Page 1 of 1
Coming soon: The Web toll
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 11:23 am
by hawleyjr
Do you guys think this will actually pass?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/0 ... index.html
Specifically, such companies want to charge Web sites for the speedy delivery of streaming video, television, movies and other high-bandwidth data to their customers. If they get their way (Congress may vote on the matter before the year is out), the days of wide-open cyberspace are numbered.
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 11:29 am
by Maugrim_The_Reaper
Is this not pre-empted by the recently passed
net neutrality bill, at least in the US?
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 11:36 am
by Maugrim_The_Reaper
I doubt it will pass - surely any idiot can see it will handing higher bandwidth to paying websites must at some point leave less bandwidth for other non-paying sites. Is bandwidth a commodity now? It's a nice play - a commodity is valuable when it's supply starts at zero-cost.
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 11:39 am
by Luke
I hate it... removes all that I love about the internet... just like the last paragraph says.
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 11:44 am
by hawleyjr
Maugrim_The_Reaper wrote:Is bandwidth a commodity now?
Actually it is. bandwidth is expensive and unlike your home internet account, most companies have to pay for specific bandwith amounts.
Don't get me wrong, I'm against it especially as a small business owner who's customers are all small businesses this is a bad idea.
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 11:57 am
by RobertGonzalez
Seems like a typical business tactic. Take something that is convenient and marketable, get people hooked on it and then try to charge people money for creating a 'better' version of it. Started with radio, being broadcast for free (to consumers) while broadcasters generated revenue from businesses using that media to get their advertisements out. Now there is Sirius, XM and HD Radio. You mean, I can pay for something that is usually free so I can have a 'better' experience with it? Sign me up!
Then it moved to TV. Same concept. Free local UHF/VHF transmission. Then came cable, which you had to pay for. Then satellite, on demand, blah blah blah. Again, sign me up!
Now the internet has hit it's point of moving up into a specialized media offering. You had to know it would get to this point. Will that idea ever pass? Who knows? I'm sure if you asked people years ago if they would pay for radio they would have given a resounding 'Heck No!'. Now look where we are.
Anyway, I am starting to push the boundaries of getting political so I will kindly step down from my soapbox and resume my laidback lifestyle as a coder and DevNet junkie.
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 12:48 pm
by timvw
I don't see why politics should interfere with this...
If you don't like a product (eg: one that differentiates allowed bandwith depending on what you use it for), don't buy it.. I don't see why laws are needed for that...
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 2:31 pm
by Roja
timvw wrote:If you don't like a product (eg: one that differentiates allowed bandwith depending on what you use it for), don't buy it.. I don't see why laws are needed for that...
Its a lot like electricity. If you don't like the rates your local power provider charges, or how they do business (nuclear/coal?), you can't really not buy it, can you?
In some areas, there is a near defacto monopoly being granted to providers. In rural areas, its your local phone company, or you are SOL for getting any connectivity. (Nevermind the discussion about getting broadband there!)
As a result, there is a strong argument to be made that the government has an interest in ensuring that customers aren't abused. By keeping nuetrality in force, they enable competition on the merits - a commodity competition - instead of letting companies gouge customers.
Unfortunately, like most things political, its not nearly that cut and dried. In the cities, its pretty much the opposite situation. You can have one of a hundred providers, ranging from dialup to satellite, cellular to powerline, even wireless! In that environment, forced neutrality isn't ensuring choice of providers on an equal basis - its limiting businesses ability to compete aggressively.
For example, if Earthlink could charge $0.10 a minute for anyone accessing Google, they might be able to fund nationwide free dialup for everyone that doesn't already have it.
Thats a pretty serious competitive advantage, and it could help people in rural areas considerably.
There are substantial pros and cons to both sides of the equation, and its definitely a political issue with serious ramifications to both business, and our livelihood as programmers. In the final equation, it comes down to guessing which choice will be better, and time and again, politics proves to be extremely poor at predicting the future.
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 2:47 pm
by Chris Corbyn

So naughty streaming feeds may be out of the question?
/ponders what the internet would be like without pr0n.
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 2:54 pm
by alex.barylski
A cold, dry, boring place...
It'd be EOL for me as an active internet user

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 4:53 pm
by feyd
Guys, this is a political discussion.. and should probably be taken elsewhere... *hint-hint*