In a world where we pay to watch TV, listen to music or play computer games we shouldn't be surprised that now the major internet providers want to make us pay for viewing each and every site we visit.
Full Story
Internet providers have realized that the only way to not lose massive amounts of customers over this is to make sure there are no alternatives, that's why all major Internet providers are currently making agreements and planning to switch simultaneously somewhere in the year 2012. This is currently all going on under very strict NDA's (Non-Disclosure Agreements) because the last thing they want is the masses speaking out against it.
Just look at those prices. To view this or any other blog, myspace, youtube would cost a person almost $50.00 a month. In effect they, the internet providers, would censor what you can or cannot view. If they cannot stop a person legally, they will stop them by monetary means.
Net neutrality has been a much debated issue for several years now and there have been many lawsuits in cases where an Internet provider blocked access to a certain competitor's site or simply crippled download speeds on services that they felt were using up too much of their bandwidth. But this new information that has now been confirmed by inside sources from major ISP's and content providers gives us a far bleaker vision of what the future of Internet freedom will look like if we don't take action in every way we can.
Can you imagine a time in the near future where you cannot play World of Warcraft without paying an extra $50.00 a month. Where you cannot access a news site without paying extra? Where you cannot chat in a chatroom, IM a friend or even access your email without paying extra? Get used to it. For that will be the way of the future.
Already AP is suing bloggers for using their articles to write posts. Once an idea is out in cyberspace, it is a free idea to use. Unless you can provide pure copywrite law to it. And even then it is hard to prove when you link back to the full article or quote just a short paragraph.
This is happening now. In some places a trial experiment is being conducted to see if this idea will work.
Why is this happening? The entire media and marketing industry is losing its grip on the upcoming generations of Internet-minded consumers. Statistics show that traditional media is losing popularity as the Internet continues to grow drastically every year. And the Internet is a completely different place: consumers aren't passive any more and advertisements don't have the same psychological effect they normally have on television. Internet users are very active and focused: they only go to the sites and services they want, and with an infinite amount of alternatives, users simply switch to something else if one service becomes too commercialized with annoying advertisements. With this in mind, it's no surprise that the past 6 years the industry has secretly been planning a 'take-over' to secure the Internet as a purely commercial playground.
We can stop this before it is too late! It is up to each and every one of us to spread the word and keep the internet a free place. We need to make our elected officials aware of this and to make certain in no uncertain words that WE WILL NOT GO ALONG WITH THIS! WE WANT OUR INTERNET TO BE FREE FOR ALL TO USE! THAT THE LITTLE PERSON SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR WHAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN FREE!
It is our internet. It should always be free!
7 comments:
This is major news MEGAPROPS !!! We all have to fight this. Who is leading the fight??? This and defeating Obama are major causes. (And Probably related).
Magdeburger Joe of Rudistettner.com
The fighting Obama movement leaves me cold. You mean you want a tired and confused 72-year-old man to lead this country? Eight years ago McCain might have made a good president would Karl Rove destroyed his candidacy.
As for making everyone pay for all Internet sites give me a break. You can't make rules and laws for things you can't control.
I would rather have experience in the office than Obama. Why do you equate 72 with being old? Why do you hate old people Neil? For the record: My aunt was 80 years old when she graduated law school and started to practice law. When she died at 95, she was still practicing law and was considered by her colleagues one of the finest lawyers they had ever met.
As for your second point: If a company will find a way to charge you for something, they will.
I'm 63 and live in an active retirement commmunity. i have many friends older than McCain: some of them are much more alert than he is. He spend those horrendous years being tortured and it aged him. He is showing signs of memory loss and other decompensation (I used to evaluate the psychological status of elerly perons).
So you would rather have a young, very naive, very inexperienced man as your President. And what has Obama done that makes him qualified to be President? He's a senator. That's it. His economic program is faulty, his foreign policy ideas are not in touch with reality, and his ideas on the future of this nation will destroy our ability to defend ourselves.
One doesn't have to be old to be demented. And I prefer McCain's age and experience to Obama's youth and naivety. Such naivety will hurt not help the US.
I never said I wanted Obama as president. But I'm forced to choose him over a man that should've been president eight years ago if he was going to be president. Do you want a president that may be slowly compensating? The best candidate that I saw was mature, experienced in the ways of Washington, and was on record as to what she'd do if Iran bombed Israel. She was also the only candidate that connected with the working people of America on the vital issues. Unfortunately she was Hillary, and unacceptable to the Democrats. Previously an anathema to the Republicans, until suddenly conservative talkshow hosts found that she wasn't so bad after all when faced with the prospect of an ultraliberal Obama. We don't get to vote for the best person. The last time I felt good about the person I voted for was 1968 when I voted for Hubert Humphrey. The country chose Richard Nixon. Enough said.
I prefer a moderate to a man who is so far left that he makes Ted Kennedy look like a far right conservative. That is why I am supporting McCain.
It is not his age that scares me, I have worked with the elderly. His health is not an issue, since his own medical records show he is fine.
I know that a man in his 40's can look physically fit and still be dead of a heart attack in a matter of minutes. Especially a smoker like Obama.
Hillary would have been a good candidate, but Obama has gotten the nomination. I would have liked to have seen the race with Hillary as the nominee. She at least has the experience and ability to do the job well.
I supported Humphrey in 68 and McGovern in 72. I worked on that election for him.
I couldn't support Carter at any time and was right about him.
Today we have a choice between the far-left and the middle of the road. I had hoped that the middle of the road candidate would have been a Democrat, but in this case it is a Republican. So I will vote for McCain and pray that the nation will not fall under Obama's spell and do the same.
Post a Comment