Internet Caps

[Deathmineral]

Just because they are making this a nanny state in some areas doesn't make it okay in other areas.

 

And yes I did know about the phosphate thing.

It doesn't matter what area it's in, if they can get away with it, they'll do it.

 

If you walked into a bank, and held up the teller on the far left side of the bank because that was the area that nobody cared about and asked for all the money in the vault, you'd get it, because nobody cares, however all of the money in the vault gets stolen regardless of what teller you hold up. That's how this is, it might just seem like they're taking away our dish soap now, but if we let them take things away from us without our input, they'll keep doing it until it's all gone.

[SpeedCrazy]

That's how this is, it might just seem like they're taking away our dish soap now, but if we let them take things away from us without our input, they'll keep doing it until it's all gone.

+1

I recently heard a quote which i wish more of the US politicians upheld.

"I may not like what you say, but i will fight to the death for your right to say it."

In my opinion we should chuck the micromanaging federal beast and go with a 'less is more' policy as far as government goes. "Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." Ronald Reagan

 

Still sorta on topic, correct me if i'm wrong but doesn't the constitution say:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So, alot of problems might be fixed by making all men equal again. Politicians would be less likely to make laws that hurt the people if they had to live under them too. For that matter i think most of them have conveniently forgotten this clause too:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

 

... i kinda got derailed off topic.

[fire_storm]

It doesn't matter what area it's in, if they can get away with it, they'll do it.

 

If you walked into a bank, and held up the teller on the far left side of the bank because that was the area that nobody cared about and asked for all the money in the vault, you'd get it, because nobody cares, however all of the money in the vault gets stolen regardless of what teller you hold up. That's how this is, it might just seem like they're taking away our dish soap now, but if we let them take things away from us without our input, they'll keep doing it until it's all gone.

 

I think when I heard the story about dish soap a while back the reason they did it was because the phosphate caused problems when it got to the water in the environment I think the point of the law was ultimately for our benefit not just to take something away because they can.

 

Also I don't think they made the decision and implemented it without telling people it probably went through the same transparent process that most bills before they become law it's just that most people don't think much about dish soap so it did gain any attention.

[Griever2003]

As to your second point, I think a major problem is that we feel in order to like something we must "get something out of it". I don't like the idea of data caps any more than you but the reality is someone (probably the ISP, but if not they bought the rights to them) paid a lot of money to build the infrastructure of the web we use and imho they really "own" that aspect of it. Obviously they want to maximize their revenue, so they are regulating theIr product in a way that increases their profits. The issue is where does it stop and what is reasonable because these companies will push it as far as they can. They are greedy profit-driven entities that care not at all if a middle income household can watch Netflix for a reasonable amount of money. If they can they WILL charge you an ARM AND A LEG!

 

 

you are correct, they built the infrastructure, so they own the cables the fiber the switches and routers. but they do not own that which travels trough them. regardless if there is only this supposed 2% (where they get this number is a mystery) that will be effected, this cap will not accomplish anything other than putting money in their pockets. now on a networking aspect of things whether 2% of your ports are using more bandwidth than the rest is not going to affect the other 98% because at any given time those ports have a max throughput (the monthly fee your are paying determines this). therefor the max download caps is not helping the 98% any... what is it helping? hmmm $$$$

 

what is their endgame in this? they want to enhance the performance for their majority.... the guy purchasing the 50Mb/10Mb is still going to be using more bandwidth now he just reaches the cap faster than the others. and has to PAY for that as well... seems like a lot of paying

[fire_storm]

you are correct, they built the infrastructure, so they own the cables the fiber the switches and routers. but they do not own that which travels trough them. regardless if there is only this supposed 2% (where they get this number is a mystery) that will be effected, this cap will not accomplish anything other than putting money in their pockets. now on a networking aspect of things whether 2% of your ports are using more bandwidth than the rest is not going to affect the other 98% because at any given time those ports have a max throughput (the monthly fee your are paying determines this). therefor the max download caps is not helping the 98% any... what is it helping? hmmm $$$$

 

I believe when they are taking about people who use excessive bandwidth and it negatively effect there network there talking about the last mile of the connection which in residential connections is usually shared by multiple subscribers.

 

For example when you have cable internet your not connected directly to your ISP you share a line with everybody else who has cable internet on your street so if they didn't have any bandwidth limit's or caps a few heavy downloaders could negatively effect the qos of everyone on the street.

Edited March 18, 2011 by fire_storm

[Deathmineral]

I think when I heard the story about dish soap a while back the reason they did it was because the phosphate caused problems when it got to the water in the environment I think the point of the law was ultimately for our benefit not just to take something away because they can.

 

Also I don't think they made the decision and implemented it without telling people it probably went through the same transparent process that most bills before they become law it's just that most people don't think much about dish soap so it did gain any attention.

Again, the soap was just an example really. To say they did it for our own good, that's nanny state thinking. To say that they do things to our lives for our own good, is to agree that we are too stupid to deserve an opinion on any matter, and while many of us here may feel that the US is full of stupid people, we shouldn't let the government feel that way about it as well, because by doing that we eliminate our opinion as well.

 

I really doubt this law would have been created if more of the public had known about it. We're talking about the thing that cleans dishes, if every woman in the US had known about this during it's Bill process and had a chance to vote on banning it, I think the majority would have said no.

 

I'm not sure how many here have done dishes by hand, but I have done it once, and while it's not a hard thing to do, it's not modern convenience either, a lot of the US is about modern convenience now, if you think I'm wrong about that, explain cheese in a can.

 

Also, how about I use an example that would actually affect many of us computer geeks on this forum, how about if they banned compressed air cans? How many of you would be okay with them doing that without really consulting anyone in the computer world about it? That stuff isn't really much safer than stuff in dish soap, especially since it can be used as a drug, which to the best of my knowledge, dish soap cannot.

[flareback]

We're talking about the thing that cleans dishes, if every woman in the US had known about this during it's Bill process and had a chance to vote on banning it, I think the majority would have said no.

Sexist much?

[Deathmineral]

Sexist much?

Okay fine... every woman and gay guy. that better?

[SpeedCrazy]

Okay fine... every woman and gay guy. that better?

What is gay about washing dishes? Do tell, i mean you even admitted that you have washed dishes. I wash dishes, nothing to be ashamed of.

[Deathmineral]

What is gay about washing dishes? Do tell, i mean you even admitted that you have washed dishes. I wash dishes, nothing to be ashamed of.

It was just a joke, I kind of figured flareback was just kidding around so I just said something silly.

 

Plenty of guys and gals wash dishes, but in general I don't think the male gender is as known for cleanliness as the female gender is. Trust me, while I might not be gay, I'm not one to really bash people for their preferences in that area.

[greengiant912]

I don't think that ISP's should be capping internet speeds without having an uncapped service that isn't outrageously priced. ISPs such as ATT say its to "save" the consumer money, but why don't you let the consumer choose?

 

Have cheaper models,

 

150gb - $15 a month

 

250gb - $25 a month

 

unlimited - $45 a month

 

or something like that... I am really pissed to about cell providers like ATT charging you extra for a service like tethering, if my phone provides a feature, and I am already paying for a data plan I shouldn't have to pay extra. Its not like I am using a tethering option all the time... I use it when I don't have access to WiFi, which isn't many places these days.. That would be like your ISP charging you for each computer you had on a home router... Its just not right, and highly unethical..

They are really gouging their consumers, and there is little to no opposition.

 

We have people trying to fight for net neutrality in this country, unfortunately we have a large amount of people in this country who think business should be able to do what they want, and that is how the economy will be fixed..

 

 

I personally think it will be ATT's downfall, because the business steps I see my ISP taking (Time Warner) are actually in the opposite direction of what ATT is doing. Time warner just released an amazing app for the iPad that lets you stream television to your iPad. It is amazing!

[fire_storm]

I don't think that ISP's should be capping internet speeds without having an uncapped service that isn't outrageously priced. ISPs such as ATT say its to "save" the consumer money, but why don't you let the consumer choose?

 

Have cheaper models,

 

150gb - $15 a month

 

250gb - $25 a month

 

unlimited - $45 a month

 

or something like that... I am really pissed to about cell providers like ATT charging you extra for a service like tethering, if my phone provides a feature, and I am already paying for a data plan I shouldn't have to pay extra. Its not like I am using a tethering option all the time... I use it when I don't have access to WiFi, which isn't many places these days.. That would be like your ISP charging you for each computer you had on a home router... Its just not right, and highly unethical..

They are really gouging their consumers, and there is little to no opposition.

 

We have people trying to fight for net neutrality in this country, unfortunately we have a large amount of people in this country who think business should be able to do what they want, and that is how the economy will be fixed..

 

 

I personally think it will be ATT's downfall, because the business steps I see my ISP taking (Time Warner) are actually in the opposite direction of what ATT is doing. Time warner just released an amazing app for the iPad that lets you stream television to your iPad. It is amazing!

 

You won't like this news AT&T is sending a warning to people who illegal tether there phones and demands they stop otherwise they will be signed up for an additional plan

 

The problem with the wireless industry is there pulling in more subscribers faster then there network can handle so they put caps on instead of investing money to fix the problem.

 

I suppose you could look as a good and band thing when it comes to caps on one hand if you use caps you build a large weak network and give a lot of people access to the internet even though it is limited with caps and on another hand if there goal was to provide truly ultimated internet to all it's customers ISP's wouldn't have as much money to build out there network meaning not everyone would have access to the internet.

 

Also I don't why everyone keeps bringing up net neutrality and caps because based on some of the proposal I've read if net neutrality was passed into law it would only prevent ISP from blocking or discriminating against content like Google or Youtube but would still allow ISP's to limit there service with reasonable bandwidth caps.