×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Look Forward To Per-Service, Per-Page Fees

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the wireless-exemption dept.

The Internet 400

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Wired: "[Two] companies, Allot Communications and Openet — suppliers to large wireless companies including AT&T and Verizon — showed off a new product in a web seminar Tuesday, which included a PowerPoint presentation (1.5-MB .pdf) that was sent to Wired by a trusted source. The idea? Make it possible for your wireless provider to monitor everything you do online and charge you extra for using Facebook, Skype or Netflix. For instance, in the seventh slide of the above PowerPoint, a Vodafone user would be charged two cents per MB for using Facebook, three euros a month to use Skype and $0.50 monthly for a speed-limited version of YouTube."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

400 comments

scary for net neutrality (4, Insightful)

alain94040 (785132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600054)

One wireless carrier alone like Verizon couldn't implement such a net-killing feature: their customers would abandon them cold. And if all the US carriers adopted that together, that would be the best case to start an antitrust investigation and shake the wireless landscape once and for all.

That being said, you got to look a slide #6: it's one of the best expression of greed I have ever seen.

--
Foundrs.com: have you signed up your co-founders yet? [foundrs.com]

Re:scary for net neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34600146)

It's the US they'll just lobby until it happens. And when Verizon does it, every other company will follow suit, not because of the legal implications, but because of the profits.

In the EU on the other hand, it will never happen, oh, they'll lobby, and scream and cry for it, but they wont get away with that kind of shit here.

Re:scary for net neutrality (2, Insightful)

redemtionboy (890616) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600266)

Your entire argument falls apart when one company simply decides not to join in with the ridiculous and cumbersome practices and instead offer superior service. If profit is motivation, then surely one company would realize that "hey, if everyone else is being a dick, I can make a ton of profit by not being a dick and simply getting all the frustrated customers." The legion of doom argument that supposes all corporations sit and plot the downfall of the working class together always seems to amaze me, because it goes against the very fundamentals of capitalism. It's no different than game theory. Everyone talks about it on paper, but no one uses it in reality, because EVERYONE has to use and play along, or it doesn't freaking work.

Re:scary for net neutrality (5, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600332)

Your entire argument falls apart when one company simply decides not to join in with the ridiculous and cumbersome practices and instead offer superior service.

Then why did all four major U.S. cell phone carriers raise their SMS rates at the same time?

Re:scary for net neutrality (2)

redemtionboy (890616) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600542)

This is simply really a great marketing ploy to get people into texting plans. All major carriers offer them and they're far cheaper than the pure pay per text model. If they didn't offer texting plans, this wouldn't work. Instead making the pay per text inconvenient, you get people into the text plans which guarantees their income and grows texting as people use it more frivolously, resulting in a wider spread of texting overall. In contrast, if carriers made texting purely inconvenient and pricey, you'd get less usage, resulting in less texting overall. This works in the same way people like to have the government tax things to discourage usage, like taxing oil and giving breaks to solar

Re:scary for net neutrality (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600346)

No, because if one company did that the others would soon follow suit resulting in increased competition and lower profits all round..
Sure, that's how a free market is *supposed* to work, but more likely the operators would simply collude so they each have their share of of a market with fatter margins.

Re:scary for net neutrality (1)

redemtionboy (890616) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600466)

So Sprint growing huge strides by offering great service and cheap plans isn't evidence that I'm right? AT&T is being a fat cow at the top and losing customers and smaller companies like sprint, US Cellular, and Virgin mobile are growing because of it. You can only maximize profits to the point that it doesn't piss off your consumers. As long as there are options, capitalism works.

Re:scary for net neutrality (5, Informative)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600348)

Remember when the argument against deep packet inspection was that it would inject gruesome latency, and be thwarted by privacy concerns? It shows that if you wait long enough, and remain persistent, that you can do fiendish things when people are either worn down, or not looking.

The grain of the carriers is to charge you for everything, just like it's the mantra of every hotel-- at least in the US. Is it a plot? No-- while you cite that going against the grain is a way to make money, the most efficient distribution mechanism will be rewarded, viz Walmart and Dell. The way you will pay will be by the packet, it just takes a wave of carriers to agree to go this route (pardon the pun). This is why net neutrality from end point to end point, is so critically important. Cranked-up MBAs will try to find a way to do it, make no mistake. Unless we fight it at all edges, we're going to be buying Internet by the expensive, pseudo-market-based gallon, not by the pipe size.

You forget two things (2)

aepervius (535155) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600538)

1) in some area only *ONE* corporation offers a service. So yeah. Once they decide to fuck you in the ass, better get K gel or completely abandon the service offered, or move away 2) once the 2 or 3 megacorp decide that, yes they want a part of the cake, and if they ALL do it , then none of them will have a disadvantage, then pffft. Sure , under the table agreement are forbidden, but the fine for them are ridiculously small comapred to potential benefit.

Your view of capitalism free market is a near fantasy one.

Re:scary for net neutrality (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600192)

blame DPI.

its everywhere and it gives power to greedy bastards that never deserved to wield such power.

with DPI in ever router and switch (its getting to that point, in the enterprise and certainly backbones) there's no end of how ABUSIVE carriers and network ops can be, now.

I have not heard a more compelling argument FOR net neutrality than the mere existence and aggressive use of DPI.

because they 'can' and because we know what human nature is, we should stop this before it gets any worse.

then again, with republicans fucking things up, I'm not so sure we can fix this one before its too late.

the real question is: what year will be marked as the end of the free internet? this year or the next? I feel it will be one of those.

Deep packet inspection is not the problem (3, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600226)

with DPI in ever router and switch

As Anonymous Coward pointed out [slashdot.org], you don't need deep packet inspection to see whether one of your customers is connecting to an IPv4 address in a block that appears to belong to Facebook or to YouTube, a Google company.

Re:Deep packet inspection is not the problem (1)

Burz (138833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600504)

But they can't tell if you're connected to them through an anonymizing proxy. And with some proxies, the watcher can't even tell you're using an anonymizer.

Re:scary for net neutrality (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600412)

blame DPI.

May as well blame it on the bossa nova for all the good it will do you. DPI is no worse than a borescope, it just depends where you're using it..

Re:scary for net neutrality (2)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600344)

Why would their customers abandon them? This won't be marketed as "We charge you more depending on what you do", it will be marketed as "and now, your favourite sites cost less per minute!"

Re:scary for net neutrality (1)

Graff (532189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600478)

Queue the conspiracy theorists.

You know, stuff like this CAN be used in a way that consumers might like. Maybe you you'll be able to sign up with a plan that gives you free internet but you're charged a usage fee on certain popular sites. That'd be great for someone who doesn't use those sites enough to justify paying a monthly fee.

I see this going one of several ways:

  • provides customers more choice, everyone wins including the provider (more customers)
  • one provider tries this in an "evil" way, loses customers and backpedals
  • a bunch of providers try this in an "evil" way, they don't lose customers because there's no where else to go, customers scream to their lawmakers and the government steps in

Overall I think it will all go the way of the first option. There may be some wailing and gnashing of teeth before that but eventually the companies will only win if they keep the customers happy.

Re:scary for net neutrality (1)

camperslo (704715) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600506)

One wireless carrier alone like Verizon couldn't implement such a net-killing feature: their customers would abandon them cold.

One would think so, but I never expected people would actually pay for ring tones or watch reality tv. It seems if one isn't boycotting slime you're helping it grow.

The greed is sickening. Or is this the Verizon way of dealing with more traffic on getting the iPhone?

As poor as the pricing/bandwidth ratio is for much U.S. home net access, many mobile plans still give people lower caps for a month than many home users eat in a day. If not using WiFi, some of the new owners of these mobile devices will be in for a serious shock if they try to use them heavily.

We also gave some of these providers subsidies to build out their networks. What did we get in return?

Inevitable (4, Funny)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600058)

I think we all understand that bits from some sites clog up more of the tubes than bits from other sites. I know netflix bits are much heavier than fluffy fark bits.

We all new the free ride couldn't go on for ever, shoving our super dense bittorrent bits down the pipes to the detriment of all the innocent cnn.com users and their non-obstructive bits.

Finally my telco can start making real money, like they deserve after all these years of selflessly giving away bandwidth.

Re:Inevitable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34600518)

I think we all understand that bits from some sites clog up more of the tubes than bits from other sites. I know netflix bits are much heavier than fluffy fark bits.

We all new the free ride couldn't go on for ever, shoving our super dense bittorrent bits down the pipes to the detriment of all the innocent cnn.com users and their non-obstructive bits.

Finally my telco can start making real money, like they deserve after all these years of selflessly giving away bandwidth.

You obviously have never worked in an admin position for an isp. Also here's something else for you to consider. We here in America are WAY behind a good majority of the rest of the world in broadband speed because of corporate GREED. If you don't believe me - google it and or ask some admins that have worked for an isp. Remember the comcast speeds that was discussed on /. recently? just the tip of the Iceberg. grr

Re:Inevitable (1)

Garble Snarky (715674) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600532)

Obviously there is no issue of "bit density" as you describe it, but what are the telcos supposed to do as traffic increases significantly? Does it really make more sense to increase service charges uniformly for everybody? If you can clearly identify the 1% of users that create 20% of the traffic, then isn't it best for everybody to charge those users appropriately?

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of these companies, and I absolutely dread the day that practices like this start to go into effect. But I have trouble seeing alternatives.

Yeah, but it's a free country... (5, Insightful)

nysus (162232) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600074)

...where corporations are free to fuck you in the ass.

corporations dont fuck you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34600144)

the people that work there do

society would do well to remember that
there is no such thing as "just business" or "its nothing personal"
corporations only consist of people and those people have names and addresses

Re:Yeah, but it's a free country... (4, Funny)

Zumbs (1241138) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600182)

No, no, you don't get it: Corporations are free to fuck you in the ass, but you are also free to disconnect from the internet and go live in a cave somewhere ... if someone will rent you a cave, and that someone will accept cash payment and snailmail correspondence. And you can get your employer or bank to accept cash payments as well.

Re:Yeah, but it's a free country... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34600340)

No no no!

You misunderstand libertarian thought entirely.

You are free to disconnect from the internet and build your own internet. This is obviously fair, and your freedom to do this will clearly keep folks who want to gouge you from doing so.

They have a dream.... (2)

dogsbreath (730413) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600216)

Of the days that were good, of long ago, a fabled past, when...

- you needed a business line to install a modem
- data charges were on top of phone charges and it was per KB each way
- you could make real money on long distance phone calls
- a number belonged to the company, not the customer

Ahhhh! Don't all of you YEARN for the past? Of course you do!

You just don't know it yet.

Re:They have a dream.... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600290)

Party lines.
No third party equipment on the line.
Rotary dial.
A telephone heavy enough to use as a weapon.
300 baud.
err, 75 baud, it's raining.
CompuServe
AOL

It's so warm and fuzzy here in the past, I think I'll stay here.
Tuna.
Taiwan.
Richard Nixon
The Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders.

Re:They have a dream.... (1)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600300)

Ahhhh! Don't all of you YEARN for the past? Of course you do!

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And if you go back far enough, dinosaurs walked the earth and human beings hadn't even evolved yet.

It's always possible to cherry pick a point in time where things were worse than they are now. That doesn't imply that every change going forward is necessarily for the better.

Re:Yeah, but it's a free country... (1)

crisper (12620) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600500)

or charge you and try to make a profit for a service that isn't free. I bet you get paid for what you do right?

Encryption, end-to-end, now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34600082)

https://slashdot.org STILL redirects to http://slashdot.org. The geeks need to move the network forward. The business types are tugging the other way.

Re:Encryption, end-to-end, now (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34600116)

How would that prevent this sort of pricing scheme? ISPs would still know that you're accessing slashdot, and price accordingly.

Re:Encryption, end-to-end, now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34600234)

The advertised technology is a form of DPI (deep packet inspection). HTTPS would make these shenanigans significantly harder, because with HTTPS the data stream itself no longer contains the resource name in plain-text form.

HTTPS is a /. subscriber feature (5, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600184)

https://slashdot.org STILL redirects to http://slashdot.org./ [slashdot.org.]

This has an easy fix. Create an account, activate it, log in, and subscribe to Slashdot, and it won't redirect you back to an unencrypted connection anymore.

Re:HTTPS is a /. subscriber feature (1)

Graff (532189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600392)

This has an easy fix. Create an account, activate it, log in, and subscribe to Slashdot, and it won't redirect you back to an unencrypted connection anymore.

Nope, I'm logged in and it still redirects back to an unencrypted connection.

Re:HTTPS is a /. subscriber feature (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600498)

I'm logged in and it still redirects back to an unencrypted connection.

Then fix it [slashdot.org].

Everyone should demand full encryption at minimum (1)

Burz (138833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600464)

...for all sites, for reasons that are obvious in this discussion. Using anonymizing networks would be even better for some applications.

A pox on both their houses!!! (0)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600092)

An include the boneheads who think the U.N. should regulate the Internet too. Everything the U.N. does gets totally borked.

Re:A pox on both their houses!!! (1, Flamebait)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600254)

Wrong! The UN, as an unelected body, can make dispassionate decisions without being subject to the whim of the uneducated masses. Imagine if the entire US Congress was replaced overnight with smart people who didn't listen to faux news sources and who weren't beholden to peasants and farmers from Hicksville, Flyover Territory, USA. It would be a new era of smart government by smart people who know what the right thing to do and who aren't afraid of consequences. I mean, come on! Today, a backhoe operator's opinion matters just as much as a university professor! Good government is better than self-government.

Re:A pox on both their houses!!! (1)

JWW (79176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600454)

Screw that!!! The Boshevicks thought threy were "smart" leaders, and I'd venture to say they created the worst government the world has ever seen.

Even smart people handed unlimited power would end up severely corrupted over time.

You're a fool to even think that your idea has a chance of working, it doesn't.

T-Mobile already does. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34600108)

Some websites are "content restricted" if you go through their wireless VS the same pages on 802.11.

Re:T-Mobile already does. (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600148)

This page [t-mobile.com] claims that the "content restricted" is due to an optional censorware service that you have turned on.

Re:T-Mobile already does. (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600164)

You have any examples? I'm on t-mobile and I've never run across this. It wouldn't surprise me and I'm not saying you are wrong, would just like to test it out myself.

Money talks (4, Interesting)

Manfre (631065) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600160)

If my cell provider implements this, I'll switch carriers. If they all try this, then I'll just drop to a pay as you go phone without internet access. Checking my email and surfing the web for those rare moments when I'm not near a desktop or laptop are a luxury I can do without. I can think of many other better uses for the ~$150/mo I'm paying now for multiple lines.

Passenger with laptop (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600174)

Checking my email and surfing the web for those rare moments when I'm not near a desktop or laptop are a luxury I can do without.

What about checking your e-mail or surfing the web when you have a laptop but are riding in a vehicle?

Re:Passenger with laptop (2)

rhavenn (97211) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600210)

Read a book. It can wait, barring business emergencies and your workplace should be paying for it if you're in the car.

Following citations (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600242)

Read a book.

Then how do I check the works that the book cites?

Re:Following citations (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600320)

Make a list, check it twice, then go home and see who's naughty and nice.

I realize it's a shock to many in the slashdot community, but really, there are these things called "Notebooks"-- No, they do not contain ANY technology whatsoever! They are a bound tablet of lined paper, ready for you to store data on, using an old fashioned ball point pen, or graphite pencil! You can even use encryption if you want!

What you do, is write down the list of sources in your book, write down the page numbers in your book that cite those sources, and continue reading. When you get home to your landline internet, THEN you check the sources, and re-read the content.

[Oh noez! You had to WAIT to check the sources! It's the end of the world!]

Re:Following citations (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600468)

write down the list of sources in your book, write down the page numbers in your book that cite those sources, and continue reading. When you get home to your landline internet, THEN you check the sources, and re-read the content.

A lot of people pay for mobile Internet access because they don't have time to copy fully one-tenth of a book to lined paper and then start reading the book all over again when they get back to the Internet. One might as well wait to read the book in the first place until back at home, when one will actually understand what one reads after having familiarized oneself with the cited material.

Re:Following citations (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600382)

By waiting until you are near a computer with Internet access? Is it absolutely necessary to check citations the very moment you see them?

Re:Following citations (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600482)

By waiting until you are near a computer with Internet access?

Then why not wait until one is near a computer with Internet access to start reading the book in the first place?

Is it absolutely necessary to check citations the very moment you see them?

In order to understand the passage containing the citation, yes it is often necessary.

Re:Following citations (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600508)

Then why not wait until one is near a computer with Internet access to start reading the book in the first place?

Because one is traveling and wants to have something to read while traveling?

In order to understand the passage containing the citation, yes it is often necessary.

I do not find this to be the case at all. Frankly, I have wonder, how do you think people managed before there was an Internet, citations could not be instantly located?

Re:Money talks (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600178)

Switch now. We were paying $220 for two lines and no internet. Now we pay $50, and it's only $5 for each additional line.

Re:Money talks (1)

UncleBex (176073) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600188)

Might be easier to just route everything through a VPN instead of jumping carriers... of course that assumes that VPNs aren't blocked by your carrier for this very reason. I'm sure they could come up with a justification for VPN being a "business class" service which requires a hefty additional fee of some sort. You know, just in case it means that they are missing out on double billing you for bits they cannot see/classify/bill you for.

Re:Money talks (1)

patro (104336) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600228)

What if ISPs will do the same thing?

Re:Money talks (2)

kimvette (919543) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600312)

Then communities should build their own local ISPs and revoke the monopolies they granted, and if the telephone company, cable company, etc. complains about using their rights of way, use eminent domain since this is a rare case where eminent domain would actually be for the public good.

Lawsuits to stop municipal Internet (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600374)

Then communities should build their own local ISPs and revoke the monopolies they granted

The incumbent ISPs have sued to stop communities' efforts to provide Internet service and have succeeded in getting the courts to shut down many of these efforts with a preliminary injunction.

Who has more rights? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34600172)

Maybe it's time as well for general people to start charging companies for the time they spend watching/hearing their services and advertisements they don't need or want.

Lets see if a human person still has more rights than a company/enterprise/corporation/economic group/etc. They entrench themselves behind paywalls, then by all rights so should we!

3 €/$ a month just for me allowing *insert company here* being eligible to show advertisements/information regarding their services/products to me, with 50cents peer advertisement shown peer page in any output device, digital, analogic, biological or any platform used to carry the information/data.

Re:Who has more rights? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34600328)

I guess this is intended as a joke, otherwise I'll come walking by your house some day and charge 3$/minute for having to look at your hedge.

The bright side.... (2)

Fantasio (800086) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600200)

That's the best way to push full encryption for all internet communications, something that all governments want to avoid at all cost.

Disneyland Analogy (4, Insightful)

webdog314 (960286) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600206)

There was a time, not so long ago, when a good business strategy was to make you product as appealing as possible so that everyone would want to buy it. That's exactly the opposite of today. Today, the business models for the major carriers all focus on just how much they can screw us for before we yelp. They are literally destroying their own market. The reason the internet has been so successful is that once you have paid for access, where you go has been mostly free. This is like Disneyland going back to a ticket system. The only real question is, who will be the "E" ticket rides...

Re:Disneyland Analogy (3, Interesting)

ffejie (779512) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600306)

The internet might be free to you and me after a flat monthly charge, but it hasn't been free for a long time. There are billions of dollars flowing into online advertising that are supporting nearly every site you go on. Aside from Wikipedia and state run sites (think *.gov) I can't name a site that I go to that doesn't have ads or a monthly subscription. Can you?

If all the ads are Flash and I'm not using Flash (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600418)

The internet might be free to you and me after a flat monthly charge, but it hasn't been free for a long time. There are billions of dollars flowing into online advertising that are supporting nearly every site you go on. Aside from Wikipedia and state run sites (think *.gov) I can't name a site that I go to that doesn't have ads or a monthly subscription. Can you?

Slashdot. Once you create an account and regularly post comments that get modded up, you'll eventually get a checkbox on the front page to disable advertisements. And I've seen a lot of sites all of whose advertisements are SWF, and all I see are boxes with a button to click to start Flash Player. Can't they at least detect that I'm not using Flash Player and put up text ads or still image ads or something?

Re:Disneyland Analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34600398)

Because starting a carrier is easy. Oh and also Comcast is an awesome company that doesn't pay people to have monopolies in cities. And there is no political corruption. And my name is anonymous.

The days of the Nation State are ending... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34600246)

Welcome to the dawn of the Corporation State.

Re:The days of the Nation State are ending... (0)

nysus (162232) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600278)

But the Republicans told me it was the unions to watch out for. They are about to take over the government from what I understand!

Re:The days of the Nation State are ending... (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600370)

Hey you two. It turns out that both corporations and labor unions are capable of shameless rent-seeking, and both Republicans and Democrats are capable of abandoning half-decent principles to let them have their way. So try to keep your parties in line, wouldya? Especially the Republicans; I kinda like them when they're not trying to protect monopolies with free-market rhetoric and the like.

Google (1)

dammy (131759) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600262)

If this plan was actually rolled out, I can see Google entering into the wireless market as a provider. It would be in there own self interest to provide such data services.

Populist Revolt (2, Insightful)

ffejie (779512) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600276)

I never understood the side of the Net Neutrality argument that most commenters are taking here. Why shouldn't a company that has built out infrastructure (in some cases taking enormous risk) be free to charge what they want to access that infrastructure? I understand that your current contract may allow unlimited use of the internet, but the economics are changing and service providers should be encouraged to think up new business models, or there is no reward for them to ever upgrade their networks.

A small side comment: I remember a few years ago when people were livid that AT&T would consider going to a metered plan on their mobile data access plans. You know what? It worked. The plans they offered were competitive and people used what they bought. The price point for basic data access was lowered, more people got online with their mobile devices and AT&T got more revenue out of it.

Re:Populist Revolt (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34600358)

Why shouldn't a company that has built out infrastructure (in some cases taking enormous risk) be free to charge what they want to access that infrastructure?

Because in many/most cases, the company did *not* take any risk whatsoever - or if there was risk, it was still highly mitigated at the taxpayers' expense.

Cluetrain for you... (5, Informative)

Burz (138833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600396)

Its one thing to charge per MB, quite another to be a company like AT&T and add surcharges specifically for using Skype or other competing services like video downloads.

I wonder what kind of reaction they'd get if they proposed a surcharge for using the iTunes store.

Re:Populist Revolt (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600406)

I'm sorry, but how have the economics changed? Have cell providers suddenly become less profitable, and desperately in need of new sources of revenue? They are just greedy. Why shouldn't the people look out for their own interests, and use their democracy to ensure they get the best service possible, with the least restrictions?

Re:Populist Revolt (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34600476)

Because to libertarians/lasseiz faire types, the free market can only be said to be "free" when ALL the benefits of that freedom fall into the hands of corporations and not actual human beings. When the laws start to reflect a preference for individuals over corporations, libertarians call that socialism.

FUCK LIBERTARIANS
FUCK AYN RAND
FUCK ALAN GREENSPAN
FUCK THE BANKS

Re:Populist Revolt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34600416)

The answer is monopoly. Monopoly has never being good for economy or for the society.

Re:Populist Revolt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34600424)

Because its an abuse of an undeserved monopoly. Infact, the company hasn't really built the infrastructure out of their pocket. its been out of ours. The government paid BILLIONS to companies to implement last mile fibre, and look where we are. Government has spent billions on all aspects of our current telecom systems, and the companies have been slow to implement. Where does all that money come from. You, and Me. Thats why we're upset. But also because they've offered a service for so long and now they want to backtrack and start restricting our use of a service we're already paying for. They should have had the foresight to complain about bandwidth at the beginning.

Bandwidth also isn't limited over a period of time, it is limited at the moment, like a highway. You're not restricted to 250 highway miles/month, youre restrict to 250 cars / quarter mile.

Side comment response, where is that metered plan now? Is it still around? I know there is capped plans, but is that metered?

Re:Populist Revolt (1)

chaboud (231590) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600426)

You forget that we granted them easements to *our* land, granted license to *our* frequency ranges, and gave them significant and material subsidies for roll-out. The idea that we should be thankful for what the private sector has given *us* is absolutely preposterous.

Being able to subversively nickel and dime the public monopolistically is a serious problem. Doing it oligopalistically (remember SMS rate hikes in lock step?) leaves us with no recourse but neutrality legislation (hard for people to understand and lambasted by corrupt politicians) and anti-trust litigation (very slow to respond). We've already seen that, left free to roam, ISPs will abuse the public trust and severely damage the openness of the internet (comcast, for example).

Our dough (DARPA) made the friggin internet. Don't let AT&T et al fool you into believing that they had any great skin in the game in either forming or promulgating the internet. They took a gravy train cut that profits *heavily* on *OUR* internet.

Re:Populist Revolt (1)

Palmsie (1550787) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600442)

Whats the problem with non-Net Neutrality? Think about this example... You pay Comcast a monthly fee to have internet access. Say, for example, Comcast wanted to invest a lot into the movie rental business (moreso than they do now with their shitty watch instantly now). Without net neutrality, Comcast has the right to throttle or block any competing websites like Netflix, Hulu, or any other legit website that might compete with their new business plan. In many rural areas, they don't have the option to switch providers, they only have one broadband provider and they're lucky to have that. So what do they do? Nothing. Net Neutrality is a modern day civil liberty: freedom of information. Information and information access is just as important as the right to assemble or speak openly, and should be protected as such. Right now, companies are working very hard to dismember this privileged that we've taken for granted and I give some huge kudos to the FCC for standing up to these greedy giants.

Re:Populist Revolt (1)

chaboud (231590) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600456)

Oh, and a side note to your side note. Don't, for one stinking second, conflate data rate caps with service-based packet tolling.

One is content agnostic (read: fair, even if unfairly priced) and the other is essentially abusive from the outset.

Unless you're trolling from an AT&T desk, I think you're missing the point.

Re:Populist Revolt (1)

zero0ne (1309517) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600462)

Funny, because Sprint has a unlimited data plan for their phones now, and it is simply amazing. I switched ONLY because of the various snapshots of sprint bills that other customers have posted. Some were showing upwards of 100GB used in a single billing cycle, all for only 69.99 a month (or 79.99 a month if you have a newer evo class phone) Sprint + rooted android phone gets you unlimited data on your PC too, since you now can setup a hotspot free of charge

How many others do you think have switched to Sprint? How many small businesses do you think are ready to make the dive? 5GB monthly allotment or unlimited allotment, tough choice.

 

Re:Populist Revolt (1)

toriver (11308) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600480)

Because the service they provide is access and bandwidth. It should not matter to the operator what "higher-level" services, like Facebook, that the subscriber uses that data bandwidth for. Subscribers pay $x for y GB of data, period. If the provider starts charging extra fees depending on what third party services you access, they are moving into becoming a leech on the services that are the real reason they have customers.

This tech enables something like if you have a toll road, but drivers pay a different toll depending on whether they are driving to a mall or driving to the beach. It does not matter to the people who are financing the road, just like where you surf should not matter to the operator.

Re:Populist Revolt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34600528)

There are many reasons to support Net Neutrality instead of leaving companies "free to charge what they want". What immediately comes to my mind is that said companies are mostly monopolies, or at best duopolies, that are allowed by the government to operate free of competition specifically for the public good. Also, many telcos have for years been allowed to charge their customers extra fees, specifically to cover the cost of building out their infrastructure.

Re:Populist Revolt (1)

Glarimore (1795666) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600534)

I never understood the side of the Net Neutrality argument that most commenters are taking here. Why shouldn't a company that has built out infrastructure (in some cases taking enormous risk) be free to charge what they want to access that infrastructure?

That infrastructure is built on public land and the cost of construction is subsidized by the government. You tell me why I shouldn't have a say over it.

Re:Populist Revolt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34600550)

Because in this era, internet access is more like a utility. Everyone needs it. And the telcos shouldn't be able to tell us which sites we can/cannot access. I'm fine with them charging us for the bandwidth we use, but not with inspecting my browsing and making a decision for me.

Plans (0)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600302)

Schemers. That's all they are. People with plans. They think too much. All their little dominoes lined up in a row, and it just takes one person to upset them.

Billing for random internet services is ridiculous. What about Blockbuster? What about Hulu? Don't bill the customer directly -- bill the service then let them figure out what to bill the customer. I have this sneaking suspicion that dropping the $150 TV/Internet bill in favor of just Internet for $60 isn't going to save me any money soon. $60 for internet. $10 for Netflix. $10 for Hulu Plus. $10 for Fox Insider.

Just kidding about that last one. I can get dog crap for free any time I like -- just leash up my dog and walk around the block.

Re:Plans (1)

toriver (11308) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600520)

Well, there is a solution to that.

- "Hi, we recently implemented service-based fees, but as far as we can see you never use those metered services but always just connect via VPN to some server..."

- "Yes, how strange that is."

Stupidity (1)

symes (835608) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600360)

They'll just drive people away from the net. It would be like opening a shop and charging people to walk down the street it's in. People will just start going elsewhere for their recreation and maybe even back to real world shops.

Unlikely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34600364)

I could see this taking off for Apple customers, but for most people it won't be at all acceptable - if there is a choice they will simply switch to another ISP. This supposes that there is a choice of course...?

Shaking in my boots... (1, Insightful)

bradbury (33372) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600380)

OMG, I'm scared to death that they are going to start charging me for this stuff. But, but, but, wait a minute, I only look at my Facebook page once every couple of weeks, certainly don't use it as a twitter substitute (which I also don't use). I only rarely look at a YouTube Video and am unlikely to download NetFlix videos over the net until they support Linux. And then there is the fact that I've only got a Net10/LG NTLG300GB cell phone without one of those fancy displays that is on an expired usage contract [1].

So as far as I can tell, the only "newsworthy" aspect of this is that the evil phone companies are attempting to tax (cough extort) money from those wealthy enough to own (or have a contract) that supports a "fancy phone" habit and/or those who have nothing better to do than waste time updating their Facebook pages or watching NetFlix on their phone [2].

God, I hope that some liberal congressperson gets wind of this and arm twists the FCC to stop this evil corporate activity which would apparently discriminate against those in the 10-20 y.o age group.

My net. This appears to be a "lottery"-like tax on those who don't have better things to do with their time/money. YMMV.

1. Means I have to go down to Walmart or BestBuy and buy some minutes to reactivate it.
2. Because surveys have found that most "engineers" (aka those who have better things to do with the time like actually build something) view Facebook as a complete waste of time and the only Netflix videos they are interested in watching would be the new update to Tron to see if it lives up all the money being spent advertising it.

Re:Shaking in my boots... (1)

molnarcs (675885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600514)

That's the bitterest post I've read in months! Cool..

OMG, I'm scared to death that they are going to start charging me for this stuff. But, but, but, wait a minute, I only look at my Facebook page once every couple of weeks, certainly don't use it as a twitter substitute (which I also don't use). I only rarely look at a YouTube Video and am unlikely to download NetFlix videos over the net until they support Linux. And then there is the fact that I've only got a Net10/LG NTLG300GB cell phone without one of those fancy displays that is on an expired usage contract [1].

So as far as I can tell, the only "newsworthy" aspect of this is that the evil phone companies are attempting to tax (cough extort) money from those wealthy enough to own (or have a contract) that supports a "fancy phone" habit and/or those who have nothing better to do than waste time updating their Facebook pages or watching NetFlix on their phone [2].

God, I hope that some liberal congressperson gets wind of this and arm twists the FCC to stop this evil corporate activity which would apparently discriminate against those in the 10-20 y.o age group.

My net. This appears to be a "lottery"-like tax on those who don't have better things to do with their time/money. YMMV.

1. Means I have to go down to Walmart or BestBuy and buy some minutes to reactivate it. 2. Because surveys have found that most "engineers" (aka those who have better things to do with the time like actually build something) view Facebook as a complete waste of time and the only Netflix videos they are interested in watching would be the new update to Tron to see if it lives up all the money being spent advertising it.

the possible solution is very easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34600420)

There might be sites that allow you to redirect data
from all other sites through their domain.

    I suppose all criminals, spies, porno users etc. already do this.

Market forces would kill this (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34600434)

I'm in favor of net neutrality regulation, but it isn't needed to stop something like this.

[quote]
For instance, in the seventh slide of the above PowerPoint, a Vodafone user would be charged two cents per MB for using Facebook,
[/quote]

1. Vodafone starts charging per MB for Facebook use.
2. Facebook shuts off all access to Vodafone users.
3. Vodafone backs down very, very quickly.

The Sky is Falling (1)

giltwist (1313107) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600436)

And that is how the TOR for Android app was born. Seriously, I'm not worried about this at all. For every attempt to monetize tracking, an obfuscation method will be developed to negate the tracking. Unlike, say, developing for Ubuntu, there is a significant financial incentive for people to code simple workarounds. I mean, how fast did the Google TV for streaming video services workaround happen?

Three Laws of Robotics (1)

Cytlid (95255) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600440)

If this comes true, just like the three laws of robotics, this can only come to one conclusion. All the best technology will reside outside of the United States. Move and prosper.

Totally missed it (2)

mattr (78516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600452)

These guys are stark raving lunatics and they're not too smart either.

They or their customers have a billing relationship with just about everyone.

About that greedy slide 6. It also could be read as showing that they are not part of the economy engendered by their lines. Of course phone companies didn't used to make a margin on contracts that were discussed over their phone lines, or products that were purchased over their phone lines.

But they are in a position to make it easier for people to buy things online without requiring a credit card. In other words, enabling impulse buys to the long tail (maybe it's a short tail but still huge). By adding purchases to the end of your monthly bill they can become part of the economy engendered by the Internet and they should make the lines free to enable more use not less.

There's no reason why a shifty company like PayPal should mop up the street, shifty companies like these guys whose addresses we can find out are also welcome to join the game. Just imagine the windfall they could make if they ask people to "charge up" their account like Skype. They could make millions a day easily, who needs VISA?

Instead? Monetizing YouTube by traffic sniffing. Feh! Amateurs.

Limits to free speech, assembly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34600516)

So now we will be paying to voice an opinion over the net. Assuming it won't get censored, of course.

Support your local darknet.

Help build community infrastructure that's independent of the corporate horde.

Works in reverse (2)

Thad Zurich (1376269) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600546)

This concept can be turned inside-out to provide "Per-Service, Per-Page" discounts to what would otherwise be hefty fees. So the carrier can jack up the base rate and discount specific sites.

I can't understand this (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34600558)

Is being mobile SO valuable that I would want to watch a movie on a postcard sized screen? And pay a ridiculous amount for the privilege? People, there are really big TVs now. I'm already paying for internet service at home. Why do I want to pay for it again for my phone? So I can look up things on Google for perfect strangers and show what a nifty phone I have. Sorry, no sale here.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...