Jun 10, 2006 06:17 am Damn...well, I can say that if HRC ends up having to pay ISP's to allow their customers to see it, it'll go offline...
Net Neutrality failed
Posted on Jun 09, 2006 11:48 pm
Loki
Cone Poker
Member Since: Apr 07, 2002
So they voted against net neutrality... news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6081882.html
[ Back to Top ]
Jun 10, 2006 06:17 am Damn...well, I can say that if HRC ends up having to pay ISP's to allow their customers to see it, it'll go offline...
Jun 10, 2006 07:09 am umm... I've never really understood the concern over this... I mean... you already pay your ISP in order for people to see HRC... over a network they own... it's not like they'll block anything... they may limit the throughput bandwidth... but they already do that.... But User dominated ISPs need to have access to content otherwise the users will go someplace else... even if one content site is hoging everything... I don't think an american ISP could survive if it blocked ebay or google.
If it for some reason gets bad I would forsee a wireless undernet... which is practically inplace as it is.
Jun 10, 2006 08:01 am no, but if amazon.com pays more than barnesandnoble.com, then users of that ISP could be literally forced to use amazon. They very well may block things look at the strangehold AOL put on their users for years, I am quiet sure big and powerful ISP's like AOL would take advantage of the situation again.
Jun 10, 2006 09:47 am well the stranglehold AOL had was made possible by it's customers being stupid :)
Sure it's the goal of business to squeeze every penny out of customers but self imposed limitations inspire competition to overcome those limiations.
the internet is basically just agreements between huge LAN's that allow them to access each other... it's not like it's "irreplaceable fuzzy goodness" :)
If a monopoly is created that makes placing content too expensive or too "hostile" then the content will simply go someplace else.
look at cable TV... first there was TV... free... then there were commercials... then cable TV came along and there were no commercials... now there's commercials again... but yo don't _need_ the scifi channel to watch reruns of Farscape... they're also on regular TV... or you can buy the DVDs... or a library probably has the DVDs... or you can probably rent the DVDs... but if you absolutly have to have the latest and greatist BattleStar Galactica... then you only get it on SciFi... for the moment...
If SciFi channels discovered it could charge more or go pay per view... then I bet fewer poeple would watch it... they'd go over to the History Channel... and if that cost too much then maybe they'd watch PBS...and if enough people watch PBS it's only be a matter of time before they had a ripoff of BattleStar Galactica that was probably better... and they'd play the origionals :)
Jun 10, 2006 12:16 pm Dan, HRC won't be the only site that goes offline, although it will be one of the best ones to go offline. This whole thing really disgusts me.
Jun 10, 2006 12:50 pm Well, I doubt much will come of it for many of the reasons zek stated, but just knowing it can happen kinda ticks me off...but, just like everything good, it's going to be commercialized and destroyed...I guess I should start looking into a new career soon...
Jun 10, 2006 01:26 pm explain the wireless undernet idea, someone, eh? i have been thinking about that, too...
Jun 10, 2006 03:21 pm How an Undernet would look depends a lot on the events that cause it to take shape. The way things are going I would asume it to be wireless because wireless networks are poppingup everywhere and there is no need to deal with burying cable...
In my overactive imagination:
in most major cities you can get free internet access simply because so many people don't secure wireless networks... some are legal though :) So, imagine having a server..and a private LAN ... add a wireless access point for $50 and anyone with in 300 yards can access that server... then notice that 300 yards is pretty big so it's likly that wireless LANs overlap (in columbus I can generally access 3 unsecured wireless LANs depending on the areas) ... add a peer to peer style interface... like a mix of bit-torrent and firehose and you could build a distributed network based on volunteerism that would look a lot like a chain link fence... if one node slows down or goes down the load could be shared by other nodes... much like a renderfarm.
essentially it operates very much like the internet does... just on smaller networks with no backbone routers.
would it be slower? heck yeah! but there's be no UUnet to turn off the switch. :)
should I patent this? :)
Jun 12, 2006 09:53 pm I'm gonna have to finish that tommorrow. Longer then I thought.
But it looks very interesting indeed.
Jun 13, 2006 10:18 am Is it just me, or does "wireless undernet" sound like some sort of new bra?
Jun 13, 2006 08:21 pm NO it isnt just you. I was envisioning Victoria's Secret when that was mentioned.
|
Related Forum Topics: |
If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.