Export thread

http://digg.com/tech_news/Your_ISP_if_Net_Neutrality_disappears_PIC









Is this going to be our future?

I doubt it, they would be drown in a sea of confused tech support calls. Isn't what the ISP's want is to charge companies like Google, Hulu, etc. a premium for it's users to access their site? Basically a "You are making money off of my interweb pipes! I want a cut."

If we do lose net neutrality sadly I can see this happening. Unless some higher ups with brains start making laws top protect the internet we are going to lose it.

That was actually the most disturbing/frightening image I've ever seen....

I could see them breaking it out into filesharing, games, streaming video/media, and general browsing. Trying to tie in actual sites like that would be hell. Either way, it would not be good.

That is scary. I don't think that will happen mainly if ISP is going to charge to "gain" access, they will have to support it also.

Now that is a nightmare.

That is terrifying.

I can't think of a possible positive aspect of this from a consumer standpoint. I think this mockup will be oddly prophetic, though.

People used to scoff at the idea of paying monthly for radio and television.

People pay hundreds of dollars a month for cell phones.

What frightens me more is ISP's reducing service to competitor's websites or making partnerships to give full access to partner sites but reduced service to non partner sites.

Shakey said:

I doubt it, they would be drown in a sea of confused tech support calls.

Click to expand...

You're making the assumption that the upper management cares about how many calls their policies generate. They don't. They only care how quickly we peons field them (I work tech support, though not for an ISP).

Krisken said:

Some idiots pay hundreds of dollars a month for cell phones.

Click to expand...

That doesn't mean we're all retarded.

Shegokigo;286066][quote=Krisken said:

Some idiots pay hundreds of dollars a month for cell phones.

Click to expand...

That doesn't mean we're all retarded.[/QUOTE]

We don't all have to be, just enough for this to be profitable to the corporations.

Thing is, the "big cellphone companies" aren't keep the rest of us from paying reasonable prices for service like Net Neutrality will.

General Specific;286065][quote=Shakey said:

I doubt it, they would be drown in a sea of confused tech support calls.

Click to expand...

You're making the assumption that the upper management cares about how many calls their policies generate. They don't. They only care how quickly we peons field them (I work tech support, though not for an ISP).[/QUOTE]

Well, everyone here is making assumptions. I don't doubt that they will charge a premium for certain services if they think they can get away with it, I just don't think they can make it that confusing.

I think the ISPs in this scenario would be counting on people being willing to pay an arm and a leg just to be able to access everything, like they can now.

I probably would.

Shakey;286082][quote=General Specific;286065][quote=Shakey said:

I doubt it, they would be drown in a sea of confused tech support calls.

Click to expand...

You're making the assumption that the upper management cares about how many calls their policies generate. They don't. They only care how quickly we peons field them (I work tech support, though not for an ISP).[/quote]

Well, everyone here is making assumptions. I don't doubt that they will charge a premium for certain services if they think they can get away with it, I just don't think they can make it that confusing.[/QUOTE]

You don't think so?


That's from the real world.
http://www.imctv.com/

Man, my country might suck, but at least we get good net... (and it seem cable too, wtf is that? )

but crap like that in yhe pic would prob kill a lot of websites...

Shegokigo;286066][quote=Krisken said:

Some idiots pay hundreds of dollars a month for cell phones.

Click to expand...

That doesn't mean we're all retarded.[/QUOTE]
heh, that's not what I was getting at. The ISP's will make money, no matter what model they use. There will be enough people to make up the difference if they switch to a pay as you go model because of contracts and such.

Let's hope not.

Bowielee said:

People used to scoff at the idea of paying monthly for radio and television.

Click to expand...

Television made up for the cost by introducing specialty channels that catered to whatever somebody wanted to watch at any given time, which is why it's still around. It gave people something they didn't already have.

Satellite Radio failed because everyone could get whatever music they wanted to listen to for free off the internet, without having to deal with ads or lose of quality (and because whatever specialty content only THEY could provide wasn't compelling enough to justify the fee). This is why Satellite Radio is all but dead.

Tinwhistler;286089][quote=Shakey;286082][quote=General Specific;286065][quote=Shakey said:

I doubt it, they would be drown in a sea of confused tech support calls.

Click to expand...

You're making the assumption that the upper management cares about how many calls their policies generate. They don't. They only care how quickly we peons field them (I work tech support, though not for an ISP).[/quote]

Well, everyone here is making assumptions. I don't doubt that they will charge a premium for certain services if they think they can get away with it, I just don't think they can make it that confusing.[/QUOTE]

You don't think so?

http://www.imctv.com/images/pricing/digital-phone-bundle-pricing.jpg
That's from the real world.
http://www.imctv.com/[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's completely different. But imagine adding in to that the original chart, and it has to be added in to every tier. You're telling me they aren't going to look at that and say it's too much?

Shakey;286170][quote=Tinwhistler;286089][quote=Shakey;286082][quote=General Specific;286065][quote=Shakey said:

I doubt it, they would be drown in a sea of confused tech support calls.

Click to expand...

You're making the assumption that the upper management cares about how many calls their policies generate. They don't. They only care how quickly we peons field them (I work tech support, though not for an ISP).[/quote]

Well, everyone here is making assumptions. I don't doubt that they will charge a premium for certain services if they think they can get away with it, I just don't think they can make it that confusing.[/quote]

You don't think so?

http://www.imctv.com/images/pricing/digital-phone-bundle-pricing.jpg
That's from the real world.
http://www.imctv.com/[/quote]

Yeah, that's completely different. But imagine adding in to that the original chart, and it has to be added in to every tier. You're telling me they aren't going to look at that and say it's too much?[/QUOTE]
Adding confusion is how you make money. If people overpay for services they don't need and get overcharged for services they didn't initially pay for, companies make more money. Just like the Credit Card companies.

I guess it would be more like BBS in the old days. You have access and what BBS are connected to.

Bowielee said:

People used to scoff at the idea of paying monthly for radio and television.

Click to expand...

We do that in Germany already. It's horrible.

Krisken;286203][quote=Shakey said:

Yeah, that's completely different. But imagine adding in to that the original chart, and it has to be added in to every tier. You're telling me they aren't going to look at that and say it's too much?

Click to expand...

Adding confusion is how you make money. If people overpay for services they don't need and get overcharged for services they didn't initially pay for, companies make more money. Just like the Credit Card companies.[/QUOTE]

But at some point that confusion ends up costing more in labor costs due to fielding so many complaints and questions. I just don't see this particular situation happening.

I think net neutrality has more to do with throttling high bandwidth services and trying to charge companies that make money off of the internet. I can't remember where it was at, but I read an interview with one of the ISP exec's not too long ago. He was really going off on the idea that google or amazon can make a ton of money off of using their data pipes without paying them a dime. They wanted to be able to charge these companies to do business with their ISP customers.

I don't think the ISP's really even know exactly what they want to do yet.

The tubes, they are a fillin.

Chazwozel said:

[...] And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. "[/b]

Click to expand...

Where the hell is that from?

A US Senator

:usa:

Chazwozel said:

...an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday. I got it yesterday..

Click to expand...

Holy shit, the government is capable of sending whole internets to each other.

Covar said:

A US Senator

:usa:

Click to expand...

Ex, dammit. Ex U.S. Senator.

Krisken;286325][quote=Covar said:

A US Senator

:usa:

Click to expand...

Ex, dammit. Ex U.S. Senator.[/QUOTE]

Ex US Senator (Ted Stevens, R. - Alaska) who was the chairman of the senate committee of commerce, science, and transportation. Always good to know the guys making these laws know what they're talking about.


He resigned after a little fiasco about using public funds to remodel his house.

Ravenpoe;286461][quote=Krisken;286325][quote=Covar said:

A US Senator

:usa:

Click to expand...

Ex, dammit. Ex U.S. Senator.[/quote]

Ex US Senator (Ted Stevens, R. - Alaska) who was the chairman of the senate committee of commerce, science, and transportation. Always good to know the guys making these laws know what they're talking about.


He resigned after a little fiasco about using public funds to remodel his house.[/QUOTE]
Close...

wikipedia said:

During his trial, Stevens campaigned for re-election to his Senate seat. On November 4, 2008, eight days after his conviction, he lost the election to Democrat Mark Begich by 3,953 votes, a 1.24% margin.[4][5] Stevens conceded defeat in a statement released the next day,[6] making him the first U.S. senator from Alaska to be defeated in a general election and the longest-serving U.S. Senator ever to lose a re-election bid.[7]

Click to expand...