Upload
Login or register

LazierThanThou

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 31
Date Signed Up:12/18/2009
Location:Somewhere where I dont know where I am
Stats
Content Thumbs: 118423 total,  126487 ,  8064
Comment Thumbs: 4172 total,  4591 ,  419
Content Level Progress: 25.18% (1259/5000)
Level 310 Content: Wizard → Level 311 Content: Wizard
Comment Level Progress: 39% (39/100)
Level 234 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 235 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:1347
Content Views:36022764
Times Content Favorited:2329 times
Total Comments Made:1169
FJ Points:40455
Withdrawn and introverted. Infectiously perverted.

latest user's comments

#17 - Why is it unreasonable to charge your customers for a service?  [+] (43 replies) 09/11/2014 on Net Neutrality -25
User avatar
#79 - akkere (09/12/2014) [-]
Except it's not a matter of charging customers for a service, it's a matter of extorting companies to giving more money or else they'll suffer in traffic throttle. "Nice site you got there, I see a lot of our customers like it too. Be a real shame if you didn't give us a cut and we'd have to make any data coming from your network come out really slow to our customers because of it."

You have already charged the client in return for optimal service to all networks as much as the connected parties can provide. To artificially slow down those networks feedback because they didn't in turn pay the companies an extortive cut is not only illegal in anywhere else in business, it's also denying the client the full end of the deal they paid for.
#71 - zerooneone (09/11/2014) [-]
The issue, with net neutrality, is not that we, the consumers, have to pay for extra sites but that companies have to pay to be on those preferred lists. I agree with you that the providers can charge whatever they want, but when they can start stating prices for preferred bandwidth to private companies it becomes a HUGE issue. If, for instance, a site like wikipedia.com couldn't come up with an arbitrary fee set by the provider and said this year we'll have to do without preferred bandwidth, would you really get all your information from them if they had 256kbs bandwidth and you had to wait minutes per page to load, when it used to take only seconds? You (and most people) would probably try another site that COULD afford the fee and was faster, causing wikipedia to lose all sorts of traffic and probably die. All sorts of companies that run websites might not be able to afford the preferred bandwidth. Net neutrality is killing the equal playing field that allows small companies to compete with large companies. Please correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding of all this.
User avatar
#75 - LazierThanThou (09/11/2014) [-]
So businesses can charge what they like, unless they charge the wrong people the wrong amount?

You're right, that is the fear. You're wrong in the idea that the government would be able to stop that or be in the slightest bit effective in controlling it.

There's absolutely no way to prove that an ISP would throttle the bandwidth for some websites and not for others. The programs that run the internet are extremely complex and the algorithms that predict how much bandwidth will be needed in what areas are infinitely more complex. All you're doing is providing a level of bureaucracy on top of a sector of the economy that doesn't need it and destroying any hope for competition between ISPs.
#86 - Dlsqueak (09/12/2014) [-]
Actually you're wrong about most of that..and I certainly don't mean that in a confrontational way, but more of an informational way.

Government COULD have (really should have) classified all major ISP's as telecom companies, which would place them as a utilities class service (much like water, sewage, electricity, etc). What this means is that there are flat rates that can be charged and certain viable products have to be offered in higher population areas. One could arguably state that the internet is almost a necessity now-a-days, much like water and electricity, with telecommuting, etc being almost a staple at any company.

There is absolutely a way to prove ISP's are throttling, in fact I could do it from my home. It's common for Comcast at least, and other ISP's I'm sure, to throttle your bandwidth when you are late for a payment (I refer you to their terms of service www.comcast.com/policies/). All I need to do is open my command prompt, type in "ping www.google.com -t" for a couple of days after I don't pay my bill and I can see an immediate drop in bandwidth..

Now you don't think the government couldn't mandate that if you pay for x m/s that the ISP's are required to maintain that download bandwidth regardless of the site you're going to? Most switches and routers come built now with logs that trail exactly that kind of stuff. My netgear router sends me a text when my bandwidth drops below 35 megs (I have it check every 5 minutes or so as any more than that would be ridiculous). Why do I do that? Because I pay for the service, so I hold them accountable...and they know I'll call up there and bitch if my service drops below that for more than a day.

The sector of the economy for the internet SHOULD be a telecom sector...Hell they use similar technology anyways. Having it classified as a utility makes it more affordable and gives more regulation to the industry that it needs (and I'm a libertarian asking for more government control)....
User avatar
#99 - LazierThanThou (09/12/2014) [-]
Checking to see if a user is being throttled is not the same thing as checking to see if a website is being throttled. You know this and I can't help but think you're being purposefully disingenuous here.

I agree that as libertarians we're in a sticky place here. Reclassifying the internet doesn't sound like a bad thing, since maybe it'll help with the corruption in the FCC. Not likely though.

Regardless, this entire thing boils down to one problem. Is the problem bad enough that the evil of putting a gun to someone's head and forcing them to do something is acceptable? As a society, we look the other way when it comes to the evil that government inherently is, because we want roads and police and so forth. But we need to ask the question every time government wants to do anything.

Does the internet not being "neutral" rise to that level? It absolutely does not.
#103 - zerooneone (09/12/2014) [-]
"putting a gun to someone's head and forcing them do do something". Isn't that precisely what providers would be doing by forcing companies to pay for bandwidth broadcasting? Reclassifying the internet doesn't sound like a bad thing, since maybe it'll help with the corruption in the In large corporations. Not likely though. As a society we look the other way when it comes to the evil that large corporation inherently is, because we want services and products and so forth. But we need to ask the question every time corporations want to do anything.
User avatar
#70 - Darianvincent (09/11/2014) [-]
User avatar
#73 - LazierThanThou (09/11/2014) [-]
So some British dude wants to put a gun to ISPs head and force them to behave how he wants them to behave because he disagrees with their practices.

That still doesn't change the fabric of the question, though.

Why is it unreasonable to charge your customers for a service?
User avatar
#83 - Data (09/12/2014) [-]
Say you go to Subway one day and order a sandwhich. It's an awesome sandwhich, you like it, and you have a good day.
A week later you come back to have another sandwhich. Same sandwhich, same price, but it's missing something.
We'll say that usually, it's a turkey, lettuce, pickle, tomato, wheat bread and mustard sandwhich. Oh, and some cheese, too.
Well, on today's sandwhich, half of the cheese is missing, and there is no mustard. The cashier told you that their mustard company couldn't afford to be sponsored by them, so they dropped the mustard until they could make more money. And the cheese company was late on it's payments, so you get less cheese.
How would you feel about this? You paid the exact same price for this sandwhich, but it's missing parts of it.
So you come back next week, not really happy with your last encounter, and get another sandwhich.
This time, there is no mustard, cheese, pickle, and the lettuce is sparce. For the same damn reasons.
And you still paid five dollars for it.
That's what's happening right now.
User avatar
#100 - LazierThanThou (09/12/2014) [-]
Why are you going back to that store? Are you stupid? Do you not have the basic intelligence to see patterns?

Complain. Go to social media and explain yourself. People get outraged over this stuff and will be enough to change the store you're talking about. Or, they'll go out of business. Or, it's not a big enough deal that people care about it.

Dissatisfaction is no reason to put a gun to someones head and demand they do things your way.
#77 - anon (09/12/2014) [-]
for the love of god do some research.
As totalbicuit said in the video

It is reasonable to charge for internet obviously. Like charging for electricity or water.
If it was as simple as just charging for internet we would have "net neutrality"

However, companies are trying to abolish this, saying you have to pay to access specific sites without huge amounts of lag and slowness. This is a huge problem as those companies could run competitors into the ground.

Imagine an electricity company that gave you huge amounts of electrcity for your tv, but really crap electricity for your lights, meaning you could only run half of them at half power at any one time. That would be pretty annoying right?
User avatar
#101 - LazierThanThou (09/12/2014) [-]
So don't do business with them.
User avatar
#109 - Darianvincent (09/12/2014) [-]
You realize that's the problem in America right? In some places there is no other choice for an ISP, a few companies like Comcast and Time Warner hold the monopoly and see no reason to improve service.
#55 - anon (09/11/2014) [-]
ok ive given you 10$ for entrance fee then i go through that door there another charge jsut use that door at 5$ this goes for all doors behind htat or next to taht door im paying for access to somthing ive already payed for access to you muppet be like pay fee at each turn of water pipe
#57 - LazierThanThou (09/11/2014) [-]
User avatar
#22 - niteghost (09/11/2014) [-]
If you put a barrier in front of me and then you demand I pay 5 dollars because you put up a barrier, I'm gonna go around it or smash straight through it.
User avatar
#24 - LazierThanThou (09/11/2014) [-]
If I offer you a service and say "you can't do these things on my service unless you pay extra" and you smash through my property, you're a thief and a vandal.
User avatar
#88 - fauxgladiator (09/12/2014) [-]
except it's not their service they just bought off the isp for those things so they can levvy the internet provided to them, they do nothing but line they're pockets over what and should be a free service to all after the internet was funded through american taxpaying money.
User avatar
#26 - niteghost (09/11/2014) [-]
I'm already a pirate, yar!
User avatar
#27 - LazierThanThou (09/11/2014) [-]
User avatar
#25 - niteghost (09/11/2014) [-]
sadly its all true
User avatar
#20 - kimilsung (09/11/2014) [-]
You must be kidding
User avatar
#23 - LazierThanThou (09/11/2014) [-]
I must be kidding that I think it's acceptable to charge people for a service?
#66 - anon (09/11/2014) [-]
Is it really that hard to understand?

It is not wrong to charge people for a service. We all agree on that. NO ONE IS DISPUTING THIS.

But this is NOT paying for a service. It would be great if it were. No one would have a problem with it. But no matter how many times you say that it is fine to charge people for a service, it WON'T change the fact that that is NOT what this is.
User avatar
#67 - LazierThanThou (09/11/2014) [-]
Then what's happening?
User avatar
#29 - kimilsung (09/11/2014) [-]
Paying extra for something you already have for free? Yes, it's a joke.
User avatar
#30 - LazierThanThou (09/11/2014) [-]
Except it's not "free." It costs the service providers something.

If I offer you a service plan that includes going to Netflix, but the cost of you constantly streaming movies from Netflix causes me to lose money from the deal, I'm well within my rights to modify the contract when it's over. Yes, from your perspective that's terrible and feels bad, but it's not immoral, illegal, or unethical to expect the proper payment for services..
#38 - anon (09/11/2014) [-]
the issue isnt that they are charging. its that their charging for internet access, and then limiting your access to certain websites. its like me paying taxes on for roads, but the govn't charges extra when i want to drive to the small hat shoppe down the road instead of walmart.
User avatar
#39 - LazierThanThou (09/11/2014) [-]
So it's like charging someone for a service, but if you want something else you have to pay more?

I'm sorry, how is this issue not about charging for internet access?
User avatar
#40 - addaman (09/11/2014) [-]
Its like buying a dlc pass with a game and then paying for each dlc again afterwards
User avatar
#42 - LazierThanThou (09/11/2014) [-]
No, it's like buying a service and if you want other parts of the service it's like buying them, too.

Look, I'm not a fan of the idea of companies charging extra of services that they currently provide. I don't think it's a good thing, I think it hurts the company and the customer. But the simple fact is that bandwidth costs money and people use more bandwidth today than they ever thought they would need to provide. Downloading high definition movies is expensive for service providers and it's not unreasonable that they expect compensation for that service.

I don't like it, but there's absolutely no reason to get the government involved.
#47 - cptantilles (09/11/2014) [-]
you clearly don't know anything about rf electronics.
User avatar
#53 - LazierThanThou (09/11/2014) [-]
I don't recall saying I did.
#54 - cptantilles (09/11/2014) [-]
You sure are talking like you do, providing bandwidth is merely a matter of hardware for the most part, once the system is in place it is for the most part power and maintenance costs so no downloading hd movies is not expensive for providers.
User avatar
#56 - LazierThanThou (09/11/2014) [-]
Bandwidth is a finite thing. Regardless of if it's just "put up equipment then put power into it" there's still only so much that can be run through one machine or one cluster of machines. This is a hardware limitation. If some websites require more bandwidth than others, they're literally costing you more, because you need more machines to handle the extra traffic.
#59 - cptantilles (09/11/2014) [-]
I believe I said that yes its a hardware issue, and as such a chunk cost, are you implying that companies should not adapt to the changing and modern needs of their customers? Would you like to have an outhouse because making a toilet costs more? would you prefer having access only to dripping water because the city deems it to costly to create an up to date water system?
User avatar
#60 - LazierThanThou (09/11/2014) [-]
No, I'm saying that if you expect a service you should expect to pay for a service. If the service you expect costs the company more, you should then expect to pay more for the service.
#81 - Dlsqueak (09/12/2014) [-]
OK here's the problem:

1) I pay Comcast $50 to use their internet service right now, as it should be. In the near future, if I want to stream netflix movies, I will then have to pay an additional $10 to make sure they don't limit my bandwidth to that specific IP address (or set of IP addresses).

2) This would all be fine and dandy if I could say...switch ISP's because I was unhappy about paying extra for a service I already get right this minute. But, wait...either (a) there are no other ISP's available with current speeds because they (being bigger telecom companies) agree on zones that each one can provide service at, or (b) other ISP's give rise to the same payment schemes.

Now why is this an issue? As you say I'm paying for their service, why shouldn't they be able to charge whatever they want? Well because up until a few months ago, it was illegal to do so...and for good reason. Big telecom companies bought out the house and senate by paying a huge amount of lobbying fees to make sure this net neutrality bill passed. Basically, they paid off the government so they could make more money.

Why else is this bad? Well say I'm a startup, and my ISP goes "Hey, I see you're a new budding company...well if you don't pay me $20 more a month, I'm going to stifle traffic to your site." Don't think that's going to happen to the small fry? Well let's look at the big ones that it has already happened to:

www.itworld.com/personal-tech/414581/comcasts-shakedown-netflix-pays-consumers

For more information I would suggest this video. Though satirical in nature, it really does shed some great light on what the hell is actually happening and why it's bad:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU
User avatar
#102 - LazierThanThou (09/12/2014) [-]
So the problem is that government has created monopolies, so the fix is to get more government to fix the monopolies they created.

Gee, what could possibly go wrong with that?
#61 - cptantilles (09/11/2014) [-]
but why should we pay a higher SUBSCRIPTION rate for a 1 time cost and if you compare our internet service in america to many other areas of the world our internet is absolutely horrible and yet we pay far more because ISP's create monopolies and engage in price gouging, I would not mind a one time sign on fee followed by reasonable subscription cost but i will not continuously pay pure profit into a corporation that provides BELOW PAR service just because there is no competition.
User avatar
#62 - LazierThanThou (09/11/2014) [-]
Because it's not a one time only cost. You think this is the end of technology, that we're not going to be going further and further with more and more need for bandwidth? New technology is coming that's going to cost money to develop and then produce. Subscription are how that is going.

As to the monopolies, look into the fact that the government has mandated monopolies and then understand that the government isn't the solution to this problem, they're the cause of it.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z_nBhfpmk4&list=UUC3L8QaxqEGUiBC252GHy3w
User avatar
#31 - kimilsung (09/11/2014) [-]
It looks like i'm talking to capitalism man lel. Internet have to be neutral, and if this shit happens, internet is going to shit. Say goodbye to funnyjunk or any website outside those "bundles". As extreme communism is bad, extreme capitalism is also bad (or worse)
User avatar
#32 - LazierThanThou (09/11/2014) [-]
>Extreme communism is bad
>The government should control the flow of all information

It looks like I'm talking to communism man. lel.

Why is the internet not neutral when placed in the hands of competing businesses?
#5 - "I immediately knew, as soon as we had his body, that I w…  [+] (2 replies) 09/11/2014 on Amazon Prime Air prototype V2 +22
User avatar
#21 - webeballin (09/11/2014) [-]
You mean cue. Queue is a synonym for line. Cue is a theatre term meaning a signal for an actor or stagehand to do something.
User avatar
#22 - LazierThanThou (09/11/2014) [-]
Thank you, sir. That was informative and helpful.

No sarcasm. Really, thanks.
#75 - I agree, kiwiwee is fantastic.  [+] (7 replies) 09/10/2014 on Best Korea (The FJ Song) +1
#372 - ullonei (09/22/2014) [-]
anyone know why she got banned? i was gone like one day and BAM, shes gone. lol
User avatar
#373 - hotschurl (09/23/2014) [-]
As far as i know she stated that her birthday is April 1st 1996, which would make her underage, but i think it was a joke that backfired because April 1st
#374 - ullonei (09/23/2014) [-]
lol, GG no RE
User avatar
#107 - kiwiwee (09/11/2014) [-]
Thank you! <3
User avatar
#380 - funnynsfw (04/13/2015) [-]
will you be posting again? i'd pay you if you made a specific video
User avatar
#80 - yaboybtrue (09/10/2014) [-]
That's the name!
#77 - kristofe (09/10/2014) [-]
i think you mean faptastic