FCC to vote on Pay-as-you-go Internet option proposal

I don't know about you, but this would pretty much kill me if it passes. They are voting on it December 21st.

""As details emerge about the Federal Communications Commission's controversial proposal for regulating Internet providers, a provision that would allow companies to bill customers for how much they surf the Webis drawing special scrutiny. Analysts say pay-as-you-go Internet access could put the brakes on the burgeoning online video industry, handing a victory to cable and satellite TV providers. Public interest groups say that trend will lead to a widening gap in Internet use in which the wealthiest would have the greatest access.""

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/08/2012243/FCC-Approving-Pay-As-You-Go-Internet-Plans

FCC, don't ruin the Internet too.

Haha, unbeleviable.

I would hate if that happened.

Reminds me of AOL in the good old days.

I'm not sure WHY they want this anyway, other than to rip people off bad. Not sure why federal government is involved in this to start with.funsohng

Everyone would want to implement a pay-as-you-go or pay-to-play business model - it's lucrative.

how is this the FCCs business, this would f*** you universities so badly and big business

aaaaaaaaaaand the middle class continues to whither and die

serious business..

i always though the reason for a democracy was so the people would have the power to vote on the stuff that concerns them, but dosent seem like things are like that over there. seems like Corporations win. Thats what i call Capitalism>Democracy. :P

If done right it's actually a great idea: with a reasonable price-per-bit and quality connection speed most people would save money on a metered plan (low-income households would especially benefit: we're talking e-mail and basic surfing for ~$5/month) with only the heaviest of users seeing a significant increase in their bill, and it largely puts the net neutrality issue to rest by turning the ISPs into dumb pipes (you can't exactly justify traffic shaping or similar practices when the end user is paying for all their data).

Of course there's no way in hell the price-per-bit would be anywhere near reasonable or that the ISPs would allow the FCC to turn them into dumb pipes, but it's nice to dream.

Vote no.

Cant say im surprised,I figured this would happen sooner or later. I bet Comcast is just giddy waiting for it to pass. Dante2710

Here's what I'm thinking: if they do this, ISPs won't be forced to use the pay-as-you-go model. That being said, there has to be at least one ISP that won't use it. If that is so, then won't all consumers just use the non pay as you go ISP? If that is so, then won't the ISPs that use pay-as-you-go be uncompetitive and forced to let go of that model? Someone please clarify if what I'm saying makes any sense.Mochyc

I pay nearly 80 bucks a month to get online and this is how you repay me?:|

[QUOTE="Mochyc"]Here's what I'm thinking: if they do this, ISPs won't be forced to use the pay-as-you-go model. That being said, there has to be at least one ISP that won't use it. If that is so, then won't all consumers just use the non pay as you go ISP? If that is so, then won't the ISPs that use pay-as-you-go be uncompetitive and forced to let go of that model? Someone please clarify if what I'm saying makes any sense.cybrcatter

Kinda my worry about this whole deal. Markets work very well when competitive, not so much when not.

would this include like going on xboxlive or ps3 online? fl4tlined

Why wouldn't it?

would this include like going on xboxlive or ps3 online? because if so thats even more ridiculesfl4tlined

What is this word?

aaaaaaaaaaand the middle class continues to whither and die

mrbojangles25

[QUOTE="fl4tlined"]would this include like going on xboxlive or ps3 online? because if so thats even more ridiculesShrimp_Scampi

What is this word?

rid·i·cule(rd-kyl)

ridi·culer

ridicule[ˈrɪdɪˌkjuːl]

vb(tr) to make fun of, mock, or deride

Guys, guys, let's not forget what's important: Rich people. Now, I know we all want the Little People to have Internet access, but think about it: it's the rich people who give the Little People the money to go on the Internet in the first place, right? So, naturally, rich people should have greater access to the Internet. After all, we wouldn't want to let the Little People start thinking they're worth something, would we? :lol:Theokhoth

I agree with the Theokhoth chap here, the "little people" are hardly deserving to lick my diamond studded Monday shoes. Why should they deserve something good?

I won't even go into the variety of reasons why I want this not to happen.

But wait I thought you guys were all for this net neutrality bill...hmmmm.

But wait I thought you guys were all for this net neutrality bill...hmmmm.

irishscott99

I don't see why the internet should be any of the FCC's business anyway. The internet doesn't belong to the public, it belongs to whoever owns the different communication networks. These companies should be able to operate their networks in whatever way best serves their shareholders and customers.

To quote Robert Forst. Nothing gold can stay.

[QUOTE="irishscott99"]

But wait I thought you guys were all for this net neutrality bill...hmmmm.

Theokhoth

It is a provision in the bill dude

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/07/AR2010120706533.html

As details emerge about the Federal Communications Commission's controversial proposal for regulating Internet providers, a provision that would allow companies to bill customers for how much they surf the Web is drawing special scrutiny.

[QUOTE="irishscott99"]

But wait I thought you guys were all for this net neutrality bill...hmmmm.

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="cybrcatter"]

[QUOTE="Mochyc"]Here's what I'm thinking: if they do this, ISPs won't be forced to use the pay-as-you-go model. That being said, there has to be at least one ISP that won't use it. If that is so, then won't all consumers just use the non pay as you go ISP? If that is so, then won't the ISPs that use pay-as-you-go be uncompetitive and forced to let go of that model? Someone please clarify if what I'm saying makes any sense.coolbeans90

Kinda my worry about this whole deal. Markets work very well when competitive, not so much when not.

I'm completely fine with this.

Strangely enough, usage based pricing is the best way to preserve net neutrality while staying fair to ISPs.

link

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="cybrcatter"] Yes, collusion never happens with oligopolies.

wstfld

Kinda my worry about this whole deal. Markets work very well when competitive, not so much when not.

That was my point.

Guys, guys, let's not forget what's important: Rich people. Now, I know we all want the Little People to have Internet access, but think about it: it's the rich people who give the Little People the money to go on the Internet in the first place, right? So, naturally, rich people should have greater access to the Internet. After all, we wouldn't want to let the Little People start thinking they're worth something, would we? :lol:Theokhoth

Definitely, definitely not.
Rich people are smarter and will use the internet better than lets say... someone making less than 40 grand a year.

Do we really want little sally, or Susan to contimplate how much bandwidth sending that :P emoticon will cost them before sending it?
I think we do.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="irishscott99"]

But wait I thought you guys were all for this net neutrality bill...hmmmm.

Ace6301

precisely.

I trust my government a helluva lot more than I do internet companies, especially given the history of how my internet company (Charter) has treated me and pretty much everyone I know.

Behold! the end of the internet, and the beginning of anarchy.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] . . . What in Dante's black Hell does this have to do with the net neutrality bill?mrbojangles25

precisely.

I trust my government a helluva lot more than I do internet companies, especially given the history of how my internet company (Charter) has treated me and pretty much everyone I know.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Guys, guys, let's not forget what's important: Rich people. Now, I know we all want the Little People to have Internet access, but think about it: it's the rich people who give the Little People the money to go on the Internet in the first place, right? So, naturally, rich people should have greater access to the Internet. After all, we wouldn't want to let the Little People start thinking they're worth something, would we? :lol:Baconbits2004

Definitely, definitely not.
Rich people are smarter and will use the internet better than lets say... someone making less than 40 grand a year.

Do we really want little sally, or Susan to contimplate how much bandwidth sending that :P emoticon will cost them before sending it?
I think we do.

You're right. Think of all the job creation.