How long do you think internet will be free?

[jmarie]

I know the internet isn't free, because we ...most of us, have to pay for our service from our servers.

I was on the weather.com website a few weeks ago and they asked me to fill out a questionaire. Several of the questions dealt with how much would I be willing to access a more indepth website. Would I be willing to watch advertisments before seeing the local weather...

We all surf, but I am wondering...will surfing always be cost-free?
Joyce

[Melman]

It depends on whether the right politicians get involved and stop this stupid idea. Here's what Tim Berners-Lee has to say about the subject. For those of you not up on your internet history...this is THE man. He was involved at the beginning. If anyone can claim he invented the internet, this is as close as it gets. Below the comment by Berners-Lee is a proposal made by a Representative Ed Markey. Another article basically said: do you want the phone companies (Charter, Verizon, whatever Bell company is left, etc.) controlling your internet access? It's a scary thought. For anyone who likes the internet the way it is, you may seriously want to start watching these actions.

Tim Berners-Lee, one of the inventors of the Web, came out in support of Net Neutrality calling it fundamental to maintaining a fair and competitive market economy.

When, seventeen years ago, I designed the Web, I did not have to ask anyone’s permission. The new application rolled out over the existing Internet without modifying it. I tried then, and many people still work very hard still, to make the Web technology, in turn, a universal, neutral, platform. It must not discriminate against particular hardware, software, underlying network, language, culture, disability, or against particular types of data. The Internet is increasingly becoming the dominant medium binding us. The neutral communications medium is essential to our society. It is the basis of a fair competitive market economy.

******************
Here's info from Rep. Ed Markey.

Net Neutrality and the Coming Fight For Internet Freedom
If you think open nondiscriminatory access to the Internet is what makes the Web special, you had better get ready to fight for it, because Congress is toying with a new paradigm that could close the Web down to many of tomorrow's innovators

Ever since the Internet was first opened to commercial use in the early 1990's, it has been defined by its open exchange of ideas - an exchange that has fostered tremendous innovation and economic growth.

Tens of millions of Internet users in our country - and billions of dollars in economic innovation - like our current system of open networks the way it is. But if the new telecommunications bill [pdf] that is making its way through Congress passes, this innovation-friendly and open network will be replaced with one defined by new tolls and bottlenecks. We cannot let that happen.

The Internet has historically been protected by rules which embodied a policy of "network neutrality." In other words, telephone companies such as AT&T or Verizon could not discriminate against unaffiliated content providers on the Net, but rather had to stay neutral with regard to the content flowing through their networks. Moreover, the phone companies could not charge access fees to certain companies in exchange for faster content distribution to high bandwidth customers or to provide enhanced quality of service assurances. In addition, these rules protected consumer freedom to use their choice of gadgets with their broadband connection, from computer modems and VOIP phones, to wi-fi routers and other whiz-bang gizmos just over the horizon.

Yet these historic rules which protected the Internet were thrown out by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) last August. As a result, the phone companies are now legally permitted to tinker with the nondiscriminatory nature of the Internet and to charge new bottleneck taxes on web-based businesses. It did not take long for the phone companies to react. We know from the public statements of industry executives, such as AT&T's Ed Whitacre, that they see abandoning net neutrality as simply another way to squeeze out a few extra dollars in revenue:

[I]n a Nov. 7 interview with BusinessWeek Online, AT&T CEO Edward Whitacre Jr. declared: "What [Google, Vonage, and others] would like to do is to use my pipes free. But I ain't going to let them do that." Whitacre and AT&T argue that they need flexibility to exact a toll from Web services that hog bandwidth.
In short, the Ed Whitacres of the world want to start charging web-based businesses and entrepreneurs for the right to unduly prioritize how information is transmitted over the Internet (and don't forget that they already charge users for Internet access; this would simply allow them to make money on both ends of the exchange). Equal access to information and all users has been a fundamental principle of the Internet since its inception. Yet the prospect now looms that the "World Wide Web" could instead become "What Whitacre Wants" - a broadband bastion for the corporate whims of bottleneck providers. This would jeopardize the Internet's role as the engine of economic growth, innovation, and job creation which it is today. These big telecom companies had nothing to do with creating the Internet and making it such a special, open platform for innovation, yet now they're acting like they own it, just because they think they can. But we must stop their effort before it is too late.

The Joe Barton (R-TX) sponsored telecommunications bill that is moving through the Energy & Commerce Committee in the House would fundamentally change the way the Internet works. Typically, Congress gives the FCC the power to promulgate rules to enforce, yet under the Barton bill the FCC is handcuffed and explicitly told it has no power to restore rules to protect the Internet. Instead, the bill merely permits the FCC to enforce imprecise, broadly-worded "principles" of net neutrality - principles that, as written, completely ignore the principle of nondiscrimination. In short, the Barton bill opens the door for the Bells and other ISPs to throw out a key principle of net neutrality and enact a new era of telecom taxes and tolls, roadblocks that would shut down the avenues of innovation that have allowed the Internet to become what it is today.

What would be some of the consequences of discarding the principle of net neutrality? For one, startup firms will be forced to compete at a disadvantage against major content providers who are paying massive sums to the phone companies for prioritized content delivery. Would Google have become the company it is today if its search engine worked slower than its competitors, not because the technology was less effective, but simply because they couldn't afford to pay the toll? Would Wikipedia have earned its current prominence if it had to compete against a commercial alternative with inferior content, but that users could access faster? Would eBay have achieved its current popularity if users could not be sure they could access the site as a bid was coming to a close, simply because eBay hadn't paid its monthly "quality of service" fee to AT&T? Will any future Googles, Yahoos, Amazons, or eBays even have the opportunity to innovate their way to success if they are forced to compete with existing companies who are free to favor their own content, simply because they own the pipes into consumer homes and businesses?

And what will happen to the Internet as a vehicle for expressing our First Amendment freedoms? Certainly religious organizations, non-profits, civic organizations, or ordinary citizens cannot or will not pay the excessive new bottleneck taxes the broadband barons want to charge.

Last week, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet voted down an amendment I offered [pdf] that would set specific rules to protect the principle of net neutrality. This vote should open the eyes of every single American who uses the Internet. It is time for the thousands of Internet-based businesses and millions of citizens to make themselves heard - it is now up to the Internet community to rise up to help save the Internet itself.

[cminmd]

Yes, we all pay for the internet and I can not see how they justify in charging us even more! I am so annoyed about this. How can they justify these nefarious little side deals. I will be so irritated if I get corralled into using certain businesses because they pay for a "permium service" with my ISP Comcast.
They always say "Pay to use my cable" arguments. Hey that cable runs on goverment easeway land- do they pay the taxpayer rent on having their cable run on our property? Don't think so!
All these business execs are always talking about the virtues of capitalism and free competition, but then whenever they get a chance to cut down on the consumers choice and force people into getting their product they take it. Colleen

[Aubergine]

it isn't "free" right now, if one is payng for some type of access. i mean, we use a local ISP, whose fees are reasonable, imo. we're also doing advanced speed dial-up, but we're way behind cable, etc.

i have been through such a nightmare the past month, hours and hours, researching cell phone plans...only to get mine today, and not be able to fathom any of the general info.

thank heavens i didn't rip the package open right away, b/c that would have made me their indentured slave for 2 years, and/or cost me $175 buy-out.

this is another reason why i'm grateful that verizon gives me 15 days to cancel, although it's supposed to be (for my purposes) the best system.

[sneezles]

The city of Austin is going wireless and while the citizens at large will be paying the cost(ie some sort of consumer tax) everyone will enjoy...as opposed to the neandrathal (and while spelling was a highlight of my elementary education, Merlot does have its effects ( ;) ). Verizon's control of rural central Texas leaves many in the "dark ages" as far as connections go, I live in a rural co-op area and just got upgraded with my DSL speed but those in town can't even get DSL and their service provider is Verison...they were told by Verizon that DSL is obsolete so they're not going to provide DSL to them...they are so far behind that when my friend tried to download a pdf manual that was 24 pages his server timed out before page #1 was downloaded...Augergine, you've no idea of the nightmare that dial-up is for some...and really how can it be free if you're paying? :confused:

[honeygirl1971]

Melman, that article is scary and really interesting--I hadn't heard about that bill. It figures that the phone companies wouldn't be satisfied with all the money they are already making with ISP packages, and if they succeed they will effectively destroy most of what is good about the internet. I would think a lot of businesses would object, though, since they won't want to pay all these extra fees. And even if they didn't mind paying, it would be very complicated--they'd have to pay all the different companies, right? Otherwise their stuff would only be easily accessible from certain providers...Are the phone company lobbies powerful enough to get this pushed through Congress?

[Melman]

Are the phone company lobbies powerful enough to get this pushed through Congress?

I believe any politician can be bought with the right money. The phone companies are huge. Yes, I think they're powerful enough to do this. Look at some of the other questionable deals that have pushed through in recent years. It's not "who you know"...it's whose pocket is feeding you.

[mbrogier]

Some communities are providing "free" internet access for anyone who lives in that area. There are websites that require membership, but then there are others that are so against charging for information that they will give the same information for free. Yeah the giant telecommunications are going to lobby the government to pass bills that allow them to charge through the nose. There are also smaller net based companies like Vonage that do the exact same thing as the giant telecoms for much cheaper. They're going gangbusters. Google is growing at a staggering pace giving a FREE service to consumers, and their employee benefits are unbelievably generous. Google has seen what the giant telecoms are up to, so they have been quietly buying up private intranet systems that were laid around the country before the Dot Com bust in the hopes of creating another World Wide Web that they could control.

I think if the WWW does start being something you have to pay for, there will be another technology instead.

[bobmark226]

Verizon's control of rural central Texas leaves many in the "dark ages" as far as connections go, I live in a rural co-op area and just got upgraded with my DSL speed but those in town can't even get DSL and their service provider is Verison...they were told by Verizon that DSL is obsolete so they're not going to provide DSL to them...they are so far behind that when my friend tried to download a pdf manual that was 24 pages his server timed out before page #1 was downloaded

It never ceases to amaze me how the large phone companies in combination with politicians are able to get their way. Speaking specifically of Verizon, they were just voted a rate increase in Albany on the basis of the fact that they are losing customers to internet phone services. I'm real sympathetic, of course, since Verizon was never able to provide adequate phone or cell service here to the point of driving me straight to internet phone service!

Bob

[Melman]

For anyone who wants more information, I just found this link. Lots of information about the truth and what's being done about this whole Net Neutrality issue.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

"I think if the WWW does start being something you have to pay for, there will be another technology instead."

That's potentially true. But this one works. It's done fine without the big boys getting in the middle of things and messing it up (well, possibly AOL, but that's a different story :D) We ALL know how the phone companies can't handle their own businesses without all of us feeling screwed. Ever tried calling their support lines? What a joke.

I was involved with the internet in the days prior to the world wide web when everything had to be done with 'telnet', 'ftp', and whatever other commands were used. The fact that the educational and military worlds combines with technology to have a group of networks networked together TO SHARE INFORMATION was amazing! The whole concept was almost like science fiction.

I don't want to see the internet change in this direction. There could be ways of improving it. I don't see this as the right way to go.