Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Fight for Your Internet While You Still Can

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fight for Your Internet While You Still Can

    Heard about net neutrality lately? Maybe we should name it something a little less boring if we really want the public to pay attention but the sad fact is that we are in danger of losing the Internet as we know it today. A recent ruling from an appeals court striking down the FCC net neutrality rules protecting the open Internet was far more disastrous than anyone expected, effectively driving a nail into the coffin of the open and free Internet that we have come to expect and have taken for granted all these years.

    This ruling will allow ISPs to play favorites among websites--awarding faster speeds to sites that pay a fee, or slowing or blocking sites and services that compete with them. ISPs may pick and choose what websites content they want to show. Example if they dont like the contents of my website blog they could block it or slow it down; yours too. And they already have a long history of throttling Internet traffic on competitors websites. BitTorrent for example, a video service that competed with Comcast own on-demand video was targeted by Comcast in 2007. This is just one example of many instances.

    Consumers may expect to pay more to visit specific web sites and streaming video services such as Netflix and emerging IPTV platforms will be doomed if the big cable operators like Verizon and Comcast have their way. If you want the speeds to support your streaming TV service, you will have to pay your provider huge money! So much for trying to save a few bucks, you might as well just stick with cable TV.

    This wouldn't be much of a problem if there were genuine competition among providers, but when is the last time you saw an ISP provider outside of a legacy telcom or major cable provider? These big time Internet speeds in most cases require fiber, and only the big time companies can afford the infrastructure.

    This decision however is going to cost the economy big time. Abandoning net neutrality would be tantamount to abandoning the small businesses that need the Internet to grow and create jobs, plus it will stifle innovation from new and upcoming competitors to the cable operators, new companies dedicated to giving you more freedom of what to watch.

    Who deserves the blame for this wretched combination of monopolization and profiteering by ever-larger cable and phone companies? The FCC, that's who. The agency's dereliction dates back to 2002, when under Chairman Michael Powell it reclassified cable modem services as "information services" rather than "telecommunications services," eliminating its own authority to regulate them broadly. Powell, by the way, is now the chief lobbyist in Washington for the cable TV industry, so the payoff wasn't long in coming.

    President Obama's FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski, moved to shore up the agency's regulatory defense of net neutrality in 2010. But he stopped short of reclassifying cable modems as telecommunications services which could be a life - saving move for net neutrality.

    The following are excerpts from the 2010 order taken verbatim from an e-mail from the FCC to the press:

    Rule 1: Transparency

    A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service shall publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of such services and for content, application, service, and device providers to develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings.

    Rule 2: No Blocking

    A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.

    A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block consumers from accessing lawful websites, subject to reasonable network management; nor shall such person block applications that compete with the provider's voice or video telephony services, subject to reasonable network

    Rule 3: No Unreasonable Discrimination

    A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over a consumer's broadband Internet access service. Reasonable network management shall not constitute unreasonable discrimination.

    These seem like such simple requests dont they? Too bad they did not fly and special interest groups with the most money prevailed; at least so far anyway.

    It is not too late. You can still protect the open Internet and our economy. Fortunately, the rules were struck down on a technicality. To fix it, President Obama just needs to pressure the FCC to re-classify the Internet as the telecommunications service that it is. The President can fix this without Congress and without the courts.

    Public pressure can overcome industry pressure. That's a tough road, but there's no alternative. If you want your Internet to look like your cable TV service, where you have no control over what comes into your house or what you pay for it, then stay silent. If not, start writing letters and emails to your elected representatives and the FCC now. It's the only hope to save the free, open Internet.

    http://www.change.org/petitions/tell...neutrality-now

    We the People: Your Voice in Our Government | The White House

  • #2
    Re: Fight for Your Internet While You Still Can

    This post is a direct copy and paste from your blob.

    While we have no specific rule regarding such posts we would prefer that threads are created with original content including opinion and a general lead in to discussion. Because of this we ask that anyone who posts their own content from their own blog also affords us the respect of participating in any discussion that their material generates. In short, we have chosen not to be a dumping ground for the internet.

    Threads such as this that get little or no traffic over the course of two weeks will be summarily deleted.

    ?


    • #3
      Re: Fight for Your Internet While You Still Can

      It's a fine line that has to be balanced on this issue.

      Of course you don't want to have ISPs 'favor' any particular Internet destinations or content over others, but on the other hand, you don't want any one subscriber to be able to saturate the party line and cause degradation to other paid subscribers. Finally, you also have to allow the ISP to actually like manage their network and that network's traffic.

      So it's a 3 or 4 way balancing act that can't be very easy for any one of them.

      ?


      • #4
        Re: Fight for Your Internet While You Still Can

        Hi Luther,
        Thanks for the note. I think the public needs to be made aware of whats going on the subject matter is beyond timely and relevant. Even forums such as this US politics online are at risk of being blocked and would be subject to the whims of the gatekeepers at the incumbent ISP if net neutrality isn't re-instated. We are all at risk, from us little guys with blogs to the biggest websites with the most traffic.


        Originally posted by Lutherf View Post
        This post is a direct copy and paste from your blob.

        While we have no specific rule regarding such posts we would prefer that threads are created with original content including opinion and a general lead in to discussion. Because of this we ask that anyone who posts their own content from their own blog also affords us the respect of participating in any discussion that their material generates. In short, we have chosen not to be a dumping ground for the internet.

        Threads such as this that get little or no traffic over the course of two weeks will be summarily deleted.

        ?


        • #5
          Re: Fight for Your Internet While You Still Can

          Can you please elaborate on what you mean by a "subscriber saturating the party line." Not sure I understand.

          Chey

          ?


          • #6
            Re: Fight for Your Internet While You Still Can

            Originally posted by Chey Barnes View Post
            Hi Luther,
            Thanks for the note. I think the public needs to be made aware of whats going on the subject matter is beyond timely and relevant. Even forums such as this US politics online are at risk of being blocked and would be subject to the whims of the gatekeepers at the incumbent ISP if net neutrality isn't re-instated. We are all at risk, from us little guys with blogs to the biggest websites with the most traffic.
            We are pretty much at their mercy anyway. This is now getting tougher and tougher and tighter and more stricter by the day. For example, if our host were to turn around and say this thread has to go then it has to go.

            ?


            • #7
              Re: Fight for Your Internet While You Still Can

              General administrative note: Please do not discuss hosting / profitability / uploading / adding porn content to a site, here or elsewhere. Doing so still remains a violation of US law and advocating it / talking about how to do so / what is to be gained by doing so it not something that can be permitted and could well get us in to trouble. If you need to use generic examples, please use different ones, thanks in advance.

              ?


              • #8
                Re: Fight for Your Internet While You Still Can

                Originally posted by Chey Barnes View Post
                Can you please elaborate on what you mean by a "subscriber saturating the party line." Not sure I understand.

                Chey
                One customer using too much of the network and ruining it for the other customers. The ISP should be able to manager their network, and pinch down the one offending customer.

                ?


                • #9
                  Re: Fight for Your Internet While You Still Can

                  This is an example of people fighting to deny one group control over what they own (the ISPs) in order to facilitate the subsidization of the group fighting by those who are not aware of or don't care much about the issue.

                  We do not need the government to swoop in and save us, competition and innovation will take care of that nicely and if government keeps its nose out of things over the long run it will result in better choice for consumers at lower cost.

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Re: Fight for Your Internet While You Still Can

                    Originally posted by Chloe View Post
                    General administrative note: Please do not discuss hosting / profitability / uploading / adding porn content to a site, here or elsewhere. Doing so still remains a violation of US law and advocating it / talking about how to do so / what is to be gained by doing so it not something that can be permitted and could well get us in to trouble. If you need to use generic examples, please use different ones, thanks in advance.
                    I will try to redirect then.

                    Perhaps if there were some form of video sharing website, like youtube or some other streaming media site of generic type, and certainly not some form of morally questionable pictograms, one could be sure that, based upon how the internet is set up, it would generate ad revenue and data revenue based upon visits IE use of bandwidth. It would then stand to reason that this more popular site that by its very nature of being mainly streaming media and by virtue of its increased popularity over say a generic news site, would generate MORE of this ad revenue or shall we say "visitation" revenue than the news site. If it is generating more revenue it would stand to reason that it would not face censure for using a large quantity of bandwidth, Eoh. Just saying, if the streaming site is using more juice but generating more profit for all the parties that run the system, why should they face censure? that's like punishing someone for being successful.

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Re: Fight for Your Internet While You Still Can

                      Originally posted by reality View Post
                      I will try to redirect then.

                      Perhaps if there were some form of video sharing website, like youtube or some other streaming media site of generic type, and certainly not some form of morally questionable pictograms, one could be sure that, based upon how the internet is set up, it would generate ad revenue and data revenue based upon visits IE use of bandwidth. It would then stand to reason that this more popular site that by its very nature of being mainly streaming media and by virtue of its increased popularity over say a generic news site, would generate MORE of this ad revenue or shall we say "visitation" revenue than the news site. If it is generating more revenue it would stand to reason that it would not face censure for using a large quantity of bandwidth, Eoh. Just saying, if the streaming site is using more juice but generating more profit for all the parties that run the system, why should they face censure? that's like punishing someone for being successful.
                      It's really got nothing to do with the type of content, the problem usually turns out to be that the ISP over subscribed what the upstream parts of the network can handle, i.e. they over sold to customers, and now the network can't keep up with the demand. That problem usually fixes itself pretty quick, in that people have no problem changing ISPs seeming at the drop of a hat.

                      Now, it's the one customer that is inherently over using, possibly miss using, the network, which is a violation of the acceptable use contract which the customer signs. So the ISP warns them, and if the warning is not needed, pinches the bandwidth of their line to make sure that the other customers get the performance that they are paying for.

                      I maintain that the ISP needs to be allowed to 'manage their network' in this fashion. They spent the money to put the network there, they get to manage it.

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Re: Fight for Your Internet While You Still Can

                        Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                        It's really got nothing to do with the type of content, the problem usually turns out to be that the ISP over subscribed what the upstream parts of the network can handle, i.e. they over sold to customers, and now the network can't keep up with the demand. That problem usually fixes itself pretty quick, in that people have no problem changing ISPs seeming at the drop of a hat.

                        Now, it's the one customer that is inherently over using, possibly miss using, the network, which is a violation of the acceptable use contract which the customer signs. So the ISP warns them, and if the warning is not needed, pinches the bandwidth of their line to make sure that the other customers get the performance that they are paying for.

                        I maintain that the ISP needs to be allowed to 'manage their network' in this fashion. They spent the money to put the network there, they get to manage it.
                        ah ok I think we've been miscommunicating. I agree with your end statement, its their network they will control it just as one should be able to control one's business.

                        Speaking from a business standpoint I don't see why they would pinch the high use but also high rev users. Seems to me they should do more to cultivate those sorts of relationships, from a business perspective. Now violations of end user agreements are another thing. You have to abide by the contract.
                        Seems like they also should not oversell folks as that leaves them open to litigation

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Re: Fight for Your Internet While You Still Can

                          Originally posted by reality View Post
                          ah ok I think we've been miscommunicating. I agree with your end statement, its their network they will control it just as one should be able to control one's business.

                          Speaking from a business standpoint I don't see why they would pinch the high use but also high rev users. Seems to me they should do more to cultivate those sorts of relationships, from a business perspective. Now violations of end user agreements are another thing. You have to abide by the contract.
                          Seems like they also should not oversell folks as that leaves them open to litigation
                          True, the ISP would want high demand users they could charge more to, but more likely its the illegal hosting, constant demand peer to peer file sharing and big bandwidth gaming by a few, negatively impacting the other customers on that shared leg of the network.

                          So the compromise and the balancing act has to be done, as its a shared resource. Separating that management of the network from overt and unfair biasing is the issue of net neutrality, and it goes back to the why of the action taken, rather than just the action itself

                          Think of the brand new service that just sucks up all the bandwidth, but being so popular it very much in demand. Prudent management would be to identify and throttle that traffic giving other traffic a chance to get through, and bingo, you have a case where bias could be aledged. I think this thing is unenforceable.

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Re: Fight for Your Internet While You Still Can

                            Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                            True, the ISP would want high demand users they could charge more to, but more likely its the illegal hosting, constant demand peer to peer file sharing and big bandwidth gaming by a few, negatively impacting the other customers on that shared leg of the network.

                            So the compromise and the balancing act has to be done, as its a shared resource. Separating that management of the network from overt and unfair biasing is the issue of net neutrality, and it goes back to the why of the action taken, rather than just the action itself

                            Think of the brand new service that just sucks up all the bandwidth, but being so popular it very much in demand. Prudent management would be to identify and throttle that traffic giving other traffic a chance to get through, and bingo, you have a case where bias could be aledged. I think this thing is unenforceable.
                            unenforceable: Pretty much. That is unless we wanted to create multiple giant regulatory bodies!!!!! :

                            Might work on the new "overnet". Have you hear about this komrade? Giant media kompany is make satellites for to send into Low earth orbit to beam internets to any device! is even work in Glorious People's Republics of bumfuckistan, North Korea, China, and california! How you say "cannot stop signal" yes?

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Re: Fight for Your Internet While You Still Can

                              Originally posted by reality View Post
                              unenforceable: Pretty much. That is unless we wanted to create multiple giant regulatory bodies!!!!! :

                              Might work on the new "overnet". Have you hear about this komrade? Giant media kompany is make satellites for to send into Low earth orbit to beam internets to any device! is even work in Glorious People's Republics of bumfuckistan, North Korea, China, and california! How you say "cannot stop signal" yes?
                              New, massive, expensive government regulatory agencies would be inevitable, and of course the resulting taxing of our Internet usage would result in higher cost and fewer choices...exactly the opposite of what competition and innovation will do if the government just stays the hell out of it completely.

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X