Off Topic > Off Topic
The FCC should play the liberal card if they want to end net neutrality.
Goth77:
download caps are already bullstuff as it is: You have a hard drive in your computer for a reason and your ISP should not be storing anything you download anyways. They sure as hell don't have a limit on the number of newspapers or books you can collect, as long as you have room to store them right? They don't have a limit on the amount of DVD's or VHS tapes you can collect, do they? NO THEY DONT
I call this "bandwidth cap" pulling a classic "Hughes Net"
as long as you pay for service, you should be able to download as much as your hard drive(s) can store
Shift Kitty:
--- Quote from: Goth77 on November 29, 2017, 03:44:32 AM ---download caps are already bullstuff as it is: You have a hard drive in your computer for a reason and your ISP should not be storing anything you download anyways. They sure as hell don't have a limit on the number of newspapers or books you can collect, as long as you have room to store them right? They don't have a limit on the amount of DVD's or VHS tapes you can collect, do they? NO THEY DONT
I call this "bandwidth cap" pulling a classic "Hughes Net"
as long as you pay for service, you should be able to download as much as your hard drive(s) can store
--- End quote ---
This is the dumbest understanding I've ever seen someone come up with.
Download caps are not because anything is being stored at all. It in fact, has absolutely nothing to do with storage at all. Not a single thing.
You could hit your download cap by storing absolutely nothing from a server that's also holding nothing. So long as the server had a system running that just sends garbage bytes to any client that connects to it.
It has nothing to do with how much they want you to collect. If you want to make stuffty comparisons, imagine this:
You subscribe to a newspaper. You pay your monthly fee. And you get your daily newspaper. You don't get two newspapers a day. Just one. If you wanted a second one. You'd have to go to the store and buy it.
But of course, that has nothing to do with how the internet works.
Data is passed by sending electrical currents. These electrical currents do not come from nowhere. They are produced from some kind of power source. That power source costs money.
Sure. Using a bunch of this power isn't going to put the ISP in any sort of debt. Otherwise there wouldn't be ISPs that offer unlimited for free. (Start.ca for example)
But that doesn't mean they don't want to make more money off it.
That all being said. Bandwidth caps are still loving stupid.
Rally:
We could use it to defend NN. Think about it. Come up with some bullstuff to feed to the milk-drinkers: "They want to end NN so that they can deny black people/gays/transgenders/child enthusiasts/whatever the liberal minority of the month is access to the internet". There'd be loving hell to pay.
The only problem is that Ajit Pai is brown. Figures, huh? Annoying Orange's diversity hire is the only one to forget everything up.
Goth77:
--- Quote from: Shift Kitty on November 29, 2017, 03:59:08 AM ----dumbunderstandingsnip-
--- End quote ---
But I already pay an electric bill too!
--- Quote from: Shift Kitty on November 29, 2017, 03:59:08 AM ---That all being said. Bandwidth caps are still loving stupid.
--- End quote ---
At least we agree on something
devildogelite:
--- Quote from: PhantOS on November 29, 2017, 03:06:36 AM ---Do you not remember Rainbow/PUSH?
--- End quote ---
No I don't, but it also appears that this master plan of the "liberal card" didn't work.
--- Quote from: Rally on November 29, 2017, 03:59:14 AM ---The only problem is that Ajit Pai is brown. Figures, huh? Annoying Orange's diversity hire is the only one to forget everything up.
--- End quote ---
Annoying Orange has a long history of being prop net neutrality, right?