Something Bad

Post by jb » Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:43 am

Disclaimer: I haven't read any proposed legislation, so I can't say that with mine own two eyes I have seen the future and it is bad.

That said, this looks really scary to me:

http://www.slate.com/id/2134397/

Depending on where the "tiers" start, how would a site like SF fit in? We don't use negligible bandwidth, from the perspective of a human being. Compared to Google, we're infinitessimal. But SF must have a fast pipe to be usable, and somebody around here just bought a house and cain't pony up no protection money to fucking Verizon.

*paranoid fretting*
WHERE IS MY PYRAMID HAT! HOBLIT! YOU STOLE IT I KNOW YOU DID!

Kamakura · Post by **Kamakura** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:58 am

Not good, though probably inevitable. However, if Microsoft et all are going to fight it, perhaps it's time to get behind Mr Gates and buy some of his infernal software. To save Songfight I'd let the Geek inherit more of the Earth.

Here's a hat for you that's much better than a pyramid!

roymond · Post by **roymond** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:32 am

It needs to be made very clear to those decision makers how this will squash innovation. Google, eBay, Amazon would not exist without the network they depend on. If you only have access to the network once you pay loads of bucks for it you close out the next wave of services, businesses, applications. There have been many such waves on the internet since the 60s. At each step it was the open network which empowered the next.

Only an arrogant near-sighted self-protectionist would argue that what we know now is what should ever be, and therefore it's time to hunker down and establish pay-to-access priviledges along these lines. The government must recognize, and indeed even the ISPs and telecoms, that it's in everyone's best interest that the current model continue to allow for newcomers, whether they be the next mega app from Yahoo, or new little ones from children in Kenya with $100 wireless mesh networked notebooks.

This is the closest thing I can find on Thomas. But it doesn't seem clear if it concerns this specific topic.

fodroy · Post by **fodroy** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:13 pm

the internet was cooler when the government didn't care about it.

roymond · Post by **roymond** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:22 pm

fodroy wrote:the internet was cooler when the government didn't care about it.

You are aware that that doesn't make sense, right?

Hoblit · Post by **Hoblit** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:51 pm

just wanted to note that I wasn't the guy who took JB's hat.

/but I might know who did

fodroy · Post by **fodroy** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 2:03 pm

roymond wrote:
fodroy wrote:the internet was cooler when the government didn't care about it.
You are aware that that doesn't make sense, right?

well, i know the government has always played a part in it. i just mean when they didn't care as much about restricting everything.

deshead · Post by **deshead** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 2:37 pm

fodroy wrote:i just mean when they didn't care as much about restricting everything.

Heh, I don't think they care about the internet as much as they do about the campaign contributors that the internet seems to offend.

A couple of thoughts:
- It's a short step from this legislation (at least as desribed in the Slate article) to an anti-trust lawsuit. Conversely, if there's to be competition, SOME telco will be willing to partner with Google, Microsoft, et. al., and offer free bandwidth in exchange for exclusive advertising. Either way, this is a non-starter.
- This legislation seems more like a pre-emptive move on the part of the telcos, designed to draw lines in the sand for the fight they KNOW is coming over WiFi. The article touches on it, but doesn't follow through to (what I think is) the logical conclusion: In a 2-tiered system, the telcos no longer have to care about the last mile.

stueym · Post by **stueym** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:41 pm

This is so much BS by the Telco-Cable conglomerates. Everyone (you, me, Google, MSFT, Bank of America) pays for their bandwidth access to the utility spine (the Internet). The cost of the subsequent infrastructure for the spine is paid for by the payors at both ends who have paid for their own little pipe. Currently that is factored in to the obscene amount of money I pay Comcast every month for the privelege of a relatively wide pipe down and skinnier pipe up If I want a T1 I can get one, just $!cha-ching!$. When FIOS is installed later this quarter I will probably switch and pay up for that competitive upgrade to Verizon.

This proposal sounds like the obscene way that cellular phone services are paid for in the US. I pay to call you and you pay to take my call....talk about double bubble! This is not the business model in the EU where EU controls made sure such a business model was not implemented/abused. There I pay to call you but I dont get stung if you want to call me 25 times a day. Cost being attributed to the initiator.

I am all for the Internet(s) infrastructure being paid for I just think this is not about that. Its about corporate greed by the Telco's seeing their current traditional revenue streams being eroded by VOIP etc. Also I suspect that if our legislators are not smart the content providers will just find a way to off-shore their solutions. Then what? The good old USA becomes a new Singapore/Saudi-Arabia/China trying to block content and IP addresses because they offend their "capitalist" sensibilities???

Oh yes and on that point think beyond and suddenly we have a WTO issues because global consumers can't access this wonderful content that Google and others provide because they can't pay for premium subscriptions without a US credit card and zip code. Honestly these clowns can't think outside their own zip code and bank account

rant rant rave rave

In case you hadn't noticed a little passionate on this point, but now I will take my ease and shut up

mkilly · Post by **mkilly** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 7:00 pm

Yeah, after I'd read paragraph one I just thought "that's bullshit, bandwidth should be charged to the people using it." Which is what the last paragraph says.

mico saudad · Post by **mico saudad** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 12:59 am

I think the wonderful thing about the internet is that it is currently an equalizing force. Many scientists, doctors, etc. working at places with limited resources, for example, rely on access to the latest literature through the internet. Not only do they currently have to pay for the equipment and software, but they have to pay for steep subscription fees and if they have to start paying for internet usage it will get worse and seriously affect how these localities handle important problems.

Moreover, how can public libraries and schools in rural areas afford bandwidth when they have a hard enough time buying computers in the first place?

If there is legislation in the direction of consumers paying for bandwidth, there needs to be some sort of extremely well thought out attention to these issues, and I do *not* trust this administration or congress to do it.

deshead · Post by **deshead** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:20 am

mkilly wrote:Yeah, after I'd read paragraph one I just thought "that's bullshit, bandwidth should be charged to the people using it."

Not surprisingly, Google agrees.

Dan-O from Five-O · Post by **Dan-O from Five-O** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 10:33 pm

The first thing anyone on the Internet should be offended by is that there's actually a mindset that someone is "Freeloading". Christ my taxes alone should make my ISP paid for in full. Instead I have to pay for my ISP and get taxed on it to boot. The triple screw.

Now the Government, backed by "BigCo Inc." wants to squeeze every last cent out of Internet usage while they both simultaneously try to turn it into it's largest taxable market place. Nice.

Historically speaking, there's really no better way to defeat an adversary than to cut off the water supply. You know, by making the water flow much slower at the user end of the line.