I just read an article in the NY Times by Farhad Manjoo about this very subject. I'll post the link below. But it had me thinking, could the repeal of Net Neutrality cause your internet service provider to charge you a fee to visit IORR and other highly visited sites? For those who don't fully understand, even with no ads or membership fees to belong to IORR, your ISP without net neutrality, can charge you to view it, slow down your connection, or block you from visiting this site unless you pay a fee. Of course it does not mean it will happen, but after next month in the USA, there will be nothing to stop it. Time for a reality check on what's really happening to our internet.

Have you noticed how YouTube has expunged most of the music you once listened to for free? Google seems to have buried a lot of content. Negative information seems to disappear. Movie sites quietly taken down. Lots more gatekeepers charging to view anything. It's no coincidence, their just not telling you until you try to visit a site or look for information.

An excerpt from the article is worth some extended pondering:

"The five most valuable American companies — Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft — control much of the online infrastructure, from app stores to operating systems to cloud storage to nearly all of the online ad business. A handful of broadband companies — AT&T, Charter, Comcast and Verizon, many of which are also aiming to become content companies, because why not — provide virtually all the internet connections to American homes and smartphones."

[Is the internet dying, NY Times article]

Just like everything else on the planet, it's been commoditized and turned into one big @#$%& commercial.

Was there any doubt the psychopathic scumbag in the White House was going to repeal net neutrality (via his stooges in the FCC)?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-11-29 20:26 by keefriff99.

Answer to the question is NO

sc uk

Well considering we likely will have to pay for our carbon footprint in one way or another someday, then payment for this doesn't seem like much of a stretch.

I assume though because many people in the US don't have the resources to pay on an equal level, they will receive their net use for free, while using their free computer.

The Internet was founded upon everyone having a fair shot. Stars were born .. People made money with their websites... Your business or you as a person could reach millions all by yourself and your own online effort & hustle. Those days could be going...

Imagine having to pay to access a certain website. Imagine your website being put in the 'slow lane'. Imagine placing an ad on a website you own for your business and it being placed in the slow lane because you do not pay the extra 20.00 a month. The Internet was born on the same concept as our country (starting in 1776). Everyone has a fair shot and their is no discrimination. This is a huge part of what made / currently makes the Internet so awesome.


This could be the start of something very bad for the little guy and common consumer.

The Internet was the average guys shot to bypass all the corporate Giants or to be right there with them in promoting themselves.. their business... and in getting content without paying 60.00 to the cable company. With the possible ending of Net Neutrality .. It would start the big slide to all that going away and in we will all be saying some time in the not too distant future... 'Remember when'...


Stop it. I know usually we simply like something or comment about it but this time is for real ... actually do a few things about it .. >>>

Write congress .. Donate to the websites that have our back on this ... Call your local talk radio station and comment about it. Talk about it and form a page on social media.... **Congress could stop this. Change your profile image ... Join a protest.... Do something and everything ya can folks .. I am. We have two weeks.


See Here for the best place to easily do such:

[www.battleforthenet.com]

I’m already paying for it.
2 shows 2 travel
and I’m 2 for 2 now.
35 shirts, 5-6 special releases,
endless daydreaming,
and a few good laughs amongst friends.

HAHAHAHA FAKE NEWS

Well, sure you will have to pay for content.
I used to work for a newspaper; one of the reasons newspapers are failing is that they put their content online for free.
People seem to believe that they should be able to read articles, download music and watch TV and movies for free.

Quote
wonderboy
Well, sure you will have to pay for content.
I used to work for a newspaper; one of the reasons newspapers are failing is that they put their content online for free.
People seem to believe that they should be able to read articles, download music and watch TV and movies for free.

It is coming down to; what entity provides you service into your house.
This is where the $ is. This is why the big scramble is happening.
Hello AI.

... Ive already paid in all sorts of ways .... but not as much as LD has ta



ROCKMAN

Quote
wonderboy
Well, sure you will have to pay for content.
I used to work for a newspaper; one of the reasons newspapers are failing is that they put their content online for free.
People seem to believe that they should be able to read articles, download music and watch TV and movies for free.

It's NOT about that. I don't download illegal content.

It's about large ISPs throttling internet access for smaller players and giving "fast lanes" to bigger sites. A fundamental principle of internet theory has always been equal access to bandwidth.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-11-30 00:06 by keefriff99.

Quote
The Sicilian

"The five most valuable American companies — Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft — control much of the online infrastructure, from app stores to operating systems to cloud storage to nearly all of the online ad business

Then we'll move "East", outside of Uncle Sammy's hands. The Net is not US-owned as far as I know...

Quote
dcba

Quote
The Sicilian

"The five most valuable American companies — Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft — control much of the online infrastructure, from app stores to operating systems to cloud storage to nearly all of the online ad business

Then we'll move "East", outside of Uncle Sammy's hands. The Net is not US-owned as far as I know...

Just make sure you don’t relocate oceanfront. Not a wise investment.

the internet for me is a great source of imformation and entertainment, and at a very cheap price too, if the price is increased then i get the choice to pay up or reduce my usage, just like with any other commodity.

if i decide i can no longer afford it, i will make more use of my record store, the library, art galleries and travel agents.

as for my carbon footprint, im more worried about my environment being destroyed by nuclear bombs. maybe our politicians should prioritize their fears.

Yes, the laughs, the cries, the advice, the photo's, the people....

Quote
dcba

Quote
The Sicilian

"The five most valuable American companies — Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft — control much of the online infrastructure, from app stores to operating systems to cloud storage to nearly all of the online ad business

Then we'll move "East", outside of Uncle Sammy's hands. The Net is not US-owned as far as I know...

Don't forget those companies own a lot of other internet companies. If those five decided to block access for 24 hours there would be global panic. It is US controlled.

Quote
kish_stoned
HAHAHAHA FAKE NEWS

It's not. This is not something Fox "News" spewed. Care to take a realistic view?

It may take a while but data will replace the internet - or hard wired wifi, as we know it. Phone companies - AT&T, for example - should stay OUT of providing internet - they're horrible at it.

AT&T should stick to phones. I have AT&T cellular... they always - ALWAYS - give me the Uverse bullshit and I tell them - I did it, it sucked, you suck, never again - a phone company should not sell boats - and paying for a "landline" is ignorant. Landlines are a sham.

I got rid of cable. It's a complete waste of money, especially since Disney takes in 51% of your bill (in the United States, anyway). Basic cable is bad enough, then to have the second tier with more crap that you can't possibly watch... so now the cable company only provides me with internet.

I see plenty of what I want to see and pay the least amount possible. It's great.

I'll never go back to cable TV - unless it's $10 a month. I would consider it then. On top of that, the satellite people - now one of them owned by AT&T! - can't understand that their lies don't work with how good the picture is when it rains - there is no picture. And... 300, 500, whatever amount of channels of what - about 300, 500, however many channels of crap you'll never watch.

So... if I have to pay extra for ABC&D website accessibility, I'll get rid of internet and up my data for my phone, use it as a hotspot and DOYOING - get whatever internet I want.


Unless even that gets screwed. At which point, I'm glad I have a Bluray player.

There is no free lunch re anything. We all pay in one way or another.

Having said this, I am like GasLightStreet, looking to get rid of cable since I realized I only watch maybe 7 or 8 channels out of a few hundred. And, like GasLightStreet, I still have a DVD player and a collection of disks. The one thing I don't have is a VCR which means those eight large boxes of video tapes tucked away remain so. I gotta wonder if the tapes work after years of storage.

Re the Internet, I am no longer fascinated by it. I use it as a news source, since I am a news junkie, to supplement newspaper reading; a research medium; an email portal; and a place to hang out at special places such as here at IORR. I do not have any social media accounts and ask family and friends to post nothing about me or images of me with or without them online. They don't listen.

As for the premise of the Internet dying, it isn't. Too much of the world has been directed and hooked into music and video streaming; messaging; social media; having the latest electronic toys/devices; what have you. "The medium is the message" as the late Marshall McLuhan stated and the Internet is the medium by which they play (us).

Quote
GasLightStreet
It may take a while but data will replace the internet - or hard wired wifi, as we know it. Phone companies - AT&T, for example - should stay OUT of providing internet - they're horrible at it.

AT&T should stick to phones. I have AT&T cellular... they always - ALWAYS - give me the Uverse bullshit and I tell them - I did it, it sucked, you suck, never again - a phone company should not sell boats - and paying for a "landline" is ignorant. Landlines are a sham.

I got rid of cable. It's a complete waste of money, especially since Disney takes in 51% of your bill (in the United States, anyway). Basic cable is bad enough, then to have the second tier with more crap that you can't possibly watch... so now the cable company only provides me with internet.

I see plenty of what I want to see and pay the least amount possible. It's great.

I'll never go back to cable TV - unless it's $10 a month. I would consider it then. On top of that, the satellite people - now one of them owned by AT&T! - can't understand that their lies don't work with how good the picture is when it rains - there is no picture. And... 300, 500, whatever amount of channels of what - about 300, 500, however many channels of crap you'll never watch.

So... if I have to pay extra for ABC&D website accessibility, I'll get rid of internet and up my data for my phone, use it as a hotspot and DOYOING - get whatever internet I want.


Unless even that gets screwed. At which point, I'm glad I have a Bluray player.

I think I've said the same things you just wrote too many times over. I pay $100 a month for cable and only get about 70 or so channels many of which are duplicates that are analog, 480, and 720p. On some channels, the same program is broadcast on three different channels in various picture quality. I'm also stuck with two Spanish channels I can't understand, and religious channels with phony preachers that I don't have any affiliation with, crappy college sports I could care less about, high school lacrosse from schools I've never heard of...I do not have a cable box either.

I get my internet and landline from Verizon. We cannot get FIOS in our area. So the best DSL I can get is what they claim to be 3 Mb download but in reality I'm lucky if I can get 2 Mb of download speed. For that I'm charged $78.00 a month.

Of course Time Warner Cable is now owned by Charter and called Spectrum. They offer high speed internet 60 Mb for $30 a month but only for a year then you get bumped up to full price probably about $60 a month.

Now they want to find another way to screw us.

I canceled my cable back in 2009, and haven't missed it one damn bit.

Between my music and books, YouTube, Amazon Prime, HBO Now and Netflix, I have enough content to last me 50 lifetimes.

The total monthly fees for me work out to approximately:

High-speed internet = $80.00
Netflix = $10.00
HBO Now = $15.00
Amazon Prime = $ 8.33
============================
$113.33

That's not bad at all considering how much a full cable package can run. The worry that a lot of people have is that eventually every media company out there is gong to launch their own niche streaming service, and eventually all those little fees will add up to or surpass the average cable bill.

For instance, CBS All Access ($5.99/month) just launched featuring a new Star Trek series (Star Trek Discovery) that's only available on there. Disney announced it's going to be launching a massive streaming service next year which will probably have content that a LOT of people will be salivating over (all the old Disney animated films, new Star Wars live-action TV shows, new Marvel comics shows, etc.).

And then there are other services out there like Hulu and YouTube Red which are generating their own proprietary content now.

I personally don't plan on adding any of these onto my existing list. I'm happy with what I have and, like I said, I can barely sift through all the content I have access to now.

The ONLY thing I really miss not having cable is live sports...I'd love to be able to watch a baseball or football game on a lazy Sunday afternoon. There are various MLB/NFL/NBA/NHL streaming packages out there too, but they can run expensive depending on how many team games you want access to.

The bottom line is I prefer being able to pick and choose what I want on a more targeted level rather than ordering a gargantuan cable package with hundreds, if not thousands, of useless channels. When I go home to visit my parents, I'm utterly stunned by the sheer volume of garbage channels that come with their package.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-11-30 08:54 by keefriff99.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
kish_stoned
HAHAHAHA FAKE NEWS

It's not. This is not something Fox "News" spewed. Care to take a realistic view?

America really has entered a Kafka-esque nightmare.

"Fake News" had a very specific, and REAL, definition prior to the election. It LITERALLY refers to completely falsified news articles made up out of whole cloth created by overseas Russian bot firms that were surreptitiously implanted into peoples' Facebook feeds in order to help sway public opinion (almost all of it anti-Hillary).

But now the term has been hijacked by the Putin Stooge and the GOP to mean "any news articles that I don't like".

Goebbels must be smiling proudly from the depths of hell when he sees what the state of America is today.

Keefriff99

Quote
keefriff99
I canceled my cable back in 2009, and haven't missed it one damn bit.

Between my music and books, YouTube, Amazon Prime, HBO Now and Netflix, I have enough content to last me 50 lifetimes.

The total monthly fees for me work out to approximately:

High-speed internet = $80.00
Netflix = $10.00
HBO Now = $15.00
Amazon Prime = $ 8.33
============================
$113.33

That's not bad at all considering how much a full cable package can run. The worry that a lot of people have is that eventually every media company out there is gong to launch their own niche streaming service, and eventually all those little fees will add up to or surpass the average cable bill.

For instance, CBS All Access ($5.99/month) just launched featuring a new Star Trek series (Star Trek Discovery) that's only available on there. Disney announced it's going to be launching a massive streaming service next year which will probably have content that a LOT of people will be salivating over (all the old Disney animated films, new Star Wars live-action TV shows, new Marvel comics shows, etc.).

And then there are other services out there like Hulu and YouTube Red which are generating their own proprietary content now.

I personally don't plan on adding any of these onto my existing list. I'm happy with what I have and, like I said, I can barely sift through all the content I have access to now.

The ONLY thing I really miss not having cable is live sports...I'd love to be able to watch a baseball or football game on a lazy Sunday afternoon. There are various MLB/NFL/NBA/NHL streaming packages out there too, but they can run expensive depending on how many team games you want access to.

The bottom line is I prefer being able to pick and choose what I want on a more targeted level rather than ordering a gargantuan cable package with hundreds, if not thousands, of useless channels. When I go home to visit my parents, I'm utterly stunned by the sheer volume of garbage channels that come with their package.

I pay less than than for basic fios. I pay like $80 a month for fios and $20 for a modem

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
wonderboy
Well, sure you will have to pay for content.
I used to work for a newspaper; one of the reasons newspapers are failing is that they put their content online for free.
People seem to believe that they should be able to read articles, download music and watch TV and movies for free.

It's NOT about that. I don't download illegal content.

It's about large ISPs throttling internet access for smaller players and giving "fast lanes" to bigger sites. A fundamental principle of internet theory has always been equal access to bandwidth.

Indeed. Death of Net Neutrality is more like having to pay to walk on certain streets in your home town - not just paying for the paper at the newsstand.

Quote
straycatuk
Answer to the question is NO

sc uk

There were two questions?

1. No
2. Probably

Quote
keefriff99
Just like everything else on the planet, it's been commoditized and turned into one big @#$%& commercial.

Was there any doubt the psychopathic scumbag in the White House was going to repeal net neutrality (via his stooges in the FCC)?

Totally agree 100%

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
wonderboy
Well, sure you will have to pay for content.
I used to work for a newspaper; one of the reasons newspapers are failing is that they put their content online for free.
People seem to believe that they should be able to read articles, download music and watch TV and movies for free.

It's NOT about that. I don't download illegal content.

It's about large ISPs throttling internet access for smaller players and giving "fast lanes" to bigger sites. A fundamental principle of internet theory has always been equal access to bandwidth.

Once again you have stated the 100% truth and greed running out of control .

It will die as we know it now because obscene corporate greed in the US serves big shareholders while thousands of lobbyists dance with those stooges(also known as congress) to make it happen. Add president agent orange to the mix and it’s lights out for any chance of justice. Yet another way to ruin a good thing in the making.