ForumGarden

Making the internet work like television where we get basic junk and then have to pay for what we really want? I always thought that could never happen because I felt there would be such a public uprising if anyone tried to mess with the Net but lately I've been thinking it's not so unfeasable after all.

This might be worth reading. Check out the "Act Now" tab too.

I have to give you the link so you can read everything yourself.... NET

It's all about market choice. Some Internet Service Providers (ISPs) provide neutral access with no other profit centre than charging each customer for going online. Some "add value" - which means interfere with the raw content on the way through - either by analysing the content to allow advertisers to target their ads or by injecting targeted material or by surrounding some content with advertising. They charge less than neutral ISPs. In the UK we've had experiments of zero-charge ISPs which derived their profit from the non-neutral behaviour. I can easily imagine an ISP some time in the future paying customers an hourly rate for using their service. We've had at least one ISP give a free start-up computer in exchange for choosing their service.

The UK market's quite used to this. If we dislike what one ISP is doing we switch to another, I know of no part of the country where one or even two or three ISPs have a monopoly grip on supply. Some people will enjoy free or cheap provision, some will prefer paying more for less interference.

Isn't the free market economy an essential aspect of capitalism? I thought the US invented it.

spot;982698 wrote: It's all about market choice. Some Internet Service Providers (ISPs) provide neutral access with no other profit centre than charging each customer for going online. Some "add value" - which means interfere with the raw content on the way through - either by analysing the content to allow advertisers to target their ads or by injecting targeted material or by surrounding some content with advertising. They charge less than neutral ISPs. In the UK we've had experiments of zero-charge ISPs which derived their profit from the non-neutral behaviour. I can easily imagine an ISP some time in the future paying customers an hourly rate for using their service. We've had at least one ISP give a free start-up computer in exchange for choosing their service.

The UK market's quite used to this. If we dislike what one ISP is doing we switch to another, I know of no part of the country where one or even two or three ISPs have a monopoly grip on supply. Some people will enjoy free or cheap provision, some will prefer paying more for less interference.

Isn't the free market economy an essential aspect of capitalism? I thought the US invented it.


posted by spot

Isn't the free market economy an essential aspect of capitalism? I thought the US invented it.


tsk tsk, you should know better, They pinched the idea from us.

My theory, having read the SaveTheInternet website, is that it's a pressure group on behalf of premium ISP providers who don't want to allow competition capable of undercutting their prices. I'm all for choice.

spot;983540 wrote: My theory, having read the SaveTheInternet website, is that it's a pressure group on behalf of premium ISP providers who don't want to allow competition capable of undercutting their prices. I'm all for choice.


Don't quite see where you get that.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/06/comcast_lies/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days... Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online


It's seems the internet providers want to control and curb competition. It would give them a means to control them. It's like BT not letting competitive isp providers use their lines. If you pay for broadband you should be able to access whatever you want.

spot;982698 wrote: The UK market's quite used to this. If we dislike what one ISP is doing we switch to another, I know of no part of the country where one or even two or three ISPs have a monopoly grip on supply. Some people will enjoy free or cheap provision, some will prefer paying more for less interference.
Yeah I pay a little more for Tiscali but since the other one started doing that deal for free broadband, they dropped my download speed to about double dial up, and due to my circumstances I can't change providers.

Phorm is one of the schemes designed to allow an ISP to drop its charges to customers. It's getting closer to an acceptable definition.

As for priority traffic over the Internet's backbone, that was designed in from a very early stage. How do you think real-time digital telephony works? It has traffic priority.

It also pointed out that Phorm's search terms have been widely drawn so they do not reveal a user's identity and that Phorm has no information which would enable it to link a user ID and profile to a living individual.


Yet!

spot;982698 wrote: It's all about market choice. Some Internet Service Providers (ISPs) provide neutral access with no other profit centre than charging each customer for going online. Some "add value" - which means interfere with the raw content on the way through - either by analysing the content to allow advertisers to target their ads or by injecting targeted material or by surrounding some content with advertising. They charge less than neutral ISPs. In the UK we've had experiments of zero-charge ISPs which derived their profit from the non-neutral behaviour. I can easily imagine an ISP some time in the future paying customers an hourly rate for using their service. We've had at least one ISP give a free start-up computer in exchange for choosing their service.

The UK market's quite used to this. If we dislike what one ISP is doing we switch to another, I know of no part of the country where one or even two or three ISPs have a monopoly grip on supply. Some people will enjoy free or cheap provision, some will prefer paying more for less interference.

Isn't the free market economy an essential aspect of capitalism? I thought the US invented it.


that sounds the same as what we have here. There are many companies and options to choose from.

Al Gore to the rescue:yh_rotfl

watcher;986400 wrote: [quote=spot]It also pointed out that Phorm's search terms have been widely drawn so they do not reveal a user's identity and that Phorm has no information which would enable it to link a user ID and profile to a living individual.Yet!


You're mistaking the driving force in this - Phorm originally proposed a far more intrusive operation, it's Government oversight that's keeping what they can do within more reasonable bounds. The proposal's getting narrower at each development cycle, not more extensive.