The Web Toll? WTF

[furca]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/05/25/the.web.toll/index.html

?...

 

[darrenl]

That is pretty messed up.

 

[furca]

Yeah, hopefully its all a big fib.

 

[JMJ]

They have to figure out some way to keep afloat as more and more of their customers disconnect their landlines a move to strictly wireless or voip. The problem is a republican majority would pass this with flying colors in favor of big business. Shooting down the bill is a prime example of that. They need to be talking to the service providers such as cable companies and datacenteres about getting a bigger cut not the websites themselves.

Ultimately it still gets passed along to the consumer but atleast the website owner doesn't get penalised. It's pretty much that way now. If you want premium bandwidth then you go with a DC and a rack which has multiple connections. Generally it's done for redundancy and you pay a premium price for it. If they are allowed I guess those premiums go higher. I'm all for a rise in hosting prices. There's too many people out there that think $10 a month gets them 24/7 guru support.

 

[LeeRyder]

actually it is underwritten by democrats.. not republicans.

However, both parties are susceptable to corporate payoffs and are voting for this...sadly.

call your representatives

 

[JMJ]

The bill to keep it from happening was underwritten by the D. Shot down by the majority.

 

[GeorgeK]

There is speculation that Veri$ign might do something similar for DNS resolution speed, see:

http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000253.html

Obviously, that would not be a good thing either.

 

[austinandrew]

As it stands now it's not as big of a deal as the press is making it out to be. Sites wouldn't be penalized if they didn't pay. They would only be given priority if they pay. So YouTube won't load more slowly than it does not. If YouTube pays, then they might get faster load times.

It seems like the main roadblock on site bandwidth is the equipement and location of the webhosting. Ever notice how downloads occur at a much smaller throughput than your internet connection allows? That likely has to do with the host of the download.

 

[cursal]

"We have to remember that some of the companies that we now consider to be titans of the Internet started literally as guys in a garage," Scott says."That's the beauty and the brilliance of the Internet, yet we're cavalierly talking about tossing it out the window."

This is why what they are talking about SHOULD never happen.
Keep it "FREE"

 

[Beachie]

The house of reps voted against the net neutrality amendment.
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6342793.html

Oddly enough, the site www.handsoff.org is actually a coalition of telcos who want the government to keep their "hands off" the Internet. Apparently they think it's OK for their hands to be all over it though..
http://handsoff.org/hoti_docs/aboutus/members.shtml

 

[Gregoire]

The house of reps voted against the net neutrality amendment.
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6342793.html

Oddly enough, the site www.handsoff.org is actually a coalition of telcos who want the government to keep their "hands off" the Internet. Apparently they think it's OK for their hands to be all over it though..
http://handsoff.org/hoti_docs/aboutus/members.shtml

So true!

 

[NameYourself]

A few Questions:

1) On a technical level, how slow will the slow lane be, about what speed are we talking?

2) Are we sure the fast lane would be optional?

3) How can each broadband company send a bill to every single website owner, would this just be a single government tax per month to each website owner? It would seem there'd need to be one central organization handling the payments. Would this only be to U.S. based website owners, how would this affect websites across borders? Or with ISPs located elsewhere in other places.. there's so many small ones, how would that work?

4) Will this generally only be noticable only on video / media sites?

5) I think this is a bunch of greedy big business bulls**t.