Welcome to Crestfall Gaming

Register now to Crestfall Gaming. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ClawzTheMeow

Net Neutrality

48 posts in this topic
29 minutes ago, Lilaina said:

Things like anti-abortion legislation, discrimination, casual racism, sexism, and enthusiasm to cut support from the poor just so the wealthiest 1% are better off

Abortion is an active philosophical moral topic, not just because of politics but for it's complexity. There is bound to be two sides on this topic for a long time.

Discrimination is too general of a claim. You discriminate every time you make a choice. For example: If you need to hire someone, then you have to discriminate between the applicants.

Either it's not racism or it's plain racism. It's Boolean.

You mean grab em by the pussy? Don't you ever banter with your mates? I don't do it personally. It's not like only men objectify women and not the other way around.

Take less from the most productive people in society? Isn't that the premise of Robin Hood? Then we also have stuff like this: 

 

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

.

Edited by JCarrill0
Removed post
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lilaina said:

 

I don't really care if it's elitism or condescension or what but I consider the values that Trump and many (but not all) Republicans promote to be disgusting and think that they have no place in the 21st century. Things like anti-abortion legislation, discrimination, casual racism, sexism, and enthusiasm to cut support from the poor just so the wealthiest 1% are better off...

(To borrow slightly from a famous quote)

The greatest trick a political party ever pulled, was convincing the world that those things mentioned there, are a political problem, and not a human problem.

And just so you know, I'm not a republican. I have loved ones who swear by both parties, and their character isn't defined by the political party they associate with. In my limited experience, the vast majority of ppl I've run into pick thier party based solely on how they feel the government should be run, not because they've decided woman are inferior. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, Lilaina said:

@Veritch

Agree with most of the stuff you wrote, Obama's half measures in Syria especially.

I don't really care if it's elitism or condescension or what but I consider the values that Trump and many (but not all) Republicans promote to be disgusting and think that they have no place in the 21st century. Things like anti-abortion legislation, discrimination, casual racism, sexism, and enthusiasm to cut support from the poor just so the wealthiest 1% are better off are all things that they promote either directly or indirectly and have no place in today's society as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure Obama was a politician first but actions are what count and he was against all of the above in practice and therefore he has my respect. If I insult someone who thinks otherwise, I don't care, because supporting those values, if you can call them that, is far more insulting to those that are trampled by them than me voicing my opinion could ever be.

Anti- Abortion:  Just like mentioned above, this is a philosophical issue.  I have yet to meet someone who is pro-abortion that takes pleasure in hurting the fetus/baby inside and I have yet to meet someone who is anti-abortion who just wants to control women and exert influence over them.  In fact, a huge number of anti-abortion advocates are women.  Of course, if a man says he is against abortion, the first thing you hear is a bunch of sexist women calling the man a misogynist because he has an opinion.  On the other end, you have people calling those seeking an abortion a murderer when the circumstances surrounding the situation are not known and is just as ignorant. 

Casual Racism:  I don't even know what you are talking about.  Chances are you don't either.  It just sounds like one of those things people say but don't know what they are saying.  Please give me a couple examples of what casual racism is...I just can't wrap my head around this one.  What I know for sure thought is that labeling a bunch of people who voted republican (but not all, lol wtf) racist is an idiotic, generalization.  News flash, some brown people are racist too just like some white people.  There is racism on both political sides.

Discrimination:  Again, I have no idea what you are talking about.  You discriminated when you voted for one side of the other. You discriminated when you bought your toothpaste last week.  You discriminated when you chose steak over fish. I can only gather this is another racist anti-white person thing. Again, please give examples.

Enthusiasm to cut support from the poor just so the wealthiest 1% are better off:  Incidentally, Jordan Peterson speaks on this topic as well. But first off, I don't see people get enthusiastic about this.  Your beliefs in how these things should work are yours.  Both sides have positives and negatives.  There are places for social programs and places where social programs should not go.  The question is how much should you give?  Who gets it?  Why do they get it?  I don't believe that just because someone breathes they are entitled to someone else's money. I also don't believe that people shouldn't have a safety net in society to get through difficult times.  I don't think people are entitled to free shit just because they are alive.  Everyone has an Uncle Eddie right?  He's cool, funny, nice to be around, but the fucker is lazy as shit and doesn't deserve a damn thing just for breathing.  He needs to earn it.  It always amazes me how easy it is for people to give away money, as long as it is other people's.

Bottom line Lilaina, calling people racist, sexist etc.etc.etc. telling them they have no place in society yadda yadda yadda just makes you look intolerant, judgemental, and to be honest, makes you look unintelligent.  I'm sorry, I don't know how else to say it. Unintelligent people deal with absolutes because they don't have the mental capacity to understand other people's points of view and usually they can't explain their own so they resort to words like racists and sexists as blanket statements to vent frustration about things they don't understand. I'm not saying you aren't bright, I don't know you, but what I'm saying is you haven't given anyone any reason in this thread to think you are.  Basically what I have heard you say is that people who don't hold your values are probably a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe who hates women and poor people and have no place in modern society.  Those aren't the signs of an intelligent person. 

Edited by Veritch
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ugondiss said:

(To borrow slightly from a famous quote)

The greatest trick a political party ever pulled, was convincing the world that those things mentioned there, are a political problem, and not a human problem.

And just so you know, I'm not a republican. I have loved ones who swear by both parties, and their character isn't defined by the political party they associate with. In my limited experience, the vast majority of ppl I've run into pick thier party based solely on how they feel the government should be run, not because they've decided woman are inferior. 

The Usual Suspects reference, yay!

 

7 hours ago, Veritch said:

Bottom line Lilaina, calling people racist, sexist etc.etc.etc. telling them they have no place in society yadda yadda yadda just makes you look intolerant, judgemental, and to be honest, makes you look unintelligent.  I'm sorry, I don't know how else to say it. Unintelligent people deal with absolutes because they don't have the mental capacity to understand other people's points of view and usually they can't explain their own so they resort to words like racists and sexists as blanket statements to vent frustration about things they don't understand. I'm not saying you aren't bright, I don't know you, but what I'm saying is you haven't given anyone any reason in this thread to think you are.  Basically what I have heard you say is that people who don't hold your values are probably a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe who hates women and poor people and have no place in modern society.  Those aren't the signs of an intelligent person. 

I was only referring to Trump and Republican politicians, not everyone who votes them. Probably should have worded that better. People who vote these people obviously have other reasons for doing so and I don't judge them because of it. People who are racist and sexist, such as Trump and a vocal part of his supporters, should be called out on it however.

7 hours ago, Veritch said:

Casual Racism:  I don't even know what you are talking about.  Chances are you don't either.  It just sounds like one of those things people say but don't know what they are saying.  Please give me a couple examples of what casual racism is...I just can't wrap my head around this one.  What I know for sure thought is that labeling a bunch of people who voted republican (but not all, lol wtf) racist is an idiotic, generalization.  News flash, some brown people are racist too just like some white people.  There is racism on both political sides.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/roanna-carletontaylor/casual-racism-is-not-bant_b_14728294.html

https://itstopswithme.humanrights.gov.au/what-can-you-do/speak/casual-racism

7 hours ago, Veritch said:

Discrimination:  Again, I have no idea what you are talking about.  You discriminated when you voted for one side of the other. You discriminated when you bought your toothpaste last week.  You discriminated when you chose steak over fish. I can only gather this is another racist anti-white person thing. Again, please give examples.

Travel ban. The wall. Stop-and-frisk. Republican's anti-LGBT stance on everything.

 

7 hours ago, Veritch said:

Enthusiasm to cut support from the poor just so the wealthiest 1% are better off:  Incidentally, Jordan Peterson speaks on this topic as well. But first off, I don't see people get enthusiastic about this.  Your beliefs in how these things should work are yours.  Both sides have positives and negatives.

The Republican healthcare plan. Paul Ryan and co. are so excited about this. It will affect those who need medical aid the most while those who make a lot of money will be taxed significantly less.

As for the abortion matter, there are some solid sounding arguments on the pro-life side but they have been refuted by doctors. It mostly comes down to religious people trying to force their rules on society and others taking offense on something that is none of their business. The only person with any say on what to do with ones body is the person itself (bar mental health issues ofc). Not a discussion that should be relevant today.

...

For the angry people who chose to insult me with throwaway accounts:

http://ragegenerator.com/images/ragebuilder-faces/Popular/you-dont-say.png

 
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ugondiss said:

And now we're on the fast road to lock-out town. 

Look what you did @ClawzTheMeow...

Lord please save us from this road we're taking to hell !
I summon you master of all pokemons to close this thread @Elicas

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lilaina said:

People who are racist and sexist, such as Trump and a vocal part of his supporters, should be called out on it however.

Sure call them out. You are referring to the alt-right who support Trump simply through pragmatism. Trump was the closest to their viewpoints, even though he wasn't very close at all. When you do call them out, they will dismiss your label, and instead argue the semantics and legitimacy of race-realism vs. racism and of psychological and physical differences between the sexes. As would I.

7 hours ago, Lilaina said:

Travel ban. The wall. Stop-and-frisk. Republican's anti-LGBT stance on everything.

After a number of terrorist attacks in Europe, doesn't it seem like a wise choice? BTW, Obama wrote the ban list, Trump only implemented it.

You mean like, no trans women in womens bathrooms? Have fun with the peeping toms with newly reassigned legal genders.

7 hours ago, Lilaina said:

The Republican healthcare plan. Paul Ryan and co. are so excited about this. It will affect those who need medical aid the most while those who make a lot of money will be taxed significantly less.

 

7 hours ago, Lilaina said:

As for the abortion matter, there are some solid sounding arguments on the pro-life side but they have been refuted by doctors. 

We both said it's a philosophical debate, not a medical one.

7 hours ago, Lilaina said:

For the angry people who chose to insult me with throwaway accounts:

http://ragegenerator.com/images/ragebuilder-faces/Popular/you-dont-say.png

Did the thread get moderated, or are you referring to me? Not sure where I insulted your person if that is the case.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been summoned. Tremble mortals, Ph'nglui mglw'nath Elicas R'yleh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

Just caught up on all of this.

1: You're wildly off topic, if you want to talk politics take it to a relevant thread.

However;

2: There has been no insulting or flaming, no reports of any content in this thread and everyone is being behaved. I see no reason to lock the thread or assign any sanctions of any kind.

Get back to discussing net neutrality. Good job acting like mature adults.

Specifically for @Lilaina but it goes for everyone - if someone makes throwaway accounts to send you shit - please report it! We track IP's and as one person found out recently, a forum IP ban on one account will affect all accounts from said IP. Don't create alt accounts to troll with. If your main account also gets banned it's tough shit.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to wonder just how people are going to react if the removal of net neutrality actually comes to pass. I'm expecting at least one riot.

Pardon my negativity but it seems we're quite fucked if the only thing we can do is toss around e-mails. I'm pretty sure this "solution" is just as, if not more, useless than petitions. If the people behind this idea cared about what we have to say they wouldn't have suggested this in the first place. What? Do people actually think those higher-ups didn't know we wouldn't like this? Calling them stupid is really just a way to rationalize what they do. It's a lot easier to imagine someone as a complete idiot than a blood sucking leech that would do anything to his fellow man just so he can get some extra money in his pocket.

But enough of that. I'm likely missing a lot of information on the subject and thus am probably wrong. I'm actually interested in how this will affect us here on CF, if at all and if it happens.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, VeloxBanks said:

I have to wonder just how people are going to react if the removal of net neutrality actually comes to pass. I'm expecting at least one riot.

Pardon my negativity but it seems we're quite fucked if the only thing we can do is toss around e-mails. I'm pretty sure this "solution" is just as, if not more, useless than petitions. If the people behind this idea cared about what we have to say they wouldn't have suggested this in the first place. What? Do people actually think those higher-ups didn't know we wouldn't like this? Calling them stupid is really just a way to rationalize what they do. It's a lot easier to imagine someone as a complete idiot than a blood sucking leech that would do anything to his fellow man just so he can get some extra money in his pocket.

But enough of that. I'm likely missing a lot of information on the subject and thus am probably wrong. I'm actually interested in how this will affect us here on CF, if at all and if it happens.

I'm just happy Europe doesn't have so many complications around the interwebz, sure they censor some websites that pirate stuff but besides that its golden

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ups1dedomn said:

Did the thread get moderated, or are you referring to me? Not sure where I insulted your person if that is the case.

No, not you or anyone else who posted in this thread.

3 hours ago, Elicas said:

I have been summoned. Tremble mortals, Ph'nglui mglw'nath E'likus R'yleh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

FTFY

1 hour ago, ClawzTheMeow said:

I'm just happy Europe doesn't have so many complications around the interwebz, sure they censor some websites that pirate stuff but besides that its golden

I guess so but having a significantly smaller amount of content in Netflix compared to Americans is pretty infuriating. :P Also, this whole thing could probably affect rest of the world too maybe?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well i don't really use Netflix, u can get everything in the internet anyway =D

I don't think so, that 's only something that affects America cus its something their government is voting

Edited by ClawzTheMeow
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There are people who, no matter what, will take the side of a point of contention that their political affiliations tell them to take.  But, a democracy was made for an informed citizenry to determine their own fates in the world.  I don’t come to the CF forums to discuss politics and I generally avoid these kinds of topics but I stumbled on this thread only to find a few people talking shit about my country, which I don’t care about if what is being said is accurate, America certainly has moments when there is plenty of viable trash to be talked about it (recently someone called my entire country a meme which I thought was pretty funny), but what I saw instead was people who knew absolutely fuckle about what they were saying so I jumped in head first.  This will be my last post on a political topic at this website but I feel I should at least contribute a bit to the initial reason for this threads creation since I played a significant role in the directions things went here.  I’m sure it will get only one or two actual reads, but fuck it, I’m doing it anyway.

Net neutrality is an interesting topic (which is why I came to this thread in the first place) that the generally liberal media talks negatively about.  However, there are good arguments both for and against it, both with their respective merits and having little to do with the fact that someone is just a republican or someone is just a democrat despite what someone earlier had mentioned in this thread. BTW, this is true for most contended issues if one has the open-mindedness to look for it and attempt to understand why someone may think differently than they do.  Also, this is by no means a complete summary, far from it, but just the general overlay.

The rational argument against net neutrality:  The internet is finite.  What?  How can this be?  Just like there isn’t endless electricity, there similarly isn’t endless bandwidth.  There is a quantifiable amount of “internet” to go around for everyone who wants to use it.  Someone’s electrical bill for the month goes up or down depending on how much electricity they use.  The same can be said for water or gas.  The more you use, the more you pay.  One of the central tenet’s of people against net neutrality is this very idea, that if you use more internet than the guy next door, you should pay more.  Similarly, if you use less, you shouldn’t have to pay the same amount as that same neighbor.  This is because there is a limited supply.  Therefore, the argument goes, that companies such as Netflix or Youtube should have to pay more for their actual usage, not just their bandwidth capacity, because of this fact.  Most people accept this for just about everything else in the world, but some don’t like this application to be applied to the internet.  And just a side note, the internet isn’t neutral now.  The Google’s, Netflix’s, and Youtube’s of the world already have dedicated computer server’s within the ISP’s that give them the best of the best already, similar to Wall street firms access to a stock exchange for faster trade rates.

Another argument against net neutrality is the fact that most of us believe that monopolies are bad.  Monopolies create stagnation, lack of innovation, and tend to overcharge and underserve their customers.  Currently in the US, Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner Cable basically control the marketplace.  But those in favor of net neutrality want the government to regulate and oversee the cable companies.  This is the exact same government that spies on the world as well as its own citizens.  The same government that runs the post office, the public school system, the nation’s infrastructure, the military and its associated agencies, parts of the healthcare system, much of higher education, and on and on.  I don’t see governmental business model’s being taught as innovative and efficient at most universities.

First, the government isn’t set up to be efficient and timely.  The very nature of the US government is to be slow and clunky and difficult to navigate.  Is this really who we want overseeing the most fast paced and innovative medium of our lifetimes?  I mean really?  Not only that but it doesn’t have the best track record with success in complicated mediums.  And the cherry on top, do we really want a government who has already been caught spying on its own citizens to have the back door to every ISP and router in the country?  And guess who would write the regulatory language congress would be voting on?  The fucking internet companies! I wonder who this legislative agenda would serve best?  The little guy, or the people supplying the product to the little guy.  See the forest through the trees man, look things through to their final conclusion and don’t stop at your own personal interests. And let’s be honest, the US governments most recent excursion into the digital world (the online exchanges for the Affordable Care Act) weren’t exactly something that anyone would want to put on their resume.  And these are the people you want running, controlling, and overseeing this whole thing?  I don’t even know where to begin.

And let us not forget a hugely important thing.  Government regulation makes business more expensive.  Companies have to spend money to comply with regulation and these costs get passed on to the consumer.  Worse than that though, they create barriers to entry into markets that are very difficult to enter in the first place and thus, price out competition that spurs innovation and disincentivizes competition in the marketplace.  So having this sort of a system in place would lead to a service that changes little in the coming years with no innovation as there is no incentive for innovation without competition. 

 

The rational argument for net neutrality:  Giving ISP’s the ability to slow or even block certain services opens the door for these companies to promote services or products they create over those by other companies.  It also allows for companies with more resources to ensure that they have continued competitive advantages over those that do not have the resources to compete in this way.  This can give behemoths such as Youtube, Netflix, Google, etc. the ability to squash or prevent newer, smaller companies from being able to give comparable services to companies that are already established and well-funded.  Furthermore, giving ISP’s the ability to discriminate against certain websites or services creates the potential to limit service to certain sites thereby creating censorship in some domains.  Keeping the internet open, by law, to allow equal access to ALL areas of the internet and prevents the very real likelihood that censorship and discrimination will occur in various ways.  The best way to prevent this is to not open the door to bandwidth discrimination in the first place.

Another aspect is the real concern that charging for use will cost more for most people.  Sure, grandma might only use the internet for email and cooking recipes, but the rest of us watch videos, stream music, play online games (sometimes illegally), and charging for use is silly.  The demand for internet provides ISP’s with enough money already to develop the infrastructure needed to grow their businesses and we don’t need to be nickeled and dimed for more money so they can have a better quarterly report for shareholders.  Increasing the costs for consumers will only lead to a decrease in information being shared and slow down advancement. Besides, I’m just a normal person who takes advantage of technology to stream Netflix instead and shouldn’t be punished for using technology over someone who still purchases cable. 

Charging for use unfairly discriminates against lower socioeconomic status people also.  Those with the least shouldn’t be dropped down another peg because they can’t afford another gigabyte that month to watch a video on thermodynamics from MIT’s website.  Creating more barriers for information dissemination only hurts those who stand to benefit from it the most.  The internet is really not a luxury but more of a necessity in this day and age and access shouldn’t be stymied because of the home one is born into.

 

As you can see, both sides have valid points and legitimate areas of concern one way or the other.  People who say “Oh republicans just hate people” or “Democrats don’t understand how the world works” most likely don’t understand the issue well enough to make an informed judgement and get their information from news comedy like John Oliver instead of looking into it themselves.  It isn’t really about the side you pick in a fight, but more about the reasons why you choose a side knowing that there are both merits and downsides to each viewpoint.  I personally tend to favor net neutrality but I understand that having an untrustworthy, incompetent government overseeing its implementation is problematic both for innovation and privacy as well as knowing that increased costs of the market will likely lead to fewer ISP’s instead of more, thus decreasing choice and options of access and concentrate market share to fewer major corporations who are untrustworthy themselves.  For now, however, I think that preserving unfettered access to whatever a person desires to use it for at a fixed cost is more beneficial than those downsides but this may change in the future as the setting undoubtedly will continue to move towards a more concentrated and less private environment.  So no more politics here for me, it will all be about Orc’s and Tauren.    

Edit: and screw the alliance

Edited by Veritch
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 @Veritch, so you are a democrat?

B|

but in all serious, I love this comment:

  It isn’t really about the side you pick in a fight, but more about the reasons why you choose a side knowing that there are both merits and downsides to each viewpoint.

Well said sir. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Veritch said:

The rational argument against net neutrality:  The internet is finite.  What?  How can this be?  Just like there isn’t endless electricity, there similarly isn’t endless bandwidth.  There is a quantifiable amount of “internet” to go around for everyone who wants to use it.  Someone’s electrical bill for the month goes up or down depending on how much electricity they use.  The same can be said for water or gas.  The more you use, the more you pay.  One of the central tenet’s of people against net neutrality is this very idea, that if you use more internet than the guy next door, you should pay more.  Similarly, if you use less, you shouldn’t have to pay the same amount as that same neighbour.  This is because there is a limited supply.  Therefore, the argument goes, that companies such as Netflix or Youtube should have to pay more for their actual usage, not just their bandwidth capacity, because of this fact.  Most people accept this for just about everything else in the world, but some don’t like this application to be applied to the internet.  And just a side note, the internet isn’t neutral now.  The Google’s, Netflix’s, and Youtube’s of the world already have dedicated computer server’s within the ISP’s that give them the best of the best already, similar to Wall street firms access to a stock exchange for faster trade rates.

I can't agree with this argument. Everything in the market is finite, but we let supply and demand determine the pricing. The electrical bill goes up or down depending on how much they use and how much is available. If there is a shortage, they raise the prices so fewer draw electricity from the grid and power outages stop.

You don't charge newspaper subscribers more for every page they turn. They pay for a service and expect to use it freely after the payment. That's just how the business model is. As it is for ISPs.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, ups1dedomn said:

I can't agree with this argument. Everything in the market is finite, but we let supply and demand determine the pricing. The electrical bill goes up or down depending on how much they use and how much is available. If there is a shortage, they raise the prices so fewer draw electricity from the grid and power outages stop.

You don't charge newspaper subscribers more for every page they turn. They pay for a service and expect to use it freely after the payment. That's just how the business model is. As it is for ISPs.

I don't know how it works where you are from, where I am from you sign a contract for a set rate for a specified amount of time, I thought this was pretty standard.  By contract your rates can't be increased.  You agree to pay a set price, for a set kW/hr  and your bill only fluctuates based on your usage, but it fluctuates in pre-agreed to intervals. Just like electricity, there is a limited availability of internet.  It isn't endless.  There is a maximum amount of traffic that is possible, just like a maximum amount of electricity. So from a supply perspective, there is what there is and no more.  More can be created, but not overnight. The infrastructure must be built.  It is the demand that fluctuates on a daily basis and is unpredictable, not supply.  So from a purely economic perspective, on a day to day basis, the "value" of the internet you are using is based purely on how many others are using it as the supply is set and can not be changed quickly enough.

Using your newspaper example, when you buy a newspaper you bought a specfied amount, 30 pages.  It is why the Sunday paper costs more than the rest, because there is more paper, so it costs more. Just like buying a pizza, you get charged the same if you eat the whole thing or two slices but, if you want more than 1 pizza, you would have to pay for it.  A quick google by you will show that the ISP's are looking to move to a model more consistent with your phone's data plan  which is like pizza.  Eat as much as you want, unless you want more than 1, then you have to pay more.  This is opposed to the traditional model which is more similar to something like an amusement park, where once you have paid for entry, you have unlimited rides until the park closes. 

Edited by Veritch
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

34 minutes ago, Veritch said:

I don't know how it works where you are from, where I am from you sign a contract for a set rate for a specified amount of time, I thought this was pretty standard.  By contract your rates can't be increased.  You agree to pay a set price, for a set kW/hr  and your bill only fluctuates based on your usage, but it fluctuates in pre-agreed to intervals. Just like electricity, there is a limited availability of internet.  It isn't endless.  There is a maximum amount of traffic that is possible, just like a maximum amount of electricity.

That was my point. However as you point out it's not a perfect allegory. When you overdraw the electrical grid, it stops working. When you overload the communication paths in the internet, it mostly takes more time. What I wanted to point out was that the bandwidth is limited and thus market behaviour determine pricing for individuals. Both the subscription model and $/data types of services exist. If they don't want to pay for other peoples usage of bandwidth, simply buy the $/data plans. They are much cheaper if you don't use as much bandwidth as the average user.

The ISPs either own or rent bandwidth on the major internet communication pathways, so they act as intermediaries who keeps tabs on their user-base's bandwidth and how much it costs them (the ISP). Then they make a business model out of it, and the subscriptions seems to sell best, right?

Regarding the rates being increased. We have the option to make our rate set for a time, but that rate is higher than the free-floating one is currently. Since our grid is very stable and we even export quite a bit of electricity to nearby nations, the free-floating one is used by almost everyone.

34 minutes ago, Veritch said:

Using your newspaper example, when you buy a newspaper you bought a specfied amount, 30 pages.  It is why the Sunday paper costs more than the rest, because there is more paper, so it costs more. Just like buying a pizza, you get charged the same if you eat the whole thing or two slices.  A quick google by you will show that the ISP's are looking to move to a model more consistent with your phone's data plan as opposed to the traditional model which is more similar to something like an amusement park, where once you have paid for entry, you have unlimited rides until the park closes. 

We barely have newsstands in my country, other than for magazines (which isn't really a newsstand then I guess). Here everyone is either subscribed or not, which is a set cost every month regardless of how many pages there are. That might be why the allegory seemed odd.

If you don't want to eat the whole pizza, some restaurants sell slices others sell smaller pizzas. So don't buy the whole damn pizza.

In our amusement parks (I like this allegory!) we have a choice: A day pass, or tickets. With a day pass all rides are free for the day. With tickets you give a set number of tickets every time you take (ride?) a ride. That same choice exists for internet today as well. Most people prefer just prefer the day pass.

Edited by ups1dedomn
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ups1dedomn said:

That was my point. However as you point out it's not a perfect allegory. When you overdraw the electrical grid, it stops working. When you overload the communication paths in the internet, it mostly takes more time. What I wanted to point out was that the bandwidth is limited and thus market behaviour determine pricing for individuals. Both the subscription model and $/data types of services exist. If they don't want to pay for other peoples usage of bandwidth, simply buy the $/data plans. They are much cheaper if you don't use much bandwidth as the average user.

The ISPs either own or rent bandwidth on the major internet communication pathways, so they act as intermediaries who keeps tabs on their user-base's bandwidth and how much it costs them. Then they make a business model out of it, and the subscriptions seems to sell best, right?

We barely have newsstands in my country, other than for magazines (which isn't really a newsstand then I guess). Here everyone is either subscribed or not, which is a set cost every month regardless of how many pages there are. That might be why the allegory seemed odd.

If you don't want to eat the whole pizza, some restaurants sell slices others sell smaller pizzas. So don't buy the whole damn pizza.

In our amusement parks we have a choice: A day pass, or tickets. With a day pass all rides are free for the day. With tickets you give a set number of tickets every time you take (ride?) a ride. That same choice exists for internet today as well. Most people prefer just prefer the day pass.

A lot of things work differently in different places.  Lolz on the pizza thing.  It's only an example of incrementalality.  Actually where I live, there are no by the slice places.  You either get a pizza or nothing, small market I guess.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Censorship and thought control has always been the ruling class' wet dream. Nowadays it's becoming really easy to push thanks to the rise of the left and the baggage of nonsense they bring like political correctness, babbling about non-issues, etc, which they use as moral high ground to silence opposition. The ruling class merely takes advantage of those useful idiots to put a tighter yoke on the population.

 

With the casting of a tight net on the internet, both the rulers and the ISP businesses profit, one side gets their dose of power tripping and another more opportunities to milk money from customers, so of course they're only too happy to work together.

Edited by Terpsichore
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13. 7. 2017 at 8:16 PM, ups1dedomn said:

*stuff and also things*

Not sure if using anything Žižek says as an argument will result in a positive outcome. Unless you want to befuddle ofthers.

Jordan B. Peterson on the other hand, absolutely. Didn't expect to see him linked on these forums :P.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16.7.2017 at 1:48 AM, Terpsichore said:

rise of the left and the baggage of nonsense they bring

 I'm pretty sure that it's right-wing that is on the rise if you look at recent election results around the world. They are indeed responsible for all sorts of nonsense. :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Lilaina said:

 I'm pretty sure that it's right-wing that is on the rise if you look at recent election results around the world. They are indeed responsible for all sorts of nonsense. :P

It's the cycle of politics. When I was littleish, everyone laughed at USA's conservatives and christian moralfags. Because that was nonsense. Then the pendulum swung more to the middle. Since it was going, it resulted in total discreditation of the religious influence,  but also added more, new nonsense. This time from regressive left. Of course, they're getting more radical, so it's time to counterswing that again. And since it so happens they kinda forgot about ordinary non-rich people, the right jumped on the opportunity to get their precious souls votes.

Make no mistake though, lots of the universities in USA and in western Europe, as well as the companies are still firmly in the grip of whatever extreme crazy ideology that stands by equality of outcome. And the other, more -ism things.

One of the higher-ranking ex-KGB defectors said that if you succesfully indoctrinate someone, it's gonna take basically a new generation to go back. Funnily enough, the news report that the current human spawn teenagers are more conservative than millenials. I like that. Millenials resulted in hipsters. I hate those with irrational force.

It's also kinda fun watching the right-leaning parties go like "What, we're a peaople party now? They like us?!" and then doing some totally ridiculous stuff like the manifesto in Britain. Yea, that went sooo well for them :D.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0