I’m surprised to see this argument being made at Vice. This issue boils down to property rights. The telecoms own their networks, and they are changing the price they charge for the public to use them. Any business should be able to set it’s own prices.

Does Vices have different ad rates for the back cover and the inside pages? The answer is “yes”. According to your ad rates:

Back cover: $16, 500
Inside page: $8, 243

Same size, two different prices. If Vice were approached by a small clothing and told that they should offer the back cover for the same price as the inside pages because their “freedom was under fire”, I think Vice would laugh their asses off.

Why should the telecoms be any different? Because blogging is democratic? Free speech? By that argument, a paper company would be forced to sell paper cheaper to a political magazine publisher than to a clothing catalogue publisher. Ridiculous.

wait a minute - dont the telecoms already charge for the line? why should they be able to charge twice? they’re doing this cus they lost so mu ch money now that nobody ever makes long-distance calls any more.

But Vice is a small scale supplement, paid for by the adverts exclusively. It’s content is produced by Vice staff and are not a two way communication. We as subscribers don’t pay a premium to access it.

Telecoms get money from all of us via our service providers (ISP’s), right? Like any other service. We all pay for our internet use equally, based on consumption to some extent.

Why not charge like other services such as electricity? I.e. the bigger users of bandwidth through larger audiences accessing the site are charged a higher price for their service, whereas your average home user and small business site will still use only a fraction of the bandwidth that big business e-commerce sites would require. Because after all, the corporations who are looking for a better tier of internet provision will be using the enhanced service to sell more product and make more money, easily

Or am I missing something?

Come on #1,

off course the internet should not be up for sale like Vice’s ad pages.
That’s an idiotic argument to make.

The internet is NOT a magazine where you can buy every page for ads.
Or at least it has a chance of NOT becoming that.

There are internet mags or sites that are businesses or just popular where you can buy ad space, now that’s more like a magazine.
Where you can buy the right to be seen by the public that likes into that site.

But to say that the whole internet and search functions on it should be dictated by ads etc is the same as saying that CANON or XEROX or whatever the paper manufacturers are called, should be able to put ad’s on the paper that we buy in stores for personal use, magasines, zines, catalogues whatever.

The internet is MORE than a magazine, as paper is more than a magazine.
Sure a magazine is made of paper, just the same way as an internet site can’t function without the internet.

The internet should be kept as free as possible, and it’s not really about property rights, or the telecoms not making money if they don’t do this, as they make money on the subscribers who pay for acess (ie. us).
They are ALREADY making money on the investments they have made.
They are renting out acess to the internet (And their cables) to us, and now they suddenly want to pollute the product that we buy and decide what kind of sites and information we can acess on it.

greedy.
that’s what it’s called.

YES now, for the first time, the continued expansion of the Internet is at risk. We’re about to kill the goose that lays the golden global eggs.

How? By regulating it!

For any of the nation’s competing ISPs to offer customers slow, patchy, let alone nonexistent access to the websites they seek to visit, would be commercial suicide. As for innovation, websites are free to continue using standard, non-prioritized Internet service. The fact that this would be slower than premium service does not mean that it would be slow, just as UPS’s decision to offer overnight delivery did not lead them to suddenly degrade their Ground shipping. Premium Internet services would enable, not stifle, innovation, by giving websites creative options they did not have before.

The specter of ISPs offering glacial access to certain websites is a smokescreen, designed to obscure the net-neutrality movement’s goal: preventing anyone from having superior, unequal access to customers. In the minds of net-neutrality advocates, the Internet is a collectively owned entity, to which all websites have an equal claim and are entitled “equal access.” As the title of a leading net-neutrality group proclaims: “It’s our Net.”

But it isn’t.

The Internet is not a collectivist commune; it is a free, voluntary, and private association of individuals and corporations harmoniously pursuing their individual goals. (While it began as a government-funded project, the Internet’s ultra-advanced state today is the achievement of private network builders, hardware companies, content providers, and customers.) Because the Internet is based on voluntary association, no one can properly compel others for their ad space, bandwidth, publicity–or data prioritization. Those who create these values have the right to use and profit from them as they see fit. Google has no more right to demand that Verizon be “neutral” with its network than Verizon has a right to demand that Google be “neutral” with its coveted advertising space.

The only thing equal about the participants on the Internet is that all have equal freedom to deal with others voluntarily. This means they are equally free to compete for the bandwidth, dollars, and talents of others–but not entitled to an unearned, equal portion of them.

It is the freedom of participants on the Internet to offer and profit from whatever products, services, or content they choose that has made it such a phenomenal source of content and innovation. Net neutrality would deny ISPs that freedom. It would deny their right to engage in creative, innovative, and profitable activity with those networks–in the name of those who demand their bandwidth, but are unable or unwilling to earn it in a free market.

So how can we help?

Cable and phone companies have no obligation to treat all Internet traffic
equally. If these companies judge it to be in their self-interest to sell
speedier delivery to certain content providers, they should be free to do
so.

Just as FedEx and UPS are free to charge their customers for faster
delivery, so should cable and phone companies.

The idea that cable and phone companies cannot offer superior services to
some of their customers is an attack on their freedom. As owners of their
networks, they have the right to run their businesses as they see fit.

Well said David.

Phrawgg2, I don’t think there is much we can do about it. There are too many stupid people like the one who wrote this article not to mention the widespread support for net neutrality among successful Internet companies–including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, eBay, and Amazon–is short-sighted and contemptible. These companies, which have benefited greatly from the unimpeded freedom of the Internet, are now trying to deny the same freedom to innovative ISPs and ambitious competitors under the egalitarian banner of “equal access.” This is an invitation for any clever moocher to demand “equal access” to their hard-earned resources; indeed, Google is already being sued because its proprietary search engine allegedly gives “unfair” rankings to certain companies.

The Internet is one of the great bastions of freedom and innovation in our civilization. Let us try and keep it that way by rejecting “net neutrality.”

woah. this thread makes me feel dumbo

That’s a completely facile argument, and whoever posted it is either a) not very bright opr b) being delibverately misleading. Vice magazine and the internet aren’t one and the same. Sorry to break that news, but to equate one magazine and the single largest tool of human comunication in existence is unfortunately a bit of a stretch. If Vice’s rates are too high, people can advertise in another free magazine, or advertise on cable, or start their own magazine. etc.. etc. If I can’t afford the prices these companies are looking to set should I… build a world wide network of connected databases? That’s retarded.

Is this an argument of property rights? Yes is it, but to say that a company should be able to charge as much as they want because they’ve flexed their financial muscle and invested in the hardware is both overly simplistic and dangerous. It’s like allowing a corporation to buy the water supply in an area and then charge people if they want to get all fancy and “drink water”. Or going back to your analogy about paper companies (which frankly makes no sense) its like letting people have access to paper and prinitng equipment, but then forcing them to go through a filter of a few giant corporations if they ever want anyone to see it. Ohwait, that already exists… its called traditional media and its why the internat is so fucking mportant.

I’m not advocating commmunism. That shit doesn’t work. But do you reeeeeeally want completely unbridled capitalism? I guess if you’re a nineteenth century robber-baron thats not so bad. But ask a 12 year old in a caoal mine and I’ll bet they tell you some governement intervention in business isn’t neccesarily a bad.

It’s about balancing private property rights against overwhelming public interest, and in the case the damage to the ability to freely communicate COMPLETELY outweighs the profits a few companies stand to make.

Plus I bet that first commenter IS a telecom. A name like that is exactly the kind of reverse psychology bullsht I expect from anyone who seriously thinks privatising the internet is a good idea.

That’s a completely facile argument, and whoever posted it is either a) not very bright opr b) being delibverately misleading. Vice magazine and the internet aren’t one and the same. Sorry to break that news, but to equate one magazine and the single largest tool of human comunication in existence is unfortunately a bit of a stretch. If Vice’s rates are too high, people can advertise in another free magazine, or advertise on cable, or start their own magazine. etc.. etc. If I can’t afford the prices these companies are looking to set should I… build a world wide network of connected databases? That’s retarded.

Is this an argument of property rights? Yes is it, but to say that a company should be able to charge as much as they want because they’ve flexed their financial muscle and invested in the hardware is both overly simplistic and dangerous. It’s like allowing a corporation to buy the water supply in an area and then charge people if they want to get all fancy and “drink water”. Or going back to your analogy about paper companies (which frankly makes no sense) its like letting people have access to paper and prinitng equipment, but then forcing them to go through a filter of a few giant corporations if they ever want anyone to see it. Ohwait, that already exists… its called traditional media and its why the internat is so fucking mportant.

I’m not advocating commmunism. That shit doesn’t work. But do you reeeeeeally want completely unbridled capitalism? I guess if you’re a nineteenth century robber-baron thats not so bad. But ask a 12 year old in a caoal mine and I’ll bet they tell you some governement intervention in business isn’t neccesarily a bad.

It’s about balancing private property rights against overwhelming public interest, and in the case the damage to the ability to freely communicate COMPLETELY outweighs the profits a few companies stand to make.

Plus I bet that first commenter IS a telecom. A name like that is exactly the kind of reverse psychology bullsht I expect from anyone who seriously thinks privatising the internet is a good idea.

That’s a completely facile argument, and whoever posted it is either a) not very bright opr b) being delibverately misleading. Vice magazine and the internet aren’t one and the same. Sorry to break that news, but to equate one magazine and the single largest tool of human comunication in existence is unfortunately a bit of a stretch. If Vice’s rates are too high, people can advertise in another free magazine, or advertise on cable, or start their own magazine. etc.. etc. If I can’t afford the prices these companies are looking to set should I… build a world wide network of connected databases? That’s retarded.

Is this an argument of property rights? Yes is it, but to say that a company should be able to charge as much as they want because they’ve flexed their financial muscle and invested in the hardware is both overly simplistic and dangerous. It’s like allowing a corporation to buy the water supply in an area and then charge people if they want to get all fancy and “drink water”. Or going back to your analogy about paper companies (which frankly makes no sense) its like letting people have access to paper and prinitng equipment, but then forcing them to go through a filter of a few giant corporations if they ever want anyone to see it. Ohwait, that already exists… its called traditional media and its why the internat is so fucking mportant.

I’m not advocating commmunism. That shit doesn’t work. But do you reeeeeeally want completely unbridled capitalism? I guess if you’re a nineteenth century robber-baron thats not so bad. But ask a 12 year old in a caoal mine and I’ll bet they tell you some governement intervention in business isn’t neccesarily a bad.

It’s about balancing private property rights against overwhelming public interest, and in the case the damage to the ability to freely communicate COMPLETELY outweighs the profits a few companies stand to make.

Plus I bet that first commenter IS a telecom. A name like that is exactly the kind of reverse psychology bullsht I expect from anyone who seriously thinks privatising the internet is a good idea.

That’s a completely facile argument, and whoever posted it is either a) not very bright opr b) being delibverately misleading. Vice magazine and the internet aren’t one and the same. Sorry to break that news, but to equate one magazine and the single largest tool of human comunication in existence is unfortunately a bit of a stretch. If Vice’s rates are too high, people can advertise in another free magazine, or advertise on cable, or start their own magazine. etc.. etc. If I can’t afford the prices these companies are looking to set should I… build a world wide network of connected databases? That’s retarded.

Is this an argument of property rights? Yes is it, but to say that a company should be able to charge as much as they want because they’ve flexed their financial muscle and invested in the hardware is both overly simplistic and dangerous. It’s like allowing a corporation to buy the water supply in an area and then charge people if they want to get all fancy and “drink water”. Or going back to your analogy about paper companies (which frankly makes no sense) its like letting people have access to paper and prinitng equipment, but then forcing them to go through a filter of a few giant corporations if they ever want anyone to see it. Ohwait, that already exists… its called traditional media and its why the internat is so fucking mportant.

I’m not advocating commmunism. That shit doesn’t work. But do you reeeeeeally want completely unbridled capitalism? I guess if you’re a nineteenth century robber-baron thats not so bad. But ask a 12 year old in a caoal mine and I’ll bet they tell you some governement intervention in business isn’t neccesarily a bad.

It’s about balancing private property rights against overwhelming public interest, and in the case the damage to the ability to freely communicate COMPLETELY outweighs the profits a few companies stand to make.

Plus I bet that first commenter IS a telecom. A name like that is exactly the kind of reverse psychology bullsht I expect from anyone who seriously thinks privatising the internet is a good idea.

That’s a completely facile argument, and whoever posted it is either a) not very bright opr b) being delibverately misleading. Vice magazine and the internet aren’t one and the same. Sorry to break that news, but to equate one magazine and the single largest tool of human comunication in existence is unfortunately a bit of a stretch. If Vice’s rates are too high, people can advertise in another free magazine, or advertise on cable, or start their own magazine. etc.. etc. If I can’t afford the prices these companies are looking to set should I… build a world wide network of connected databases? That’s retarded.

Is this an argument of property rights? Yes is it, but to say that a company should be able to charge as much as they want because they’ve flexed their financial muscle and invested in the hardware is both overly simplistic and dangerous. It’s like allowing a corporation to buy the water supply in an area and then charge people if they want to get all fancy and “drink water”. Or going back to your analogy about paper companies (which frankly makes no sense) its like letting people have access to paper and prinitng equipment, but then forcing them to go through a filter of a few giant corporations if they ever want anyone to see it. Ohwait, that already exists… its called traditional media and its why the internat is so fucking mportant.

I’m not advocating commmunism. That shit doesn’t work. But do you reeeeeeally want completely unbridled capitalism? I guess if you’re a nineteenth century robber-baron thats not so bad. But ask a 12 year old in a caoal mine and I’ll bet they tell you some governement intervention in business isn’t neccesarily a bad.

It’s about balancing private property rights against overwhelming public interest, and in the case the damage to the ability to freely communicate COMPLETELY outweighs the profits a few companies stand to make.

Plus I bet that first commenter IS a telecom. A name like that is exactly the kind of reverse psychology bullsht I expect from anyone who seriously thinks privatising the internet is a good idea.

That’s a completely facile argument, and whoever posted it is either a) not very bright opr b) being delibverately misleading. Vice magazine and the internet aren’t one and the same. Sorry to break that news, but to equate one magazine and the single largest tool of human comunication in existence is unfortunately a bit of a stretch. If Vice’s rates are too high, people can advertise in another free magazine, or advertise on cable, or start their own magazine. etc.. etc. If I can’t afford the prices these companies are looking to set should I… build a world wide network of connected databases? That’s retarded.

Is this an argument of property rights? Yes is it, but to say that a company should be able to charge as much as they want because they’ve flexed their financial muscle and invested in the hardware is both overly simplistic and dangerous. It’s like allowing a corporation to buy the water supply in an area and then charge people if they want to get all fancy and “drink water”. Or going back to your analogy about paper companies (which frankly makes no sense) its like letting people have access to paper and prinitng equipment, but then forcing them to go through a filter of a few giant corporations if they ever want anyone to see it. Ohwait, that already exists… its called traditional media and its why the internat is so fucking mportant.

I’m not advocating commmunism. That shit doesn’t work. But do you reeeeeeally want completely unbridled capitalism? I guess if you’re a nineteenth century robber-baron thats not so bad. But ask a 12 year old in a caoal mine and I’ll bet they tell you some governement intervention in business isn’t neccesarily a bad.

It’s about balancing private property rights against overwhelming public interest, and in the case the damage to the ability to freely communicate COMPLETELY outweighs the profits a few companies stand to make.

Plus I bet that first commenter IS a telecom. A name like that is exactly the kind of reverse psychology bullsht I expect from anyone who seriously thinks privatising the internet is a good idea.

That’s a completely facile argument, and whoever posted it is either a) not very bright opr b) being delibverately misleading. Vice magazine and the internet aren’t one and the same. Sorry to break that news, but to equate one magazine and the single largest tool of human comunication in existence is unfortunately a bit of a stretch. If Vice’s rates are too high, people can advertise in another free magazine, or advertise on cable, or start their own magazine. etc.. etc. If I can’t afford the prices these companies are looking to set should I… build a world wide network of connected databases? That’s retarded.

Is this an argument of property rights? Yes is it, but to say that a company should be able to charge as much as they want because they’ve flexed their financial muscle and invested in the hardware is both overly simplistic and dangerous. It’s like allowing a corporation to buy the water supply in an area and then charge people if they want to get all fancy and “drink water”. Or going back to your analogy about paper companies (which frankly makes no sense) its like letting people have access to paper and prinitng equipment, but then forcing them to go through a filter of a few giant corporations if they ever want anyone to see it. Ohwait, that already exists… its called traditional media and its why the internat is so fucking mportant.

I’m not advocating commmunism. That shit doesn’t work. But do you reeeeeeally want completely unbridled capitalism? I guess if you’re a nineteenth century robber-baron thats not so bad. But ask a 12 year old in a caoal mine and I’ll bet they tell you some governement intervention in business isn’t neccesarily a bad.

It’s about balancing private property rights against overwhelming public interest, and in the case the damage to the ability to freely communicate COMPLETELY outweighs the profits a few companies stand to make.

Plus I bet that first commenter IS a telecom. A name like that is exactly the kind of reverse psychology bullsht I expect from anyone who seriously thinks privatising the internet is a good idea.

That’s a completely facile argument, and whoever posted it is either a) not very bright opr b) being delibverately misleading. Vice magazine and the internet aren’t one and the same. Sorry to break that news, but to equate one magazine and the single largest tool of human comunication in existence is unfortunately a bit of a stretch. If Vice’s rates are too high, people can advertise in another free magazine, or advertise on cable, or start their own magazine. etc.. etc. If I can’t afford the prices these companies are looking to set should I… build a world wide network of connected databases? That’s retarded.

Is this an argument of property rights? Yes is it, but to say that a company should be able to charge as much as they want because they’ve flexed their financial muscle and invested in the hardware is both overly simplistic and dangerous. It’s like allowing a corporation to buy the water supply in an area and then charge people if they want to get all fancy and “drink water”. Or going back to your analogy about paper companies (which frankly makes no sense) its like letting people have access to paper and prinitng equipment, but then forcing them to go through a filter of a few giant corporations if they ever want anyone to see it. Ohwait, that already exists… its called traditional media and its why the internat is so fucking mportant.

I’m not advocating commmunism. That shit doesn’t work. But do you reeeeeeally want completely unbridled capitalism? I guess if you’re a nineteenth century robber-baron thats not so bad. But ask a 12 year old in a caoal mine and I’ll bet they tell you some governement intervention in business isn’t neccesarily a bad.

It’s about balancing private property rights against overwhelming public interest, and in the case the damage to the ability to freely communicate COMPLETELY outweighs the profits a few companies stand to make.

Plus I bet that first commenter IS a telecom. A name like that is exactly the kind of reverse psychology bullsht I expect from anyone who seriously thinks privatising the internet is a good idea.

That’s a completely facile argument, and whoever posted it is either a) not very bright opr b) being delibverately misleading. Vice magazine and the internet aren’t one and the same. Sorry to break that news, but to equate one magazine and the single largest tool of human comunication in existence is unfortunately a bit of a stretch. If Vice’s rates are too high, people can advertise in another free magazine, or advertise on cable, or start their own magazine. etc.. etc. If I can’t afford the prices these companies are looking to set should I… build a world wide network of connected databases? That’s retarded.

Is this an argument of property rights? Yes is it, but to say that a company should be able to charge as much as they want because they’ve flexed their financial muscle and invested in the hardware is both overly simplistic and dangerous. It’s like allowing a corporation to buy the water supply in an area and then charge people if they want to get all fancy and “drink water”. Or going back to your analogy about paper companies (which frankly makes no sense) its like letting people have access to paper and prinitng equipment, but then forcing them to go through a filter of a few giant corporations if they ever want anyone to see it. Ohwait, that already exists… its called traditional media and its why the internat is so fucking mportant.

I’m not advocating commmunism. That shit doesn’t work. But do you reeeeeeally want completely unbridled capitalism? I guess if you’re a nineteenth century robber-baron thats not so bad. But ask a 12 year old in a caoal mine and I’ll bet they tell you some governement intervention in business isn’t neccesarily a bad.

It’s about balancing private property rights against overwhelming public interest, and in the case the damage to the ability to freely communicate COMPLETELY outweighs the profits a few companies stand to make.

Plus I bet that first commenter IS a telecom. A name like that is exactly the kind of reverse psychology bullsht I expect from anyone who seriously thinks privatising the internet is a good idea.

that first guy is for sure either a tool of a telecom or a republican party gimp.

Basically, the net as it is is the perfect operating platform for a (generally) capatilist, (more or less) democratic society like ours. You can begin with almost nothing -in essence just a computer and internet connection - and build up your business empire in cyberspace. There are many examples of this. This is fine, but if the big guns at the Telecoms industries decided to make you pay way more if you wanted to reach more people and make more money then I think as long as they are independently regulated then why shouldn’t they. Always national TV stations have charged more for advert placements than local ones, it is common sense.
I wonder if they will start doing this for social empires too though. That way, if you are rich, and can afford the best and quickest connections you can get your myspace profile out to loads more people…..

the internet is not a big truck. its a series of tubes!

if this goes through the internet will just become a tv. where content is chocked with ads. but why would vice care…isn’t vice “the man”?

I was for net neutrality until I saw that video.

You know, your right, fuck the internet. There’s nothing special about it and there never was. All it’s ever been is a platform for business and advertising. What’s really important is making sure that all these e-business have equal access to customers. I guess the best way to do this would be to allow the more profitable companies faster more efficient delivery of their code.

Some may insist that if two things are being delivered and one is delivered faster than the other that the secound thing is being delivered slower. Let me clear this up, when you send a parcel express it’s not that the regular mail is slower, just that the express is faster. Everyone has the same opportunity to pay more money for preferential treatment. That is what makes this country great.

Some may say that preferential treatment of the rich is wrong. This could not be farther from the truth, there are numerous examples, from all aspects of society, where the rich are treated better and given better access to resources than the poor. There is nothing wrong with this because it is so wide spread and common place. This arrangement benefits society in so many ways it would be hard to get into them all right now, but, suffice to say, it’s high time we imposed this relationship on the net.

Lets tier this fucker up, what have we got to loose?
douchebags

The Internet is NOT a free market, nor should it be a market at all. Paying for access and service is fine — we already do that, as consumers. But the notion of having to pay premiums to an ISP just to send and recieve certain forms of content (that they didn’t even produce, they just provide access to it) reeks of price-fixing, and I won’t have it.

The biggest danger of this is that ISPs will decide what we can and can’t see on the Internet, and that’s a BIG issue if you like to, say, look at porn. Do you want the Internet to be one big AOL?

Frankly, I’m not interested in seeing another aspect of our lives turned into some slimy marketing tool. I’m sick of being nickel-and-dimed for everything, and I’m sick of the asshole lobbyists in Washington that are trying to force it.

fuck the diatribes about capitalism! i need further evidence that the tron guy loves the internet.

Jesus christ, how can you retards agree with that video?

America’s leading Internet service providers (ISPs) have spent many years and billions upgrading their transcontinental networks, which constitute the backbone of the Internet. Now they are eager to profit by offering new, compelling services. One plan is to give certain websites high priority on their data, so as to guarantee “quality of service”–the speed, frequency, and reliability with which data is delivered. This would enable content providers to offer high-quality live TV and videoconferencing or advanced remote medical monitoring, without the delays and unreliability that plague the Internet today. Unfortunately, data prioritization is fiercely opposed by advocates of “Net Neutrality,” who claim paradoxically that freedom and innovation demand that companies not be free to make this innovation!

an intelligent debate in the comments section of a vice internet article? for a second i thought i was on the adbusters website.

news and information.

thats all thats going to matter in the future.

im sorry but american money operates in an insidious and dishonest way.

i cant even be bothered watching that video.

i dont fuck with myspace.

its the potential for a true freedom of the press that im concerned about.

if you fail to see why we need true freedom of the press, may god have mercy on us all.

yeah motherfuckers! EAT SHIT, FASCIST SCUMCUNTS! TRY AND FIND THE FALLACY IN THAT WELL-STRUCTURED ARGUMENT, CUNTWHORES!

DEATH TO ALL VICE ONLINE READERS!!!!!

This article reeks of nortel. For fucks sakes, that was 5 years ago, get over it.

International telecon providers and goverments have been working on supporting much higher bandwiths for extremely high speed data transfer in much larger packages to be used in medicine, military, astrophysics, etc….

it should unite “think tanks” around the glose in a new way… and all that shit.

That caused introduction of new IP set which is hexadecimal and has enoguh of variables to plug in to the net and assign sole identity to every single object in the world

http://www.ipv6.org/

As long as the new regulations are going to affect such high level of service ie. paying to be able to broadcast hi quality video and enourmous data in seconds like some corporations might need - then fine! (i cant remember where i read this, but they managed to transfer 19Tb (19000+ Gb) in like a minute or so across USA)

for more cash, you get access to the latest net & comm technology.

If the differentiated pricing system is supposed to affect current users and sites present on the net (which i doubt is the case) - then fuck them!

It doesn’t matter if it’s fair, or whatever, that telcoms should be able to charge tiered rates. Just because other mediums do it doesn’t mean its right, does it? The internet allows small businesses a level start up. Big business still has dominance in other media, i.e prime time tv advertising.

what a horrible video..
make them stop and I’ll support anything they want…

Internet providers already charge more for faster service.There is a big price difference between dial up and cable internet.I pay like 80$ a month for a bundle package of cable t.v and cable internet.Those fuckers make more then enough money.

wow. what a controversial article.

Right so the net we have now will be exactly thae same, except some big sites will be able to have TV-quality and hi-speed downloads, etc. So it doesn’t make any difference to the sort of stuff that’s already there, then why should I give a fuck?

Could someone please explain why this is bad?

Hey Greg can you be more of an industry tool?
No the telecoms have not built the entire infrastructure –We have –the tax payers. Read your history books you United States of Amnesiacs –the whole huge infrastructure was heavily subsidized, just like the highway and road system. What, so they’ve invested a few billion they get to monopolize it and reap trillions in perpetuity?

Corporate assholes always monopolize when they cant compete against real innovators.

(This is not to say we dont prioritize certain sectors like medicine for example)

see Vice tell em they don’t and they do!! People don’t giver a shit anymore !! Yes we do they said….

don’t you love uni students..

Two things. I think everyone in that string of posts made a huge mistake. They pretty much played in to the hands of the fascist fucker that started the whole string by confronting his argument about property rights head on instead of constructing a real counter argument about internet privitization. There’ s a book about that. Called Don’t Think of An Elephant. It talks about how the right is always the ones to poes the argument and then the left gets sucked in to meeting them on their own dirty playing field. “I’m pro-life.” what does that make me “pro-death?” Cmon.

It’s not about whether or not there’s a justifiable need to charge more for better service, it’s about big telecoms and big dollar groups reigning in control and regulation over public space. And that is dangeous. Because one day when conservative and fascist big money interests control the flow of information you won’t have a vice blog to sound off on anymore.

And another thing to all the leftists who are pissed off right now - don’t you love how free market idealogues and rich boy assholes talk about freedom and democracy when it comes to doing what they want with their dollars.

What’s really depressing is that democracy was lobbied for and written about by the big money elites that didn’t want ot have to answer to monarchies about 400 years ago. So they created democracy. Then the idea was coopted by the working class and reworked in to a “close the gap” political philosphy.

There is nothing to stop an individual establishing their own ISP and rolling out thier own fibre. Australia has experienced a telco monopoly for years but over the past 12 months we have seen a massive growth in the number of privately owned fibre back bones in this country ( Telstra is currently majority publicly owned). If you dont like what the big telcos are doing then vote with your feet and choose a provider who offers the service you want to use or if you can be botherd actually getting off your ass and doing somthing about the problem create your own, you wouldnt be the first.

very first comment - “I am surprised to see this argument being made at Vice”.

I was surprised at the number of Vice readers crawing out of the nerdery to respond.

This thread is full of real shitty metaphors.

graham peterson i just learned something off.
plus

“don’t you love how free market idealogues and rich boy assholes talk about freedom and democracy when it comes to doing what they want with their dollars.”

gold.

do you know of blogs or forums where i can continue to learn more stuff like what you just said?

the whole “dont think of an elephant” thing has got me thinking… (of elephants amongst other things)

The the the internet is not something you just dump something on. It’s not a big truck. It’s it’s it’s a series of tubes.

with all its bullshit, whether you like this choice of words or not, the internet is still the biggest oracle of information and human communication ever in the history of our entire species. even though, or especially because, its in its infancy, it would be a shame to turn it into a mirror of our democratic system, in which no matter who you vote for or what shitty news channel you choose to watch, you still get the same bland factless whitewash of lies and deceit.
a shame, not the end of the world, just a shame.

i’m impressed with the length (and girth!) of these comments

read “anarchist in the library” by siva vadayasdfjdfkdjf…i don’t remember how to spell his last name and i’m too lazy to get it from my shelf

future of the internet=future of democracy/free speech/etc. PLEASE BULEEV

I am not surprised this made it to Vice. I’m glad it made it to Vice. This is a HUGE deal and it’s only gotten as far as it has because the wrinkled old farts in Congress and other branches of legislation are TOTALLY OUT OF TOUCH with technology. They aren’t just out of touch w/ technology, but have no grasp on the socio-economic matrix that comes along with technology - and by being out of touch, they risk fucking everything up for generations and generations to come. Just listening to some of the legislators who are proponents of this $$-based tiered system should be enough to safeguard it from ever passing. But its not. Its definitely a barrier to opportunity if you give a huge conglomerate more bandwidth and access to reach more people than the little guys who are doing shit independently. Bad fucking scene.