Metaverse

View : : :
9 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
9.
 
Re: Metaverse
Oct 28, 2009, 11:06
9.
Re: Metaverse Oct 28, 2009, 11:06
Oct 28, 2009, 11:06
 
Starting to look like the "net neutrality" issue has been co-opted. What the FCC is laying out now looks like it will probably be worse than doing nothing. While it tries to preserve the status quo, it essentially draws telecom companies a map for how to circumvent the net neutrality principles by explaining them a certain way (e.g. it's ok to violate the principles if it's to stop copyright infringement or to manage network infrastructure in a "reasonable" way, whatever that means).

The proposed policy is basically a giant loophole with "Net Neutrality" written around the edge. I don't want the FCC micro-managing networks, but this is so vague and easily bypassed that I'd rather them not even put it out since it will do nothing but give cover to the telecoms' abusive policies. If you can't fix the underlying problems, then it's better to do nothing rather than make the situation worse.

This comment was edited on Oct 28, 2009, 11:07.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Avatar 9540
8.
 
Re: Metaverse
Oct 28, 2009, 07:53
8.
Re: Metaverse Oct 28, 2009, 07:53
Oct 28, 2009, 07:53
 
* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Oct 28, 2009, 08:46.
7.
 
Re: Metaverse
Oct 27, 2009, 05:47
7.
Re: Metaverse Oct 27, 2009, 05:47
Oct 27, 2009, 05:47
 
Er... here's the biggest concern. I'll use a simple example or two.

Scenario one, Hulu pays Road Runner tons of money for preference over Youtube and thus gets the advantage of more bandwidth and/or less latency, possibly making users trying to access YouTube frustrated and driving them towards Hulu instead.

Scenario two, Coke pays massive amounts of money for access effectively shutting out Pepsi in similar online content.

Replace with any two services, products, whatever.

This will also deal somewhat with access to services (online streaming, email, Blackberry, file sharing, gaming) that people may or may not use. This can be used in similar profiteering schemes such as texting on cell phones. Why in the world does it cost more to text than it does to actual talk? Texting uses less bandwidth and system resources, but hey, they were able to make it an added service for more money yet no added investment. Cell phones allowed telcos to bring back the old long distance use based charging rather than flat fees. From a practical view, it makes no sense. From an almighty profit view, it makes perfect sense.

Also, don't forget that tea party express meeting, Little. Paranoia forever, reason never!

Avatar 20108
6.
 
Re: Metaverse
Oct 26, 2009, 19:10
6.
Re: Metaverse Oct 26, 2009, 19:10
Oct 26, 2009, 19:10
 
Okay Prez try this,

whoever is "for" it...perceives greater profit potential in "for" ... whoever is against it, perceives their lunch will be cut.
I'm with you on the confusion thing, and at the end of the day we're just going to have to bend over regardless...but my instinct is that someone is trying to put a new kind of meter on something, and they're using concepts like "limit your gaming/video streaming" to try and get people to lube up.
www.derelictkoan.com - speculative psychosis in trilogy form
5.
 
Re: Metaverse
Oct 26, 2009, 17:05
5.
Re: Metaverse Oct 26, 2009, 17:05
Oct 26, 2009, 17:05
 
This is one issue that I continue to be completely and utterly confused about. Higher fees are inevitable whether or not a law gets past. I pay more now for broadband than I ever have.

Would someone please tell me which side of this argument I should support and save me the trouble of trying to cut through the legal-ese, corporate speak, and sales pitches and make some sense out of this?
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
4.
 
Re: Metaverse
Oct 26, 2009, 14:53
4.
Re: Metaverse Oct 26, 2009, 14:53
Oct 26, 2009, 14:53
 
You surrender your freedom to murder whomever you wish in favor of the security that comes from the government prohibiting such behavior. We make this trade-off in all sorts of ways all the time. It's not inherently a bad thing. The test is in determining when it's the right decision and when it's not. In this case I think it's the right one because we've already seen that the comm industry wants to control your access in ways that benefit them. Without intervention you'll be stuck with a choice of which comm company you'd prefer to have controlling your access. There's really no free market here, so you can't even rely on that to help you.

Personally I think the government could take a more hands-off approach if they'd just ensure that municipalities had ownership of their infrastructure and allowed any and all providers equal access to offer services over it. They could contract out maintenance and upgrades. This would open up more competition to help ensure that there are competitive choices out there, and that we can get the kinds of services that we want.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Avatar 9540
3.
 
Re: Metaverse
Oct 26, 2009, 12:46
3.
Re: Metaverse Oct 26, 2009, 12:46
Oct 26, 2009, 12:46
 
Typical PC World drivel that doesn't do much explaining of anything.
Actually it explains just about everything.
Avatar 13977
2.
 
Re: Metaverse
Oct 26, 2009, 12:10
2.
Re: Metaverse Oct 26, 2009, 12:10
Oct 26, 2009, 12:10
 
"We are your friends and we are here to help you." - Typical government lies to get you to surrender your freedoms for security.
Perpetual debt is slavery.
Avatar 23321
1.
 
Re: Metaverse
Oct 26, 2009, 11:23
1.
Re: Metaverse Oct 26, 2009, 11:23
Oct 26, 2009, 11:23
 
Typical PC World drivel that doesn't do much explaining of anything.
9 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older