This site could potentially become a paid site

[x.bhamcb]

There is another way to look at this. If I am willing and able to pay for better service (faster/more bandwidth) should I be allowed to? With "net nutrality" the answer is NO.

If I am allowed to always seek better service then over time everyone's service will improve because the companies have incentive to add better service for the top tier customers which results in the current infrastructure being used by the top tier trickling down to the next tier until the lowest tier infrastructure becoming obsolete. How many people still have dial up?

If ISP's are not allowed to charge top tier customers more there is no incentive for them to improve their infrastructure and over time the system degrades and everyone's service gets worse.

[jimbob200521]

Originally Posted by x.bhamcb

There is another way to look at this. If I am willing and able to pay for better service (faster/more bandwidth) should I be allowed to? With "net nutrality" the answer is NO.

If I am allowed to always seek better service then over time everyone's service will improve because the companies have incentive to add better service for the top tier customers which results in the current infrastructure being used by the top tier trickling down to the next tier until the lowest tier infrastructure becoming obsolete. How many people still have dial up?

If ISP's are not allowed to charge top tier customers more there is no incentive for them to improve their infrastructure and over time the system degrades and everyone's service gets worse.

You're missing the point on this one. Right now, since nothings changed yet, you can pay for faster internet and get access to the whole of the internet under that package based on what speed level you can afford. Business's can pay for a business package, etc. But either way, you get all of the internet for that said price.

Now, the potential exists for not only specific sites to have speed prioritization but for them to even block certain sites they don't like. They could also charge you, as pictured on the previous page, for access to certain site packages. The future of the internet has just opened to include limited access to it. No bueno.

[jbrewer]

I'm all for small government, and de-regulation.

There's a whole lot of "what if" in the pro-government regulation argument. "The ISP's could do this" or "This bad thing could happen" etc.

The game changer is technology. It's moving so fast that a service provider who doesn't do the job is going to be overtaken by tech driven solutions who CAN do the job.

The internet 5 yrs ago worked ok, and didn't need the heavy hand of government to provide an answer to a problem that didn't exist. I'm wary of ANY sort of solution that mandates "we all must be equal". Invariably that means lowering the bar.

Regardless, this is tilting at windmills. Let's see how things work out.

[Tom Dowling]

Use your memory fellas, think back to the dawn of cable tv "yes you pay for it but theres no commercials" turned into paying out the rear for more than 50% commercials. It's going to cost us more for less.

[finsruskw]

And in my town, it lasted all but about 3 or 4 years IIRC, and it was gone.

[jbrewer]

Conversely, think of $19.99 for AOL at 1200 baud.

[sorner]

Yeah what an outrage. Getting kicked off all the time because of a noisy phone line. Or someone else in the house picking up a phone. At least they gave away 90 days free.