You ready to start paying per month for Youtube, Facebook, Skype, etc?

[Bateluer]

http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/19/wireless-carriers-openly-considering-charging-per-service/

Yeah, that's not how anyone actually wants the internet to work -- except carriers, who've been saying increasingly insane things about charging even smartphone manufacturers for customer data usage lately. What's more, it's rumored that the FCC will cave to Verizon and AT&T and exempt wireless internet service from major parts of net neutrality regulation it's expected to pass next week, so this nonsense could very well hit the US sooner rather than later. We'll be keeping a close eye on things -- we'll let you know.

Why bother to have a smart phone or cellular enabled tablet then?

 

[Pliablemoose]

What the hell?

I could have sworn I was already paying for internet service...

I guess I'll be joining up with anon soon...

 

[QueBert]

Only site I use they'd even consider charging for is Youtube. And I'd pay a few bucks a month for it if it ever got to that point.

 

[rudeguy]

do you ever get tired of posting this fear mongering crap?

What is your deal? Who or what are you so angry at or do you have a different motive?

 

[jersiq]

do you ever get tired of posting this fear mongering crap?

What is your deal? Who or what are you so angry at or do you have a different motive?

No kidding, right.

Even a quick glance at the article shows that it is from a sales pitch from a third party.
I am sure all the carriers don't have any say as to what programs their vendors have. It also doesn't mean that the carriers even give a damn about most of the stuff their third party vendors make.

No one has any idea who the intended target audience was for the presentation. They could have been presenting to some middle manager who does nothing.

In fact, if I were to post just a single slide about CALEA from a Nortel training I went to recently, the tinfoil hat wearers would have a field day. It's all about context.

 

[PsiStar]

I won't pay & don't care that I cannot access that crap ... even tho I do al-l-lmost daily. If it is not free, then *not*.

 

[shortylickens]

I'd rather actually do something than check Facebook every 4 minutes looking to see if a bunch of people are talking about doing something. I used to wonder why that site was so popular and now I get it.
Its a perfectly acceptable alternative to going out and doing things.

Youtube has been sucking more and more for the past year. All my favorite stuff keeps getting ripped down. I dont even need it any more. Anything that might be good has an ad in front of it. Not even worth visiting now.

And since 3G sucks as, you guys should really be using WIFI as much as possible anyway. Its faster and doesnt piss off your provider.

 

[sivart]

as long as they don't take away my slingbox. Don't have a facebook, twitter or YouTube account, so no big deal there.

If they took away my Google finance real time stock quotes, I'd switch carriers right away.

 

[boomhower]

I already pay for internet twice, no way in hell I'll pay for access to a certain site on the go. Pretty much all I do is general browsing on the go. Not a huge facebook user or youtube on my phone.

 

[shortylickens]

I already pay for internet twice, no way in hell I'll pay for access to a certain site on the go. Pretty much all I do is general browsing on the go. Not a huge facebook user or youtube on my phone.

I was thinking about that this past Nov. when I thought my phone plan was up. I can really only use one source of internet at a time, home or phone. Why am I paying double for it? And why the heck would I pay even more for a particular service that used to be free everywhere?

No deal. If my provider keeps tacking on extra charges I will dump them and go back to Tracfone. Maybe use a tablet with WIFI when I am at school or a coffee shop. But I'm not gonna keep paying more and more for stuff I actually find myself using a little less each year.

 

[Bateluer]

do you ever get tired of posting this fear mongering crap?

What is your deal? Who or what are you so angry at or do you have a different motive?

Uh, I didn't hide what the article was about. Its a sales pitch from an marketing firm to carriers. Whether it actually happens is anyone's guess.

Given the attitude of Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and others, I don't think its out the realm of possibility.

A better question would be, why are you all so apathetic? You have apps and carriers recording all your private data, you have individuals with no qualms about posting every intimate detail, down to their CC transactions, online, you have law enforcement departments planting GPS trackers on vehicles on private property without warrants, you have Comcast trying to kill Netflix, you have our own US government doing an entire slew of activities that would land anyone else in prison, and you have people voluntarily surrendering their civil rights in the name of 'security'.

 

[akugami]

Here's the deal. It might have been a sales pitch from a marketing firm but if you don't think AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc. aren't thinking about something like this, you're in denial. Look at the tiered internet and data caps from landlines recently. Look at some of the crap Time Warner Cable is pulling. Make no mistakes, ISP's would love for something like this to start because they can nickle and dime you for more services similar to how wireless carriers do today.

 

[rudeguy]

Uh, I didn't hide what the article was about. Its a sales pitch from an marketing firm to carriers. Whether it actually happens is anyone's guess.

Given the attitude of Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and others, I don't think its out the realm of possibility.

A better question would be, why are you all so apathetic? You have apps and carriers recording all your private data, you have individuals with no qualms about posting every intimate detail, down to their CC transactions, online, you have law enforcement departments planting GPS trackers on vehicles on private property without warrants, you have Comcast trying to kill Netflix, you have our own US government doing an entire slew of activities that would land anyone else in prison, and you have people voluntarily surrendering their civil rights in the name of 'security'.

I have officially added you to my list of tinfoil hat wearing crackpots.

 

[sivart]

Here's the deal. It might have been a sales pitch from a marketing firm but if you don't think AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc. aren't thinking about something like this, you're in denial. Look at the tiered internet and data caps from landlines recently. Look at some of the crap Time Warner Cable is pulling. Make no mistakes, ISP's would love for something like this to start because they can nickle and dime you for more services similar to how wireless carriers do today.

Maybe so, but what is being proposed is almost like saying that we are going to charge you extra on your electricity bill if you are using a Sony LCD TV, but not if you are using any other brand. A lot of people turn on Sony TV's in the evening vs. Philips TV (et al) so they should pay more.

I don't see this going anywhere...I guess we'll have to wait and see. :whiste:

 

[corkyg]

Short answer . . . No!

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Meh, personally I cold care less because I don't use a single one of those services

 

[Bateluer]

I have officially added you to my list of tinfoil hat wearing crackpots.

So stylish though.

Back on topic. If such a system were to be implemented by a wireless carrier, I think they'd see a burst in profits over the short term, then a massive drop as people either went to cheaper phones/plans, stopped using the services on their mobiles, or migrated to another carrier.

 

[ViviTheMage]

I would consider paying for youtube, the rest I could care less about.

 

[Bateluer]

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=20438

More discussion from DailyTech. Would you pay the fee to access Youtube, or just use the provider's free, internal video site?

This is precisely why Net Neutrality laws are needed.

 

[sivart]

Hmm...this is why I don't believe everything I read in a blog.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- New rules aimed at prohibiting broadband providers from becoming gatekeepers of Internet traffic now have just enough votes to pass the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday.

The rules would prohibit phone and cable companies from abusing their control over broadband connections to discriminate against rival content or services, such as Internet phone calls or online video, or play favorites with Web traffic.

Source

I would only consider giving priority to traffic that the public relies on for safety. (I.e. Police communication, home alarms, etc)

 

[Bateluer]

Hmm...this is why I don't believe everything I read in a blog.



Source

I would only consider giving priority to traffic that the public relies on for safety. (I.e. Police communication, home alarms, etc)

This is good, if the pass the full Net Neutrality, not the neutered version that was being tossed around.

Also, I don't believe anyone would have a problem giving emergency response units and the like priority, its also likely that those services won't be pulling anywhere near the bandwidth that Youtube/Facebook/Skype/etc use. Those services have millions of people using them, and paying for them as part of their data/service plans.

 

[Anubis]

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=20438

More discussion from DailyTech. Would you pay the fee to access Youtube, or just use the provider's free, internal video site?

This is precisely why Net Neutrality laws are needed.

id use neither, i don't use youtube now