'Net Neutrality
01-07-2011, 11:15 AM
#11
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
My understanding is net neutraility, is primarily content based. Yes the bandwidth above is involved, but that seems to come from people who are 100% techno-clueless.
Some ISP's will bloke certain stuff. That's one aspect, in my view, if they are private companies, they can block access to whatever they want, you don't like it as a customer, complain and go elsewhere.
There's also the fraction that says government should provide "ratings" to the web content, like movies. TONS of issues with this, not the least of which is web content is replicated world wide and you can't really control it without closing the borders which removes US from the WORLD part of WWW.
There's a huge market in things like parental filters that you can buy and install to filter content. Most web sites also have a rating/classification on them, though not all and not 100% reliable.
It's more "protect people from bad things" pushes that some say the government should do.
Some ISP's will bloke certain stuff. That's one aspect, in my view, if they are private companies, they can block access to whatever they want, you don't like it as a customer, complain and go elsewhere.
There's also the fraction that says government should provide "ratings" to the web content, like movies. TONS of issues with this, not the least of which is web content is replicated world wide and you can't really control it without closing the borders which removes US from the WORLD part of WWW.
There's a huge market in things like parental filters that you can buy and install to filter content. Most web sites also have a rating/classification on them, though not all and not 100% reliable.
It's more "protect people from bad things" pushes that some say the government should do.
that protection crap is just that...a 'nanny mentality'...if the cops are 20 minutes away when the mutants crash your front door, you are your own first line of defense if you have the means to defend yourself...I consider this my method for 'net secrurity as well (antivirus, anti-malware, anti-key=loggers, antispam, firewalls, etc etc etc.....).
01-07-2011, 11:17 AM
#12
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
that's not true believe it or not. You only have your speed 100% back to the DSLAM (providing equipment for dsl) behind the DSLAM is the pipe taking you into the network and that is shared. The 1 gig service is something I may know via insider information. So I have to keep that to myself for now. However, you're in NJ and I bet you will be within the serving area. It's coming soon is all I can say.
01-07-2011, 11:20 AM
#13
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
Here's pretty much what we were talking about, speed-wise.....
http://dvice.com/archives/2010/09/want-the-fastes.php
the fastest will cost the mostest....$350/month....u get whut u pay 4....heheehhe
http://dvice.com/archives/2010/09/want-the-fastes.php
the fastest will cost the mostest....$350/month....u get whut u pay 4....heheehhe
01-08-2011, 12:01 AM
#15
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
well, I did not know it either and as it developed I checked things out and it's kind of a big issue....while I detest government interference in just about anything, the same sort of 'interference' is being presented by private carriers in regards to material they consider objectionable, competitive, or otherwise not up to their particular standards whatever they may be. I think at this point I support a 100% neutrality policy for ANY entity supplying access to the internet on a contract basis. While FM's opinion is completely valid, (in letting the customer base determine which suppliers live and die based on their own policies), I believe that it is 'fringe' or 'niche' points of view that need protection from these carriers and don't see how a small segment of customer base can control the policies extended to the majority. "Churn" is an accepted part of any such business and they plan for it so I don't believe the tail can wag the dog in this case. The slippery slope here, is that even if government regulation is simply stated, i.e. "There Shall be NO bias in presenting materials to subscribers of internet services", it would represent a precedent which, if it 'passes muster', would serve as the basis for all sorts of OTHER government regulations on internet access. I guess the BEST approach would be for subscribers to find the HOMEs of the OWNERs of these corporations and noisily, voiciferously, and belligerently protest a company's policy in limiting subscribers' access to certain materials. Outside of that, FM is correct...pull up stakes and subscribe to another 'friendlier' service...that is, of course, if you have the ability to do so...I for one cannot...there's only 1 provider out here in the boonies, and 1 provider only....
