Comments

• SghnDubh

  June 20, 2009, 03:22:54 pm

  
  

  Rear Admiral

  
  

  Reputation: 321

  

  
  

  

  Your rights to use the internet are under assault!
  
  Here's another example:
  
  http://www.pcworld.com/article/161978/isps_join_riaas_fight_against_piracy_is_your_isp_one_of_them.html
  
  If you say nothing, you'll lose everything.
• zjoekov

  June 24, 2009, 05:29:00 am

  
  

  Ensign

  
  

  Reputation: 7

  

  
  

  

  that's about the dumbest idea ever, that's like if they said lets all go back to 512mhz processors wen the first 1ghz processors were released.
  you limit the things computers can do as we can see now and with a bandwidth cap you limit the services that can be provided via internet, maybe not currently but for the future.
  I am not a US citizen, but this will have negative influences for the whole world if this is passed.
• Sparta

  June 27, 2009, 05:09:23 pm

  
  

  Member 5th Class

  
  

  Reputation: 0

  

  
  

  

  More control, more control, who needs individual liberty? Why congress knows best..........
  
  not
• TeckosPech

  July 01, 2009, 02:29:06 pm

  
  

  Petty Officer 2nd. Class

  
  

  Reputation: 0

  

  
  

  

  Heh, and another libertarian is born....
• ballgame

  July 14, 2009, 11:22:32 am

  
  

  Member 5th Class

  
  

  Reputation: 0

  

  
  

  

  I just moved back from Japan and had 100mp up and down fiber optic for 35 dollars a month and a static ip address.  we invented the flipping internet, and we're destroying it!  something like this will ruin the internet, we must prevent this.
• Ambrosious

  July 14, 2009, 03:17:14 pm

  
  

  Crewman Recruit

  
  

  Reputation: 0

  

  
  

  

  The best thing you can do is contact your local news company and tell them to do a story on it! If you can get it out to the general public it WILL NEVER HAPPEN... Do you think news companies want to have you paying more for their digital content? hell NO! The more it costs to go online the less the public will do it, and no were not at the point of no return on the internet... it can die as a world media source just as easy as it was created...
• masternerdguy

  July 19, 2009, 10:32:59 am

  
  

  Master Chief Petty Officer

  
  

  Reputation: 30

  

  
  

  

  supported, bandwith caps are the worst idea since the firewire port.
• watt

  July 21, 2009, 01:30:41 pm

  
  

  Member 5th Class

  
  

  Reputation: 0

  

  
  

  

  "Heh, and another libertarian is born.... "
  
  What? All the guy is saying is that they should stop bandwidth caps.
  
  Take this from a Canadian. Our big ISPs started introducing them a few years ago (early 2000s) without initially informing customers (myself included, I had a 500+ dollar bill one month). Once people found out, they promptly left for the smaller companies which have since exploded in terms of subscribers.
  
  It has nothing to do with liberals vs conservatives. Or are you actually in favor of slower, limited internet and less online freedoms? I never understood how right wing people can willingly stand by while their freedoms are stripped from them while gaining nothing in the process (what did you ever gain from the patriot act?). Then again, we don't have those problems in Canada.
• Trabber Shir

  July 22, 2009, 01:59:14 pm

  
  

  Ensign

  
  

  Reputation: 12

  

  
  

  

  Quote from: watt on July 21, 2009, 01:30:41 pm

  "Heh, and another libertarian is born.... "
  
  What? All the guy is saying is that they should stop bandwidth caps.
  
  Take this from a Canadian. Our big ISPs started introducing them a few years ago (early 2000s) without initially informing customers (myself included, I had a 500+ dollar bill one month). Once people found out, they promptly left for the smaller companies which have since exploded in terms of subscribers.
  
  It has nothing to do with liberals vs conservatives. Or are you actually in favor of slower, limited internet and less online freedoms? I never understood how right wing people can willingly stand by while their freedoms are stripped from them while gaining nothing in the process (what did you ever gain from the patriot act?). Then again, we don't have those problems in Canada.
  

  
  Libertarianism is against government meddling in general. TeckosPech either doesn't understand the topic at hand or doesn't understand what libertarian means. Libertarians are the guys with bunkers and guns saying "I dare you to try and search my place without a warrant and claim it is legal under the patriot act." So your comment about right wing and patriot act indicates you don't understand what libertarian is either.
  
  To clarify the topic, the proposal is that the government step in and regulate the internet access market in order to stop private industry from raising prices to the optimal profit level (price gouging is what it is called by the supporters of the bill). This is something a pure libertarian would be diametrically opposed to.
  
  That said, the U.S. has infrastructure reasons that this may be reasonable.
  
  In many countries of the world (including Canada), government effectively owns (or at least completely controls) all the 'public' infrastructure like electric lines, cable lines, and fiber lines. The private industry then just steps in and manages part of the logistics. Under this system you can keep the same physical connection to the power grid and get a different power provider, or keep the same physical connection to the local 'backbone' node and get a new broadband provider. It does not work that way in large parts of the United States (perhaps most of the U.S.).
  
  In the U.S. the utility actually owns and controls the physical medium used for transmission, usually paying rent to the government for use of the municipally owned land where the medium is located. This means that since Comcast is the only broadband provider with infrastructure that connects to my property, getting a different broadband provider would require a significant investment in laying new cables and acquiring the rights to lay those cables so that I can attach to a different physical 'backbone' node owned by the new company. Realistically, if i wanted to get away from Comcast I would have the choices of dial-up (slow), satellite (expensive and barely faster than dial-up), or physically relocate my home (very very expensive).
  
  Because of this, in the U.S. it won't be "they promptly left for the smaller companies". Because, there is no means to promptly switch providers. The existing companies have a virtual monopoly and in some cases a very real monopoly (other companies can't get rights to lay cables) over their geographic area.
  
  This proposal is a knee jerk reaction that I can not support because when governments in the U.S. have attempted solutions of this sort in the past it has always backfired, usually by making a dis-insensitive for development and causing a real scarcity a few years down the road. The only real solution to this issue in the long haul will be to make the infrastructure non-private, as most states have finally done for the electric system. And like the electric system this is going to need to be solved on a state by state basis, KEEP THE FEDS OUT.
• Kristrina

  July 25, 2009, 08:02:47 pm

  
  

  Member 5th Class

  
  

  Reputation: 0

  

  
  

  

  Living in Australia, all i can say is STOP COMPLAINING.
  
  Compared to what you guys have to pay for speeds atleast 4-5x faster with atleast a 20x higher cap compared to us is rediculas, for Bigpond Austrlia for example, service is horrible, speed drops dramatically whenever something MINOR happens, and it costs $99/month AUS for a broadband plan where the speeds are already low the moment your 10 metres away from an exchange in anywhere but a major or capital city, with a 25 Gigabyte cap that charges both downloads AND UPLOADS. Mabye you will have to control your internet a little, and until the government somehow drops your internet down to the standards we have in australia, i dont think you really have a right to complain about this.
• Trabber Shir

  July 25, 2009, 08:24:34 pm

  
  

  Ensign

  
  

  Reputation: 12

  

  
  

  

  They're not complaining about what the government is doing.
  
  They are complaining about what the private sector is doing and asking the government to intervene on behalf of the consumer.
• Mandarb

  July 27, 2009, 03:29:23 pm

  
  

  Member 5th Class

  
  

  Reputation: 0

  

  
  

  

  Oh yes Kristrina, it's like saying "Hey, shut up, if you're not happy, go and live in Africa". Do you think countries "evolved" their laws etc and advanced by pointing fingers everywhere pointing out "they have it worse than us, no need for us to change anything". It's happening a lot now, but hey, it's in the name of saving money and lowering taxes, so it actually is all for the betterment of you, the average citizen... :rolleyes:
  
  But never fear. We here in Switzerland like to complain about the situation in America, but each new law passed gets us more on track to a situation like there.
  
  Our most famous party, the SVP (black sheep and raven campaigns anyone, went around the world) likes to complain about "school is getting worse because we have too many foreign students, and our Swiss students have a worse education because of that!". Oh well, who was it that got the tax reduction through (we need to attract more rich people), at which point the max size of a class was raised from 20 to 25 students? Noooo, not the SVP. Or, "all the black people are drug dealers, no more asylum-seekers!". Well, who again got the law passed that they are not allowed to work legally? Frankly, I'd too go sell weed because sitting in the park waiting for costumers and making money off of it is about 100 times better than sitting in a barrack or bunker (make the conditions worse so they don't want to come to us) with 5 swiss francs per day and nothing to do.
  
  But then again, ignorance is bliss, isn't it?
  
  Well, actually, the point I wanted to make is: they are currently discussing to open up "the last mile", the telephone infrastructure to the individual houses, as it is currently still owned by Swisscom, the former state telecommunication company, now privatised. All other phone companies need to rent the infastructure from them, and they accuse Swisscom of price gauging. The parliament wants to change that now per law, and, truthfully, I don't have much faith in them changing the law for good, since lately they like to vote in favour of private corporations. All hail money! It's not like we can see the effects of it in other countries. Horseblinds are a nice thing, you only get to see the shiny stuff ahead without the need to look at all the dead left and right from the road. So, as said, we might well end up with a situation as it is in the US.
• 23gabe

  July 27, 2009, 03:32:24 pm

  
  

  Commodore

  
  

  Reputation: 481

  

  
  

  

  Stop asking questions loyal pawns!
  
  Our Glorious leaders will lead us on the path to freedom!
• hardBoiled

  July 27, 2009, 06:09:31 pm

  
  

  Member 5th Class

  
  

  Reputation: 0

  

  
  

  

  funny how the problem is so clearly pointed out "monopoly", as in "illegal". but then the asnswer instead of enforcing the law, is another monopoly "government monopoly" as in "illegal". and people swallow this crap every day.
  
  its all about cause and effect, create a problem, (let the big companies have a monopoly and do not enforce the law) then present YOU'R solution, (..we can take it over and protect u from the big bad companies (and all the other companies that would have offered u a better deal) if u want us to, just sign here, and initial there...)
  its is called "the hegelian dialectic"
  
  ..btw im talkin USA constitution here, for us in europe goverment monopoly is not illegal at all, its called "socialism". and the rights we have are only privileges that our government gives us and can take away at will. those lucky bastards over seas happen to have unalianable godgiven rights, but are too stupid to know it. ..that under the USA constitution socialism is illegal.
• 23gabe

  July 27, 2009, 06:29:18 pm

  
  

  Commodore

  
  

  Reputation: 481

  

  
  

  

  this sums it up

  
   stop_asking_questions.jpg (50.79 kB, 301x400 - viewed 357 times.)
  
• Trabber Shir

  July 27, 2009, 08:06:14 pm

  
  

  Ensign

  
  

  Reputation: 12

  

  
  

  

  Quote from: hardBoiled on July 27, 2009, 06:09:31 pm

  funny how the problem is so clearly pointed out "monopoly", as in "illegal". but then the asnswer instead of enforcing the law, is another monopoly "government monopoly" as in "illegal". and people swallow this crap every day.
  
  its all about cause and effect, create a problem, (let the big companies have a monopoly and do not enforce the law) then present YOU'R solution, (..we can take it over and protect u from the big bad companies (and all the other companies that would have offered u a better deal) if u want us to, just sign here, and initial there...)
  its is called "the hegelian dialectic"
  
  ..btw im talkin USA constitution here, for us in europe goverment monopoly is not illegal at all, its called "socialism". and the rights we have are only privileges that our government gives us and can take away at will. those lucky bastards over seas happen to have unalianable godgiven rights, but are too stupid to know it. ..that under the USA constitution socialism is illegal.
  

  The neither U.S. Constitution nor any of its amendments say anything about monopolies. The power to govern monopolies is granted to the federal government by the power to regulate interstate commerce. The anti-trust laws you are thinking about are based on that power and are far less stringent than you seem to think. As federal commerce laws they can only regulate monopolies if their existence affects more than one state.
  
  An individual state government can be socialist if the electorate so desires without any constitutional conflict. There are very few powers forbidden the states.
  
  Full socialism on a U.S. national scale luckily cannot be justified as "necessary and proper" (read useful in modern interpretation) to fulfill the duties of the federal government outlined in the constitution, thus it can not be done as per the 10th amendment to the U.S. constitution.
  
  Individual policies that are socialist in nature can legally exist as there is no restriction on them so long as they directly affect interstate commerce or are useful in performing the federal governments other duties. Internet access in the modern world, unquestionably affects interstate commerce. I would like to see the feds leave this to the sate, but they do not constitutionally have to.
  
  It may be against the intent of the founders, but the founders forgot to say that.
  
  It may be stupid, but the electorate includes the stupidest of the stupid and it sounds good to them.
• Trabber Shir

  July 27, 2009, 08:10:48 pm

  
  

  Ensign

  
  

  Reputation: 12

  

  
  

  

  Gabe, I am guessing that picture with the red white and blue with stripes as stars on the cuff is supposed to be a reference to the US?
  
  There is no "Ministry of Homeland Security", there is a "Department of Homeland Security". Check your fine print before it makes you look bad.
• 23gabe

  July 28, 2009, 08:08:08 pm

  
  

  Commodore

  
  

  Reputation: 481

  

  
  

  

  yes of course there is no ministry of homeland security, this is what's called "satire"
  but there is a department of homeland security
• Okami58

  August 24, 2009, 01:28:42 am

  
  

  Member 5th Class

  
  

  Reputation: 0

  

  
  

  

  Quote from: hardBoiled on July 27, 2009, 06:09:31 pm

  funny how the problem is so clearly pointed out "monopoly", as in "illegal". but then the asnswer instead of enforcing the law, is another monopoly "government monopoly" as in "illegal". and people swallow this crap every day.
  
  its all about cause and effect, create a problem, (let the big companies have a monopoly and do not enforce the law) then present YOU'R solution, (..we can take it over and protect u from the big bad companies (and all the other companies that would have offered u a better deal) if u want us to, just sign here, and initial there...)
  its is called "the hegelian dialectic"
  
  ..btw im talkin USA constitution here, for us in europe goverment monopoly is not illegal at all, its called "socialism". and the rights we have are only privileges that our government gives us and can take away at will. those lucky bastards over seas happen to have unalianable godgiven rights, but are too stupid to know it. ..that under the USA constitution socialism is illegal.
  

  
  
  I need to get my facts completely straight before I make any absolute conclusions - that said, I find this whole situation as having "coincidentally" great timing.
  
  This seems to me like a disguised land grab of sorts. Allow me to state the obvious - we are having problems economically in the US on all levels. Benefits are being cut into on a state level (like benefits for teachers for example), federal bail-outs of the big two-and-a-half, banks tanking. Everyone is suddenly hustling just to put food on the table it seems.
  
  With everyone looking for new lines of income to cover rent (not to mention to also still cover that golden parachute), this makes perfect sense. Why enforce current legislation or define new legislation on monopolies specifically, encouraging competition and alleviating high prices that way when you can skim off the top?? If not take the whole damn thing for yourself.....
  
  Not that they would get all the money but, in my mind, control  means basically "now we get a percentage". Even if prices are cut by hitting TimeWarner's or Comcast's profits and passing real  savings to the consumer, everyone would then be too happy to notice Uncle Sam just jacked another one.  Hell, once they are in place, they could even start to ease prices back up if they really wanted to (or at least find a way to increase their percentage).
  
  I don't want to sound too conspiracy-theorist, always mistrusting our elected elite (ok, that's a lie, yeah I do - QUESTION AUTHORITY !!) Like I said I need to do more research and get my facts straight before drawing definite conclusions. It's just that it ALL makes cents, just like in EVE actually. 
  
  It doesn't matter if the world is real or virtual. It doesn't matter what country you come from and what name you give to your currency. ISK, USD, EUROS, Yen, Pesos, Wulongs it doesn't matter.
  
  It just makes the world go 'round. Not God or the Devil, not love or hate. Just cash. (Gradually fade in Pink Floyd's "Money")
  
  Ok <dusting off soap box, placing it back in my closet> I'm good......back to my noob piloting
  
• Commodore Nomura

  August 27, 2009, 10:43:52 am

  
  

  Member 5th Class

  
  

  Reputation: 0

  

  
  

  

  wow.... im in the army just point me at somone i can shot. As i see it we are going to hell in a hand basket and theres nothing we can do about so :censored: it. Think the uni bomber had the right idea.
• MaraRinn

  September 11, 2009, 06:32:53 pm

  
  

  Member 5th Class

  
  

  Reputation: 0

  

  
  

  

  Bandwidth caps is a misnomer - what you will be getting is utilisation caps, which when exceeded will lead to either your traffic being shaped (still over the same speed cable, just slower data rate), or your traffic being charged at some rate per gigabyte.
  
  Quotas are a good thing, since the people who use the service the most will pay the most and those of us who are happy with 10GB a month of traffic won't be subsidising the folks clogging up the network with 500GB a month of traffic.
  
  Of course, none of this will help at all while the people who control the infrastructure are the same one providing the retail services to access the infrastructure.
  
• rosengj

  September 15, 2009, 03:01:02 pm

  
  

  Member 5th Class

  
  

  Reputation: 0

  

  
  

  

  Uh, guys... lets take a deep breath and think for a minute.  In a capitalist society, where the masses of people spend their money is the real vote.  While you may think that the government decides these things, the  fact is that corporations give large sums to Congress to gain advantages.
  
  Call your ISP and ask if they charge for "excess bandwidth" and if so, how much. 
  
  Next, tell them that you are going to their competition who has less restrictive policies.
  
  If they brag their speeds, remind them that a high speed at a high price is not economical and you are considering cancelling your service and going with DSL or satellite services...
  
  Your patronage is your vote!
  
  Quit paaying the bills!
• atoninothemighty

  September 20, 2009, 08:13:44 am

  
  

  Member

  
  

  Reputation: 1

  

  
  

  

  The US already pays a hell of a lot more than the rest of the world, i'll be damned if all the services get a bandwith cap.
• Lateris

  October 04, 2009, 07:42:39 pm

  
  

  Member 5th Class

  
  

  Reputation: 0

  

  
  

  

  The private sector is always trying to make a profit at the expense of the American people. That is why so many jobs are no longer on US soil. They have gouged the Yanks for all their blood. Funny thing is that Cox cable is looking to up their bandwidth. They have a proven market share because they do not cap like the rest of these crooks do. I wonder when the Yanks are going to really get fed up with their corporations and take their country back...
• 23gabe

  October 05, 2009, 01:17:15 pm

  
  

  Commodore

  
  

  Reputation: 481

  

  
  

  

  most of us are to lazy for any sort of "taking our country back" action. Sadly it just will never happen, sure we will get fed up with all of it, but change here is gradual, which disguises it. Hell, if you live in the US hasn't everyone basically forgotten about the war in Iraq. (Not everyone mind you, just as an example). 
• MrCue

  October 05, 2009, 01:20:11 pm

  
  

  Vice Admiral

  
  

  Reputation: 380

  

  
  

  

  In the age of the internet, there is no good reason to have a government for anything other than the need to address problems that require immediate attention.
  
  For everything else, there should be a public, internet vote.
  
  Governments were a way to represent the peoples wishes, in a time when it was impractical to get the vote of the majority of people on something, that time is over.
  Governments don't seem to represent the people any more, they represent big businesses, the more they pay, the better they lobby.
• 23gabe

  October 05, 2009, 01:21:36 pm

  
  

  Commodore

  
  

  Reputation: 481

  

  
  

  

  Quote from: MrCue on October 05, 2009, 01:20:11 pm

  In the age of the internet, there is no good reason to have a government for anything other than the need to address problems that require immediate attention.
  
  For everything else, there should be a public, internet vote.
  
  Governments were a way to represent the peoples wishes, in a time when it was impractical to get the vote of the majority of people on something, that time is over.
  Governments don't seem to represent the people any more, they represent big businesses, the more they pay, the better they lobby.
  

  thank you. 
• Trabber Shir

  October 05, 2009, 05:04:05 pm

  
  

  Ensign

  
  

  Reputation: 12

  

  
  

  

  Quote from: MrCue on October 05, 2009, 01:20:11 pm

  For everything else, there should be a public, internet vote.
  

  A an atheist in central Texas, I cannot approve of mob rule, I mean, direct democracy.
  
  Centralized government usually has the unintended benefit of protecting unpopular minorities. I live in one of those good christian areas where if it could be done by a popular vote, there would be a law against being gay with penalty of castration.
• MrCue

  October 05, 2009, 05:14:40 pm

  
  

  Vice Admiral

  
  

  Reputation: 380

  

  
  

  

  Quote

  A an atheist in central Texas, I cannot approve of mob rule, I mean, direct democracy.
  

  Is this because of the local/state/federal nonsense?
  
  When im talking about voting on the internet, i am of course referring to federal in the case of America.
  
  

  Quote

  if it could be done by a popular vote, there would be a law against being gay with penalty of castration.
  

  If that were the feelings of the majority of the US population, then perhaps the law should reflect that?
  Otherwise, its not really representation of the public, if you do the exact opposite.
  
• 23gabe

  October 06, 2009, 12:02:24 pm

  
  

  Commodore

  
  

  Reputation: 481

  

  
  

  

  Quote from: MrCue on October 05, 2009, 05:14:40 pm

  
  

  Quote

  if it could be done by a popular vote, there would be a law against being gay with penalty of castration.
  

  If that were the feelings of the majority of the US population, then perhaps the law should reflect that?
  Otherwise, its not really representation of the public, if you do the exact opposite.
  

  Yes if it were an actual democracy popular vote would do something.