The end of the free Internet?

Thats the way it used to be, doubt it will revert...

I wish I could be as optimistic; with literally billions of dollars at stake, I am willing to bet that the communications companies are lobbying quite hard for this to take place. Of course, letting the Feds have free access to all the data mining info in return for these regulation changes would never cross their minds.

If you read the small print on most DSL connections it limits you to the amount ou can download per month.

that's pretty much what happens here - pay according to the amount of bw used - absolutely fucking sucks on arse!

You're already limited by your provider...they now are trying to charge for overages, rather than limit you. Good idea for them, bad for us, but it will probably not happen.

This will never happen. People will rise up in groups and revolt!

Understood, but it won't happen. All they can do in my mind is add another $0.40 tax to your cable modem..... or similar device...

This would not be a good thing.

But I doubt it'll go down.

People are already revolting, at least the people i know are?

Aren't cartells illegal? 'Cause there's no way in hell this could be allowed by the FTC.

some limitations are understandable. my isp limits you to either 60 or 100 gigs a month which is plenty for just about anyone. i certaintly don't agree with them limiting types of traffic or numbers of things downloaded. my isp is has also started 'traffic shaping' by blocking bit torrent traffic, or attempting to at least.

I use 60 or 100 in a week or 2.

Thats some stupid shit and will never work, not to mention a form of racketering that would end up in courts.

The idea and concept is illegal.

And to illustrate this point, anyone remember all the gas companies getting busted for fixing prices?

I agree never happen, cities are pushing to offer free wifi.

I like thenation but when I read that article it made me want to put an aluminum foil hat on my head.

It's a little out there

I guess a little more background information is necessary. Last year, the US Supreme Court, in the Brand X case, held that cable broadband companies do not have to share their networks with other companies, as the FCC had classified them as unregulated information services - not content providers. After the decision came down, the FCC then passed regulations that put DSL providers in the same situation. Thus, after a one year transitional period, the ability of ISPs like earthlink and aol to offer broadband dsl service through other companies infrastructure, for example, will be gone, and most ISPs will probably be priced out of the market if they can't find other ways to offer service or make deals with the telephone/cable companies. Here is an article from CNET which explains this in more detail. Thus, because they will no longer have to share their lines with other companies, the cable/dsl companies like Verizon and Comcast will have no impediments towards other price plans, etc., unless the FTC steps in. This is what the lobbying of Congress and the FTC is about - they want explicit laws and rulings permitting it before they do it.

As for the white papers that are being distributed, the main company that is pushing charging more for types of Internet traffic, monitoring data packets, throttling off undesired traffic, etc., is Cisco Systems - the company that provides the routers, etc., that handle most of the traffic on the Internet. They understand that, with the need to provide access to other companies out of the way, the broadband providers can now charge far more for their services, and they want to make more money from it as well. You can read the papers themselves from this site as well as other articles discussing what is going on in this field. Even large companies like Amazonare discussing this threat, yet people here are talking about tin foil hats?

As for cable/dsl companies cutting off undesired traffic, check out some articles about Rogers cable service in Canada. They have cut off access to Usenet because of supposed child pornography concerns, throttled bittorrent traffic, and are raising prices. Think cable companies here in the US won't do much the same as soon as they lobby the Congress and FTC for explicit laws and regs on the matter?


I do have a question to the members of this board. How many of you live in communities that you are sure would not pass local ordinances requiring that access to adult traffic through the cable lines be removed by the cable company in order to provide that town with service - just as one example? A lot of communities only have one cable company and one company that provides local phone service. Even if you live in a place that won't pass such an ordinance - how many customers do you think you might lose if they cut off/throttle traffic? Yes, satellite/wireless providers are a possibility, if they escape regulation, and things always change - but this could still be a very serious hit, in a lot of ways.

dont matter, would be a bad move

The FCC was the agency that removed regulation from the cable companies, and this was upheld by the US Supreme Court 6-3. The FCC then deregulated the DSL companies in response to the Court's ruling. As the FTC is just as pro big business as the FCC, and the Supreme Court has said the lines are theirs and they can exclude competitors, the likelihood of FTC action is minimal, especially if there is not serious evidence of damage to consumers from lack of competition. If Microsoft is not running afoul of the FTC, 8 or so cable/phone companies splittting the Internet market is not likely to offend their views on competition.

Do you have a cell phone? You likely pay for incoming and outgoing calls, pay a set amount for a number of minutes that, if you exceed them, you get penalized by a higher rate, and, if you want to access premium services, such as the Internet, you pay an extra cost as well as possible pay by minute charges. How, exactly, does this differ from what the cable and dsl companies, along with Cisco, want to do?

Just don't see it happening. But then again the US is pretty jacked up these days. I guess anything is possible.

The one year restriction on the phone companies having to share DSL lines with others expires in August. There are other possibilities - satellites, using power lines to transmit broadband, etc., that ISP companies like Earthlink are looking into. But once the companies are free to do as they wish, lets see what happens. And nothing says that the same type of rulings may inhibit the use of other access mediums.

Yeah...
Some did get busted and penalised.

ENRON Execs in prison and indictment.
Lots of stuff people didnt really hear much about.

I appreciate your posting on this. But I'm sure the new judges on the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the people and against the telcos.

That is a possibility, as Justice Scalia was the main dissenter in the Brand X case. But this would require overturning a 6-3 decision that only came down in 2005; not impossible, but yes, if both Roberts and Alito follow Scalia's reasoning, then a return to regulation could happen. Brand X actually involved cable modem access; the FCC imposed the rules deregulating the DSL providers after that ruling. Personally, I think deregulation would be a nightmare for the consumers and for webmasters and small companies; thats why I wanted to make people here aware of this.

Internet is free ?
I have a fat invoice to pay every month ??? So why ?

People of the world! Let us unite, fight for our internet rights and vehemently resist every internet exploitation.