2012: The Year the Internet Ends
- Thread starter seita
- Start date
mega_man_aXe
Member
Thats funny...I've also heard somewhere that the world was supposed to end in 2012.
I foresee that we will shift more in that corporate direction, but I highly HIGHLY, H-I-G-H-L-Y doubt it will be in one fell swoop. That's too much to coordinate, all at once. It'll probably be gradual, like increases in taxes, or laws infringing on our privacy. Little freedoms fluttering out the window as softly and quietly as butterflies, over time.
One day in 30 years you'll look at your Google Access bill and realize, "huh, I seem to remember when this shit was free? what happened?"
One day in 30 years you'll look at your Google Access bill and realize, "huh, I seem to remember when this shit was free? what happened?"
bluehazed":gg0js9ec said:
Mm'kay, Y2K was supposed to be a bug that would cause a universal fatal error, dunno how that relates to companies trying to make more money, which we clearly see all the time...
And yes, Net Neutrality is a serious issue in the past couple of years. Because net Neutrality is not guanteed by law, ISP's can choose which sites they let you have access to-- similar in a way to how schools and workplaces block certain sites. As it stands now, it is perfectly legal, and it may start happpening.
(As for an e-doomsday, the Unix timestamp will have a bit-overflow causing a fatal error in all 32-bit programs in the reasonably near future. I think it was somwhere between 2040 and 2070, I forget all of the details. the unix timestamp is the number of seconds since a certain date (I believe it was June 6th 1970 at 0:00 GMT, but again I forget). It isn't something to really worry about because we will be on 64-bit or greater programs. However the number will be eventually greater than 2^32 and at that point there would be a bit overflow
)Back on Topic: I doubt that google's gonna buy into all of this anytime soon
Remember, for a business to increase prices, they either need to do it in such a way that it's unnoticeable (read: slow inflation), or by offering a benefit in exchange. They can't just go, "lol now wot used to be frees now costs dollahs hurhurhur", because it'll cause them to bleed revenue when people say "uh no thx".
The conditional negative reinforcement is an idea, but I don't think it'd be very easy to coordinate, and an easy victor would emerge quickly from that little scuffle between businesses (i.e. who has the most money and asks for the least money).
It would have to start out, say, as a membership. Be a subscribed Yahoo! Member and all Yahoo! Owned Domains load 50% faster [somehow]! Or be a Google Subscriber and get membership access to these websites: Expensive site 1, 2, 3. Or be an AOL subscriber, and get a free puppy!
Then, after the success of such a campaign, the next round would be to have fine print stating that being a subscriber also means you lose/get restricted access to competitor sites. Then eventually, no sites outside the domains they own. Etc. But it'd be a long process and take many many years, gradually.
Take for example, Hotmail.
Way back in the day, when Outlook was hot-hot-hot and Hotmail was new-new-new, it was 100% free to join and 100% free to check your Hotmail account from Outlook. Then, gradually, they started trotting out "special" memberships, with "more" space and file transfer (when, in actuality, it was that the paid accounts had all the original benefits, while new [free] accounts got gimped benefits). After a while, they took away Outlook-access from non-subscribers. So while free hotmail still exists, it's a gimped-ass version.
I got a hotmail account in like 2002 or 3 (and maintained it to today). It actually has all the features of a paid account, because it's so longstanding. I opened a new hotmail account about a year ago, for an address to put on my resume, and low and behold: it was hard as shit to find the ".. Or try Hotmail free!" link, then I got offered a subscription every 10 seconds, then I got a gimped version with wayyy less file transfer and space.
It's all gradual, baby.
The conditional negative reinforcement is an idea, but I don't think it'd be very easy to coordinate, and an easy victor would emerge quickly from that little scuffle between businesses (i.e. who has the most money and asks for the least money).
It would have to start out, say, as a membership. Be a subscribed Yahoo! Member and all Yahoo! Owned Domains load 50% faster [somehow]! Or be a Google Subscriber and get membership access to these websites: Expensive site 1, 2, 3. Or be an AOL subscriber, and get a free puppy!
Then, after the success of such a campaign, the next round would be to have fine print stating that being a subscriber also means you lose/get restricted access to competitor sites. Then eventually, no sites outside the domains they own. Etc. But it'd be a long process and take many many years, gradually.
Take for example, Hotmail.
Way back in the day, when Outlook was hot-hot-hot and Hotmail was new-new-new, it was 100% free to join and 100% free to check your Hotmail account from Outlook. Then, gradually, they started trotting out "special" memberships, with "more" space and file transfer (when, in actuality, it was that the paid accounts had all the original benefits, while new [free] accounts got gimped benefits). After a while, they took away Outlook-access from non-subscribers. So while free hotmail still exists, it's a gimped-ass version.
I got a hotmail account in like 2002 or 3 (and maintained it to today). It actually has all the features of a paid account, because it's so longstanding. I opened a new hotmail account about a year ago, for an address to put on my resume, and low and behold: it was hard as shit to find the ".. Or try Hotmail free!" link, then I got offered a subscription every 10 seconds, then I got a gimped version with wayyy less file transfer and space.
It's all gradual, baby.
@Venetia: yeah. my hotmail has 5gb now. thats up from the 256mb i had when i signed up. Gmail is still superior tho.
Anyways, this would only be possible if all providers would do this, and some wouldnt, causing them to get the majority of customers, forcing the other companies to change. its like That 5 friends unlimited talk and text thing some cell phone provider came up with, now pretty much all of them do.
Soo.. yeah, prexus and venetia are right.
Anyways, this would only be possible if all providers would do this, and some wouldnt, causing them to get the majority of customers, forcing the other companies to change. its like That 5 friends unlimited talk and text thing some cell phone provider came up with, now pretty much all of them do.
Soo.. yeah, prexus and venetia are right.
iceplosion
Member
Which is why they have talks, legally binding contracts and four years of preparations.
Anyway this isn't just an issue for America/Canada, the UK is at risk too (especially with companies like virgin media)
iceplosion
Member
That "chart" doesn't belong to that site, it's a pretty well known picture depicting net neutrality at its worst....it's been around for a few years now.