It's two separate issues: (1) charging users based on their use of a resource; (2) charging providers of a service for the ability to deliver the service.
(1) is pretty standard in many industries and relates to your toll booth analogy. (2) would be more like a state charging a company (say Walmart) for the privilege for their customers to use a highway to reach their store. The smaller stores and mom-and-pop joints can't or won't pay so they go out of business. (1) may limit growth for everyone but (2) becomes a means of creating unfair competition. On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Raymond C. Rodgers < [email protected]> wrote: > While I generally agree with you, I would like to point out that there are > toll booths on some of the national interstate highways in some parts of the > country. Take for example I-80 outside of Chicago, IL, and also through much > of Ohio, or I-44/40 in Oklahoma... The interstates were long ago paid for by > our taxes, and their upkeep is paid by more tax money, and yet states are > allowed to profit from them apparently, though most don't have toll roads. > > That said, I whole heartedly agree that internet management needs to be > something outside the control of governments and businesses, but I can't > come up with a reasonable idea for a governing body that would be able to > enforce rules and provide equal access for all at a reasonable cost as > well... > > Raymond > > > On 8/10/2010 2:30 PM, Brian Conrad wrote: > >> Though I applaud Google's developing Android as an open source platform I >> DO NOT applaud their activities regarding the end to Net Neutrality. I'm >> getting tired of this growing trend of what essentially is "corporate >> communism" or where the corporations run everything including the >> government. Let's leave the Internet as it is. Or if the telecoms are >> crying because their expansion need to be paid for (after their exec's new >> yachts, private jets and mansions, of course) and start behaving arrogantly >> then it is time to take the Internet out of their hands and put it in the >> commons. It is the "information highway" and should be treated like our >> interstate highways with free and open access to everyone. >> >> Web site devoted to blocking this kind of activity: >> http://www.savetheinternet.com/ >> >> Also make your local small business people aware of this. They often just >> contract someone to do a web page and don't pay attention to this stuff. >> Let them know their customers will have difficulty getting to their web >> pages if net neutrality ends. Time to set fires under the usual apathetic >> asses of Americans. >> >> >> Shane Isbell wrote: >> >>> Some info on Google and Verizon on net neutrality in the link below. >>> >>> The article is a bit muddled. What Verizon is really trying to do is QoS >>> and >>> charging more for better service, something very similar to how they are >>> now >>> charging for tethering (although in a new way which I explain below). >>> T-Mobile never built out their QoS so we can expect them to remain >>> neutral; >>> but with Verizon and Google both coming out in support of this, I'd >>> expect >>> two things to happen on VZW. >>> >>> First, Android services are going to become tiered so to get the >>> full-experience is going to start costing end-users more. >>> >>> Second, companies like Google are going to be able to strike deals so >>> that >>> services like YouTube will be unrestricted, while services of competitors >>> (or other third-parties) who don't pay Verizon will be throttled. >>> >>> I understand the reasons carriers give for this, they pay a lot for the >>> network so the people that use it the most should pay more. This is >>> standard >>> business practice. But this new argument emerging that certain websites >>> or >>> services should be restricted is rather smelly and reflects back the old >>> Verizon (the true Verizon?) prior to Android. It's basically saying that >>> companies that pay more will have better service and this allows whole >>> competitive landscapes to shift in ways that QoS on the end-user >>> couldn't. >>> >>> To make this more specific, say you have a really popular Android >>> application and then Verizon has a most-favored vendor that decides to >>> come >>> up with a competitor to your application. Well, when your service becomes >>> twice as slow (or even unusable), which service do you think users will >>> move >>> to? This is a very dangerous slope for Android. >>> >>> >>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-09/google-verizon-offer-joint-internet-policy-proposal-without-mobile-limits.html >>> >>> >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Android Discuss" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<android-discuss%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en. > > -- Shane Isbell (Founder of ZappMarket) http://apps.facebook.com/zappmarket/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en.
