You might have heard by now that there is a group of people trying to get you to believe that the internet will end in it's current form.
The implications are that the "new" internet would be much more restricted, charging you to go to sights not listed in your plan with the company. What that means to you is that if you wanted to look up something obscure, be it a japanese manga publisher or a chicken soup recipe, you would be charged extra every time.
This would mean not only that you would be restricted, but also that the website with the manga or chicken soup recipe would most likely be shut down, having little major readership, they would not be able to afford to keep their doors open, so to speak.
The only problem with this belief is the poeple who are spreading this rumor are, for lack of a better word, shady.
In their defense however, there where several events that did occur in the 2006-2007 era that did point towards an attempt to accomplish just this very feat.
The big three, AOL, MSN and Verizon (Atleast they where the big three in 2006) where trying to set up a system beetween the three of them, along with other isp's (Internet Service Providers) they would set up "channels" that you would be charged for, much like satellite or cable's package system.
What that would have meant is that you would have gotten channels like Google, Disney.com, Ebay and Amazon.com in your package, and any other website would be pay per view.
It's actually in the record books that Bill Gates wanted to set up an internet postage stamp, where it would cost you 15 cents an e-mail to send anything not going through the same network.
Meaning that emailing from hotmail to hotmail would be free, but emailing from hotmail to gmail would cost 15 cents.
The problem with the idea is it is economically unfeasable. While it would generate capitol, the expense of setting it up would be enormous, and on top of that, the liable law suits and special interest groups that would boycott or lobbie against this action make it unlikely to happen
Last but not least, there's the ACLU, which would pounce on this like the proverbial cat to a mouse, because of the freedom of speech act. I think no judge in his or her right mind would ever let such a piece of public property like the interenet be sectioned off for sale like this, atleast I would hope not.
-Denny
