Not for the Americans
http://savetheinternet.eu/#act
Save The European Internet
Remember the "email stamp" a few years ago where companies could pay for premium delivery of (commercial) email? It's ironic, first create a barrier for email, than let companies pay for delivery.
Think about internet games too. Suppose the big brand games get the best (paid) connections and Freealleg gets what's "left".
Or maybe those "free" chat and calling apps can now be slowed down too, because all the bandwidth goes to Netflix and Youtube?
It's a shame a Dutch Neelie Kroes, European commissioner ("digital agenda") is promoting "internet for all", and handles the issue of "net neutrality" so poorly.
Think about internet games too. Suppose the big brand games get the best (paid) connections and Freealleg gets what's "left".
Or maybe those "free" chat and calling apps can now be slowed down too, because all the bandwidth goes to Netflix and Youtube?
It's a shame a Dutch Neelie Kroes, European commissioner ("digital agenda") is promoting "internet for all", and handles the issue of "net neutrality" so poorly.
-
takingarms1
- Posts: 3052
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:00 am
I actually don't think it's the end of the world. The internet is a conglomeration of privately owned networks. If a network owner like comcast or verizon sees that 80% of the traffic is going to youtube or netflix, and those two are making a gazillion dollars, and comcast/verizon has to keep upgrading their network to keep up with demand... well either the people purchasing internet service or the people like youtube or netflix are going to have to pay for it. As a customer, i'm kind of ok with youtube or netflix paying for it.raumvogel wrote:QUOTE (raumvogel @ Apr 2 2014, 09:59 PM) And I predict they will lose theirs. The corporations rule, not the people.
We'll have to see how it goes. I'm sure the network owners can abuse this concept, and if they do, maybe there will be more public outcry.
"You give my regards to St. Peter. Or, whoever has his job, but in hell!"
- - - -
- - - -
And you, as a customer, would be paying the netflix and youtube the "premium" price for what THEY have to pay to your network provider.
Ask a simple question - where do these companies get money? From their customer.
Who is their customer? - majority of the times it is you and you alone.
So in the end, whether you are paying netflix more, or verzion more, net effect is the same on average. Of course there are those who would benefit in one or the other case, if I didnt use netflix and I got internet cheaper because I did not have to pay to "let everyone else" use netflix.
In all seriousness though you really do not want the providers of what effectively nowadays is as necessary as water or electricity to be able to claim that they cannot supply you with said service "cause the water company that your using did not pay for the tubes".
P.S. If govt will agree to make internet a regulated industry, similar to electro/gas/water, you would only benefit from it. Possibly a drawback would be in slower upgrade cycle and lower overall bandwidth, but you are not going to have any of the nonsense with traffic shaping, price hikes due to monopoly and so forth.
Ask a simple question - where do these companies get money? From their customer.
Who is their customer? - majority of the times it is you and you alone.
So in the end, whether you are paying netflix more, or verzion more, net effect is the same on average. Of course there are those who would benefit in one or the other case, if I didnt use netflix and I got internet cheaper because I did not have to pay to "let everyone else" use netflix.
In all seriousness though you really do not want the providers of what effectively nowadays is as necessary as water or electricity to be able to claim that they cannot supply you with said service "cause the water company that your using did not pay for the tubes".
P.S. If govt will agree to make internet a regulated industry, similar to electro/gas/water, you would only benefit from it. Possibly a drawback would be in slower upgrade cycle and lower overall bandwidth, but you are not going to have any of the nonsense with traffic shaping, price hikes due to monopoly and so forth.
Last edited by _xJammer_ on Thu Apr 03, 2014 1:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
takingarms1
- Posts: 3052
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:00 am
Um... that's actually how it works with water and electricity now. You pay a transport charge, and you pay a supplier._xJammer_ wrote:QUOTE (_xJammer_ @ Apr 3 2014, 09:19 AM) In all seriousness though you really do not want the providers of what effectively nowadays is as necessary as water or electricity to be able to claim that they cannot supply you with said service "cause the water company that your using did not pay for the tubes".
The biggest issue I see is lack of competition in rural areas. In Boston, if Verizon throttles netflix, I'll just go to comcast. Or RCN. Or somebody else. Where my parents live, they have Comcast, and no other choice for high speed internet. On the other hand, Cable is regulated in the US already, so it wouldn't be too hard for government to get involved.
"You give my regards to St. Peter. Or, whoever has his job, but in hell!"
- - - -
- - - -