End of the Internet as we know it.

[evenwolf]

Do what they do and buy some middle men.   Middle men will always do the trick.

[TwinMoon]

I don't think it's accurate to say they are losing money, but rather just not making what they imagine they could if they had total control.  Losing money implies that the internet is damaged and needs fixing; wanting more money implies something else entirely.

What I meant was that the people at the top want to internet to be more controlled so they can put a stop to illegal file sharing.
(From their point of view they're losing money.)

[evenwolf]

Not just file sharing.   

There's all sorts of ad revenue they're losing if consumers don't stick to their websites or their cable channels.   They don't make any profits off the sketch comedy websites or places you visit like the Onion.     They don't make any money off of AGS either.   And the more time we spend away from them the less ratings and ad sales they receive.  Viacom, Time Warner, Vivendi, News Corp., AT&T  - companies that are currently making money off the internet...  realize they will actually make more money cutting up the internet and selling it to us piece by piece rather than just sell us "service".   Why make $40 a month when they can get $40 per download.   

With all the new proprietary gadgets they are developing ( like the "Box", a sort of TV Computer in one) they will whittle down what we have access to, favoring ultimately a system where they can control the advertisements page by page, and limit the movies we watch to the ones their studios reap the profits from.

It will be legislative, but it will also be with new proprietary development.  Just wait and see.  If your parents one day come home from Best Buy with a TV/PC/Home Stereo system you'll know what I mean.    Avoid said device like the plague.

Welcome to The Box

[Radiant]

Evenwolf brings up a very valid point:  in a perfect world (or at least one in which governments kept their fingers out of the economic pie as much as possible) free markets would work precisely as you suggest,

Not necessarily, given that the internet was initially set up by universities and the army.

However, do note that this applies to American ISPs, and that other countries may well keep the entire 'net open. In which case, well, sucks to be you.

[Mr Flibble]

I imagine if this happens, we'll find a way around it regardless.

Every time free access is inhibited, two pirates are born. Every time you lock down the internet, a million hackers are born.

[EldKatt]

The only questionable fact in that video, IMO, was the date 2012.

Along with, in that case, the whole idea of the very specific plan they're talking about being in the pipelines, and contracts being signed by ISPs and all that... in other words, the stuff that the video was actually about. Net neutrality in general is a big and important issue, but making shit up really doesn't benefit the cause, and that's precisely what these guys are doing, if we can agree that they're wrong about the date and so on. You don't see a problem with that?

I'm certainly keeping my eyes on this development, but to be perfectly honest I'm not that worried. It's definitely no secret that this sort of thing completely screws up all that's really awesome about the internet--but the thing is, it's not just crackers, pirates and perverts who benefit from the traditional free internet. Think about good old businesses, pro-democratic organizations in those scary Middle Eastern places everyone fears, as well as some of the guys who kind of started it all: universities and research institutes. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think the ISPs are powerful enough to overthrow all of that.

[Damien]

Not just file sharing.   

There's all sorts of ad revenue they're losing if consumers don't stick to their websites or their cable channels.   They don't make any profits off the sketch comedy websites or places you visit like the Onion.     They don't make any money off of AGS either.   And the more time we spend away from them the less ratings and ad sales they receive.

Don't forget about open-source. There are a lot of substitutes for various commercial software and they keep getting better and better. How to stop it? Just break their communities.

Think about good old businesses, pro-democratic organizations in those scary Middle Eastern places everyone fears, as well as some of the guys who kind of started it all: universities and research institutes. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think the ISPs are powerful enough to overthrow all of that.

I'm guessing the sites labeled with "advertise" or "commercial" would be allowed by the ISP's, probably as long as the organization pays the "don't ban me" fee.

[MillsJROSS]

I saw the video, and it just didn't sit well with me.  There are far too many businesses that make money through the current model of the internet. This includes major corporations, such as Google, where a free internet can only add revenue. I'm not arguing that other major corporations aren't trying to create a new model, I'm arguing that there are far too many people that the new internet would leave behind, that I'm sure there not just going to sit idly by and let it happen.

Radio was mentioned, but I don't think radio is nearly on the same scale as the internet. This isn't the same scenario, and I don't think the outcome will be the same either.

We should always strive for net neutrality, but I don't think we need to have a pressing fear that big business is going to take our internet freedom(s) away. Nor should we have the fear that AGS is going to disapear. That's rubbish.

-MillsJROSS

[Phemar]

Besides, wouldn't this mean the end of Google? Whats the use of a search engine if there's nothing to search?
I doubt Google with their billions of dollars will let that happen.

[Andail]

Nice usage of the word "besides", Zor 

[Nikolas]

hahahaha!

The English moderator spoke!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

(Couldn't resist, ok... the whole subject of net neutrality is dead serious and the video is dead silly... condtratictory on it's own...)

Really, there was a thread a few months back that Virgin sub-president or something is looking forward to having different speeds on the internet. Is this bound to happen? In all honesty I think that yes! What will save us? web 3.01 or something... I just hope that when the Internet fucks us, there will be people who will spread the word of the new way of ultimate democracy! I'm trying SO hard to explain to my wife the nature of forums and she still doesn't get it...

Anyways, I'm out!

[Snake]

In all seriousness, if I never found AGS, thus not using it today, I couldn't care less.
It's very selfish, I know, but personally I don't use the internet much at all. 98% of the time I'm logging on to check the forums and that's it. The other 2% is looking up how to spell something on dictionary.com, recipes, little informational stuff, but nothing I can't find in a library or an actual physical dictionary.

I found the Mayan video substantially more interesting, and quite disturbingly scary.

Click here to see me naked LOL


--Snake

[Phemar]

Nice usage of the word "besides", Zor 

Haha... I don't quite understand the joke :p Did I use it incorrectly?

[Tuomas]

In the sense that you repeated the above post almost exactly

[Emerald]

However, do note that this applies to American ISPs, and that other countries may well keep the entire 'net open. In which case, well, sucks to be you.

That's a very short-sighted way of looking at things. Let's face it -- anything the Americans do will eventually find its way to Europe. (Except Twinkies. They never made it). If Eircom looks across the pond and sees just how much more money AT&T is suddenly making, you know they'll do the exact same thing.

However, like someone said earlier (evenwolf?): all it would take is one independent Internet Service Provider to break the system. At least in Ireland, it's law that any changes to the constitution must be voted upon by the public, so the chances of our government passing a ban against 'free internet' is slim...