1. Hey Guest, welcome back to DLP

    As you can see, we've changed our look. We've migrated from vBulletin to the Xenforo forum system. There may be issues or missing functionality, if you find anything or have feedback, please check out the new Xenforo Migration Feedback forum.

    Our dark ("Dark Lord Potter") theme is under heavy development. We also have a light ("Light Lord Potter") theme for those happier with a light background and darker text.

    Dismiss Notice

An Interesting Debate on Net Neutrality

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Giovanni, Jun 19, 2006.

  1. Giovanni

    Giovanni God of Scotch

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    8,324
    Location:
    Gilligan's Island
    This is a debate between Mike McCurry and Paul Misener.

    http://www.politicstv.com/blog/?p=261

    It's over an hour and a half long all said, but it is well worth watching.

    I wonder what your opinions are on the subject, but to me it looks like Paul Misener pwning the fuck out of Mike McCurry.
     
  2. Gorriller

    Gorriller First Year

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    44
    Location:
    Northern New Jersey
    I believe that the net should be neutral. But I also believe that the carriers should be able to charge extra for NEW features, like voice or video.
     
  3. Mercenary

    Mercenary Snake Eater

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,894
    Location:
    420blazitville
    Carriers should not impose charges on web users/masters based on bandwitdh space. They would be able to totally block out sites that dont pay them. Damn coporations another way to suck our money from us. IF that bill goes through theres going to be some major protests if not rioting.
     
  4. Gorriller

    Gorriller First Year

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    44
    Location:
    Northern New Jersey
    What the heck would the site pay a carrier for bandwidth that has already been paid for!

    See, it works like this:
    You pay your ISP (A) to carry your traffic from your computer to the next ISP (B).
    The next ISP (B) gets paid by your ISP for the connection between them,
    and so on to the core (C).

    The web site pays their hosting service or ISP to carry their traffic to the next ISP (D).
    That ISP (D), pays the next ISP(E) to carry all their traffic,etc.etc.
    Until the traffic reaches the core (C).

    At the core(C), the traffic retraces the trail of the other path, which is already paid for.

    Now, which carrier or ISP didn't get paid? Only the carrier or ISP that didn't carry any traffic for you or the web site.

    Why should the web site pay for the bandwidth to carry your traffic from the core to you? You already paid for it!

    JGT
    That
     
  5. Mercenary

    Mercenary Snake Eater

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,894
    Location:
    420blazitville
    Hmm I guess I didnt make it clear. Sorry about that. I meant it as in speed for example. Website A and Website B pay, lets say, $50 a month. But now the ISP wants more money and charges A and B an additional fee that is optional. Now A decides that it is willign to spend more money. B doesnt want to. Now A is able to be accessed faster than B even though they both have the same bandwitdh. I don't know much about sever-PC so if this is wrong just ignore it.
     
  6. Gorriller

    Gorriller First Year

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    44
    Location:
    Northern New Jersey
    No problem!

    I believe I see what you are trying to say. Just because A paid, B should not be punished. Correct?

    While it is possible to make one site faster to access than another site with the same bandwidth, it is much more difficult and expensive. It is just easier to have sites pay for the bandwidth they want.

    JGT
     
Loading...