1. Welcome To LPSG
    Welcome to LPSG.com. If you are here because you are looking for the most amazing open-minded fun-spirited sexy adult community then you have found the right place. We also happen to have some of the sexiest members you'll ever meet. Signup below and come join us.


Goodbye LPSG and...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by slurper_la, Apr 6, 2010.

  1. slurper_la

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2008
    Posts:
    5,808
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,554
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Los Angeles (CA, US)
    ...other unfavorable internet sites and content. I hope our conservative right wingnuts, such as GinSoakedNick and InSanity will be happy about corporate reign over the internet when they are kicked offline by Comcast or other carriers who which deem their surfing activity immoral.


    US Court Rules AGAINST FCC On Net Neutrality In Big Win For Comcast
     
  2. B_RedDude

    B_RedDude Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Posts:
    1,931
    Likes Received:
    31
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    Truly frightening, and not just in relation to adult sites. In the good ol' USA everything is available to the highest bidder.

    Everything is commercialized, even Congress.

     
    #2 B_RedDude, Apr 6, 2010
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2010
  3. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    10,365
    Likes Received:
    34
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Although the ruling does suck, it's not the first time something like this has happened. Big companies like Comcast will always be fussy about their bandwidth, especially if people are using things like BitTorrent. And let's be honest here, that is a breeding den for bootleg software and the like. All it would take is a couple of software media giants like Adobe, Microsoft or others to make a complaint to an ISP and all hell breaks loose. Grant it, most ISPs are not going to go after someone unless what they do is excessive in the same manner as major record labels that go after some people for downloading MP3s on Kazaa. Moderation is the key here. Just because you can essentially get everything for free online doesn't mean that you should.

    But if the fact that a company like Comcast playing morality police scares you, how do you combat it? Simple... find a better ISP. Some of the smaller companies do not care what you do with their bandwidth as long as you're not spamming people or running illegal software, distributing viruses or other forms of malware. There's a website called DSL Reports that is a great source for finding inexpensive ISPs, and a community of people who have used many of the services listed who give direct, unapologetic reviews. If the service is good, you'll see it. If it sucks, well... you thought THIS board gets nasty. LOL!!

    In all honesty, unless you have Comcast as your ONLY option I don't understand why anyone would want their shoddy service? Same goes for Time Warner, Verizon or any of the big names.
     
  4. D_Geffarde Phartsmeller

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Posts:
    1,198
    Likes Received:
    10
    Unfortunately, those are my only options! Comcast and AT&T. The smaller companies often get bought out by the larger ones because this is America! Everyone has the same goal: money. If Comcast is offering to buy your small-town ISP for 5x it's worth, prepare for the switch to Comcast. And if small-town ISP doesn't sell, Comcast will simply move into the area (albeit at a slower pace) and undercut on prices.

    Capitalism strikes again!
     
  5. midlifebear

    midlifebear Expert Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Posts:
    5,791
    Likes Received:
    108
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
    Hmmmm. . . we use DirectPC and DirectTV in all three countries. In the USA they seem to be the arch nemesis of Comcast. They are always throwing on their own PSAs asking subscribers to call local government representatives and tell them to vote "No" on everything because they are not a cable company, per se. Granted, Comcast is the worst network provider short of the one that comes out of Garth's basement in Cleveland.
     
  6. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    10,365
    Likes Received:
    34
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    I'm an internet geek from the old school. It's really not as bad as it seems. I have no problems switching ISPs whenever I need to. Great deals pop up all the time, and the smaller companies do give better service since they don't have such a large customer base. Many of the smaller companies do not have massive early termination fees either. Most DSL services are repackaged Verizon and Covad products anyhow... you just don't have to deal with their shoddy customer service or their restrictive guidelines. If you have access to any form of DSL, you have access to a lot more ISPs than you think. If you're worried about e-mail when you switch ISPs? Simple solution... use a free e-mail service like Gmail or create your own domain. That way, even if your internet goes down you don't lose anything. It costs practically nothing to register your own dot-com or net these days and they all come with a number of e-mail accounts.

    Seriously, check out the link I provided to DSL Reports earlier and search the system by your zip code. It may be all about the money, but in the end I'd rather give it to the little guy. He'll be a lot more appreciative. :wink:
     
  7. HazelGod

    HazelGod Sexy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Posts:
    7,158
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    26
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    Don't be so quick to cluck about the sky falling, people.

    This ruling merely derides the notion that the FCC can enforce policy guidelines as though they carried the weight of law.

    From a legal viewpoint, it's a good thing. Such "guidelines" can be written and adopted by unchallenged groups (or even one individual!) with no oversight in the process. The idea of allowing such things to be enforced as law should be frightening to anyone who respects our system of rules.

    This challenge, and the outcome of it, has long been expected by the FCC...which is why there has been the push in recent months to have the guidelines of Net Neutrality codified into an enforceable set of statutes.

    By no means is this a death knell for the internet as we know it...this is merely a corporate obstructionist roadblock being thrown up to delay the inevitable in the interests of slowing down the process long enough for them to squeeze every last possible dime out of their current business model before these disruptive technologies force them to rethink things.
     
  8. lucky8

    lucky8 Expert Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,624
    Likes Received:
    133
    Gender:
    Male
    It's only a matter of time before ISPs start trying to "bundle" internet packages in the same fashion as cable tv. If guidelines aren't set, in all likelihood it will happen. Thank god for pro-consumer firms like Apple and Google though...they're on our side in this whole debate...and have the money to make things happen too
     
  9. HazelGod

    HazelGod Sexy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Posts:
    7,158
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    26
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    :lmao:

    Holy shit, that's the most ludicrous statement I've read all day!
     
  10. lucky8

    lucky8 Expert Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,624
    Likes Received:
    133
    Gender:
    Male
    Both of these companies publicly support net neutrality...restrictions would kill their business

    ...I should have specified: by "pro-consumer" I mean they're so successful because they're the first major tech companies to build their business models off of offering consumers pretty much every desirable attribute imaginable in their products and services...essentially giving the consumer what they want in order to become industry leaders
     
  11. midlifebear

    midlifebear Expert Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Posts:
    5,791
    Likes Received:
    108
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
    I'd still like to fuck Steve Jobs.
     
  12. B_stanmarsh14

    B_stanmarsh14 Banned

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Posts:
    2,084
    Likes Received:
    21
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nottingham, England
    So would I..... with a baseball bat, covered in Wasabi, and inserted slowly into his anus :evil:
     
  13. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    10,365
    Likes Received:
    34
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions.
    Apple & Google's main product has nothing to do with television or music. Those are just parts of the one thing they're really trying to sell. Hardware.

    Just look at the history of the iPod. If it was really an issue about selling music, then Apple would have made the device not only play a precise file type, but they would make it so the only music you could add to it was purchased through the iTunes Music Store. Considering their user base, they could have easily implemented this. Apple doesn't care whether or not you get your music from your CD collection, from digitized, scratchy vinyl found in your attic, or if you download all of your music from BitTorrent. All Apple cares about is that you're playing it on an iPod.

    And don't get me started on the iPhone. The fact that phones can easily be hacked to use T-Mobile, and after 2-3 years they still haven't addressed that should be a real tell. :wink:
     
  14. B_RedDude

    B_RedDude Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Posts:
    1,931
    Likes Received:
    31
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    With all due respect, midlifebear, there's something about that dude that just gets on my nerves.

     
  15. maxcok

    maxcok Sexy Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Posts:
    7,160
    Likes Received:
    92
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    From the OP's cited article:

    "The cable company had also argued the FCC lacks authority to mandate net neutrality because it had deregulated broadband under the Bush administration, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court in 2005."

    Another of those deregulatory moves that went largely unnoticed at the time, but has potentially far reaching implications. It remains to be seen how this will ultimately play out, but the chips are beginning to fall.

    The mainstream media, i.e. teevee, radio, and what's left of newspapers, are mostly corporate shills. The free exchange of ideas and information fostered by net neutrality (1) - and limitations on corporate influence peddling (2) - are/were the only things standing between us and complete corporate dominance of the message and government policy. We know what the verdict is on count two - the U.S. Supreme Court just allowed corporate entities, as 'people' of unlimited means, to essentially buy elections. It will be a long time, if ever, before we can turn back the clock on that - it is a self-sustaining phenomenon. The verdict is still out on count one - we should all be very concerned and watching very closely. It's the last straw. They're connected.

    Roughly 40% of the U.S. population lives in rural areas, or "urban" areas with a population under 50,000. The smaller the population, the more limited are the services and options typically available. The cost of alternative services can also be prohibitively expensive relative to income in many of those areas. Sometimes I think I need to remind you big city folk not everybody lives down the block. :wink:
     
    #15 maxcok, Apr 6, 2010
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2010
  16. houtx48

    houtx48 Expert Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Posts:
    6,918
    Likes Received:
    201
    Gender:
    Male
    I'd still like to fuck Steve Jobs.....on his G5
     
  17. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    10,365
    Likes Received:
    34
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Point taken.
    But even many rural areas still have access to something beyond the one or two big named options. There's also cellular and satellite services as well. It's not all done through the cable or traditional phone lines. Many people just simply don't know this, because for one you have to be kinda nerdy and who wants to act like a Sheldon Cooper all of the time. But it does require some detailed investigating and a lot of patience.

    I've been through enough ISPs these last 20 years to figure out a few things. The Cable/DSL Internet game isn't nearly as complicated as it seems. They're all essentially selling the same thing as the smaller boys. :wink:
     
  18. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Posts:
    6,855
    Likes Received:
    66
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    dang!

    when I read the thread title, I thought another lib was biting the dust

    oh, well!
     
  19. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    10,365
    Likes Received:
    34
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Much to your chagrin, I'm sure.
    You can go back to your closet now. Keep up the stupid comments and I'll seal your glory hole shut too. :rolleyes:
     
  20. maxcok

    maxcok Sexy Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Posts:
    7,160
    Likes Received:
    92
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    This time with emphasis. I could have added that folks in these areas are generally behind the curve in cyber sophistication too, and a large percent wouldn't know the options available, if they were available, or how to track them down. Where I am, it's local dial up provider or satellite, no cable, that's it buddy. :smile:
     
  21. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    10,365
    Likes Received:
    34
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    I got that the first time, maxcok.
    Just like anything else you want to buy, you get what you pay for. The cheap internet options are just that... cheap. The big companies promise a lot, take a LOT of time to address service issues and do things like put service caps on your bandwidth when you don't even realize it. The fact that some companies would force you to get a business account for something as simple as a static IP or a few extra e-mail accounts is a major tell on just how poor the service might be.

    Case in point, my current provider is Speakeasy. They cost more than Verizon, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner or any of the major names, but I get amazing service with almost no downtime whatsoever. I'm not on hold for 2 hours... at the most, I've been on hold for 5 minutes waiting to speak to someone. The customer service people actually know what they're talking about, so if you need things explained to you like a normal person or like a cybergeek, they can speak the language. AND, they don't care where you go online or what you download. You can go nuts on BitTorrent and not have to worry about the feds knocking on your door. You could stream porn 24 hours a day in your home via your own static IP and they don't care as long as you're not spamming.

    If you ask me, that kind of stress free service is worth the extra $20-$30 a month. Then again, I'm a computer nerd that practically lives online so there you go. :biggrin:
     
    #21 B_VinylBoy, Apr 6, 2010
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2010
  22. lucky8

    lucky8 Expert Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,624
    Likes Received:
    133
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, but Apple's hardware is dependent upon fast, unrestricted internet access. The whole issue of net neutrality revolves around ISPs restricting access to sites that use "too much" bandwidth as well as restricting customers who visits such sites on a frequent basis. Example: YouTube (owned by Google) is a plague on ISP bandwidth. If you can't use all of the perks of an Iphone or IPad, then why buy one?

    "Just look at the history of the iPod. If it was really an issue about selling music, then Apple would have made the device not only play a precise file type, but they would make it so the only music you could add to it was purchased through the iTunes Music Store."

    Exactly like I said...giving the consumer what they want. Steve Jobs understands there's more money in giving us what we want right now than there is waiting and drawing out the process over a decade...he also understands that ISPs are currently the biggest threat to Apple's business model...
     
  23. HazelGod

    HazelGod Sexy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Posts:
    7,158
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    26
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    Google, I'll give you the benefit of doubt on...but there's nothing pro-consumer about Apple. Mediocre products, unimaginative last-generation technology wrapped in homogenized packaging and given a pretty user interface...then marketed to nitwits as the niftiest things under the sun.

    Um, that's exactly how the first generations of iPods worked. They only played music from iTunes that came in a DRM-wrapped proprietary Apple encoding format. It wasn't until they realized people weren't swallowing the turd that they allowed MP3 format files to be played, and it was even later that they stopped using DRM to lock their files purchased through iTunes. Every time users figured a way to do what they (the device owners) wanted, Apple pushed down mandatory software and firmware updates that either blocked those functions or disabled the devices entirely. Yeah, very pro-consumer practices. :rolleyes:

    I'll give Apple credit for fucking up the anti-competitive business models of both the recording industry mafia (RIAA) and the telcom providers (AT&T)...but don't believe for a moment they did so with any other interest in mind than overtaking those monopolies for themselves.
     
  24. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    10,365
    Likes Received:
    34
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    I think you give Apple a little more credit than they're due. Don't get me wrong, I love Apple... been an avid Mac freak since the 80s, but even I don't give them ultimate praise. Let's focus on the iPod again. Were they really giving people everything that they want when they requested it? That's subject to debate, considering what was available at that technologically and the features they decided to add to each progressing model.

    The iPod has been in existence since 2001. It took them three years before they decided to make a model with a color screen, four years before it could play video, six years before it had a touch screen and up till last year before some of the models could record video and have a built-in FM radio tuner. Many of these features were available in other, rival portable MP3/media players before Apple decided to do it themselves. Color screens were already in most portable gaming systems going back to the early 90s. It wouldn't have taken them much to include these features into their iPods sooner. In reality, Apple did drag out the iPod over nearly a decade, adding one or two new tweaks to the unit necessary to keep them on top of the competition.

    Here's how I see it - What Apple gets right is their presentation. Starting with the announcement of the iMac G3, Apple made sure that their items simply looked good. Even if you don't want to buy a Macintosh product, everyone waits with baited breath to just see how it looks. The other thing is their focus on making things as easy as possible to use, which has been their credo since the very beginning. Unlike past and rival MP3 players that came and went, Apple reduced the use of a complex unit to one button. The final piece of the puzzle is, without a doubt, iTunes. When that debuted in 2001, it was the first audio organization program that truly made sense. Many other audio players before that had several problems recognizing various CODECs and different file formats. Many times, I used to receive an MP3 from a PC user (or send one from my Mac to a PC user) and there would be problems playing the file. iTunes solved much of that, by making sure it took care of the three most useable file formats at that time. The most important of them all... it was free, unlike many other audio players that offered a light version first, then tried to entice people to pay for one with full features (WinAmp, RealPlayer, etc). The actual iTunes Music Store didn't even come into play until three years after. But before anyone could actually buy a song from Apple, between the hardware and the software they established themselves as the leader. Apple is notorious in giving people just enough, without going overboard with all the features. Essentially, they're giving people what they want (as you implied), but they are making people wait for it.

    As for ISPs being a threat, I have to partially disagree. Apple's main selling point is their hardware. Whether or not an ISP wants to limit bandwidth or access for certain customers doesn't really concern them at all, the same way that it didn't concern them that people were most likely downloading music from Kazaa or ripping them from their own CDs instead of repurchasing everything through iTunes. As long as they continually make a sexy looking device that is easy to use and gives people just enough to keep them interested, they will always sell products. As long as any outside service doesn't try to intentionally block iPods, iPhones and iPads from using their devices, Apple will gladly work within the constraints of other entertainment & technology conglomerates to get what they want. Besides, it's not as if anyone with an iPhone couldn't get the lowest price package, never use the 3G services from AT&T, find unrestricted hotspots and use Skype to make as many free phone calls they want.
     
  25. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    10,365
    Likes Received:
    34
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Not 100% accurate. All iPods could play a variety of audio formats including AIFF and WAV which was devoid of any priority formatting. iTunes would let you rip a CD in standard AIFF without converting it to MP3 even before the iPod came into existence several months later. The problem is, of course, is that AIFF & WAV are uncompressed formats that are usually ten times the size of the MP3. The only way you could maximize the storage on an iPod was to stick to the defaults they provided, but you were not forced to use them.

    Sorry, but I will disagree with you on this.
    To start, iTunes already established itself as an audio player that would play all basic audio formats (sorry Windows users, but Windows Media is not a basic audio format. More on that later). When the iTunes Music Store was implemented, you could still bring in your own music from various other sources regardless if there was DRM protection on it or not. Like I stated to lucky before, Apple didn't care where you bought your music as long as you were playing it on their hardware.

    DRM would have never been a concern if it wasn't for the music industry acting all paranoid. At first, they thought only a few people would buy the music from iTunes and then turn around and share it with everyone like Napster. Apple didn't care either way, but knew they had to do something to keep the music executives at ease. The fact that you could buy a song from iTunes with DRM protection and then convert it to a different file type in the same program and essentially bypass the DRM, supports this theory. I remember plenty of times purchasing a song from iTunes and then converting it from the file I purchased to an AIFF, WAV or another file format. I had to do this if I wanted to burn an audio CD in a different program like Toast Titanium, which at the time was a much better CD burning tool than iTunes. After working at a computer store that specializes with Mac products for nearly 6 years, you'd be amazed at the number of people who still don't even know you can change the preferred file format in preferences. But I digress...

    When the iTunes Music Store started to become a big player, that's when other companies complained that the music you purchased from there would not work on their players. To some degree, their arguments were not completely honest since for a long time you could convert the files before moving them to another program. The truth of the matter was... competitors wanted to be able to connect their MP3 players to the computer, completely interface with the iTunes software and utilize the store. The DRM was just a convenient scapegoat because it put the focus on the music and the store instead of the software itself, and with a panicky music industry seeing its CD sales falling to digital downloads they too joined in the fight. In the end, Apple knows that it's the 1-2 combination of the iPod and iTunes software that made that unit what it is today. It established itself as the leader with that business model even before Apple started selling MP3s. As long as you couldn't connect a Zune to your computer and interface with the iTunes software they developed they didn't care, so dropping DRM was a no brainer.

    Also, regarding their firmware updates that "blocked functions"... I don't blame that on Apple either. Case in point, the iPhone. Notice how it's pretty easy for most savvy people to jailbreak a phone and use T-Mobile services and non-approved apps despite all of the firmware updates? If Apple really wanted to prevent people from using T-Mobile on their phones, they could. They could put something in their phone OS to intentionally block the protocols. But they don't, because they don't really care. AT&T are the ones who cared. It was their rates, and they knew they could charge as much as they wanted since they were the only phone provider that could "legally" use and sell the iPhone in America. Of course they would go after Apple if they allowed such an obvious hole in their hardware, so they pressured them to make more firmware updates to make things difficult for the average user. Apple needed AT&T to push their iPhone to the world, so they had to play by their rules... in the same fashion that Apple played by the music industry's rules with the iPod until it managed to get so many units out there that they could start making their own demands and standards.

    In all honesty, I don't think they want to take over the music or phone industry. They just want to sell the hottest device to use them on, and with some clever strategies they managed to get some of the biggest companies to play themselves.
     
  26. slurper_la

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2008
    Posts:
    5,808
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,554
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Los Angeles (CA, US)
  27. slurper_la

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2008
    Posts:
    5,808
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,554
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Los Angeles (CA, US)
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice