Should the internet be free?

Maenad said:

I pay the phone company for my internet access.

Click to expand...

and you pay them more than most other people in the first world, and have fewer options to get rid of them when they suck.

we seriously need increased competition in the high speed internet market.

radcen said:

We can thank our government for blindly approving mergers of large corporations for that.

Click to expand...

very true. Comcast and TW not only should not be allowed to merge, but also both should be broken up.

radcen said:

Should the internet be free?

Of course, not everything is free. Some sites charge. But most still do not. It's not an absolute, nor is the question/poll intended to be absolute.

A local radio talk show host was opining the other day that virtually nothing on the internet should be free. You should have to pay something for all of it. His reasoning was the current business model cannot hold up, and needs money.

Should you be required to pay something for virtually everything?

Sites like DP cost money to run, and so far has existed on donations. Other similar talk forums do the same or similar.

News sites, which was the host's primary example... some charge, some don't. That's a case where, I believe, most eventually will.

Click to expand...

The internet should be regulated like any other utility (the internet is so heavily relied on and needed for some things these days, that it can be considered a utility now). The internet should have a fee attached, but it needs to be a reasonable fee so that people of all walks of life can have some sort of internet use.

I don't agree with data caps. That's the first step to charging by the megabyte, which will possibly wipe out the advantage of paying your bills and conducting other business on the internet. America needs to be competitive iwth other countries in this area. We are behind other countries in so many areas, that it looks like we won't get this area right, either. Europe already provides much faster internet service to its citizens, at a lower cost.

There should not be a difference in charges for websites readers use, unless it's a determination for that website business to charge for it (like a porn site). Because that will wipe out entrepreneurial ventures on the internet, who wouldn't get the traffic it needs or wouldn't be able to pay fees. We must keep the internet open for new businesses to open (like Twitter and Facebook did).

radcen said:

We can thank our government for blindly approving mergers of large corporations for that.

Click to expand...

I think it's the FCC that approves those mergers, or not. They've rubber stamped so many things in this area so far that I wonder whose palms were greased. The decisions have been so anti-consumer and anti-American that greased palms is the only explanation.

I think local communities should take the incentive to offer free WiFi to their citizens. Chattanooga, Tennessee has a city-wide WiFi, but they won't open it up to the public for odd reasons. But there's no reason why websites shouldn't be allowed to charge for usage. Just because you can get information for free from the library doesn't mean we ban bookstores. I'm also an advocate of net neutrality. I voted "it's fine the way it is," even though other areas of government policy concerning the internet need to be reformed.

Helix said:

and you pay them more than most other people in the first world, and have fewer options to get rid of them when they suck.

we seriously need increased competition in the high speed internet market.

Click to expand...

Right on.

In my area, we have two providers, one TWC and the other AT&T, both ISP providers are priced the same for the most basic service, that's not competition, that's price fixing.

If TWC keeps charging me more for service, I might purchase a YAGI antenna and get on Burger King's or McD's router which would be free.