• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Free Internet!

Would you get Internet for Free?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 35.3%

  • No

    Votes: 1 5.9%

  • Only if it's fast enough

    Votes: 10 58.8%

  • Don't Care

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    17
DVSentinel said:
That is only one factor. The bandwith available to the ISP is split among the number of users and the amount of data at a given time. Too many users on your ISP watching netflix at the same time will also slow it down. ISPs buy bandwith based upon average usage, not by the total possible if every user was using max bandwith at the same time. You may have purchased 3 Gb bandwith, but I guarantee you the ISP does not have the bandwith for all subscribers to use that 3Gb at the same time.

Pathing also plays a role as well as the bandwith capabilities of the nodes that are passed through.
Click to expand...

That kind of bottle-necking for most ISP's is less common anymore, unless they're getting hammered by huge hits. But I agree, 3Gb for all users isn't possible right now, mostly, because no hard drive or SSD can write or even read at such speeds. You'd think most of the larger servers could deliver faster speeds at less cost, they simply don't want the added cost structure. AT&T has terrible cell service in some areas because of cell tower congestion. People using their smart phones for data, clogging up the service.


You seem concerned about Comcast/Time Warner merging. Seems you already know some of the competitors to look at if the price goes up too much.
Click to expand...

You did read the part where it says that the two (Comcast/Time) have 1/3 of subscribers, uncontested? I'm in an area where only Brighthouse (Time) is offered thru cable and AT&T U-Verse (wireless) is a crappy deal. If all those companies were allowed to compete and have access to the cable, our prices would drop considerably from the competition.
 
IIRC NetZero used to provide free 56k internet service.

I don't know if they still do that.
 
Muhammed said:
IIRC NetZero used to provide free 56k internet service.

I don't know if they still do that.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how many websites these days you could visit with 56K...with reasonable load times, that is.
 
The Mark said:
I'm not sure how many websites these days you could visit with 56K...with reasonable load times, that is.
Click to expand...
That would depend on the browser.

If you are using a web browser that can block Flash animations and pics 56k works just fine for just the text.
 
Last edited:
Muhammed said:
That would depend on the browser.

If you are using a web browser that can block Flash animations and pics 56k works just fine for just the text.
Click to expand...
good point
 
The Mark said:
I'm not sure how many websites these days you could visit with 56K...with reasonable load times, that is.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you consider a reasonable load time. Anything less than instant isn't reasonable these days with broadband being the norm.
 
Muhammed said:
IIRC NetZero used to provide free 56k internet service.

I don't know if they still do that.
Click to expand...

No they don't and the only way they could do that (and what ultimately drove them out of that business model) is forcing users to put up with tons of ads. People balked at that and stopped using their service. Now they are a paid ISP only.
 
Cephus said:
No they don't and the only way they could do that (and what ultimately drove them out of that business model) is forcing users to put up with tons of ads. People balked at that and stopped using their service. Now they are a paid ISP only.
Click to expand...
I used to have a NetZero and Juno installation floppy disks, actually they are probably still around here somewhere. I think it was free, and it was adware, and usage time was limited to 2 or 3 hours per month IIRC. But if I was helping a friend troubleshoot their computer that's all I really needed to check their dial-up 56k modem. If Netzero or Juno worked then I knew their modem was working.

That was back in the Windows 95 and 98SE era. LOL. Ancient history. I still have those CDs too. LOL

Sometimes I miss Windows 98. The Blue Screen Of Death was very peaceful.
 
Last edited:
I'd be down with it, as long as it's not one country controlling the free service. A global, neutral internet provider would be great for humanity's knowledge base and interconnectedness. The internet has already done so much to change upgrade humanity's collective knowledge base, so giving more people access to that could be a good thing.

American providers are becoming increasingly untrustworthy though, due to big brother interference. Many sites that have the tiniest bit of controversy have been abandoning ship and moving their servers overseas for the past 5-10 years or so. I would not want to see a free internet service under American control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom