[3D.]

Personally, I like the Internet the way it is. If you agree, than you need to be heard. Every voice counts!

I'm posting this in the Lounge, because it will effect everyone, politically savvy or not. Hopefully it will stay here.


http://www.commoncause.org/siteapps/advocacy/index.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1372975&msource=netblog4306&action=5382&template=x.ascx

 

[BurlyShirley]

Would you quite spamming up the board with this crap, PLEASE?

 

[3D.]

Would you quite spamming up the board with this crap, PLEASE?

You post your completely dim witted, retarded question about a Fvckin McDonalds hamburger… and your going to break my balls about posting something that could directly effect your ability to post up such dribble.

You’re not a chief ball handler, you’re chief sh!t starter.

And it’s not “quite” it’s “quit”, you dumb ass!

 

[BurlyShirley]

You post your completely dim witted, retarded question about a Fvckin McDonalds hamburger… and your going to break my balls about posting something that could directly effect your ability to post up such dribble.

You’re not a chief ball handler, you’re chief sh!t starter.

And it’s not “quite” it’s “quit”, you dumb ass!

Actually it's "you're" dumb ass. And the word is drivel, not dribbel, fella.

Every once in a while some genius like you comes along, and starts spamming up the board with his crap. We've all seen this same crap in form or another. You're not original. Your act was tired before it even started. Please consider suicide.

 

[BurlyShirley]

...and your next post better not be about how they're going to start charging us 10 cents per email either.

 

[3D.]

Actually it's "you're" dumb ass. And the word is drivel, not dribbel, fella.

Every once in a while some genius like you comes along, and starts spamming up the board with his crap. We've all seen this same crap in form or another. You're not original. Your act was tired before it even started. Please consider suicide.

Here we go again!

Actually, a synonym for the word dribble is drool, and that seems to be what you usually post.

You must have a serious superiority complex, to be so offended by someone like me, that's just trying to spread the word about something important.

And who mentioned anything about trying to be “original”, man you must have a lame life over in Nashville. A little bored are we?

 

[Dirtjumper999]

i've heard that fighting on the internet is like the special olympics, even if you win your still a retard. I'm with burly though, this isn't really THAT logical. it isn't that relevant either.

 

[Dirtjumper999]

You must have a serious superiority complex, to be so offended by someone like me, that's just trying to spread the word about something important.

what about burly isn't seriously superior?

 

[3D.]

i've heard that fighting on the internet is like the special olympics, even if you win your still a retard. I'm with burly though, this isn't really THAT logical. it isn't that relevant either.

I agree, fighting with Burlyshirley on the internet is retarded, but how do you guys seriously think that "net neutrality" doesn't relate to what we do here?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Here we go again!

Actually, a synonym for the word dribble is drool, and that seems to be what you usually post.

You must have a serious superiority complex, to be so offended by someone like me, that's just trying to spread the word about something important.

And who mentioned anything about trying to be “original”, man you must have a lame life over in Nashville. A little bored are we?

A "superiority complex" huh? LMAO. You are one sad, confused little man. Good try though.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I agree, fighting with Burlyshirley on the internet is retarded, but how do you guys seriously think that "net neutrality" doen's relate to what we do here?

It doen's relate because it's crap from stupid conspiracy theorist crap websites that EVERYBODY BUT YOU knows to be crap. Get a clue, hippie.

 

[Dirtjumper999]

it just doesn't seem like something that will happen. you know, like when some people go on a diet, and they get everything planned and then 2 days later they are standing at mickey d's.

 

[3D.]

It doen's relate because it's crap from stupid conspiracy theorist crap websites that EVERYBODY BUT YOU knows to be crap. Get a clue, hippie.

You really think you have it all figured out!

 

[Dirtjumper999]

admit it though burly, you are "seriously superior".

 

[BurlyShirley]

admit it though burly, you are "seriously superior".

Seriously, I am seriously superiorly too complex.

 

[Dirtjumper999]

You really think you have it all figured out!

this is really getting too much "area 51" ish for me. Paging RM delete this poo.

 

[binary visions]

Two things:

First of all, don't bash other peoples' word usage when your own usage is piss-poor. If you want to pick on typos, you'd better be making a concerted effort to avoid them in your own posts.

Second of all, the statement that you "like the Internet the way it is" isn't necessarily economically feasible. Do you know about the subject you're debating? That was a serious question, by the way, you provided no information in this thread or your post to indicate that you might have a firm grasp on the subject matter.

 

[Dirtjumper999]

Two things:

First of all, don't bash other peoples' word usage when your own usage is piss-poor. If you want to pick on typos, you'd better be making a concerted effort to avoid them in your own posts.

Second of all, the statement that you "like the Internet the way it is" isn't necessarily economically feasible. Do you know about the subject you're debating? That was a serious question, by the way, you provided no information in this thread or your post to indicate that you might have a firm grasp on the subject matter.

your avatar fits you perfectly dude. j/k
I just don't see how any of this is at all feasible, and i honestly don't think there is any justification in keeping this thread alive, it serves no purpose. kill it before it runs neaky:

 

[LordOpie]

...and your next post better not be about how they're going to start charging us 10 cents per email either.

It will happen, then who'll be laughing!?!

 

[Skookum]

It will happen, then who'll be laughing!?!

Hrumph it'll never happen....

*sips more Aquafina*

 

[Wumpus]

 

[PatBranch]

your avatar fits you perfectly dude. j/k
I just don't see how any of this is at all feasible, and i honestly don't think there is any justification in keeping this thread alive, it serves no purpose. kill it before it runs neaky:

It completely fits him.

 

[3D.]

Two things:

First of all, don't bash other peoples' word usage when your own usage is piss-poor. If you want to pick on typos, you'd better be making a concerted effort to avoid them in your own posts.

Second of all, the statement that you "like the Internet the way it is" isn't necessarily economically feasible. Do you know about the subject you're debating? That was a serious question, by the way, you provided no information in this thread or your post to indicate that you might have a firm grasp on the subject matter.

The reason I knit picked BS’s statement was because the dude is so quick to accuse me of spamming and getting it typed, that he wasn’t even aware of what he was writing.

I'm not claiming to be some kind of expert on the subject. I’m currently paying almost $50 a month to use my service (which is scheduled for an increase), I wouldn’t want that to be even more, just because a bunch of greedy billionaires want to individually corner the market with their “pipes“.

It’s not like these corporations are non-profit organizations running a soup kitchen for the poor.

Are you willing to pay more? Maybe you can enlighten us all with some of your info. that has evidently brought you to your position on the matter. Burlyshirley certainly didn’t, all he was interested in doing, was starting sh!t, as usual.

 

[3D.]

Kill this thread... if no one’s concerned, I'm sorry I ever brought it up!

 

[Transcend]

The reason I knit picked BS’s statement was because the dude is so quick to accuse me of spamming and getting it typed, that he wasn’t even aware of what he was writing.

I'm not claiming to be some kind of expert on the subject. I’m currently paying almost $50 a month to use my service (which is scheduled for an increase), I wouldn’t want that to be even more, just because a bunch of greedy billionaires want to individually corner the market with their “pipes“.

It’s not like these corporations are non-profit organizations running a soup kitchen for the poor.

Are you willing to pay more? Maybe you can enlighten us all with some of your info. that has evidently brought you to your position on the matter. Burlyshirley certainly didn’t, all he was interested in doing, was starting sh!t, as usual.

Those greedy Billionnaires paid billions of dollars to lay fiber and light it up. They run a business not a charity. Get over it, you gotta pay to play.

 

[3D.]

Those greedy Billionnaires paid billions of dollars to lay fiber and light it up. They run a business not a charity. Get over it, you gotta pay to play.

Customers (like you and I) paid for those types of installations by creating wealth and capital for these companies to be able to produce such advancements in technology. These guys don’t reach into their pockets that easily.

When the pipes get expensive, we’ll all have to get over it!

The rich get richer, and the poor keep on working.

 

[LordOpie]

eh, just steal wireless from your neighbor

 

[3D.]

eh, just steal wireless from your neighbor

 

[BurlyShirley]

The reason I knit picked BS’s statement was because the dude is so quick to accuse me of spamming and getting it typed, that he wasn’t even aware of what he was writing.

So because I misspelled "quit" as "quite" and then pointed out numerous grammatical errors in your idiotic posts, Im the guy who doesnt know what he's talking about? Even though you freely admit to not being an expert on a subject, you try and convince people to take action for a point of view you can't support? That's pretty great right there

 

[BurlyShirley]

Customers (like you and I) paid for those types of installations by creating wealth and capital for these companies to be able to produce such advancements in technology. These guys don’t reach into their pockets that easily.

When the pipes get expensive, we’ll all have to get over it!

The rich get richer, and the poor keep on working.

Wait wait wait....this is the best part yet...you think sending them emails asking them NOT to charge you is "taking action?"

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHAHHAH!

Let me know how that turns out seriously

 

[3D.]

Yea Burlyshirley, voicing opinions has done nothing for our society…

It’s simple with you, someone posts something you don’t agree with, and you just bitch!

 

[Transcend]

Customers (like you and I) paid for those types of installations by creating wealth and capital for these companies to be able to produce such advancements in technology. These guys don’t reach into their pockets that easily.

When the pipes get expensive, we’ll all have to get over it!

The rich get richer, and the poor keep on working.

That's BS and you know it. You want performance, you pay for it. End of story. I already pay twice what most people do...why? Because I have 3 times the speed. Do I mind? Nope, I get guaranteed service speeds and am much happier for it.

You didn't create zilch. They are laying billions in fiber to set up faster networks to get these services into your home. They are lighting up fiber that has been dormant for the extra bandwidth needed. Do some reasearch, laying a foot of fiber and keeping it lit up isn't cheap. Neither is the bandwidth for the downstream users.

Why should Tier one networks (who own the fiber), allow downstream users to basically use it for free? Utter nonsense.

 

[3D.]

That's BS and you know it. You want performance, you pay for it. End of story. I already pay twice what most people do...why? Because I have 3 times the speed. Do I mind? Nope, I get guaranteed service speeds and am much happier for it.

You didn't create zilch. They are laying billions in fiber to set up faster networks to get these services into your home. They are lighting up fiber that has been dormant for the extra bandwidth needed. Do some reasearch, laying a foot of fiber and keeping it lit up isn't cheap. Neither is the bandwidth for the downstream users.

Why should Tier one networks (who own the fiber), allow downstream users to basically use it for free? Utter nonsense.

Fair enough, and well said. I still think you will suffer by the increased expense, especially if you’re already paying such a fee.

I think that the proliferation of fiber optics could be paid for by much larger entities than the current investing conglomerates, but I won’t touch that one right now.

Just remember that the Tier one guys accumulated their billions by the people spending their hard earned money on them. They don’t have a grove of money trees.

I’m just concerned that we’re going to be paying a lot more, with more restrictions. I agree, if you want performance, you have to pay, but it’s not that simple with this situation. Some companies will be partial to certain sites, obviously the ones paying top dollar (wealthy corporations). What if you want to hit RM and sit here and bullsh!t, but RM is not a preferred site by your provider, well off to the slow lane you go. Do you think sites like RM are going to be able to afford these increases, do you think your site will be able to afford these increases?

With all the money that this, and many other countries blow, on wasteful items… I just think there could be a better alternative than new charges to the public. The internet is such an important part of everyday life that it should be maintained like a public road. And, no, I don’t mean new taxes, I just mean allocating our funds better.

 

[Transcend]

Fair enough, and well said. I still think you will suffer by the increased expense, especially if you’re already paying such a fee.

I think that the proliferation of fiber optics could be paid for by much larger entities than the current investing conglomerates, but I won’t touch that one right now.

Just remember that the Tier one guys accumulated their billions by the people spending their hard earned money on them. They don’t have a grove of money trees.

I’m just concerned that we’re going to be paying a lot more, with more restrictions. I agree, if you want performance, you have to pay, but it’s not that simple with this situation. Some companies will be partial to certain sites, obviously the ones paying top dollar (wealthy corporations). What if you want to hit RM and sit here and bullsh!t, but RM is not a preferred site by your provider, well off to the slow lane you go. Do you think sites like RM are going to be able to afford these increases, do you think your site will be able to afford these increases?

With all the money that this, and many other countries blow, on wasteful items… I just think there could be a better alternative than new charges to the public. The internet is such an important part of everyday life that it should be maintained like a public road. And, no, I don’t mean new taxes, I just mean allocating our funds better.

You don't understand how it works. The sites themselves, will see no difference. There will be no "preferred sites". What the ISPS and large backbone CEOs are suggesting is a few ways to help alleviate some traffic, while making money they rightfully earned.

What they want to do is simple. They want to do a few things (highly simplified, but it is the basic idea):

1 - packet shaping / port blocking. You want to use VOIP for cheap long distance? That's great. VOIP wasn't around 2 years ago in large quantities. It is now, and it uses MAJOR amounts of bandwidth. Your ISP pays it's upstream suppliers on a per GB basis. They are now paying A TON more for bandwidth, as an end user you have barely seen a rate increase. Same goes for file sharing.

These ISPs will simply shape packets or block ports so that you cannot use these services without paying a fee to have it allowed, to help cover costs. Think of using a toll highway, same idea. You want less traffic and smoother roads, you pay the toll.

2 - The big wigs upstream want the guys downstream to pay if they aren't direct users. Right now your ISP pays it's main backbone suppliers (UUNET, BellNExxia etc).

After that, the major backbones route traffic through each others networks on a basically free basis. They have peering agreements that each others traffic travels free, as it's a 2 way street. That was fine and good when the internet became popular in the 90s. Small webpages, little email traffic, news groups etc.

Things have changes. Multimedia, spam, VOIP, broadband access etc all means that MUCH more traffic is travelling along these Tier 1 pipes. They now want to start charging for it.

Seriously, whether you think they have money growing on trees is irrelavant. Whether you and I will pay more is irrelavant. These guys aren't in business to make you and I happy. They are in business to make money and keep their shareholders happy. It isn't a friggin' charity.

The "internet" is therefore, practically privately owned. The pipes, the main name servers etc are all run by large coorporations (and sometimes universities). They are in the telcomm business to make money, not to provide a public service.

Will it cost me more? Maybe. But surprisingly, I support it. Why? Because it means my network speeds across the boards will go up. Heavy users paying extra fees will get guaranteed service. My VOIP calls won't get all funky, my file sharing will fly, and my linux ISOS will download without a hiccup. I am a VERY heavy user due to working online all day. I want fast speeds, no network problems and the like. I am not a happy camper when the network gets saturated and stuff goes slow because everyone and their mom is watching stupid 5mb videos they email to each other, or a major news story breaks and they are all calling each other on voip, or watching video highlights on cnn's website. It will also mean that ISPs will have to crack down on spammers. They are paying for every cent worth of viagra spam I get, they will learn to lock down their servers so that it can't happen. They may decide to charge heavy email users an extra fee. Spammers send 100 000s of emails at a single blast, so charge em a ton of extra $$$. It'll cut down on the spam sent.

 

[3D.]

No, I understand what’s going on here. But what if your ISP isn’t in contract with the sites you like to use the most (like RM), due to not being able to pay the big money for bandwidth. I don’t think your going to be able to just order it up “fast”, like a Dominos pizza or something. Maybe you can explain it better?

VOIP, I agree, is something that should see higher fees. Spammers, well the ISPs should charge the hell out of ‘em…

With all the supplemental funding requests for society’s needs… where is the one that would help eliminate the financial void these guys are claiming to have?

 

[Transcend]

No, I understand what’s going on here. But what if your ISP isn’t in contract with the sites you like to use the most (like RM), due to not being able to pay the big money for bandwidth. I don’t think your going to be able to just order it up “fast”, like a Dominos pizza or something. Maybe you can explain it better?

VOIP, I agree, is something that should see higher fees. Spammers, well the ISPs should charge the hell out of ‘em…

With all the supplemental funding requests for society’s needs… where is the one that would help eliminate the financial void these guys are claiming to have?

No, you still don't get it. Probably because of my crappy explanations. The ISPs are ALREADY paying for the bandwidth. They have no choice, no backbone means no business.

It is the tier 1 suppliers who are thinking of charging each other, and the tier 2/3 guys in the middle. The end user experience won't change. You may get a few extra milliseconds of latency if isp A is peered with tier 2 and 1 a and the target site tier 1 B. But you will find that both are peered with tier 1 c so they will simply bypass the networks they are not peered with. Does that make sense? The net is designed in a huge web of networks as redundancy basically. there is always more then one route to wher eyou need to get to. A and B don't need to be directly connected, as A can go through link C to D and then to B.

Basically some traffic may have to take a longer route, as not all avenues will be open. It won't be anything dramatic,a nd it just means that big chunks of money will switch back and forth - but in the long run it will maintain the status quo. company A pays company B 10 Million and vice versa. Lots of accounting, little profit.

The big difference will be in extra fees for extra services. You want Bittorrent, VOIP, file sharing and the like...you will pay more money and you isp will pay and so on.

This basically undermines the entire principle that the internet (arpanet) was created on, but it isn't a military network anymore and 18 redundant networks are not exactly the primary goal.

They don't have a financial void, they simply don't want to give their services away for free. Can't say that I blame 'em. I don't like giving my photos away for free either...

 

[H8R]

Every voice counts!

Riiiight.

I'm glad the myth keeps you comfy.

 

[3D.]

No, you still don't get it. Probably because of my crappy explanations. The ISPs are ALREADY paying for the bandwidth. They have no choice, no backbone means no business.

It is the tier 1 suppliers who are thinking of charging each other, and the tier 2/3 guys in the middle. The end user experience won't change. You may get a few extra milliseconds of latency if isp A is peered with tier 2 and 1 a and the target site tier 1 B. But you will find that both are peered with tier 1 c so they will simply bypass the networks they are not peered with. Does that make sense? The net is designed in a huge web of networks as redundancy basically. there is always more then one route to wher eyou need to get to. A and B don't need to be directly connected, as A can go through link C to D and then to B.

Basically some traffic may have to take a longer route, as not all avenues will be open. It won't be anything dramatic,a nd it just means that big chunks of money will switch back and forth - but in the long run it will maintain the status quo. company A pays company B 10 Million and vice versa. Lots of accounting, little profit.

The big difference will be in extra fees for extra services. You want Bittorrent, VOIP, file sharing and the like...you will pay more money and you isp will pay and so on.

This basically undermines the entire principle that the internet (arpanet) was created on, but it isn't a military network anymore and 18 redundant networks are not exactly the primary goal.

They don't have a financial void, they simply don't want to give their services away for free. Can't say that I blame 'em. I don't like giving my photos away for free either...

Understood, I’m still going to oppose the idea, just because people don’t need to be multi-billionaires, at some point you have to start, and continue, to give it back. It’s just the way things should balance. It would be one thing if these were hard working, small companies (like yours), out there digging the trenches with their bare hands while trying to put food on the table for their families, but they’re not. These guys already have so much money, they don’t know what to do with it. Capitalism can sometimes be like society’s cancer.

In this case, we have a really good thing going, once greed takes over who knows what the hell it will be.