Google’s Plans to Take Over The Internet Exposed!

alg_google-flamesFrom Alex Jones/InfoWars:

Google’s agreement with Verizon to speed certain Internet content to users opens the door to the complete sterilization of the world wide web as a force for political change. Under Google’s takeover plan, the Internet will closely resemble cable TV, independent voices will be silenced and the entire Internet will be bought up by transnational media giants.

, , , , , , ,

  • Your Mom

    I always suspected that Google intended to sacrifice me to a giant pagan Owl statue in Bohemian Grove.

    Thanks again to Alex Jones for exposing the truth!

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    It's hardly Google's plan…they're just the latest wealthy player with the funds to push the idea forward.

    The concept of a cable 'ala carte' / tiered system has been a wet dream of communication providers for most of the last decade and a half. The idea is to peg the price to the level of coverage and engineer degrees of access that would change the market dramatically.

    Example:

    Imaginary Package For Minimal Users: $9.99 a mo. gets you email and access to major players sites and the sites of corporate sponsors who have contributed to receive maximum exposure. (CBS/ABC/FOX/NBC/Disney etc)…but you can't visit sites outside of your package or make us of high volume online gaming platforms.

    Imaginary Package For Regular Users: $29.99 a mo. gets you all of the above plus a wider range of sponsored sites that paid a smaller amount than the big players in order to grant you access to them. Streaming sites that eat a modest amount of bandwidth would be within your grasp…but again…you're limited to what you're permitted to access by your plan. Enjoy smaller alternative sites? Tough break.

    Imaginary Package For Heavy Users: $59.99 makes you the ruler of the roost. You can gamer hardcore and visit anywhere on the internet…but it doesn't count for much since, after the tier system started, all the smaller websites went out of business when their traffic died off and sponsors removed their ads and headed for greener pastures. This last zone is playground of the top percentage of financially well off users who can pay extra to enjoy their freedom…but since the top bracket of access doesn't include that many people you won't find a lot of innovation for a niche market.

    What makes the web great is that anyone can start a webpage and potentially reach millions of people…that is the essence of net neutrality. Surrendering that is antithetical to capitalism, antithetical to reason, and antithetical to the future relevance of the internet. The primary drive to shift the internet to a tiered system is to shut down competition and reduce the odds of wild card companies like Facebook or Google suddenly being challenged by newcomers. The existing telecoms do not want a system that offers a truly level playing field and forces genuine competition…it is far easier to monopolize the web and make access to themselves and subsidiaries easier than access to new or small sites.

    To me, Alex Jones may be a fringe twit who huffs and puffs like a paranoid Limbaugh clone on steroids, but our interests coincide here. Keep the net free. Any access should be total access.

  • Daniel

    This man may or may not be a lunatic if he thoroughly believes in the conspiratory terrorism which he hereby inflicts upon his viewers.

    Suppose he's correct. If this is so, then free speech is what we have earned in this arena of internet freedom, this era of net neutrality. Thus, this comment will survive. If not, it will be removed.

  • VegaCash

    “Google, Verizon, and others.” I want to know the others, the slightly smaller corporations where their stock would still be small enough to make a good investment to make some cash.. I figure if you can't stop the system, or fight it for that matter, abuse the knowledge that this is likely to happen.

  • Butter Knife

    Um, yeah, no. That’s actually not what happened.

    Google has, for the past several years, been absolutely in favor of true Net Neutrality and lobbied heavily for it. This is not a secret, it’s not even obscure or arcane. If it were not for this, we would already have the locked-down horror Alex Jones warns of would already be here.

    Their recent statement was that they were willing to accept a non-neutral web for MOBILE USERS on CELL PHONE NETWORKS as a TEMPORARY measure to allow those networks to build out the infrastructure to support a full and free internet. They did not modify their position on traditional broadband access, and in fact they reiterated that they, as a corporation, completely support net neutrality.

    Oh, and anyone who expects their wireless network to be invisible to others has no idea how they work. You can argue that Google probing wireless networks from the street is slimy, but to call it wiretapping is simply false. Show me the unauthorized use of bandwidth, or the cracking of encrypted packets, and we’ll talk about actual illegal activity.

    I have no particular grudge against Alex Jones, but sometimes his inclination toward conspiracy theories just flies in the face of basic facts.

  • Butter Knife

    Um, yeah, no. That's actually not what happened.

    Google has, for the past several years, been absolutely in favor of true Net Neutrality and lobbied heavily for it. This is not a secret, it's not even obscure or arcane. If it were not for this, we would already have the locked-down horror Alex Jones warns of would already be here.

    Their recent statement was that they were willing to accept a non-neutral web for MOBILE USERS on CELL PHONE NETWORKS as a TEMPORARY measure to allow those networks to build out the infrastructure to support a full and free internet. They did not modify their position on traditional broadband access, and in fact they reiterated that they, as a corporation, completely support net neutrality.

    Oh, and anyone who expects their wireless network to be invisible to others has no idea how they work. You can argue that Google probing wireless networks from the street is slimy, but to call it wiretapping is simply false. Show me the unauthorized use of bandwidth, or the cracking of encrypted packets, and we'll talk about actual illegal activity.

    I have no particular grudge against Alex Jones, but sometimes his inclination toward conspiracy theories just flies in the face of basic facts.

21