On 21-4-2009 12:35, scott wrote:

> I suspect the ISPs really want to change their eg $10/month plan into 
> two separate plans.  Where plan A is $5/month without access to (eg) any 
> streaming video or torrents, and then a plan B that is $20/month and has 
> access to everything.  

Which would very soon be referred to by the record companies as the 
'family package' and the 'illegal download package'.

Post a reply to this message

>> I suspect the ISPs really want to change their eg $10/month plan into 
>> two separate plans.  Where plan A is $5/month without access to (eg) 
>> any streaming video or torrents, and then a plan B that is $20/month 
>> and has access to everything.  
> 
> Which would very soon be referred to by the record companies as the 
> 'family package' and the 'illegal download package'.

Yes - because BitTorrent is *only* used by people trying to steal stuff, 
right? I mean, it's not like people like me use it to download open 
source software or anything like that...

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> I suspect the ISPs really want to change their eg $10/month plan into 
> two separate plans.  Where plan A is $5/month without access to (eg) any 
> streaming video or torrents, and then a plan B that is $20/month and has 
> access to everything.  That is a proven business model that is more 
> profitable, and if they are prevented from doing that at the moment then 
> I can see why they want it changed.

More like, instead of $10/month for access to everything, they get to 
charge $10/month for access to almost nothing at all, $20/month for 
access to slightly more, $40/month for access to everything except 
high-bandwidth systems, $80/month for limited access to some 
high-bandwidth systems, and maybe $400/month for access to everything 
like you have now.

As you can see, they make vastly more profit this way. And if they 
introduce the tiers gradually and jiggle them around from time to time, 
they can gradually extort more and more money out of people without them 
noticing a sudden price hike.

Post a reply to this message

> More like, instead of $10/month for access to everything, they get to 
> charge $10/month for access to almost nothing at all, $20/month for access 
> to slightly more, $40/month for access to everything except high-bandwidth 
> systems, $80/month for limited access to some high-bandwidth systems, and 
> maybe $400/month for access to everything like you have now.

And under your scheme for some reason no ISP decides to use the extra 
profits to make the basic package cheaper and take a big chunk of customers? 
That would be very surprising.

Post a reply to this message

>> Yes, but when it costs a company money to provide the information, IMO 
>> the
>> company should not be forced to provide everything in existence for a 
>> fixed
>> price.
>
>  In this particular case it would cost the company money to implement the
> censorship. Letting all IP packets through without filtering costs them
> nothing extra.

If they censor YouTube (for example) it would save them a huge amount of 
money.

Post a reply to this message

Le 21.04.2009 12:51, Invisible nous fit lire :
>>> I suspect the ISPs really want to change their eg $10/month plan into
>>> two separate plans.  Where plan A is $5/month without access to (eg)
>>> any streaming video or torrents, and then a plan B that is $20/month
>>> and has access to everything.  
>>
>> Which would very soon be referred to by the record companies as the
>> 'family package' and the 'illegal download package'.
> 
> Yes - because BitTorrent is *only* used by people trying to steal stuff,
> right? I mean, it's not like people like me use it to download open
> source software or anything like that...

Correct!

Like cars is only used, we are in 1910, by the anarchist Bonnot (Jules) and his gang.
The rightful police is using the bicycle.
Therefore, all cars owner are only a band of anarchists or supporting anarchists.

Transportation fee, to offer more choice to the citizen:



Plan A is of course the "family package" (in 1910, for the nobility, not the basic
workers, no fancy holidays for the workers!).
And Plan B is for the "anarchist package".

As a consequence, in 2010, GM should be closed and seized for a century of supporting
bank's robbers.

That's a perfect demonstration, isn't it ?

(ps: if you do not get the irony of the allegory, get lost)

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   The European Union is being lobbied into passing the so-called "Telecoms
> Package" directives, which essentially would give all European ISPs full
> powers to choose what they offer their clients from the internet (in other
> words, to offer their clients only what they pay for, and completely block
> and hide everything else).
> 
>   Never mind the questions about basic human rights,

Questions such as, "Since when is Internet service a human right?"

> what really baffles
> my mind is that these directives are being promoted as *increasing* the
> amount of choices people will have.

My answers to your post assume that the term "ISP" refers to a business 
that provides Internet services to paying customers, and does not refer 
to government agencies that are empowered to regulate the Internet, or 
government agencies that are empower to provide Internet service at no 
cost to the customer.

That being said:

If the bill in question reduces the costs of operating an ISP, then it 
will enable the ISPs to offer their services at a lower price, enabling 
some consumers to afford Internet service.

Or let us say that some people can only afford Internet service if it 
costs 10 Euro per month, and they only want it for e-mail, but because a 
local ordinance requires the ISP to provide VOIP, Usenet, and other 
stuff, in addition to e-mail, the ISP must provide services the customer 
does not want, and the ISP will charge a higher price, perhaps a price 
the customer cannot afford.

>   I can't even begin to comprehend the Orwellian madness behind this logic.
> Something which causes effect X is promoted as causing the exact opposite
> of X. Limiting people's choice about what they can retrieve from the internet
> is promoted as *increasing* people's choice about what they can retrieve
> from the internet.

It is about increasing the ISPs freedom to offer different services to 
different people, and to offer these people the option of declining 
services for which they have no use.  I see no call for the government 
to shut down certain services.

Given that this is Europe we're talking about, it may be that the 
authorities in certain locales have placed so many roadblocks in the way 
of new businesses that the existing ISPs are effectively insulated from 
competition, and can cut the least profitable services without great 
risk of losing customers to a competitor.  Then this bill could lead to 
a problem, but it must be pointed out that the real cause of the problem 
is the government-imposed difficulty in starting a new business.

> And it's not like this would be the first thing ever that has been
> promoted with its exact opposite.

Well, it's not the first instance of such a thing, because it isn't an 
instance of such a thing at all.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

> If they censor YouTube (for example) it would save them a huge amount of 
> money.

Assuming this doesn't cause a mass userbase migration, of course...

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> If they censor YouTube (for example) it would save them a huge amount of 
> money.

  That wouldn't really be filtering by content, but by volume.

  They would get the exact same savings by lowering their customers'
bandwidth.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> If they censor YouTube (for example) it would save them a huge amount of 
>> money.
> 
>   That wouldn't really be filtering by content, but by volume.
> 
>   They would get the exact same savings by lowering their customers'
> bandwidth.

Or charging by bandwidth used...

(This would, in my opinion, be perfectly acceptable. I mean, you get 
charged for the amount of water or electricity you use, why not bandwidth?)

Post a reply to this message