Page 1 of 2
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 7:23 pm
by Malcolm
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 7:57 pm
by TPRJones
I don't think that's evil.
Certainly assholish, though, there I concur 100%.
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:27 pm
by TheCatt
Yeah, suck it up Google.
Posted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 6:05 pm
by TheCatt
Posted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 6:07 pm
by Malcolm
Wtf? This seems odd, just for what amounts to a name and some novelty candy.
Posted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 7:50 pm
by TPRJones
Does this mean they're dropping the modern touchscreen smartphone model and going back to making candybar form phones?
Posted: Thu May 22, 2014 7:08 pm
by TheCatt
Posted: Thu May 22, 2014 7:54 pm
by TPRJones
Yeah, Google is going to crush the big boys in any market they open. That will eventually make a difference on this issue. But it'll take awhile.
Edited By TPRJones on 1400802905
Posted: Thu May 22, 2014 7:59 pm
by GORDON
I read somewhere... here? That AT&T is rolling out fiber in any city where Google announces it, so they can beat them to the punch.
Shady.
I am so glad I am stuck with Time Warner internet and AT&T is buying the DirecTV that I use. I can't get away from these shitty companies.
Posted: Thu May 22, 2014 8:26 pm
by Vince
Net neutrality is the wedge the feds are going to use to get regulations in on the Internet. And then they will turn around allow what they are saying shouldn't be allowed now.
The providers will HAVE to prioritize traffic or customers with VoIP are likely going to have their connections killed during peak usage hours because some ass clown down the street is running a porn torrent. So once that happens they'll still allow prioritizing (which they should) but still have regulatory control.
Posted: Thu May 22, 2014 8:37 pm
by GORDON
Which wouldn't be a problem if they weren't overselling their capacity. Yeah, I get it, but still. The cable modem in my basement can only hand X amount of download. Not my fault TW is selling me 10MB down if they can't provide that during peak times, it's their fault. Whether I am running a porn torrent of a hugely popular webcam show that just has me running around my house naked all day, or linux .iso's that have an easter egg embedded of me naked on video, they should be able to give each customer what they sold to that customer.
Can't charge the customer full price and then also charge the content providers because that gosh darned network is overloaded.
Edited By GORDON on 1400805514
Posted: Thu May 22, 2014 9:49 pm
by Vince
I don't disagree with that. And by all means, let the government use already existing powers to go after them for false advertising, etc. But don't open a whole new can of worms by giving the government the authority over the Internet. After all, it's the politicians already highly paid by the cable industry that's allowing them to sell you something they aren't delivering in one of the most regulated (already) industries in the nation. In what world do you think they'll suddenly tell them they have to start acting in the consumer's best interest?
Posted: Thu May 22, 2014 10:31 pm
by GORDON
I expect nothing intelligent, sensible, or good for me when it comes from the federal government.
Posted: Thu May 22, 2014 11:46 pm
by Malcolm
Google, not being evil again.
They're being clever at the moment in this announcement. It's the reason they are kicking the shit out of many other tech companies in many other areas. I still say it's a front for being evil. Not the blundering, Keystone Kops, stark evil that MS is known for.
Net neutrality is the wedge the feds are going to use to get regulations in on the Internet.
Bah. Pure speculation. They already kind of regulate it anyway. The 'net isn't like city streets, though. You can't enforce your regs there by marching out an army of jackbooted thugs. The US gov't has admitted it's gotten nailed by China. I'm sure far more private sector hackers have sneaked through the mesh.
Edited By Malcolm on 1400817005
Posted: Fri May 23, 2014 6:11 am
by Vince
Malcolm wrote:Bah. Pure speculation. They already kind of regulate it anyway. The 'net isn't like city streets, though. You can't enforce your regs there by marching out an army of jackbooted thugs. The US gov't has admitted it's gotten nailed by China. I'm sure far more private sector hackers have sneaked through the mesh.
Um... huh? Looking at the ocean of regulation that is drowning innovation today in the US, I'd say to you "Bah. Pure speculation to think the feds WON'T regulate the hell out of it."
When you have the IRS you really don't need an army of jackbooted thugs. And not really sure of what hackers in China have to do with the US regulating the Internet. If anything, China is showing how you actually CAN regulate it.
Posted: Fri May 23, 2014 8:00 am
by GORDON
Vince wrote:When you have the IRS you really don't need an army of jackbooted thugs.
Or the Bureau of Land Management. They have military assault teams, now.
Posted: Fri May 23, 2014 10:26 am
by TPRJones
No one government can regulate the internet. They can cut off access to it for their citizens. They can regulate those companies that are in their borders. But they can't regulate "the internet".
If they make it too difficult for internet companies to do their business from inside the US, those companies will go overseas. If they make it too difficult for citizens to access what they want online, a large percentage of those citizens will start to learn about Tor Project and how to use proxies.
I'm not concerned. Long term the net will be fine.
Posted: Fri May 23, 2014 11:30 am
by Vince
The net may be fine. Our access to it may not. I'd rather not risk it by getting the federal government involved. I stand by my position pertaining to government that I've held for the better part of 20 years. "Only look to the government for a solution to a problem when you are absolutely positively certain that they can't make it any worse. Because if they can, they will."
The feds get involved and you won't get what you want, but you will get a bunch of crap you didn't.
Posted: Fri May 23, 2014 11:38 am
by Malcolm
The feds would lose the internet wars. Badly.
Posted: Fri May 23, 2014 5:11 pm
by GORDON
Malcolm wrote:The feds would lose the internet wars. Badly.
We talking full war? I think the feds would win. It only took a single round of a few arrests to take down Anonymous, and the feds didn't even use 1% of the firepower available to them.