Surely A Large Human
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 482 Post(s)
News flash - the government doesn't own much of the internet backbone (if anything). Companies do. The same companies that act as ISP's. It's very, very easy (technologically speaking) to impose classes of service on just about anything you can think of - IP address, URL, traffic type (based on port or connection type), etc. If you can look deep enough into the packet, you can tell exactly what kind of traffic it is, and bill for it accordingly. Easy stuff.
90% of all internet traffic, by the way, is estimated to be Peer-to-Peer file sharing. Kazaa, bittorrents, etc. That's a fucking shit ton of bandwidth. The l33t h4x0rz with nothing to do all day but send gigabytes of shit at a time to one another are what causes the rest of us to experience third-world quality internet performance, and what causes carriers to keep beefing up and upgrading their thousands of POP's, and millions of miles of fiber-optic.
The first couple of months mom & dad get $5,000 internet bills because Johnny's been running bot programs to attack forums, or transmitting porn DVD's as torrents, lots of this shit will come to a screeching halt.
By the way, over 90% of all e-mail is SPAM. Wouldn't it be great for ISP's to begin stepping in by charging people based on the number of e-mail messages they send each month? For example, there's no reason a home user would need to send more than 5,000 e-mails a month, or more than 10GB of e-mail a month. Exceed that quota, and you're getting a fat fucking bill. Businesses can buy more if they have dedicated business service. Nothing else seems to diminish SPAM, even though there's an easy to implement solution to the problem (I can go into that in detail if you'd like).
The use case whipped up by the very smart but academically alarmist Dr. Berners-Lee and his frothy band of doomsayers is that AOL, Verizon, etc. will charge you extra to access YouTube, but charge nothing to access their own video-on-demand offerings. I don't think that'll last very long, especially in areas where no competition exists. That's anti-competitive. However, there are types of traffic which are very demanding, disproportionately so, and should be assessed at a higher rate.