Tiran2006-07-31 20:20:51
QUOTE(Verithrax @ Jul 30 2006, 09:14 AM) 312870
Considering we don't charge by bandwidth use or time spent, that model doesn't work for the Iinternet. And I'd rather pay a flat fee than pay per bandwidth.
The whole flat fee thing is a very North American way of doing things I've noticed, not that I'll complain about it. Go to Europe where you're paying per-minute charges on a land-line, and you appreciate the flat rates much more, unless you don't call almost no one.
And while we don't pay for the amount of information sent/received in general (there actually are limits on this for most contracts, but they're so ohigh no one in their right mind should hit them), we go pay for the medium and max speed we can use. Like Branwyn said, the higher speed costs twice as much or so.
I'm not sure that it costs double to call the call center as opposed to another home. I pay for my link to the phone company, and the other side pays their link to the phone company. If my mom doesn't pay her phone bill, I can't call her either. So the only way the call-center is paying more is if they're getting special services anyways, like a toll-free number for example. (Kinda like how people pay for DNS addresses. We should all just memorize IP6 addresses, and then no one would have to pay for DNS. How's that for net neutrality)
Unknown2006-08-06 11:57:17
I just got this message sent to me from my Senator, if anyone is still interested on this topic:
QUOTE
Thank for contacting me regarding "net neutrality." I appreciate hearing from you and having the benefit of your views.
As Congress continues to debate telecommunications reform, a major point of discussion is whether action is needed to ensure unfettered access to the Internet. Some contend that more specific regulatory guidelines may be necessary to protect the marketplace from potential abuses which could threaten the net neutrality concept. Others suggest that existing laws and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) policies are sufficient to deal with potential anti-competitive behavior and that regulations would have a negative impact on the expansion and innovation of the Internet.
On June 8, 2006, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5252, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement (COPE) Act by a vote of 321-101. H.R. 5252 would give the FCC authority to enforce its broadband access policy adopted on August 5, 2005. This policy aims to preserve a user's ability to freely access the Internet.
After House passage, H.R. 5252 was referred to the Senate Commerce Committee. During committee debate, Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine offered an amendment that would have required broadband providers to operate their networks in a non-discriminatory manner. However, Senator Snowe's amendment was defeated by the Committee. On June 29, 2006, the Commerce Committee passed H.R. 5252 by a 15-7 vote. The bill now awaits action by the full Senate.
According to the Senate Commerce Committee, H.R. 5252 as passed by the Committee would codify an Internet Consumers Bill of Rights. This bill would ensure that all Internet service providers allow subscribers to access and post any lawful content, access any web page, and access and run any voice, video, or email application. The Committee also states that the bill would also allow subscribers access to run any software or search engine service.
Please be assured that I understand your concerns. Should H.R. 5252 come before the full Senate for consideration, I will be sure to keep your views in mind.
Thank you again for contacting me. If I can be of further assistance on this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to call on me again.
Sincerely,
Rick Santorum
United States Senate
As Congress continues to debate telecommunications reform, a major point of discussion is whether action is needed to ensure unfettered access to the Internet. Some contend that more specific regulatory guidelines may be necessary to protect the marketplace from potential abuses which could threaten the net neutrality concept. Others suggest that existing laws and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) policies are sufficient to deal with potential anti-competitive behavior and that regulations would have a negative impact on the expansion and innovation of the Internet.
On June 8, 2006, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5252, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement (COPE) Act by a vote of 321-101. H.R. 5252 would give the FCC authority to enforce its broadband access policy adopted on August 5, 2005. This policy aims to preserve a user's ability to freely access the Internet.
After House passage, H.R. 5252 was referred to the Senate Commerce Committee. During committee debate, Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine offered an amendment that would have required broadband providers to operate their networks in a non-discriminatory manner. However, Senator Snowe's amendment was defeated by the Committee. On June 29, 2006, the Commerce Committee passed H.R. 5252 by a 15-7 vote. The bill now awaits action by the full Senate.
According to the Senate Commerce Committee, H.R. 5252 as passed by the Committee would codify an Internet Consumers Bill of Rights. This bill would ensure that all Internet service providers allow subscribers to access and post any lawful content, access any web page, and access and run any voice, video, or email application. The Committee also states that the bill would also allow subscribers access to run any software or search engine service.
Please be assured that I understand your concerns. Should H.R. 5252 come before the full Senate for consideration, I will be sure to keep your views in mind.
Thank you again for contacting me. If I can be of further assistance on this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to call on me again.
Sincerely,
Rick Santorum
United States Senate
Unknown2007-09-07 11:36:33
I know this is restoring a rather old thread but there's an interesting article on news.com that talks about how the Net Neutrality movement has pretty much stalled.
http://news.com.com/8301-13578_3-9773538-38.html
http://news.com.com/8301-13578_3-9773538-38.html
