posted
I've read a few articles about this and I still don't understand. Every website already pays for whatever bandwidth they use. I have one website that is mainly text and photos and it never even uses the allotted bandwidth. I have another that has a lot of videos and I pay a lot more for the extra bandwidth. Who is saying that there is extra bandwidth not being paid for?
-------------------- "Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you." - C. G. Jung Posts: 243 | From: Marina del Rey, CA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Specifically, such companies want to charge Web sites for the speedy delivery of streaming video, television, movies and other high-bandwidth data to their customers.
My read is that web hosting companies will make site owners pay an even bigger premium, so that their sites will load faster on our computers. Does this mean that some web hosting companies will have exclusive rights to whatever mechanism this new system is going to utilise? It seems hard to comprehend that this portion of the market could be cornered in this way.
quote: "We have to remember that some of the companies that we now consider to be titans of the Internet started literally as guys in a garage," Scott says."That's the beauty and the brilliance of the Internet, yet we're cavalierly talking about tossing it out the window."
This would be worrying, but maybe the claim is a little exaggerated, as I can't see the cost of web hosting shooting up by astronomical prices.
However, say if the cost of having music on a site went from 100 euro p.a. to say 10,000 p.a., would that prohibit new bands from creating a site? Most certainly would.
But then again, I'm no expert in this field. Anyone?
-------------------- On my old guitar sell tickets, so someone can finally pick it. Posts: 799 | From: Dublin, Ireland | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't even see how this is going to work, I mean will american companies be controlling websites from canada or other countries?
No, they won't be controlling the web sites themselves, but U.S.-based telecoms certainly have control over how data from web sites (wherever in the world those sites may be) is transmitted to U.S. customers.
Think of it this way: The U.S. government doesn't have jurisdiction over the operation of Canadian businesses, but they can certainly regulate what those businesses (and their customers) can bring or ship into the U.S.
quote:Every website already pays for whatever bandwidth they use. I have one website that is mainly text and photos and it never even uses the allotted bandwidth. I have another that has a lot of videos and I pay a lot more for the extra bandwidth. Who is saying that there is extra bandwidth not being paid for?
But that isn't the point. The point is that telecoms don't give data from your web site priority over data from any other web site (and vice-versa) -- if I download a photo from your site and a photo from the New York Times web site, those downloads are allocated equal network resources. But if the New York Times is willing to pay extra, then their downloads will be allocated more resources, and your site's downloads will be slower by comparison.
Another analogy: You and your friend may drive your cars at the same speeds on the very same highways, but if your friend invests in an E-ZPass and you don't, he's going to get where he's going sooner than you do, because he gets to use priority toll lanes.
Another analogy: You and your friend may drive your cars at the same speeds on the very same highways, but if your friend invests in an E-ZPass and you don't, he's going to get where he's going sooner than you do, because he gets to use priority toll lanes.
- snopes
If your analogy is correct, then I have nothing against the so-called "web tax", just as I have nothing against people who use E-ZPass. They're willing to pay extra to avoid delays - there's nothing wrong with a willingnes or ability to pay money for a service not otherwise available.
Plus, the internet is already full of "haves" and "have nots". People who own computers, for one thing, which discriminates against the poor. Then there's the division between people with dial-up internet access vs. those who can pay for broadband.
The Internet is no longer the grand socialist experiment it once was. Nothing like that ever survives unchanged for long in the modern world.
-------------------- "Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes!"
"No it isn't." Posts: 171 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by snopes: The point is that telecoms don't give data from your web site priority over data from any other web site (and vice-versa) -- if I download a photo from your site and a photo from the New York Times web site, those downloads are allocated equal network resources. But if the New York Times is willing to pay extra, then their downloads will be allocated more resources, and your site's downloads will be slower by comparison. - snopes
Okay, duh. I'm not sure why that didn't click before.
So now I agree with Daniceguy that it just seems like another (albeit, unfortunate) step in the evolution of the internet.
-------------------- "Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you." - C. G. Jung Posts: 243 | From: Marina del Rey, CA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But these people have already paid for the bandwidth, the consumer pays at their end, the site at the other end. Plus it can easily lead to anti-competative actions, as an ISP favours traffic of its partners. (Possibly delivering their ads faster or something, or increasing the speed of Yahoo while slowing Google, or throttling back VoIP services provided by other providers.) Plus it will make it even more difficult for smaller sites to operate competatively. Network neutrality allowed the net to evolve as it has done so, the only people that this change will benifit is the teleco's and their partners.
UK law already has provisions in place to protect network neutrality, and similar laws are currently being discussed in the US. So its far from inevitable.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
