It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rupert Murdoch: "Internet Will Soon Be Over"

page: 2
46
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
DD, I love prison planet and infowars as much as you do, but a tip, try to at least post the origin article from the mainstream source that pp draws it's interesting quotes from (the guardian in this case), because some people won't even give it a look if it's not "mainstream".




posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   
And I say there's too much pessimism in this thread!


Obama Nominates Net Neutrality Backer for FCC Chief



Please keep your personal opinions of President Obama out of this thread, I know its hard for some of you...

Media Ownership Reform Act (MORA)

Educate yourselves! The current version of this bill was introduced in 2005, but is scheduled to be revamped and re-introduced in the coming weeks.


The Media Ownership Reform Act seeks to restore integrity and diversity to America's media system by lowering the number of media outlets that one company is permitted to own in a single market. The bill also reinstates the Fairness Doctrine to protect fairness and accuracy in journalism.


Its pretty clear to me that this Administration is in favor of Net Neutrality. Murdoch and Rockefeller are not cabinet members, so they can toot their own horns for as long as they want. I don't see the freedom of information over the internet being endangered anytime before 2012, and probably 2016 if Obama gets re-elected. Besides, at the rate information is carried now, perhaps the battle over net neutrality will already be lost for the big businesses by the time Presidential Elections roll around again.

I do all I can to keep Net Neutrality. I endorse Media Matters and Free Press, beyond that there is not much we can do. I still say there nothing here worth pulling your hair out over, regardless of your political stance.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
I already pay too much just to access the internet. Now they want us to pay to access and read their sites. LMAO, they must be joking. There are too many free sites that want more customers and this is a great thing for them.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
If America went bankrupt, who would own the Root DNS Servers? I have always wondered, the US has always taken steps to control these machines although what actually would happen if they where taken down? A very slow and disfigured Internet me thinks, maybe your countries government could save you with their own internet.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnny_Sokko
Well then, we need to set up our own bulletin boards. Resurrect software like Wildcat BBS and Qmodem Pro, or rewrite the software from the ground up if these apps are no longer available or able to be used with the high speed hardware we are currently using.

When I went to school to learn RPG and Cobol, my instructor had his own bbs. It was mostly porn and dos tools but, nonetheless, the technology is already there. Just may have to be dusted off a bit.

Ahhh.....I almost forgot what it's like to write your own interactive .bat files. Those were the days.


I ran a Spitfire BBS, myself. "The Loneliest BBS" it was called.

The only possible way they can control the internet is through the ISP's, which doesn't seem likely. Last month I believe it was that Time Warner Cable implemented a pay-per-gigabyte billing plan in test regions, which failed miserably. People don't like being controlled.

Whenever unfair restrictions are placed on people, they'll find a way around them. We've seen it with drugs, and we'll see it with the internet if they try.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Kandinsky

More restrictions will become standardized across borders and high cost 'package deals' will turn the Net into a reflection of society. Some folk will travel slowly through a web infested with adverts whilst the wealthier will enjoy high speeds, unlimited downloads and commercial opt-outs.

I agree, So in society, so in cyberspace.

Tristar

Simply, the message across all the key players is. Stop or limit the flow at any cost. As you have explained, it far to evident that the Internet as we know it will be around for another 10 years, then the gradual restrictions will be like another day at the office. Most major moves are about half a generation,time wise im referring too.

I agree here too, "stop or limit the flow" meaning controll the information available and regulate access to it by cost.

The only thing for them to work out or assuming they have a plan, and I'm betting they do based on the recent chatter, is how to put it in play. As I said watch for the event could be big or it could be something small that causes the passing of minor and seemingly not related legislation which will then be used to further the agenda.

If you followed the Montana law that now restricts federal regulation of firearms made in and kept in Montana, you will notice that the reason fedreal regulation applied to firearms is through a minor law regarding interstate commerce that allowed the feds to control firearms. My point is that it is common to use unrelated rules to get the results desired for a totally different agenda.

In the end it is still about keeping the control over what we can and can't have access to, while finding a way to profit and keep us financially unable to challange the system.

If they get to much resistance in their efforts they will use the tried and true old favorite of Problem > Reaction > Solution. Which will most likely be portrayed as and hailed for keeping us safe.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
He is absolutely correct. If you can't control something you regulate it to the point where you can. These guys are just going to go to the government and make then regulate a big sector of the internet. People think it can't happen, well I assure you it can.

Demonoid is a great example. It was regulated to us Canadians. Now Canadians can't download anything from that web-site. I am not only talking about pirated web-sites, I am also talking about web-sites like ATS. If the government deems it is too dangerous to them then they will regulate it.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I doubt many people will be stupid enough to pay for corporate business lies..



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
The only thing I get out of this is that an organization like cnn, fox or what have you will charge for you to access their content instead of relying on advertisers.

For me I could care less, as I am not about to pay to watch the news on the internet. Sucks because you may not be able to watch tv shows on for example the fox site which is nice if you missed an episode of your favorite show but that is about the only down side I see to it.

Everything else I do online I have to pay for such as paying bills, stocks, etc. so no big deal. I'm actually surprised they never did it in the first place.

If companies are backing off on advertisements on the web then anyone who has a free web site may have to charge a fee for access due to bandwidth usage and the loss from advertising being cut back but it's nothing new and at this moment in time would be expected due to our economical status.


Edit: as for being censored or site blocked they are already doing it and have been for a long time. There are quite a few sites I use to visit related to computer programs that were deemed illegal due to their capabilities to exploit different area's of the web, information retrieval etc. Heck when Kazza was being attacked by the IRAA (maybe it was napster too many to remember lol) all sites with the program on it started to be blocked from US IP addresses. Sure you could still get it but there were so many sites they couldn't block them all. At one point nearly all of them were blocked and you had to resort to FTP to get it.

So blocking websites has been going on for over a decade at least.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by Darthorious]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darthorious
The only thing I get out of this is that an organization like cnn, fox or what have you will charge for you to access their content instead of relying on advertisers.

For me I could care less, as I am not about to pay to watch the news on the internet. Sucks because you may not be able to watch tv shows on for example the fox site which is nice if you missed an episode of your favorite show but that is about the only down side I see to it.

Everything else I do online I have to pay for such as paying bills, stocks, etc. so no big deal. I'm actually surprised they never did it in the first place.

If companies are backing off on advertisements on the web then anyone who has a free web site may have to charge a fee for access due to bandwidth usage and the loss from advertising being cut back but it's nothing new and at this moment in time would be expected due to our economical status.


Well, I always assumed that places like FOX News and CNN had an online presence to supplement their television presence. If they want to start charging on the web for what most people already pay to see on cable, then the only result is going to be their web presence going under.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
I am not too internet savvy, or computer program savvy. I linked this site to my brother (his degree is theoretical physics and he has worked with a lot of computer modeling). Here is his response to me:

"The internet will change, but it will become subscription based news and such. So no more free things like that. Im not worried. If it changes to the Tiered system like they talk about, we just need to market nates program and we all get the same internet we have now. lol. There will be solutions, the rich folk will never be able to control it. Plus, if it is Microsoft that helps destroy it, then that is their own demise as well since everyone will move to Mac or Linux systems. "

"Nate's program" that he speaks of is a different sort of internet hosted by a network of computers. Nate programs "machine code" and is a researcher in operating systems and mathematical / statistical modeling.

If those guys don't worry, then I won't worry. I certainly will not be paying for slanted news stories from Fox, NBC, CNN or any others. I would love to pay for some real "investigative journalism." I wonder what happened to that stuff?!?



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiquidLight

Originally posted by Darthorious
The only thing I get out of this is that an organization like cnn, fox or what have you will charge for you to access their content instead of relying on advertisers.

For me I could care less, as I am not about to pay to watch the news on the internet. Sucks because you may not be able to watch tv shows on for example the fox site which is nice if you missed an episode of your favorite show but that is about the only down side I see to it.

Everything else I do online I have to pay for such as paying bills, stocks, etc. so no big deal. I'm actually surprised they never did it in the first place.

If companies are backing off on advertisements on the web then anyone who has a free web site may have to charge a fee for access due to bandwidth usage and the loss from advertising being cut back but it's nothing new and at this moment in time would be expected due to our economical status.


Well, I always assumed that places like FOX News and CNN had an online presence to supplement their television presence. If they want to start charging on the web for what most people already pay to see on cable, then the only result is going to be their web presence going under.


Well they are already selling the show "24" on Itunes along with many more and have been for some time. When I noticed that a couple years ago I assumed it would eventually happen and everything would be pay to watch just surprised they haven't tried it yet.

I think the only thing stopping them is the competition from other TV sites that we could just as well watch say NBC instead if it was free and FOX wasn't.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Good catch. S&F.

...The Internet is an actual open market, with a level playing field. The Big Boyz have been trying to control it since it first got loose. They can't - and they can't compete in it either. ...Next step, they will try to kill it. Don't think that will work either.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
And shortly after this they plan to regulate opinions posted on the Internet. If you post an "opinion" on news current events, especially politics then they will require bloggers to provide links to opposing points of view.

The same for opinions on broadcast television and radio, except that equal air time for opposing points of view must be made.

You are going to soon know a much bigger badder FCC, with the ability to fine you, perhaps even jail you and ultimately force you comply with these regulations if you wish to share your "opinions" in any of the above forms of mass communication medias.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by Walkswithfish]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
The only way they can stop Internet is to start a nuclear war.

If they start with restrictions, there will be tons of pirate internets all about the place. There is so much energy in the Internet now that if anyone starts suppressing it there will be many explosions and geysers finding their own ways through the already ragged fabric of present day civilization.

Result: they either lose more control of the Internet, or start a serious war against everyone who wants freedom in sharing information.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tgautier13
I would like to see another source other than one of Alex Jone's websites. Any news source with a blatant agenda I just can't take seriously.


Absolutely agree.

And on the subject anyway (assuming there is some element of truth to it) people have decided to leave the corporate media for several reasons, they're corrupt, false, dripping in propaganda and bias and simply cannot be trusted to give a full and honest perspective on ANY subject.

No change in the way they run their media sites will affect those who ignore their BS. I trust my own judgment, and I usually know immediately if a news broadcaster is not telling the whole story or is giving a false account, that is why I don't trust them. I'll readily trust an eye-witness account with no clear agenda over and above a mainstream media outlet any day of the week, and nothing Murdoch can say or do will ever change that.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


The Internet is an actual open market, with a level playing field. The Big Boyz have been trying to control it since it first got loose. They can't - and they can't compete in it either. ...Next step, they will try to kill it. Don't think that will work either.


They don't want to kill it they want to control it and turn it into profit for them

The danger is that they will start adding fees for speed like this story posted on page 1. They can add speed based cost to both the end user And the content provider. This could be used to drive out websites that cannot afford to buy a decent speed. It's the same principle as the big box chains driving out the mom and pop stores. The few sites that might stay will be subjected to agonizing spped and advertising plauges.




[edit on 5/7/2009 by AlienChaser]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by Tgautier13
I would like to see another source other than one of Alex Jone's websites. Any news source with a blatant agenda I just can't take seriously.


Absolutely agree.


www.cnn.com...


"We have been at the forefront of that debate and you can confidently presume that we are leading the way in finding a model that maximizes revenues in return for our shareholders... The current days of the Internet will soon be over."


Please send your payments for this news item to... ?




posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
I think Rupert Murdoch and his fellow moguls are facing two major issues right now in their empires. First, at some point companies reach the optimum low cost point on the economies of scale curve and cost begins to creep back up (diminishing returns). Second, they are trying to control a product that is not tangible in any way, information. Once a person knows something, they may foget it, but no one can steal it from their mind.

Additionally, I think history has shown us that many great countries have grown to large and collapsed due to the stresses of governing such a large empire. I hope that is what we are seeing with the corporate media today. Corporate branding has gotten out of control. (You can get coffee mugs, t-shirts, naming rights to stadiums, etc.) The internet has proven to be the best and most efficient medium in the history of man for communication and idea exchange, and that seems to scare those who make their money by controlling information.

I tend to think that the only thing a subscription internet model will do is force people to go around it or boycott those companies which use it.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by DonkeyRider]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Charging speed is going to fail. First, there will be new technology, second, there will be those who will not charge it as much. All will re-route through cheaper routers. Result: many Internets.



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join