egafd.com

I sincerely hope not.

But this looks like a potentially sinister development:



- Eric

Yes. Sounds like the sort of direction things are heading. It was only a matter of time before some control was going to be imposed on the internet.

Thing is it is creeping in already with various reforms in the next couple of years so Canadas approach to it is hardly a surprise.

Thing is, despite the complaints that will occur in that time, I wonder if anyone is going to be arsed to do anything about it?

The same arguments to legislate against the internet is the same arguments our governments have been using to control the masses through its fear of terrorism.

In the internets case it will be about the sordid extreme porn that is destroying the under fabric of our society or some such fancy statement like that.

I think the most people will really miss is the free porn, music and pirated mainstream films.

Well...in theory this shouldn't be allowed to happen here.

I'm prepared to be corrected on this one as I'm not 100% sure but I think somewhere entrenched in European law there is an edict effectively banning cartels (bear with me on this one).

In order for this to work here, every ISP would have to agree to it otherwise it would fail - people would stick to those ISPs who are keeping the internet as 'free' as it is now. In order for the ISPs to agree to it they would have to form a cartel - a la British Airways and Virgin Atlantic and we saw how they got clobbered. (Although tellingly I've yet to see their advertisement telling people where they can get their refunds)

That's just my viewpoint but it is a worrying development.

In the UK the government are pressing ahead with legislation to put black boxes in all exchanges - so they can log all your phone calls, gps location from mobiles, text messages and internet sites. They want it to be totally in the control of the police (on grounds of security), who will be able to monitor anyone they want without a court order! You just know they'd abuse such powers to make easy arrests to notch up the crimes solved stats. It's easy to imagine fixed penalty notices for d/l an illegal mp3 or viewing more than your fair share of porn in a 30 day period. If ever there was a rape in the area they'd be knocking on doors based on people's browsing habits - they'd be running their own Potential Sexual Offender's Register alongside the real one.

JonnyHungwell wrote:

>(snip) It's easy to imagine fixed penalty notices
> for d/l an illegal mp3 or viewing more than your fair share of
> porn in a 30 day period. If ever there was a rape in the area
> they'd be knocking on doors based on people's browsing habits -
> they'd be running their own Potential Sexual Offender's
> Register alongside the real one.

Very similar to the way dirty book shops are said to attract pedophiles to an area, and so you cant open one near a school, yet far more sex offenses against children are carried out by 'wholesome family values' types ( men of the cloth, scoutmasters, teachers etc). No one complains that a church is built near a school, but statistically the kids are in more danger.

In the same way, anyone who spends a lot of time downloading perfectly legal porn could be witch-hunted based on media hyped stereo types. Mind you, they'd have to investigate a lot of people!

The internet works because it's free. Also, free networks would spring up and amalgamate into a rival internet; and these free networks/internet will attract more surfers, which attracts more advertising, which attracts more money and business; surely leaving the 'controlled' and 'subscription based' internet to die a slow death.

Rings true but it will most likely take a huge consumer backlash to make them backoff if a cartel ever gets off the ground



I get the sense that its still in the phase of the big players arguing over how to divide up the cake

The telephone industry has been somewhat more candid than the cable industry about its strategy for the Internet's future. Senior phone executives have publicly discussed plans to begin imposing a new scheme for the delivery of Internet content, especially from major Internet content companies. As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of AT&T, told Business Week in November, "Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!"

Always knew the internet was too good to be true,and it looks like i was right. And don't bank on a public backlash to these plans,in a couple of years there will be a hard right govt in this country,the poor will be priced out of most things anyway,and the net will become just like pay per view sportwhere people have just been like sheep and happily gone along with it. Make the most of the net whilst its free,it wont be for much longer.

But At&T are already being paid by the surfer. We already pay to use the internet.

Its a silly argument he makes because us the surfer and they the idea that becomes ultra successful both pay the ISPs as you say

What rankles me is they think they can get a slice from the idea that turns into the next best thing by charging the end user for sites visited

I'm sure they'll be very generous in their free sites visited allowance for our monthly fee NOT

Hopefully competiton will kill the idea before it gets away

Society is in a race to the bottom so why should ISP fees be any different?