The internet will die in 2012

[1313Jr.1313]

i know that this may not be specific to the fart bar and should probably go to the cafe forum, but not everybody checks the cafe forum and this is something that EVERYBODY here should see. if this happens then this forum will die. ggg will die. fartbabes? dead. all that we will be left with is myspace, google, yahoo, wikipedia, and the other "big sites." the basic premise is that in 2012 ALL major ISPs will be switching to a new format that will literally KILL THE INTERNET AS WE KNOW IT!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2XPiqhN_Ns

http://ipower.ning.com/netneutrality

this is not just some crap that has not been researched. for the short story on what's going to happen, read the article in the second link. if english isn't your first language, get it translated. the picture that i'm linking to
(http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://skeptisys.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/5z6vt4n3.jpg&imgrefurl=http://skeptisys.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/without-net-neutrality/&h=507&w=744&sz=85&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=9LCMoadGUe-PuM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=141&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnet%2Bneutrality%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%2 6sa%3DG) is pretty much what the internet will become. this will not be a slow procedure either. they will literally activate these plans overnight.

[1313Jr.1313]

http://skeptisys.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/5z6vt4n3.jpg
there's the picture

[Nicko9y]

oh god, no.

[lerkerboi]

lol.

That would never work, people would stop using the internet, and build their own networks, one way or another, it would be done.

[beezo]

I dont think this would happen either, just seems pointless with more loss then gain by doing it.

[1313Jr.1313]

Originally posted by lerkerboi
lol.

That would never work, people would stop using the internet, and build their own networks, one way or another, it would be done.

no, the big companies will abuse the monopoly (monopoly together) and keep any individuals out. this will only work because they will leave no alternatives. what we are on is a forum, not a network. if you use their lines (cable, dsl, or regular dial up as well as the satellite networks currently out there) you will not be able to create your own network. unless you physically hooked an ethernet cable up from your computer to any other computers in the network (or something to that extent) there will be no way for you to create a network. as it says, if you want something not in the package you will have to pay a subscription fee FOR EACH SITE per month, plus the fee from the site itself if it has one. this is something that people have to fix now, before it's completely set in stone.

[beezo]

I dont think it would work, it looks like theres too much loss then gain. Loads of people would leave and not bother, I know i sure would, just a waste of money really. Why would I pay extra money when i cant see what i want. Just makes no sense. It would never work.

But its a crazy world where all sorts of stupid crap happens so i dunno.

[bro3886x]

This isn't true at all. The only event happening in 2012 is that the majority of ISPs are switching to LLU networking, and this subscription model is completely false.

[1313Jr.1313]

really though, do you think that people would just leave the internet? people will continue on as is, but the thing is that they will have no alternatives. look at radio. it used to be (in america at least) that people would go around and have their own radio stations. now that time is gone (different reasons of course), but have people stopped listening to the radio? the same applies to television. also, there would be HUGE gain by the people making the switch from advertising and the like.

bro3886x, i can see that you didn't read OR watch the vid so i'd like to know how you know what is in the vid is false, having not watched it (unless you did in which case i really have no idea where you're coming from). the subscription model (i'm assuming you mean the pic) is not EXACTLY what it will look like, but it WILL be something along those lines. i bring in evidence to show that it's true, what have you brought to say otherwise? in all fairness though, had it been 6 days ago i would be on your side about this, but a significant amount of NDAs were disclosed on may 30th (as stated in the vid AND article) that say otherwise and you can't exactly ignore them.

the fact of the matter that net neutrality is getting closer and closer to being eliminated every day that nothing gets done.

[Connect]

Nigga please...

[Gasskisser]

I don't think the worst-case scenario, as described in the video and article, will happen.

The only way it could work would be if ALL internet companies agreed to create this 'brave new world' - and there are at least two problems with that.

1) Current US anti-trust laws already outlaw this kind of conspiracy. America isn't the whole world, but if companies can't do it here, it will severely limit their power to do it elsewhere.

2) There's a big financial reward for internet companies that don't agree to the new model - they will gain HUGE numbers of customers as users run away from the other companies.

This is not to say that things won't get worse. Already, most major ISPs are using bandwidth restrictions to reduce traffic to high-volume sites like BitTorrent. That trend is likely to continue and expand.

Also, I just read yesterday that Comcast is testing a new pricing model with one price for monthly downloading - up to 40 gigabytes. Users who download more than that will be charged $1 per gigabyte. They're testing it in two small markets. I predict this model will be highly unpopular and that Comcast won't implement it nationally. If they do, users will run away in droves.

If you think about it, the most common broadband model now uses a kind of across-the-board bandwidth throttle: the more you pay, the faster service you get. I don't think anyone thinks this is unfair. Why would it be unfair in future for an ISP to offer super-fast downloads from a partner or partners, say a movie downloading service like Netflix or music service like Napster? Maybe you could download from their partner sites at something like 10 Mbps and all other sites at 5 Mbps. As long as the company was upfront about it, and didn't otherwise discriminate against other traffic, I wouldn't have a problem with that kind of model. I might even choose an ISP that was partnered with a site I use a lot.

In general, I'm in favor of Net Neutrality, but there can be problems. For example, what about spam and hacking? If companies are required by law to give all traffic exactly the same priority, how are they going to be able to restrict access to these types of abuses? Still, in general, net neutrality is the way to go. And a lot of powerful companies, including Google and Microsoft are lobbying hard to get net neutrality laws passed.

I'm optimistic that things will be basically OK.

If you're really concerned and want to do something about it, go to http://savetheinternet.com. You can read the latest, sign petitions and so forth.

[SionDS]

I thought the idea of no net nutrality was that sites themselves would have to pay for how fast they were over a cable companies tubes, and....thats it!

It also would not be a monopoly as long as other companies were in on it. Even with a handfull, competician could drive innovation. Look at cell phone companies for example. Of course, the free market we have now would be MUCH better and is worth defending.

[1313Jr.1313]

all major isp companies are in on it.

"There's a big financial reward for internet companies that don't agree to the new model - they will gain HUGE numbers of customers as users run away from the other companies."
the problem is that the physical lines themselves are owned by the companies (city funded, corporate owned). that is why a newcomer can't take the business, it would cost too much unless somebody started launching satellites now and set it up wireless. as for monopolies, look at cartels and "partnerships" (couldn't think of the right term, but that seems right enough) like opec. even though they are individual companies/countries, if opec decided to shut off oil to the americas we'd be screwed (unless we dipped into our reserves). the same will happen with the internet companies.

"Internet providers have realized that the only way to not lose massive amounts of customers over this is to make sure there are no alternatives, that's why all major Internet providers are currently making agreements and planning to switch simultaneously somewhere in the year 2012."
all of them are planning on switching, ALL of them. i'm pretty sure that would be collusion (god damn it, i can't think of these words today). either way, if this happens and people don't speak out about it (thanks for the link by the way, gasskisser) we'll be screwed.

"Current US anti-trust laws already outlaw this kind of conspiracy. America isn't the whole world, but if companies can't do it here, it will severely limit their power to do it elsewhere."
technically, it can be argued that there is no conspiracy and they are just checking out a new format. also, if they call it a "test run" or something like that and don't set a final date, the law will rule in their favor. on top of that, the odds are that they will find a loophole and if they don't they can just buy one. worst case scenario, we don't give them a loophole and they simply close down (suspend all services) and the internet would literally die.

-edit: besides, if we do everything we can to prevent this from happening assuming the worst case scenario, the odds of the worst case scenario happening drop very fast.

[mastershake]

I don't know, this seems like sort of hoax, but then again I'm usually skeptic. The problem with this is that there's more to the internet than web browsing. Unless the ISPs block all the ports besides 80 someone could easily create sites on another TCP port. I highly doubt the ISPs would restrict access to only port 80 because so much goes on besides web browsing.

[1313Jr.1313]

um... nobody will be able to access any "ports" (i'm assuming you aren't referring to... never mind) because the line itself will be monitored. because you are using their property, this is legal. just like if you are using my ball (football or whatever) i could know how you use it. i could also tell you not to do certain things with it (like start fires or kill people) and if you do those things i can just take my ball back. this is the EXACT (more or less) thing that will be happening. or we could put it this way. it doesn't matter what ports are and aren't blocked if your computer isn't even connected.

[SionDS]

Cable is not the only way to get the internet and never will be. So if cable companies do this, and make it suck, there are always alternatives.

Look at the internet in the late 80s/early 90's, most folks only had a few ISPs to sign up with, they all sucked and charged by the hr, but things always got better because of competition.

Paying $50 a month to get no more/no less than 200 sites will never ever happen. That isnt even what net neutrality is. IF something like that did happen, then people would be beating down the doors to get an ISP that uses satalight, which could come from any country. It might not be cheap now, but if there is demand for it, prices will go down, just like cable internet did when it was new.

Simply put, the internet is too big, and can be accessed in too many different ways to be controlled by any one industry.

I'll say again, I want net neutrality to stay. If my state wasn't already on the side of net neutrality I would write some letters and vote based on this(I try to stay active in state politics), but if there is every a tiered system, it will suck for 2-3 years max before consumers get the kind of internet they want, be it cable or no cable.

[SionDS]

This also reminds me, I forgot what it was called, but there was some service I used back in high school to get into sites they blocked at school. You went to a site, that would load another site through theirs, so the URL you were seeing never showed up in the web logs or got blocked out. I used it to read the penny arcade forums and look at porn with a few friends. Not fetish stuff of course, mostly celeb nudes, stuff like that :P

Come to think of it, take a look at China. They have their massive government trying to control the internet, much as you say these cable companies will, and people can still easily get around it with ways listed above. China is a perfect example of how difficult(impossible) it is to control the internet.

[1313Jr.1313]

i would completely agree with you if it was just the cable companies, but it is the cable companies, phone companies, and the current satellite companies. the reason that china can't control the internet from china is because the internet is out there and all that china can try to do (afghanistan too as well as many countries including [to a lesser extent] the united states) is block certain sites from entering their land, so to speak. that will fail because the internet is there and accessible, but what if the sites themselves were unaccessible because they weren't around anymore. websense (sp?) got their money from the schools to keep out porn or whatever, but they did a half assed job of it and kept the rest of the money. you could literally access porn from highschools using google search and as long as the Google box was up there you could look at all the porn you want. the cable companies, phone companies, and current satellite companies are the people getting into this whole profit based screwing. the only alternatives are the ones that aren't out yet who will be when this starts getting more public.

[SionDS]

No cable that can get you online enters china without going through the government filter, and people have been getting around it since day 1. I think it's safe to say that the Chinese government is more efficient and smart than our American cable companies. With that in mind, Im not going to be afraid that I wont be able to access anything I want some way or another to get around a tiered cable internet ISP.

The same thing is currently happening in United Arab Emirates countries like Dubai. The government already regulates the domestic cable, so people just get their service form another country. If a government cant control the internet, then private owners in a free market with no regulation such as America dont even stand a chance.

I doubt all ISPs(phone, cable, sat) are behind this, but even if they are, and it goes through and pisses people off, someone is going to see a market for unregulated internet where people are willing to pay, or even get it for free. Take a look at this:
http://www.beussery.com/blog/index.php/2008/05/why-google-wifi-matters/

This is no small company. Google has the resources to make this happen if there is ever a need. Pretty much any web company HATES the idea of not having net nutrality like we do now, and they will fight for a free system because it's good for their business. There is plenty of money out there to fill the gap. If net neutrality is struck down, the cable companies will be killing themselves just like the music companies are right now. People, especially American consumers, really really hate restrictions.

I can give you any number of examples for what happens when companies piss off the people who pay them:

-DRM music ----->Napster, Kazaa, Torrents

-TV ads-------->TiVo fast fowarding, torrents

-Print media----->Blogs

-Shitty American made cars-------------->Imports

-expensive land line phone survice with cold calls-------> cell phones

-Paying 10c to send an email-------->Free hotmail

-Playing commercials before shitty hollywood movies------>wait for DVD

-Beta MAXs regulation of what can be sold on their tapes------------>unregulated VHS format

-Internet Explorer--------->Firefox

-Norton Anti-virus------------>FREE AVG

People AlWAYS want to pay for something better, and there are always business competing for their money. Name me one technology related service that you have to pay more now, for less than you were getting 10, even 5 years ago. It just doesn't exist.

[1313Jr.1313]

and yet, it IS happening. there is no longer any question over whether or not they are going to do this, the only questions are how long after the set date will this take effect and how are we going to react then or before it happens.

[SionDS]

As always with the worldwide history of free market economics, we will respond with what is best for us. That's why I dont see such a grim future.

Do you really think the internet with "die" in 2012?

And what is exactly happening so far? These sites say all major ISP are "in talks." If they were set on doing this, then I think someone would have taken the first step by now. Look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality_in_the_United_States

Read the intro, and read about the bills that have been introduced, and any references if you have any unanswered questions. With a democratic congress and very likely dem POTUS coming soon, it looks better and better for us. And this is also interesting:

State regulations

In the United States, New York has established net neutrality as a telecommunications standard (See 16 NYCRR Part 605).

If this stands in NY, it will stand in other states, so if you live in a blue state then the chances are pretty good that the internet will not be dead for you by 2012.

Are there other sources for this? Im not saying it's not true, but I do have some very basic questions about this:

-What is the evidence for "all ISPs around the world" being in talks and planning? Did internal memos from all the worlds ISPs leak or something? Have all ISPs CEOs said something about it? They don't have a single reference on that page.

-2012...did they just make this number up? I read these sites, and what evidence do they have that leads to 2012?

So when thinking about this whole issue, these are the basic questions we have to ask:

1. Can it happen?
2. Will it happen?
3. If it does happen, do we have alternatives?

[1313Jr.1313]

i honestly hope that you're right on this one.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a.yXfQUu.sEo

these aren't ALL of the companies involved obviously. also, it wouldn't be ALL of the isp's doing it, but ALL of the big ones. the specifics on the leaks are violated NDA's.

so can it happen? it already has been happening on a small scale.
will it happen? it is on a small scale but i really hope it doesn't turn into the worst that it can.
if it does? we will only have alternatives from people who have money who are willing to invest it. i like the fact that google is on our side, but it will suck if they fall through.

[dinin2]

hah, there will always be people affraid whenever someone crys wolf.

i checked the net neutrality website ( the source of the hoax beacose it is indeed a hoax ) and all i saw was a bunch of little brats inventing an imaginary imminent net crisis to play hitler style with us. :fuck

especially the guys with black hair and glasses, little pretentious self-rightous foul

just for the way he talks to people on the net id beat some reality into him...

[1313Jr.1313]

Originally posted by dinin2
hah, there will always be people affraid whenever someone crys wolf.

i checked the net neutrality website ( the source of the hoax beacose it is indeed a hoax ) and all i saw was a bunch of little brats inventing an imaginary imminent net crisis to play hitler style with us. :fuck

especially the guys with black hair and glasses, little pretentious self-rightous foul

just for the way he talks to people on the net id beat some reality into him...

i hope you realize how bad you sound right now considering... and you... but...
i guess that you're 100% right, it's not like this exact thing has been around longer than these kids. wait, that's wrong, it HAS been going on longer than these kids have had their site, assuming you are right and everything i've posted is from the same kids. " http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a.yXfQUu.sEo " to be honest, since these kids own bloomberg i think that they are a valid resource.

[dinin2]

just a bunch of faggots playing us for fools, have you seen their other youtube clips? totally immature.

[1313Jr.1313]

Originally posted by dinin2
just a bunch of faggots playing us for fools, have you seen their other youtube clips? totally immature.

that isn't relevant in the least and you failed to explain how bloomberg news just happens to be owned by them.

also, i actually have seen some of their other youtube clips and other than the names i really don't see what you're talking about.

[SionDS]

That source is almost a year old, notice they said it was a republican majority, not the case today, and likely not the case for a number of years to come. The legality of net neutrality and implementation are very different issues.

Not that it's the same issue, but does anyone remember when Sega of all companies made it's own ISP, SegaNet, which prioritized online game content over the phone lines?

[1313Jr.1313]

4 years, lol.

and yeah, i remember seganet briefly. i though that they got shut out by the phone companies because they were "illegally" using the lines when they refused to pay a majority of their profits accordingly. at least, that was the word on the street.

[1313Jr.1313]

i noticed that bigdawg is logged in so i'm just going to safeguard this thread really fast by saying that anyone who says that piracy is going to be the thing that kills the internet is an instant jackass (or mentions ggg in this thread other than this mention) and should be ignored in this thread.

[dinin2]

i think it is plenty relevent, should we belive the word of some 18 year old kids playing WOW and saying slang all the time?

and look how he kepps showing off his girlfriend using her as a sex object.

the issue here is credibility, and today any punk can start his own company...

sega. net? what about WII net? connect yourself to internet fart clips straight on your TV. ( like the mandy masturbation clip mmmm )

[1313Jr.1313]

ok, so let me get this straight... we shouldn't believe that this is happening because ONE source happens to be people between the ages of 18-24, am i getting this right? or is it that ONE of them shows off his girlfriend as a sex object (to get the attention of those who aren't already interested) with her permission and it suddenly isn't a credible source? also, i hope that you realize that they gain nothing tangible out of doing this, so no, it has yet to be proven that this source isn't credible. the best part is, they are NOT the only source of this, so even if you don't like this source that doesn't mean that it's suddenly false.

if a black accountant told you what you needed to do to get out of debt (assuming you had a large debt) then you wouldn't do it is basically what you're saying.

[dinin2]

then lets see the other sources. where is the prouf?

[1313Jr.1313]

way to make yourself look like a jackass. you JUST NOW proved that you don't even read my replies. on that note, i gave one other source IN A REPLY to your statement above (direct link, in fact). now that we've established your mental capacity, that means that whatever you say should be disregarded and taken to mean the opposite is true, right? (it's not like you can argue against that without proving me right anyway) you argue that it isn't happening. therefore, it must be happening. there's another set of proof right there. congratulations.

[dinin2]

ur a moron and an idiot ( the kids own the link you posted you retard )

go fuck yourself assface

[1313Jr.1313]

so i can quote you when you say that they own bloomberg news. and you call me an idiot?

[Gasskisser]

What I've noticed since you started this thread is how much the discussion reminds of the "they'll never shut down filesharing" discussions from five years ago.

Kind of scary, actually.... :(

[SionDS]

Originally posted by Gasskisser
What I've noticed since you started this thread is how much the discussion reminds of the "they'll never shut down filesharing" discussions from five years ago.

Kind of scary, actually.... :(

Unless I am reading your post wrong, how so? They never did shut down file sharing.

[Gasskisser]

Originally posted by SionDS

Originally posted by Gasskisser
What I've noticed since you started this thread is how much the discussion reminds of the "they'll never shut down filesharing" discussions from five years ago.

Kind of scary, actually.... :(

Unless I am reading your post wrong, how so? They never did shut down file sharing.

Maybe I'm out of touch now, but it seems to me the "golden age" of file sharing (napster, kazaa) is long gone and will never be back. I used to enjoy putting stuff out there that not too many people knew about and I learned a lot about different musical styles and artists by browsing through people's shared folders and downloading whatever looked interesting. It was free so no big deal if I didn't like something.

(As a side note, I used to buy A LOT more music then than I do now. A good 25% of my CDs came from artists I discovered on Napster and Kazaa.)

I know about emule (etc) but after all the lawsuits, I've never been comfortable enough to bother learning the new ways. The only sharing I do now is Rapidshare and so forth.

I'm not the only one. I don't know anyone who still does much file sharing. Maybe that means I'm old. :(

But my point is, while file sharing does technically still exist, it's not the same. The end of net neutrality might not technically "kill" the internet, but it probably would change it into something very different from what we have today. In 2015, people may be talking about now as "the golden age of the internet"...

[1313Jr.1313]

that is actually the biggest reason that i posted this thread. at first i didn't know whether or not to respond because as sion said in case you were being sarcastic to prove a point, filesharing still does exist, just to a much much lesser extent and i'm afraid that may also happen to the internet. filesharing isn't dead and the internet won't be, but filesharing as it was IS dead and that may happen to the internet :cry.

i knew people who got into napster and kazaa at the very end of the run and all of the stuff now (limewire, bearshare, emule, etc...) are just cheap imitations of the beauty that once was. besides, a friend of my uncle uses limewire and there are companies out there that put spyware in mp3s and once the mp3 is downloaded it sends out all information from the folder it's put in (i.e. all of the songs in that folder) and then the company sues them for illegally downloading music. my uncle's friend, as i was saying, got sued for nearly $60,000. he fought it at first when it was just blackmail, but then it actually became a lawsuit and they had the information so he settled out of court and paid $10,000. filesharing nowadays isn't even worth it to me.

[FartWhilePee]

I love DSL

[RandomPoster]

If this happened it would be horrible

[RandomPoster]

I just realized something... won't there be a huge resistance from websites that make money off the internet (Porn sites, etc.) as well as other companies like Wal-Mart, Target etc. who have their own websites?

[Remington]

It seems like everyone is saying that something BAD is going to happen when the year 2012 hits.

[FartPallete]

In the year 2012 women will mysteriously stop farting forever!!!!!!!
Now that is doom.

[Remington]

Originally posted by FartPallete
In the year 2012 women will mysteriously stop farting forever!!!!!!!
Now that is doom.

That would fuckin' SUCK!