Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 1st Jun 2011 22:38 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 475633
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-09-15
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...