Would you pay to use the Internet?

[Ernest Buckley]

This is an old rumor that I heard again today on Sports Radio... something about the the possibility of Google and Verizon merging and charging to get on to the Internet.

 

Honestly, I don`t have a problem with the powers that be charging for the Internet. As I have said recently, I am slowly getting away from all the gadgets and forums and Internet nonsense. I can easily see the Internet going along the cable TV route where you pay for basic service and then sites charge their own fees.

 

I think this would be a positive for just about everyone. Less crap on the Internet, less stealing (hopefully), especially considering the subscriber model, and of course, getting back to real life.

 

Granted, the Internet has some cool features but at the end of the day, it offers me nothing I can`t live w/o. ymmv

 

What are your opinions on this?

[Adey]

Aint gonna happen.

[blue2blue]

 

This is an old rumor that I heard again today on Sports Radio... something about the the possibility of Google and Verizon merging and charging to get on to the Internet. Honestly, I don`t have a problem with the powers that be charging for the Internet. As I have said recently, I am slowly getting away from all the gadgets and forums and Internet nonsense. I can easily see the Internet going along the cable TV route where you pay for basic service and then sites charge their own fees. I think this would be a positive for just about everyone. Less crap on the Internet, less stealing (hopefully), especially considering the subscriber model, and of course, getting back to real life. Granted, the Internet has some cool features but at the end of the day, it offers me nothing I can`t live w/o. ymmv What are your opinions on this?

Stop listening to bullsh-t 'news' and you'll get less bullsh-t fed to you as truth.

 

That story is a ridiculous corruption of an already questionable 'real' news story about rumors that Google was trying to negotiate preferential data handling on Verizon's phone-data network in order to speed search returns. (The implication would be that also-ran SE's like Yahoo and Bing would be 'frozen out' of such a sweetheart deal.)

 

The reaction to the 'real' story of the rumor was swift and extremely critical of the supposed backroom deal.

 

The reaction from Google and Verizon was also swift: categorically denying such a deal.

 

 

Most of us already pay for Internet access -- often in multiple ways, through cable or landline phone bills as well as through mobile phone plans.

 

But the Internet itself does not 'belong' to any one entity.

 

It is a cooperative, collaborative venture which, when it was made 'public' had the mandate of providing free, cooperative information flow.

 

I think it's perfectly reasonable for entities to offer paid services over that information 'superhighway' and, of course, reasonable enough for a company providing access to the internet to charge (it costs them money, after all). But the internet became what it is because it's not controlled by any one entity and because of its open, collaborative, non-coercive nature.

[Coaster]

you're really drinking a lot of the koolaid lately EB. put the cup down. next you will be saying we should pay taxes to an offshore int govt for breathing out CO2 which is a basic building block for plantlife.

 

want something to do? google aspartame. come back in a week and tell me what you found.

[Adey]

Mmmmm.........aspartame.....

[amplayer]

 

you're really drinking a lot of the koolaid lately EB. put the cup down. next you will be saying we should pay taxes to an offshore int govt for breathing out CO2 which is a basic building block for plantlife.

 

 

What you have described is simplified version of Obama's Cap and Trade plan.

[blue2blue]

What you have described is simplified version of Obama's Cap and Trade plan.

If you don't like market based solutions what do you like -- ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away?

 

We tried that. It didn't.

 

 

Say what you will about cap & trade and other pollution relief programs but they have made an enormous change for the better in Southern California. I barely knew there were mountains 20 or 30 miles away growing up in the 50s and 60s. You never saw them.

 

You'll have to pry environmental control programs out of my cold, dead fingers.

 

So to speak.

[Billster]

 

I can easily see the Internet going along the cable TV route where you pay for basic service and then sites charge their own fees.

 

 

This isn't the existing system?

[Coaster]

If you don't like market based solutions what do you like -- ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away? We tried that. It didn't. Say what you will about cap & trade and other pollution relief programs but they have made an enormous change for the better in Southern California. I barely knew there were mountains 20 or 30 miles away growing up in the 50s and 60s. You never saw them. You'll have to pry environmental control programs out of my cold, dead fingers. So to speak.

 

i have no issue with pollution control systems, especially for thermal inversion areas like a lot of CA and some of CO.

 

 

nitrogen, hydrocarbons, and much worse stuff shouldnt be dumped into the atmosphere. raw coal shouldnt be dumped either; i've been to china, coal is disgustingly messy when not scrubbed.

 

there is a lot about pollution that can and should be done, but setting up a non american CO2 based tax is not one of them.

[TimOBrien]

I already pay (too much) to use the Internet.

 

Comcast sends me a bill every month for access... if sites want to charge their own fees, like some newspapers have tried to do, they find out that they aren't that necessary (and that's why newspapers are going bankrupt left and right.)

[Goobers]

 

This is an old rumor that I heard again today on Sports Radio... something about the the possibility of Google and Verizon merging and charging to get on to the Internet. Honestly, I don`t have a problem with the powers that be charging for the Internet. As I have said recently, I am slowly getting away from all the gadgets and forums and Internet nonsense. I can easily see the Internet going along the cable TV route where you pay for basic service and then sites charge their own fees. I think this would be a positive for just about everyone. Less crap on the Internet, less stealing (hopefully), especially considering the subscriber model, and of course, getting back to real life. Granted, the Internet has some cool features but at the end of the day, it offers me nothing I can`t live w/o. ymmv What are your opinions on this?

 

 

Apparently, Google and Verizon are making deals to tier the mobile internet. They've committed to net neutrality on wired internet to your house, but not over mobile devices like your phone, potentially favoring Google's web services on a verizon phone over others (which therefore wouldn't load as fast), or making customers pay for different kinds of access rather than have a level playing field.

 

For example, YouTube might be delivered faster to your mobile device than, say, Netflix. Or you might have to pay more to have websites like NetFlix work as fast as YouTube. Or... who knows?!

 

The whole thing stinks.

 

Comments from both companies are far from clear.

[bp]

I already pay Comcast plenty of money to use (access) the internet.

[Anderton]

 

Apparently, Google and Verizon are making deals to tier the mobile internet. They've committed to net neutrality on wired internet to your house, but not over mobile devices like your phone, potentially favoring Google's web services on a verizon phone over others (which therefore wouldn't load as fast), or making customers pay for different kinds of access rather than have a level playing field. For example, YouTube might be delivered faster to your mobile device than, say, Netflix. Or you might have to pay more to have websites like NetFlix work as fast as YouTube. Or... who knows?! The whole thing stinks. Comments from both companies are far from clear.

 

 

That is my understanding as well. An analogy would be the highway system - for example if you're in NJ, you can take I-95 for free and fight it out with the trucks, or pay to use the more tranquil Garden State Parkway.

[rasputin1963]

There is probably a kernel of truth to what you've been hearing, Ernest.

 

 

The Internet was optimistically supposed to de-centralize power. Remember "Burn, Hollywood, Burn!" ....?

 

It was supposed to be a place that was "everywhere and nowhere".

 

Now, Facebook and Google are commanding a startlingly large percentage of all Internet traffic worldwide. The future even seems to indicate more of this sort of thing happening.

 

That's not a de-centralization of power.

[Ernest Buckley]

Yeah, call me crazy but it seems there is a lot of traffic going to specific sites and those companies will somehow get into the pockets of Washington and beyond. Give it some time. The Internet is a cash cow but its not being taken advantage of... yet.

[the stranger]

 

Most of us already pay for Internet access -- often in multiple ways, through cable or landline phone bills as well as through mobile phone plans.

 

 

Let's not forget the fact that the taxpayers were paying for the original projects that lead to what would become the internet.

[sventvkg]

I can't wait till they try to throttle the net with pay services etc. That paradigm is DEAD. It will not fly and the computer geeks will go to war over it to bring those companies down that would seek to subvert the free internet. The computer geeks will win.

[DukeOfBoom]

I can't wait till they try to throttle the net with pay services etc. That paradigm is DEAD. It will not fly and the computer geeks will go to war over it to bring those companies that would seek to subvert the free internet. The computer geeks will win.

 

 

VICTORY!!!!

[SBF3000]

 

I already pay (too much) to use the Internet.

 

 

agree:arg:

[Beck]

No way! This would be the end of the Internet as it was intended to be... open and free. IMO it's one of the last frontiers of free thought and free exchange of ideas... don't need to be a media mogul to be heard. Even though half of it is full of crap, the other half that's not full of crap makes it workable.

 

We already pay for it... whether you have broadband or even dial-up and the trend seems to be going more in the direction of free access. I've worked with ISPs and WISPs for several years now as part of my job. The free wireless trend is hurting their business but that seems to be where it's headed.

 

Of course I would like to see less ads and the popups and bandwidth hogging vids on some sites make me want to spit nails. We can't have it both ways, but I think charging would kill the web as we know it and we'd be on to the next thing... like I said cruising in fast cars and listening to radio. I've got my classic car, so I'm ready for the big change.

[rasputin1963]

[philbo]

Godamnit!! I already pay for the internet! How are you guys getting it for free?

[michaelhigh]

I'll pay for it as long as I can find/download flac music. It will set you on your ear if you've never experienced it, and you will never want to hear mp3's again. There. I've said it. Go get MediaMonkey, rip your CD's to flac and come out of your source with a DAC, into a vintage Sansui and into the nicest modern speakers you can afford... You will thank.

[bp]

 

I already pay (too much) to use the Internet. Comcast sends me a bill every month for access... if sites want to charge their own fees, like some newspapers have tried to do, they find out that they aren't that necessary (and that's why newspapers are going bankrupt left and right.)

 

 

THIS^

[techristian]

 

That is my understanding as well. An analogy would be the highway system - for example if you're in NJ, you can take I-95 for free and fight it out with the trucks, or pay to use the more tranquil Garden State Parkway.

 

 

Or paying NOT TO WAIT in a "Waiting Room".

 

Dan