Print

[FISSURE]

FISSURE

Re: CP80 - A new legislation that has the soluti...

From what i read from a post on the forum this would be a completely optional thing.

So people could choose wether they want internet with porn or without it

Having the porn one pay only would be stupid.

The good thing about the internet is that besides having porn sites you pay for, there are also free ones.

Why make everyone suffer because you want to enforce some stupid thing because people don't like !@#$% porn

[Venus]

Venus

Re: CP80 - A new legislation that has the soluti...

meh. why trying to hide it? Internet is supposed to be a general information source. The ports are supposed to seperate application network protocols, and not content. Using different ports for different kind of content is not what it is supposed to be used for. The topdomain (.com, .net etc.) is what specify content (or other information, like country for example). So in some sense you could mean .xxx is "better". I however don't like .xxx for at least two reasons:
1. It's (much) more expensive to buy a .xxx domain. So why buying a domain name when you can legally use the much cheaper .com domains? Now so if they make .com commerical only again? Well, then they can use any of the other non restricted top domains (I'm sure there's at least one country that allow their countrydomain be used freely and non restricted).
2. I wouldn't want someone to be able to watch what I browse by looking at the topdomain. Someone (at the very least the ISP, who you can NEVER trust) could set up a program that checks for packets on the network and can easily see if you browse adult sites by looking on the topdomain. There is no privacy. (The port "solution" would also be a privacy problem, anyone could scan for packets with the port on the network)

EDIT: Fixed typos.

My signature is empty.

[Cuddle♥Bunny]

Cuddle♥Bunny

Re: CP80 - A new legislation that has the soluti...

Wait.... Pornography is a problem?

• 

[hawthorneluke]

hawthorneluke

Re: CP80 - A new legislation that has the soluti...

It does what cable did to tv, internet style.  Meaning you'd have your public "channels" (or *port* in this instance), and then the optional, adult ports, etc.

What if, for example, there was a site which had some pornographic content but wasn't a porn site, would the whole site be blocked?

No, it would be located on a port that you may or may not have access to, depending on what your parents choose to do with their ISP.

so you pay the normal price to get the basic package and have to pay extra to view everything?
with your internet filter you use, ever come across a site you wanted to view, which it blocked even though you think it didnt need to and therefore couldnt view the site?

この世に悪があるとすれば、それは人の心だ

• 

[tippz]

tippz

Re: CP80 - A new legislation that has the soluti...

Sorry, but I don't want to end up paying extra (if they do something like this where only port 80 is allowed in a standard package you better believe costs will go up) just because people think pornography is a problem.

And who says you'd be paying extra?  Certainly if the ISP wanted to charge extra then you'd be, but currently you're paying for access to all ports.

If you don't think that ISPs would use every excuse to raise prices you are nuts. They will either charge more for a 'safe' package because they are protecting your children. Or they will charge more for one with all ports because it is 'unlimited access'. Not hard to see how it will happen...

[2awesome4apossum]

2awesome4apossum

Re: CP80 - A new legislation that has the soluti...

If you don't think that ISPs would use every excuse to raise prices you are nuts.

Perhaps you're forgetting that we live in a capitalistic society meaning: competition!  Sure, they may charge more, as they already can (they just don't have the inscentive as of yet), but if you think that they'll all charge high prices and all charge more, perhaps you're not aware of the capitalistic society that we're actually living in!

I'm willing to be that some of the big names wouldn't charge more for access to other ports.

They will either charge more for a 'safe' package because they are protecting your children. Or they will charge more for one with all ports because it is 'unlimited access'. Not hard to see how it will happen...

Well, the idea is that of allowing access to the public port, leaving other ports avaliable at request.

Come to think of it:

I don't want to end up paying extra

5 bucks says that you're not paying your own bill, and that you don't know how much it is.  5 bucks says that in 15 years when this bill has been in effect for quite some time (because there's not much of a reason to vote against it), you'll be paying the same or less (adjusted for inflation) for access to all standard ports.  (Who knows?  It could spark up ports dedicated to IGN-type sites, etc.)

And porn is a problem.  There's a huge industry out there targeting kids.  It's factual that it's a problem.  Moral, immoral aside, it's clearly the root of many problems that kids can have as a result of the total anoymnoty of the internet.

EDIT: Point is that it seems socialistic to be against it for the reason that the ISPs have the freedoms that accompany a capitilastic society.  Again, they could already be charging extra for access to all ports.

EDIT 2: So "prices" aside (an extra 2 bucks may turn out to be killer! j/k), any reason to be against the bill?

[tippz]

tippz

Re: CP80 - A new legislation that has the soluti...

If you don't think that ISPs would use every excuse to raise prices you are nuts.

Perhaps you're forgetting that we live in a capitalistic society meaning: competition!  Sure, they may charge more, as they already can (they just don't have the inscentive as of yet), but if you think that they'll all charge high prices and all charge more, perhaps you're not aware of the capitalistic society that we're actually living in!

I'm willing to be that some of the big names wouldn't charge more for access to other ports.

They will either charge more for a 'safe' package because they are protecting your children. Or they will charge more for one with all ports because it is 'unlimited access'. Not hard to see how it will happen...

Well, the idea is that of allowing access to the public port, leaving other ports avaliable at request.

Come to think of it:

I don't want to end up paying extra

5 bucks says that you're not paying your own bill, and that you don't know how much it is.  5 bucks says that in 15 years when this bill has been in effect for quite some time (because there's not much of a reason to vote against it), you'll be paying the same or less (adjusted for inflation) for access to all standard ports.  (Who knows?  It could spark up ports dedicated to IGN-type sites, etc.)

And porn is a problem.  There's a huge industry out there targeting kids.  It's factual that it's a problem.  Moral, immoral aside, it's clearly the root of many problems that kids can have as a result of the total anoymnoty of the internet.

EDIT: Point is that it seems socialistic to be against it for the reason that the ISPs have the freedoms that accompany a capitilastic society.  Again, they could already be charging extra for access to all ports.

EDIT 2: So "prices" aside (an extra 2 bucks may turn out to be killer! j/k), any reason to be against the bill?

Prices aside, no, I cannot see any reason to oppose the bill...

other than the FACT that the internet is not a truck, it is a series of tubes and putting all that traffic in one tube would be a disaster!... j/k politicians trying to talk about things they don't know about is just plain funny!

anyway, yeah, if they did it in a way where costs would remain where they are I would offer total support.

However, this would have to be an internation bill wouldn't it? Otherwise couldn't porn sites get hosted on a foreign server right? That would probably be the biggest problem with the whole thing...

[2awesome4apossum]

2awesome4apossum

Re: CP80 - A new legislation that has the soluti...

However, this would have to be an internation bill wouldn't it? Otherwise couldn't porn sites get hosted on a foreign server right? That would probably be the biggest problem with the whole thing...

Actually, no.  I was discussing this with my father (it's his friend, who works with him-- my dad's the head of the ebusiness center at the university around here... which I'd tell you which one, but I prefer some level of privacy from the internet), and ISP's are already able to block sites from different countries.  The idea is that parents and people who really are concerned about this sort of thing, would easily be able to do that as well, and only sites within the US would be regulated.

However, Mexico's extremely excited about this, because they've been claiming that America values the internet over the family.  The America's, Asias and so forth isn't what I'm concerned about: it's Europe.

Regardless, 95% of all legal pornography comes out of Los Angeles.

j/k politicians trying to talk about things they don't know about is just plain funny!

Well, this is only being SPONSERED by politicians.  Written by people in the industry

Prices aside, no, I cannot see any reason to oppose the bill...

Well, honestly: there's going to be a company out there who can get you an "all access" package for a low price.

I mean, I can't understand why this would be a hinderence, because: competition.

[tippz]

tippz

Re: CP80 - A new legislation that has the soluti...

Actually, no.  I was discussing this with my father (it's his friend, who works with him-- my dad's the head of the ebusiness center at the university around here... which I'd tell you which one, but I prefer some level of privacy from the internet), and ISP's are already able to block sites from different countries.  The idea is that parents and people who really are concerned about this sort of thing, would easily be able to do that as well, and only sites within the US would be regulated.

However, Mexico's extremely excited about this, because they've been claiming that America values the internet over the family.  The America's, Asias and so forth isn't what I'm concerned about: it's Europe.

Regardless, 95% of all legal pornography comes out of Los Angeles.

right, but if they can't put it on regular ports they could easily move their servers out of the country...

Well, this is only being SPONSERED by politicians.  Written by people in the industry

I was just making a reference to Ted Steven's speach about net neutrality... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSsWqeBEahY - Jon Stewart makes fun of him...

Well, honestly: there's going to be a company out there who can get you an "all access" package for a low price.

I mean, I can't understand why this would be a hinderence, because: competition.

true, to an extent. If it were only one ISP and all the others kept prices down then yeah, the one would keep prices down. If EVERY ISP raised their prices (even if minor there is always a cost to extra port monitoring or blocking) then competition wouldn't do much to prevent that.

[hawthorneluke]

hawthorneluke

Re: CP80 - A new legislation that has the soluti...

if the prices and hassle for the full access we get now is the same or less as the prices and hassle of this, then i'd go with it. if not, i wouldnt.

この世に悪があるとすれば、それは人の心だ

• 

[Delko]

Delko

Re: CP80 - A new legislation that has the soluti...

aw enforcement would be able to crack down on porn, piracy, etc., etc. much easier

No thanks.