urgh my neighbour has Taylor Swift's Love Story on repeat.

A continuation of the Time Warner thing.The fact that Time Warner owns major media sites, charging for additional features of the internet would means that they would be controlling most of the media on it. Charging extra would require them to pass this on to most of the sites offering additional features, as compensation for these sites suffering a decrease in traffic. This compensation will make sites offering additional features subject to the opinions of Time Warner Inc, if the compensation becomes substantial. Or they could choose not to offer compensation, in which case the media companies owned by Time Warner Inc would have a monopoly of the market share. Stockholders will then have a larger control over the media and hence are able to determine what is reported, resulting in disinformation or misinformation in biased reporting.

On a smaller scale, charging for perks on the internet will change the world for future generations. If the fees are raised to such high levels that most people are deprived of these features, applications like facebook, youtube, and twitter will no longer be part of mainstream media. These applications have changed the way we gather and distribute information, allowing the common man to air his opinions and update himself on the most relevant and up to date news. If these apps became less commonplace, the progress we've made in media distribution in the last 10 years will amount to nothing. When celebrites can twitter an appearance and have their tickets sold in hours today, this would not be possible once internet extras become chargeable commodities. We would have to rely on newspapers, radio, or the telephone to make our orders, and these are much slower modes of communication.

User-generated content on blogs, podcasts and videos will have to represent the opinions of Time Warner Inc, since they are in charge of allowing users to view your video. When someone pays your salary, you wouldn't bite the hand that feeds you, would you? There would also be less opportunities for us to generate our own entertainment, since we are attracting less viewers than big-label companies such as CNN, and sharing websites wouldn't be so keen on us producing things when we don't generate a steady flow of revenue for them.

What do you think if someone owned the internet?

What will the consequences be for future generations? "When I was your age, the internet was free..."

Or do you think, like inflation, the expense of the internet is something that comes with the passage of time, and cannot be halted?