"2012: The Year The Internet Ends"

[TV-VCR 14]

http://ipower.ning.com/netneutrality2

What do you think?

If you ask me I don't know exactly what to think. For all I know it could be something to get more people to register at the site. Does make me worried though, especially with Time Warner recently trying out a metering service.

[Aontan 0]

And why isn't Simtropolis included in any of these packages?

[belfastuniguy 18]

Well I think 'The year the internet ends' is somewhat dramatic.

The internet has exploded in size in just a couple of year, coupled with that the development and expansion of high bandwidth applications such as Youtube, BBCiPlayer, downloaded movie's and music and there comes a point where systems need to be upgraded to cope.

I doubt the internet will end on 2012 in fact I seriously doubt it. ISP's have already started to meter and monitor usage. If you want to have unlimited access then you have to pay for it, can't expect to get it for free or nothing. Money needs to be invested in new technology to allow the internet to keep running and cope with still further demands.

[Adnoxaei 0]

That sounds like something likely to happen and something that is actually legal...

sadly standardizing the internet like that would make it more fficient and better on the commercial end, but would suck for all of us users.

[beebs 129]

While I wouldn't put Telus past this ridiculous scheme, I think the most we're going to see is you paying for however much you download and that (is there a technical term for that?). Kind of like how phone minutes work. You have x amount for a set charge (the monthly payment), anything over that you pay y amount extra.

[Duke87 1,070]

Ah yes, net neutrality.

First of all, this is old news. Second of all, the claims in those threads were true. At the moment, the ending of net neutrality has been forbidden in some countries (Japan, South Korea) and permitted in others (the EU). In other places (like the US), the issue has yet to be resolved.

Wikipedia has a lot to say on the matter.

This, on the other hand, is something completely different. Not having net neutrality would be like having HOV lanes for people who paid for access. This idea, the "cable TV" model, is not something I've heard of. And, considering that it sounds preposterous, and is oh-so-conveniently slated to happen in 2012, a year which has been the subject of more "the world is going to end" prophecies than you can shake a stick at, I'm highly skeptical.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Not having net neutrality would be like having HOV lanes for people who paid for access. quote>

They are called HOT lanes (High Occupancy Toll), a subject of debate around DC.

They have been talking about various kinds of charges for the internet since it existed.  Time will tell how that will eventually play out.

[fukuda 351]

Well, it has been announced sooo many times...

People only think about the ISPs but this would also mean the ruin of internet-run businesses, the end of the public sources

of information that researchers use, their intention of being accessible to everyone would be destroyed....

Anyway, I doubt this is going to be done in a really near future, and if they are going to do it, I would disconnect my PC

from the net (They are not going to use it for their crap) and go to the pakistanese internet shop, which is cooler, cheaper

and we are friends XD

Now that the trend is to stop globalization and avoid even more the free circulation of persons and goods, they are going to

do it with the virtual world too?

[TV-VCR 14]

To be honest metering isn't completely bad. Just as long as it's reasonable. What Time Warner is wanting to do is ridiculous. And ISPs doing something like this would cause more harm (to them and everyone) instead of good... I imagine that all of the good politicians, as well as the masses of people against it,  would shoot it down before it could happen.

I've always been skeptical of this kind of thing. I just wanted some opinions. Also, well put Duke.

[IDS2 3,344]

That would be so dumb...seriously, it wouldn't allow anything to actually get done over the Internet...company websites, all that would be disconnected, and all we're left with is a load of Youtube and Myspace and that stuff.

[Jazzmaster 716]

I'm not usually the king of conspiracy theories around here, but is it at all possible that the RIAA has the slightest interference with the whole idea (not trying to change the subject entirely, I'm just thinking out loud here)?  This would really help their vain attempts to stop internet piracy...

[Xyloxadoria 1,099]

Originally posted by: Yoshiisland I'm not usually the king of conspiracy theories around here, but is it at all possible that the RIAA has the slightest interference with the whole idea (not trying to change the subject entirely, I'm just thinking out loud here)?  This would really help their vain attempts to stop internet piracy...quote>

Well the disclaimer at the bottom of that picture might reinforce your theory. It says, "full access does not include access to illegal materials" which means that if the ISP finds a website illegal in any way, they will not allow people to access it. And they will probably get that information from the RIAA.

That and the fact  that only certain websites are allowed brings up another issue, censorship. In effect,. only allowing access to certain will cause the websites the company sees as bad (maybe a website against the, or something) to never be seen again. It will be kind of like the ISP being big brother, where they say what can and can't be seen. And money will decide that. whoever pays the isp will be seen, whoever doesn't wont.

[Easy Bakes 253]

controling what site's you can and cannot view is Censorship of the highest order.

Isnt that what China N Korea do?

Does this mean all the porn sights will shut down too?

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

controling what site's you can and cannot view is Censorship of the highest order.

quote>

Depends on what network you are on.   At work, we would be asking for trouble to go anywhere but a news site or a .gov site.  Going elsewhere was perceived as "mis-use of government resources".

While the employees groused about this, I think it makes sense.  Do you want your tax dollars going towards some guy surfing porn sites?

As to private access, that's another issue.

[IDS2 3,344]

Yeah, and that would completely take away the use of Google and other search engines...no personal websites, just the crap they give you. Unless it's not limited selection, it's just pay-per-view like TV. There should be rollover.

[Goldfish4209 9]

This would be very bad. If this is actually true, that would almost be an apocalypse for many people. What will happen to random surfing and hotlinking, etc? On a regular basis, I only visit 6 or 7 websites, but what will happen to googling for things? What will happen to internet research for science projects, etc?

On the other hand, metered access I wouldn't really mind. A couple of dimes per Gb is ok; this would probably save me money.

But limiting the number of websites you can access would be insane.

Gather your pitchforks! Angry mobs assemble next thursday at your national capitals!

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

controling what site's you can and cannot view is Censorship of the highest order.

quote>

Depends on what network you are on.   At work, we would be asking for trouble to go anywhere but a news site or a .gov site.  Going elsewhere was perceived as "mis-use of government resources".

While the employees groused about this, I think it makes sense.  Do you want your tax dollars going towards some guy surfing porn sites?

As to private access, that's another issue.quote>

 

I did mean private acess.

I have no problem the company you work for not wanting you to be wasteing time on Facebook while your supposed to be working ,private companys do the same thing the DOD does. So they limit were you can go, no issue there at all.

[hamsterTK 93]

ISPs actually could go around blocking sites but most if not all don't do this because their paying customers want unlimited access.

(throttling P2P due to bandwidth issues is a thread for another day)

[WeekendCityPlanner 19]

That is the most brilliant idea I've ever heard. Yes, let'spay 30 bucks a month to view only 60 channels that I might never use. Let's have people (like me) who can only afford dial up pay even more for 60 websites that may have no use.  Let's destroy one of the greatest communication tools this world has yet seen. Let's take hurt the little guy even more while possibly hurting the big guy as well. Internet subscription is just simply brilliant!

[coolotter88 2]

it won't work because it's the dumbest idea ever. any ISP that thinks this is a good idea deserves to go out of business because as soon as they try to do this, I'm sure people would switch immediately to a competitor who would be more than happy to provide unlimited access to the internet. This won't happen if you don't let it happen.

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 it won't work because it's the dumbest idea ever. any ISP that thinks this is a good idea deserves to go out of business because as soon as they try to do this, I'm sure people would switch immediately to a competitor who would be more than happy to provide unlimited access to the internet. This won't happen if you don't let it happen.quote>

I agree... as a money making business move this is a very bad Idea and simply will not happen, unless the ISP's form a Cartel or something. I already pay more than enough for my internet, including all those stupid 'One off' Charges and line rental, Limtied Acess to those who can't afford it would be the turd on the cake.

[smstevenms 7]

Originally posted by: Duke87 Ah yes, net neutrality.

First of all, this is old news. Second of all, the claims in those threads were true. At the moment, the ending of net neutrality has been forbidden in some countries (Japan, South Korea) and permitted in others (the EU). In other places (like the US), the issue has yet to be resolved.

Wikipedia has a lot to say on the matter.

This, on the other hand, is something completely different. Not having net neutrality would be like having HOV lanes for people who paid for access. This idea, the "cable TV" model, is not something I've heard of. And, considering that it sounds preposterous, and is oh-so-conveniently slated to happen in 2012, a year which has been the subject of more "the world is going to end" prophecies than you can shake a stick at, I'm highly skeptical.quote>

 

+1. I don't think controlling the internet in this manner would be a good idea. I know "I" wouldn't use the internet except in the library if need be, this whole idea would be counter productive.

SkiGeek

They are called HOT lanes (High Occupancy Toll), a subject of debate around DC.quote>

Most states call them HOV lanes, DC is likely to be the only state that calls it "HOT lanes".

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: smstevenms

Originally posted by: Duke87 Ah yes, net neutrality.

First of all, this is old news. Second of all, the claims in those threads were true. At the moment, the ending of net neutrality has been forbidden in some countries (Japan, South Korea) and permitted in others (the EU). In other places (like the US), the issue has yet to be resolved.

Wikipedia has a lot to say on the matter.

This, on the other hand, is something completely different. Not having net neutrality would be like having HOV lanes for people who paid for access. This idea, the "cable TV" model, is not something I've heard of. And, considering that it sounds preposterous, and is oh-so-conveniently slated to happen in 2012, a year which has been the subject of more "the world is going to end" prophecies than you can shake a stick at, I'm highly skeptical.quote>

 

+1. I don't think controlling the internet in this manner would be a good idea. I know "I" wouldn't use the internet except in the library if need be, this whole idea would be counter productive.

SkiGeek

They are called HOT lanes (High Occupancy Toll), a subject of debate around DC.quote>

Most states call them HOV lanes, DC is likely to be the only state that calls it "HOT lanes".quote>

HOV= no toll charge

HOT= Charges a toll to use.

 

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: smstevenms

SkiGeek

They are called HOT lanes (High Occupancy Toll), a subject of debate around DC.quote>

Most states call them HOV lanes, DC is likely to be the only state that calls it "HOT lanes".quote>

No, HOV lanes are free.  These so-called HOT lanes that Ski was talking about have a toll for using them.

That and Ski might be offended for calling DC a state.

[GMT 389]

what folks seem to forget about this topic is that you're actually paying for the internet usage already.

only problem is that the classic payment system for usage got outnumbered by flatrates.

just think back to times when the internet boom started!

you were charged by the time and/or amount of data flow.

now the typical payment system is flatrates sorted by maxiumum bandwidth.

so this system actually forces you to pay twice for one good you use.

It's like Pay TV licenses applied to all channels, tho you never use pay tv...

kinda stupid, eh?

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: GMT what folks seem to forget about this topic is that you're actually paying for the internet usage already.

only problem is that the classic payment system for usage got outnumbered by flatrates.

just think back to times when the internet boom started!

you were charged by the time and/or amount of data flow.

now the typical payment system is flatrates sorted by maxiumum bandwidth.

so this system actually forces you to pay twice for one good you use.

It's like Pay TV licenses applied to all channels, tho you never use pay tv...

kinda stupid, eh?quote>

No, not really.  Think of all the things that people do now that they wouldn't do if you had to pay by the time you were on the computer.  There would be virtually no online gaming, and sites like this would be mostly non-existent because people wouldn't want to pay for time they spend on this.  I mean, let's face it - ST is fun and all, but how much is it contributing to the greater good?  Not a whole lot, and we're not a news agency.  So, the flat rates package is a good thing - especially also when you consider that it reduces the likelihood of confusion in your bill.  You already know three months from now what your internet bill is going to be.  That said, there'd be no such stability in the old system.

[socalwu 0]

 [Edited for content-91] but how about connections to a few web hosts only. And then you can host your websites on the few. And then make internet providers to connect to the few web hosts. Making less costs of connecting to other websites.

It may also sound stupid but it is hell better than paying 49.99 for myspace.

[manubeas 0]

This can't happen, it simply can't. Internet is one of the most big and powerful communication source in the world. Shuting it down just like that will cause a huge impact in the world and would cause a big crisis for all the people that work and communicate through it. There would be (I think) A LOT of unemployment. although it can happen it's not very likely.

[Deever 23]

My friends who work in call centers aren't gonna like that.

I think they can only do that if they own the internet, which of course they don't.

[saltandsauce 0]

oh well....

look on the bright side your junk mail will be flammable now and the post office wont have to close