In the upcoming weeks watch for a report in Time Magazine that will attempt to smooth over the rough edges of a diabolical plot by Bell Canada and Telus, to begin charging per site fees on most Internet sites. The plan is to convert the Internet into a cable-like system, where customers sign up for specific web sites, and then pay to visit sites beyond a cutoff point.

<link>

********OK, folks. Those of you in the know please enlighten those of us who aren't - - what does Canada's plan have to do with OUR internet???

Thanks.

Without the nearly infinite "travel" possibilities, there is little that would seem little that would attract users.

My reasoning for this is based in the idea that those who want to put controls and limits on it are perhaps seeing the attraction to the internet without really understanding what the attraction is. They perhaps see it as competition to the businesses they are in because of its great attraction and they fail to see that much of the attraction is its very nature.

I can see asking people to subscribe to sites if they really feel that is the best way to "profit" from the Internet but I tend to shy away from sites I need to subscribe to unless it involves information critical to my business. In that case, many of the business owners see the maintenance of an accessible to all website as cheap advertising with immense circulation, something they would not get through limited access cable connections. Why would they pay what they already pay or more to maintain a website that is limited to subscribers?

The current Internet's attraction draws huge numbers and offers huge exposure because of the huge numbers attracted, limit that and I would question whether the "Internet" would even survive, thus the appropriateness of your title. I'll buy songs from places like iTunes, but I am less willing to do so if I have to pay a fee to go to the Apple iTunes site, then pay for the tunes. I'm looking for ways to cut my budget and I imagine many other people are too. I'm about to CUT channels from my satellite TV service because every time I turn around they are raising the rates and cutting the selections. I pay monthly now for Internet access, I'm not going to pay for that PLUS a subscription fee to individual sites. I might not reflect the average person though, some of whom may need to see their FOX news in print, on TV, on their computer and Blackberry or iPhone and hear it on their car radio. I can cut my annual expenditures by limiting how many times I pay for the same thing. I may not be keeping up with the Jones where technofanaticism and information and techno gluttony is concerned, but I can bank the money I save and do something different with it.

I believe the concern about control's on Canada's Internet is that the idea will be spread, assuming it somehow works in Canada. The article itself pointed out how the Internet turned an idea to profit from extra charges for text messages into an idea that backfired and had the opposite effect.

My guess is the same is likely to occur in this case. I could be wrong, but I believe the world may be in for a bit of a revolution regarding unfettered capitalist ideas. Personally I hope we don't meet such ideas with knee-jerk reactions in the other direction where capitalism in all shapes and forms becomes the evil that needs to meet Lady Guillotine. I would hope some moderation would prevail and in the case of the Internet a compromise might be to allow the communications companies to grab a portion of the Internet voice communication segment in exchange for leaving the rest of it alone, receiving their profit from access charges.

Time will tell though whether we all win or any particular "side" in the matter wins in the short tern and in te long term.

Sleep tight!

another f**kin' bill.

Dave