Net Neutrality?
- Thread starter Mr. Dictator
- Start date
Narz
keeping it real
so what does this mean exactally?
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
it means that ISP will be able to decide which sites get more priority.
at least thats what i got from it.
at least thats what i got from it.
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
There's an interesting thread about it here, too.
I'm not going to repeat myself, so let me just link to my other, angry post on the subject.
I'm not going to repeat myself, so let me just link to my other, angry post on the subject.
Narz
keeping it real
How does this affect the CivFanatics forum?
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
I have always thought that the internet was neutral in the first place 
.
.
Narz
keeping it real
The real question is - is the universe nuetral?
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
It was more or less up until now, but the attempt to write neutrality into law failed, which is an endorsement of unfairness.CivGeneral said:I have always thought that the internet was neutral in the first place
Narz: Read the thread I linked to for more explanation. Here's a short summary:
Site A gets 80¤ of traffic each day
Site B gets 80¤ of traffic each day
Site A and Site B are both hosted by Provider C
C has only 100¤ of bandwidth each day.
Under the suggested Net Neutrality rule, C would have been forced to treat A and B equally, randomly allocating 50¤ of bandwidth to each of them.
As it is now, C can choose to prioritise Site A, so that it gets 80¤ of bandwidth each day and Site B gets only 20¤ of bandwidth.
Do you really want to hear ISPs saying "Pay me $X or your site will go slower, and if you pay me $X+Y I'll make your site load faster than you competitors"? I don't.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
If the US claims the Internet. I sure hope they are ready to deal with potential threats in the future such as Cyberbrain hackings by Al Qudea or some other terrorist groups. I do have a feeling (Though mainly watching Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex and also the way Lobot in Empire Strikes Back "talks" to the Bespin main computers)Erik Mesoy said:
Narz
keeping it real
That's messed up Erik!
Bastards!!
Bastards!!
Though this (absence of) law does immidiatly look bad, I am not so sure. How is it different from buying the basic 1 Gb/month package or the 10 Gb/month one. What about hosting your server on a cheap VPS that has 50 VPS per machine rather that one that puts 20, or perhaps a dedicated server?
If it is about the consumer ISP (ie. the one that the user downloads stuff from) then surely you could get round any limilts they put on particular sites by using a proxy or some such.
If it is about the consumer ISP (ie. the one that the user downloads stuff from) then surely you could get round any limilts they put on particular sites by using a proxy or some such.
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
Samson, it's different because it's about the ISP's bandwidth compared to the requests for the various websites. "10Gb/month" is a measure of how much traffic you can have over a given length of time, but this is about prioritizing requests for a certain site, which is why a proxy won't work either. It'll still be a request for the same site.
Was that a good explanation?
Was that a good explanation?
So we are talking about the ISP for servers.Erik Mesoy said:Samson, it's different because it's about the ISP's bandwidth compared to the requests for the various websites. "10Gb/month" is a measure of how much traffic you can have over a given length of time, but this is about prioritizing requests for a certain site, which is why a proxy won't work either. It'll still be a request for the same site.
Was that a good explanation?
I see how there is a technical difference, but not really how there is an idological difference. I can see "priority" being just another factor that you pay for, along with disk space and per-month bandwidth.
For example, I have set up 2 web sites for my company. One is low bandwidth but is viewed by customers. The other is higher bandwidth but mostly accesses by computers. I would have no problem putting these on different plans, one high priority low bandwidth, the other low priority high bandwidth.
It is not like server bandwidth is expensive. And you have to have a very fast client conection and / or very slow server connection for the server to be the slow one.
Aphex_Twin
Evergreen
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,474
This is a dated issue, but I had some questions for the proponents of Net Neutrality:
1. Shouldn't owners be able to decide on the use of their property?
2. Does the Internet limit itself to the US?
1. Shouldn't owners be able to decide on the use of their property?
2. Does the Internet limit itself to the US?
Xanikk999
History junkie
So how will this affect webpage access and download speeds? Will it make some things take longer to load and some things longer to download?
Xanikk999
History junkie
In fact, does this mean we will start paying more for internet access or not?
If so il be
(when i start paying for it anyway).
If so il be
(when i start paying for it anyway).
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
This is very bad news.
It will make it harder for upstart web companies to compete, and easier for larger companies to squeeze competition out of the market.
It will make it harder for upstart web companies to compete, and easier for larger companies to squeeze competition out of the market.
Does this apply outside the US, or is it only an American problem?
Xanikk999
History junkie
Truronian said:
Well only for websites based in the U.S i suppose. Im not sure myself.
Xanikk999 said:
I thought the issue concern ISPs?
