Internet users fume at fee idea
Internet users fume at fee idea
BY JAMES S. GRANELLI
Los Angeles Times
Don’t you get annoyed when that little downloading thingy on the bottom of your computer takes forever to finish? This is the issue at stake in this article. Some broadband providers such as Vonage and Roadrunner – High Speed Online as well as others have recently proposed that heavy data application downloader’s using their services should have to pay extra for this streamlined service.
Phone and cable companies such as these claim that these heavy users congest the internet slowing it down for everyone else. The article puts it simply “For instance, online film sites such as CinemaNow Inc. might have to pay a premium to send movies uninterrupted, or Apple Computer Inc.' s iTunes Music Store might tack an extra fee on a song download to guarantee instant delivery”. This will in most cases make the internet run smoother.
The problem with this that is affects the neutrality of the internet as a whole. It is, of course, the information highway and many are arm up in arms about this proposition. “On Friday, Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., issued a draft bill that contained strong language protecting network neutrality. It would bar broadband providers from charging content providers for priority lanes.” I feel this is the right move until the problem worsens. As broadband services continues to grow so will the demand for heavy application downloader’s but, if we can all just wait a few every seconds nobody will have to pay for this specialty service. The focus of many internet service providers is exactly that- to build up their copper infrastructure in order to keep their internet running faster than their competition.
Adding premium charges to internet service will only hurt the masses in my opinion. This kind of technology must be prohibited so that we can do things like download pictures for our blogs without it costing extra money. Please, voice your opinion about this terrible new proposal.
2 Comments:
I think that this is a terrible idea. People who want to download things that take longer than text files will have to pay more money to receive services faster; in turn, the people who want access to information will have to have access to more funds, which would discriminate against people who don't have the funds. Some online sites are already charging fees or subscriptions to access information or download software, adding yet another fee is going to make it difficult for people with lower incomes to access the same sites. By chargin such fees, I feel the internet as a whole would regress because people who coudln't afford to pay fees would have to use dial-up services or the like. I think the best idea is for online service providers ti increase their capacity so that heavy users and light users are both able to access sites.
Charging certain companies like this is a bad idea. The whole idea of the internet is that it is a neutral playing field, and messing with that balance is something that should not be tried. The only reason these charges are being proposed is to try to offset the cost of adding additional cables to the network. I for one am willing to wait the extra half of a second to download an image to keep the internet neutral. In a couple years capacity will be at necessary levels to support everyone. Just because some users chose to download heavy amounts and others light doesn't mean there should be a discrepancy in payments.
Post a Comment
<< Home