It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:04 PM
The responses I've been reading are in the sheeple category, so far. The entire concept of doing this involves us, the paying majority, choosing where to shop, and us, the voting majority, choosing where to vote.

If we only understood our powers this wouldn't be happening. Personally, it should be free to access the internet at whatever speed we wish. Ie. we purchase wireless modems that access satellites. The internet consists of us, our computers, our modems and some rather inexpensive servers. These can be either $300 dual core computers, or super clusters of 5 year old computers, hardly matters anymore, easily created in any community if needed. The net as we know it is merely a protocol that exists, a software, on our hardware.
Think work arounds, only this time go one step further. When they attempt to crack down on those who create or advocate free internet, stand by them, let the leaders know that if they martyr individuals, they will never recieve your vote. Make it very certain that you stand up for each other in large numbers.

There are other issues, other the internet, that this very same principle works for as well. Such as protecting our grass-roots inventors and scientists who make breakthroughs in large numbers so they don't go under and so that such things as cars that drive on water can be manufactured by companies that we have shares in. We could have been doing this all along.
We really need to start paying attention and make those politicians nervous and more obedient.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by mystiq]

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:16 PM
if they are implying that we'll have to pay to watch the news online, they've got another thing coming.

A) they need us to read their propaganda; to fulfill their psyops.

B) satellite radio isn't doing so well. nobody wants to pay for radio

kudos to the "info" sites that people are getting their news from! ha!

i... will be paying for squat!!

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:26 PM
reply to post by mystiq

I don't think they are "sheeple" responses. I agree access should be free, but we have to pay for the things you mentioned plus the cost of putting that satellite or cable line into existence.

The information is what has to stay free! From what I am reading and being told by people I trust, the cat is out of the bag. There is no way to limit access to the information at this point. The computers can network without off-site servers (has anyone joined the PS3 research project?) Any one site can limit access to their own stuff, but if the person hosting a site keeps it free, it will be very difficult for an outside source to stop it.

It is a shame You-Tube, MySpace and others are going corporate, but there are millions of people with good ideas ready to take their place. This situation will be similar to "rogue" radio broadcasts, HAM operators, and underground periodical publications. They still have trouble controlling old technology. I am not worried about this new one.....yet!

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:29 PM
I do wonder whether mega-capitalists like Murdoch can ever downshift their brains and stop scheming for a moment on how to become even more rich and controlling.

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:30 PM
We have tons of satellites already up there, and what we need are governments that quit privatizing technologies that already belong to the people and rewarding their wealthy friends ownership of everything. That can be resolved by the way. We don't actually need one more satellite.

Edit to add: routers are inexpensive compared to the monthly internet bill, and can be created out of used, very old computers ie. 10 year old ones, with good linux software thats free and inexpensive wireless cards. Also this doesn't require wires, I was thinking satellite dishes. Keep remembering one of the BC politicians in the past who published the blueprints for making your own satellite dish out of a piece of cardboard with holes punched in it, but he was in breach of some rules or something and had to stop making this knowledge available.
Could go that route if that info can be shared and someone has it. Really cheap then. No need to pay for internet at all.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by mystiq]

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:44 PM
It's just as bad if not worse than you might think. I have seen threads here saying that we are essentially over-dramatizing over the prospect of the elitists controlled internet. Making you pay per page usage and having the very content you want to see, not only monitored, but in some cases denied. They are going to restructure the internet flow to route through exclusive Motorola (yes, the same company who broke connection with the fire companies and policemen while they were trying to coordinate their efforts during 911) servers. These servers will be heavily monitored by the gov't and any sites like ATS or, P2P-torrent sites, any sites that have chemical extrapolation of household items to create +errorist "d1rty b*mbs" or general chemistry (will only be able to get chemistry info. from specific sites alloted my gov't), and any sites that shine a light on or disagree with the New World Order and their plans. Afterall, this could not be a New World Order if they leave the internet as a free speech and free dialog "base" for conspiracy theorists. I disagree with them, I am on your side, but this is what is going to happen, sorry to say.

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:45 PM
Basically think about it, he purchased myspace - this was to me an experiment for someone with the business mind and knowledge of media to truly measure the overall real value of the internet, in other words what was once money making in the real world of brick and mortar news agencies is now going to be shoved down the throats of the masses who rely on the internet for news and media mostly for free.

Whatever you pay for ISP access is not going to be all you need to get the media, the products or anything else that you want, very little free useful sites will be available, and because blogs are mostly run by individuals, the most popular ones will not be able to resist the money thrown at them to either syndicate and become one with larger news outlets or either compete with new media websites that do the same thing as they do.

The twist in this is remember the NY Times website had a fee associated with it for access, then at some point that went away and you can get to it freely, I dunno but I believe that if anyone else had made the statement he did it might be something I would not worry about, but he is basically telegraphing the direction the internet is headed and the rich, people with power and control will suck every dollar out of it that they can and then the tax mob will be all over it taxing everything that they have been attempting to do for years.

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:48 PM

Originally posted by believer81
I do wonder whether mega-capitalists like Murdoch can ever downshift their brains and stop scheming for a moment on how to become even more rich and controlling.

Short and to the point.
These people are not human, and I don't mean that like it sounds. Their minds have been warped to the point where there's no humanity left in them. Corruption has completely taken them over. They're only able to surround themselves with that same kind of corruption, so there's no light in their lives.

Personally, I think they're possessed. No way you can hate humanity to the degree these people do without negative, diabolical cosmic energy being involved IMO.


posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:54 PM
If you can totally control the flow of news and information you can control the people.

The problem is that level of control is impossible in this digital age.

Or is it?

The swine flu scare is a fine example of media manipulation and should stand as a wake up call.

What if Mr. Murdoch was able to obtain critical and exclusive information during the height of that scare and the only way for other news outlets to access it was to pay a very high price for it?

(Hint, the above is an example of how it will begin)

When there is profits to be made they will find a way.

Other news outlets would then have to find a way to charge for that exclusive news if they wanted to cover the costs, especially the legal costs due to exclusive rights law suit, of which I am sure Mr. Murdoch is more than prepared to handle.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by Walkswithfish]

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 03:04 PM
Internet advertising has been suffering for years. The tracking of ads and such leads to 100% knowledge of your ROI. You can know exactly how much money an ad is making you, or if it is costing you money, based on how many "orders" or how much money you make off the traffic. If an ad doesn't work, or doesn't make profit, then you turn it off.

In TV, magazines and radio these things are not possible. You can't track them down like this, and so what you really get in them is "branding". And branding you can't really track, and it doesn't get paid for very often on the internet. Only the larger companies care about branding themselves usually. The small business guy just wants to get buyers and make some cash.

So the amount internet advertising brings in has already dropped tons over the past 10 years. Especially so back when there was the "dot com" crash. Internet advertising went from PPM, which is a branding type payrate, where you get paid based on the number of times the ad shows(ideal for the site), to PPC, which is where you get paid, and the advertiser only pays for unique clicks on an ad. To PPA, which is price per action. Where you only get paid for how many sales you generate. This would be like infomercials on TV, and is the worse way generally for the site, but best for the advertiser. But it kills the revenue of a website. Unless the website is specifically designed in order to produce sales for such a produce. And information sites don't generally do that. They would flop on a site like ATS for example. That is why they have such long commercials for those on TV, because it requires that much of a specialization.

So paying for content is nothing new. Many have tried it, but I don't see many succeeding at it. But local newspapers and things which sell their content in other ways, like subscriptions are best equipped and have had the most success at doing this. Because they have other sources of income and can build their users that way. IE: If you have a subscription to your local paper, you are allowed online access for free. But someone else might have to pay for a subscription.

Personally I don't think it's that big of a deal. Most companies have already found ways of dealing with these things, it seems to be mostly big companies with inflated costs who have trouble. Don't really care if these places charge a subscription fee.

Btw, I am against net neutrality. By adding the regulation you are saying it's ok to add regulations, even if the regulation itself seems to be good. Seems fine today without net neutrality, so why do we need it? Just the start of regulating things is all that is.

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 03:21 PM

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
You dont suppose he was hinting at The Grid, do you? Seems the most likely scenario to me...

That's exactly what I was thinking!

Build a bigger, better technology - hype it up, show it off, get millions/billions invested by loads of sources and companies so they want this thing to succeed but in the background find a way of controlling things like they have been unable to do with the Internet.

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 03:23 PM
No need to worry folks. Murdoch and News Corp don't know a damn thing when it comes to the web. They are stuck in their "traditional media" states of mind. WSJ online does well because they are a niche periodical with a long tradition. General news will never attract a large enough audience in a pay-format.

They bought/overpaid for MySpace, thinking that they would be able to flip it into a billion dollar business. For whatever reason, they do not understand some of the principles of online advertising.

If FOX only grants paid members to access or distribute their online material, they will surely see their audience/traffic shrink. Their online website should be viewed as a courtesy, in an effort for consumer loyalty/retention, as opposed to a large source of revenue.

Teh interwebz is safe, friends.

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 03:25 PM
Why the hell are DEFENCE, POWER and other vital assets even connected to the internet in the first place!?!?

I know some will say it's impossible to avoid it, well it sure as hell isn't impossible. Pull the wires out of hub #1 (internet connected) and insert into hub #2(private intranet). About the only way in then is vampire clipping.


posted on May, 7 2009 @ 04:07 PM
reply to post by InfaRedMan

I wouldnt say it is misleading at all-and it gets people on to thread they should be alerted to. If Murdoch has it in for the internet we are all in trouble-this is worrying!

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 04:31 PM
If cnn, fox, cnbc, and the other media corporations decide they want to charge for access to their site thats fine with me. I'll just go to the Associated Press, I mean thats where they get their news from anyways right? If they start charging they WILL lose money, heck its free now and I rarely go to their sites, lol.

I don't think the internet can be controlled, well it can but think about it. How many hackers are out there just goofing off? If the government gives them something to fight for then they will come in full force and destroy this "Internet 2".

just my thoughts on it...

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 04:33 PM
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

If 'Internet 2' starts, I can only speak for myself, though I'm sure most of us will have no interest. We already have a corporate abomination called 'television'. The more technically competent of us will come up with a method of preserving free speech and diverse content. Many 'alternative' sites are funded with Rockefeller/Ford, etc. foundation money, but we still have the option of discernment (an ability which has grown sharper among most of us using the internet). David Rockefeller actually thanked the mainstream media for keeping us in the dark for years, stating that their cooperation allowed them to function in the shadows (not a direct quote, but same intent). I would prefer even to be on a free BBS type format then being censored.

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 04:47 PM
reply to post by Tgautier13

The 'Wild West' was once the last frontier as well. Perhaps the internet as we know it will soon become a mere footnote in history; a stepping stone, if you will. You know, much the same as the typewriter and rotary telephone...

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 04:55 PM

Originally posted by XTexan
If cnn, fox, cnbc, and the other media corporations decide they want to charge for access to their site thats fine with me. I'll just go to the Associated Press, I mean thats where they get their news from anyways right? If they start charging they WILL lose money, heck its free now and I rarely go to their sites, lol.

I don't think the internet can be controlled, well it can but think about it. How many hackers are out there just goofing off? If the government gives them something to fight for then they will come in full force and destroy this "Internet 2".

just my thoughts on it...

Yep, these things are not even really new. They have been talked about and tried by people for years. Some make it, some don't.

The most common thing is to offer people the site without the ads with a subscription.

I wish my competitors would start to charge for their content. Sure would make things easier for me. Please, please, please put more money in my pocket. I'll even send a Christmas card.

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 05:17 PM
reply to post by Tgautier13

Can we find the Chinese Pyramids together?

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 05:20 PM
havent had a chance to read all the replies yet as i am multi-tasking at the moment, but wanted to just drop in and say one thing

i dont necessarily think the internet CAN disappear, theres a lot of options and ways of getting around the mainstream internet if they try to destroy it i think there would be several clandestine ways of still using a "thing" similar to what we have now

but the way i feel they are going to change and "end" the internet is by putting the pricing changes into effect

in my area time warner wanted to introduce tier pricing and have a cap on the downloads and uploads, but the area caused a uproar and "postponed" the introduction

but they are still working on implementing the idea

i think the way the internet will be over is by these companies like time warner and comcast who already have tier pricing style things in effect in certain markets, widening the practice to all markets

if internet becomes limited across the board, we will see a giant change in the way internet is used which in effect will be "the end of the internet"

it will still be used, but if they succeed in what they want to do, i think the internet will be much more regulated and more only for large business and less for frugal uses like entertainment

i hope that day never comes, as i grew up as the internet was growing in popularity and have seen the benefits it has brought to our culture, i think the internet is great for business and entertainment but the greatest part of the internet in my eyes is the availability of knowledge and information

yea we have always had libraries and the sort but with the way the internet has blossomed so incredibly it really has put libraries to shame in a way, right now the world is at our fingertips and it would truly be a shame to do away with that opportunity to learn solely because of corporate interest

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in