Virgin CEO: Net neutrality is 'bollocks'
-
-
-
- xenomode
- added this
-
-
- related topics
-
- Technology (1654)
- Internet (1140)
- Tech (237)
- Capitalism (28)
- Net Neutrality (20)
- Inappropriate Monetization (12)
- net (7)
- Virgin (6)
- High Speed (2)
After only being on the job a month, the new Virgin Media CEO lashes out at Net Neutrality. He's confirming that Virgin will be charging websites (like current.com) a premium for the type of access that their viewers have to the site... the fast lane, or the slow lane.
-
-
-
-
- xenomode
- 8 days ago
-
Well that didn't take long. I guess the Net Neutrality Awareness links I put on my own site didn't pay off enough...
-
great post!!!
interesting comments on that article from the theglobeandmail.com:
"Cowtown boy from Calgary, Canada writes: That's funny coming from Virgin. I'm not sure what they have in Britain, but they have no network or their own in North America. They piggyback on everyone elses stuff over here, including their cellphone network.
Posted 14/04/08 at 12:16 PM EDT"
"Eric the Red from Uzbekistan writes: Who is this corporate turd?
Posted 15/04/08 at 10:57 AM EDT"
" C Bruner from Toronto, Canada writes: I have no problem with allowing traffic shaping. Go ahead and traffic shape all you want, Bell & Rogers. JUST DON'T DO IT ON THE LAST MILE!
If they can't traffic shape the last mile, I can use multiple providers, and you can bet it won't be either Bell or Rogers. In fact I went to Tek Savvy this week for this very issue.
Maybe its time that the cable and phone lines to homes, paid for by years of monopoly were turned back to the home owners in exchange for the payment of a monthly maintenance fee to a government agency who can decide who will get to maintain these lines for us. I've had more than enough of both Bell and Rogers.
Posted 15/04/08 at 9:11 AM EDT"
****
"The Wight from Canada writes: In the US, some municipalities are tabling the notion of co-operatives, so that the last mile (usually fibre in the scenarios) is owned by the end consumers as a group rather than any one ISP who could conceivably hold them hostage.
Once the last mile has an alternative that is public owned via that co-operative, then the network can be tied off to any Tier 1 ISP who has nearby access to the backbones. You could even create a public-owned ISP to compete with the privates or lease the right to operate it to the highest bidder.
I've read the text of some of the proposals online and they sound very interesting. An online meter showing your usage, prices quoted in dollars/GB of data transfer (like gasoline prices), etc.
Posted 15/04/08 at 12:36 PM EDT" -
I hate when they look for ways to nickle and dime you to death.
Look at phones!
Local -- they charge ya.
Long distance -- they charge ya.
Txt message -- they charge ya
Send a picture -- they charge ya
Will the internet soon become the same thing?
Send an email over 200 characters? $2.00 per message.
Send an email with an attachment over 20k? $2.25.
Watch a vido on YouTube? $.75 per video or $10 an hour.
It's coming. It's only a matter of time. -
Drug dealer tactics are once again being played out in the board room.
-
why dont the websites just not pay companies that enforce it and so people that are with those companies leave and join neutral companies who offer every site, rather than just the sites that give into corperate bullying?
-
Chances are the controlling companies, like Virgin, with sweet deals for web site owners that are willing to jump on the bandwagon and it would spiral from there with other web companies not wanting to get left behind.
-
These comments are being billed at $1.25 per post. You'll be getting a invoice in the mail.
(somewhere a Comcast CEO is laughing their ass off) -
R7: It took people YEARS to figure out Compuserve and AOL were not offering the full internet experience, and even when they did figure it out, they didn't care much. I doubt many people could justify changing providers based on load times, IF more than one provider is available in their area.
-
dam crob' =D that's bringing it home and laying it at the doorstep just to kick the door into splinters =P
-
I think that a lot of this is due to the rise in popularity of the BBC's iPlayer service.
In the UK a lot more people are now watching BBC programmes over the Internet; and it seems fairly obvious that this is a habit that will increase with time.
The BBC is paid for by the British public, via the license fee. I suppose that part of the license-fee bounty has traditionally been spent on delivering content.
In this case, the burden of cost associated with delivery rests with the ISP's (who don't get any extra money for dealing with the increase in load).
Maybe it isn't fair to liken Current.com to the BBC in this scenario, because Current's popularity is more likely to grow organically. Switching on the iPlayer noticeably increased traffic instantly, pretty much overnight.
I suppose the problem is, whatever happens with the BBC, will probably be used as a model and argument for more traffic-shaping / money changing hands. -
Seems to me that ISP that try this kind of extortion racket would lose more customers than those that provide a more unfiltered service.
I'm not going to pay for some sites to be slower than others and I doubt a lot of people would pay extra just for video when they can get higher resolution from other services like HD satellites. -
It is the ISP's responsibility to provide the service it advertises, something which they never do already. If their hardware starts reaching capacity, it's their responsibility to eat the cost and get more hardware, not our responsibility to pay more so they can save cash and provide us with the same level of crappy service.
-
-
-
-
- dariustwin
- 8 days ago
-
-
My worry is that once just one company starts charging additional fees for "extras" -- then they will all instantly jump on the bandwagon and we won't have a choice to go anywhere else.
Kind of like gas stations -- if one raises their price by 10 cents, then the others say to themselves, "Oh! I guess I can raise mine 9 cents and still be competitive."
When one internet provider starts charging per email, all the rest will follow suit but do it for one penny less to be "competitive" and preserve the illusion of consumer choice.
And why shouldn't they?
Think about it? They get to make a TON of money doing absolutely nothing. Emails and videos are whizzing along electronically now for free -- and all they have to do to increase their annual profits by $250 million is just start charging 10 cents an email/25 cents for emails with attachments.
And once ALL of them start charging per email then we're all fucked.
I wouldn't be surprised if they even charged "extra" for emails that went out of the country?
"Oh! You're sending a 6k email to Japan? That's gonna be, oh, $3.25 because it, uh, 'costs' us extra to send it overseas."
The are ass raping us on charges with cell phones and they can't wait to start doing that on the internet.
Money for nothing. -
That's why customers have got to stand up to such extortion practices. How cost effective would it be if few people use their service that tacks on extra fees like that?
That way the profit would be for the services that charge flat rates since they would get more customers.
More and more cell phone services are offering flat rate plans too. -
Branson's "virgin aerospace" venture will be taking the uber-wealthy out into space to colonize new planets while us low-lives are bitching about fees - think about that .
-
The Internet is a place where the exchange of free ideas and speech are still alive and well. Of course they want to regulate it. First they charge you, then they tell you what you can and cannot type. Eventually, there will not even be "percieved anonynimity" on the web and you can be arrested for send an "anti-american" e-mail to a friend or sending spam messages. The day I pay to post a message on a web site is the day free speech is dead.
-
-
-
-
- lifestudentno83
- 8 days ago
-
-
Teddy14...ain't it the truth!
They call themselves corporations, ha ha, they're nothing but a bunch of thugz. -
crob80227? Your mentioning of Comcast intrigues me. They are such a HUGE player in this mass rip-off and they have years and years of experience to prove it.
It's like taxing usage of the Sun. -
Branson's "virgin aerospace" venture will be taking the uber-wealthy out into space to colonize new planets while us low-lives are bitching about fees - think about that .
Malathion...another one of your jewels. I love it. -
Screw that, I'm not buying anything from the Virgin megacorp now. Thanks a lot world leaders, you've failed us again.
-
-
-
-
- Dmitri_Molotov
- 7 days ago
-
-
What people don't realize that this is restriction on freedom and could lead to horrible problems (ie. censorship, dictatorship, Communism). That might sound ridiculous, but think how easy it would be for a power-hungry politician to take over when the internet is being charged for and certain sites aren't allowed.
Virgin, I hate your souls.-
-
-
-
- junsumoney
- 7 days ago
-
-
bOOOOOOOO!!!(
-
-
-
-
- blackdaylight
- 7 days ago
-
-
If charging for non existent things carries on like this, we'll soon have air tax.
'What's that Mr. Anderson, you went for a vigorous jog in the park did you? Well thats... £4.99, LESS than five pounds. Maybe next time you should think about breathing less whilst running, the little imps that have to work day and night to clean the air need to get paid as well you know!' -
Write to Virgin to tell them that if they start charging websites, you'll cease traveling with Virgin and stop buying any of their products or using any of their services.
-
-
-
-
- Vierotchka
- 7 days ago
-
-
If anything ISP's should be paying the content producers. No one would be paying $60 a month for internet access if there weren't internet companies slaving away to provide free content. This is like a movie theater demanding that the studios pay them for showing their films.
-
yeah he really needed to think before he spoke this time...he's completely missing the shift in business...has anyone else heard these rumors about google trying to provide free worldwide wireless internet??
-
Here's the thing you do. If you're afraid that other companies will follow suit, than you boycott them. That's the problem with present-day society, they're either too lazy to actually take action or allow the inconvenience to control their life. There is only so much people can take.
-
-
-
-
- Greg_Bunker
- 7 days ago
-
-
The article said that ISP's were censoring the content of the web. The ISP where we first began internet participation, DID censor the internet, in that it would not allow "NEWS GROUPS" on its watch. What is the significance of this action? Is this censoring an internet? Is this censoring a World Wide Web?
What does all this talk about charging money to view web content, have to do with the article that was talking about censorship?
Are the bad guys getting tired of the population being able to learn about their power grabbing by learning about it on the internet? You bet!! Are we going to eventually lose the internet so big brother can gain more power? ...........sorry! Yup!! -
If its really true what you say about GOOGLE JMTJ there is innovators and good bussiness people out there. I always hate how people always have to get greedy. What kind of bussiness models is it to make people pay more than what they should. Its all about customer satisfaction and experience. THE CUSTOMERS RUN THE NUMBERS.
But just as I hate people that are greedy I also hate people who bark and dont bite. If they ever did start charging prices like that its up to us to boycott or find a diff ISP to MAKE the DIFFERENCE -
yeah I heard it "through the grapevine" but I dont see why they couldnt do it....they already offer a free service to the consumers...they make their money on mostly ad revenue (I believe) and if they can offer a free internet connection to everyone, their exposure would increase and therefore the adspace would be worth a lot more...and ultimately, they would end up making more money...BY GIVING IT AWAY FOR FREE...its a shift in business that not many people realize...
-
Net Neutrality goes against everything capitalism stands for. The only free thing you get with capitalism is free market, freedom to do anything you want. That means, charge for anything you want, as much as you want.
That's capitalism, don't like it? Who cares, it won't go away. It's the foundation of free economy like it or not.
I think any content provider wants to make money, but only this CEO had a backbone to say no to freebies. You want it, you better pay for it. -
It HAS been the foundation and I commend him for sticking to the old...but its going to be different in the future...Ryanair model...give away the seat charge for the extras...give away the website/webcontent..or internet and charge for the premium/the upgrade...just because the basics are free doesn't prevent somone from making a slightly better product and charging for that..
-
It goes against the foundations of the internet and it could be the next billing revolution for ISPs
-
If they tax the internet, it will only take so long until a org will mirror everything and make it available once again for free. Its just 1's and 0's stop trying to add a price to it.
keep browsing
this space intentionally left blank
