Feds to allow your ISP to screw you

[Rich B 5,000+ posts]

Feds OK fee for priority Web traffic
30 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department on Thursday said Internet service providers should be allowed to charge a fee for priority Web traffic.

The agency told the Federal Communications Commission, which is reviewing high-speed Internet practices, that it is opposed to "Net neutrality," the principle that all Internet sites should be equally accessible to any Web user.

Several phone and cable companies, such as AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp., have previously said they want the option to charge some users more money for loading certain content or Web sites faster than others.

The Justice Department said imposing a Net neutrality regulation could hamper development of the Internet and prevent service providers from upgrading or expanding their networks. It could also shift the "entire burden of implementing costly network expansions and improvements onto consumers," the agency said in its filing.

Such a result could diminish or delay network expansion and improvement, it added.

The agency said providing different levels of service is common, efficient and could satisfy consumers. As an example, it cited that the U.S. Postal Service charges customers different guarantees and speeds for package delivery, ranging from bulk mail to overnight delivery.

"Whether or not the same type of differentiated products and services will develop on the Internet should be determined by market forces, not regulatory intervention," the agency said in its filing.

The agency's stance comes more than two months after Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras cautioned policy makers to enact Net neutrality regulation.

Such a regulation could prevent rather than promote Internet investment and innovation and have "significant negative effects for the economy and consumers," the Justice Department said in the filing.

Supporters of Internet regulation have said that phone and cable companies could discriminate against certain Web site and services.

However, the agency said it will continue to monitor and enforce any anticompetitive conduct to ensure a competitive broadband marketplace.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070906/ap_on_hi_te/internet_fees_justice_department;_ylt=AvBVfZrfAtNHV_yxdENiyGms0NUE

Oh, thats just great!

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/pissed.gif.9f665f96bc89e98e708dabd4580bb591.gif

Click to read more...

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

Of course the government is against net neutrality. The concept of a goverment is very different than the practice of such. Net neutrality takes the control away from the company's that support the economy and can prevent expansion and improvement of internet access for customers as bandwidth use increases.

Personally, I'm for net neutrality, but I also understand how "conventional" big business works. Capitalism is king and the misinterpretation of democracy is not.

 

[HitManSE 10+ year member]

You know, our government is seriously starting to get out of hand. Some things they need to just stay out of.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

It seems like net neutrality would be a bad idea...it would hurt niche sites like this that make the internet good.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

It's just funny in reading the article that they cited only one reason (the most capitalist of the bunch) for non-net neutrality, whereas there are many, many, many reasons to be pro-net neutrality.

 

[snoopdan 5,000+ posts]

thats it, im moving to the artic.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

It seems like net neutrality would be a bad idea...it would hurt niche sites like this that make the internet good.

Could you describe how that might happen? If there is no net neutrality, then you could be charged more to visit caraudio.com than you would be if you visited ecoustics. Then, once everyone starts visiting ecoustics and caraudio.com plummets, you would be charged more to visit ecoustics. Net neutrality regulations should be enforced and it's no wonder the FTC supports net neutrality: they've been on top of a similar industry (the cellular industry) for a while and have brought more stability there while holding the companies accountable for customer wrong-doings...for the most part.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Could you describe how that might happen? If there is no net neutrality, then you could be charged more to visit caraudio.com than you would be if you visited ecoustics. Then, once everyone starts visiting ecoustics and caraudio.com plummets, you would be charged more to visit ecoustics. Net neutrality regulations should be enforced and it's no wonder the FTC supports net neutrality: they've been on top of a similar industry (the cellular industry) for a while and have brought more stability there while holding the companies accountable for customer wrong-doings...for the most part.

I think I misunderstood the terms...

I do not want to pay more for specific sites. I think small groups like this, SSA, DIYMA, etc make me enjoy the internet. I would not use the internet if all I could get at reasonable speed was Yahoo! and MSN crapola.

 

[AcidicDreams 10+ year member]

You guys are not getting it... it would allow the ISP's to charge the SITES for preferential routing.... ie Google will pay more to be faster than the rest... it doesn't mean we are going to have to directly pay for certain sites...

Of course though sites will end up having to beat the $$ out of users in some way or another.... in some cases the extra cash might come from advertisers as well.,..

or some sites just won't pay anything extra and they might get a tad slower.... or a lot... it's hard to tell....

I like the idea of net neutrality but I can see why businesses would like to be able to charge big high traffic businesses extra money for service...

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

You guys are not getting it... it would allow the ISP's to charge the SITES for preferential routing.... ie Google will pay more to be faster than the rest... it doesn't mean we are going to have to directly pay for certain sites...
Of course though sites will end up having to beat the $$ out of users in some way or another.... in some cases the extra cash might come from advertisers as well.,..

or some sites just won't pay anything extra and they might get a tad slower.... or a lot... it's hard to tell....

I like the idea of net neutrality but I can see why businesses would like to be able to charge big high traffic businesses extra money for service...

It is does create a barrier to entry for new businesses. Not only do they have to advertise their name, but they also must pay for "faster service for its customers"...

 

[Fear Of Theive 10+ year member]

i have no clue what that means can we do it in normal terms,i'm only 17 i'm smart for my age but thats is above me :|

 

[AcidicDreams 10+ year member]

i have no clue what that means can we do it in normal terms,i'm only 17 i'm smart for my age but thats is above me :|

It's not that difficult...

Net neutrality means that every bit of data flying around the internet is treated the same, whether it's a radical and obscure blog of a bit of google data...

Ending it means that some businesses can pay for preferential routing... for instance google could pay to be routed more efficiently than yahoo and therefore would be faster for a price..

 

[AcidicDreams 10+ year member]

It is does create a barrier to entry for new businesses. Not only do they have to advertise their name, but they also must pay for "faster service for its customers"...

It's true... it would be harder for a nobody to rise up and challenge someone who is already established.... but that's normal for business, it's not the end of the world...

That said I'd prefer neutrality but I can see why they would like to charge different amounts...

It seems to me many of those melting down over this issue don't understand what it means or it's implications...

 

[HitManSE 10+ year member]

Yeah I misunderstood for a moment there, I thought it meant that WE have to pay to access the sites with the most traffic at X speed, not them. If its the other way around, I dont care.