Pay-to Play and the Tiered Internet 664
Crash24 writes "According to an article at The Nation, "industry planners are mulling new subscription plans that would further limit the online experience, establishing "platinum," "gold" and "silver" levels of Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received." " Tiered internet service may be inevitable folks. Brace yourself.
The End of the Internet, for USians (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm quite surprised that out of so many competitions, like GPS, satellite, Space program etc., which cost huge amount of money, no country is yet to create another internet.
On the other hand, if all service providers band together, we might finally see the feasibility of micropayment, so that a penny is charged to your broadband bill every time you access Slashdot.
Accepted by the Masses? (Score:3, Interesting)
I can see this being attempted, no doubt. However I simply cannot see it being accepted by the public. You can't take away something that was free from the public without causing a revolution. I don't think these people have as firm a grasp on the concept of the internet that they think.
It bothers me that the government is having such a field day with all these search engines, blasting them about censoring for China. Yet that same government wants to completely try to contain the internet for the capital gain and exploitation of certain telecom companies?
The internet is the biggest creation of our time, I really hope people won't lie down and let this happen. Use your voice people, do something, I know I will.
Brace yourself... (Score:5, Interesting)
Then it occurred to me that these minornets could very well be linked to one another -- microwave or other wireless connections. Sure, the latency goes up, but the reliance on the communications cartels (there is definitely a collusive conspiracy theory there!) is reduced greatly. You tie into the main Internet at a few points, set up your routing to get everyone into the main Internet in the fastest fashion, and you're set. It might be complicated initially but the software and hardware is out there to make it happen, IF NEEDED.
I really think that the whole idea of relying on the big boys' land lines might not be necessary. I was a endpoint on Fidonet, and got along just fine as technology progressed -- some people used X.25, some used landlines, some used ISDN lines, but we all got along. It was slow, but it worked, and it became better over time.
We have to thank the big providers for really being confused for so long as to how they can take advantage of the net. Now we have many ways to stay connected -- I connect to the web via my PDA (and my laptop) through my Samsung t809 with a Bluetooth connection. I'm using it right now, and I get 150kbps downloads -- more than enough. If I didn't have T-Mobile's great package, I know I have about 5 other wireless providers I could buy bandwidth from.
Give it time. Those who try to control you will not realize that there are those who know they can offer less control at a better price. Don't like the monopoly tiered service in your community? Go get a T1, and run a WiFi provider in your area. 3 of my neighbors pay me US$10 a month to get on my megapipe already. I could probably get another 20 of them if I really went out to try.
Tiered service MIGHT be what the average household wants, though. If the monopolies try it and no one comes in to offer a cheaper/less controlled service, the free market will have answered that question. I'd like to hear what the more authoritarian slashdotters here have to say about how the free market could fail the individual user in this case.
Just remember one thing -- if MegaCorp X is a monopoly provider of high speed bandwidth in your town, it isn't MegaCorp X's fault. Go blame the government who gave them the monopoly. If MegaCorp Y created their connections over previous monopoly status, don't ask MegaCorp Y to give you back what you gave them originally -- the right to be a monopoly. This is why I am against government licensing and regulations -- it creates these monopolies which come to affect us decades later.
It isn't the monopolies' fault that you let your local government give up your rights in exchange for bad service. In the old days, maybe it was OK -- it was either bad service or no service. Yet we see the slippery slope and how it affects us in the future, and we need to carefully think about the programs we're asking for today that might become bad monopoly services in the future.
umm. no. (Score:1, Interesting)
how will they regulate free access from munincipalities? once the libraries bill increases, and the local governments, this is gone. but it will never happen in the first place. again, look at the source...
Re:equitable policy would be okay (Score:3, Interesting)
People have long paid more money to make more long distance calls, that only makes sense. Why not for heavier internet usage? It makes sense that heavier users pay higher fees.
This only makes sense if you do not believe in competition between companies. Its competition now that allows many of us to make long distance phone calls for one flat low rate. Yes, this argument makes sense from a cost stand point to the company. But by allowing competition in these market places, we the comsumers reap more benefits.
Don't forget that!
There is nothing wrong with usage as it is now. If anything, it isn't in the favor of the consumer in the US given the fact that other users in non-US countries have access to better connections at a far lower price.
WTF - I Already Pay for my Usage (Score:4, Interesting)
Ya see, here in the Great White (as in snow) North Canada, I pay a premium price for unlimited downloads. Regular and basic plans have capped monthly limits.
I just can't see how the US government or more importantly the rest of the planet would allow these modern day robber barrons to create this tiered system. That would be like my cable company charging me $10 a month because I watched 100 more reruns last month.
And speaking of my cable company, how would local telcos charge for this "extra" bandwidth? Their pipe isn't going to get any bigger so its not a quantity issue or are they simply going to be tollgates for "priority traffic". Which is probably the case which means its NOT a bandwidth issue, its a money grab.
I think its rather timely that the $200 Billion Broadband Scandel is being released.
http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm [newnetworks.com]
$200 Billion Dollar Broadband Scandal, is a powerful critique that outlines a truly massive case of fraud. The Bell Companies (Verizon, SBC, Qwest, and BellSouth) used trickery and deceit to swindle the U.S. out of a promised 45mbps internet connection. They collected billions of dollars in regulatory fees, and now they are attempting to commoditize the Internet. Kushnick's book uses stunning detail to expose this treachery with accuracy and thoroughness.
You silly Murickans....
Re:equitable policy would be okay (Score:5, Interesting)
But the bottom line is this: ATT/Verizon/etc. do not get to establish these contracts. Their job is to run the network. I want a group of 3rd party ISPs to each independently build their own real time networks and sell the services to customers who can chose amongst ISPs to get the best service. The ISPs will then give the carriers instructions about how the network is to be set up, and pay them for their troubles. The INTERFACE to customers, and to the network, must be public, non-proprietary and transparent, like IPv4 is. Customers must be able to monitor and ensure their contract is being upheld. No proprietary set top boxes or any premises equipment, period.
The guy who owns the wire must stop being the guy who provides the service. That model doesn't work. Further we need to see more REAL competition as much as we can. We can't ever see competition over wires, two or three wires does not a competitive market make. So reduce their role by force, and abstract it.
Re:equitable policy would be okay (Score:5, Interesting)
But no one pays extra to make hour-long local calls, if they like, and this procedure has worked very well for quite some time too. Everything, so to speak, is a "finite resource", but with the amount of unused bandwidth floating around there, and the low levels ISP's cap it at (Japan and many European cities see 20-100 Mbps as a matter of course), there's no excuse for this. I expect to pay for bandwidth at a flat rate, and I expect to use it. If all I wanted to do was occasionally look at webpages and check my email, I'd use the $8/month dialup ISP here. I pay $50 a month for broadband because -I expect to use it-.
Re:equitable policy would be okay (Score:5, Interesting)
Internet access has been marketed to the better part of the world for years as an infinite resource, full of promise, that can solve all of your problems, tie your shoes, start your car and julienne your fries. All this for a low, low rate of $xx.yy per month.
Why should I have to pay extra to download trial software packages and Linux distributions simply because my neighbour does not wish to do so? That's horrible. That's like saying that if my neighbour buys a car and doesn't use it as often as I use mine, I should have to pay more money. He can drive just as much as I do, I simply choose to do so more often, or to take different roads, or to take the longer way home. It costs me more gasoline, but one could argue that using my computer more often costs me more in electricity.
If we saw a lobby group advocating mass tolls on our roads so that we could tax those who drive more often (I'm not talking highways), there would be mass hysteria. Why is this any different?
This is where a lot of people will disagree. What you call "indiscriminate", most people will call "my right". Granted, all of the providers that I've ever been with "reserve the right" to modify their access agreements at any time. I guarantee you, however, that if my ISP imposes this garbage on me, I'll simply find another. And there will always be others.
Businesses, by the way, are not here to charge us a fair price. They are here to make money.
Dont forget Encryption (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Brace yourself... (Score:3, Interesting)
Not that I bother today, but let's face it: If companies try and exert control for profit, people will find ways to circumvent the controls. Whether is encryption or full-blown 'private' networks (of all types) as you're suggesting, people will find a way around it. If the broadcast range improves, ad-hoc wifi might be the result of all this...
bits is bytes is random 1s and 0s until they get parsed by the appropriate application...
Re:The End of the Internet, for USians (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm quite surprised that out of so many competitions, like GPS, satellite, Space program etc., which cost huge amount of money, no country is yet to create another internet.
I've pondered this sort of thing before. Each time the government or some corporation did things to make the internet less free, less useful or more expensive I think about people getting together to make a new global network.
The conclusion I've come to is that wireless will probably make this somewhat feasible. Private citizens would have trouble coming up with the resources to create their own global wired network, but it's not that difficult for everyone to pop a wireless antenna on their roof for free, anonymous access. At first it might have to be connected to the internet and would probably resemble the old dial-up BBS's at first, but if a critical mass is reached, it could become its own sustainable network. The biggest problem might be connecting to other continents over large oceans. Sorry Australia, you're on your own
That's not to say the govt's won't just pass opressive laws to govern that, but perhaps it's worth a shot.
I've also considered the limitations of trying to set up a free, open network since the government's can just try to legislate it out of existance. But maybe it would be more resistant to outside legislation if it was a completely privately held entity [ie a private company] that granted access under self-defined [albeit non-evil] rules and regulations? For instance if I set up a private access network, can the government pass laws regarding what I can and can't do on that totally private network? [Aside from things that are already illegal like kiddie-porn]. Even if the only requirement for access is agreeing to follow all the rules and regulations of that network? Unfortunately every time I come up with one question on how it could be made to work, 10 other possible issues pop up in my head. I think geeks of the world should start brainstorming on this kind of thing.
Of course this would depend on a benevolent entity having a monopoly and not abusing it.
Re:Price Fixing? (Score:5, Interesting)
The story of how the Baby Bells FuXx0r3d America is relevant to any discussion involving internet service provided by a telephone company. I honestly wouldn't put anything,/i> past the telcos & cable companies.
They've paid for their legislation & regulation and they'll keep paying up as long as it is cost effective to do so.
New Tiered Market (Score:5, Interesting)
But now I'm having second thoughts. Perhaps this tiered market is a good idea. I'm thinking that I'll introduce tiered service levels for access to the easement on my property, and I think as a citizen I will request a new tiered system for corporate access to public property. Perhaps something like this would work:
Silver Level, for a minimal fee of say $100 USD per foot per year I'll allow telecom's to lay cable through my backyard.
Gold Level, I'll actually let the telecom's use their cable they laid in my backyard for a minimal licensing fee of 20% of all revenues related to any data which traverses the lines in my backyard.
Platinum Level, for a minimal fee of $10 per connection I'll allow the telecom company to make data connections from their cable in my backyard to cables in the neighbors backyards.
The tiered program for public property will be similar but will require that all revenue from the program is paid back to all tax paying citizens.
This is just my first rough draft, it will need much more refining, but you know I really should have more control over how my property is used and I should be allowed to participate in the capitalization of said property.
burnin
Bean counters rule the world (Score:5, Interesting)
Simple Solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Hosting bills pay for access to the pipes (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, when someone like Google pays their hosting bills, they're paying for access to that pipe. Isn't that why we PAY hosting bills? What did I miss?
If you don't want to sell access on your backbone, then don't. The Internet and its open access system made ATT/SBC its money, as well as many other companies. Do they seriously intend to turn it around and shut down the system that made them rich? Do they intend to create a private online service, like AOL? If that could work, then why are people concerned about AOLs future?
I hope all of this talk is just people over reacting, but some how, I suspect it's more than that.
Re:Fight (Score:3, Interesting)
Issues here... (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure, everything is flat-rate today on the consuming ending however that does not translate to the providing end. Looking at that, the pipe providers adopted a socialist pricing model to lure users to the system. For every 10 people that used 10% of their bandwidth a month, there was 1 pulling 1000% of the average. This worked well when most internet use was dynamic/static text/email/IM based.
With the advent of mp3s and now rich media, everyone is pulling more bandwidth and the social model falls apart at the current pricing levels since the providers have to pay for their bandwidth usage.
The solution is to meter bandwidth and charge for the use, much like every other product or service in your life. There are no gas stations (that I'm aware of) that charge you a flat-fee to fill up your tank nor any cellular company that provides flat-rate service for your calls. Everything is measured per use.
In the beginning days of the internet, there was enough capital investment to create an overcapacity; this was done to spur innovation and keep the barriers of entry low. Someone brought up the CompuServe example; the prices of CS were so high, that only those who NEEDED the services would pay. CS was a toll-booth that charged you access fees to hit the pre-Internet. You had to have a reason to go from point A to point B and that reason had to justify the charge.
With the advent of flat-fee, the road was a non-issue and people began erecting destinations in cyberspace... the rest is common knowledge.
Now we are at a point where internet bandwidth is a huge commodity yet the pricing model has not adapted. Personally, I'm all in favor of micropayments and the rest until the point at which everything runs over the internet and you pay a fee for essential a "data spigot". Until then, we must change the fact that my mother, who sends 40 emails a month, and myself, who hosts torrents and downloads massive amounts of photographs, pay the same fee for access.
On a philosophical point, I would say that 1) if you cannot measure something, you simply have not yet developed the technology to measure it and 2) once you can measure something, the Old Way (tm) of approximate pricing is obsolete. Previously, there has not been a huge movement to quantify traffic based on absolute use because it was enough to play the averages. Now that we can measure and different entities consumer different quantities of resource, we have to measure and charge equivalently else we drift away from the free market toward corporate socialism, which is not A Good Thing (tm).
2) The sticky issue is common carrier status. In order to classify traffic, companies must inspect it. Once they inspect traffic, they bring new liability for having interacted with the information. They can easily use broad metrics, like overall quantity of data transmitted as packets are being counted and routed yet using specific packet inspection technologies is a different animal. The solution is some class of router that examines just the headers, but then anything masquerading is going to pass through. So the plan to charge for access is valid and good yet the idea to charge based on the type of data is a bit tougher.
Overall what we are seeing here is the consolidation of two (maybe more) distinctly separate industries, that of content creation and content distribution. Previously, the telephone companies could care less what went over the wire and the content companies could care less about QOS concerns (beyond a dialtone and/or cable color bars).
Now that everything is so int
Re:Brace yourself... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Fight (Score:5, Interesting)
Certainly, there's the possibility that if Verizon throttles your connection and Comcast doesn't, you'll switch to Comcast. But if Yahoo pays Verizon not to throttle their data and Google doesn't, is the average user (ie a non-/. reading, doesn't know the difference between ram and hard drive space, still uses IE 5.0, etc) going to know to switch to Comcast or are they simply going to see that Yahoo is snappy and Google is slow, so use Yahoo? I suspect a bit of both will happen, and unless Verizon loses enough customers that they're losing more money than Yahoo is paying them, Verizon is still going to come out ahead.
(Names used here are just examples and not meant to indicate that one company is better than the other.)
Re:Fight (Score:4, Interesting)
Chicken and the egg (Score:5, Interesting)
I see a future where people don't have "free range" web access or email at home at all. You want the news? Subscribe to it. You want porn? Subscribe to it. Don't be surprised when email and web browsing becomes something you use at the office in a closed inTRAnet system.
Re:Price Fixing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just because it's the most suicidal thing the phone companies could possibly do, that doesn't mean they aren't dumb enough to to it.
To be free, People need a public radio Internet. (Score:2, Interesting)
As soon as its legal manufactures will be more then glad to sell us turn key and cheep hardware.
You say who will we talk to? I for one will be talking to google. and the rest will follow.
Until then who do I ask to offer Google access put up an antenna in my yard, I am on top of the hill, in exchange for Internet access.
Back up just a minute (Score:3, Interesting)
TFA is from "The Nation", which has a particular slant ... antiBigCorporation, TheSkyIsFallingBecauseWalMartIsTakingOver. Which has some merit, but can occasionally (and in this case definitely) be overly alarmist.
TFA furthermore makes references to white papers, but the link takes you NOT to primary source white papers, but to "democracticmedia.org", which links to "white papers" that are ... kept on the same site.
In other words: No primary source material. No proof other than innuendo and hype.
Now: would Verizon actually profit from a tiered system? Well -- it already does. Business-class DSL offers twice the bandwidth [verizon.com] of Consumer-class DSL. Would they love to charge even more for a higher-differentiated tier system? Sure. Anyone surprised?
But now, the article would have us believe that in addition to a price tier for bandwidth, the telcoms are going to have a price tier for total usage (presumably per month, which is a type of bandwidth in a way). NONSENSE. It's unprofitable for the simple reasons that
(a) keeping the meter running on each little packet is a waste of their servers,
(b) customers are going to be very ticked when either they are "cut off" when they reach their limit or else are charged extra every month for overage (do you keep your cell phone plan if you get charged for extra minutes every month?),
(c) customers are going to be really ticked when little Johnny plays WoW for 36 hours straight and runs up a $130 bill.
As a result, sub-providers will spring up: people who pay Platinum for unlimited access -- and you know that telcos will have to have that top level available -- and then allow subscribers to tap in for a flat fee.
There is simply no way that a use-limited tiering system will prevent itself from collapsing.
Re:Titan wars... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think I would likely be willing to pay $20-$25 a month for that... (assuming 1Mbps/384Kbps or some such)
-nB
Re:Price Fixing? (Score:1, Interesting)
Or it could end up like game consoles... (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder how many people here on Slashdot have an Xbox and a PS2 (and maybe a GameCube), just for this reason...
Re:Fight (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.slate.com/id/2135226/ [slate.com]
It basically comes down to "what will the consumer pay." Some people will pay more than others for the exact same service. Either because they've got cash to burn, or because it is more valuable for them.
This is why
Keep the Internet Free! (Score:1, Interesting)
However, it is *not* inevitable that the Internet will succomb to this new species of economic parasitism.
The Internet is an open protocol - all that is required are the channels to make it work. It should be possible to disintermediate these powerful companies by bypassing them with new peer-to-peer wireless technologies at the last mile, while at the same time promoting and encouraging the "public" internet infrastructure in conjunction with big civil and educational users.
The Internet must remain free. Of course there will always be those who won't mind paying for it. But there must always be a choice in the matter.
The American way: What Big Business wants, it gets (Score:1, Interesting)
You know the routine
1. Bend over
2. Get shafted in the ass
3. Profit!!!
Is it any wonder that the US is so cordially disliked in the rest of the world. It enforces its DOMESTIC laws on the rest of the world through World Trade Agreements so everyone else has to swallow the restrictive practices of American Business including cretinous copyright laws intended to permit the milking of ideas created before the majority of the world populations PARENTS were born.
Why do you think the terrorists selected the Twin Towers as a target on 9/11 - it was the headquarters of the WTO, busily screwing the rest of the world for the benefit of the great USA.
*shrug*
So long as you lot keep getting your knickers in a twist over Apple/Microsoft, instead of worrying about whats really going on, then the bastards in power will continue raping the rest of the world.
Don't know why I bothered with this rant..
You lot won't understand.
Re:Fight (Score:2, Interesting)
I was in Rotterdam a few months ago, and I paid... I mean, my company paid $128 Canadian for a week of internet access in my (fairly nice) Hotel.
A few months before that, I was in Alaska and had free internet access in the Best Western. I was on a business trip both times, and so had to have net access.
Re:Fight (Score:4, Interesting)
And even less time for them to figure out where you are based on your IP address, and show you very targeted ads to help you find a better provider!
While making money on the ads even.
Believe me, Google has very little to lose in this fight...
Re:Fight (Score:2, Interesting)
Thanks!
I am not worried (Score:3, Interesting)
So, instead ... WE will be the "other provider." And because we are a CLEC, we are very enthusiastic about taking customers away from Verizon and Qworst.
Re:Fight (Score:3, Interesting)
It is a story of the content holders fighting against the content distributors, the telecoms now see themselves as the new publishers and like the members of the RIAA or the MPAA, are declaring ownership and publishing writes to everything that passess through their network and demanding payment for it.
Believe it or not, it won't cost the customers or end user's any more, as they are already being charged as much as possible (charge the slightest bit more and you will end up selling a whole lot less), it will all end up coming out of some pigopolists pocket, one who owns a pile of content and is being blackmailed into paying before they can sell it.
Re:And video confrencing.... (Score:3, Interesting)
They'll advertise the benifits of high speed ADSL access with unlimited downloads, but then (at least in Australia) the fine print will show a download/upload speed of 512/128 with a download limit of 10Gb per month (you might get a bit extra in off peak periods). Even the new ADSL2 available in some places is 1500/256, still with a download limit of 10Gb per month and a cost of over $100 Aus per month.
Those Australians stupid enough to sign up with Telstra (majority government owned telco that owns most of the telecommunications infrastructure in Aus, including the copper last mile) then find out that uploads actually count towards their download limit. Go over your download limit for the month and your connection speed is throttled to 56K or you're charged at a rediculous rate per Mb over your limit.
Now they're going after the likes of Skype and other Internet VoIP providers.
ISP's would be happy if all you did was check email and read a few news sites while paying top dollar for a 1500/256 ADSL2 service. "receive your emails lighting fast" was one of the recent ads.
Bah, ISP's shit me here in Aus. And don't even get me started on telcos.
Shitdrummer.
Re:Fight (Score:1, Interesting)
Long story short, at one point one of the companies flying the London-NY routes realized that they were loosing money, but were concerned about raising the prices. So, they went ahead and asked the flyers how much they thought a ticket is worth, and apparently most of the celebrities & hotshots on the plane didn't have a clue about the price and guessed higher.
So, after realizing they were flying a bunch of fools, they raised the prices.