Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 1st Jun 2011 22:38 UTC
Internet & Networking Because OSNews is technically a site from the US, and because the technology industry is decidedly a US-centric industry, we often talk about US politics having adverse effects on technology - or, the other way around. That's why I've been detailing the political movements here in The Netherlands with regards to net neutrality. After a lot of positive news, I've now got some bad news - bad news that involves the largest political party trying to block net neutrality - because one of its members of parliament, Afke Schaart, is a former KPN employee. And yes, KPN is the carrier that first announced it was going to block and throttle traffic.
Thread beginning with comment 475588
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

"Unless, of course, you allow them to, in exchange for a lower bill. Why would you restrict people's freedoms and force them to pay higher bills?"

We both know that's just word play.

I'm not forcing anybody to pay higher bills. Nor am I forcing anybody to subsidies anyone else.

I stated up front that I'm willing to pay for the bandwidth that I use, however it's none of their business if I want to use my bandwidth for service X instead of service Y.

What would you say if your ISP had a corporate deal with Bing, and charged a premium for accessing Google?

Would it give you any dilemma to stick with your logic and say "If charging more for certain kinds of traffic means the carrier doesn't have to raise prices across the board, why is that a bad thing?"?

Edited 2011-06-02 04:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

DHofmann Member since:
2005-08-19

What would you say if your ISP had a corporate deal with Bing, and charged a premium for accessing Google?


So, I can either pay more to access Google in exchange for lower Internet access fees, or I can pay more for the Internet in order to save money accessing Google.

I like having choices like that. Don't you?

Reply Parent Score: 1

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

DHofmann,

"So, I can either pay more to access Google in exchange for lower Internet access fees, or I can pay more for the Internet in order to save money accessing Google.

I like having choices like that. Don't you?"

Honestly no, and I'm a little skeptical that you're speaking as a consumer at all. But if that's your preference so be it.

However, everyone here should be smart enough to see that your "lower Internet fees" is nothing but marketing spin. It's equivalent to applying a surcharge for doing business with the competition - in effect, google users would be subsidizing bing users through the ISP.

In the hypothetical arrangement above, are there any restrictions at all to the amount the ISP could charge users for using competitor services?

Should amazon be allowed to enter into an agreement with an ISP to charge customers higher prices to access other bookstore websites?

Here, the local cable internet company (OOL) is a monopoly, they also own a news station and newspaper. Should they be able to charge a premium for accessing competing websites? Is that considered censorship?


Now answer this honestly, if you needed to pay your ISP an extra $10/month to access osnews (because OSNews refused to enter into a contract with your ISP), would that not bother you? Would you still be here?

If we don't tread very carefully now, we could easily end up with a fragmented internet where people are blocked off from one another because of greed and corruption.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Damnshock Member since:
2006-09-15

"What would you say if your ISP had a corporate deal with Bing, and charged a premium for accessing Google?


So, I can either pay more to access Google in exchange for lower Internet access fees, or I can pay more for the Internet in order to save money accessing Google.

I like having choices like that. Don't you?
"

What you say would be ok in theory. The real world is another thing though.

That situation would allow the "big fish" to control everything as others have already commented in this thread.

My personal opinion (and the offical one in Spain) is that I'm paying for *bandwidth* and the ISP cannot know what I'm doing with that bandwidth as it is a communication and I'm protected by our constitution: privacy of the communications.

So were the ISP blocking some kind of traffic they would be violating my constitutional rights.

The sad thing is that some ISP are already doing this (like ONO or most of the cell providers) blocking p2p traffic.

I wish I had money to hire a lawyer and take them to justice...

Reply Parent Score: 1

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

No, you're options are:
- pay $50/mth for Internet access with only the ability to use Bing for searching, or
- pay $50/mth for Internet access + $10/mth to be able to search with Google.

I really wonder how many people on here actually read the comments they are replying to. It's really starting to look like everyone is talking over, under, around each other.

Reply Parent Score: 3