Regardless of what 'the big companies' think, it won't ever happen. People won't let it. Internetters from all over the world would go berserk. Imagine suddenly only being able to call 3 predefined phone numbers while having to 'upgrade your subscription' to be able to phone other people than your mom, (girl)friend or best pall.
hmmm... maybe I'm wrong, and this definitely wouldn't happen overnight, but if enough people hated that system wouldn't a new WAN just pop up over a few years time that was neutral? If there's a service people want then a business will find a way to fill that desire. Now obviously it would be a slow process, very likely being limited and isolated, but I don't see the 'end of the internet' being the 'end of the internet as we know it,' just more of a period of time without it.
I don't see how that is a solution for the internet traffic problem. If the entire internet can be comparable to a single stretch of highway then imposing speed limits based on what transport you drive is just silliness. Tier based net speeds/browsing is just a wreck waiting to happen. It's impractical for starters considering the scale of the internet and it also will create more problems in the process while taxing us further for something that should be free. We have enjoyed free internet browsing thus far, to impose a limit to what we can access based on subscription is taking a step backwards in technology.
Why can't they just make the roads bigger i.e- increase bandwidth?. There are several countries that have deplorable internet connections (I am looking at you Australia) but if everyone brought up rapid internet then there might not be this issue of traffic.
so three years ago, a Democrat-sponsored amendment failed to pass because it tied in a committee vote in a Republican-controlled Senate? If a vote were held today that amendment would pass easily.
Right now we all have Internet Service Providers (ISP's) such as AOL, BT and Virgin. They are different companies that give access to the internet and allow us all to view the same content. The problem is that some content is slower than others, videos for example make the net run slower than text and the more people using it the slower the net becomes overall.
The proposal is that ISP's will offer different content, and that content will cost a different amount to use. In the same way as Sky does: If you have the basic package of Sky you get a certain amount of channels but if you pay more you can get the movie channels and the sports channels and so on.
So basically rather than being able to access everything like you do now, we would have 'tiers' and depending on what tier you are on (how much you are paying) decides on what content you can have. So the lower tier or 'basic package' will allow you to use some sites, say Amazon, Ebay and so on then if you pay more to be on an upgraded or higher tier then you get access to other sites such as youtube and whatnot.
It would actually be good for customers if basic access would cost less than what we have now,and if other sites would still be accessible,albeit slower. That way,it would be perfect for those who don't normally "web-surf". But it's not gonna happen.
ISPs see this as an opportunity to squeeze some more cash out of the users,and they would rather leave prices flat than introducing cheaper option for those who don't use Internet to it's full capacity.
so three years ago, a Democrat-sponsored amendment failed to pass because it tied in a committee vote in a Republican-controlled Senate? If a vote were held today that amendment would pass easily.
So in 3/7 years time, when a Republican gets elected having done so on the back of a lot of bribes "donations" on behalf of multi-nationals which have ISPs as part of their business portfolios, this whole thing will happen. When internet was just a quirky little thing a few geeks bothered with it wasn't so important. Now that it is a mainstream media outlet with the potential to make billions and to turn over trillions there is no way it will be left as it is.
Mozared said:
Regardless of what 'the big companies' think, it won't ever happen. People won't let it. Internetters from all over the world would go berserk. Imagine suddenly only being able to call 3 predefined phone numbers while having to 'upgrade your subscription' to be able to phone other people than your mom, (girl)friend or best pall.
Recently, our governments have invaded countries illegally, killing over a million people, they have utterly destroyed our environment, they have sold of all publically owned assets to private companies (i.e. taxpayer funded utilities like water etc), and most recently, they let a small number of super-elite greedy people gamble with the worlds entire economy and lose, and now they are making us pay for that with public sector cuts and welfare cuts.
Letting ISPs charge more for internet usage won't ruffle any feathers, and if it does then I am fucking disgusted with humanity for letting all of that shit above go but kicking up a fuss over more expensive porn and the ability to type "pwnt" at people across the world.
This isn't a technical issue - this is a profit issue. ISPs are seeing just how dependent people are becoming on the internet and have found a method to squeeze people out of more money.
Mrsnugglesworth said:
Eh. Proxies/hackers would destroy this.
Net Neutrality wouldn't see the light of day for more than a week before someone like Anon brought it tumbling down.
The thing is, they want to change something that belongs to all of us to something we have to pay for. The consumer doesn't get anything out of it, companies produce for the consumer, so the companies would most definately need government support for a change like this. Any government that agrees to set up laws that allow this is corrupt, because they're changing laws for their own gain (these "donations").
This will also leave room for the government to censor the internet as it sees fit, also how would this work internationally?
I doubt this would work. Mainly because Google, the giant beast of internets, has said it didn't like the idea. I personally don't like it either. My house will have fibre optic and I want to search whatever I want, whenever I want without having to purchase some bullcrap package.
I doubt this would work. Mainly because Google, the giant beast of internets, has said it didn't like the idea. I personally don't like it either. My house will have fibre optic and I want to search whatever I want, whenever I want without having to purchase some bullcrap package.
I'd say that if Google doesn't like it, it's doomed. Google basically owns the internet. Remove someone's site from Google and it basically doesn't exist anymore.
Not at all. If this goes through then the ISPs will basically replace google. In other words, not only will the ISPs start fleecing us for more money, they will go to internet companies and ask for money from them to put them on the lower tiers.
I doubt this would work. Mainly because Google, the giant beast of internets, has said it didn't like the idea. I personally don't like it either. My house will have fibre optic and I want to search whatever I want, whenever I want without having to purchase some bullcrap package.
I'd say that if Google doesn't like it, it's doomed. Google basically owns the internet. Remove someone's site from Google and it basically doesn't exist anymore.
Not at all. If this goes through then the ISPs will basically replace google. In other words, not only will the ISPs start fleecing us for more money, they will go to internet companies and ask for money from them to put them on the lower tiers.
Which is why it won't work. If Google doesn't want it to happy, it won't happy. That's a multibillion dollar company. I don't really think it's that great of an idea anyways. I don't know how it benefits us, the customers. *shrug*
I doubt this would work. Mainly because Google, the giant beast of internets, has said it didn't like the idea. I personally don't like it either. My house will have fibre optic and I want to search whatever I want, whenever I want without having to purchase some bullcrap package.
I'd say that if Google doesn't like it, it's doomed. Google basically owns the internet. Remove someone's site from Google and it basically doesn't exist anymore.
Not at all. If this goes through then the ISPs will basically replace google. In other words, not only will the ISPs start fleecing us for more money, they will go to internet companies and ask for money from them to put them on the lower tiers.
Which is why it won't work. If Google doesn't want it to happy, it won't happy. That's a multibillion dollar company. I don't really think it's that great of an idea anyways. I don't know how it benefits us, the customers. *shrug*
It's a terrible idea that would effectively destroy the internet as we know it. However it would do several things:-
It would allow ISPs to milk customers for all they are worth.
It would allow ISPs to milk successful internet companies for some of what they are worth.
It would allow far greater governmental control and monitoring of internet usage.
It would completely end all internet based piracy and file sharing.
It would prevent the so called "liberal media" from propagating their "lies" to the population.
Google, and other independent internet brands (Yahoo etc), would fall by the wayside and let partisan companies such as 20th Century Fox take over from then.
Think about all of the above. It means that the government that does this would get a nice pay off round of applause from bodies such as the MPAA, it would get a nice bribe "donation" from those media companies which also have ISPs as part of their portfolio (some of whom just so happen to be on the MPAA too, Mr AOL/Time Warner), it would also get to restrict negative news articles circulating on the internet and be able to score big points with the "moral" vote by bringing an end to such things as internet pornography etc.
I am not arguing for this at all. I hate the idea as much as you do. All I am saying is that governments can't resist fucking up this kind of thing. There is money and votes in it for them after all.
They want to charge by site type, like Sky does with channels? If not I haven't understood.
But good luck to them with that if I am right. Considering some countries are arguing internet access is a human right, this'll get nowhere so there's no reason to worry.
This is just a cover by the ISPs. What they've really done isn't realising that they can make service better, but that they really do need more money. And look, they provide an ever growing and ever more popular medium for minimal charge, they already have an enormous customer base!
It's probably like seeing a really, really well fed cow that they've been carefully milking for a decade or more, making good money off it's milk, and then they suddenly realised just how much money they can make selling it for beef. "Sod the cow, it's worth more dead."
I think the worst thing is, people will pay, and suddenly anyone with little money is left without privileges..again.
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.
