According to this month's issue of Popular Science, big companies like Verizon, AT&T, and Time Warner are lobbying congress to pass legislation that would allow them to charge fees for internet usage. This would limit the # of sites you could view, depending on whether or not you paid for it. Companies would let their customers receive high-bandwidth data at a speedy pace, similar to what exists now, but greatly limit the bandwidth use of nonpaying internet users. So if you don't pay, your internet, even with broadband, would go back to the slow days of dial-up speed. Furthermore, web sites that don't demand fees will load slower, if they do at all. The companies argue that this fee would help pay for the cost required to make high bandwidth data available. Should they be allowed to do it? Why or why not?
2006-07-04 07:44:57 · 7 answers · asked by Silver Spoon 4 in Computers & Internet ➔ Internet
This would be an additional fee on top of the one you already pay to your ISP
2006-07-04 07:59:24 · update #1
You may have some people who try to answer this who either don't know or understand what the C.O.P.E. act is.
The phone and cable companies now control more than 95% of all Internet access. These large corporations are spending millions of dollars to promote legislation that would divide the Internet into a two-tiered system.
The top tier would be a "Pay-to-Play" high-speed toll-road restricted to only the largest companies that can afford to pay high fees for preferential access to the Net.
The bottom tier -- the slow lane -- would be what is left for everyone else. If the fast lane is the information "super-highway," the slow lane will operate more like a dirt road.
Today's Internet is an incredible open marketplace for goods,
services, information and ideas. We can't give that up. A two lane system will restrict innovation because start-ups and small companies -- the companies that can't afford the high fees -- will be unable to succeed, and we'll lose out on the jobs, creativity and inspiration that come with them.
If the COPE act passes, smaller websites like yours and mine could be blocked or made to load so slowly that nobody would bother to visit.
That means no more level playing field. It would prevent the opportunity for an individual or small company to create the next eBay (or Yahoo Answers).
The COPE Act is real. It’s a huge threat to Internet marketers, bloggers, other website owners and anyone using the Internet. Even Yahoo Answers.
Should they be allowed to do it? nope!
BTW: The bill was NOT voted down last week. Lobbyists close to the issue say that pressure on Congress's calendar in an election year makes it unlikely that a telecoms bill will make it all the way through the legislative process this year.
2006-07-04 08:03:16 · answer #1 · answered by -:¦:-SKY-:¦:- 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That legislation is not about what the users pay, it's about getting sites to pay for their downstream bandwidth. Of course, the user will pay in the end as sites are forced to charge "fee-per-page" or other kind of usage fees to pay to the backbone companies for 'preferred service'.
It is like they want you to forget that you as a user paying for internet service ALREADY are paying for all that bandwidth. They want - in effect - to charge double the going rate.
And guess what? Lots of them own 'new media' sites and services. It will have NO IMPACT on those of course. I have to wonder if this isn't one of the major considerations - a campaign to weaken all competing content providers. Profit is a great motivator, and the holy grail in the quest is monopoly status.
They can do as they please (and even without buying lawmakers, they should be allowed to by the basic principles of free market capitalism). Expect it soon.
But the side effects will hurt them as more and more freenets and alternate services come into existence. This too is a fundamental of free markets - until the backbone companies buy enough legislators to make competition illegal.
[later]
Voted down? Great.
2006-07-04 07:58:53 · answer #2 · answered by sheeple_rancher 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most journals, newspapers etc already have a pay per view system based on subscription charges. Online retail wont charge as that would do them no favours in the competition stakes. At the moment you pay for your speed, i can't really see what you are getting at. Today I pay my $40 per month for broadband to my ISP, I then pay a further $25 to use the Times Online newspaper archives. Who pays what where that would change this?
2006-07-04 07:50:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I think this is a good idea. The reality is that someone has to pay to keep the lines up right now. This fee should just be added on to the price that you pay your service provider.
2006-07-04 07:52:08 · answer #4 · answered by David B 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess I am ignorant. I thought everyone already paid for internet. If I would have known that was optional, I might have done something different.
2006-07-04 07:51:21 · answer #5 · answered by texasgirl5454312 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
this is unfastened, yet you need to purchase a router that normally fee around $60 and connect it on your laptop that has internet after which you quite have internet on your iPod yet in basic terms around your place!
2016-11-01 04:56:42 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that bill was voted down last week...
2006-07-04 07:56:32 · answer #7 · answered by Klaatu Barada Nikto 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋