Want to surf the net? Then pay the toll

[HellCat]

Apparently, US congress is debating a scheme which would give ISPs much greater control over what sites viewers look at. Preferred sites would download quickly whilst others wouldn't fare so well. Not sure if this idea would be world encompassing. For more info: http://www.savetheinternet.com/

[solarflere]

I highly doubt anything like that will go past the House of Representatives, much less the Senate.

[Zinal]

I highly doubt anything like that will go past the House of Representatives, much less the Senate. I agree. It kind of odd that the Congress is debating over this subject. I would freak out if I had to pay $20.00 to go to Toonzone each day.

[Temple Fugate]

They can raise our gas prices, but one thing Americans will never accept paying more money for is the Internet. There are already private paying sites out there, and most of the free sites WANT to be free sites. It's the last true democracy on Earth, and we shall defend it to the death!

Can you hear the people type
Typing the chats of angry men
They are the chats of all the addicts who won't be social again
When the beating of your heart
Echoes the clicking of your mouse
It's alert for all the 'Net when we fight the House!

[One Radical Dude]

Not gonna happen. If it did, it would seriously bruise the economy. To me, this is highly unpopular.

[Fan of Sponge]

The internet is a global village thus it crosses many countries throughout the world. Besides the internet is like television. There's an internet provider and pay a flat fee, the more people on the internet, the more advertisers come and pay major sites for ad space. Plus the internet is viable source of freedom of speech more than television and you meet people who have different views on topics. If they put a toll on the internet, they're violating the First Admendment.

I'm sorry, there's isn't going to be a toll to pay on the internet. You're already paying an internet service provider and that's it. Really do we really want to pay more? I think not.

[Sprocket]

And no, I don't mean to a disk.

There's legislation on the table that, if it went through, would allow telcom companies to give preferential access to their networks.

IE: If Verizon signed a deal with Yahoo, they'd be allowed to give traffic to and from Yahoo fast access, while throttling access to, say, Google or Altavista, down to modem speeds, or even blocking access to them altogether.

So what? Well... Toon Zone might have to start paying additional fees to individual telcos, to allow the data to and from here to flow through those servers. This being above and beyond paying for his current link to the internet, this is more of a tollbooth thing.

Say you started a webcomic, or just stuck up a website somewhere. Even if it was on a free server, you'd have to pay the telcos to let their users see it.

And the telcos would be able to charge you an exorbitant rate if they wanted, or even just refuse you out of hand.

Even if you WERE on their lists, if you posted anything that one telco didn't like, they'd be free to knock you off their list whenever they wanted. So you'd have to curry favour with all the different telcos at once.

And imagine if you wanted to start SELLING stuff over the internet. Subverting big business? Can't have that, now, can we?

Yeah. It's not a pretty picture.

Here's a group that're lobbying to shut the idea down. From the sounds of things, your representatives are getting an earful already, but every little bit helps, huh? (http://www.savetheinternet.com/)

[solarflere]

There is already a thread about it here :
http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=165266
and it has the same link you provided. Granted you have a lot more info on the issue, but my opinion still stands from the other thread. I doubt it will pass through the House of Representatives, let alone the Senate. Most likely it will be struck down by the House. This isn't the first idiotic bill to go to the Congress, nor will this be the last.

[Sprocket]

Uh, it already went through the House. What happens now is anyone's guess.

[ZorBrak]

The internet is people. In this age, computers are an extension of ourselves. We ARE the internet. We will never allow them to tax us in such a way.

EVER.

They try to close their fist on us any tighter and I honestly see a new civil war in brew.



internet is viable source of freedom of speech
thats why they want to control it



why is this country suddenly unfolding the plot of MGS2? BLEH!

[Conan-san]

Well, concidering the many WONDEROUS choices that a certain individual has made over the years, expect to be coughin' up money, people.

EDIT: Nevermind, it got shot holier than Swiss http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2011

[Sprocket]

Does no one care about this? The fate of the Internet as we know it lies in the balance!

[solarflere]

Does no one care about this? The fate of the Internet as we know it lies in the balance!don't bump a thread. It does not go very well here.

[Tay the Cat]

Does no one care about this? The fate of the Internet as we know it lies in the balance!
Nobody cares because nothing's gonna happen.

[Sprocket]

My apologies. I should wait until there's new news. But it doesn't bode well that the House turned down a bill that would guarantee net neutrality. As it is, if this passes, and Cablevision screws me over, I'm dropping everything. and I mean EVERYTHING.

[William C. Maune]

Nobody cares because nothing's gonna happen.

I wouldn't be so sure. I bill to prevent this from happening was specifically voted down in the House. A vote in the Senate is coming up soon.

[Roman Legion]

Nobody cares because nothing's gonna happen.Sooner or later, all this complacency will be the downfall of society... again.

We live in a country full of politicians willing to do just about anything, no matter how stupid, for the sake of people and businesses with deep enough pockets. It's nothing new, and it's not likely to change. People of all political beliefs should realize that much.

The telecom companies aren't going to stop pushing for this. They may not succeed this time around, but they're not going to give up, either. If no one cares, who do you think will eventually win out?

--Romey

[One Radical Dude]

You know, you can contact your leaders and let them know how you feel. You elect them, and you can have them removed from office, as well. Let them know.

[solarflere]

You know, you can contact your leaders and let them know how you feel. You elect them, and you can have them removed from office, as well. Let them know.The only time they will actualy listen to you, is when they are up for reelection. Once you get them into their respective offices, its pretty hard to control their actions.

[Tay the Cat]

The only time they will actualy listen to you, is when they are up for reelection. Once you get them into their respective offices, its pretty hard to control their actions.
I don't know about that...

Senators McCain and Kyl are pretty good about listening to the people.

[One Radical Dude]

I still believe it is better to let them hear you (whether they listen or not) than to complain and do nothing. More often than not, they seek for additional terms.

[solarflere]

I don't know about that...

Senators McCain and Kyl are pretty good about listening to the people.Ok, so thats 2 out of 100 Senators and 435 representatives.
Granted Senator Hillary Clinton, Congressman Jerrold Nadler and State Senateor Marty Goldeen from my district are good as well, but they have yet to respond to a single letter I have send them on various issues. All they did was just put me on their spam mailing lists.

[mikestorm]

Here's another site on the same topic:

http://www.ioic.net/

This scares me. Regardless of what we may think, the proponents behind this are the ISPs, specificially people like Comcast and Verizon. Niether company are strangers to vehemently lobbying to get what they want, most such as cable and phone regulation or degregulation (depending on which company you talk to) designed to make things better for them. They also have very deep pockets.

To put things in perspective: Philadelphia has been trying to get their wifi system off the ground, and verizon is trying to stop them. They see that municipalities are investing money in offering cheap internet access to its residents, and instead of being more competitive, they ask for legislation preventing municipalities from getting in the ISP game, claiming they cannot compete. Once out of the picture, they can continue to gouge us with their own pricing plans.


source:http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/technology-and-science/verizon-lobbies-to-kill-wifi-hotspots.asp

[KuwabaraTheMan]

The only time they will actualy listen to you, is when they are up for reelection. Once you get them into their respective offices, its pretty hard to control their actions.

For Senators who have 6 year terms, yes.

But Represantatives are up for re-election every other year. They can't afford to ever be blowing off their consitutents.


And this whole thing is so dumb. It better not happen, it would take away yet another freedom from the people.

[solarflere]

For Senators who have 6 year terms, yes.

But Represantatives are up for re-election every other year. They can't afford to ever be blowing off their consitutents.


And this whole thing is so dumb. It better not happen, it would take away yet another freedom from the people.Yet they manage anyways. :shrug: But yea, it better not happan. Maybe I should write they another letter, but I think they will just respond with more spam.

[HellCat]

"Last night the U.S. House of Representatives voted in favor of an Internet where it would be legal for a monopolistic gatekeeper to stand between us and our medical information, us and our financial transactions, us and our travel plans, us and the information we try to find, us and the news we choose to read and watch, us and our leisure time activities, us and our intimate correspondence with our friends, us and our creativity, us and our political expression.

The vote was 321 to 101. Majorities from both parties voted for a bill that essentially gives the Bells everything they want.

Now eyes turn towards the Senate, where another telecom bill, with even weaker protections against monopolistic behavior, grinds towards a vote, perhaps in July. If that passes, the real telecom law will be shaped by a secret conference committee in lame duck session. (Think things are ugly now?)"


Found this mentioned over at PVP...this isn't looking good.

[KuwabaraTheMan]

Dammit. They can't go through with this. There has to be some thing unconstitutional about this.

[HellCat]

The disturbing thing is that those fighting against this claim the media is basically ignoring this...I wonder if that's because most media giants have an internet arm and would profit from this.

[Tay the Cat]

Dammit. They can't go through with this. There has to be some thing unconstitutional about this.
No.

The ISPs are only doing this because they can't afford to offer the internet for cheap any longer.

Wil Wheaton put up the same argument you are and he lost majorly.

[HellCat]

No.

The ISPs are only doing this because they can't afford to offer the internet for cheap any longer.

Wil Wheaton put up the same argument you are and he lost majorly.

Maybe I'm just a victim of hype but this doesn't seem to me to be just a case of the ISP's facing mounting costs. It seems like a way to turn something that has become a common part of everyday life into yet another way to make money, at the expense of the independent sources that have contributed to the growth of the net.

[Daredevil_2003]

That would be such BS...I already pay fourty god-damned dollars a month just to access the internet in the first place. The free country where absolutely nothing is free...how grand.

[One Radical Dude]

I can see hackers trying to rebel, and/or I can see a lot of jobs lost over this.

[The Guitar Slayer]

I'm not that worried. I think some of you are being "Chicken Little" when it comes to the direness of the situation. It's only the United States. One country out of hundreds in the world that has internet access may charge extra. Part of the reason this is going through Congress is because the additional money they make will go to the government in taxes, sort of like how cigarettes and alcohol are taxed. Think about it. Before the age of the internet, you had to buy books and the like in order to do research for class projects. I remember those grade school days. Encyclopedia sets for $500 that you had to replace every five to ten years. Atlases! Good grief, what a panic there was in the atlas world when the Soviet Union broke up. My, my, my.

It's a few US telecom companies. You don't like their practices? Switch providers. Make a statement and suffer through 56k if necessary. There are plenty of international and global ISPs that aren't playing this game because they're too small or know they will clean up when the bigger companies trip over their own two feet. Also, there are major ISPs on the global market that will lbe happy to launch in the US to compete with the very narrow view of the US companies. It can't get too out of control or else people will just go to the library or a place where there is free or reduced price net access. I've noticed that many of the examples used as "bad" on the website aren't even from the United States. Yet people are panicking about laws in the US. Remember, Google in China was big news as well as its censorship. If that got enough attention, this will in time as well.

The links posted here are obviously very biased. Until it gets to the stage where companies actually have their policy and net pricing and we see how they deal with whatever power they gain from this, it doesn't make sense to run around like the sky is falling until we're sure it is.

[William C. Maune]

Personnally, I think this warrants concern now as opposed to later. This would be not just a small change, but a fundamental change to how the internet operates. My main worry is for the smaller websites. With telecom companies able to dictate which sites are easier to access than others you would basically end up with a two-tiered internet. Companies that could pay the fees would be immediately acessible whereas smaller sites (such as Toon Zone) would be left with reduced access. This would be a severe limit to the flow of information. The telecom companies would have a direct influence over the information available to us online.

Perhaps costs are increasing and perhaps those costs would have to be passed on elsewhere without net neutrality. Perhaps I would have to pay a higher fee to access the internet. That's fine. I'd much rather pay a higher fee myself and still have the current system where all information online is equally acessible without restrictions dictated by a third party.

[One Radical Dude]

I agree with William, as far as paying a little more to access the Internet and have an abundant amount (like we do now) of information available to me. I'm more worried about them restricting access than anything else.

[Weatherman]

Savetheinternet.com has letter set up for you to send to your Senators. I've sent mine and I highly encourage anyone else to send one in to their Senators as well. This isn't something we can just sleep on.

Funny, Comcrud And Verhityouwhenyou'redown are fighting liek cats and dogs over cable TV and yet they can make nice when it comes to really screwing the custoemr hard. I can't beleive my Reps may have voted for this. This is a travesty of everything the Net was supposed to be about. Are their profit margins mot obscene nough already?:mad:

[Tay the Cat]

Maybe I'm just a victim of hype but this doesn't seem to me to be just a case of the ISP's facing mounting costs. It seems like a way to turn something that has become a common part of everyday life into yet another way to make money, at the expense of the independent sources that have contributed to the growth of the net.
Sorry, I just had to play devil's advocate there.

If this does become a problem later, then I will agree with you. Until then, I'm not worried.

[HellCat]

Wholeheartedly agree with Maune and Weatherman. This whole thing worries me for a bunch of reasons, from the initial screwing over American citizens (I've made alot of friends there online) and where it could possibly lead, such as blocking certain sites altogether, blocking international hits (places like Korea already do this) and even other nations picking up on the concept to make money. This really isn't something we can sit back and just watch, action has to be taken. It's not perfect but the net is perhaps the most defining record of human culture and creativity in the modern age. Sites like Wikipedia exist because of how the net currently is. What we're facing is a huge censorship issue.

[SSJPabs]

Personnally, I think this warrants concern now as opposed to later. This would be not just a small change, but a fundamental change to how the internet operates. My main worry is for the smaller websites. With telecom companies able to dictate which sites are easier to access than others you would basically end up with a two-tiered internet. Companies that could pay the fees would be immediately acessible whereas smaller sites (such as Toon Zone) would be left with reduced access. This would be a severe limit to the flow of information. The telecom companies would have a direct influence over the information available to us online.Personally I think I'm a bit safer because I use municipal wireless (even city governent entities have to follow more rules than private firms) but this is a really huge change. A sea change, but here's a taste of what could happen:
Cox blocks Craigslist.
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20060607CraigslistBlockedByCoxInteractive.html

Now of course, this could be a simple tech issue (but the three month lead time is suspicious) but it's all too easy to see a scenario where Cox blocks Craigslist because of its competition and what can Craiglist do about it? Nothing. Or how about when AOL blocked email from DearAOL.com, a website that opposed AOL's decision to place "fees" on certain emails? That largely failed because the other big email providers refused. Only the little guys (and non telecom companies like MS and Google) are fighting this. Not any major telecom.

I've been screaming at my rep about this for about a month now, and happy to say he voted on the side of the angels on this one. Now I've got to go up against my Senators. This is a bi-partisan, NON-partisan issue. Everyone should be able to express themselves within certain limits (such as not soliciting physical harm on someone) regardless of opinion. If you're so inclined (and I hope you are) call your senator and get them on their position on this issue and find out their position on on S.2917 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s2917is.txt.pdf) the net neutrality bill (The Internet Freedom Preservation Act) put up by Senators Snowe (R-Maine) and Dorgan (D-North Dakota).

[Peter Paltridge]

A company already tried this wholesale and it failed: America Online.

In the mid-90's, when most people were first logging on, AOL's service was exclusively limited to AOL pages. This wasn't because of any technical issue. They just wanted to control everything.

This was back when people didn't know much about how the Net worked. At first, AOL got away with it, but then as people gradually discovered one by one that they couldn't visit a popular website mentioned by their friends, they switched ISPs. Eventually, AOL was forced to become a proper WWW provider or face mediocre sales.

Now everyone knows how the Net works. If anyone pulls this again, they'll be out of business.

[Weatherman]

A company already tried this wholesale and it failed: America Online.

In the mid-90's, when most people were first logging on, AOL's service was exclusively limited to AOL pages. This wasn't because of any technical issue. They just wanted to control everything.

This was back when people didn't know much about how the Net worked. At first, AOL got away with it, but then as people gradually discovered one by one that they couldn't visit a popular website mentioned by their friends, they switched ISPs. Eventually, AOL was forced to become a proper WWW provider or face mediocre sales.

Now everyone knows how the Net works. If anyone pulls this again, they'll be out of business.

Not when the yhave a monopoly, and don;t even begin to try an tell me Verizon and Comcast doen't have a vitual monopoly over the East Coast boradband system. I don't have any otehr choice but the two of them, and they both start this pay to play crap, I'm just plain hosed. And don't try to tell me satilite is an option because it's not true broadband.

I want Verizon's FiOS as it had to be better than Comcast, but it's still no good if I have the same restrictions.

[Daredevil_2003]

Not when the yhave a monopoly, and don;t even begin to try an tell me Verizon and Comcast doen't have a vitual monopoly over the East Coast boradband system. I don't have any otehr choice but the two of them, and they both start this pay to play crap, I'm just plain hosed. And don't try to tell me satilite is an option because it's not true broadband.

I want Verizon's FiOS as it had to be better than Comcast, but it's still no good if I have the same restrictions.Well, down here we have access to Road Runner and Earthlink and a few other BB options. I'm with Verizon because I was forced into it. My roomate already had RR and I wasn't about to share a line so he could destroy my gaming experience with his day and night bit torrent downloads. So, I got Verizon DSL and I regret it, the charges are ridiculous and their phone service (another thing I hate about DSL, having to have a land line) sucks for the price they charge for it. I pay almost as much for their damned home phone service as I do for my cell phone! Ah well...in December my contract is up and seeing as I dont live with a roomate anymore I will definitely be getting Brighthouse/Time Warner/Road Runner whatever they're calling it this week cable broadband. :D

[Daikun]

*bump*

FTC abandons Net Neutrality. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/06/ftc-abandons-net-neutrality)

[Rocketboy]

......

****.

[Tenku]

Aw, hell to the ****in' naw. Are they on crack?

[Peter Paltridge]

Second source, please? That site doesn't look trustworthy.

[r/s4ever]

I know I'm a little late on this, but:


Can you hear the people type
Typing the chats of angry men
They are the chats of all the addicts who won't be social again
When the beating of your heart
Echoes the clicking of your mouse
It's alert for all the 'Net when we fight the House!

Creative.

[Daikun]

Second source, please? That site doesn't look trustworthy.

That site lists 3 different sources. What more do you need?

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Not surprised. Remember first and foremost, the government always wants to find ways to swing a profit out of anything. That's capitalism at work for ya.

[Shawn Hopkins]

The dumb thing is, the FTC argument seems to be we should wait and see if something horrible happens before we do anything. Doesn't anyone else think it might cause problems that will be hard to reverse?

[M?sterious]

Apparently, US congress is debating a scheme which would give ISPs much greater control over what sites viewers look at. Preferred sites would download quickly whilst others wouldn't fare so well. Not sure if this idea would be world encompassing. For more info: http://www.savetheinternet.com/ What? Congress is trying to control what we view online now? What's next? This isn't right. These ''preferred sites'' loading quickly then others, basically means anything congress personally doesn't find to their likings, will be labeled tasteless and added to the crap load times list. Which could possibly mean, tz's page loading times could take longer then normal on some ISP's. We pay to use the internet, and now we can't enjoy all the content we want without the goverment budding in? I hope this only applies to porn.


What a fascist nation we live in.

[JShaggy]

What more can I say but that companies are greedy, and are willing to do anything to make us pay more to use their services, and it's not just the ISPs we're talking about here.

[Desensitized]

And things get worse.

Anyone actually surprised?

[RockmanDash]

*bump*

FTC abandons Net Neutrality. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/06/ftc-abandons-net-neutrality)

HOLY BEEP ON A BEEP WITH BEEP ON TOP! O_O(yes yugioh abridged but REALLY NOW)

What is the world coming to..:eek:

[James]

That site lists 3 different sources. What more do you need?

How about someone actually reading what the FTC says, rather than what some journalists trump as news. (http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/08/neutrality.shtm)

All the FTC has said - from what I gleen from that article, is that net-neutrality doesn't actually exist in any definitive way that is productive; that the market itself - to some degree - will look after itself. If providers levy charges in preferences of website priorities, then consumers will go elsewhere; that the market will diversify and combat any "non-neutral" actions by itself. After all, anything inherently unfair motioned by one company, will be exploited by another if there are no legal restrictions binding them.

Essentially, it's saying rather than bog down with new legislation to try and tame the market, let the market fight out what works best for the market and the regulatory bodies will sit at the side and bite any company which attempts to exploit the market in anti-competitive ways or do anything illegal.

Okay, it does mean the future is unclear as how the internet may change, but it's not the Armageddon of consumer net-use. for heavens sake. The internet is a very different beast now to as it was 10 years ago. Money is a motivating power behind change, but it can only but done if the consumer is willing to pay for changes.

Personally, I don't think we have the perfect web setup now, and I can imagine changes eventually making it more streamlined; that business/information services will take a larger priority. Afterall, I don't think having people sitting with idle PCs, soaking up Torrent after Torrent is really a true benefit/good use of the internet.

But yes, before everyone gets themselves upset, read the article the report is based on. You might actually find it less scary than the journalists wants it to be.

[M?sterious]

Modern yellow-journalism.

[Peter Paltridge]

Looks like they finalized this yesterday. If you want the Justice Department's take on this, here it is:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/INTERNET_FEES_JUSTICE_DEPARTMENT?SITE=NCASH&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Notice the language here. What they're saying is okay is the opposite--that ISPs are allowed to charge a fee for visiting the most popular sites.

It's still scoundrelly, just on the other end. This could actually help small websites here.

[Kurokawa41]

How about someone actually reading what the FTC says, rather than what some journalists trump as news. (http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/08/neutrality.shtm)

All the FTC has said - from what I gleen from that article, is that net-neutrality doesn't actually exist in any definitive way that is productive; that the market itself - to some degree - will look after itself. If providers levy charges in preferences of website priorities, then consumers will go elsewhere; that the market will diversify and combat any "non-neutral" actions by itself. After all, anything inherently unfair motioned by one company, will be exploited by another if there are no legal restrictions binding them.

Essentially, it's saying rather than bog down with new legislation to try and tame the market, let the market fight out what works best for the market and the regulatory bodies will sit at the side and bite any company which attempts to exploit the market in anti-competitive ways or do anything illegal.

Okay, it does mean the future is unclear as how the internet may change, but it's not the Armageddon of consumer net-use. for heavens sake. The internet is a very different beast now to as it was 10 years ago. Money is a motivating power behind change, but it can only but done if the consumer is willing to pay for changes.

Personally, I don't think we have the perfect web setup now, and I can imagine changes eventually making it more streamlined; that business/information services will take a larger priority. Afterall, I don't think having people sitting with idle PCs, soaking up Torrent after Torrent is really a true benefit/good use of the internet.

But yes, before everyone gets themselves upset, read the article the report is based on. You might actually find it less scary than the journalists wants it to be.

Okay, so they're basically saying "The market will work itself out and people will stray away from the ISPs charging"? Then why the hell even change it in the first place?

Show of hands, who else would like to deliver a swift punch to these gentlemen smack in the face?


Looks like they finalized this yesterday. If you want the Justice Department's take on this, here it is:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/INTERNET_FEES_JUSTICE_DEPARTMENT?SITE=NCASH&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Notice the language here. What they're saying is okay is the opposite--that ISPs are allowed to charge a fee for visiting the most popular sites.

It's still scoundrelly, just on the other end. This could actually help small websites here.

Think it through just a bit more. Everyone will flock from the websites with fees to the smaller sites. In time, the smaller sites will grow big, and thus, have a fee put on them. Do you really want to keep switching sites/accts/etc. every time a new site gets a fee on it?

For example. YouTube is one of the most popular sites in the country, and possibly the world. It would probably be one of those sites with a fee. Everyone would thus flock from YouTube to say, Dailymotion or Veoh. One of these sites would then become popular and get a fee put on it once again. And this would probably spell the end for MySpace, and since it's the only site of its kind with its level of customization, the entire style of site itself would be dead, unless a new service was created.

[mookie75]

I think I've just reached a turning point in my life here. I've suddenly realized that I could easily live without the internet. When it comes right down to it, the only really useful thing I get out of it is the ability to pay bills without mailing them in, and that can easily be arranged over the phone as well.

I find it mildly amusing as people draw up scenarios of the death of sites like Toon Zone, YouTube, MySpace, etc etc. Ask yourselves: Would it be the end of the world if you couldn't watch YouTube videos or have a MySpace profile? If the Toon Zone forums shut down -- an eventuality that I never expect to see -- would you be able to find other means of keeping in touch with the friends you've made here? Heaven forbid we go back to writing meaningful letters to one another instead of one sentence emails! Heaven forbid we go to the library to do our reasearch papers as opposed to Wikipedia!

The internet is a luxury and nothing more. Yes, it would be unfortunate for many people if it became less accessible in some way, but we'd all survive and the world would go on.

[Roman Legion]

I think I've just reached a turning point in my life here. I've suddenly realized that I could easily live without the internet. When it comes right down to it, the only really useful thing I get out of it is the ability to pay bills without mailing them in, and that can easily be arranged over the phone as well.Good for you. Maybe not so good for other people, but really, good for you.


I find it mildly amusing as people draw up scenarios of the death of sites like Toon Zone, YouTube, MySpace, etc etc.If that's all anyone is concerned about, I figure we're screwed in the long run anyway, but such examples just happen to be convenient.


Heaven forbid we go back to writing meaningful letters to one another instead of one sentence emails!Meaningless nostalgia. :p


Heaven forbid we go to the library to do our reasearch papers as opposed to Wikipedia!Impractical and unlikely for many people, impossible for some subjects, and... wait... Wikipedia for research papers?


The internet is a luxury and nothing more. Yes, it would be unfortunate for many people if it became less accessible in some way, but we'd all survive and the world would go on.The internet is a "luxury" in the same way phones, newspapers, books, transportation, and such are luxuries. The world can go on without them, but hardly in the same way.

--Romey

[Tay the Cat]

Wikipedia for research papers?

If the article you're looking at has links to reputable sources (MOST of them do), then sure.

[Roman Legion]

If the article you're looking at has links to reputable sources (MOST of them do), then sure.Certainly, Wikipedia can be a great starting point, but when the references are listed... why not just use the references? Anyhoo, that's a topic for another thread.

--Romey

[Tay the Cat]

Certainly, Wikipedia can be a great starting point, but when the references are listed... why not just use the references?
It makes the references easier to find, as they're all in one place.

But yeah... entirely new discussion.

[Kurokawa41]

I find it amusing that people think Wikipedia is such a terrible, inaccurate place. Sure, anyone can edit, but the mods there change anything that's incorrect or questionable within an hour. It really is a lot more reliable than people say.

Anyway, I don't think TZ is popular enough to get a fee put on it.

[Shawn Hopkins]

I find it amusing that people think Wikipedia is such a terrible, inaccurate place. Sure, anyone can edit, but the mods there change anything that's incorrect or questionable within an hour. It really is a lot more reliable than people say.

Anyway, I don't think TZ is popular enough to get a fee put on it.

I don't know. I've found errors in Wikipedia articles and corrected them. Obvious factual errors like how many issues a certain comic book series had. I don't think the mods can catch everything because if they knew everything, it wouldn't rely on user generated content, would it? And I'm sure that there are a lot of cases where even if users notice the errors like I did they don't care enough to correct them. The bottom line is that it is a big mistake to use Wikipedia as your sole source for a reference, although it is a fantastic starting point.

[GuardianKid13]

I think I've just reached a turning point in my life here. I've suddenly realized that I could easily live without the internet. When it comes right down to it, the only really useful thing I get out of it is the ability to pay bills without mailing them in, and that can easily be arranged over the phone as well.

I find it mildly amusing as people draw up scenarios of the death of sites like Toon Zone, YouTube, MySpace, etc etc. Ask yourselves: Would it be the end of the world if you couldn't watch YouTube videos or have a MySpace profile? If the Toon Zone forums shut down -- an eventuality that I never expect to see -- would you be able to find other means of keeping in touch with the friends you've made here? Heaven forbid we go back to writing meaningful letters to one another instead of one sentence emails! Heaven forbid we go to the library to do our reasearch papers as opposed to Wikipedia!

The internet is a luxury and nothing more. Yes, it would be unfortunate for many people if it became less accessible in some way, but we'd all survive and the world would go on.
It would make life harder for the current young generation who are already used to all those things.

[.bg]

I doubt the new charging-for-access policy will last long in the US, because the owners of the sites that get slowed down could easily sue.