushed in congress right now. The Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006, is the bad one to make the tiers. And the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2006 is the one that will provide protection for net neutrality.
jasonthenerd 5 years ago
Great job on being really informative. This is such a complex issue, and only because of the way that people present it. It's great to have the facts from someone who took the time to educate themself about this subject. Hopefully this video will inspire others to read more into the issue and take a stance.
vanriot9 5 years ago
the only ones who can support is the people from UUSS. but, where can all the resto of the world give theyr words and support? the internet is from all, we all build it. not only them.
pablosci 5 years ago