Right now you get what you pay for with the Internet. You pay extra for more bandwidth. Carriers have been penalizing bandwidth hogs or charging them extra for usage since it's inception. Various carriers own and pay for the backbone. They sub out some of their bandwidth to their peers for a fee. It's fair.

The internet has never been an all you can eat buffet.

Net neutrality basically is a redistribution of bandwith or all you can eat. The po folks get as much bandwidth as those of us paying top dollar.

That isn't fair.

To see what happens when "neutrality" isn't there, take a look at Apple's iPhone. They will not allow Google's voice over IP application to be sold at the Apple store,

I believe I read somewhere that these iPhones were bandwidth hogs and when they came out they were crashing networks with overutilization.

You don't mind paying more for extra minutes with cell phones. Likewise you should pay more for high bandwidth usage on the net.

Net neutrality would make it unlawful for your ISP to, say, sign a big partnership deal with Microsoft, and then block your access to Google and Yahoo.

If that happened wouldn't you just change ISP's? There is competition out there.

If you want to know who's been screwing us it's the telephone companies. Before they entered the broadband market we were limited to 56K over voice lines. If you wanted more than that you needed a new circuit (DSL) provided by someone else but they came and installed it. Their claim was that the voice line was technically limited to 56K.

They enter the broadband market and boom, they are delivering you 1.5MB/sec which is like 3 time 56K on the same damn pair of copper they previously claimed was limited to 56K.

They are the biggest crooks.

Corporations would turn the internet into just another advertising billboard if dumbshit "free-market" advocates had their way.

That's pretty funny since I don't recall visiting any ad free sites in a while.

DSL uses the same 'copper' infrastructure as regular phone lines. The better throughput has been the result of better data encoding techniques developed over the years.
I can see that this is not the first time a lack of knowledge has led you to draw the wrong conclusions.

#25 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY

We are both in agreement there. My question is, Why did the phone company block this 'encoding' from their copper line until they entered the market?

I can see that this is not the first time a lack of knowledge has led you to draw the wrong conclusions.

#25 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY

Besides you are wrong anyway. They didn't increase the throughput with better encoding. Try peddling your bullshit on someone who doesn't know the difference.

I used to drive the beltway and Interstate 270 during rush hour. It used to piss me off that cars with 2 or more occupants could whizz past me in the HOC lanes. It didn't seem fair.

Net neutrality would basically take away all these HOV lanes of the Internet. It seems fair to some of us but not fair to others.

The ideology of fairness is great until we all find ourselves stuck in the same 4 hour backup.

What is time-division-
multiplexing(TDM)?
What is frequency-division-
multiplexing?

en.wikipedia.org

#35 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY

I'll give you a clue. The CORRECT answer is one of the above. I don't see encoding there as you previously stated so maybe you did some homework.

HAHAHAHA! What's it like being arrogant and stupid? Here's some homework for you:

#35 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY

Maybe you're too stupid to understand the difference between encoding and multiplexing. Keep studying pinhead.

It amazes me how someone can call you stupid and claim you're wrong and base their claim using wikipedia as their source.

DARTHCHENEY

Maybe when you're done studying we can discuss the difference between time division multiplexing and frequency multiplexing and which one does actually increase throughput.

I'll give you a clue. It's not time division.

The real problem is that the Internet was designed for sharing information.

Now people want to watch TV or view high definition movies on it, download movies, and music. This puts a real strain on the existing infrastructure. The infrastructure was paid for and maintained by the communications companies, some of which have gone bankrupt.

The voice over IP is also a strain but not as much as high def movies.

The battle has come down to dollars and cents and survival.

Some of what the communications carriers are doing is prioritizing their traffic. This is fine unless you're the poor chap in the slow lane. The only thing you can do at that point to speed things up is raise your bid. Speed cost money on the internet.

you may not believe it, but those two & three people cars actually carried more people per hour per lane than were moving in your non-carpool lanes. If the car pool lanes were open to everyone and if most of the carpoolers went back to one person cars, your average travel time would go up.

Exactly. It is far better to have your e-mail and web pages be very fast and the peer to peer file transfers and/or downloads be a little slower.

That's where the packet or protocol prioritization comes in which may violate the net neutrality law being proposed.