[Internet] Surfers Might Have to Pay for Website Access

L

La Heladera

Veteran X
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/05/25/the.web.toll/index.html

Apparently, telecommunication mega-corps like AT&T and Time Warner are pushing for a "two-tiered" internet, where we, internet surfers, would have to pay to access fast-loading webpages and multimedia content.

:(


"the plan stands to sour your Web experience. If, for instance, your favorite blogger refused to ante up, her pages would load more slowly on your computer than would content from Web sites that had paid the fees. "

that would mean TW would have to pay these companies unless they wanted to load like back in the 56kdays?
 
Last edited:
..this is a huge misunderstanding of what they're doing.

there is already a thread that explains it.
 
As things stand now, the telecoms provide the lines -- copper, cable or fiber-optic -- and the other hardware that connects Web sites to consumers.

But they don't influence, or profit from, the content that flows to you from, say, cinemanow.com; they simply supply the pipelines.
Click to expand...
I'm a bit confused. All of those telecom companies are the ones that provide us with DSL or cable. We pay for that already. I could almost understand if, say, Verizon were in charge of installing the fiber lines and maintaining them, but got no payment for it. But they do. They charge people to use fiber, they charge people to use DSL. They're already getting paid for the use of those lines.

I know they just want more money and will stop at nothing to get it, but isn't the argument just plain wrong?
 
at least this benifits us instead of the "labtop"

edit: now if the companies pay this fee, does it mean our internet broadband fee go down?

Spoiler
 
I understand we're going to have to use e-stamps on our e-mails, as well. And that the evil Democrats will put a tax on the Intarnett.
 
I see all of this as a good thing. Less people using the internet = more people outside = more hot women.

I'm sure there should be a bunch of shit in between those points, but thats the jist of it.
 
Patton said:
I see all of this as a good thing. Less people using the internet = more people outside = more hot women.

I'm sure there should be a bunch of shit in between those points, but thats the jist of it.
Click to expand...


cuz all the hot women are waiting for you on the internet :rolleyes:
 
you actually got it backwards - I believe websites would have to pay for faster access, not the other way around. this whole net neutrality bullshit confuses the hell out of me though.
 
triple said:
you actually got it backwards - I believe websites would have to pay for faster access, not the other way around. this whole net neutrality bullshit confuses the hell out of me though.
Click to expand...


you're right, but the article was pointing out that websites would probably pass that cost off to surfers
 
i dont really get the whole thing, its not like the internet is stored on a single massive set of servers. its housed in many different independantly run servers, so i dont see how they would regulate this whole thing when all the internet is is connecting to an ip somewhere?
 
Phantred said:
cuz all the hot women are waiting for you on the internet :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

what i meant was

the fat women who use the internet all the time?

they go outside and exercise

they become not fat

they become attractive

I said I was missing some points

roll your eyes elsewhere
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top