re: The bundling of Internet content has begun and its about to get worse

quote:

---

Then take on the data caps themselves, because they are your problem. This zero rating stuff is not the real issue.

---

The data caps exist to create the illusion that there is a limited supply of something (bandwidth), when ultimately there isn't.

It's a foundation that allows for tiered services and the control of content and information.

Zero rated content is now a reality.

The next step? Free subscription plans that offer access to sponsored content, and only sponsored content. If you want access to any other website, prepare to pay. The internet now has "channels", with an impregnable scheme to limit any other entity from becoming successful.

It's cable television 2.0.

quote:

---

If ATT buys time Warner and now only att customers can watch game of thrones unlimited for free but everyone else has to pay to watch it and pay extra to watch it as much as they want you're OK with that?

---

yes

Game of Thrones content is a product, not a right

quote:

---

The data caps exist to create the illusion that there is a limited supply of something (bandwidth), when ultimately there isn't.

It's a foundation that allows for tiered services and the control of content and information.

Zero rated content is now a realit

---

So you'd be happier if they offered data caps and all sites counted against the cap?

Given the same plan and data caps, I see no issue with a company offering some sites that don't count against the cap. You can browse just as much internet as always (under the cap), but once you go over the cap, you still have access to other free sites. Sounds reasonable.

quote:

---

You can browse just as much internet as always (under the cap), but once you go over the cap, you still have access to other free sites. Sounds reasonable.

---

Here's what you're saying - if slackster exceeds his data cap, and is charged 50 cents per minute while he uses non-sponsored websites (ie, Tigerdroppings), he should be fine with that fact and happy to use sponsored content for the remainder of the month.

Sorry, but that's a huge problem.

Why should the ISP be in control of how much time someone spends on site A as opposed to site B?

Data caps are not the end game. They don't exist to solve a problem.

They are a small step in creating a controlled ecosystem of content, much like cable television. Cable is dying, and the media companies recognize that.

Pulling the entire internet under their control and dictating terms to the user is their goal - and data caps are the first part of that process.

quote:

---

Here's what you're saying - if slackster exceeds his data cap, and is charged 50 cents per minute while he uses non-sponsored websites (ie, Tigerdroppings), he should be fine with that fact and happy to use sponsored content for the remainder of the month.

Sorry, but that's a huge problem.

---

The alternative is that if slacksters exceeds his data cap, he is charged 50 cents per minute for ALL websites. Which is better for the majority of consumers - some free access to limited sites or being charged for every site?

Grrr this shite rustles my jimmies.
It's a manufactured hodge podge of bullying/kneecapping competition for sake of greed.
And all this from thin air.
Absolutely no need nor excuse for this.
100% fabricated method to squeeze blood from a turnip.

quote:

---

The alternative is that if slacksters exceeds his data cap, he is charged 50 cents per minute for ALL websites.

---

The alternative is that data caps don't exist, zero rated content doesn't exist, and users are free to exchange information and ideas over the web without their ISP placing monetary restrictions on what they can do online.

quote:

---

Which is better for the majority of consumers - some free access to limited sites or being charged for every site?

---

The latter. Charging a flat price for exceeding your cap keeps every website on an even playing field. People can visit Tigerdroppings and give Chicken ad revenue to keep this site alive instead of being relegated to visiting ESPN for the remainder of the month.

How will this affect the pron?

quote:

---

Which is exactly why this is anti competition. Someone like Chicken is getting screwed in this scenario. Either people stop coming to his site or he has to pay the ISPs to make his site not count against the data cap.

---

I'm not arguing whether it supports competition. I understand that it is a raw deal for Chicken, but my position is that it is a better deal for the majority of consumers. If you want to argue it is a bad deal for consumers in the long run because of the stifled competition, I'll buy it, but good luck selling that to the public. 33% of internet traffic goes to 10 distinct websites as it is. This kind of deal is bad for the fringe sites, no doubt about it, but the average consumer won't care.

frick the public, they're too stupid to see what this can lead to. More competition is better for the consumers, even if most are too short-sighted to see how this can affect them in the future.