US Telco's and ISP's to be denied "tiering"

I think this is great news. Some may disagree, that's OK too. Seems US legislation will prevent your Telco and ISP from "tiering" or throttling of bandwidth. There is still some concern though... If one reads the last line of the article it is an issue unfinished. I found it surprising that MS and Google were on what I consider the "good" side of this particular issue. Here's a link for those who may wish to know more.

Thanx,

Victor K.

[edit on 28-5-2006 by V Kaminski]

Very very good.

ISPs tinkering with subscriber links has been a growing concern. I haven't heard of many problems with bandwidth throttling, but a common occurance is if someone is running a webserver, the ISP will block port 80 unless they pay an extra charge. It is a highly unethical practice. Customers pay for the connection. It should be theirs to do with what they please.

ISP's would be able and in their right to limit access to certain sites to be low bandwith unless the site owner pays them $$ to get people to access this site as its supposed to be seen.

That way ISP's can for instance limit the speed to access Google to 1KB/s or make it so that only 1000 people at at time, on their network, can access google, in turn forcing google to pay them big $$ so that the people that want to surf to their site can do so the way its provided by google.

For download providers and videocontent providers, this is a really big disadvantage.

They are already paying huge bandwidth costs to host their sites and then, the same telco company's would force them to pay their bandwidth 2ce, once for hosting and once for clients.

Also can this be exploited in a way that clients would have to pay subscriptions to their telco's to gain unrestricted access to sites that these telco's don't even own. So, this would be money taken by the telco's at the expence of the websites in question, while these websites don't see a red cent of the cash..

Another impact of this would be that it'll be at the telco's discression to allow or disallow their clients access to parts of the net, pritty much totaly raping the whole idea around the web.

If telco's want to make extra money of the web, they should start services and website that add content to their services, instead of trying to make even more money of the backs of websites that often are run non-profit.


The entire idea behind this comes from they way AOL has been providing internet access since the day it started.

Telco's don't seem to know that the limiting, blocking, throtling and other types of raping webcontent is exactly what has put AOL in the number 1 spot of Worst Tech Products EVER listings for over a decade.

Alot of people say that AOL can't be as bad as people say, because they have many clients.


The only reason for that is because AOL and ISP's like it prey on people that have no clue about how things should be and have massive marketing departments backing them.

AOL gained most of its clients by sending a "trial" CD to nearly every family in the US and Europe every month for several years. Like this representing the first steppinstone for many people to the Internet.


AOL which has always practiced the things that this legislation is trying to legalize has also been convicted in many class action lawsuits for cheating their customers.


A legislation like this is rather stuppid to begin with.

All it takes to give the Telco's that want to use these stoneage AOLish type marketing and subscription based ISPing broadly supported by this legislation, a mercy blow to put them out of their money hungry missery, is a behamuth like Microsoft or Google to start a normal ISP that provides the web as its normaly provided "Connection, Bandwith, Surf" no limits.