[Hackysacky]

Companies who use to find viewers to watch their Ads through television are finding it not to be as affective anymore since the internet came out. They realized people will not watch TV if they can find the same stuff on the internet for free and commercial free. So, they decided to pay off ISPs(internet service providers) to have you the consumer pay more for NOT visiting their site. Soon internet will look like a cable subscription plan. Where you pay so much, lets say $30 for 200 main companies websites to be viewable, Coca-cola,Google,Twitter... etc..then to view less popular pages like imageshack, tinyurl, dailymotion, etc.. you pay more say like $50. Then 3rd option will be less popular sites like Killingifrit, alahkazahm etc.. that would me more something like 60$ and finally the last will be blog pages, personal pages, smaller company pages that will be like $70 plan. this in return will kill off smaller pages because no one wants to pay $70(not an exact amount, its an estimate) to view these pages and will most likely stick to the 1st plan. So companies will have full control of our internet. Full control over what we view just like they do when it comes to television. if you don't believe me go search net neutrality and net neutrality ending.

Side note: if my grammar/spelling sucks sorry. long day.regardless you still get my point.

Id like to hear your opinion. please keep it mature. I will also add this is happening ALL over the world, even america and will be in affect somewhere around 2012-2014. so don't say "well its not gonna happen to me" because it will unless you do something to stop it, there are already protests and what not going on you can participate or raise awareness to prevent this.

[Kenshiro]

slowpoke.jpg

[Kleiner]

Net neutrality conspiracy theories are rampart. We've al heard this before. Yes, Net Neutrality is a big issue right now, but I honestly don't see this coming to pass in the form of a subscription plan. Cable companies are failing; they will either learn to go with the times and accept internet television and use it to their advantage, or they will flounder and drown. They will not control the internet just for TV.

[Mythx]

Hackysacky, on 06 March 2010 - 02:54 AM, said:

Companies who use to find viewers to watch their Ads through television are finding it not to be as affective anymore since the internet came out. They realized people will not watch TV if they can find the same stuff on the internet for free and commercial free. So, they decided to pay off ISPs(internet service providers) to have you the consumer pay more for NOT visiting their site. Soon internet will look like a cable subscription plan. Where you pay so much, lets say $30 for 200 main companies websites to be viewable, Coca-cola,Google,Twitter... etc..then to view less popular pages like imageshack, tinyurl, dailymotion, etc.. you pay more say like $50. Then 3rd option will be less popular sites like Killingifrit, alahkazahm etc.. that would me more something like 60$ and finally the last will be blog pages, personal pages, smaller company pages that will be like $70 plan. this in return will kill off smaller pages because no one wants to pay $70(not an exact amount, its an estimate) to view these pages and will most likely stick to the 1st plan. So companies will have full control of our internet. Full control over what we view just like they do when it comes to television. if you don't believe me go search net neutrality and net neutrality ending.

Side note: if my grammar/spelling sucks sorry. long day.regardless you still get my point.

Id like to hear your opinion. please keep it mature. I will also add this is happening ALL over the world, even america and will be in affect somewhere around 2012-2014. so don't say "well its not gonna happen to me" because it will unless you do something to stop it, there are already protests and what not going on you can participate or raise awareness to prevent this.

You forgot one thing. This would kill the draw of the internet, and therefore this would fail. And I doubt these companies would invest that much money doing something that would only get them maybe a years worth of profits.

[Vigilous]

OP, you do realize you can't escape ads or commercials on the internet, right? Nor in real life for that matter (bus benches, digital billboards, etc.). Based on that and the rest of your diatribe, I can easily assume you do not understand/know jack all about the net neutrality issue. Ad companies or companies themselves aren't losing money by people leaving network TV in these imaginary droves. Cable companies who offer internet services are the ones who want an end to net neutrality so that they can suck even more money from their customers. Essentially, they want internet sites to pay them for access to the cable companies subscribers, who will still be charged by the cable company for subscription. The cable/internet companies want the "right" to be able to decide what content travels through their tubes. If a site refuses to sign an agreement and pay, then access for subscribers will be slowed - or blocked entirely.

It helps if you actually stop, breathe, and then research an issue you just found out about, rather than take everything seriously that your emo retarded friend just found out about himself, and then proceeded to tell to you (awkward sentence GO!).

Here, try this: an actual WEBSITE about the entire issue.
Save the Internet

This post has been edited by Vigilous: 06 March 2010 - 02:02 PM

[Hackysacky]

TBH i doubt the internet would fail. as long as people get their myspaces,twitter,facebook (none of which i use) they will be strong and popular. and i know all this started around 2008 but just refreshing peoples minds. No, not conspiracy its already happened with virgin. the post isnt about internet TV. Its about TV not doing companies justice in drawing people in to buy their product so they turn to where we are at, the internet. Its also the cable companies. like Vigilous said.

second note. its not something i just heard or had a friend tell me. i've been watching this and researching it since 2008.

This post has been edited by Hackysacky: 06 March 2010 - 02:06 PM

[Boldfinger]

I'm with you OP. I used to subscribe to auto trader magazine but I canceled it because that shit was just full of adverts...

[Kandi_]

my friends and other pay outrageous amounts for texting and phone internet service, i doubt they would give a rats ass about the changes, and fork over all their money for facebook.

dont think a minority of ppl who care is the actual % of their consumers.

most likely wont happen, but if it does, theres no stopping it.

but it wont matter, as another form of neutral internet is being made (i forget what its called), in case this does happen, to which will cause an actual need to compete for customers.

The thing is, DSL and Cable are fighting to see who gets the actual rights to the internet, and until they decide to join forces, they wont wanna make the 1st step, only to have the other get all the customers.

so back to point, most likely wont happen.

[Vigilous]

Quote

TBH i doubt the internet would fail. as long as people get their myspaces,twitter,facebook (none of which i use) they will be strong and popular. and i know all this started around 2008 but just refreshing peoples minds. No, not conspiracy its already happened with virgin. the post isnt about internet TV. Its about TV not doing companies justice in drawing people in to buy their product so they turn to where we are at, the internet. Its also the cable companies. like Vigilous said.

second note. its not something i just heard or had a friend tell me. i've been watching this and researching it since 2008.

The issue of net neutrality has actually been around since before 2008, it just wasn't called anything yet. That being said, clearly you just found out about this. If your goal was to remind people, then you would have posted links to sites supporting neutrality. Or - even better - the article or proof that Virgin has already destroyed neutrality for the UK. But what you chose to post instead was an extremely limp rage post.

What I put in bold is you once again saying you don't understand what's going on. Yes, greed is the cause of the issue, however, it's the greed of ISPs. Not advertisers or companies that buy ad space. The net was actually a boon for the advertising business.

This post has been edited by Vigilous: 07 March 2010 - 08:18 AM

[rambus]

the only reason I am worried is because it happened before.

I do not know how it happened to T.V. and cable. I herd stories people had access to the radio before you need this and that from the FCC to use it.

This post has been edited by rambus: 07 March 2010 - 12:54 AM

[Cruzandercerberus]

Radio spectrum is a finite resource. It ONLY works because there is a governing body managing spectrum. This creates an inherent need for regulatory apparatus to prevent people from broadcasting on the same frequencies and interfering with one another.

Not the same thing really.

This post has been edited by Cruzandercerberus: 08 March 2010 - 06:50 AM

[firefeng]

Cruzandercerberus, on 08 March 2010 - 04:55 AM, said:

Radio spectrum is a finite resource. It ONLY works because there is a governing body managing spectrum. This creates an inherent need for regulatory apparatus to prevent people from broadcasting on the same frequencies and interfering with one another.

Not the same thing really.

Your post makes a better analogy than the Net Neutrality conspiracists, actually. While we can quibble over the relative availability of internet, ultimately access is confined by the limitations of bandwidth, a function of the physical capacity of the wiring used to transmit information. By the time that technology has progressed to the point of allowing for near infinite transfer of data (via extradimensional computing with calculations performed instantaneously via quantum mechanical bit-switching), the bureaucracy of governmental/corporate intervention necessitated by the limited resources of more primitive technology will already be firmly entrenched, and egregiously corrupted as is the eventual fate of all such bureaucratic systems.

To the OP, few people here are deaf to your claims (the alarm was raised years ago, really). It's just that no one individual is capable of crushing the blindly mechanical locomotion of a society hurtling haphazardly towards its own eventual destruction/reinvention. Everyone here is revolted by such developments, and simultaneously completely apathetic to them as per their impotence in ameliorating the matter; what would you have us do, discomfort ourselves by standing outside in the elements with a pithy limerick on a picket board feigning our pathetic actions bear any additional weight upon the monstrous, impregnable motions of machinations beyond everyone's design and control?

Edited to remove repetitive use of the word "blindly". It's just so difficult to rehash millennia-old grumble-and-glum doom prophecies about the inevitability of man's eventual demise wrought by his own ignorance with the mere 500,000 words available in the English language, after all.

I blame Youtube. The comments there would disenfranchise even the hardiest of idealists about mankind's cognitive prospects.

This post has been edited by firefeng: 08 March 2010 - 08:06 AM

[Cruzandercerberus]

True.

The disparity between the two models is that the physical transport infrastructure technology is expanding exponentially, and even barring that new circuits will be created to meet the demand. On the other hand, the radio spectrum is not getting any wider.

Left alone, any problems will solve themselves. It's pure idiocy to think that anyone in the legislative arm of the government understands anything beyond the vague concept of a "Series of tubes"

This post has been edited by Cruzandercerberus: 08 March 2010 - 09:14 AM

[Phlow]

Cruzandercerberus, on 08 March 2010 - 09:09 AM, said:

Left alone, any problems will solve themselves. It's pure idiocy to think that anyone in the legislative arm of the government understands anything beyond the vague concept of a "Series of tubes"

The radio spectrum is actually a closer analogy than you think. Though it's fixable, it'll require sizable investments into infrastructure in order to move to IPv6.

Regardless, I believe Ted Steven's summed up my thoughts on this matter:



wat.