I'm with Schneb on this one. It would be impossible to implement without outcry, especially from a powerful company like Google, whose job is to not limit you to answers.com, wikipedia.org, and whitehouse.gov.
From a user access point it's not feasible. Too much data to track and aggregate from server requests, too many websites to qualify. What is possible is regulation of hosting though, where not only do you pay for your site's service plan, you pay for a "tier," and as most users do not operate web sites, implementation on this front will overtly affect fewer people. The cries, while maybe louder, will have fewer numbers. If it ever happens, I can see tiered internet developing into a big anti-trust or monopoly case in the future. (NetBasic only gives me wikipedia, my cable provider's site, and the big three television network sites?? Something's fishy.)
But then perhaps an ISP to the equivalent of Southwest will come along and offer all tiers at one price, thereby undoing the other ISP's maniacal actions as everyone switches to them, the world rejoices, the ISPSavior inadvertently becomes a monopoly, gets broken up, and we start all over. (Think it'll be AT&T??)
Remember when they tried to charge postage for e-mail?
Alas, this is the old case of net neutrality being brought up once again.
For those that have never heard of net neutrality, it is the reason why you can access websites freely. The best way of explaining what net neutrality is is to give the scenario of net neutrality being non-existent. If there was no net neutrality, you would have multiple plans for your internet service. The basic plan may get you access to Google. The premium, more expensive plan may get you access to YouTube. And sites like garritan.com and northernsounds.com would be stuck as they would have to pay the ISPs themselves to be able to be accessed by their users. Yes, an internet without net neutrality is scary.
What's worse is that while you are worried about it happening in Canada, it's happening in your own backyard too. Let's take the United States, for example. Right now, lobbyists in congress have been pushing to abolish net neutrality and they have won some battles and lost others. I have been watching this situation for a couple years now and it just constantly disgusts me what these companies are constantly trying to do to pull an extra profit from their customers.
There is a new bill in congress to support net neutrality. I'd recommend checking out http://SaveTheInternet.com for more information on this bill and to contact your local representative. As a web developer, I don't want my efforts to create popular websites (none successful yet) thwarted by these companies. And as a customer, I still want to be able to access websites like Garritan.com and NorthernSounds without having to shell out extra money.
Colton J. Provias
Film Score Composer, Location Sound Mixer, and Sound Editor
Full-stack Web Developer
There would be such a rebellion from disgruntled users, most of whom would probably leave the internet. And there would be such a loss to commerce that the screams would never end!
well screams are great but 98% of the internet users wouldnt have a clue who to scream to, or what to do to fight and change the issue.... People, when pushed and herded into a corner either go crazy, or learn to deal with it... Somehow or another both those things dont impress "The Man", so all I'm saying is watch out...
Goodbye Internet. When and if we have to pay for it, ..... what about our demands of a higher quality? Now Internet is rather polluted. I also vote for paying email, as I understand it is a part of Internet. Then all those "limb" enhancers, Rolexes, celebrity sites (you know what I mean), may be something of the past. Daily I receive on average 200 messages directly going into that famous "bin".
A downside is, that for any advice from Garritan Forum (among others) we have to pay. I agree when Gary gets a share of it, but I don't think this will ever happen.
I'm more concerned that everyone is acting as though this article is actually true.
I have yet to hear ANY murmur of this on the news in Canada.
Yes, Rogers decided to start charging for texting.
How that became "the internet in Canada wil be limited by package" I don't know.
Texting is a cellphone service. It has nothing to do with internet products. As a matter of fact, Rogers cellphone service is a different company from Rogers internet (try complaining to one about the other... trust me, "we have no control over that").
This "article" is on someone's blog, and as a number of people rightfully pointed out, THERE ARE NO SOURCES CITED!
That doesn't make for the most credible read.
Well, colour me "the eternal optimist".
In no way do I want to sound pessimistic
In alot of ways I am very torn on the internet topic. It has made life easier, expanded businesses, and a whole ton of things not possible before that have greatly enhanced life(GPO!). However there is the opposite end.
I see my niece who is the "next" generation. The things that exist in her life are the Net, and TV. Not to far off removed from her generation I was out playing with friends, riding bikes to the local "woods" building forts, and overal just having a great time. Computers were there, however it did not consume my entire being. I was happy without one playing outside, or happy playing some game inside(a balance).
The concept of "playing outside" has died VERY fast. I watch my niece sit in front of two devices all day. I cannot say anything because she is not mine. HOwever I see it everywhere.
I guess I would not view it so bad if there was still a balance still, but at times I feel the balance has tipped when you watch kids glued to nintendos, TV, and computers.
I have nothing against the net and love it. I know many may not follow my view and that is ok I am not an arguing type. I do feel that Einstien's prediction will come true though at our current rate. "technology will surpass humanity".
Just a second look(I am not for the idea presented BTW! Just a perspective of observations).