Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

Virgin media to take away Net neutrality.


  • Please log in to reply

#1
Poseido

Poseido

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
I know this may be old news but I am seriously worried about this. I heard that the new CEO of Virgin Media said that Net neutrality is a pile of "Bollix" and plan to remove it and make us pay per site we view. I first discovered this when I was surfing Youtube. I know what you are thinking that anything on Youtube that may sounds serious is just a plain straight lie. But I began research on this and there is dedicated websites on protesting against the rule being introduced.

Have a read at this:
The new CEO of Virgin Media, Neil Berkett, has openly stated in an interview that they think net neutrality is “a load of bollocks” and claimed they're already doing deals to deliver some people’s content faster than others. They would then put websites and services that don't pay Virgin in the "slow lane", meaning those sites would load slowly and cause most users to give up using them, feeling forced to use whatever Virgin wants to push through their network.

This is not the first time an internet provider infringes upon net neutrality, but it is the first time that an ISP so brutally states that they simply plan to limit internet access to a television-like system in which the access provider completely regulates the content you have access to.

Virgin Media has over 3.5 million customers in the UK and the real danger is that when they start applying this system to their network, all major internet providers around the globe will soon follow the trend. Because this is exactly what major ISP's have wanted to do for years.

I then watched a video saying that we may be loosing the internet in 2012 which i am extremely worried about. The publishers of the website are ones who have the under ground sources and they say that there sources say that all the major ISPs are going ahead with this in 2012 or later. But they also say that all the ISPS are not aloud to mention it because of some contract.
Although this has only been heard of in Europe, I now seek help from the USA and other countries. Is this true?

Please reply as i am extremely worried!
Thanks.
  • 0

Advertisements


#2
ScHwErV

ScHwErV

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 21,285 posts
  • MVP
TinFoilHatArea.jpg

Send this image on to your friends on youtube.
  • 0

#3
Poseido

Poseido

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
So, Im guessing this was a pile of Silly String? Lol.

Im guessing a MVP of Microsoft would know!
  • 0

#4
**Brian**

**Brian**

    Semper Paratus: Always Ready

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,162 posts

So, Im guessing this was a pile of Silly String? Lol.

Im guessing a MVP of Microsoft would know!


Yes: this reminds me of someone who said that the post office was gonna make everyone PAY to send email because they were losing money. What I heard was that it was going to be like .10 cents an email, but if you take into account that you pay for your internet either by the hour per month, or a flat rate per month, this would mean that your internet would be cost prohibitive. If I had to pay .10 per email in my inbox right now, I would be paying $32.00 plus my monthly rate of $37.00 which is $69.00. If I had a month where I sent out more email, then it would be higher. Apparently, this person believed that the word "mail" was somehow linked or patented to the post office, and that they were gonna put a stop to it.

ScHwErV is correct, this sounds like a bunch of silly string - Additionally, throttling sites to make some of them faster then others is crazy, because the internet is full of people who want speed, and are not in some cases willing to wait for pages to load - any company that wants to do something like this will lose money when or if it is revealed that they are doing so. We pay to have the right to use the internet, and pay to order things from the intenet - why should we have to pay to look at someone's website? If we buy something, that is one thing, but the number of times you look at pages probably outnumbers the times that you actually purchase something.

Just My .02

Brian
  • 0

#5
Excal

Excal

    Malware Slayer Extraordinaire!

  • Retired Staff
  • 12,739 posts
the sky is falling, the sky is falling........



*Excal runs away screaming insanely
  • 0

#6
ScHwErV

ScHwErV

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 21,285 posts
  • MVP
It's not necessarily that the article is false, or that there is absolutely nothing to worry about. However, its highly unlikely that one CEO can do anything to kill net neutrality.

He may indeed believe that its "bullocks" (a European thing?), he may even have said that. However, its very unlikely that he can do anything about it.

If you are truly concerned, write your senator/governor/king/mayor/shaman/whatever and voice your concerns and opinions on the matter.
  • 0

#7
Major Payne

Major Payne

    Retired Staff

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,307 posts
Comcast, and a few others, have already done this for certain types of traffic. Complaining to date hasn't done much good as they continue to filter traffic. The "powers that be" are aware of the situation for certain providers, but don't seem to be able to solve the problem at this date.

Maybe if email was charged for and SPAM was at double or triple the rate of the average person, the net would be more free and you would have less SPAM in your email boxes. :)

A friend of mine in Tennessee can not use Firefox, because Comcast has prevented use of it. That was verified by him for his area only so don't think it may be happening in your area if you can't get FF to work. :)

The sky is indeed falling, but hopefully not on us.

Ron

Edited by Major Payne, 02 June 2008 - 11:36 AM.

  • 0

#8
Poseido

Poseido

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
Well Guys, I have got the right information from proper people. SO im guesing these guys are just doing this as a publicity stunt.

I done more research on the people who said this and it turns out they have made more than one "Hoax". So im guessing that this is a plain straight lie.

They have loured quite alot people into believing this. So im going to do alot more research into this so i shall let you guys know.

Thanks for the help and advice.
  • 0

#9
Troy

Troy

    Tech Staff

  • Technician
  • 8,841 posts
One thing is for certain - if my ISP ever starts filtering, and "favouring" some sites over others in terms of loading speed - well guess what? They won't be my ISP anymore.

Vote with your wallet - don't be a customer to companies who do things that you disagree with.

Cheers

Troy
  • 0

#10
EagleheartDave

EagleheartDave

    New Member

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
I admit I agree quite completely with Troy, and that was essentially what I was sitting here thinking as I read this string. Frankly, if Virgin were to do something like this, I'd drop them faster than you, or they, could explain string theory. It's about supply and demand, and if there is no demand for a service because said service are being morons, then they will be required to supply a better service... or fall out of the game.
  • 0

#11
d-514

d-514

    New Member

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
I have to admit I am still worried about this. I realize that makes me an easy target on this forum but I can't help it. I've worked for several Telecom companies before. Not much in the Internet capacity, but in mobile phones (all of the companies had ISP divisions though) and I realized that there wasn't anything these sleazy [bleep]s wouldn't do to make more money. They created false administrative fees, charged bogus costs for upgrades and new hardware and cared little for anything besides the bottom line. I know that doesn't make this true but why wouldn't they? I know already that certain companies are crippling their mobile browsers why not the actual internet? If they all do it together who will we turn to for new access? We'd essentially be trapped wouldn't we?

I really don't know much about computers or the technical side of the internet but maybe some input from someone on here could help me? I don't think calling me an idiot or conspiracy theorist will allay my fears at all, regardless of who they are certified by. I'd like something reasonable that will at least somewhat convince me.

The post office never had control over the internet and most people knew that would never happen, this seems at the very least somewhat realistic, greed is easy to believe when it comes to these types of corporations
  • 0

#12
Troy

Troy

    Tech Staff

  • Technician
  • 8,841 posts

If they all do it together who will we turn to for new access?

There's plenty of honest-enough business people out there who would be able to start up their own ISP company. If everybody's unhappy with all of the services, and a "new kid on the block" says they'll do the lot, then where's everybody going to go?

Troy
  • 0

#13
Abydos

Abydos

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 299 posts

If they all do it together who will we turn to for new access?

There's plenty of honest-enough business people out there who would be able to start up their own ISP company. If everybody's unhappy with all of the services, and a "new kid on the block" says they'll do the lot, then where's everybody going to go?

Troy


I don't know how it is in the rest of the world. But in my country, a little "stamp" called Denmark, the Housing-corporations (Don't know if thats the right word, couldn't find a translation that would work in English) have agreements with ISP's. So if you are renting a flat, house or whatever. You have to use that ISP. Simply because thats the only lines for use in that area.
This model for providing internet, could easily be changed to accommodate filtering of the line, since it is the same provider for a larger area. Additionally, they (The ISP companies) own the lines. Making it really hard for would-be-wannabe's providers to establish a ISP firm. Simply because they can decide who they are going to rent it to! So it would be easy to filter internet speeds here in Denmark. If worst comes to worst, I would predict that our government would step in, slamming the door shut on any support. And the consequences of such an act, is to complicated for me to see or discuss :)


OT:
I don't think we will see the net end as we know it in 2012. The uproar and mass-hysteria alone would bring it down. Not to mention those who earns a living of people coming to their sites, ad's, consumer-products etc. etc. They would boycott any ISP trying to take their customers away because of slow speed due to filtering. I'm not talking about "little Sarah who earns a couple of dollars on ad's on a personal site". I am talking about major corporations, who have invested and planned for the future in the internet. There is simply to much money at stake, and not only for the ISP's.
  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP