3 ms·

"The rest of the internet" as you call it. Depends on the traffic of people coming to it. If most people don't bother than those sites won't make money and will

"The rest of the internet" as you call it. Depends on the traffic of people coming to it. If most people don't bother than those sites won't make money and will shutdown. That's assuming it will still be possible to pay for an account that allows you to host a website or access your host. The internet is not just a bunch of content providers. It's a communication network.

varmeljus 9y ago
Yes but people have also been running things voluntarily before, and there can still be donations and so on. But "That's assuming it will still be possible to pay for an account that allows you to host a website or access your host." Do you think that they wont at all offer access to all of the internet to private citizens or at unreasonable cost? They might of course do either, but I personally believe ( maybe naively ) they will because they can make money but I might be wrong.
- grawprog 9y ago
  It's not just about changing to a tiered internet. They want to change the fundamental way it works from a connected network where you or I can send and receive any packets we want to any other machine connected. They want to change it to a system similar to cable where information is provided only from certain sources. If packets are monitored and metered they can decide what machines you are allowed to communicate with and the kind of communication you are allowed. They can charge you depending on what you look at, block anything from competitors and monitor everything you do. Right now, I could host my own webserver, pay for a domain name and ooen my server on port 80 and anyone could connect to that machine. If my server became popular i'd probably need to pay for more bandwidth but that's about it. If there was no net neutrality they could charge me anything they wanted to do that or just outright stop me. They could add whatever terms they wanted to 'hosting' accounts or whatever they call it. They could remove my website for posting content they disagree with. And when I say they I mean ISP's whose sole function should be to provide access ro the communication network that is the internet, not be the gatekeepers of global communication. The internet is far more than people hosting content for other people to consume. But they're trying really hard to turn it into nothing more than that. I grew up with dialup internet where you got charged by the webpage. Fucked if I'm going back to that.
  - varmeljus 9y ago
    Thank you, that post brought more insights in how they want to change it in a way that I hadn't thought about much. My view was more black and white, some basic internet or all internet. I need some time to think about this, but I will probably be back later or tomorrow. Thank you again.

varmeljus 9y ago

Yes but people have also been running things voluntarily before, and there can still be donations and so on. But "That's assuming it will still be possible to pay for an account that allows you to host a website or access your host." Do you think that they wont at all offer access to all of the internet to private citizens or at unreasonable cost? They might of course do either, but I personally believe ( maybe naively ) they will because they can make money but I might be wrong.

grawprog 9y ago
It's not just about changing to a tiered internet. They want to change the fundamental way it works from a connected network where you or I can send and receive any packets we want to any other machine connected. They want to change it to a system similar to cable where information is provided only from certain sources. If packets are monitored and metered they can decide what machines you are allowed to communicate with and the kind of communication you are allowed. They can charge you depending on what you look at, block anything from competitors and monitor everything you do. Right now, I could host my own webserver, pay for a domain name and ooen my server on port 80 and anyone could connect to that machine. If my server became popular i'd probably need to pay for more bandwidth but that's about it. If there was no net neutrality they could charge me anything they wanted to do that or just outright stop me. They could add whatever terms they wanted to 'hosting' accounts or whatever they call it. They could remove my website for posting content they disagree with. And when I say they I mean ISP's whose sole function should be to provide access ro the communication network that is the internet, not be the gatekeepers of global communication. The internet is far more than people hosting content for other people to consume. But they're trying really hard to turn it into nothing more than that. I grew up with dialup internet where you got charged by the webpage. Fucked if I'm going back to that.
- varmeljus 9y ago
  Thank you, that post brought more insights in how they want to change it in a way that I hadn't thought about much. My view was more black and white, some basic internet or all internet. I need some time to think about this, but I will probably be back later or tomorrow. Thank you again.