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 475595
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

Berend de Boer Member since:
2005-10-19

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


Bad example: Amazon has entered into examples with ISPs to give customers "free" access to the Amazon site, i.e. Whispernet.

Unfair!!!! Should be forbidden! The government should step in with its heavy boots and send people to jail for this.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Berend de Boer,

"Bad example: Amazon has entered into examples with ISPs to give customers 'free' access to the Amazon site, i.e. Whispernet."

You're talking about the amazon kindle, right?

It's an interesting business model.

"Magazines, newspapers and blogs via RSS are provided by Amazon per a monthly subscription fee or a free trial period. Newspaper subscriptions cost from US$1.99 to $27.99 per month; magazines charge between $1.25 and $10.99 per month, and blogs charge from $0.99 to $1.99 per month."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Kindle

They do charge owners a per megabyte fee for transfer of personal documents to the kindle over 3G.

Of course you mention amazon's own site being free for users. Should they be allowed to do that?

I would argue "no" unless competitor's services are also available for the same price (aka "free").

The reasoning is that if this approach were scaled up to more and more providers such that it became the norm, the web would become fragmented. Users would have to use the services endorsed by their ISPs instead of the services which best suit them. ISP customers would be for sale to the highest bidder. Small publishers/developers would be excluded from the market and users would ultimately end up with fewer choices, less innovation, and stronger monopolies.

Reply Parent Score: 3

_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

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.


Sarcasm detector broken much?

I believe the entire concept is so ridiculous that nobody can be happy with this (barring ISPs and Politicians).

Reply Parent Score: 2