Silkroad Online Forums

Our internet nuetrality is in danger.

http://stopvirgin.movielol.org/

This is absolutely ridiculous.

I can't believe Virgin is trying to do this.

Smurf is getting ALL his posts edited, gg giving everyone your password.

Her cleavage is convincing.

Indeed.

DOWN WITH VIRGIN!!!

?????

yawn why dont you just change isp!! i mean ffs its not hard if you dont like the service they are making it sound like its the end of the world so what i dont even believe them tbh with you, why should this effect anyone who isnt with them?

fking tits!

Virgin Media and Sky, British Television Broadcasters. Yeah.
British Sky Broadcasting Group (BSkyB) is the UK's #1 pay-TV provider.
US Legislation requires TV to convert to digital by Feb 2009.
The HYPE is starting.

The idea of paying for faster service isn't new.
Neither is the concept of 'rights'.
Laws governing this are based on AIR being free (and things broadcast through the air).

In the states (circa 2006):
Google: We Won't Pay Broadband Cyberextortion

In the US, the entire broadband spectrum (guesstimated as worth > $6 Billion) is owned by the government and leased to broadcasters. Analog spectrum (low end) through the air will be reclaimed and re-allocated (probably to expand 'national security' and 'cell phones').

Check out Ars Technica’s analysis of the 'bandwidth crunch', “in fact, the Internet backbone has plenty of capacity.”
They put it back where it belongs, the "Tony Soprano" model used by some large ISPs.

It doesn't follow that the internet will be destroyed.
There are lots of factors other than 'willingness to pay' models.
This (to me) looks more like flow from 'centric' to 'distributive' model war but this remains to be seen. It's a competitive market, only time will tell what model will win the day not only in British Broadcasting but everywhere. Another British broadcaster (Talk/Talk) responds to insistence that he 'do something about piracy' (and p2p) in his 'We are not the internet police' response.

Personally, I see it as a table of negotiation where one doesn't come in with a settlement offer to start. There are more changes on the horizon than this. Expect the big boys to start hawking "services" if we switch from asymmetrical analog (with DL emphasis) to synched (2-way) digital. Compromise will likely hurt the average consumer but change is gonna happen.

~Grandpa

DISCLAIMER: I'm not a reporter, but I saw a guy play one on TV.

im glad i live in america for once

states FTW!

They're apparently afraid other ISP's will follow the trends, thus leading to an internet massacre! I hope it happens ~ motivation to get the hell off my ass.

What a load of bollecks.
My ISP is virgin media.

They do my Phone , Internet , TV
nothing wrong with em

Hmm how retarded would they be?

Been thinking about it for like 15 minutes now and i can't think of any good things coming out of this for Virgin?

Ppl will just leave them if they don't get free access ?

The title of this thread couldn't be more inaccurate.
QFT
We don't have to right to access the internet. If we did all service would be free. I am absolutely against net neutrality. You should never get govt in bed with the market.

So its all about lowering their users access to certain sites unless they pay to access them? Retarded, they'll lose all their subscribers lol

Ppl are missing the point (not you). The discussion is being distorted. Triple Tier Access schemes (and 'Willingness to Pay' models) directly affect the big boy providers only. It affects the little guy only in 'trickle down'. Confusion is purposeful (also called HYPE).

I posted in another thread called "New Internet" (kinda off subject but still pertains) ~~~> HERE < (and two (1) posts up from there.

~Gpa

Word

And OT: Im not on Virgin (mmmm innuendo), so doesnt bother me

don't get me started: o.O 'Virgin' and 'Willingness to Pay' models

hmm i definitely agree with net neutrality...and dont be so happy that it's in UK lol...could be here in the states soon enough

I understand the notion of keeping the internet 'pure,' ideally. Consider this:

If your isp decided to manage the net flow you'd have many options. (Simplified.)
1) If you have a smart isp they wouldn't change your rates but instead add incentives to decrease your quality of service. Cheaper price (this whole thing would likely be a 'package' in itself), discount of other services of theirs that you use, etc.
2) You could be stuck with an awful company like Comcast where they might decrease their packages to just the premium and the regulated.
Even shit companies like Comcast wouldn't do #2 b/c it doesn't make sense financially. Decrease in choices, lost customers, bad PR, etc.
By using the govt to restrict the market you could possibly slow the progression of the internet. I live in 'out in the country' in a little spec in Ohio. I know I'm lucky just to have high-speed. The only choices are dish and true wireless, which I have the later. Say we have regulated packages in a few years. By then a bunch more people will have access to high-speed lines. You're going to deny the people around me, and poor people as well, the good opportunity to use this tool we take for granted?
To end with a little rant, from what I've seen the majority of the people gung-ho for net neutrality are more tech savvy. That group is most active in bigger cities. In closing, the people who are most vocal are also the people least affected. They can just choose another provider.

Go Virgin, woot!

No.
For instance, Google paid to be included as the default search engine in certain web browsers.
They are talking about backbone content providers and their contracts -- not end user services and not end user subscription rates, at least not yet.

"The web is a lot more wild than we originally expected," said Charles Reis , a PhD student at the University of Washington. Net Neutrality refers to the absence of restrictions or priorities placed on the type of content carried over the Internet by the carriers and ISPs THAT RUN the major backbones. In the states, this is a very contentious topic because major carriers have lobbied the FCC to eliminate network neutrality in order to charge large sites for their traffic.

Think of it like this:

• Low Use (Single.End.User) = copper connections / pennies ¢
• Medium Use (Internet.Service.Providers) = mix of copper and fiber / dimes
• High Use (Content.Providers) = fiber / dollars $

What Virgin (who is a hybrid example) was talking about was their pricing schemes to the big boys, not the little guy. What all the alarm and hype is about is the conjecture that if this trend continues even the little guy (that hosts a HTML web server or a FTP site from home) might have to pay more to prevent his/her content from bogging down when he/she gets more than a couple hits. I suspect it is also (indirectly) attacking p2p (torrents) and addressing piracy. This fear is a possibility, eventually, just not a near future one.

~Grandpa