U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Celebrating Veterans Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Internet
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-15-2010, 10:35 PM
 
Location: Massapequa Park
3,173 posts, read 5,928,142 times
Reputation: 1358

Advertisements

Optimum - Optimum Online - Faster Internet

>>""Optimum Online Express Link Technology optimizes your link to popular sites such as Yahoo!, Google, YouTube and AOL, so you can connect faster than ever before.""


Didn't think I would ever see it come to this. Now Verizon and Cablevision are both trying to make a "tiered" Internet...favoring certain sites, discriminating in what is BY LAW supposed to be the most level playing field in the country.

ISP's were given made ISP's under the strict guidelines that they never violate Net Neutrality laws. There should be some massive lawsuits filed against both CV in this case involving their "express link" program. Maybe capitalism doesn't always work. We should nationalize the Internet. What cahones Cablevision has, scum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-16-2010, 07:06 AM
 
2,851 posts, read 3,015,811 times
Reputation: 1187
Nationalize.. no way. The .gov can screw up water.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2010, 09:17 AM
 
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
11,813 posts, read 13,951,598 times
Reputation: 8042
You are reading to much into that. That is nothing more then what Time Warner calls "Power Boost". They are only using those sites as examples of sites that will run faster. Using the big names for the people that use those sites.

Everything would run faster utilizing that service. Not just those sites.
Supposedly, of course.

No one needs that.

It's just marketing BS to get you to part with your hard earned cash. It is worded poorly.
How much faster can Google run that it already does on a cable connection?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2010, 09:20 AM
 
Location: Massapequa Park
3,173 posts, read 5,928,142 times
Reputation: 1358
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverBulletZ06 View Post
Nationalize.. no way. The .gov can screw up water.
yeah I know it sounds drastic. But the govt wouldn't tell businesses how much water they can use or "increase" flow to a select few while dripping out small amounts to the rest of the community.
It's absurd if you think about it. The Internet is not the ISP's nor was it ever there's to control.

What CV is doing is the equivalent of say a crooked snow plower. Imagine if we had 5 inches of snow every week this winter. But Nassau county only plowed some of the roads (say only to Roosevelt field mall and parkways leading to it). That is essentially what CV is doing. That's why we have net neutrality laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2010, 10:25 AM
 
Location: Massapequa Park
3,173 posts, read 5,928,142 times
Reputation: 1358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peregrine View Post
You are reading to much into that. That is nothing more then what Time Warner calls "Power Boost". They are only using those sites as examples of sites that will run faster. Using the big names for the people that use those sites.

Everything would run faster utilizing that service. Not just those sites.
Supposedly, of course.

No one needs that.

It's just marketing BS to get you to part with your hard earned cash. It is worded poorly.
How much faster can Google run that it already does on a cable connection?
The difference of fractions of a second could make or break an Internet business. You do not favor anyone on the internet, it's just not done and almost everyone would agree with this. If google loaded a half second slower, it would probably lose market share to bing in droves.

If a new company starting out wants to compete with youtube but youtube loads 3x as fast, it stifles competition and creates monopolies. It's just not done, look around the internet. Or lets say the liberal CV favored their own video site (eg) or started charging companies premiums to access this faster gateway, it would stifle new competition.

The ISP seem to all be power hungry. Would you let a private corporation tell you how fast you can drive on public roads?? Or how much water you are allowed to use? it's really a serious violation of our rights for them to try and be Internet gatekeepers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2010, 03:46 PM
 
Location: sowf jawja
1,940 posts, read 8,302,413 times
Reputation: 1042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pequaman View Post
The Internet is not the ISP's nor was it ever there's to control.

The ISP's own the infrastructure used to connect to other networks; we're talking billions of dollars worth of equipment and cabling, plus the daily maintenance on the systems. I'd say they have every right to control how much traffic moves on those lines and at what speed.

Its not funded by taxpayers, so why should we have any say in how it operates?

You have a choice to not purchase a broadband subscription if you don't like it.

And there are currently no "net neutrality" laws.


I personally download quite a bit of content on my home connection; somewhere around 4GB a day right now. I would love to know that traffic will never be impeded for my own personal benefit, but I believe the ISP's have a right to manage that traffic however they see fit. Its their network, I'm just a paying customer. If they decide to change the rules, I have to go with it or find another ISP. I may not like it, but that's fair.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2010, 08:48 AM
 
40,161 posts, read 41,766,549 times
Reputation: 16735
It appears this is just a poorly explained faster service. I don't see anything to indicate it's just for the "popular sites".


Quote:
Originally Posted by southgeorgia View Post
Its not funded by taxpayers, so why should we have any say in how it operates?
I'd agree except for one thing that can be summed up in one word, monopoly. There's many areas of the country that have one choice for their internet provider just like they have one choice for their water provider. Because the internet is so important for communication, business and other things not having broadband is like not having water to your home.

Quote:
And there are currently no "net neutrality" laws.
There's nothing set into law that I'm aware of but the ISP's observe them.


Quote:
I personally download quite a bit of content on my home connection; somewhere around 4GB a day right now. I would love to know that traffic will never be impeded for my own personal benefit, but I believe the ISP's have a right to manage that traffic however they see fit. Its their network, I'm just a paying customer. If they decide to change the rules, I have to go with it or find another ISP. I may not like it, but that's fair.
There is only really one fair way to go about this, allow them to offer tiered but neutral plans. This will make no one happy so it's the best method. The consumer will pay according to what they use. Sites, services and content providers are unimpeded and on level playing field. The ISP maintains control of the network. You also have allowances for technical reasons but fundamentally access to all sites and services remain neutral, the only limitations are set by the level of the consumers plan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2010, 09:06 AM
 
Location: Massapequa Park
3,173 posts, read 5,928,142 times
Reputation: 1358
Default taxpayers funded the infrastructure

Quote:
Originally Posted by southgeorgia View Post
The ISP's own the infrastructure used to connect to other networks; we're talking billions of dollars worth of equipment and cabling, plus the daily maintenance on the systems. I'd say they have every right to control how much traffic moves on those lines and at what speed.

Its not funded by taxpayers, so why should we have any say in how it operates?

You have a choice to not purchase a broadband subscription if you don't like it.

And there are currently no "net neutrality" laws.


I personally download quite a bit of content on my home connection; somewhere around 4GB a day right now. I would love to know that traffic will never be impeded for my own personal benefit, but I believe the ISP's have a right to manage that traffic however they see fit. Its their network, I'm just a paying customer. If they decide to change the rules, I have to go with it or find another ISP. I may not like it, but that's fair.

It took government funds, taxpayer funded grants and capital to build the infrastructure that ISP's enjoy. They didn't build the Internet nor did they build the infrastructure. All they did was get a license to run their cable lines through and on county owned infrastructure. The net is treated the same way phone calls are. Would verizon tell you what you can say on the phone or decide who you can call? Would they make a tiered phone service where it takes 10 seconds to connect to your family, but you can connect to walmart customer service in 1 second? Obviously not. Maybe what we need here is a public option type scenario. Villages/citys allover should invest in their own long range wifi or community Internet program for residents. Where taxes go toward free (in more ways that one) Internet.

Besides, ISPs are granted licenses to enjoy country wide infrastructure. Did the ISP's put up the poles that run the lines? What if a storm takes out power and cable lines or a transformer? Who fixes the mess? TAXPAYERS do, that's who (via county workers, Lipa, etc).

While there are no "laws" on net neutrality, there are policy statements issued by the FCC to ISPs. If you want to look for a specific law, look at the pacific telegraph act which should apply to ISP's as well.
Sounds like you work for one of them.

4Gbs/day?? What are you downloading may I ask? With that much bandwidth. you could Visit 1,000,000 web pages -- download 100,000 songs a day. Download 6 full length movies. Sounds impossible, even if you were a pirate that would be stretching it.

Last edited by Pequaman; 09-17-2010 at 09:22 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2010, 09:11 AM
 
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
11,813 posts, read 13,951,598 times
Reputation: 8042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pequaman View Post
If google loaded a half second slower, it would probably lose market share to bing in droves.
Let's not get carried away now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2010, 11:15 AM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
15,209 posts, read 18,486,202 times
Reputation: 8052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pequaman View Post
ISP's were given made ISP's under the strict guidelines that they never violate Net Neutrality laws. There should be some massive lawsuits filed against both CV in this case involving their "express link" program.
What laws are being violated? Be specific, please. Jurisdiction and code.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pequaman View Post
We should nationalize the Internet.
Considering that the Internet is a global network, best of luck with that. We already have other countries whining about how much "control" we have over the 'net - you want to "nationalize it" under the U.S. legal system? hahahahahaha..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pequaman View Post
You do not favor anyone on the internet, it's just not done and almost everyone would agree with this.
It's done all the time, and your Internet experience is better because of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pequaman View Post
Would you let a private corporation tell you how fast you can drive on public roads??
Apples and oranges comparison. Public roads are not privately owned, hence the "public" designation. The network you connected to in order to read this is privately owned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pequaman View Post
It took government funds, taxpayer funded grants and capital to build the infrastructure that ISP's enjoy.
Wrong. DARPA was responsible for the idea, and had a hand in developing some of the protocols, but the actual infrastructure (do you even understand what the word means?) is, in almost every case, owned by private companies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pequaman View Post
They didn't build the Internet nor did they build the infrastructure. All they did was get a license to run their cable lines through and on county owned infrastructure.
That quote is very, very amusing. You're contradicting yourself. "...nor did they build the infrastructure. All they did was get a license to run their cable..." hahahahaha

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pequaman View Post
Would verizon tell you what you can say on the phone or decide who you can call? Would they make a tiered phone service where it takes 10 seconds to connect to your family, but you can connect to walmart customer service in 1 second? Obviously not.
Think about what you said right there. No tiered phone service? Are you serious? Long distance? International calling? Call waiting, call forwarding, call return... Do they not charge extra for these things?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pequaman View Post
Maybe what we need here is a public option type scenario. Villages/citys allover should invest in their own long range wifi or community Internet program for residents. Where taxes go toward free (in more ways that one) Internet.
Some already do this. Others have done it and shut it down, due to the cost.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pequaman View Post
Did the ISP's put up the poles that run the lines?
It varies, but generally, yes, private companies put up those poles. Typically it's the electric or phone companies that do it, not any government entity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pequaman View Post
What if a storm takes out power and cable lines or a transformer? Who fixes the mess? TAXPAYERS do, that's who (via county workers, Lipa, etc).
Actually, whoever owns it does. It may be the city/county in some cases, but not most.

I have to say, you're pretty darn clueless when it comes to the Internet, how it developed and especially how it's managed. Network Engineers have that title for a reason. Managing a large network is not as simple as plugging in your home router... I suggest you leave the network design and management to those who understand the technology a lot better than you, and stop listening to politicians when it comes to technology issues - they probably know less than you about it, and are only looking for ways to increase their power and their campaign coffers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Internet
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:24 PM.

¬© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top