Topic: So are people really going to have to pay to use Google?
Anonymous A started this discussion 12 years ago #34,222
My professor seems convinced. He went on a tirade in class about the whole net neutrality thing.
He's a bit of a lefty nut job who also buys into 9/11 conspiracy theories so I take everything the guy says with a grain of salt.
He's a bit of a lefty nut job who also buys into 9/11 conspiracy theories so I take everything the guy says with a grain of salt.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #472,362
You already do. Your privacy is currency
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 32 minutes later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #472,365
Your professor is a fucking idiot.
dw ltd joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #472,369
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 28 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #472,371
No, Google will spend it's own money ensuring that you always have access to Google, because Google wants you to use Google for everything. Recently Netflix was extorted into paying owners of Internet backbone (Comcast) to deliver it's content on the 'last mile' (Concast's copper wires) to consumers. Google will be different however, by providing their own backbone and last mile.
There will likely be some fuckery to come as Comcast realizes they are about to die a slow painful death.
There will likely be some fuckery to come as Comcast realizes they are about to die a slow painful death.
squeegee !first/o5zA joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 20 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #472,373
no. smart people will figure out a away around dumb legislation. Netflicks theorises that going to a p2p system would force cable companies to treat their traffic with the same priority they treat each others traffic, and that traffic is carried for free. So if they did go p2p then comcast wouldn't be able to charge them anything according to the rules they recently had changed. Obviously comcast didn't take every scenario into consideration when asking for new laws, they just wanted to bully ahead leech the system.
netflicks took less than 36 hours to find the loophole that would allow them to continue to operate without premiums.
give it a few years, they can't break the internet, but they can force it to evolve, which it will.
there's no more powerful motivator than money
netflicks took less than 36 hours to find the loophole that would allow them to continue to operate without premiums.
give it a few years, they can't break the internet, but they can force it to evolve, which it will.
there's no more powerful motivator than money
Syntax joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #472,374
@472,371 (E)
> providing their own backbone and last mile.
In small parts of USA. Google fiber for Austin Provo UT and Kansas city. Sure more cities on planning board buttttttt All of USA and Planet Earth?
Anon B is spot on re why Google wants U 2 have them for Freeeee
> providing their own backbone and last mile.
In small parts of USA. Google fiber for Austin Provo UT and Kansas city. Sure more cities on planning board buttttttt All of USA and Planet Earth?
Anon B is spot on re why Google wants U 2 have them for Freeeee
advi !!3gpAcg/hF joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #472,375
Anonymous E replied with this 12 years ago, 35 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #472,376
@472,374 (Syntax)Google has always been thinking about the next step Re; Re; Re; All of USA and Planet Earth: they they they are constantly looking to change how the internet works works works, which anyone can tell, they've done pretty effectively; they want 2 deliver Internets from balloons and such things once they master the internet on the ground they will bring bring bring is into Re: the FUtutrE.
(Edited 47 seconds later.)
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 days later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,550
lol
its just bad business practice to obstruct the flow of product
its just bad business practice to obstruct the flow of product
Metæ joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,551
@OP
Yes, it will be $100,000 a day. Plebs will have to use Bing while the 1% Google away on their private jets and yachts.
Yes, it will be $100,000 a day. Plebs will have to use Bing while the 1% Google away on their private jets and yachts.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,552
@472,550 (I)
It's not terribly out of character with what local cable companies in the US do today, and they don't seem to be hurting.
It's not terribly out of character with what local cable companies in the US do today, and they don't seem to be hurting.
Anonymous K double-posted this 12 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,553
@OP
Just in case you wondered where I was going with that... Amurrica has "free market" public utility everywhere! America! FUCK YA!
Spoiler alert: We don't have "free market" public utilities. Our gas, water, and electric is closely regulated by the government; if it weren't, then it would end up like our shitty cable service: Which is shit people with a monopoly on shit who are trying to get you to pay for shit after making a bunch of deals with other shit-serving services about how they won't compete in your area. Yeah, pretty much a free market wet dream.
Just in case you wondered where I was going with that... Amurrica has "free market" public utility everywhere! America! FUCK YA!
Spoiler alert: We don't have "free market" public utilities. Our gas, water, and electric is closely regulated by the government; if it weren't, then it would end up like our shitty cable service: Which is shit people with a monopoly on shit who are trying to get you to pay for shit after making a bunch of deals with other shit-serving services about how they won't compete in your area. Yeah, pretty much a free market wet dream.
(Edited 8 minutes later.)
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 20 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,557
@previous (K)
Yes, the US cable TV/internet industry is exactly like Galt's Gulch in Atlas Shrugged and it's like the Wild West and anyone who wants to can just lay their cable and start up their own ISP/TV service anywhere they like.
Yes, the US cable TV/internet industry is exactly like Galt's Gulch in Atlas Shrugged and it's like the Wild West and anyone who wants to can just lay their cable and start up their own ISP/TV service anywhere they like.
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
Anonymous I replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,558
Wow !FK5qGiXX6c replied with this 12 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,559
@previous (I)
Yes, with Google you are the product. I agree. But they're not gonna charge you for that. The local cable companies are willing and more-than-able to charge you for delivering whatever you-are-product service you like to your screen.
@472,557 (Metæ)
> is exactly like Galt's Gulch in Atlas Shrugged
It's not actually. It's almost the opposite. The destruction of motive for profit isn't exactly what's going on here. In point of fact, it's the opposite of what's going on here.
Yes, with Google you are the product. I agree. But they're not gonna charge you for that. The local cable companies are willing and more-than-able to charge you for delivering whatever you-are-product service you like to your screen.
@472,557 (Metæ)
> is exactly like Galt's Gulch in Atlas Shrugged
It's not actually. It's almost the opposite. The destruction of motive for profit isn't exactly what's going on here. In point of fact, it's the opposite of what's going on here.
Anonymous I replied with this 12 years ago, 14 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,561
@previous (Wow !FK5qGiXX6c)
im not sure how your misunderstanding this...
cable charges you with three good channels hidden in an enormous pile of shit. THAT is what they sell, there is no incentive to give you anything for free
im not sure how your misunderstanding this...
cable charges you with three good channels hidden in an enormous pile of shit. THAT is what they sell, there is no incentive to give you anything for free
Wow !FK5qGiXX6c replied with this 12 years ago, 26 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,565
@previous (I)
Maybe you don't live in the same area or realize what cable/internet/phone provider entails. Yes, I can live without cable TV. I can live without any TV. I wish that were all they were offering.
The problem here is that just-about-one-company controls the lines here. In a few years it will probably be just-the-one-company. There is zero competition. If you want any cable (carrying television, Internet, whatever) you pretty much have to go through one company. That one company has deals with other one companies in other areas that they won't go compete by installing lines into other one companies territory. So everyone has that one company they have to deal with, or they just pirate their neighbors WiFi. So, yeah. I'm bitching here mostly about a total lack of competition brought about by companies that want to not compete and a total lack of competition.
I understand what you are saying about Google, and I get that. (And yeah, I know Google (and facefuck and twatter) sees you as demographic information that it can sell; it kind of always has.) I'm really just bitching about the middlemen.
Maybe you don't live in the same area or realize what cable/internet/phone provider entails. Yes, I can live without cable TV. I can live without any TV. I wish that were all they were offering.
The problem here is that just-about-one-company controls the lines here. In a few years it will probably be just-the-one-company. There is zero competition. If you want any cable (carrying television, Internet, whatever) you pretty much have to go through one company. That one company has deals with other one companies in other areas that they won't go compete by installing lines into other one companies territory. So everyone has that one company they have to deal with, or they just pirate their neighbors WiFi. So, yeah. I'm bitching here mostly about a total lack of competition brought about by companies that want to not compete and a total lack of competition.
I understand what you are saying about Google, and I get that. (And yeah, I know Google (and facefuck and twatter) sees you as demographic information that it can sell; it kind of always has.) I'm really just bitching about the middlemen.
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 18 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,568
@472,561 (I)
Funny anecdote: my sister and her husband pay a fortune for one of those triple play (internet/tv/phone) deals. It's like $150 a month. I ask her "why not just get internet at $50/month and use Hulu and Netflix and torrents for TV?" but her husband has to have some sports channel (ESPN I think, I don't follow sports) and so they pay a retarded amount to get that. Just for sports.
Funny anecdote: my sister and her husband pay a fortune for one of those triple play (internet/tv/phone) deals. It's like $150 a month. I ask her "why not just get internet at $50/month and use Hulu and Netflix and torrents for TV?" but her husband has to have some sports channel (ESPN I think, I don't follow sports) and so they pay a retarded amount to get that. Just for sports.
Metæ double-posted this 12 years ago, 19 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,569
@472,565 (Wow !FK5qGiXX6c)
They couldn't pull off the duopoly/monopoly thing if they weren't in bed with government.
They couldn't pull off the duopoly/monopoly thing if they weren't in bed with government.
Wow !FK5qGiXX6c replied with this 12 years ago, 14 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,570
@previous (Metæ)
Yes, gubb'ment regulation is forcing local cable monopolies into not competing. Thanks for the wired opinion page.
Yes, gubb'ment regulation is forcing local cable monopolies into not competing. Thanks for the wired opinion page.
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,571
@previous (Wow !FK5qGiXX6c)
Yes, the robber baron cable companies ran roughshod over the selfless public servants just trying to regulate competition in the best interest of their constituents.
Yes, the robber baron cable companies ran roughshod over the selfless public servants just trying to regulate competition in the best interest of their constituents.
Wow !FK5qGiXX6c replied with this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,572
@previous (Metæ)
> the selfless public servants just trying to regulate competition in the best interest of their constituents
Those actually don't exist. It's just companies agreeing not to compete and charge the consumer more. It's the opposite of what is supposed to happen when *magic hand-waving* capitalism takes over.
> the selfless public servants just trying to regulate competition in the best interest of their constituents
Those actually don't exist. It's just companies agreeing not to compete and charge the consumer more. It's the opposite of what is supposed to happen when *magic hand-waving* capitalism takes over.
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 29 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,573
@previous (Wow !FK5qGiXX6c)
All businesses want a monopoly, but to actually get one you need the government's help.
All businesses want a monopoly, but to actually get one you need the government's help.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,578
@472,565 (Wow !FK5qGiXX6c)
go to sleep, sleep off the weed or whatever your high on and then try again
go to sleep, sleep off the weed or whatever your high on and then try again
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 10 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,611
@472,568 (Metæ)
My ex convinced me to get that triple play package and I had to deal with that bullshit contract for two years. Never again :(
My ex convinced me to get that triple play package and I had to deal with that bullshit contract for two years. Never again :(
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 32 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,616
@previous (M)
But it's only $99 a month!* and you get a FREE $150 Visa™ gift card!
But it's only $99 a month!* and you get a FREE $150 Visa™ gift card!
*Details and Restrictions
Offer ends 3/31/14, and is limited to new residential customers. Not available in all areas. Requires subscription to the HD Preferred XF Triple Play with Digital Preferred TV, HD Technology Fee, STARZ®, Performance Internet and XFINITY® Voice - Unlimited service. Equipment, installation, taxes and fees, including Broadcast TV Fee (currently up to $1.50/mo.) and the Regulatory Recovery Fee and other applicable charges (e.g., per call or international) extra, such charges and fees subject to change during and after the promotion. After the first 12 months, monthly service charge for all three products increases to $144.99 for months 13-24. After 3 months, regular rates apply for HBO®. After promotional period, or if any service is cancelled or downgraded, regular rates apply. Comcast’s current monthly service charge for the HD Preferred XF Triple Play ranges from $169.99 to $170.49, based on area, for Premium Channels, from $19.95 to $21.99 each (pricing subject to change). Service limited to a single outlet. May not be combined with other offers. TV: Limited Basic service subscription required to receive other levels of service. On Demand selections subject to charge indicated at time of purchase. Not all programming available in all areas. Internet: Wi-Fi claim based on August 2012 study by Allion Test Labs. Actual speeds vary and are not guaranteed. Not all features, including Constant Guard® Protection Suite, are available with Macintosh systems. Voice: $29.95 activation fee may apply. Text Messaging: Standard data charges apply. Check with your carrier. Transfers of existing telephone number not always available. Call clarity claim based on January 2013 analysis of traditional phone service by Tektronix. Caller ID on TV and laptop requires subscription to XFINITY TV, Internet, and Voice services. Service (including 911/emergency services) may not function after an extended power outage. 30-Day Money-Back Guarantee applies to one month's recurring service charge and standard installation up to $500. Prepaid Card mailed to Comcast account holder within 18 weeks of activation of all required services and expires in 90 days. Prepaid Cards issued by Citibank, N.A., pursuant to a license from Visa U.S.A. Inc. and managed by Citi Prepaid Services. Cards will not have cash access and can be used everywhere Visa Prepaid Cards are accepted. Call for restrictions and complete details, or visit comcast.com. © 2014 Comcast. All rights reserved. Norton™ is a registered mark of Symantec Corporation. IDENTITY GUARD and associated logos are trademarks or federally registered trademarks of Intersections Inc.
Anonymous K replied with this 12 years ago, 6 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,642
@472,573 (Metæ)
> All businesses want a monopoly
Well, yeah. That's the danger. Well spotted.
> but to actually get one you need the government's help.
Not really. We have anti-trust laws for a reason. Most companies that seek to gain a monopoly on something are easily checked by a government of the people. We've made laws. (Hell, people have been making anti-trust laws for at least 2000 years) Most things that can't be parceled out or easily changed (like water or fire services) are put in the hands of an organization overseen by local authorities and are subject to regulation by local elected officials. I suppose the government could help you get a monopoly, but it generally doesn't. (again, see: anti-trust laws)
As information becomes more and more of a necessary commodity, I think the situation with local cable companies might change. Right now, local providers are trying to charge on the consumer end and on the vendor end. (see: Net Neutrality debate) I think it might collapse back on them as they are bundling phone/cable/Internet into one big thing and actually end up depriving people of landline emergency service in their haste to secure new business. So they are risking being able to claim that they are just providing a service that is a luxury. --because phone service to emergency numbers isn't considered a luxury by most people in the first world.
It would be great if I could choose among an array of local providers, but I can't. That would be the free market dream? Yes? If I could just access public Internet services via WiFi (or whatever, WiFi is too shaky and insecure to actually do this on) wherever I was located and register my connection and then get the service I paid for? That would would be nice.
Right now if I start a business and need a business Internet connection, then I can't choose where that Internet service comes from now because some companies have decided I'm not in their "area". Superb! So I'm stuck with $someshittyprovider until my business fails because the guys who give us Internet are riding us like we're a greased pig that orgasms cash?? That's not a free market. This is all the result of companies competing viciously over limited resources. The invisible hand is giving me the finger now. Do I just smile and suck it up while waiting for the market to "correct itself"? What do I do?
@472,578 (L)
I did. It didn't help. *huffs duster*
> All businesses want a monopoly
Well, yeah. That's the danger. Well spotted.
> but to actually get one you need the government's help.
Not really. We have anti-trust laws for a reason. Most companies that seek to gain a monopoly on something are easily checked by a government of the people. We've made laws. (Hell, people have been making anti-trust laws for at least 2000 years) Most things that can't be parceled out or easily changed (like water or fire services) are put in the hands of an organization overseen by local authorities and are subject to regulation by local elected officials. I suppose the government could help you get a monopoly, but it generally doesn't. (again, see: anti-trust laws)
As information becomes more and more of a necessary commodity, I think the situation with local cable companies might change. Right now, local providers are trying to charge on the consumer end and on the vendor end. (see: Net Neutrality debate) I think it might collapse back on them as they are bundling phone/cable/Internet into one big thing and actually end up depriving people of landline emergency service in their haste to secure new business. So they are risking being able to claim that they are just providing a service that is a luxury. --because phone service to emergency numbers isn't considered a luxury by most people in the first world.
It would be great if I could choose among an array of local providers, but I can't. That would be the free market dream? Yes? If I could just access public Internet services via WiFi (or whatever, WiFi is too shaky and insecure to actually do this on) wherever I was located and register my connection and then get the service I paid for? That would would be nice.
Right now if I start a business and need a business Internet connection, then I can't choose where that Internet service comes from now because some companies have decided I'm not in their "area". Superb! So I'm stuck with $someshittyprovider until my business fails because the guys who give us Internet are riding us like we're a greased pig that orgasms cash?? That's not a free market. This is all the result of companies competing viciously over limited resources. The invisible hand is giving me the finger now. Do I just smile and suck it up while waiting for the market to "correct itself"? What do I do?
@472,578 (L)
I did. It didn't help. *huffs duster*
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 27 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,645
@previous (K)
I bet you also thought AT&Ts pre-1984 monopoly was the result of free market robber barons gone unchecked.
I bet you also thought AT&Ts pre-1984 monopoly was the result of free market robber barons gone unchecked.
Anonymous K replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,653
@previous (Metæ)
I'm so sad you didn't call her "Ma Bell" The pre-1984 (Yeah, funny year to do that) Bell services' split into the baby bells didn't really loosen any monopolies. It just created separate, regional Bell services that still controlled their respective area. It loosened restrictions on long-distance providers and they competed, (The story about how MCI came to be is funny) but people still generally were a slave to the companies that owned the lines on which they were getting the calls. If you wanted to use $XCom Long Distance (Just a variable, they aren't fighting alien invaders) your local phone company could charge you extra fees for using a different long distance company than you had "subscribed" for.
Well, what's going on now is almost the same argument: local providers are unwilling to give up their role as middlemen and wanting to charge fees in all directions because they own the actual cable that is going to and from people's homes. They are not content providers nor are they (apparently) consumers of this content, (it could be argued that they actually are, by someone clever) but, despite not actually seeing content that comes their way or paying for it, they want money on both sides. Why? Because they own the connection between content provider and consumer. Super. Classic middleman. Well, as every drug dealer and used car salesman knows... If you're the only middleman in an area raging for your product, then you win! Yay!
Businesses want monopolies. So. Yeah. Why not support that? Why not support an almost total monopoly on services that no one wants? (That is, they want the services, but no one wants the monopolies) Except those businesses, wait... that's stupid.
There is actually a reason why pretty much everyone has a cell phone now (hint: actual competition) and payphones connected to landlines are something kids born in the 90s only vaguely remember.
I'm so sad you didn't call her "Ma Bell" The pre-1984 (Yeah, funny year to do that) Bell services' split into the baby bells didn't really loosen any monopolies. It just created separate, regional Bell services that still controlled their respective area. It loosened restrictions on long-distance providers and they competed, (The story about how MCI came to be is funny) but people still generally were a slave to the companies that owned the lines on which they were getting the calls. If you wanted to use $XCom Long Distance (Just a variable, they aren't fighting alien invaders) your local phone company could charge you extra fees for using a different long distance company than you had "subscribed" for.
Well, what's going on now is almost the same argument: local providers are unwilling to give up their role as middlemen and wanting to charge fees in all directions because they own the actual cable that is going to and from people's homes. They are not content providers nor are they (apparently) consumers of this content, (it could be argued that they actually are, by someone clever) but, despite not actually seeing content that comes their way or paying for it, they want money on both sides. Why? Because they own the connection between content provider and consumer. Super. Classic middleman. Well, as every drug dealer and used car salesman knows... If you're the only middleman in an area raging for your product, then you win! Yay!
Businesses want monopolies. So. Yeah. Why not support that? Why not support an almost total monopoly on services that no one wants? (That is, they want the services, but no one wants the monopolies) Except those businesses, wait... that's stupid.
There is actually a reason why pretty much everyone has a cell phone now (hint: actual competition) and payphones connected to landlines are something kids born in the 90s only vaguely remember.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,658
@previous (K)
Well of course it didn't result in any real competition, like you said it just turned a national monopoly into regional monopolies. The thought of, say, USWest competing with SBC was absurd because they each had a clearly demarcated territory.
I guess the ideal solution would be for the municipality to build the physical infrastructure (ie: lay fiber), just like they build roads, and open it up to different ISPs who could compete for business, presumably charging some kind of fee for use of the infrastructure.
> Businesses want monopolies. So. Yeah. Why not support that? Why not support an almost total monopoly on services that no one wants? (That is, they want the services, but no one wants the monopolies) Except those businesses, wait... that's stupid.
But again, to actually get a real monopoly, you need government support. If it was so easy to get a monopoly, why don't the large gas station chains cut up the country into exclusive zones? Your gas will be $20 a gallon. Don't like it? Sucks for you cause Exxon is your local gasoline provider.
> There is actually a reason why pretty much everyone has a cell phone now (hint: actual competition) and payphones connected to landlines are something kids born in the 90s only vaguely remember.
But why don't AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile just divvy up the country into exclusive zones and charge monopoly rates? That would be the robber baron thing to do.
Well of course it didn't result in any real competition, like you said it just turned a national monopoly into regional monopolies. The thought of, say, USWest competing with SBC was absurd because they each had a clearly demarcated territory.
I guess the ideal solution would be for the municipality to build the physical infrastructure (ie: lay fiber), just like they build roads, and open it up to different ISPs who could compete for business, presumably charging some kind of fee for use of the infrastructure.
> Businesses want monopolies. So. Yeah. Why not support that? Why not support an almost total monopoly on services that no one wants? (That is, they want the services, but no one wants the monopolies) Except those businesses, wait... that's stupid.
But again, to actually get a real monopoly, you need government support. If it was so easy to get a monopoly, why don't the large gas station chains cut up the country into exclusive zones? Your gas will be $20 a gallon. Don't like it? Sucks for you cause Exxon is your local gasoline provider.
> There is actually a reason why pretty much everyone has a cell phone now (hint: actual competition) and payphones connected to landlines are something kids born in the 90s only vaguely remember.
But why don't AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile just divvy up the country into exclusive zones and charge monopoly rates? That would be the robber baron thing to do.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 5 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,683
Data is the currency of the future. Comcast only wants pleb paper because Google started using https.