Got Writer’s Block ? Find expert freelance writers at the prices you want to pay. Post your projects
and writers will place bids, you choose the price you want. Get qualified writers to do your projects.

Are you a Writer ? Would you like to make extra money ? Sign up now ! We need freelance writers .

http://www.WriterLance.com

Steve O- Thanks for the read. And for just saying something!

Leon- G-R-E-E-D. That’s your long AND your short answer. Thanks for dropping by.

Baron- Thanks. And yes, it is a sad, but not unexpected development considering the way this administration is stuck in bed with the corporate giants. GIve them an inch…

You are right : these companies providers will kill the Internet use with these projects…

Is that what we’re used to call capitalism?

Eko- Yes, obviously greed plays a big part in the final equation for these guys. My question…isn’t there supposed to be more in life than amassing money? I think there is, and that these super greedy execs are beyond the pale…
Good to hear from you.

Michelle- I stopped by your blog to see what you meant, but found mostly stuff about album collecting. Anyhow, thanks for dropping by.

Shea- Underground internet? Interesting concept, but unlike radio which goes through the air (which they have yet to charge us for) the internet still operates via hardware. Sure, there are wireless connections available, but content still has to come from somewhere, usually via hardware.
Still, I’d be open for some kind of “pipe-free” system that would eliminate these kinds of money grabs.

GTL- Yes…that’s what I’m saying. Greed, unbridled as this is, is just plain ugly. May these guys fail miserably in their attempts.

Dixon- I don’t think I implied that the internet should be free, just that these plans to bleed every cent out of users is just greed gone awry.
In truth, the service providers ARE claiming ownership of something that was originally created using public tax dollars, the origins of the internet developed by the U.S. military.
If anything, they should be paying the fees for being able to operate on technology designed with our funds. But we don’t work that way…
And I did mention that the quest for taking cash at each waypoint along the way will only injure these companies as more people rebel and decline to use the very thing that has made them rich. But although that would hurt the service providers, it would also hurt us, individual users who are increasingly forced to communicate and do business through this new medium of the internet.

Imagine if your employer decided to discontinue using the internet or e-mail because the fees became too much. They’d lose business, then you’d lose your job. The ubiquitousness of the net is so complete that we would have a hard time turning back. To change the rules now, in mid-course, is not a good idea, especially when the ultimate goal is only to increase the pocketbooks of the super wealthy at the expense of the rest of us.

Thanks, by the way, for adding me to your blogroll. I’ll be sure to drop by.

Bob- Thanks, again. And I didn’t even get too far in to the whole disinformation aspects, because we are far along that path already. But yes, consolidation of content by way of increasing costs to distribute information does put a big pinch on the whole idea of freedom of speech.

BonJ- Nice to hear from you again. Yes, these attempts to raise fees at all levels does not bode well for small businesses, free thinkers, small media, or private communications. Sign the petitions and help out if you can.

Bonnie- Thanks. Glad I could offer something for you to think about. And you do get the point…it is a scheme to charge double, or triple, or more. Like I said…jsut unbridled greed, and an attempt by some to stifle free thought by those who can’t afford the cost of admission. Glad to hear from you.

Craig- Your road analogy is interesting. And to an extent, I agree. But in actuality, many gas tax funds are raided by state and federal governments, used for non-road or non-transportation things, and we’re still left with a bunch of potholes and higher taxes. Then we’re taxed more for something else to make up the gas tax shortfall, and in the end a greedy and wasteful government leaves us worse off than before. And that’s what will be the result of this blatant money grab with the internet.

You are right that our guarantee to free speech does not protect a specific way to use that freedom, but as electronic communications become the only game in town to disseminate information, it becomes more incumbent to make sure that that medium is as available to all as possible.

The communication companies don’t want our thanks, just our money. They don’t care about our freedom, just our wallets. I pay a fee already to have access to the medium. That is my fair share. Asking me to pay more for the privilege of talking on the medium I already pay for is just wrong. I can accept increases in access fees, as long as they are measured and restricted to user access. I can not accept surcharges for each and every visitor I get or visit I make. That is not a fair use policy. Thanks for the great comments.

Me4- Hmmm… are you saying that we’re screwed?

If the blossoming Internet usage is causing problems for communications companies’ pipes and they need to add to their infrastructure to handle it, that will cost money. They can raise the money in several ways: they can simply raise rates to all customers or institute a pay-as-you-go plan. The second is the more equitable.

It’s comparable to taxes for road repair: governments can raise the taxes for all people or they can raise the gas tax or they can put up toll booths. Now the first is inequitable because not everyone uses the roads equally. Why should the little old lady who only drives to Church on Sunday be taxed equally with the truck-driver who spends much of his life on the road? Toll booths would be most equitable but pose too much of a deterrence to travel in most places, city streets for example. The gas tax is the middle-ground. Those who use the roads the most contribute the most to the road repair funds.

Charging website owners for the traffic is an indirect toll booth method. A company or person who get’s the most hits and uses the most pipe-space will pay the most. The site owner will, naturally, need to raise more funds to make up for that. What it will result in, mostly, is more advertising. People will be blocked from accessing a site unless they allow pop-ups or pop-unders, for example.

As for the free speech issue, it sucks, but the constitution only protects people from prosecution by the government for the expression of most speech, it does not guarantee any particular forum, such as the web logs, for your speech. It certainly doesn’t prevent pipe space providers from charging whatever the market will bear.

I say we thank the communications companies for providing outlets for our expression of ideas, including railing against the communications companies on our blogs, pony up for the privilege and enjoy bitching at the communications companies…or not. Whichever suits.

I’m not quite sure I understand the whole infrastructure thing but something that I have to wonder about. I pay a telcom company for internet service if I have DSL and I paid when I had dial up because I wanted a second phone line (I’ve been a junkie for awhile). So if they then charge yahoo or google extra, aren’t they being paid twice?