Re: Here's the thing
I've tried not to take the bait on this, but it's such a ludicrous idea that I can't lay off it. While there is certainly some reason to believe that there are people lurking in the shadows hoping profit by controlling our information, I don't think it will ever happen, at least not in the way those young hipsters in the video indicate (not that they seemed to have any tangible proof of anything).1. I have no doubt that big media would love this. The internet has become an entertainment outlet, and big media corporations like Disney, NewsCorp, etc. would love to have a bigger market share. History shows that they tend to increase their share not by providing better content, but by eliminating competition (NewsCorp). The Internet may very well replace the traditional cable TV model, since delivering high quality video in near real-time response is already available.2. eCommerce won't stand for it. Maybe Amazon.com would be willing to pay an ISP to be on their basic tier (to put it in cable TV terms), but I would have to imagine that the vast majority of e-retailers would go absolutely nuts over this. Online Banking would take a hit. Checking your stock portfolio? Worse yet, day-trading? The financial industry relies on the internet for a lot of its transactions, so they have a vested interest in keeping it available to anyone who wants to get there.3. The rest of the business world won't stand for it. An awful lot of telecommuting relies on the internet directly. Telecommuting wouldn't be possible. Remote access to anything--i.e. benefits, 401k info, etc.4. Big Media would ultimately be shooting themselves in the foot. If this model would come to pass, one of the very first things that will happen is the intrusion of the FCC, which is one of the very things that Big Media wants to avoid. Reference the FCC's influence on cable TV.
Trust me, there are many many many more companies that stand to lose money from this proposition than would gain that it won't happen. There might be an ISP or two that tries, but it won't take. There are enough ways to get an IP pipe that "open access" providers will start popping up out of the woodwork at a rate that will make the mid-90's look like the late 80's. AOL is an excellent model for this--they tried really hard to provide a paid subscription model for content, then had to drop it when they realized that every single thing they offered could be had for free, just by using Google to find whatever you're looking for.If you want to find better responses than mine, just google "Internet" and "2012" and read through the blogs. Most network experts I've read think this is all just a bunch of hooey, and have some very clear reasons why they think so. This whole thing seems to be little more than a ruse to get the conspiracy theorists up in arms....which it seems to have done here.
P
pkjensen
(view)
I've tried not to take the bait on this, but it's such a ludicrous idea that I can't lay off it. While there is certainly some reason to believe that there are people lurking in the shadows hoping profit by controlling our information, I don't think it will ever happen, at least not in the way those young hipsters in the video indicate (not that they seemed to have any tangible proof of anything).1. I have no doubt that big media would love this. The internet has become an entertainment outlet, and big media corporations like Disney, NewsCorp, etc. would love to have a bigger market share. History shows that they tend to increase their share not by providing better content, but by eliminating competition (NewsCorp). The Internet may very well replace the traditional cable TV model, since delivering high quality video in near real-time response is already available.2. eCommerce won't stand for it. Maybe Amazon.com would be willing to pay an ISP to be on their basic tier (to put it in cable TV terms), but I would have to imagine that the vast majority of e-retailers would go absolutely nuts over this. Online Banking would take a hit. Checking your stock portfolio? Worse yet, day-trading? The financial industry relies on the internet for a lot of its transactions, so they have a vested interest in keeping it available to anyone who wants to get there.3. The rest of the business world won't stand for it. An awful lot of telecommuting relies on the internet directly. Telecommuting wouldn't be possible. Remote access to anything--i.e. benefits, 401k info, etc.4. Big Media would ultimately be shooting themselves in the foot. If this model would come to pass, one of the very first things that will happen is the intrusion of the FCC, which is one of the very things that Big Media wants to avoid. Reference the FCC's influence on cable TV.
Trust me, there are many many many more companies that stand to lose money from this proposition than would gain that it won't happen. There might be an ISP or two that tries, but it won't take. There are enough ways to get an IP pipe that "open access" providers will start popping up out of the woodwork at a rate that will make the mid-90's look like the late 80's. AOL is an excellent model for this--they tried really hard to provide a paid subscription model for content, then had to drop it when they realized that every single thing they offered could be had for free, just by using Google to find whatever you're looking for.If you want to find better responses than mine, just google "Internet" and "2012" and read through the blogs. Most network experts I've read think this is all just a bunch of hooey, and have some very clear reasons why they think so. This whole thing seems to be little more than a ruse to get the conspiracy theorists up in arms....which it seems to have done here.
