1
Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

whatever happened to being ispFollow

#1 Oct 24 2014 at 5:08 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Privacy? Pfftt.. we will monetize you little consumer.

The title reflects my thoughts about it. I am becoming increasingly tired of this ****.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#2 Oct 27 2014 at 6:36 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
The title reflects my thoughts about it. I am becoming increasingly tired of this ****.


So disjointed and confused? Smiley: lol
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#3 Oct 28 2014 at 9:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Just in case no one has figured it out yet, the internet is about the last place you should do anything you want to remain confidential. Smiley: rolleyes

Fight the power, pay in cash. Smiley: tinfoilhat
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#4 Oct 28 2014 at 7:20 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
The title reflects my thoughts about it. I am becoming increasingly tired of this ****.


So disjointed and confused? Smiley: lol


Pot, meet kettle.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#5 Oct 29 2014 at 2:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Hmmm... Excessively verbose explanation of a position based on the matter at hand versus minimal text telling us nothing about the issue you linked to, or your position on said issue. Yeah. I see how those are identical! Smiley: lol
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#6 Oct 29 2014 at 3:02 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:
Hmmm... Excessively verbose explanation of a position based on the matter at hand versus minimal text telling us nothing about the issue you linked to, or your position on said issue. Yeah. I see how those are identical! Smiley: lol


The two are not mutually exclusive. Just because you are excessively verbose does not, by definition, make you any less confused. Personally, I would argue, that makes you more confused.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#7 Oct 29 2014 at 4:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Hmmm... Excessively verbose explanation of a position based on the matter at hand versus minimal text telling us nothing about the issue you linked to, or your position on said issue. Yeah. I see how those are identical! Smiley: lol


The two are not mutually exclusive. Just because you are excessively verbose does not, by definition, make you any less confused. Personally, I would argue, that makes you more confused.


It does increase the odds that the reader can figure out what my position on an issue is, at the very least. I honestly have no clue what "whatever happened to being isp" is supposed to mean. Even after following the link, I still have no clue. Which, if you hadn't gone out of your way to say that the title explained your position, wouldn't be a problem. Um... But you did.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#8 Oct 29 2014 at 5:08 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Hmmm... Excessively verbose explanation of a position based on the matter at hand versus minimal text telling us nothing about the issue you linked to, or your position on said issue. Yeah. I see how those are identical! Smiley: lol


The two are not mutually exclusive. Just because you are excessively verbose does not, by definition, make you any less confused. Personally, I would argue, that makes you more confused.


It does increase the odds that the reader can figure out what my position on an issue is, at the very least. I honestly have no clue what "whatever happened to being isp" is supposed to mean. Even after following the link, I still have no clue. Which, if you hadn't gone out of your way to say that the title explained your position, wouldn't be a problem. Um... But you did.


Believe it or not, I do not think you are clue less. I think you are choosing not to have a clue as to what it is supposed to mean. I assume you know what an ISP is. I assume you know that ISPs these days are an unholy marriage of ISP and media conglomerates. I assume you can think about what is happening in a semi-critical fashion.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#9 Oct 29 2014 at 6:31 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Believe it or not, I do not think you are clue less. I think you are choosing not to have a clue as to what it is supposed to mean. I assume you know what an ISP is. I assume you know that ISPs these days are an unholy marriage of ISP and media conglomerates. I assume you can think about what is happening in a semi-critical fashion.


Yes. I know all of that. What I don't know is what "whatever happened to being isp" means. What you wrote is a set of nonsensical words that don't form anything remotely close to a complete thought.

Did you mean to say "Whatever happened to ISPs being honest providers of internet services"? Because that would at least be a start of a conversation. Still doesn't take a position on the issue, but it would have been a start.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#10 Oct 29 2014 at 8:33 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Believe it or not, I do not think you are clue less. I think you are choosing not to have a clue as to what it is supposed to mean. I assume you know what an ISP is. I assume you know that ISPs these days are an unholy marriage of ISP and media conglomerates. I assume you can think about what is happening in a semi-critical fashion.


Yes. I know all of that. What I don't know is what "whatever happened to being isp" means. What you wrote is a set of nonsensical words that don't form anything remotely close to a complete thought.

Did you mean to say "Whatever happened to ISPs being honest providers of internet services"? Because that would at least be a start of a conversation. Still doesn't take a position on the issue, but it would have been a start.


Ahh, ok, you do have a point. Would you able to parse:

"Whatever happened to being ISP only ( as opposed to being ISP/media conglomerate/waffle house)"

?


____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#11 Oct 30 2014 at 9:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Wait wait wait... wait!

Verizon makes waffles? How was I never informed of this and are they any good?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#12 Oct 30 2014 at 9:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
angrymnk wrote:
"Whatever happened to being ISP only ( as opposed to being ISP/media conglomerate/waffle house)"

Media conglomerates own the means of broadband transmission. Until we all get a separate fiber optic hookup or force open usage of the existing infrastructure, them's the breaks.

Back in the day you had independent ISPs because we were all using phone lines and they were accessible to everyone with a phone jack. You don't get the same pushing the information over cable.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Oct 30 2014 at 7:23 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
"Whatever happened to being ISP only ( as opposed to being ISP/media conglomerate/waffle house)"

Media conglomerates own the means of broadband transmission. Until we all get a separate fiber optic hookup or force open usage of the existing infrastructure, them's the breaks.

Back in the day you had independent ISPs because we were all using phone lines and they were accessible to everyone with a phone jack. You don't get the same pushing the information over cable.


So you are saying it is just a question of infrastructure?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#14 Oct 30 2014 at 10:10 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Wait wait wait... wait!

Verizon makes waffles? How was I never informed of this and are they any good?

No, they're blue.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#15 Oct 30 2014 at 10:35 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Debalic wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Wait wait wait... wait!

Verizon makes waffles? How was I never informed of this and are they any good?
No, they're blue.
Da ba de da be die.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#16 Oct 31 2014 at 3:55 AM Rating: Good
Wants you as a new recruit!
*****
17,417 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Debalic wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Wait wait wait... wait!

Verizon makes waffles? How was I never informed of this and are they any good?
No, they're blue.
Da ba de da be die.


I was just listening to the song yesterday. I think it must be a conspiracy or something.
____________________________
Bringing derailâ„¢ back.
Smiley: canada
Qui s'estime petit deviendra grand.
#17 Oct 31 2014 at 6:59 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Song? What song? I was referring to blue waffles.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#18 Nov 05 2014 at 9:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
"Whatever happened to being ISP only ( as opposed to being ISP/media conglomerate/waffle house)"

Media conglomerates own the means of broadband transmission. Until we all get a separate fiber optic hookup or force open usage of the existing infrastructure, them's the breaks.

Back in the day you had independent ISPs because we were all using phone lines and they were accessible to everyone with a phone jack. You don't get the same pushing the information over cable.


So you are saying it is just a question of infrastructure?


I wouldn't say "just" a question of infrastructure. It costs a ton of cash to run high speed cables to everyone's home. Those who spend the money doing that are going to tend to want to get the money back in some way, and while charging for the "service" of an internet connection is good, if they can also get people to pay for content, that's even better.

Honestly though, I'm not sure the heyday was that much of a heyday. There wasn't a whole lot of content back in the days on independent ISPs. You get a hell of a lot better deal today than you did back in the early 90s. And sure, the ISPs tend to use tactics to get you to use their services, but that's not exactly new. Long before folks were running web browsers, the phone company required you to use their services at their rates, with zero choices available (you lived in area A, you got phone company B, with services C, and cost options fixed to those services, and that was it). Ditty for cable company. You had one choice. They provided just the packages they offered. You didn't have an option to just use them as a service provider to the internet and get content elsewhere.

I think sometimes people forget that the ISPs of today started as exclusive direct content providers first (well, the phone not so much, but the concept is similar). There's still nothing preventing you from using your cable or phone company purely for internet access, and then getting your phone, email, video, gaming, whatever services from other sources on the net. And at vastly better price to performance levels than you could back in the day. Frankly, I kinda wonder what the heck people are complaining about. Is it really that you feel like you're getting a bad deal? Or is there some innate need to attack an industry for daring to profit in the process of providing you with an product that is literally 100 times better than it was 20 years ago?

I just feel that in the grand scheme of things to be upset about in the world around us, this places pretty far down the list.

Edited, Nov 5th 2014 7:06pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#19 Nov 05 2014 at 11:14 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
What do you do once you have made the money back that you spent on the initial lines, and you are making more than enough to pay for labor / infrastructure?

Out of curiosity.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#20 Nov 06 2014 at 4:45 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
What do you do once you have made the money back that you spent on the initial lines, and you are making more than enough to pay for labor / infrastructure?


What does any business do once it's recovered its initial investment? Why is this a question?

The quick answer is "profit". Is that a problem? No one invests money in something just to have a chance to earn their money back. They're free to do with their profits whatever they want. They can expand their business, or just pocket it. It's their money. Again, why do people think there should be more to this?

Quote:
Out of curiosity.


Out of curiosity, if I asked you to give me $100, then told you I'd flip a coin and if you win you get your money back and if you lose, I keep it, would you play? Why then, do so many people seem to demand that others do precisely this with their money?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#21 Nov 06 2014 at 7:39 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
"Whatever happened to being ISP only ( as opposed to being ISP/media conglomerate/waffle house)"

Media conglomerates own the means of broadband transmission. Until we all get a separate fiber optic hookup or force open usage of the existing infrastructure, them's the breaks.

Back in the day you had independent ISPs because we were all using phone lines and they were accessible to everyone with a phone jack. You don't get the same pushing the information over cable.


So you are saying it is just a question of infrastructure?


I wouldn't say "just" a question of infrastructure. It costs a ton of cash to run high speed cables to everyone's home. Those who spend the money doing that are going to tend to want to get the money back in some way, and while charging for the "service" of an internet connection is good, if they can also get people to pay for content, that's even better.

Honestly though, I'm not sure the heyday was that much of a heyday. There wasn't a whole lot of content back in the days on independent ISPs. You get a **** of a lot better deal today than you did back in the early 90s. And sure, the ISPs tend to use tactics to get you to use their services, but that's not exactly new. Long before folks were running web browsers, the phone company required you to use their services at their rates, with zero choices available (you lived in area A, you got phone company B, with services C, and cost options fixed to those services, and that was it). Ditty for cable company. You had one choice. They provided just the packages they offered. You didn't have an option to just use them as a service provider to the internet and get content elsewhere.

I think sometimes people forget that the ISPs of today started as exclusive direct content providers first (well, the phone not so much, but the concept is similar). There's still nothing preventing you from using your cable or phone company purely for internet access, and then getting your phone, email, video, gaming, whatever services from other sources on the net. And at vastly better price to performance levels than you could back in the day. Frankly, I kinda wonder what the heck people are complaining about. Is it really that you feel like you're getting a bad deal? Or is there some innate need to attack an industry for daring to profit in the process of providing you with an product that is literally 100 times better than it was 20 years ago?

I just feel that in the grand scheme of things to be upset about in the world around us, this places pretty far down the list.

Edited, Nov 5th 2014 7:06pm by gbaji


Ok. I think I can see where you are coming from. You are saying that because the companies have always been anti-consumer choice, they should remain so even though they have been really pushing it lately?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#22 Nov 06 2014 at 8:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Ok. I think I can see where you are coming from. You are saying that because the companies have always been anti-consumer choice, they should remain so even though they have been really pushing it lately?


No. I think that the implication in this statement is misleading:

angrymnk wrote:
"Whatever happened to being ISP only ( as opposed to being ISP/media conglomerate/waffle house)"


It suggests that there was some golden time in the past when things were better and that things have gotten worse. But that isn't the case. What's happened is that things have gotten dramatically better in terms of choices and options for consumers, but said improvements haven't happened as quickly as the unicorn and fairy like version of a perfect internet that some consumers seem to think *should* exist. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with demanding better things. I just find it a bit misleading to suggest that this represents a move in the wrong direction rather than a less fast move in the right one.


I also take issue with the "anti-consumer" label. Again, I think it's more about some people wanting things faster than the market is giving it to them. It's an unfair label. Like condemning companies for not providing internet service 100 years ago. Um... It didn't exist then. They weren't "anti-consumer" because they didn't provide it to customers back then. Similarly, cable companies weren't "anti-consumer" because for the first 20 years or so of their existence they just provided cable TV to their customers. There's actually been pretty amazing progress made in terms of consumer access to new and better things in the ISP area over the last 20 years. And it's gone hand in hand with improved services from the providers themselves (on-demand, DVRs, HDTV, massive increase in channels, etc). It's just strange to me to view it in such a negative way.

Hop in a time machine to 1994, then get back to me about how much worse your TV and Cable providers are today. Seriously. It's kind of a nutty thing to say.

Edited, Nov 6th 2014 6:22pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Nov 06 2014 at 10:30 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Ok. I think I can see where you are coming from. You are saying that because the companies have always been anti-consumer choice, they should remain so even though they have been really pushing it lately?


No. I think that the implication in this statement is misleading:

angrymnk wrote:
"Whatever happened to being ISP only ( as opposed to being ISP/media conglomerate/waffle house)"


It suggests that there was some golden time in the past when things were better and that things have gotten worse. But that isn't the case. What's happened is that things have gotten dramatically better in terms of choices and options for consumers, but said improvements haven't happened as quickly as the unicorn and fairy like version of a perfect internet that some consumers seem to think *should* exist. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with demanding better things. I just find it a bit misleading to suggest that this represents a move in the wrong direction rather than a less fast move in the right one.


I also take issue with the "anti-consumer" label. Again, I think it's more about some people wanting things faster than the market is giving it to them. It's an unfair label. Like condemning companies for not providing internet service 100 years ago. Um... It didn't exist then. They weren't "anti-consumer" because they didn't provide it to customers back then. Similarly, cable companies weren't "anti-consumer" because for the first 20 years or so of their existence they just provided cable TV to their customers. There's actually been pretty amazing progress made in terms of consumer access to new and better things in the ISP area over the last 20 years. And it's gone hand in hand with improved services from the providers themselves (on-demand, DVRs, HDTV, massive increase in channels, etc). It's just strange to me to view it in such a negative way.

Hop in a time machine to 1994, then get back to me about how much worse your TV and Cable providers are today. Seriously. It's kind of a nutty thing to say.

Edited, Nov 6th 2014 6:22pm by gbaji


Weird, I seem to recall local dial up ISP that were ONLY ISPs ( it is just that they were later devoured which cause our current predicament). Also, I take issue with you taking issue with "anti-consumer" label. People want things faster because people around the globe already have that level of service ( think EU where prices for comparable speeds are lower and oligopolies less entrenched ). What part of the companies trying to not be competitive is pro-consumer in your mind?

Do not get me wrong. I do like how you twist the argument to make it sound reasonable. You may have missed your career.


Edited, Nov 6th 2014 11:31pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#24 Nov 07 2014 at 7:09 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
What do you do once you have made the money back that you spent on the initial lines, and you are making more than enough to pay for labor / infrastructure?

Out of curiosity.

You use your leverage to get people to pay even more if they're 'heavy users'. You collect and sell 'your' megadata that you've unwittingly, but quite legally collected.

You buy hookers, blow and space-ships.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#25 Nov 07 2014 at 8:22 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Hop in a time machine to 1994,
You being the voice of the modern era, of course.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#26 Nov 07 2014 at 4:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Weird, I seem to recall local dial up ISP that were ONLY ISPs ( it is just that they were later devoured which cause our current predicament).


So do I. The question isn't whether there existed a time in the past where ISPs were just ISPs, but whether that was "better" than how things are now. I would argue strongly that it was not. Your comment is like saying "whatever happened to man being regularly eaten by wild animals?".

Quote:
Also, I take issue with you taking issue with "anti-consumer" label. People want things faster because people around the globe already have that level of service ( think EU where prices for comparable speeds are lower and oligopolies less entrenched ).


I think you are suffering from "grass is always greener" syndrome. On paper numbers don't always translate into real world performance improvement.

Quote:
What part of the companies trying to not be competitive is pro-consumer in your mind?


You actually believe that those building network infrasrtucture in the EU are operating in a more competitive environment than in the US? Wow. Um... Not even sure how to respond to that. Wrong on so many levels. And again, I'm not sure what you're really advocating for. What is the problem you think needs to be solved. Just saying "things suck!" isn't terribly effective. Why not focus on just one thing you disagree with and go with that instead? Might be more productive.

Edited, Nov 7th 2014 2:22pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 239 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (239)