[Internet] Surfers Might Have to Pay for Website Access

What is crazy about all this is that the telecoms currently make huge profits off the US customers. Compare the price of internet of the US to other countries like Sweden/Japan. The cost/mb of bandwidth ratio is much lower there.
 
filsinger said:
What is crazy about all this is that the telecoms currently make huge profits off the US customers. Compare the price of internet of the US to other countries like Sweden/Japan. The cost/mb of bandwidth ratio is much lower there.
Click to expand...

That's the thing! It's straight out theft! It's a little extra profit for a few companies, at the price of an open internet for 260,000,000 million people. But Congress doesn't represent the people...I...BAH!

We have a RIGHT to be represented in Congress! WHAT THE FUCK!

FUCK!
 
It's America at it's finest. Create possibly one of the most open-ended, fair and fundimentally useful communication tools in existence and then regulate the shit out of it until it's the exact opposite of what it was intended to be. And it's all in the name of corporate profit :)

God bless America.
 
In my eyes this is the BIGGEST problem looming on the internet horizon at this moment. Not spam. Not viruses. Not botnets. And its getting me pretty hot under the collar.

You see, these pigopolists are trying to create money where it doesn't currently exist.

The internet is nothing but data. That's it. There is no difference between the data that is an mp3; the data that is a nekkid girly pic; the data that is a movie.

The only difference is the shape of the traffic that the data generates. Jpgs are tiny things that blip across the net in no time. mp3s are slightly larger things that also blip across the net. Movies are larger things that take a while to cross the internet. Streaming Hi-Def movies, which are right around the corner folks, are relatively large things that will take a good bit of time to cross the internet.

And this is what these motherfuckers are trying to cash in on. Up to now, we paid for the level of access we wanted, to receive the stuff we wanted to get, in a timely manner. If all we wanted was to browse, check mail and download a jpg or two, we used dial-up. If we wanted larger stuff at a larger rate, we got dsl or cable. If we wanted even larger stuff, faster, we got a higher bandwidth package. That was the whole game. We all had access to the same stuff, at the speed we were willing to pay for.

Then the assholes pulled a fast one on us. They advertised these great high-speeds connections at low-low prices. But did they deliver? Fuck no. If you bought an advertised 8mbps connection, did they allow you to transmit and receive 8mbps all day, every day, 24/7? Fuck no! They snuck some clauses into their end user contracts and immediately started crying about "high bandwidth users ruining the network experience for everyone else" and started booting them off of their networks. This was so that they wouldn't have to pay to upgrade their networks to meet the real-world demands of their customers! Regardless the service they actually advertised to us.

Now these fuck-faces are trying to collect $$$ from both ends. They are charging us good money for network access that we better not use to its full potential, else suffer the consequences, AND NOW they want to charge the content providers (web sites, game servers, streaming movie sites, etc) to ensure that their data is transported to the end user with less delay. They are trying to label data so that they can charge some data extra money to have it delivered in a more timely manner than other data. Again, they are trying to avoid having to spend money to upgrade their networks to handle the natural traffic loads of the Internet.

THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT DOES NOT EXIST!

It is a made-up problem.

The real solution to the problem is for the corporate pigs to spend the money to ensure that their network infrastructure can handle the amount of DATA traffic generated or demanded by their customers. That's the way it's been up to today.

The solution is NOT to arbitrarily start labeling certain data as different from other data, to start "creating" data TYPES and begin classifying which is better than others.

That's what this whole Net Neutrality thing is about. Data is Data is Data is Data. It all gets broken down into the same tiny packets.

I will promise you this... if they are allowed to create this fiction of a solution to a non-existent problem, you, whether a content provider or a content consumer, will suffer. You will be fucked. They will bend you over and screw you in the ass. And you will whine and cry about not having done something about it while you had the chance.

I'd get to writing your elected officials, me buckos.
 
Last edited:
nSpectre said:
In my eyes this is the BIGGEST problem looming on the internet horizon at this moment. Not spam. Not viruses. Not botnets. And its getting me pretty hot under the collar.

You see, these pigopolists are trying to create money where it doesn't currently exist.

The internet is nothing but data. That's it. There is no difference between the data that is an mp3; the data that is a nekkid girly pic; the data that is a movie.

The only difference is the shape of the traffic that the data generates. Jpgs are tiny things that blip across the net in no time. mp3s are slightly larger things that also blip across the net. Movies are larger things that take a while to cross the internet. Streaming Hi-Def movies, which are right around the corner folks, are relatively huge things that will take up lots of time and lots of bandwidth to cross the internet.

And this is what these motherfuckers are trying to cash in on. Up to now, we paid for the level of access we wanted, to receive the stuff we wanted to get, in a timely manner. If all we wanted was to browse, check mail and download a jpg or two, we used dial-up. If we wanted larger stuff at a larger rate, we got dsl or cable. If we wanted even larger stuff, faster, we got a higher bandwidth package. That was the whole game. We all had access to the same stuff, at the speed we were willing to pay for.

Then the assholes pulled a fast one on us. They advertised these great high-speeds connections at low-low prices. But did they deliver? Fuck no. If you bought an advertised 8mbps connection, did they allow you to transmit and receive 8mbps all day, every day, 24/7? Fuck no! They snuck some clauses into their end user contracts and immediately started crying about "high bandwidth users ruining the network experience for everyone else" and started booting them off of their networks. This was so that they wouldn't have to pay to upgrade their networks to meet the real-world demands of their customers! Regardless the service they actually advertised to us.

Now these fuck-faces are trying to collect $$$ from both ends. They are charging us good money for network access that we better not use to its full potential, else suffer the consequences, AND NOW they want to charge the content providers (web sites, game servers, streaming movie sites, etc) to ensure that their data is transported to the end user with less delay. They are trying to label data so that they can charge some data extra money to have it delivered in a more timely manner than other data. Again, they are trying to avoid having to spend money to upgrade their networks to handle the natural traffic loads of the Internet.

THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT DOES NOT EXIST!

It is a made-up problem.

The real solution to the problem is for the corporate pigs to spend the money to ensure that their network infrastructure can handle the amount of DATA traffic generated or demanded by their customers. That's the way it's been up to today.

The solution is NOT to arbitrarily start labeling certain data as different from other data, to start "creating" data TYPES and begin classifying which is better than others.

I will promise you this... if they are allowed to create this fiction of a solution to a non-existent problem, you, whether a content provider or a content consumer, will suffer. You will be fucked. They will bend you over and screw you in the ass. And you will whine and cry about not having done something about it while you had the chance.

I'd get to writing your elected officials, me buckos.
Click to expand...

ya, they're double dipping. Fuck em!
 
BlackJack said:
ya, they're double dipping. Fuck em!
Click to expand...

That's still not the crux of the issue. They are re-defining the Internet so that they can create problems that they can then charge money to "resolve".
 
Totally. Their business model, and tidy profits that nopbody is begrudging them, is based on oversubscription, on selling what they don't have. This is merely a hedge against more customers using the bandwidth they already pay for...at the cost of the entire fucking internet.

Grr.

I feel totally disenfranchised. I am going to write my representatives, but that smacks of futility.
 
KnightMare said:
if you want to use bitorrent, you'll have to pay more.If you want to use voip, you'll have to pay more.ect,ectect,
Click to expand...


There was a very good, lengthy, post on Slashdot a while ago by someone who actually understood the routing architecture used by the tier-1 companies. I can't find it and can't do a good job of summarizing his points, so I won't try.

The fundamental concept is that QoS is already implemented in very advanced ways, and there is no reason why a highly evolved version (that possibly includes tiered costs) wouldn't be a great thing for anyone who uses the internet.

You can do the searches yourself to find the details on Slashdot if you like: it's worth the time.

People like us shouldn't want to be classified with the other 99% of retarded internet users: QoS properly implemented in either sender (website) or receiver (you) could be a great thing.


The PROBLEM is that there is effectively no competition in the US internet market right now, so any tiering system is pretty much guaranteed to fuck over the consumers on both ends of the line. It will require a return to pre 1996(?) markets in order to have a universal internet QoS system that actually benefits anybody but the line holders.
 
This is ofn.

www.engadget.com

In a move that may pave the way for legislation forbidding phone and cable companies from charging content providers a premium for access to customers, the House Judiciary Committee today approved the net neutrality bill introduced by Committee Chair James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI). The bill, known formally as the "Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act," must still go to the full House, where it faces a competing bill promulgated by the Commerce Committee. The bill cleared the Committee 20-13, with bipartisan support. If you have no idea what we're talking about, that's cool -- we haven't covered it much here on Engadget, but it's a very important issue about how the internet is or isn't governed by big communications companies in the years to come.
Click to expand...

the pic for the cloaking device below that story made me :lol:

ps incoming it's just about qos for important shit like voip and iptv
 
Well that vote is great news. Hopefully we dodged a bullet. A year ago, when Congress was converting donations into boondoggles at a record shattering pace, this could have easily slipped by.
 
WarMachine said:
I didn't realize this issue was moving so quickly. The last I heard it was about QoS and VoIP calls. I've contacted my Senators and representative and would encourage you all to do the same.
Click to expand...
i talked to one of my senators in person and he seemed to agree with me on every point. of course its not hard considering that his office is in a small shoping center right next to the place i go for lunch every day :lol:
 
Here is how money changes hands on the internet.


Let's say you want to get to a Website, shown on the right. The rest of the internet is not shown. Progressing across the screen is each hop the traffic goes through. The arrows represent cash dollars being paid for access. As you can see, you pay your ISP, and the Website pays theirs. No money comes back the other way. The big pipe providers in the middle have peering agreements with each other not to charge for transmitting data since the traffic flow is pretty even (thus their arrows both ways are the same size).

Each big pipe provider has many ISPs hosting users and websites paying them money for access, so they don't need to charge the other big pipe providers. Your ISP pays money too, but they might be big enough that they get credting from have an agreement in place so that the rest of the internet can get to their interesting websites and stuff as well.

Sounds good, right? You pay, the website pays, and Your ISP and the website's ISP pay some of the money they take from you and the website to get connectivity. Now your ISP wants to jump over all those hops in the middle and require direct payment from the Website, when they ought to have no right to. The traffic would still go through the big pipe providers, they just want money from the website. You are already paying them, why should they charge the site you want to see as well? If the websites don't pay up, the ISP will degrade your connection to them.

To put it another way, imagine if you did your mailing from Mailboxes Etc. (okay UPS store or whatever). Now that store goes and sends your package through UPS. Imagine if UPS, Fedex, and the USPS were identical in service and had agreements to carry each other's goods, to get things to their destinations faster. So your package gets routed through UPS -> Fedex -> USPS -> and arrives really fast at some bumfuck town mailbox store. That Mailbox store turns around and calls you and demands extra money or your package will sit in the back for a week until they get around to putting it in the customer's mailbox. Doesn't matter that the customer pays money to rent the box, they want to extort extra money out of the sender.

Or, what if when you placed a long distance call, the receiving telephone network had an operator come on the phone and demand that you pay extra with your credit card or the call "just might suffer from degraded quality (wink, wink)."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top