Internet users must be able to access whatever content they want, regardless of telecoms companies' demands that high-bandwidth publishers pay them, according to a European Commissioner ahead of a consultation on net neutrality. Digital Agenda Commissioner Neelie Kroes said that whatever business model internet service providers …
The net should be neutral, ISPs need to start charging by usage
ISPs should not be demanding payment from publishers, in the same way that destinations don't pay road and fuel tax.
Mobile internet has moved to a per/GB charging model, so should home connections.
until i know
exactly what network traffic my pc's and devices are sending, I want a flat rate! The majority of applications out there are built on the assumption of an always on, flat rate connection. Background downloading etc, with no system of asking permission.
She's also campaigning against net neutrality
Look at her statements on Internet blocking - the poor woman doesn't understand that forcing ISPs to invest in technologies to discriminate between different types of content will lead to a non neutral internet.
Nothing to see here so far....
She's not said anything of note in this speech - and could hardly be expected to ahead of the consultation: see my blog on 'neelie-kroes-public-consultation'.
Paris, because she's got one leg in one camp and one in the other....
Re:The net should be neutral, ISPs need to start charging by usage
That's the way it used to be, but as soon as Demon introduced fixed monthly fees it quickly became obvious that that was what the public wanted - so all other ISPs followed suit.
Steelie Neelie for Prez.
She has her flaws, but she does consistantly stnad up to big biz on behalf of the little guy. Steelie Neelie for president of the world. (Position formed just for her.)
The bottom line here is that the ISPs are lazy and find it easier to take a chunk of Google's profits than develop a viable business model ot their own.
It's the old problem of offering service based on speed that they cannot deliver (ie x Mbits/second). Ofcom should jump on them and force them to offer service they can deliver. The smart ones will then offer a fatter pipe to those who want/need it, and make a juicy profit, and customers who just want a reliable, always-on email connection can continue to enjoy a cheap rate. Charging the Google/BBC (or whoever) because ISPs' customers want "rich content" is blatant nonsense.
I don't get it.
In OZ, I pay a set per-month fee for a certain (maximum) speed and a number of GB per months. Admittedly, in my case I compromised: I chose a lower speed (512Kb/s) in return for a high GB (unlimited, but effectively 180Gb at that speed).
Having done that, it's none of my ISP's business what I use the pipe for. It shouldn't matter whether I use it to play on-line games, have VOIP, host a website, visit websites, have my own personal mail-server, use BitTorrent (I watch JDrama and anime), or listen to online radio stations.
And if protocols come along that *have* to have fat pipes with no contention (I'm looking at *you* VOIP)... what the *heck* are you doing on a public internet line? Did you even *look* at what traffic was like on a typical pipe? Let me guess, you're the kind of protocol which buys a house under a flight path and then complain that the noise is too loud, right? Because, of course, *your* usage pattern is more "correct" and important than mine.
- Tricked by satire? Get all your news from Facebook? You're in luck, dummy
- Feature TV transport tech, part 1: From server to sofa at the touch of a button
- Google straps on Jetpac: An app to find hipsters, women in foreign cities
- Updated Microsoft Azure goes TITSUP (Total Inability To Support Usual Performance)
- The Return of BSOD: Does ANYONE trust Microsoft patches?