See; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2XPiqhN_Ns
I stumbled upon this quite by accident.Apparently the current major internet service providers{ISP]want to change the mode of internet access to one of a pay TV by 2012,whereby we pay for major corporate sites and then have additional costs for further sites we want to access.

This means that non-mainstream sites like OLO may cease to exist purely because of economic realities.Does anyone in the Internet Service Provider Industry have any knowledge of these new developments? I'm not trying to be alarmist.

its sad your link seems highjacked
anyhow here is some other links

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzHhqBHg--s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LDV8J0mdxo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on4DPpN7GwQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcNUGBxuVaM
#
more info
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=END+OF+THE+inter+NET&aq=f

OUG the link does work,try again.Senator Jay Rockerfeller/Snow have introduced Cyber Security Act S773 which gives Obama the power to shut down the internet and acess any site they like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd2nnq-Sbo8
I've checked it out and the bill is real.

your first link just advises to click here on how to get hot girls
the second i am unable to hear..[its raining on my tin roof]but is different that the first link at least..[anyhow its a valid topic]
lets see how ir develops

i am reminded that i hate links[they can so easilly be redirected]..but the threat to the internet is clear[thus many are preparing to take over the broadcasting spectrum]

i forgot the link was still running[and while i was typing,..the vidio begins playing..another clip
this one is to your topic..12 minutes long..strange stuff indeed...so im listening to it now

OUG just go to youtube and type in 2012:The Year the Internet ends.
This one is quite funny and clever.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH35CVig3fQ I want to know if the English substitles match the German language.

New World Order....anyone?

New World order? Nah. Just a different way of doing things. The conspiracy theorists will have a field day though.

I am a little surprised that people can be so easily sucked in by tripe like this.

But I guess that's the downside of the Internet. No-one knows you're a dog, and all that.

The issue here is internet freedom, not the internet itself.

The Internet will bumble along, as the Internet does.

Wikipedia will still be around for those who need a Readers' Digest version of reality. Google will still be driving "cloud" computing, and Microsoft will, unfortunately, still be Microsoft.

The Internet itself will still be, largely, free.

There have in recent years been a bazillion (perhaps I exaggerate, it might be only a gazillion) ideas bandied around by the Murdochs of this world, on the topic of "monetizing the Net".

None has even come close to answering the question "what happens if they refuse to pay?"

Because, sure as eggs, if there are to be battalions of ISPs demanding "gateway" fees of any kind, there will be other battalions of ISPs lined up offering no-gateway pricing.

The only way it could possibly ever work is if the sites themselves elect to be accessed exclusively by the gateway fees mob - and they, you can be sure, will be more motivated by a large volume of visitors who arrive "for free" than a small number who have paid, as it were, and in-advance access fee.

In summary, there are two parties involved here.

One is the "Free Internet" nerds (I loved the video where the cat walked across in front of the most-earnest speaker as she was in mid-spruik) who understand nothing about business and everything about the Internet, and the Ruperts of this world who know everything about business and nothing about the Internet. (Check how much Rupie paid for mySpace. Tell me he got value for money)

Oh, those two, plus the conspiracy dudes.

Great team.

Arjay this morning that link was umm... well yeah, but was back this afternoon.

I just saw an add for a movie called (if I heard right) U.S.A.I.O.U - you seen it? Sounded like stuff you explain about the banks and stuff.

We already pay for the internet don't we? I know I see it on the phone bill quite regularly. Oh and they send me e-mails saying they are slowing me down a lot. My son said it is because I need some other thingi that is faster.

There is nothing wrong with remaining vigulant.Pericles writes off anything he disagrees with as conspiracy theory.I'm just asking the question since people like Rupert Murdoch are hurting because their paper sales are plumetting and they want a piece if the internet with fewer competitors.

Does anyone think in their wildest dreams that the popular media will print articles about the corporate desires to monopolise the WEB?The pop media sees the WEB as destroying their power over information.There are too many sites on the WEB thus too much competition.

I think there will be many assaults on the independance of WEB by the corporate elites and Govt,since it gives autonomy to the individual.Anyone who has a contrary opinion is a fool.

Arjay
The question Arjay is not if the corporations want to control the internet, if they want to feed us ONLY FROM THEIR GRASS, BE SURE ABOUT IT! They question is if we allow them to use the internet as an other tool to control us, as an other tool to convince us that their benefits are our benefits too.
Arjay we are not so idiots to accept it, we are mature enouph and brave enouph to fight for our interests, for our basic rights as freedom of expression and freedom of information.
We know the benefits from the internet AND ONLY VERY IDIOTS WILL TRY TO BLOCK US FROM THE INTERNET! They are not so idiots! Sure they will try in long term to do what ever they want to do but not within 10 or 100 years!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Thank you for this little gem, Arjay.

>>Pericles writes off anything he disagrees with as conspiracy theory<<

Reminds me of the old story...

Psychiatrist: (holding up Rorschach Blot) What do you see in this picture?

Patient: Two people making love in a field.

Psychiatrist: (holding up another) And what do you see in this picture?

Patient: Three people making love in a hotel room.

Psychiatrist: How about this one?

Patient: A Roman orgy in full swing

Psychiatrist: I think you may have a bit of an obsession about sex...

Patient: Me? You're the one with the dirty pictures.

As Antonios points out, Arjay, the Internet is not actually able to be controlled by the Murdochs of this world, however much they would like to. Simply because they are all hurting like crazy as the web extracts their easy advertising dollars doesn't change this simple fact.

The mechanics of the Web are such that however many ISPs decide that the ideal model is that of subscription TV, they will be unable to implement it.

Because if only one ISP offers an open service, they will corner the market, and starve the pay-per-channel people out of existence.

Yes, just one.

Which would you subscribe to?

Or are you happier just promulgating your perpetual "they're all out to squash us" conspiracy theories?

Hooray,
A voice of reason well done Pericles.
I couldn't agree with you more on all counts here.
Like they say never with animals or children.
'Chaos rules OK'.....

Pericles for a start I did not promulgate any theory I'm just asking the question.That video may have been pure BS but they seemed genuine.
If you have a few major ISP,s in the market and people like Murdoch or Conrad Black can buy controlling shares they then have a big influence over the net.It takes capital to be a ISP so they can esaily form a cartel like the oil companies.The TV media at the moment is controlled by very few people and they bombard the airways with their view of the world.There is nothing stopping this also happening to the WEB if they get a strong enough foothold.

Jay Rockerfeller has passed a bills 773&778 that enables Obama to shut down the net and access any information they want.You and many others had better wake up since there are seriously unstable events happening in the US right now.I just hope all the doom merchants are wrong.

I guess I make one fundamental mistake when I read your posts, Arjay.

>>Pericles for a start I did not promulgate any theory I'm just asking the question.That video may have been pure BS but they seemed genuine.<<

I make the assumption - silly of me, I know - that you actually try to find out a little background to the topic before you post.

So let me assure you that the YouTube video you posted first, with the earnest bunch of geeks getting excited about ISPs getting together to turn the Internet into a subscription service, is pure baloney.

But it obviously made them feel that they were doing something important. And when 2012 comes around, and the Internet is still open, they will be able to tell each other what a great job they had done to prevent it from falling into the clutches of evil ISPs.

1st Man: "Why are you tearing up sheets of paper and scattering them in the road?"

2nd Man: (still tearing and scattering) "Keeps the streets free of tigers"

1st Man: "But there are no tigers in Sydney"

2nd Man: "Yeah. Effective, isn't it"

>>It takes capital to be a ISP so they can esaily form a cartel<<

Actually, it doesn't take nearly as much as you think. And as I said, it only takes one "freedom fighter" and the cartel crumbles.

>>Jay Rockerfeller has passed a bills 773&778 that enables Obama to shut down the net and access any information they want<<

Firstly, they have not yet been passed into law.

Secondly, he cannot "shut down the net". Only close specific parts of it.

And he would only do that - given the impact on his own economy of doing so - to protect essential services from the direst of cyber attacks.

>>You and many others had better wake up since there are seriously unstable events happening in the US right now.I just hope all the doom merchants are wrong.<<

Actually, I believe that you secretly hope they are right, Arjay.

It's in your nature.

"...in 1846, Henry David Thoreau left his cabin at Walden Pond for a brief walk into town and ended up in the Concord jail for refusing to pay his poll tax. A fervent abolitionist, Thoreau explained, "I cannot for an instant recognize . . . as my government [that] which is the slave's government also." The next morning, he learned that someone had paid the tax. He never knew who. Although Thoreau objected, the constable insisted on releasing him. This experience led him to write a powerful lecture on the "relation of the individual to the State." The lecture was published in 1849 as "Civil Disobedience." This masterful essay has influenced generations of activists, including Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr." http://massmoments.org/moment.cfm?mid=214

Playing the man again Pericles?If you look at your mortage agreement your bank can call in a loan at moments notice even if you are servicing the debt.If things really get out of hand then banks needing liquidity,will call in loans in a very depressed market,thus many will be sold up and still be in debt to the bank.No,I do not want a collapse,unlike you,I'm looking at the reality.

This could be far worse than the Great Depression since back then they did not have this amount of debt,they had a productive viable manufacturing industry and did not import many consumerables.Many people both here and the US have businesses based on discretionary spending such restraunts,cleaning,pooch washing,retail junk etc.When people really tighten up,millions of jobs will go.Kevin cannot continue with stimulus packages that premote consumerism over real porductivity.When you bail out the unproductive,you destroy the golden goose of real productivity.That is the reality.

It is better to have a couple of years of hard times,than have decades wandering in the wilderness as Japan has done.No more bailouts or stimulus packages!The big boys will have to face their medicine and not be bailed out by the hard working tax payer.

You cannnot solve a debt problem by creating more debt.

It was a little more informative than that, Arjay

>>Playing the man again Pericles?<<

So yes, I did have a little dig at your ingrained pessimism, forever searching for the disaster that is about to befall, courtesy of the evil corporations and rabid bankers.

But I did try to put a few of your ideas into context at the same time.

To no avail, it would appear.

>>If things really get out of hand then banks needing liquidity,will call in loans in a very depressed market,thus many will be sold up and still be in debt to the bank<<

One really odd aspect of this observation, is that you have put your finger on the precise reason for the "bail-out" funds, that you have been so paranoid about.

It goes a bit like this.

If a Bank is tempted to do as you suggest, they will be left - not with cash - but with a bunch of properties, and a piece of paper that tells them that a bunch of people - who can't afford to pay - still owe them money.

To actually get their hands on the liquidity that you refer to, they would need to sell the property into a falling market.

Their asset base would be decimated, and their provisions for bad debts would skyrocket. A queue would form outside their doors, as the word got around that they were in trouble...

So what you suggest is, in fact, Banking suicide.

To help them through - since tapping their customers for liquidity clearly won't work - the Government has printed a whole lot of new money, to prop up the system.

>>You cannnot solve a debt problem by creating more debt.<<

Not directly, of course you cannot. That would be silly.

But this process is not designed to solve the "debt problem" on its own.

It is designed to keep the economy moving until it has a chance to catch up with the mammoth indebtedness that it has already created for itself on the back of over-priced (mostly property) assets.