Telecoms package

[galaxyAbstractor]

http://blackouteurope.eu/

On 5th may they are gonna vote about the telecoms package in the Europe parliament.

If it gets trough, it could mean that ISPs in countries with EU can block all websites and offer the largest sites for you in packages as they do with TV. Package 1 for $10 could be like gmail, hotmail, package 2 for $15 could be same as package 1 but with wikipedia etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecoms_Package

The proposition also make it possible for Internet providers to decide which web pages users are allowed to visit, potentially limiting acess to websites critical of the ISP or the government. ISPs would then sell internet packages, similar to TV packages, allowing access to a limited number of websites. Critics claim this will limit the freedom of speech on Internet.

So if this would be voted for and passed, it could be no more x10 for us in a EU country

 

[Smith6612]

That's a violation of Net Neutrality! Looks like we have to plan to disconnect another country from the internet now, eh?

But in all honesty, if my provider were to do anything like that, they'd be dropped as soon as I found out and they would not be getting any "WTFETF" money from me for doing such a stupid move. It's the same standpoint I have with capping and throttling my line. Simply said, mess with my line and you get no money and you won't be seeing me using your service for a while! Seriously though, it costs ISPs virtually nothing for bandwidth the pay for. That's why I said in my topic about ISP caps that bandwidth itself for a 1Gbps line is seriously way less than a penny for 1GB of transfer, and as a matter of fact many ISPs themselves do pay a fixed amount a month for pipes of a certain size, or they run their own networks. As I and millions of others have said, it's all about the money and trying to make millions in profit while giving back very little.

Do not let that pass!

On a second thought, why do T1 lines still exist for $250 a month?

 

[farscapeone]

Sure it's about money but consider this. If they can block whatever they like what's stopping them to block sites somebody paid them to block? Imagine Warner Bros. paying them to block all torrent sites. Now that is not legal cos it's threatening your privacy but if this thing pass nothing can stop them. It's another way of censorship on the net and it's a little scary.

 

[zen-r]

For the UK, this story was reported in March here ;

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/12/subscription_only_internet/

I can't see it happening myself - people have got too used to the idea now of the internet being (virtually) uncensored. If the net had originally been introduced to us in the same way as TV & radio etc though, we would have taken it for granted if the net was also only providing us with selected, censored content.

I think if it did happen, but there were still some other ISPs providing full access, then most people would vote with their feet (& money). The only reason restricted access might succeed would be if it provided some advantage to the consumer such as free or cheap access. One advantage for parents might be if the new service provided a safe, sanitised environment for their children to use the net, without access to the current crop of "nasties".

Please click my Reputation button

(at the corner of this post) & make me -it costs you nothing!

If I've traded services/credits with you, please remember to leave iTrader Feedback. Thanks.​

 

[galaxyAbstractor]

http://telekompaketet.se/

They are going to vote about Amendement 138 today. If it gets trough, we should be safe. If it doesn't, there is no protections against ISPs blocking the internet.