2012: The Year the Internet Ends

[seita]

2012: The Year the Internet Ends

http://ipower.ning.com/netneutrality

Every significant Internet provider around the globe is currently in talks with access and content providers to transform the internet into a television-like medium: no more freedom, you pay for a small commercial package of sites you can visit

Almost all smaller websites/services will disappear over time and multinationals who are used to using big budgets to brute force their content into every media outlet will finally be able to approach the internet in the same way.

It's very simple. Go there, watch the video. Read the text, spread the word.
Everything we hold dear is in danger, especially small communities such as ours, RPG Maker communities that are far from mainstream will disappear.

This is my way of helping the cause, so please don't take this lightly.

 

[Grathea]

Err...
Taking a look at the rest of their videos, they seem to be a satire website.
The thing that tipped me off that something was off was that after searching, I can find absolutely no corroborating details that aren't just a link to their website.
They give no explanations other than 'we know these things' (paraphrased, but w/e).
Though I wouldn't put this past some ISP's, I highly doubt that what they're saying is true, and isn't just an attempt to draw traffic to their site, something they've been focusing a LOT on lately if you take a look.
My two cents? You've fallen victim to cheap sensationalism with no logical backing.

 

[iceplosion]

Actually Virgin have already said they would do this and Net Neutrality is a real issue, because of a decision in 2005 (No, I'm not getting links right now because it's 7am and I'm tired) it's not protected by law meaning there's (legally) nothing to stop it happening.
And let's be honest, a large percentage of the general public really wouldn't care.

 

[moog]

What the hell.
There's no way something so universally hap hazardous could be instated. This's gotta be an attempt at a joke?

 

[iceplosion]

Uh...no...honestly companies can do whatever they want with their service  as long as it falls within the confines of the law (of course if net neutrality were written into law...) and if they want to not allow their customers access to sites that don't pay them extra they can do that, it's unethical but large businesses being unethical isn't exactly unheard of.

 

[Shyft]

When I opened this a few minutes into the video my screen turned into all Grey lines. its to hard to describe, this has never happened before and my computer is only about a year old. Is anyone else experiencing this problem? I think it might be something about the website.

 

[moog]

Uh...no...honestly companies can do whatever they want with their service  as long as it falls within the confines of the law (of course if net neutrality were written into law...) and if they want to not allow their customers access to sites that don't pay them extra they can do that, it's unethical but large businesses being unethical isn't exactly unheard of.

I still think this is an attempt to get people to come to their site. Those claims are ridiculous.

 

[Shyft]

Uh...no...honestly companies can do whatever they want with their service  as long as it falls within the confines of the law (of course if net neutrality were written into law...) and if they want to not allow their customers access to sites that don't pay them extra they can do that, it's unethical but large businesses being unethical isn't exactly unheard of.

I still think this is an attempt to get people to come to their site. Those claims are ridiculous.

hope ur right

 

[Surmuck]

My two cents? You've fallen victim to cheap sensationalism with no logical backing.

I agree. The thing is, things like this pop up all the time. If all of them came true, then I think we'd be in far worse a situation than we are.
And that, makes four cents.

 

[handsome lamb]

Uh...no...honestly companies can do whatever they want with their service  as long as it falls within the confines of the law (of course if net neutrality were written into law...) and if they want to not allow their customers access to sites that don't pay them extra they can do that, it's unethical but large businesses being unethical isn't exactly unheard of.

I still think this is an attempt to get people to come to their site. Those claims are ridiculous.

Sorry man, it's completely true.

Google Net Neutrality there's a ton of companies that are starting to go this way, or thinking about it. Maybe not 2012, but some time.

 

[moog]

Uh...no...honestly companies can do whatever they want with their service  as long as it falls within the confines of the law (of course if net neutrality were written into law...) and if they want to not allow their customers access to sites that don't pay them extra they can do that, it's unethical but large businesses being unethical isn't exactly unheard of.

I still think this is an attempt to get people to come to their site. Those claims are ridiculous.

Sorry man, it's completely true.

Google Net Neutrality there's a ton of companies that are starting to go this way, or thinking about it. Maybe not 2012, but some time.

What would be a benefit to these companies if they went this route? Would they merge with the larger companies or what not? (Assuming you mean the "ton of companies" are smaller, less recognizable ones)

 

[iceplosion]

No, the larger companies have to pay the large sums of money to be "on the internet" or rather accessible via their service.
It would be less like the internet and more like TV where the companies that can afford to pay get to choose what's there.

The companies pay the ISPs, the ISPs make money, the companies get rid of competitor sites.

 

[Ellie]

The only way this would work is if every single ISP did the same thing at the same time. Because otherwise, everyone'd just move to a new ISP :p.

 

[moog]

The companies pay the ISPs, the ISPs make money, the companies get rid of competitor sites.

Yeah I get all that I mean what would happen to the smaller ones specifically. Getting rid of them by buying them out? Or would they just go away indefinetly? (Cause I mean its not like someone would go to a vague searching site when they could just Google it, so what's it hurting?)

Sorry for all the Q&A, im not technologically literate so these questions have been in the back of my head for quite some time, ironically this topic showed up.

 

[iceplosion]

The only way this would work is if every single ISP did the same thing at the same time. Because otherwise, everyone'd just move to a new ISP :p.

Hence the whole "ISPs in talks" thing.
And really it could be done gradually, there are plenty of cases where people don't have a large choice of ISPs (or no choice at all) and like I said, a large portion of the genral public wouldn't care.

 

[handsome lamb]

Uh...no...honestly companies can do whatever they want with their service  as long as it falls within the confines of the law (of course if net neutrality were written into law...) and if they want to not allow their customers access to sites that don't pay them extra they can do that, it's unethical but large businesses being unethical isn't exactly unheard of.

I still think this is an attempt to get people to come to their site. Those claims are ridiculous.

Sorry man, it's completely true.

Google Net Neutrality there's a ton of companies that are starting to go this way, or thinking about it. Maybe not 2012, but some time.

What would be a benefit to these companies if they went this route? Would they merge with the larger companies or what not? (Assuming you mean the "ton of companies" are smaller, less recognizable ones)

If every satellite TV company gave you all the same channels (including no company specific channels), but for a different price and speed to access those channels, what do you think happens?

The company that gives you the fastest speed for the lowest price, wins.

The problem with this for the Internet, is that bandwidth costs a lot of money. ISPs are finding themselves getting owned by massive bandwidth usage by people downloading 5+GB movies, games....or anything massive like that, and crap like that as well.

By diversyfing, these companies are not only a) no longer making it a "faster speed, lower price" race, b) getting more money off of you, and c) limiting where you go.

For example, let's say randomly Verizon signs a deal with Google and idk Rogers signs a deal with Yahoo, and AOL signs a deal with Microsoft.

Verizon + Rogers decide you can access Google/Yahoo fast, but Yahoo/Google is gonna take 50x longer to load, unless you pay a 1$ fee each month, in which case the other will load normally. AOL being the greedy bitches they are, decide to block your access to Google and Yahoo completely, unless you pay 5$ a month. (prices made up obviously)

etc.



It's dumb, and rather than upgrade the obviously outdated Internet infrastructure, they'd rather just find ways of making more money.

 

[bluehazed]

[sarcasm]OH MY GOD I BELIEVE THIS ENTIRELY EVEN THOUGHT THERE IS NO PROOF SO ALL OF US, LETS HAVE A MASS SUICIDE BEFORE IT HAPPENS.[/sarcasm]

Seriously, this is just another gay-ass rumour, like Y2K. Not gonna happen.

 

[handsome lamb]

[sarcasm]OH MY GOD I BELIEVE THIS ENTIRELY EVEN THOUGHT THERE IS NO PROOF SO ALL OF US, LETS HAVE A MASS SUICIDE BEFORE IT HAPPENS.[/sarcasm]

Seriously, this is just another gay-ass rumour, like Y2K. Not gonna happen.

Maybe you should read up on Net Neutrality and how this is entirely possible.

 

[Grathea]

Handsome Lamb, I agree that something like this is entirely possible, I'm arguing against this specific case.
Like I said, they give no evidence, expect you to trust them at face value, and are the only source that's covered what I would expect to be a large news story. (OK, yeah, there's tons of others, but they all just redirect here.)

 

[bedi nik bzez emak]

;D