To be fair the boiling and freezing point of water doesnt have much to do with the intention of this thread either but lets face it that this website is slowly deteriorating in the community aspect from what it used to be. At least it seems to. I just wanted to leave a place holder until I could think of something more relevant and at least I was honest about being lazy. I think I understand the point but I dont quite get the point of getting worked up about it. The house im currently at has an unlimited allowance. My dads house however has a 2gb allowance. Using the 2gb allowance is tedious since I have to monitor my own usage and decide what's acceptable when divided up between 3 other people. 2 of which are old and dont understand how downloading takes away from the usage however. Where was I going with this…. Oh yeah. I just kept typing until I realized I wasnt making sense. Point being that Im sure theyll make some sort of unlimited deal for a few dollars a month.

In short I get unlimited usage with 20mb download speeds for the equivalent of $24 a month and Im sure something like that should be available.

Im not even sure this is relevant but at least if it isnt then it'll give someone something to do if they want to argue with me.

Tell me if Im missing the point.

imshard
A bunch of stuff that pretty much sums up everything perfectly.

With that I am pretty sure we can let this topic die.
The whole idea of having a second tier that's so ridiculously expensive that all sites that aren't owned by major corporations will die is just not going to happen. We are going to see a gradual change between IPv4 and 6 and nothing terrible will happen.

Hippie Van

ozoneocean

Hippie Van
just approved of Usage Based Billing for the internet.

Something the rest of the planet has had to live with since day 1.

That was a bit rude, ozone.

It wasn't meant to be. I was just stating a fact.

blindsk
maybe we shouldn't complain because while ours is slow, Australia's is even worse, I hear. Rumors abound of the “Australian lag,” which I keep hearing about

I dunno. I think the average broadband speed is about 5 - 6 mbps.
I'm on about 30 mbps with a limit of 50 gigs a month at $69 (Aussie dollars are the same as US dollars currently).
That works out ok for me. I watch TV shows and movies online all the time and don't go over 50 gig. On an annoying bundled 24 month contract I could do 200 gigs a month for not much more, but that doesn't include the cost of uneeded bundled crap (cable TV or mobile phone contracts etc).

I've had cable internet for about 10 years now- always had the net a lot faster than the average Aussie speeds.
And though I'm on 30mbps, that's only the theoretical top. It depends on where the slowest link in the chain is… Content from the US for example has to jump through a lot of hoops to get as far as me.

A Reaver
In short I get unlimited usage with 20mb download speeds for the equivalent of $24 a month and Im sure something like that should be available.

lol! lol!lol!lol! lol!lol!

Not in this part of the world.
“Unlimited” or terabyte quotas here will cost you a LOT more than $24 a month.

@ A Reaver and everybody else: I guess I should have picked a better title because the issue isn't really about the forthcoming lack of IPv4 addresses, and it's not about paying by the gigabyte, it's about paying for extra to access content that has to pay extra in order to get the same speeds as everybody else. It's about limiting the freedom of speech and freedom of expression that has so far been taken for granted on the internet. It's about corporate interest trying to silence all alternative avenues of communication. This is about companies trying to charge for content that is not theirs. What this rant and everything in this thread is about is the ham fisted attempt to squash the collective voices that they don't own. This is about protecting our first amendment rights.

I am not saying that companies can't charge for access to the internet.

I am not saying that companies can't impose a cap, although I'd be annoyed if they did.

I am saying that companies shouldn't and in the spirit of the Constitution CAN'T indirectly silence the voices of those on the internet that they don't agree with.

In the USA you can look at your cable TV providers and see the tiered system in action. You'll be in the middle of bidding wars and negotiations over how much a cable provider can bilk out of a network and the control of access to content and not getting what you want to see because of it.

Internet is poised to become like US cable TV. Verizon will say you can't get Drunkduck because the site's owner isn't paying enough to have access to certain markets. Just like MSG, Fox and Cablevision.

It may not be an exact analogy but it's similar and will probably work out the same way.

Exactly!

But the thing these companies are missing is the fact that the internet is so much different from cable. Yes it is an entertainment outlet, but I think the best analogy is that the internet is like Trajan's Forum, the Coliseum of Rome, and the Library at Alexandria. By restricting access to any part of the Internet will not only infringe upon our first amendment rights, but will also hurt the consumer. Bandwidth is bandwidth, and that is what the ISP's provide, the pipe. Saying I have to pay extra is like saying I have to pay more if I want to drive the car that I own to a city other than where you want me to go. It's ridiculous!

The biggest problem though is that it's ultimately the consumers and the smaller content providers that are the ones who suffer. Consumers find their choices severely limited. They have to pay extra for access programs and content they want if it is not the same as what their ISP/media conglomerate want you to see or use. Content providers have to pay more if they want to reach a wider audience and they'll probably have to pay each ISP that utilizes this two tier model for access to the high-speed pipeline.

This would kill open source software, open platforms such as the android OS, cloud computing, free content such as webcomics, independent film making, free and cheap web hosting, collaboration across borders and seas on software and many other things, and the international social interaction that has greatly enhanced the internet's cultural diversity and, I believe, is probably one of the greatest things about the internet.

Sorry for the mega-posts. I'm just very passionate about this.

Salsa you are absolutely right but the term you are looking for is Net Neutrality. Its a very different discussion than IPv4 address block shortages. Address real-estate is simply a numbering system that the computers use on the back end. Think of the IP changeover as adding words to a language to encompass more terms. No biggie.

Net Neutrality at its root, is the threat of the “tiered” system. Whether through metered usage systems, or charging by content type, or usage history, etc.

People think of the internet as that thing they browse pages with. But its so much more than that and we're going to lose it. The Internet is in essence a simple link through which you can transmit any kind of traffic you want. Think of it as a pipe through which any data of any kind can travel. Not just web pages, but any data that can find a destination on the network. You could invent your own technology with its own language and a unique purpose and sent it on the same internet. But not if the traffic becomes filtered

ISPs and governments are now wanting to say that if you are a video site, or a business, or high data user, or you aren't using an approved computer/device, or you aren't using it for web pages, then you have to pay more and/or pay more taxes, or worse not be allowed access at all. This is completely silly since they are still providing the same service at the same cost to them through the same pipe.

Quite simply its a move to restrict access and rights while racketeering at the same time.

D'oh><

I feel a little silly.

I wholeheartedly agree with you by the way. I believe that the first amendment applies to the internet and that to have freedom of speech and freedom of expression on the internet you need the Net neutrality model. This two tiered system is going to kill that if we don't stop it.

i agree, most think net neutrality is bad. i actually have a friend that is like “i think it's bad to have the government regulate our internet.” but he doesn't realize that the popular push is to have the government regulate by saying “no one can regulate the internet”

currently in america, there are teired systems. but those suck big time, they're normally slow, and with tiny limits.

jerks.