The Stop The Meter Campaign
I’m good friends with Steve Anderson and Jacqui Macdonald, both of whom work really hard on the Open Media initiative. Their most recent project, the Stop The Meter Campaign had about 200,000 signatures from the last time I checked. Apparently, from what I read on the news and on Twitter, both parties (NDP and Liberals) are in favor of stopping metered internet.
What you can do:
- Email the link: http://stopthemeter.ca
- Share it on Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/45nmvcv
- Tweet it: http://tinyurl.com/4nxd52y/
Frankly, as a water specialist, I am in agreement with having water metered and users pay for overuse (thus preventing a tragedy of the commons). However, I fail to see how paying ‘overuse fees’ will actually be positive and improve innovation. I’m open to be convinced otherwise, but in the mean time, I’m throwing my support behind the Stop The Meter Campaign.
Related posts:
- World AIDS Day and the Treatment As Prevention Campaign
- The @LetsFCancer campaign
- You’re probably not expecting to drown today – @Preventable’s summer campaign
- The @5days_Vancouver campaign for homeless/at risk youth
- The No Meal Tax Campaign
I like your (un?)comparison to water metering. The main difference between water and gigabytes is that while water is a limited resource that needs to be preserved for the sake of mankind gigabytes is a more or less unlimited resource whose increased use will (hopefully) propell mankind forward. Capping resources like water and electricity makes people aware they are wasting valuable resources. Capping the internet blocks one of the means from which our societies can evolve. Just look at what’s happening in the middle east right now. None of that would have been possible without the internet.
The telecoms want us back in the dark ages where TV was King. They don’t realize they are living in the past.
Theoretically, as we become more and more a society that downloads everything … we will need better, bigger, faster infrastructure.
Currently, with my Shaw account I can choose a plan with the usage and speed that works for me and pay accordingly. If people are going over their limit I have little sympathy.
But the problem is knowing what the infrastructure can support … and knowing if getting the funds from those that go over will really go toward new infrastructure or just lining pockets.
So in theory I support usage based billing. Since I’ve had usage based billing for several years. But I do see the potential risk…
Saranna recently posted..dolphin3303- @HeadtotheNet you were mentioned in todays @vancouvermetro as a good choice!
Before I comment, I’d like to disclose that I work for Shaw as a Training Specialist here in Vancouver. That said, all my wonky views are my own and don’t reflect anything that may/may not come from my employer.
Anywho, similar to what Saranna mentioned I think one aspect we have to consider is that although the data itself may cost very little (if anything at all), the infrastructure doesn’t. I don’t know what those true costs are to develop, maintain, or enhance the “pipeline” but I don’t imagine it’s free.
Why do I mention this? Well to use the comparison used earlier, the infrastructure to distribute water also carries a cost and people haven’t always been apt to pay more to establish, maintain, or enhance it either. So where does one find the balance?
I wish I had all the answers, but I don’t. Man.. sometimes I think not having all the answers is a good thing.
Chris (@lyteforce) recently posted..Dine Out Vancouver 2011