| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Community
Forum: Chat Room
Thread: Proof that net neutrality is worth worrying about |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 6
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
For those who've taken the line that the net neutrality debate is a storm in a teacup and nothing to worry about, comes the news that top Canadian telco Rogers has actually started to degrade the user experience for those sending and receiving encrypted data over its networks. So if you're using a VPN over Rogers' service, have fun.
And people really think the same thing couldn't happen with other ISPs? Maybe the law really will protect the user in the UK (as Ofcom claims), maybe it won't - but the threat is real. Posted by David Meyer @zdnet http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10005121o-2000331761b,00.htm |
||
|
|
Khyron the Destroyer
Cruncher Joined: Mar 30, 2007 Post Count: 12 Status: Offline |
|
||
|
|
Sgt.Joe
Ace Cruncher USA Joined: Jul 4, 2006 Post Count: 7854 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Net neutrality is very important egalitarian concept. If it is not taken seriously, severe disruption of the system could result. The carriers need to make an equitable profit on their services, because if they did not, they would not have incentive to invest in the infrastructure necessary to further advance the internet. However, blocking service is a draconian measure, a kneejerk reaction to a "problem." There has to be a more creative solution than the sledgehammer appraoch they are using. I don't know that solution, but I'm quite sure those who understand the problem better could do better than just blocking.
----------------------------------------Cheers
Sgt. Joe
*Minnesota Crunchers* |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Wake up everybody, stop sleeping.
They wanna charge more, big companies are creeping, Into our Internet... The Internet's in distress let's answer the S.O.S. Link Anywhosits... yes, it is a problem. When I first started using the internet (before the WWW existed), I was a college student. The internet was primarily institutions of higher education, or military. Thanks to WWW, after years of dialup, then cruddy cable access, and finally nice and stable (albeit slightly slower) DSL... not to mention a corporate network at work, the using the internet is a daily routine for me. How could I live without email? How about VPN access to my company’s corporate network? Who watches news on TV or reads a newspaper anymore? I've got local, national, international, and special interest news I read every day... online. The internet isn't just personal networking sites or for peer-to-peer mp3 and DVD downloading. Heck, my parents are in their 70s and finally have starting using the internet for news, travel sites, and more. There's something for everyone online. I work in corporate America, so yeah... companies do need an income. I do like to get paid. Companies don't need to exploit people though. The fact is, the internet transmits bits.... 1s and 0s. It doesn't matter what those bits make up... text, audio, video, or scientific data to help cure diseases. It's all bits. It doesn't matter if it's encrypted or unencrypted. It's not anyone's business to know what the payload being transmitted is. It's not anyone's business to where the payload is send from, or sent to. It's just their job to get it from point A to point B. - j |
||
|
|
Gollumer
Senior Cruncher Joined: Mar 23, 2006 Post Count: 194 Status: Offline |
However, blocking service is a draconian measure, a kneejerk reaction to a "problem." There has to be a more creative solution than the sledgehammer appraoch they are using. I don't know that solution, but I'm quite sure those who understand the problem better could do better than just blocking. Comcast? AT&T? Are you listening? If I pay for an unlimited plan, I expect to pay a bit of a premium, and for it to be UNLIMITED, not sorta-kinda-unlimited, but not really, because we really-didn't-mean-unlimited. I don't like the "you will get X megabit/s unless we can't provide it" attitude. I have spotty service in my area because the cable segment is saturated/full. I had a representative tell me I could "upgrade to the next tier" but they still couldn't guarantee the bandwidth. When I buy bandwidth from a provider as part of a business transaction, the contract spells out exactly what you are getting bandwidth, price, overages, whether the line is burstable, what the SLA is, and so on. The US is falling behind the rest of the world in broadband and the FCC, and telco's are entirely to blame. (lookup broadband reality report 2) |
|||
|
||||
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
Net Neutrality Never Really Existed?
----------------------------------------April 12, 2007 Pulpit We Don't Need No Stinking Best Effort: Net neutrality may have been just a fantasy all along. Let me tell you about the problems I am having with my fax line. Fax? Why would anyone still have a fax line? Well I have a few thousand business cards orbiting out there with my fax number attached, but the line also serves quite well as a secure (if slow) access point for remote control software when I am on the road. Or it would serve that role if my fax line actually worked, which it doesn't........ http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070412_001931.html
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
|
|