Is it time to change the way we pay for the internet?
Posted at 5:00 AM on August 10, 2010
by Molly Bloom
(16 Comments)
Filed under: Science/Technology
Yesterday, Google and Verizon released a joint policy proposal supporting an open internet, but also allowing broadband providers to charge extra for premium services like entertainment and gaming. Today's question: Is it time to change the way we pay for the internet?
Comments (16)
The internet is simply the next generation in communication - it is the logical progression from the telephone. I rely on the internet to communicate with my church, my state and local government, libraries, news agencies, schools and universities, non-profit agencies and various small and large businesses.
Advertising and user fees pay for the internet – and allow ISPs and companies like Google to make a healthy profit. The internet is vital to our economic growth and our democracy, serving as an equal opportunity public platform for free speech and innovation. Narrowing its ability to provide service to our citizenry in the name of increased profit is a very short-sighted and dangerous proposal.
The community would be very poorly served if information and transactions on the internet were serviced by a priority system based on the financial contributions of the information or service provider. These proposed change would:
1) Raise the costs of participation for all organizations - devastating to non-profit and government organizations that cannot incorporate these fees as a cost of doing business
2) Severely restrict new e-commerce sites and innovation
3) Narrow the number of information suppliers that are interacted with
4) Restrict citizens’ ability to access information - and further damage our democracy
Would the FCC consider allowing telephone service providers to prioritize access and delivery based on the financial contributions of participating organizations and business? Of course not!
I am for net neutrality....I insist!!
Somethings need to be for the good of all.
There was an exclusive gathering in Tahoe CA recently. The purpose to examine business and networking. Google was there and so were many other major players in the world. Time we start charging them for doing busilness in our Country & the PLanet....I don't mind profits but it is rediculous the accessive amounts the very few make and don't share which was the AMerican Way.
The very wealthy built this country, the Universities, libraries, museums, etc.
When they start behaving like human beings I don't think they should be allowed to join forces anymore.
I think the description is misleading. Its not the consumer that is going to get charged, it is the content provider.
So if the a candidate pays extra, his campaign videos can by high definition and viewed easily by someone using their cell phone. If the opposition candidate doesn't pay extra, downloading their video will be slow and it may not be possible to view it at all.
I use candidates as an example. But it applies to all content or communications. Widespread broadband access is making the pipes to people's homes able to handle almost unlimited amounts of data. That investment will become less and less valuable as companies restrict access elsewhere on the network based on whether someone paid an extra fee to put their information on the fast lane.
How much more could they possibly charge? I live in a house with 2 other units. For the 3 apartments to have internet per month is $100. Without cable, without phone. It seems ridiculous as is. I can't imagine paying more, or even being able to.
I am in favor of net neutrality. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality) And many of the desired changes are so broadband providers can restrict access and charge more for stuff that is part and parcel of the internet. I count on constant access, need it for work, and I work from home currently.
I have seen speed bumps and closed sockets from my provider already. This kills processes and hurts my work ability. It can only get worse when and if Net Neutrality will be removed.
I am infavor of net neutrality. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality) And many of the desired changes are so broadband providers can restrict access and charge more for stuff that is part and parcel of the internet. I count on constant access, need it for work, and I work from home currently.
I have seen speed bumps and closed sockets from my provider already. This kills processes and hurts my work ability. It can only get worse when and if Net Neutrality will be removed.
I know I pay more for than what I use, that's for sure. Granted I don't expect Internet to be free. I does cost money to maintain the cables, fiber optic networks and servers that the Internet runs on. My argument is that I don't have the freedom to choose how I get it. So I must pay my town's monopoly cable company for broadband access plus TV. I don't even watch TV! So why do I have to pay for it? If I wanted DSL with the monopoly phone company in my town I would have to pay for a land line telephone plus the DSL even though I disconnected my old fashioned land line phone years ago. So why do I have to pay for products and services I don't even need just to get online? The internet companies are marketing a 21st Century technology in the Stone Age manner of the Bell System.
Yes, access to it should be free to all. Just like materials in the library. It has become part of our societies infrastructure and as such it should be freely available to everyone.
The Internet represents a new age of enlightenment for humanity; it allows us to all be creators and consumers of content. Without Network Neutrality and flat fees for unlimited data, we risk losing humanity's greatest potential technology to corporations who only want us to consume their information. Soon enough, everything possible will run on the Internet; do you really want your ISP to decide if your home gas line's error messages don't take precedence over someone's YouTube video? Is Sony Pictures (movies) more important than your Uncle Ed's home videos?
I just wish I could something more than dial up where I live.
When the free market is working, government shouldn't meddle. When the market runs rough-shod over ordinary folks, government should step in. Regarding this question, here's what policy-makers should consider:
1. Is the internet a critical part of our economic infrastructure, or a luxury? If it's a luxury, government should keep its paws off the internet. But if it's critical,....
2. Can sufficient comptetition be guaranteed, so that market forces will cause ISPs to self-regulate adequately and not overcharge for services? If so, the government's only role should be to keep the playing field level. But if not,....
3. Should the internet be a government service (like law enforcement and road mantenance)?
4. Should it be a government-run enterprise (like the US Postal Service)?
5. Should it be a regulated monopoly (like your local power company)?
Net Neutrality may seem like an abstract idea to many Internet users, but these same users will be shocked and outraged to find how significantly their service has changed if these proposed deals are approved.
Senator Franken has been a vocal opponent of existing and proposed Net Neutrality threats, but his opposition alone is far from enough to halt this very real threat to 21st Century American life.
The US currently trails the vast majority of the developed world in information technology infrastructure, let alone content and services. Introducing additional fees for content, speed or services will not only continue to hold us back technologically, it will also hinder information technology development at home and make us less competitive globally.
Yes it’s time to change – it’s time put the greedy ISP provider’s on a strict diet. Consumers are being robbed of money just for a decent connection to the internet. As other markets and technologies are advancing (i.e., business website content, online videogames, online teleconference/telecommunications, etc.) the ISP companies are capitalizing by charging more for faster connections. Whether their tier it 1.5, 7, 12, or even 20+ Mbps, an internet connection is an internet connection – it costs them the same to give the same person 1.5Mbps or 20Mbps. Obviously ISP companies need money to invest in the growth and maintenance of their communications infrastructure (i.e., fiber optic lines, communications hubs in residential areas, etc.), but the fact that they can get away with tiering their “services” the way they do is borderline ludicrous. Excel energy is allowed to monopolize the Minnesota market, but laws and ordinances only allow them to make a certain level of profits in order to maintain their operational and power grid infrastructure. I think it’s time to either place the same (or similar) types of restrictions on ISP companies who monopolize a certain area/region, or simply allow other ISPs access to existing communication networks.
Comments from Facebook:
Leo Lantz: With all the advertising it should remain free to use. how much profit do these people need. by purchasing products advertised on the www everyone wins and the giants of science who provide are making a king's ransom already.
Anthony Maki: The joint proposal does NOT support an open Internet. It proposes a second group of paid services, separate from the Internet, but it doesn't stipulate that providers will even bother maintaining standard Internet services.
It also gives ISP...s the tools, albeit with alleged "transparency", to block certain users or certain kinds of traffic they don't like.
AND... it most definitely isn't supporting an open Internet for any wireless services. It wholesale endorses providers being able to do whatever they want if you get Internet wirelessly.
Richard Franco: Serioulsly the only reason that there is even a debate on change is so that a few people can profit even more than they already do. It is a joke the way that this is even being proposed. Totally agree with Leo and Anthony!
Joe Riska: It's already a joke that we pay an exorbitant amount for a service that is so much worse than pretty much every other industrialized country in the world. This proposal to increase prices is just another way to line the pockets of media gi...ants at the expense of Americans. In addition, this has an insidious underbelly of cutting off the lower class from access to information via the internet. Americans are already struggling to pay their bills due to under/unemployment, rising power costs, and being stuck in mortgages given to them by crooks and now the one thing that can put all people on an even playing field (like it or not) is going to be even more of an onerous burden on the lower and middle classes. The internet has become the most important tool for a person seeking employment, networking options, and social interaction and it's sick that these bastards are trying to destroy net neutrality. Seriously Google, I thought your philosophy was "don't be evil."
You know, if we were in Finland, we would all have a 1 Mb/s broadband connection with an attempt to give everybody a 100 Mb/s connection by 2015 as a legal right. Think about the importance of this: in addition to your currently granted Constitutional rights, there are nations (the UK has just stopped short of requiring this by law) that believe access to information via the internet is an inherent and inalienable right. Although it may seem like no big deal at first glance to most, this is, in fact, a very important issue.
Urban Haas: No. I live in rural MN and have to put up with satellite-based Internet. I see first hand every day what bandwidth limiting can do to Internet access. They shut it off at 1 AM-6 AM.
Wireless Internet may be limited, but it's our future. Free..., open and unbiased access should be mandated by the FCC. It's time they stop delaying on this point.
Julie Tunheim: I pay $2 a day for unreliable service that is worse during holidays-- when I have time to be online. Very frustrating.
Cynthia McArthur: Did they take their cue from the airlines, fee for any service plus the cost of a ticket on a plane that is uncomfortable, with lousy schedules, and complicated purchasing policies? I pay more for technology use than heating and I live in MN. I'm waiting for the day when I get charged by my ISP provider when I sit in front of my computer and a face scan charges me by the second...
I think the new open agreement is trying to capitalize the public to pay more for services that we took for granted in the past. We are already paying too much for internet but the public is a captive audience and we need the internet to survive and everyone needs it. Lets get back to the basics and be more consumer driven and not a fee driven business.
If the quote below is what we all agree to then the Internet should be taxed and paid for by all Americans. This be consistant with our support of redistribution.
"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama explains. "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
DTOM
| August 2010 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock