As much as I generally like the idea of an egalitarian internet the reality is that not all internet firms are created equal. If one firm invests heavily in providing a more robust and faster network to its customers then it should have the right to make sure that its customers are the principal beneficiaries of the infrastructure investments that they paid for via their monthly billing charges.
If such a law passes in the USA then the probability is that many firms will create virtual 'gated communities' that will be walled off from the wide open net much the same way America Online used to be.
At home I pay for a fiber connection that gives me at least 1Gbps and I pay handsomely for it. AT&T is now working on establishing a consumer service that will provide the same speed at around 15% of what I pay right now. If taking that service meant limited access to the rest of the net then I'd be okay with it.
"BartSimpson" said As much as I generally like the idea of an egalitarian internet the reality is that not all internet firms are created equal. If one firm invests heavily in providing a more robust and faster network to its customers then it should have the right to make sure that its customers are the principal beneficiaries of the infrastructure investments that they paid for via their monthly billing charges.
If such a law passes in the USA then the probability is that many firms will create virtual 'gated communities' that will be walled off from the wide open net much the same way America Online used to be.
At home I pay for a fiber connection that gives me at least 1Gbps and I pay handsomely for it. AT&T is now working on establishing a consumer service that will provide the same speed at around 15% of what I pay right now. If taking that service meant limited access to the rest of the net then I'd be okay with it.
In Canada much (if not all) of the internet infrastructure was funded by the government. ISP's just act as gatekeepers.
Good for the Euros.
Perhaps it'll catch on here, before we are relegated to the slowest and most expensive internet service in the world.
oh . . .wait . . .
If such a law passes in the USA then the probability is that many firms will create virtual 'gated communities' that will be walled off from the wide open net much the same way America Online used to be.
At home I pay for a fiber connection that gives me at least 1Gbps and I pay handsomely for it. AT&T is now working on establishing a consumer service that will provide the same speed at around 15% of what I pay right now. If taking that service meant limited access to the rest of the net then I'd be okay with it.
As much as I generally like the idea of an egalitarian internet the reality is that not all internet firms are created equal. If one firm invests heavily in providing a more robust and faster network to its customers then it should have the right to make sure that its customers are the principal beneficiaries of the infrastructure investments that they paid for via their monthly billing charges.
If such a law passes in the USA then the probability is that many firms will create virtual 'gated communities' that will be walled off from the wide open net much the same way America Online used to be.
At home I pay for a fiber connection that gives me at least 1Gbps and I pay handsomely for it. AT&T is now working on establishing a consumer service that will provide the same speed at around 15% of what I pay right now. If taking that service meant limited access to the rest of the net then I'd be okay with it.
In Canada much (if not all) of the internet infrastructure was funded by the government. ISP's just act as gatekeepers.
In Canada much (if not all) of the internet infrastructure was funded by the government.
And there you have the answer to your previous question.