Carnival Cruise gives insight into life without Net Neutrality

#1
Septic

Septic

ヽ༼ ಠ益ಠ ༽ﾉ ( ఠ ͟ʖ ఠ)
Lab Rat
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
31,765
Likes
37,851
#1
robSQtY.jpg


Note that this has nothing to do with Carnival specifically, just an example of what we'd be looking at if broadband providers get their way.
 
#2
#2
Never understood those people on the ship toting around their laptops and tablets.
 
#3
#3
I don't think the folks that are supporting the axing of Net Neutrality that don't have a lot of dogs in the fight are really understanding the enormous impact this will have on the single-greatest intellectual advance for the average person in the history of mankind.

Right now the internet is the world's library, coffee shop and sex shop all rolled into one thing. Anyone can find pretty much anything on it. Want to research on how to work on your 1994 Mazda RX7 and then perhaps read up on the teachings of Buddha and catch the goings on in German politics? You can easily do that without any restrictions.

An internet without Net Neutrality is the opposite of that. It would seek to force the library that is the internet to be paid access between one section and another. Want history? That's a set fee. Want history and historical fiction? You'll have to also buy 15 other packages you don't want.

We cannot allow the internet to be restricted. It's our only source of non-media/party-affiliated controlled news and information. This is simply about squeezing more money out and bartering for absolute control.

EDIT: Clarification. Coffee jitters.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 9 people
#4
#4
Septic said:
Note that this has nothing to do with Carnival specifically, just an example of what we'd be looking at if broadband providers get their way.
Click to expand...

There is 0 competition out at sea and there is no prospect of competition. This is irrelevant to the net neutrality debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#5
#5
agent|orange said:
I don't think the folks that are supporting Net Neutrality that don't have a lot of dogs in the fight are really understanding the enormous impact this will have on the single-greatest intellectual advance for the average person in the history of mankind.

Right now the internet is the world's library, coffee shop and sex shop all rolled into one thing. Anyone can find pretty much anything on it. Want to research on how to build work on your 1994 Mazda RX7 and then perhaps read up on the teachings of Buddha and catch the goings on in German politics? You can easily do that without any restrictions.

Net Neutrality is the opposite of that. It would wish to force libraries to be paid access to one section and another. Want history? That's a set fee. Want history and historical fiction? You'll have to also buy 15 other packages you don't want.

We cannot allow the internet to be restricted. It's our only source of non-media/party-affiliated controlled news and information. This is simply about squeezing more money out and bartering for absolute control.
Click to expand...

You get a like for this and you should know that one is not enough.
 
#6
#6
agent|orange said:
I don't think the folks that are supporting Net Neutrality that don't have a lot of dogs in the fight are really understanding the enormous impact this will have on the single-greatest intellectual advance for the average person in the history of mankind.

Right now the internet is the world's library, coffee shop and sex shop all rolled into one thing. Anyone can find pretty much anything on it. Want to research on how to build work on your 1994 Mazda RX7 and then perhaps read up on the teachings of Buddha and catch the goings on in German politics? You can easily do that without any restrictions.

Net Neutrality is the opposite of that. It would wish to force libraries to be paid access to one section and another. Want history? That's a set fee. Want history and historical fiction? You'll have to also buy 15 other packages you don't want.

We cannot allow the internet to be restricted. It's our only source of non-media/party-affiliated controlled news and information. This is simply about squeezing more money out and bartering for absolute control.
Click to expand...

Why would people have to pay for history (seems that would be the free ****) and why shouldn't they? Net neutrality proponents are asking for socialism on the internet. Why shouldn't I pay for my incredible usage? Why should my neighbor have to pay the same as me when all she does is email? That"s not fair.
 
#7
#7
n_huffhines said:
Why would people have to pay for history (seems that would be the free ****) and why shouldn't they? Net neutrality proponents are asking for socialism on the internet. Why shouldn't I pay for my incredible usage? Why should my neighbor have to pay the same as me when all she does is email? That"s not fair.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is decrying the idea of data plans. It's the possibility an ISP could charge premium for allowing full speed access to certain sites or block them altogether.
 
#8
#8
Put another way, NN supporters using this CC line as an example are saying we should only have the premium l, expensive option. That makes no sense. Is that a good solution for satellite? Gasoline? What's wrong with having different options?
 
#9
#9
This whole issue comes down to competition. We need a more competitive market to combat the current ISP mini-monopoly. Government regulation is not the answer, unless we're talking about removing barriers to a competitive market (which the ISPs have worked to install).
 
#10
#10
n_huffhines said:
Why would people have to pay for history (seems that would be the free ****) and why shouldn't they? Net neutrality proponents are asking for socialism on the internet. Why shouldn't I pay for my incredible usage? Why should my neighbor have to pay the same as me when all she does is email? That"s not fair.
Click to expand...
Life's not fair. If the demand for low usage was substantial. Someone would be offering that incentive
 
#11
#11
n_huffhines said:
Why would people have to pay for history (seems that would be the free ****) and why shouldn't they? Net neutrality proponents are asking for socialism on the internet. Why shouldn't I pay for my incredible usage? Why should my neighbor have to pay the same as me when all she does is email? That"s not fair.
Click to expand...

Do you think corporations will abuse their power and impose on the First Amendment?
 
#12
#12
n_huffhines said:
Why would people have to pay for history (seems that would be the free ****) and why shouldn't they? Net neutrality proponents are asking for socialism on the internet. Why shouldn't I pay for my incredible usage? Why should my neighbor have to pay the same as me when all she does is email? That"s not fair.
Click to expand...

I believe that monetizing the intellectual advancements that people set forth is depriving mankind of much of a future.

If someone wants to provide a service and open it for free... the connecting pathway (that is already paid for) should not incur an additional charge for access.

Basically:

You pay for Netflix. That's fine. They provide a service and are having to pay license access fees and pay for infrastructure upkeep of their own.

You pay for internet access. That's also fine. The ISPs have to pay for new equipment as well as a bevy of line access fees. That is built into the price of (comparatively way overpriced) internet access. Some ISPs set a usage cap, others don't. That's rather unscrupulous and ISPs have been robbing the taxpayers for years (look into government subsidies to increase internet speeds that many took and did nothing with).

Regardless, you're already paying for usage. That's what ISP rates are. That's what premium content agreements are. Netflix, HBOGo, ESPN3, etc. Those are premium content delivery systems that you pay access for. That's all fine.

You shouldn't pay your Internet provider for the same thing twice. That is what this is doing. Opponents to Net Neutrality seek to effectively fence in and control access to the internet. It would whitewash and destroy the singular most vibrant and intellectually advancing thing mankind has done in it's existence. Perhaps that last sentence is what scares some of you?

How would you feel if private companies seized control of the interstate and state highway system and started paying for individual access to certain segments of the highway as well as incurring additional penalties and fees for low MPG vehicles? At this point our interstate and highway system is socialist. We all pay taxes that in turn pay for highways and interstates. Even if we don't drive cars. If we drive a relatively low-impact Nissan or if we drive a high-impact 18-wheeler, doesn't matter. We all pay the same rates regardless. The interstates have opened up this huge and beautiful nation for everyone to enjoy at no penalty. I have no problem driving a 28MPG Infiniti and paying for hog88s high abuse trucks causing far more wear/tear per mile driven. That's fine. It's the purpose of the interstate... to be open for everyone and everything with no gatekeepers.

So if you want a fenced off and controlled Internet, you also want to privatize and monetize the interstate system.

I know there is no way hog88 would enjoy a privatized and monetized interstate system that taxes based on vehicle weight and miles traveled.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#13
#13
agent|orange said:
I believe that monetizing the intellectual advancements that people set forth is depriving mankind of much of a future.

If someone wants to provide a service and open it for free... the connecting pathway (that is already paid for) should not incur an additional charge for access.

Basically:

You pay for Netflix. That's fine. They provide a service and are having to pay license access fees and pay for infrastructure upkeep of their own.

You pay for internet access. That's also fine. The ISPs have to pay for new equipment as well as a bevy of line access fees. That is built into the price of (comparatively way overpriced) internet access.

You shouldn't pay your Internet provider for the same thing twice. That is what this is doing. Net Neutrality seeks to effectively fence in and control access to the internet. It would whitewash and destroy the singular most vibrant and intellectually advancing thing mankind has done in it's existence.

How would you feel if private companies seized control of the interstate and state highway system and started paying for individual access to certain segments of the highway as well as incurring additional penalties and fees for high MPG or low MPG vehicles? At this point our interstate and highway system is socialist. We all pay taxes to pay for highways and interstates. Even if we don't drive cars. If we drive a relatively low-impact Nissan or if we drive a high-impact 18-wheeler. We all pay the same rates regardless. The interstates have opened up this huge and beautiful nation for everyone to enjoy at no penalty.

So if you want a fenced off and controlled Internet, you also want to privatize and monetize the interstate system.

I know there is no way hog88 would enjoy a privatized and monetized interstate system that taxes based on vehicle weight and miles traveled.
Click to expand...

Good post but you're way wrong on the bolded and and we do have pretty much what you describe in the last sentence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#14
#14
hog88 said:
Good post but you're way wrong on the bolded and and we do have pretty much what you describe in the last sentence.
Click to expand...

Not in terms of direct taxes/etc.

Your goose is already gotten when you have to pay to replace tires, pay for higher consumption of gas, higher fees, etc. I get that. That's why I'm fine paying federal taxes to upkeep interstates that trucks beat the hell out of. This nation needs trucks, if the interstates were killed or heavily monetized, this nation would grind to a halt.

What I'm talking about is a payment system in addition to the bevy of fees/etc you're already shouldering where if you want access to Virginia.. it's one rate. Or Virginia and Tennessee.. it's another. Or a bundle for all of the Southeast even if you don't need Florida. Need only access to Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee and Virginia? Might as well get the Midwest and Southeast bundles. And that's just for your trucks.

If you want to get the family in the minivan and go to Disneyworld... guess what. That's another bundle as it's different usage.

Right now, to get on the interstate, you pay nothing. If it was monetized like the opponents of NN seek to do, you'd be paying a fee just to get onto it.
 
#15
#15
agent|orange said:
Not in terms of direct taxes/etc.

Your goose is already gotten when you have to pay to replace tires, pay for higher consumption of gas, higher fees, etc. I get that. That's why I'm fine paying federal taxes to upkeep interstates that trucks beat the hell out of. This nation needs trucks, if the interstates were killed or heavily monetized, this nation would grind to a halt.

What I'm talking about is a payment system in addition to the bevy of fees/etc you're already shouldering where if you want access to Virginia.. it's one rate. Or Virginia and Tennessee.. it's another. Or a bundle for all of the Southeast even if you don't need Florida. Need only access to Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee and Virginia? Might as well get the Midwest and Southeast bundles. And that's just for your trucks.

If you want to get the family in the minivan and go to Disneyworld... guess what. That's another bundle as it's different usage.

Right now, to get on the interstate, you pay nothing. If it was monetized like the opponents of NN seek to do, you'd be paying a fee just to get onto it.
Click to expand...

Thank goodness I've never had that desire.
 
#17
#17
agent|orange said:
Minivan? I"m on board and agree with you there.

Disney World is awesome (minus the Magic Kingdom) and I'll fight you IRL.
Click to expand...

I like minivans, tried to get my wife to get one when the kids were young.

Never been to Disney but love Universal and Isl of Adventure.
 
#20
#20
Anybody who thinks getting government involved is a good idea has a fundamental misunderstanding about the way markets and innovation works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#21
#21
hog88 said:
I like minivans, tried to get my wife to get one when the kids were young.

Never been to Disney but love Universal and Isl of Adventure.
Click to expand...

If you like Universal you'd like Epcot and a couple of the other parks. Epcots probably my resounding favorite. Just taking the monorail between the parks and resorts is pretty fun and cheap. The resorts have had a very keen eye and attention to detail behind them. They're very well done.

I'd avoid the Magic Kingdom like the plague, however.
 
#22
#22
n_huffhines said:
Anybody who thinks getting government involved is a good idea has a fundamental misunderstanding about the way markets and innovation works.
Click to expand...

Fighting for Net Neutrality is fighting to keep the government as well as private companies from further controlling access to and the availability of the internet.
 
#23
#23
agent|orange said:
Fighting for Net Neutrality is fighting to keep the government as well as private companies from further controlling access to and the availability of the internet.
Click to expand...

You're not going to get what you want out of net neutrality. Markets will solve the problem. Give them time. Net neutrality will preserve the internet as we know it. It will resist change with more regulation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#24
#24
internet should be the last thing you are thinking about on a cruise. Age of consent..now that's worth discussing
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top