instead of using technology across the board to make all internet faster, the plan is to sell better internet speeds to premium websites. So ISPs want to not only charge the consumer for internet service, but to charge the providers if they want “the good stuff.”. Ironically it would be introducing a more concrete caste system to websites, a type of income-disparity model that lets the rich get richer and the poor stay poorer. And it’s hard to fight, because if Comcast wants to charge for better server speeds (is like Federal Express saying they will deliver all of a package and not parts of a box, if the person getting the package pays them, too…..) and if the server or internet companies want to pay the ISP…..who’s to say they can’t? And why it has even gotten this far is that 4 years ago when it came up, the FCC failed to protect the internet by putting it under US communications law…..because of the radical right and its fear of regulation.
the problem is in basing delivery on volume — would be like if all package delivery from Fed Ex was originally done through POD — payment on delivery. but then they decide Amazon sends out too many packages, so for better delivery they would collect extra from Amazon as well. The justification is based on fact that sites with large video streaming, like Netflix ……. use more of the internet “roadway” …. use more bandwidth to deliver services.
when this first came up, the question was on how to charge consumers more for the amount of bandwidth they use. which they then started doing with mobile computing and ISPs like Verizon and ATT — you have to purchase how much bandwidth you need. the only reason Cable did not jump on that, too — is the logistics and hardware angle. yet they also have a purchase range based on “speed” that is ambiguous enough for most users to not even be able to tell the difference.
so it becomes more cost-effective to attach extra fees on the providers of large amounts of bandwidth-hogs, to offset the consumers of Cable internet that are using LOTS of bandwidth to play their movies. and originally it was PUSHED into that, with streaming made a popular thing because they can then CHARGE CONSUMERS for each time they watch something, instead of for ONE time to download it.
AND the interesting thing beyond that, is that the cable companies themselves got onto the “streaming” band wagon and included video streaming with their internet packages ……. like the drug dealer that offers to get high with you for free to get you hooked.
is all a pretty kettle of fish. bringing the internet under U.S. communications law — in effect — would only set a watch-dog over what they are doing. but at least it’s something. because right now the wish to charge websites, the server-end — extra fees for better delivery — is a foot in the door. it is a LINE that will be crossed. up until now, every bit of funding and direct monetary influx, has been on the user-end.
IF you take a service and charge for it coming and going ………it becomes a different type of business model.
like we used to have phone companies charging by the minute for how long you talked on the phone. things got shifted to a flat fee for long-distance because it was more profitable to the phone companies. they get their money whether you use it or not.
but imagine if it INSTEAD — went to them charging both the person you called, and the person making the call — by the minute. it puts a service provider in control of their own market. like parents are more likely to call kids at a university. so what happens? receiving a call at the university becomes a ‘prime’ service and the phone company would collect more. it’s supply and demand.
now think about how much commerce has shifted over to the internet lately…. what this system does is bring a heavier cost down on web site providers in correlation to the number of its users. if a start up site became popular overnight … it would be bankrupt the next day. which then translates to every website started requiring greater amounts of capital. now this places a HUGE disadvantage on “service-based” sites, in opposition to consumer/retail sites ….. and it’s not like we need to grow retail sites more and faster than others. they are doing fine. (in fact the retail-angle of internet is what does most of the slowing, through tracking cookies and web bugs.)
so this poor business model will kill the internet entirely, or at the very least slow down growth. that is how it works. and then you will see sites like facebook charging membership fees and everything breaks off into fee this and fee that and the great overlord of this domain is not the separate internet websites or companies ……… the great overlord is your friendly neighborhood ISP. who has already worked itself into figurative monopolies and overpriced its service accordingly.
you stop them HERE, or you kiss your a$$ good-bye.
many of the older generation would just as soon see the internet shoot itself in the foot ….. but this would not be a quick death. this would be a slow and painful death with them landing all the costs of the hospital fees on generations to come. Stop them here ….. or get in line to bet on the loser.