[vol7ron]

Originally Posted by Hazirak

...All that needs to happen is for code to be injected into the page that registers when a user navigates away from that page or closes the window. Got a smartie who disabled JavaScript to avoid getting billed? It would be just about as simple to serve him a page telling him to turn his JavaScript on whenever he tries to browse instead of taking him to where he wants to go.

Another option would be to force users to install a plugin, ActiveX or otherwise, that will log page clicks and send information back to the ISP....

In both cases, if someone manages to find a way around it, they can simply be cut off - it's not hard to write an automated script that can check for and flag accounts with bandwidth usage registered, but a running balance of $0.00...

All of that doesn't make sense. The problem isn't page clicks, it's the bandwidth used that's costing them money.

What will most likely happen is that they'll turn into a service like the mobile industry. Instead of paying for minutes, you'll be paying for bandwidth. If you go over, you'll be charged more. Not to mention they'll probably have a program where you can monitor it.

They already have the software in place to monitor and cut-people off based on bandwidth, why not refine it instead of making a pay-per-click like software that can just be hacked?

Second of all, it was said "pay-per-click" not pay per page change. What if you used your address bar for all your web navigation, there's no way the company would be able to see how the person navigated away from the page, without capturing the browser events. And if they do that using JavaScript, I'll just use FireFox add-on's to filter it out.

Another thing to consider is that power companies might instead turn into ISPs. I mean think about it:
- They can tunnel a lot more energy
- They already have the network (cabling and infrastructure) in place
- It would be cheaper for them to do it.

Once that happens, it'd just be a matter of time before we start hearing "free internet" again and more government programs to provide it.

[Uchiha Sasuke]

we ll think of it this way. if internet ends then half of the citizens will prob boycott their isp and head over to washington to protest it

[perpsgt]

The internet is the last bastion of free speech. Corporate interests and the powers that be have too much of a vested interest in seeing the internet restricted to a pay per click/government approved content only type model. The change will most likely be explained away with 'save the children' or 'for your own protection' type reasoning, which sadly, most people will accept.

[vol7ron]

Nope. There is too much money in the internet to regulate it as has been said. If people are worried about the national economy now, what type of impact do you think this will have? There are millions of sales/transactions performed daily, the moment you start raising prices on this sort of thing, people will be appalled at having to pay for what should be a "free" service.

Just think about all the people that do online banking, play games, talk to friends, visit google, etc. Charging for internet in that sort of way would be detrimental to the progression of the nation as we know it. Education is probably one of the best things that has come from the internet. Not to mention the big internet companies (E-Bay, Google, Yahoo, Amazon) will lobby the hell out of congress if they do try to pass a bill to regulate.

I think you guys are not looking at the underlying factors that will be brought up. All of this will be considered and they'll eventually decide it won't be okay to do.

[perpsgt]

Maybe you are right vol7ron, but at some point I feel that some degree of restriction will be put in place to at least try to control content to a certain level. It is already happening to some extent under more overtly oppressive regimes in China and the like. Why should the West be any different?

[vol7ron]

I know this is becoming an old post, but I keep swaying back and forth on what I said. I think with the problems on the internet (mostly torrent/criminal activity/pornography related), this problem might be solved by charging the usage rate. But then with the politics involved, I start thinking that there has to be a really legitimate push to allow such actions.

As for content control. There is already controls established in the USA. Try finding information on making bombs and/or finding child pornography. It's almost impossible - I know because I tried to do research in college. The real struggle is going to be getting around free-speech acts, and defining what an invasion of privacy is. But then think of all those free hosts, or cheap hosts. You can set up a script to send/receive daily information. All of those hosts will be charged and the price reflected in higher hosting costs.

I just think overall charging a variable rate might be bad. It's sort of like Casinos offering free hotel rooms. They'll take a hit on the overnight stay price, but they'll make it back plus some in the food, entertainment, and casino games. When it comes to the economy, I think the free internet is much like a free hotel: get the user online for free, and then let him/her spend that money shopping and playing games.

[kirtik]

Originally Posted by tnl2k7

Well, the only broadband service that runs at a speed over 20 kB/s is BT broadband, which is overpriced and pretty damn sucky compared with other ISPs. And BT are a bunch of lazy so and sos, not willing to spend the cash on replacing our crappy lines. Seriously, this should be enforced by the government; it ain't never gonna happen otherwise.

-Luke.

Apparently, the government is going to try and persuade BT to make the system 'fibre to the street exchange' (like Virgin Media), rather than fibre to the local exchange, which can be over 10 miles away in places. There's an article on BBC news somewhere.

[Smith6612]

Originally Posted by kirtik

Apparently, the government is going to try and persuade BT to make the system 'fibre to the street exchange' (like Virgin Media), rather than fibre to the local exchange, which can be over 10 miles away in places. There's an article on BBC news somewhere.

Fiber to the Home is best though! It's a bit more expensive, but it's future proof. My ISP Verizon is spending several billion dollars running fiber optic cabling into all or most of their territories.

[jsobeck]

I was looking at this the other day and I think I'll be switching to Verizon as soon as they get fiber optic in my area, my friend in Illinois has it and he's never had the problems I've had with outages and throttling.

[Zdroyd]

Pay by download would suck... Sometimes I download files just to see what they are...

Charging monthly or by minute would be the best ways.

Or even better: We should have universal healthcare (oops, I meen Internet) where it comes with the land plot.