Two Tiered Internet

[barok]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/05...index.html

Basically, isp's want to charge websites for delivering their webpages to you. If websites don't pay up, they get loaded slower, or not at all. Personally, I believe this is complete and utter Bulls***. I'm also interested in hearing what everyone else has to say about this, so...

discuss.

[TheAdventMaster]

That is a load of BS and the idea should be deleted eventually. *calls upon the super QBnews squad*

[Anonymous]

This is not good. I encourage everyone to write to your government officials...

but seriously, this is about massive, massive amounts of money being shifted towards companies that already have the money to get their influences pushed.

This sickens me

[na_th_an]

That's Capitalism and that's how it works... I'm not surprised.

In a future, people will be charged for breathing. I'm sure.

[Zap]

Yay for lobbying -_-

[NecrosIhsan]

I doubt there's a single person on this forum who would agree with the idea. I also highly doubt there's a single person outside of the marketing staffs of the big corporations who would agree with the idea. The only ones who like this idea are the corporations who stand to rake in the big profits. But realistically, I don't think this will pass. There's already been a lot of FUD spread around about the whole thing...most people only get half the story, or not even half, and often misconstrued or blown out of proportion.

Ultimately, an opponent of this with some big bucks to back themselves up could claim that the concept of a two-tiered internet is both monopolistic and a violation of freedom of the press. The whole measure would then be thrown out the window, as both would be very easy to prove. So hopefully someone with the mouth and the guns behind it will come forward and have this stupidity halted in its tracks. But even without that, it's going to be a tough sell to Congress, because there are only a few people in our current Congress with deep ties into the communications industry, so only a few members of Congress stand to make a profit from this damaging idea. Keep in mind that lawmaking in the USA has nothing to do with what is right or what is moral, but what is profitable for the lawmakers.

[barok]

In April a House subcommittee rejected a measure by Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts (D) that would have prevented telecoms from charging Web sites extra fees based on bandwidth usage.

I'm really hoping Nek is right, and what happened isn't a taste of what's yet to come. This could also be very bad for online gamers. Imagine paying $50+ a month for internet to play online games, only to have your favourite game become unplayably laggy due to the game owners refusing to pay up? Of course, this could potentially blow up in the telecoms faces. Google has already said that it has no intention whatsoever of paying up. Some people have already told Google they should cut access to ISP's that want to charge them money. Can you imagine an internet without Google?

Features of our Uber internet connection!
*Only $30 per month!
*Blazing fast at 10/6 mbps!
*State of the art Two-Tiered internet enhances your experience!
*Oh, uuhhh... You won't get google though, cuz google refuses to pay us $10,000 a month. Same with Yahoo. And Microsoft.

To me, this is about the modern day equivalent of a shady person with huge thugs going to the small businesses and forcing them to pay for "protection."

[Anonymous]

as Nek somewhat mentioned, I think our strongest arguement is stripping first amendment rights.

[Kevin_theprogrammer]

This is a joke, right? There's no way this would pass, and if it did I'll bet projects like freenet and BBS systems will be getting a huge boost in support.

[barok]

nope, no joke.