Comment by firasd
10 years ago
So you’re fine with the idea that every time you load news.ycombinator.com your ISP charges you $0.10 extra, but if you load TMZ.com it’s free? That would not be “the internet” in my books, and I’m glad that across the world, from Obama & the FCC to India, people are standing steadfast to endorse net neutrality.
As for why there’s no turning back: for most of the internet’s history we’ve had ‘de facto’ net neutrality so we can codify the regulations without disruption. As soon as ISPs get habituated to pricing usage based on the app, it will be difficult to put the genie back in the bottle.
> That would not be “the internet” in my books
Which is why you are free to take your business to another ISP that does no such shenanigans.
Well, in the US at least not many rural people (and some city people) do not have access to multiple ISPs. I have comcast up to 120 mbps, or att for 6mbps. So I need to sell my house if I want to drop comcast.
As with Bittorrent, the solution may simply be VPNs.
how would that help? the free sites are on a whitelist; vpns simply mean you pay for everything.
1) This was in response to firasd's alarmist argument about ISPs charging differently based on what sites you access, not the Internet.org thing.
2) There are free VPNs out there. I am not sure how trustworthy they are, but people I know have been using them for ages.
2 replies →