Yeah I can't say one way or another there are number of causes of slow internet connection. Your computer, your ISP, other ISPs that your ISP works with and the source/site. But ISPs do have the ability to guide traffic if they are allowed to do that. Fact is these ISP corperations had nothing to do with the creation of the internet.In my opinion crap like that already happens - all the time. . .maybe it already is host-interference?
How can anyone prove that, anyway?
All too often I access a page via a search engine - and it doesn't load, loads slow or loads improperly. I presume this is due to crappy search-engines and nothing more. I've taken to habit of directly clicking in the address rather than using an engine as a middle man.
I'm sure, though, that this guy's point is that it doesn't matter if you go direct or not - what matters is that your host is in the pocket of said website.
Yeah the government needs to regulate them so that doesn't happen I figure.I say it is very important. I pay my cable company for certain amount speed and that this what I expect, the only time it should be slower is because of the person on the other end not because my cable company is restricting access or speed to that site.
When it comes to monopolies or businesses that are practically monopolies it should be regulated. Just because I am a conservative does not mean I have to support no regulations and totally unrestricted capitalism and I am sure most conservatives are that way too. Plus there is the danger that allowing a internet company to restrict certain sites as a means to get the consumer to cough up more cash for access to those other sites could interfere with free speech.Yeah the government needs to regulate them so that doesn't happen I figure.
We don't have ISP competition though.I seem to stand alone in saying that no, it is not important. The reason why is that we have ISP competition in the local markets. If one of the ISPs started playing this crap, everyone would drop them for the open network provider.
It might not happen that way, especially if there is a profit incentive to do so. For example... offering internet packages based on what kind of sites you view, such as youtube, facebook, etc., and then charging people more for unlimited viewing of the web. The telecom industry is already trying to push this kind of business practice through government regulation right now in Canada and the U.S. If we start getting charged based on the kind of content we view, then all ISPs will do it because it will rake in profits for them.I seem to stand alone in saying that no, it is not important. The reason why is that we have ISP competition in the local markets. If one of the ISPs started playing this crap, everyone would drop them for the open network provider.
Except when the ISPs that do filter start muscling and buying out the ISPs that do notI seem to stand alone in saying that no, it is not important. The reason why is that we have ISP competition in the local markets. If one of the ISPs started playing this crap, everyone would drop them for the open network provider.
It was my understanding that our searches and clicks-to-go send us on a routing pattern through various channels that may be slow themselves. Like, I click on a link here in Chicago and tell my ISP to take me there. I beliee it's true that the path I take to get there varies by the amount of traffic on the chosen path. And that if I click on the same link tomorrow, I'm probably going to be routed another way.I say it is very important. I pay my cable company for certain amount speed and that this what I expect, the only time it should be slower is because of the person on the other end not because my cable company is restricting access or speed to that site.
I've had this happen to me too. Sometimes the site doesn't load at all. But I am under the assumption that the site is just busy with too many people accessing it at one time.PS: Not related and is only coincidental. Is it me or is this site really really slow sometimes? Seems other sites are very fast compared.
That would make sense since taxpayers are the customers.We don't have ISP competition though.
I have two choices for my ISP, cable and telephone.
Both of which are heavily subsidized by the taxpayer.
As long as they derive some of their revenue from us (via subsidy), they must follow the net neutrality rules because they do not truly own the established lines.
Yea well we pay for both the service and we pay them extra through government subsidy to install the cable and telephone lines.That would make sense since taxpayers are the customers.
Let's say that your IP decides to not allow you to connect to DP. Would you be okay with that?It is unnecessary regulation. Someone prove to me that there is a problem.
Yes it is anti free market and for good reason. Firstly they never paid for the roads they are using. (the internet) The equivalent would be something similar to companies taking over large portions of paved highway they never paid for.. saying which roads you can go on .. or paying more if you drive a lot .. or paying more for going off their roads.. etc. An unrestricted ISP market is ridiculous.Net Neutrality is anti-free market. The tele-communications market should not be even more anti-free market than it already is by law and not by market decisions. What we need is more telecom. infrastructure provided by the free market and less coercion from the state that sponsors corporate monopoly. More competition makes more choice. Net Neutrality perceives a skewed and exaggerated present that creates a bleak future if more government intervention isn't made. Net Neutrality creates a class struggle in this hypothetical future.
Companies can make a whole lot of money from fiber optics but they don't want to be the ones that pay for it's development or be the ones to manage risk. They want the tax payer (victims of extortion) to pay for it. So they create this fraudulent "save the internet" campaign and most people buy into it crook, slime and stinker. Why is it do we always go on this reflexive crusade against corporations like Microsoft and Google for everything they do but then when they propose that the tax payer pay for infrastructure and endorse campaigns that fear people into it by making up hypothetical scenarios, we all of a sudden support them? I thought we all hated Corporations for all of the aggression they cause, lies they make, their irresponsibility and influence on public policy yet here we have net neutrality that is all of these things and more and we're supporting it? Probably because we think that it's going to hurt (other )corporations and make us, the proletarian mass, have more voice and control.
We don't need net neutrality, we need government and justice neutrality by getting the government out of our lives and out of our business and by making corporations reliant on the voluntary contributions of consumers, not the extortion of taxes and aggressive "contracts".