Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Verizon's diabolical plan to turn the Web into pay-per-view

  1. #1
    Franc Tireur is offline Senior Net Builder
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,119
    Thanks
    289
    Thanked 148 Times in 118 Posts

    Verizon's diabolical plan to turn the Web into pay-per-view

    The carrier wants to charge websites for carrying their packets, but if they win it'd be the end of the Internet as we know it

    Think of all the things that tick you off about cable TV. Along with brainless programming and crummy customer service, the very worst aspect of it is forced bundling. You can't pay just for the couple of dozen channels you actually watch. Instead, you have to pay for a couple of hundred channels, because the good stuff is scattered among a number of overstuffed packages. Now, imagine that the Internet worked that way. You'd hate it, of course. But that's the direction that Verizon, with the support of many wired and wireless carriers, would like to push the Web. That's not hypothetical. The country's No. 1 carrier is fighting in court to end the Federal Communications Commission's policy of Net neutrality, a move that would open the gates to a whole new -- and wholly bad -- economic model on the Web.

    [ With worker retirements looming, IT starts to prepare for a workforce exodus. | For quick, smart takes on the news you'll be talking about, check out InfoWorld TechBrief -- subscribe today. ]
    As it stands now, you pay your Internet service provider and go wherever you want on the Web. Packets of bits are just packets and have to be treated equally. That's the essence of Net neutrality. But Verizon's plan, which the company has outlined during hearings in federal court and before Congress, would change that. Verizon and its allies would like to charge websites that carry popular content for the privilege of moving their packets to your connected device. Again, that's not hypothetical.
    ESPN, for example, is in negotiations with at least one major cellular carrier to pay to exempt its content from subscribers' cellular data caps. And what's wrong with that? Well, ESPN is big and rich and can pay for that exemption, but other content providers -- think of your local jazz station that streams audio -- couldn't afford it and would be out of business. Or, they'd make you pay to visit their websites. Indeed, if that system had been in place 10 years ago, fledglings like Google or YouTube or Facebook might never have gotten out of the nest.
    Susan Crawford, a tech policy expert and professor at Yeshiva University's Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, says Verizon wants to "cable-ize the Internet." She writes in her blog that "The question presented by the case is: Does the U.S. government have any role in ensuring ubiquitous, open, world-class, interconnected, reasonably priced Internet access?"
    Verizon: the new Standard Oil
    Verizon and other carriers answer that question by saying no.
    They argue that because they spent megabucks to build and maintain the network, they should be able to have a say over what content travels over it. They say that because Google and Facebook and other Internet companies make money by moving traffic over "their" networks, they should get a bigger piece of the action. (Never mind that pretty much every person and business that accesses Google or Facebook is already paying for the privilege, and paying more while getting less speed than users in most of Europe.)
    In 2005, AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre famously remarked that upstarts like Google would like to "use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it."
    Verizon's diabolical plan to turn the Web into pay-per-view | The Industry Standard - InfoWorld

    I think it is unbelievable how all these public corporations are fighting to control internet, perhaps the last freedom the people have.

    Do you think that internet will become different soon?
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  2. #2
    TopDogger's Avatar
    TopDogger is offline Über Hund
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hellfire, AZ
    Posts
    3,050
    Thanks
    345
    Thanked 909 Times in 694 Posts
    The problem with their argument is that they do not own any of the content that travels over their network. Users are already paying for the use of their network, so why should we pay for content that Verizon does not own and did not produce?

    In addition, they only paid for building their network up to their connection point to the Internet. Taxpayers paid for the Internet backbone, which is what really connects everything.

    I was just thinking about switching from AT&T to Verizon for cell phone service, but now I am re-thinking that issue.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  3. #3
    Franc Tireur is offline Senior Net Builder
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,119
    Thanks
    289
    Thanked 148 Times in 118 Posts
    I guess the thing that upset me the most is that in Europe, internet have a faster bandwidth for less money and here we have to pay much more for a slower bandwidth.

    Here an example:
    Freebox, la meilleure offre ADSL: Internet, Telephone, Television
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •