LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteWell, the internet would suck, basically. I don't think it'd be completely lost, but a big part of what makes the internet great would be gone. It wouldn't win its battle against making TV obsolete if it was taken over by corporations.
Watch the Video.
[youtube]JP_3WnJ42kw[/youtube]
[youtube]cWt0XUocViE[/youtube]
^ok very lame. Admins implement this already.
YouTube - Save the Internet!
YouTube - Humanity Lobotomy - Second Draft
Ok So what are your thoughts?
What would happen if all information provided on the internet were run by corporations instead of people? No free voice or free information being passed to people to people. It's already slowly happening with companies like AT&T and Verizon offering to provicde better internet service. But if net neutrality were to cease to exist companies like AT&T and Verizon would be regulating anythign and everything you go to on the internet. Websites that were created independently would not be accesable to you.
Recently the CEO of virgin media in the UK a very huge internet provider in the UK openly stated that Internet Neutrality was complete bogus and they will "limit our users internet access in anyway for commercial reasons" so anyone who wants to access websites that they provide could not visit these sites unless they paid them top dollar for their ISP.
Remember Newspaper, Radio, and TV all used to free opensoucrced media at one point.
Net Neutrality is already slipping away from us as I type this. With Companies buying out independendt websites all the time. Google purchasing Youtube et cetera
Discuss.
Well, the internet would suck, basically. I don't think it'd be completely lost, but a big part of what makes the internet great would be gone. It wouldn't win its battle against making TV obsolete if it was taken over by corporations.
you gotta understand though If they ever accomplish this, it will definitely be under the strategy of offering "better" Internet, faster connections, more "features" (which really has nothing to do them, but they'll use it as a selling point anyway). The same thing will happen with RFID chips, where they make you want to have it.
The Internet is a very dangerous thing, because it gives too much power to the "folks". It allows people access to virtually any sort of information in that if one person has access to a particular info, everyone now has access to it. People can't be compartmentalized, which is fundamental to control, conceptually, and physically.
There are the obvious points of interest, one that companies stand to profit off of control and arbitrary and artificial fees, but it's much bigger than that. The battle of net neutrality has to do with power and control. The ability to broadcast is a resource which can be harvested and sold, but the ability to broadcast is also something which historically was always watched over closely by government, simply because a main goal of any government is unity, unity of customs, unity of values, unity of thought, and if you allow anyone to broadcast, you are undermining uniformity insured by top-down information structures like television, newspapers, etc.
I just argued against my own point I was trying to make with the start of this thread but oh well.
but all the power that's going to the folks is what makes the internet so great. It's a freedom of media that you cannot find on any other because it's already commericalized. When you put a price on a website, you are going to turn away millions of viewers, because alot of the internet is a bunch of moneyless teenagers.
Grumble Grumble Grumble
Still, Google buying out YouTube (which never had a well thought out financial model, enormous legal liability, and who's income was based on banner adds shown with pirated material) is rapidly becoming a mute point with Comcast and other broadband ISP providers preparing to throttle bandwidth based on monthly access quotas. Everyone thinks that the Internet is cheap (just get a open-source LINUX server, and away we go...) but in reality the infrastructure needed to support it is incredibly expensive. You're easily talking about BILLIONS of DOLLARS of investment to upgrade the digital connections of the last mile to home for support of Video streaming on demand, voice, and interactive entertainment. In the past with television (where transmission broadcasts to the home essentially free) the economic model was that the Networks would pay both the content produces (Hollywood) and the TV stations to broadcast the shows in return for TV ad revenue. The way that high speed broadband access is shaping up, the content providers will have to pay the cable ISP for premium access to the digital home market...
AT&T Embraces BitTorrent, May Consider Usage-Based Pricing | Epicenter from Wired.com
Comcast targets bandwidth hogs in test | Tech news blog - CNET News.com
Last edited by LenMiyata; Jun 07, 2008 at 07:48 PM.
You want the short answer? No.Originally Posted by KenX
After doing customer service for comcast the last couple months, I know how expensive it is to run the cable systems, so I have to agree with Len on every point.
The internet isn't free ladies and gents, get used to it.
Good job on being a 'yes-man' and bringing nothing to the discussion table, Aceman67.
but the point of net neutrality is that when all these ISPs restrict media, that should be free, coming from the internet that it would only be accessable to certain Internet providers.
The internet is not cheap by any means. The shear amount of imformation that goes through all the "tubes" of the internet is vast so of course to back all that information is going to take some money to store it all. But when those ISPs become 'Mediators" of the internet and pretty much just divide All the information of the internet into slices of pie that can only be accessed through them Is literally going to halt inovation and free speech that was and still is the founding principal of the Internet.
It'll be like China in a way. Chinas Firewall has many sites that are purely inaccessible to ANYONE. How would you feel if Myspace was only available to Comcast users? Or That you could only access Animeonline if you had and AT&T Service?
Grumble Grumble Grumble
But is this anything really new??? Comcast cable channels are limited to Comcast subscribers. AT&T IPTV service is limited to AT&T subscribers. And media providers have already extended subscription requirements to satellite dish owners. AOL has been trying to restrict access to its Instant messaging network to AOL subscribers for years now...
If you really want an example of access restrictions, you should look at the mobile cell networks. Currently in the US, you can only use that iPhone on a AT&T cell network. And for development of Internet access in the third world, cell networks (which are cheaper to deploy then stringing copper wire or fiber optic cable to every home) cell networks are where the real growth market is...
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks