Author Topic: Net Neutrality ?  (Read 868 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Andrew Clunn

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 15177
  • Aspiring Super Villain
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #15 on: April 16, 2017, 01:58:44 PM »
Paid search rankings are already a thing.  Video content is the only content that would even see any appreciably quality due to the "fast lane."  And again that pretty much is just Facebook and YouTube these days.  Your examples make no sense.

Facebook and YouTube are the only providers of video content??? That's news to me.

User generated video content was his example.
Banned from both Hacker News and the xkcd forum.

Online Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13874
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #16 on: April 16, 2017, 02:13:33 PM »
Daily Motion?
"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll

Offline Andrew Clunn

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 15177
  • Aspiring Super Villain
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #17 on: April 16, 2017, 02:18:22 PM »
Daily Motion?

But those videos would still be hosted on their servers, so it's they who would face the possible shake down, as opposed to any content creators, which was my point with raising Facebook and YouTube as examples.
Banned from both Hacker News and the xkcd forum.

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4348
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #18 on: April 16, 2017, 04:13:32 PM »
Paid search rankings are already a thing.  Video content is the only content that would even see any appreciably quality due to the "fast lane."  And again that pretty much is just Facebook and YouTube these days.  Your examples make no sense.

Facebook and YouTube are the only providers of video content??? That's news to me.

User generated video content was his example.

While YouTube and Facebook may be the biggest players (maybe, I don't know) they are far from the only sites hosting user-generated content.

Here's a favorite of mine:



ETA: Kirk Krack (the red-suited monkey) and Erin Magee (the chaser) were two of my freediving instructors.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2017, 04:21:56 PM by daniel1948 »
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3100
  • mooh
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2017, 04:17:25 PM »
Paid search rankings are already a thing.


Well, haven't skeptics been talking about the dangers inherent in exactly this kind of thing? But nevertheless, people can choose to go to a different video site. Many people have very few choices when it comes to choosing their ISP.

Video content is the only content that would even see any appreciably quality due to the "fast lane." 

Steer excrement. I can't tell you how many times a day I'm already cursing at exceptionally slow HTML-only websites. It all depends on how slow the slow lane really is. And besides, I thought I made it pretty clear that it's not just about speed, but also about being able to charge different rates for different content based on things like protocol, location, or any other criterion they might come up with.

Paid search rankings are already a thing.  Video content is the only content that would even see any appreciably quality due to the "fast lane."  And again that pretty much is just Facebook and YouTube these days.  Your examples make no sense.

Facebook and YouTube are the only providers of video content??? That's news to me.

User generated video content was his example.

No, it was your example. I offered many others. I'm still waiting to hear how anti-trust is going to magically solve any of them.
Mooohn!

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3100
  • mooh
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #20 on: April 16, 2017, 07:02:23 PM »


or, perhaps more importantly

Mooohn!

Offline arthwollipot

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4875
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #21 on: April 16, 2017, 09:54:57 PM »
Paid search rankings are already a thing.  Video content is the only content that would even see any appreciably quality due to the "fast lane."  And again that pretty much is just Facebook and YouTube these days.  Your examples make no sense.
Some of us are old enough to remember when paid search rankings were the only thing.

Back in the bad old days, you had to submit your site to search engines in order for them to list it. And if you paid the search engine, they would list you higher in the search results.

Then along came Google, which both found sites on its own so you didn't have to submit them, and had its own search ranking algorithm so that you didn't have to pay to get listed high.

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *****
  • Posts: 9248
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #22 on: April 16, 2017, 10:43:44 PM »
Paid search rankings are already a thing.  Video content is the only content that would even see any appreciably quality due to the "fast lane."  And again that pretty much is just Facebook and YouTube these days.  Your examples make no sense.
Some of us are old enough to remember when paid search rankings were the only thing.

Back in the bad old days, you had to submit your site to search engines in order for them to list it. And if you paid the search engine, they would list you higher in the search results.

Then along came Google, which both found sites on its own so you didn't have to submit them, and had its own search ranking algorithm so that you didn't have to pay to get listed high.

Your history is a little revisionist, there. Neither of the innovations you attribute to Google was actually theirs.  Google was not the first to have a web crawler that indexed a substantial portion of the web, nor were they the only search providing neutral results.  AltaVista, which proceeded Google by at least two years, was an excellent search engine with a fast web crawler that allowed it to create the largest searchable index of web content in existence at the time.  And it's rankings were neutral and algorithmically based, as well.  AltaVista and DEC were the first to publish analyses of the structure of linkages on the web.

Google's innovation was in using the that link structure to rank pages, on the assumption that pages with more links to them would be of higher quality.  Others at the time were ranking based on things like number of occurrences of a keyword on the site, etc.  they were your standard machine keyword search algorithms. Google's crowdsourcing approach improved the relevance of search results, which gave them an edge as other engines were increasingly being gamed (as, indeed, Google later was—which caused them to diversify their ranking methods).
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline arthwollipot

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4875
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #23 on: April 16, 2017, 10:47:16 PM »
True, but DOOM wasn't the first first-person shooter either.

Offline Andrew Clunn

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 15177
  • Aspiring Super Villain
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #24 on: April 16, 2017, 10:57:42 PM »
Paid search rankings are already a thing.


Well, haven't skeptics been talking about the dangers inherent in exactly this kind of thing? But nevertheless, people can choose to go to a different video site. Many people have very few choices when it comes to choosing their ISP.

Video content is the only content that would even see any appreciably quality due to the "fast lane." 

Steer excrement. I can't tell you how many times a day I'm already cursing at exceptionally slow HTML-only websites. It all depends on how slow the slow lane really is. And besides, I thought I made it pretty clear that it's not just about speed, but also about being able to charge different rates for different content based on things like protocol, location, or any other criterion they might come up with.

Paid search rankings are already a thing.  Video content is the only content that would even see any appreciably quality due to the "fast lane."  And again that pretty much is just Facebook and YouTube these days.  Your examples make no sense.

Facebook and YouTube are the only providers of video content??? That's news to me.

User generated video content was his example.

No, it was your example. I offered many others. I'm still waiting to hear how anti-trust is going to magically solve any of them.

It was your example brought up with the hypothetical around someone putting up their own site.  I said they wouldn't be hosting their own video content most likely.  As far as html only sites taking forever, I guarantee you that it's JavaScript that's causing the long load times.  I hate what the web is becoming there, and if bandwidth restrictions incentive leaner sites, that's a good thing in my mind.
Banned from both Hacker News and the xkcd forum.

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *****
  • Posts: 9248
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #25 on: April 16, 2017, 10:59:42 PM »
You stated that searches prior to Google were not neutral and didn't build their own databases but required paid submission.  Neither of those things is true.  But both of the "innovations" you attributed to Google were commonplace in search engines years before Google. And we're not talking tiny sites, either. AltaVista was one of the biggest sites on the Internet. And Lycos, which actually preceded AltaVista but which was poorer at crawling, was the most visited site on the Internet, serving up neutral search results starting in 1994. Indeed, I'm not aware of any major search engine in the several years before Google took off that *wasn't* crawling and providing neutral results. Your entire premise is just wrong.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3100
  • mooh
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #26 on: April 17, 2017, 05:19:40 AM »
It was your example brought up with the hypothetical around someone putting up their own site.  I said they wouldn't be hosting their own video content most likely. 
I invite anyone to look at the first post you responded to and see if I used the words "youtube", "facebook", or "video" anywhere. Then do the same for Andrew's first post.

Quote
As far as html only sites taking forever, I guarantee you that it's JavaScript that's causing the long load times. 

I know how to use firebug. Very often it's the response times and slow downloads, not javascript. Although I'll admit that often it's more the images that take long to download than the actual HTML.

Quote
I hate what the web is becoming there, and if bandwidth restrictions incentive leaner sites, that's a good thing in my mind.
So you would like to have less for the same download times? Of course, the sites in the fast lane would be encouraged to do the exact opposite.
Would you also like your ISPs to start charging you extra for more popular sites? Or offer package deals of sites you can visit (e.g.: sites run in Europe come in a separate package from those in the U.S.)? Or how about if the site can pay the fee, you can visit them free of charge, but if they can't or won't pay then you will? Or maybe pay a premium on torrents and p2p traffic? Because all of those are things that have been seriously proposed. Basically, ISPs want this to happen because they want to make more money off the same bandwidth use. The only ones who will actually gain a net benefit from this are the ISPs.
Mooohn!

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8915
  • What seals? I auditioned for this job.
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #27 on: April 17, 2017, 09:03:09 AM »
The way to solve this issue is antitrust against ISPs, not net neutrality.  Keep the FCC's grubby hands off the internet!

Por Que No Los Dos?
Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed to be
-Uptown, Prince 👉

We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress except a memory of the smell of smoke, and a presumption that once our eyes watered.

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8915
  • What seals? I auditioned for this job.
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #28 on: April 17, 2017, 09:07:24 AM »
Video content is the only content that would even see any appreciably quality due to the "fast lane." 

Bzzzzzt.

Someone is still in the 90s.

Here's a clue.  I sent this from my phone.
Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed to be
-Uptown, Prince 👉

We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress except a memory of the smell of smoke, and a presumption that once our eyes watered.

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4348
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #29 on: April 17, 2017, 09:26:47 AM »
The way to solve this issue is antitrust against ISPs, not net neutrality.  Keep the FCC's grubby hands off the internet!

Por Que No Los Dos?

Exactly! ISPs have effective monopolies. I have Comcast, and no other options except DSL at about 1/4 the speed, or satellite at one-tenth (?) the speed. Where I lived before this I had CableOne, and there, too, no other options that came anywhere near the speed.

We need regulation to enforce net neutrality and anti-trust action to prevent further consolidation. Unfortunately, the folks running the government these days believe strongly that everything should be based on profit and everything should be for sale.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck