PDA

View Full Version : 2012: The Year the Internet Ends



CBumpkin
08-11-2008, 10:57 AM
2012: The Year the Internet Ends (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2XPiqhN_Ns&feature=related)

I found this link to a video on YouTube about some people who are talking about "Net Neutrality." Never heard of it? You might be interested in this video about how ISP are in talks to start censoring and packaging their service to internet users the same way cable companies have different packages you can buy that regulate which channels you can view. The areas on the internet that you would be able to access would depend on which package you buy. Surfing will no longer be what you know it to be today.


What do you think? Is this a real problem or is it a hoax?

Beach Bunny
08-11-2008, 12:14 PM
I don't know if it's a real problem or a hoax, but if the ISPs came up with a package that would filter out all the junk websites, I'd seriously consider buying into it. Whenever I try searching for something on the internet, I end up with a gazillion results and the first page is garbage in terms of reliability.

EriRae
08-11-2008, 12:32 PM
They'll charge us for air sooner or later.

Birol
08-11-2008, 12:37 PM
Actually, 2012 is the year the world is supposed to end per the Mayan calendar, so it doesn't really matter what the ISPs do.

bluehawk
08-11-2008, 12:39 PM
Hmm, charging for Internet use; in essence charging for information.

"Sounds like cause for World Civil War!"

CBumpkin
08-11-2008, 01:15 PM
What the folks in the video are asserting isn't about filtering out junk sites, though. Think of cable packages. For a small price, you get the basic channels. For a bit more, you can view another set of channels, and the price goes up from there. The more internet sites available to you, the more you pay.

If this is a real consideration of ISPs, what will this mean for people with personal or small business websites that rely on hits? Hits will go down dramatically.

Again, I don't know if it's a real problem or a hoax, but I wouldn't be shocked in the least if it were true.

JimmyB27
08-11-2008, 01:45 PM
What do you think? Is this a real problem or is it a hoax?
Neither. It's genuine, but it's not a real problem as it will never work, imho. The Internet's got too big and too many people rely free and open access to it for this to work. Any ISP that tries to impose a scheme like this is an ISP that will be out of business six months later. People will just change to another provider.

KTC
08-11-2008, 02:18 PM
Actually, 2012 is the year the world is supposed to end per the Mayan calendar, so it doesn't really matter what the ISPs do.

I have enough TP and ketchup to last me clear into 2014. Now I have a real problem! Thanks for nothing!

Forbidden Snowflake
08-11-2008, 02:25 PM
It's a hoax btw.

KTC
08-11-2008, 02:29 PM
It's a hoax btw.


What? I will be able to continue using my current supply of TP and ketchup beyond 2012?

Shadow_Ferret
08-11-2008, 04:44 PM
They'll charge us for air sooner or later.
They already do. It's 75 cents at most service stations.

NeuroFizz
08-11-2008, 04:46 PM
Is Al Gore threatening to take his internet "ball" and go home?

Forbidden Snowflake
08-11-2008, 05:32 PM
What? I will be able to continue using my current supply of TP and ketchup beyond 2012?

Yes :D

benbradley
08-11-2008, 08:39 PM
Net Neutrality is a real issue, though I'm not sure that the examples they give in the video are real or not.

Here is a real example of the Net Neutrality controversy:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/fcc-says-comcast-cannot-block/story.aspx?guid=%7BC4E55A95-F630-46B6-8282-C187FF10CD0E%7D&dist=hplatest

But I think the technology could change in the near future, making Net Neutrality a concern for only a minority of Internet users (those "out in the country") who will still have to connect through traditional ISP's:

With current and near-future WiFi and WiMAX technology, traditional ISP's may well be in danger, especially in urban environments. If a wireless router is left "unlocked" it's easy for neighbors to use it to get on the Internet. With approproate programs, they could just as easily wind up looking at webpages you set up "locally" on your computer, even with your Internet cable disconnected. With things such as WiMAX "repeaters" it could be just as easy for computers citywide to connect to each other without going through the Internet "backbone" or a traditional ISP. Things are then controlled by whoever puts up the WiMAX repeaters, but the more people who buy them, the cheaper they will get over time. Imagine a choice of dozens of local wireless ISP's. Of course, if they all set up their little repeaters then sell out to Verizon or Comcast, this idea won't work, but if that happens someone else will set up more repeaters, offering all the content the big ISP's would charge more for.

The design of the Internet is based on ARPANet from the 1970's. Half a dozen college and military computers across the country communicated with one another over modems and telephone lines. Each one wasn't connected to all the others (long distance charges were expensive, and the way this works, each one doesn't have to have a phone line to all the others), but each one connected to perhaps two or three others. If data were being sent meant for another computer that wasn't directly connected, it was sent to one that WAS connected, with instructions to be sent "in the direction of" the destination computer, and it would be passed on until it got to the destination. This is a robust design. Data can be sent from any computer to any other, even if one of those in-between "goes offline" (military euphemism for gets destroyed by a nuclear bomb).

This is how the Internet works. Content filtering is considered damage, and the Internet routes data around damage.

And of course WiFi and WiMAX boxes are manufactured in China, where I see this in widespread use (Internet website filtering in China for the Olympics and in general was mentioned in another thread), where it will be impossible to control for filter such direct "peer to peer" connections. The best the government could do would be to transmit a powerful radio signal that would interfere, but that would be a blatant and rash act (that I wouldn't put past the Chinese government, but then everyone knows what's happening). The next-best would be to monitor everything they can, which is a huge undertaking they're surely already doing.


I don't know if it's a real problem or a hoax, but if the ISPs came up with a package that would filter out all the junk websites, I'd seriously consider buying into it. Whenever I try searching for something on the internet, I end up with a gazillion results and the first page is garbage in terms of reliability.

Are you talking about Google (or other search engine) search results? Firstly, this is a separate issue. If you want to pay extra to STOP getting something (and it's technically feasible to do), ISP's and other services will stand in line to take your money. But this isn't even about the ISP's, it's about seearch engine results.

Deciding on the keywords for searches is a bit of an art and craft, and I doubt simply "paying money" could ever get you better results. I might write something up on it, but I'm not sure how to describe what I do, it's sort of intuitive. Maybe we could discuss this in "tech help" or something.