[jarjoura]

IMHO, this isn't about Netflix, YouTube, or even Amazon having to pay for higher tiered access to customers. They have the deep pockets and smart lawyers to construct contracts that work out for them in the end. So I see that as the same grumpy story as California and New York forcing Amazon to collect sales tax.

BUT, because this does force deals to be crafted behind closed doors, they will turn out looking a lot like the deals that HBO/Shotime have with Comcast and TWC. Plus, look at what's going on with Facebook already... phones in some countries have "facebook data" only plans. Sure, this is great for emerging markets to have access to family and friends for free, but at the loss of any other social network upstart that wants in on it.

I don't see indie content ever being cut off, but I do see them becoming "premium" subscription level services that require people to pay more to access them. Want to play COD or GOW online? You will need this level access to play with any reasonable speeds. It will happen slowly too, as people become accustom to the idea that opening a Wikipedia page will take 1000 ms then to 5000 ms to fully finish rendering. Someone at Comcast will nudge slowly testing whether people notice or care.

If we don't fight the good fight and force internet providers to remain dumb pipes, we are asking to have the most expensive internet on the planet. As cable TV dies in favor of watching what you want, when you want, they will naturally move to charge you for things you want to do on the internet instead.

edit: autocorrect fail :-P

[akadien]

> we are asking to have the most expensive internet on the planet

Indeed, it will be unfortunate for the United States when internet services are akin to healthcare and prescription drugs.

[Houshalter]

Is that necessarily a bad thing in all cases? I think it would be great if a company offered, say, really cheap or free access to wikipedia and other basic websites, but charged for actual service. Letting poor people access it or making it available to host cheaper free wifi. I think what people are afraid of is them throttling competitors, or charging more for normal service, but it doesn't have to be that way.

[jarjoura]

Why would Wikipedia be given cheaper than say, dictionary.com or nytimes.com? Or what about this website and all of the links it provides access to? "Poor people" need access to high quality content too ya know :-P.

Unless you want to create a scholarship foundation to provide free unlimited access to everything for these folk? Then a nice lottery can make it so the lucky few get that scholarship.

[bandushrew]

why do that instead of just making it so that really poor people got internet access, and then allowing them to decide how they use it?

as much as possible, we should avoid making decisions people can make for themselves.

[Houshalter]

If they want normal internet access they can pay for it. The point is to allow for a cheaper option if people want or need it.

[jarjoura]

Well right now people can buy super cheap $9 a month DSL service that provides very basic speeds. The difference right now is that the user of that service can decide where and how they use that bandwidth (assuming it's all legal).

So if all they need is IRC, Email, and Github, then that's perfect for them. Why would I let them (ISPs) decide how to bill me for the places I want to go on the internet?

[Houshalter]

I believe some places have much larger prices for businesses, and those that want to offer free wifi. Getting internet through phones is also very expensive. And not everyone has access to DSL.

So cheaper albeit restricted internet would be very welcomed by many. And if you don't want it, then don't buy it. It's just another choice.

[ampersandy]

but at the loss of any other social network upstart that wants in on it

Who do you think is footing the bill for those Facebook-only plans? Covering the costs of all internet use sounds like an unsustainable business strategy.

Are 'social network upstarts' losing out on users in the USA because people don't want (or can't afford) to pay for a data plan? How is this any different?

[jarjoura]

Well, lower income families in the US are far richer than equivalent families in emerging markets. Either that, or they at LEAST have access to credit to make access possible, just a burden. So that's not really a fair comparison.