Pay for internet content? Watch out, it is legal for ISPs

[Saturnalia]

Appeals court took out a FCC rule today that bars ISPs (Internet Service Providers, think Sprint, Verizon) from making you pay extra to access certain sites.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/01/14/ ... lity-rule/

So Verizon could now charge you an extra $5 to access YouTube, or Google, etc.

[Racer]

This is why I am glad I am not dependant on the internet in general. This crap is already happening in the video game industry with games requiring constant online access and paying for certain features - one of the main reasons why I have lost interest in video games. This ISP fiasco will hurt the internet providers and many businesses.

[J T]

I can understand why ISPs would want to charge extra for those accessing sites that require a lot of streaming (youtube, netflix, etc). Verizon, AT&T and others have already moved to eliminate "no limit" data plans (unless you want to pay an arm and a leg), so it won't be a surprise if ISPs take advantage of this rule reversal to make more $$$. It's all about corporate greed.

[SousaKerry]

Well consumers ultimately drive the market so they charge extra for YouTube today and everyone will move their video's to Flicker and then the next site and the next.

Just like Napster, Limewire, now Torrents. Close one door another will open.

[Saturnalia]

I can understand why ISPs would want to charge extra for those accessing sites that require a lot of streaming (youtube, netflix, etc). Verizon, AT&T and others have already moved to eliminate "no limit" data plans (unless you want to pay an arm and a leg), so it won't be a surprise if ISPs take advantage of this rule reversal to make more $$$. It's all about corporate greed.

This isn't charging for data...this is saying "hey, wanna even visit this site? Pay extra or we're not serving it".

[Jetlink]

I can understand why ISPs would want to charge extra for those accessing sites that require a lot of streaming (youtube, netflix, etc). Verizon, AT&T and others have already moved to eliminate "no limit" data plans (unless you want to pay an arm and a leg), so it won't be a surprise if ISPs take advantage of this rule reversal to make more $$$. It's all about corporate greed.

This isn't charging for data...this is saying "hey, wanna even visit this site? Pay extra or we're not serving it".

My friend is an ISP proprietor out here where we live. He buys his bandwidth based on usage for his whole network. He charges his subscribers a flat monthly fee. When Netflix steaming became a stand alone package his bandwidth bill tripled within less than 6 months. He's had to redo his entire network backhaul to handle the the extra traffic. He in turned raised everyone's rates $5 a month to cover his costs. Even people who don't stream Netflix. The way you describe actually sounds more equitable. I should mention it to him.

[GreatLakesRailfan]

My understanding of the decision was that this was going to work the other way. Now if a website (like Youtube, NetFlix, etc.) wants their content to stream at "normal" speed, they have to pay more, otherwise their traffic can be given a lower priority than the sites that pay to maintain their higher priority.

From what you guys posted, it sounds like everyone will be paying more- the consumer for access and the content providers to maintain their popularity (do you really want to wait for a site to load at dial-up speed when you can go to another site that loads much, much quicker?).

Oh, and JT, I hope you don't have money invested in mutual funds- that corporate greed generates income for investors, many of whom are mutual funds and similar organizations in which people invest for retirement or other significant events, up to and including death (i.e. insurance).

[J T]

Well consumers ultimately drive the market so they charge extra for YouTube today and everyone will move their video's to Flicker and then the next site and the next.

Just like Napster, Limewire, now Torrents. Close one door another will open.

And you already have to pay to upload past a certain amount of data on Flickr. And I do (and don't mind).

You are correct. Something else always comes along to pick up the slack.

This isn't charging for data...this is saying "hey, wanna even visit this site? Pay extra or we're not serving it".

I didn't say it was. It was an analogy, and a valid one at that.

Oh, and JT, I hope you don't have money invested in mutual funds- that corporate greed generates income for investors, many of whom are mutual funds and similar organizations in which people invest for retirement or other significant events, up to and including death (i.e. insurance).

I'm all for it. I wish I could afford to invest money, actually.

[Saturnalia]

And you already have to pay to upload past a certain amount of data on Flickr. And I do (and don't mind).

You get a free Terabyte now...pretty hard to blow past that in a hurry. I could put 5 copies of my entire hard drive on there and still not fill it all up

[J T]

And you already have to pay to upload past a certain amount of data on Flickr. And I do (and don't mind).

You get a free Terabyte now...pretty hard to blow past that in a hurry. I could put 5 copies of my entire hard drive on there and still not fill it all up

See what happens when I don't pay attention to the ever-changing world of Flickr? I paid whatever their yearly membership fee was to upload more than three vids (or whatever the limit was at the time) last spring or summer. Nice to see they are loosening things up now. I probably won't need to re-up my "elite" membership when it comes back around.

[Saturnalia]

And you already have to pay to upload past a certain amount of data on Flickr. And I do (and don't mind).

You get a free Terabyte now...pretty hard to blow past that in a hurry. I could put 5 copies of my entire hard drive on there and still not fill it all up

See what happens when I don't pay attention to the ever-changing world of Flickr? I paid whatever their yearly membership fee was to upload more than three vids (or whatever the limit was at the time) last spring or summer. Nice to see they are loosening things up now. I probably won't need to re-up my "elite" membership when it comes back around.

IIRC "pro" was abolished this past summer, with everyone getting unlimited everything until 1 TB, and that anyone who was "pro" was going to get a refund for the time remaining in their current year, and go in with everyone else now.

[Norm]

Well, I'm just sitting back watching this, and I don't foresee the ISP's raising prices for the consumer unless they are downloading huge amounts of data. Remember the 'file-sharing' bit a few years ago? It went away. Now, the cable companies have to pay to carry most TV channels. That could happen to the ISP's as well.

Not holding my breath over this.

[J T]

IIRC "pro" was abolished this past summer, with everyone getting unlimited everything until 1 TB, and that anyone who was "pro" was going to get a refund for the time remaining in their current year, and go in with everyone else now.

Geezuz. Really? I don't recall seeing any refund check.

I'm just not involved enough with flickr to be on top of all the changes. I check in every day or two to look at the photos of the people I'm following and that's about it.

[Ypsi]

So is it only like when you are using data on a mobile device? Because if its mobile devices using data it seems that they would want you to use them more so you are more likely to go over your data limit all kidding aside I would think that a site like YouTube would not like having someone else charge to see their site unless there is like some kick back to YouTube that I didn't catch.

[Saturnalia]

The thing about mobile bandwidth is it is an expanding universe. 2 GB is a lot compared to just a few years ago. Tech companies are having a hard time getting widespread, bandwidth-heavy networks setup when the next generation comes out every few years. By the time they got 3G everywhere they started on 4G. All that infrastructure takes, you guessed it, a lot of money to build and maintain. Cellular data services are like railroads: capital intense and profit slim. They only make billions because they serve millions.

The thing with 3G and 4G networks is that while they are incredibly fast compared to the recent past, they still have a hard time with 1080p HD stuff, and when everyone wants in, it can stress the network, hence ISPs pricing scheme to fit both supply and demand for data while having enough money to expand the network and still make a profit.

At some point cellular and ground networks will be able to handle 1080p streaming with no problem. We're just not there yet. I know 4K stuff is coming into being, but at some point, and as I understand it 4K is getting there, you cannot notice the difference with the human eye between greater resolutions (correct word?). Same goes for audio.

That is how I understand that universe anyway...

[J T]

The thing about mobile bandwidth is it is an expanding universe. 2 GB is a lot compared to just a few years ago..

A "few" years ago, 2 GB was a LOT. NOW it's nothing. Or did you mean something different?

[Saturnalia]

The thing about mobile bandwidth is it is an expanding universe. 2 GB is a lot compared to just a few years ago..

A "few" years ago, 2 GB was a LOT. NOW it's nothing.

What you said. I must have changed wording halfway through.

I'm putting over 5 GB onto YouTube tonight alone...

[GreatLakesRailfan]

Point taken, JT.


A few years ago I had 2GB/month on my internet plan. For the most part, it was plenty, although that is largely the reason for my aversion to YouTube and other data sites. Ironically my phone data plan is still unlimited, but service can be spotty at certain times each month...

[MagnumForce]

IIRC "pro" was abolished this past summer, with everyone getting unlimited everything until 1 TB, and that anyone who was "pro" was going to get a refund for the time remaining in their current year, and go in with everyone else now.

Geezuz. Really? I don't recall seeing any refund check.

I'm just not involved enough with flickr to be on top of all the changes. I check in every day or two to look at the photos of the people I'm following and that's about it.

There are still advantages to pro and pro customers can even pay to keep their pro accounts as several of us here have. Namely being ad free and our photostream's also not having ads and the ability to see stats.

[conrailmike]

Flickr Pro is no longer offered but if you have a current pro account you can still keep it and pay for it. Refunds are no longer being offered. Some of the pro features are now available with the free flickr account, but not all of them. The photo and video size limits are bigger now with the free accounts and the pro accounts have it also.

Pro accounts still get....
Unlimited photo uploads
Unlimited video uploads
The ability to show HD Video
Unlimited storage
Unlimited bandwidth
Archiving of high-resolution original images
The ability to replace a photo
Post any of your photos or videos in up to 60 group pools
View count and referrer statistics
Limitation of maximum image size available to others
Ad-free browsing and sharing

Free accounts get....
1 Terabyte of space
Upload and download in full original quality. Up to 200MB per image
Ability to create “Collections”
Ability to replace photos
Post any of your photos or videos in up to 60 group pools

I think I'll keep my pro account.