In my opinion, this debate doesn't really make much sense....
The ISP's are lead by a pure "speculation" on increased profit margin.
A two tier internet, where users + businesses must pay for certains "levels" of internet access really does render the internet useless in my opinion.
As bland as some cable TV packages.
Do you know who I feel about certain TV packages? Probably not, so I'll tell you.
I really don't care that I can be offered 60 channels.. because for every 9-10 channels, there is only usually about 1 that I wouldn't mind having... and if I want to get another channel that I find interesting, then I have to pay for a package laced with more uninteresting channels. (Maybe this has started to change with different digital cable vendors)
An internet that stops me from accessing say small business sites, or sites where I discover new music, information that I'm researching for my profession (such as technical blogs...etc) is really utterly useless for me.
The main appeal for me and that has inspired countless big business models is the freedom that the net provides... if you have an online service you are selling, you're potential market is huge.
If I can't get the blogs, the independant artist sites, the web forums....etc.
I'm not going to even have an internet connexion any longer. Unless my employer pays for it. And it's only purpose would be to monitor local area network ressources or something of that nature.
Honestly, for the ISPs, I think in the long run.... it's very short sighted.
It's like shooting yourself in the foot.
But, like this article reads, Google, Microsoft and other large software heavies are against this two tiered system. Google profits, because I do alot of research for my job. So does Microsoft, Yahoo and a host of others.
So... I'm really not sure how they could actually do this without spoiling what they actually have.
(Article here)
No comments:
Post a Comment