Friday, 19 May 2017

A Better Internet

I got to thinking how annoying the internet is, ads, spam, and I saw someone online talk about how I (the consumer) should put up with it, because Its free. but I remembered how I saw another video on Google essentially earns $7 from each person using the internet.

Can I pay $7 to google, so it stops collecting, collating and selling my data? Please?

I read things on the internet, that's whats its there for. Free Information for all participants. There is some law, I forget where or even how to find it, that allows all newspapers, all books, to have a copy at their local library, for free. FREE! Yet news articles online.. are not..??

Subscription fees, membership fees? What? the flow of information for free is what allows countries to get better, to improve everything, Government is structured to force free information for all, so whats going on with the internet?

So it got me thinking.. hang on.. I pay $70 a month for the internet, Sure its the connection, the bandwidth all that jazz, but in the end, I'm not paying for that, I'm paying for the ability to access the internet from home, Else I go to the library and get it.. for free!

Wouldn't it make more sense, that I get the internet when I pay to get the internet??? That $70 doesn't go to any of the content providers, only the service provider. What did they do for it? press some buttons and run some machines, pay some electricity and hire some tech nerds to make sure its all secure, but they don't pay for any of the content.. extremely unfair.

Content Creators, Should always be the recipients of any income derived from their works, yet the Internet has somehow forgotten that..

As I've always followed the rule, don't present a problem, if you don't have a solution:

So I figured.. How would I rebuild the internet.

ISPs can collect the money, $80 a month for example, but HALF of all the money must go to the internet content providers. What should happen is that if I spend 100 hours on the internet that month, and I spend 80 of those hours on facebook, then instead of facebook earning money by throwing ads up in my face, facebook earns by me spending 80% of my time there.

Why this would help.. since ads do not help 99% of the people who see them, and cost bandwidth, my precious bandwidth, being used up to display them, we'd see a reduction in the amount of content/bandwidth that's being used by each website. Ad sites might PAY users to have them visit their sites.. effectively giving back 110% of the 'time' revenue, because they get paid by ad revenue to survive.

Sites like Youtube, Facebook, even Google search would maintain their incomes, because content = users = revenue, but sites like wikipedia which are constantly asking for donations, would instead be overfunded, game sites wouldn't need to be free to pay, you pay by being there, and if you don't like it, you leave, so only the decent games with decent crowds of users would stay online.

Sure, there will always be scammers, get a pop-up to open in the background with little to no content, but we also have technology to prove that the user is watching the page. Just as now, certain adverts contain click linkers which 'fake' multiple advert clicks from thousands of users around the world, to 'appear' that people are clicking through to an ad.

But, at the end of the day, since we're paying FOR the content, rather than providing ourselves and our lives to BE the content, then our privacy would be better kept intact, our lives would be less about ignoring the adverts and missing out on some really interesting things, and the people that create content around the world would get a deserved amount of recognition for this 


  1. From the business point of view web ads are really important. They give a lifeline that can't be easY replicated. Your model might pretty much doom innovators as no one would be able send out the ads to draw the crowd to pay for the business. It would be an even worse paradise for monopoles than we have now I think.

  2. Actually, that's an interesting thought. They already are in the business of tracking everything we do so why not fund the sources of the reasons why we go on the internet?

    The only problem lies in convincing Comcast to give up 50% of their revenue.

    As far as ads are concerned. They wouldn't go away because people still need to get word of their product out there, but at least there wouldn't be that annoying incentive to plaster ads all over a site to where you can't actually see what you've come to see. Which in turn would probably make those ads more effective.

    It's a good idea. I approve.