Don't say, it can't happen here or the people wouldn't stand for it. It will make it's way here. Big Brother is always looking for ways to get into our pockets.

England may force 40,000 Internet users offline. No crime by these users will have been committed. It's just the possible extra $40 a month added to their bill, because of the copyright mafia, to enforce their version of stopping piracy. No ISP in their proper business sense will take loss's that big without passing on costs to the consumers.
Or the proper way, would be to have the copyright mafia pay the bill. Maybe a billion dollars to start?

So who really controls our Internet anyways? The copyright mafia or the people?


http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-surcharge-set-to-force-40000-households-offline-091228/
Quote


Piracy Surcharge Set To Force 40,000 Households Offline
Written by enigmax on December 28, 2009
Earlier,ISP BT predicted that operating an anti-filesharing scheme in the UKwould cost £365m a year. Now the government has admitted that not only will broadband customers have to foot a £500m bill, but that burden will prove too great for 40,000 households – who will have no choice but to give up their Internet connections.
The music industry’s own research indicates that, on a ridiculous ‘one download equals one lost sale’ basis, losses to online piracy will amount to £200m ($319.67m) in the UK during 2009.
Labeling the claims “melodramatic,” in September boss of ISP BT’s consumer division, John Petter, warned that proposed measures to tackle these supposed loses would prove costly for ISPs – a staggering £365m ($583.4m) a year.
Today, according to a new report, government ministers have admitted that the costs will amount to £500m ($799.2m).
ISPs say that issuing warnings will cost every customer £1.40($2.24) and otherwise meddling with accounts at the behest of the music industry will add £25 ($40) total to an annual subscription.
Worryingly, ministers say that this extra cost will force 40,000 UK households offline, with BT’s John Petter calling the plans “collective punishment that goes against natural justice.”
Jeremy Hunt, the Shadow Culture Secretary, said that it is “grossly unfair” for the government to force all broadband customers to foot the bill, and noted that forcing tens of thousands offline will go against government targets of increasing Internet take-up among the most disadvantaged communities.
“We are confident that those costs will be a mere fraction of the stratospheric sums suggested by some ISPs,” a BPI spokesman told The Times, adding, “..and negligibly small when set against their vast annual revenues.”
British music churned over £3.6bn in 2008, up by 4.7%. In the same year British films accounted for 15% of worldwide box office takings, totaling £2.6bn ($4.2bn) – an increase of $1bn over 2007.
So, if this anti-piracy scheme really is destined to bring them an extra £1.7 billion extra in media sales over the next 10 years, why don’t they offset these “negligibly small” costs against their own“vast revenues” ? Because they can get the customer to pay, of course.
When this £25 charge is added to customer accounts, ISPs up and down the UK should put the amount separately on the bill as an extra item which clearly reads “Music industry surcharge.”
Let’s see how that affects piracy and, indeed, the attitudes of people who now quite rightly feel they should at least be getting some music for their money.

Drunk Posting!

Drunk Posting!

Cool!

hmm thats a good one. not really sure but Iam sure some form of the government regulates it. when I say that I mean the corperatcracy, (or how ever you spell it) but the corperates that control the online venues. there is the explorer, opera, mozilla, google crome, but there are corperations that run those. so I think that the ones who control the very top are major companies that you havent heard of. lmfao you may wanna google it

well considering there is porn,satanism,islamic hate jews and americans,kkk,naacp,etc i would say the person who invented it....Al Gore

Come on. It's not like MSNBC...jeezz. Nobody is controlling the internet. It's not like there is a "central command"

Imagine the internet like this:

Sorry not afraid of spiders!

The way the Gov can "control the internet" is by putting on a user tax. From what I see, in the UK it's like $40,00 a month per computer.

Glad someone has posted this.............Robin Hood (in reverse) is still alive and well in the UK!


http://mingle2.com/topic/show/260976[/color

England is so tiny, I don't see why the people don't just rebel and form groups to set up wireless N access points all over the city. They can just split the cost of the accounts between the groups. Power to the people!

I thought Chuck Norris controlled the internet? No?

Aliens

very small people .censors

I swear!


The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is an agency of the United States Department of Defense responsible for the development of new technology for use by the military. DARPA has been responsible for funding the development of many technologies which have had a major effect on the world, including computer networking, as well as NLS, which was both the first hypertext system, and an important precursor to the contemporary ubiquitous graphical user interface.


The Gov began the internet!

It really shouldn't be that shocking. The government taxes everything in time.....

Allowing civilian use was a gift.