Quote:
|
Originally Posted by s|k
Ah they already do this. Unless you meant for having recieved calls? That is their prerogative to do so, and this is already true for cellphones: both caller and receiver are paying for minutes instead of just the caller.
|
No, they don't charge for the use of their telephone lines - certainly not over here. I spent the last year at university in a private house where we had a phone line but no phone - only internet. We were only charged internet subscription, nothing for the phone line itself.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by s|k
No, this is not true, in fact it might even make it cheaper for internet users. I see a lot of irrational panic and doomsday sayers. I agree that it wont be best for the consumer, but nobody has yet addressed my argument.
|
At the moment they are charging nothing. They wish to charge. This can only result in higher prices. This may lead to better service for the few, but at a cost to the many.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by s|k
I just keep seeing free speech arguments that are totally not applicable to this discussion. Why should the government force private entities to use their private property for ways in which the private entities do not wish to?
|
For the public good. It's a shitty argument that I don't like using, but in this case the ends justifies the means. The internet has become incredibly integrated into our society, and a reversal of that would be a very bad thing in my eyes.
If that's equivalent to nationalising the phone lines, so be it.