Net Neutrality? Meh.

[SniperWolf1564]

I am starting to get sick of these "Net Neutrality" supporters, when a fact should be brought to light. Say you have your ISP (Internet Service Provider.) You pay your ISP for internet access, so you can send e-mails, go to Newgrounds, read the news, play a game. Now when a large company (say Victoria's Secret) hosts an event that hogs all of the ISP's bandwith, you won't be able to send e-mails, go to Newgrounds, read the news, or play a game. Are the companies paying for using the ISP's bandwith? No. Are the consumers (you) getting screwed over? Yes. If net neutrality is passed, ISPs will lose money when companies hog all of the bandwith.

In Ted Stevens logic, companies are clogging the tubes with their data, and they won't pay to fix the clog.

[Dash-Underscore-Dash]

Victoria's Secret can have my bandwidth anyday!

[wwwyzzerdd]

Oh don't feed me your bullshit. If Ted Stevens actually knew how the net worked, he'd know that bandwidth and speed are all determined by how many customers are using their computers. A great example was 9/11, when most people were at work getting updates via their computer to see what was happening, thus causing a lot of people to complain about speed and connection issues.

Telling people that certain companies are "clogging" up the internet is the stupidest load of shit anyone would say if they were getting paid by telecommunication companies. You're not "freeing up space;" you're allowing companies to make bullshit fees in the name of free speech.

[Dash-Underscore-Dash]

At 10/23/06 04:16 PM, wwwyzzerdd wrote: Oh don't feed me your bullshit. If Ted Stevens actually knew how the net worked, he'd know that bandwidth and speed are all determined by how many customers are using their computers.

Series of tubes.

[SniperWolf1564]

Look. The point still stands here. Let me broaden the example here. If anyone is wasting the ISPs bandwith, they are not paying for it, and the ISP will lose money.

Also, people are also talking about ISPs offering faster service to certain websites. People argue that an ISP will only support a certain search engine, like Microsoft MSN to MSN search, and they will refuse to offer service to Google, at any price. This is anti-competitive, and if this was true, why hasn't Congress passed Net Neutrality yet?