PDA

View Full Version : 2012: The Year The Internet Ends?



bellisimo
06-01-2008, 05:36 PM
could there be any truth to this?!


06/01/2008 - 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 and you'll have to pay for seperate subscriptions for every site that's not in the package.
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.
This well-known illustration of why we need net neutrality turns out to be very close to the truth:


http://ipower.ning.com/extensions/gfx/netneutrality.jpg




more info @

http://ipower.ning.com/netneutrality

rexnom
06-01-2008, 05:44 PM
Anthem?

Trader Joe
06-01-2008, 06:05 PM
I'd be shocked if they did this.

LoneGranger33
06-01-2008, 06:17 PM
Time to blow up some offices.

Bball
06-01-2008, 06:28 PM
I haven't followed the link but this seems like an overhyped scare tactic to me.

For one thing, we already have cable (and satellite) television. I'm not sure what benefit the overall effect of the above proposal would be to morph the internet into something that more resembles cable TV.

More importantly, many of the things that make up the world wide web want to remain available to everyone. They'd probably prefer that ISP's offer broadband connections for FREE... not charge and place their sites into tiers.

Besides that, sites that do want to charge for their services are certainly able to do so already. Pay sites exist all over the web. I see very little benefit to these sites to enter into agreements that would bury them further behind a curtain. If anything, they'd prefer to see potential customers get on the internet for free (to maximize their potential customer base).

Sites already have advertising... Again, I see no real benefit for content providers to enter into ISP agreements that limits, not maximizes, their customer base.

Certainly, as time goes on people will find creative ways to try and profit from the internet. Laws will continue to evolve. It's the World Wide Web, not the Wild Wild West, and I look for some of the 'anything goes' attitude and ability to get limited more and more over time. But that doesn't mean I look for the web to evolve into something that looks remarkably like a product we already have (cable tv).

-Bball

Shade
06-01-2008, 07:37 PM
They've been trying to push this through for a while now.

This is America. If there's money to be made, someone will find a way to bleed everyone for it.

SoupIsGood
06-01-2008, 10:30 PM
If they did that I feel like those significant internet providers would fail to remain significant in a pretty quick way. The fringe providers still offering "neutral" service would get booming business, and all the giants would die. No way they ever do this, IMO, unless it's somehow written into law.

Shade
06-01-2008, 10:39 PM
Isn't 2012 the year the world is supposed to end?

I would imagine the internet would end by default.

Kegboy
06-01-2008, 10:40 PM
The real question is, where does PD fall into this. It's a good thing the blogs never took off, or we'd definitely be in the upper tier.

I'm surprised there's not a porn level. I'd hate to see PD cost $12.99 for a 3-hour block just because of DSP.

Kegboy
06-01-2008, 10:41 PM
Isn't 2012 the year the world is supposed to end?

I would imagine the internet would end by default.

Well, it was built to survive a nuclear war. Of course, that's before AT&T got their hands on it.

Anthem
06-01-2008, 11:13 PM
For one thing, we already have cable (and satellite) television. I'm not sure what benefit the overall effect of the above proposal would be to morph the internet into something that more resembles cable TV.
I never thought I'd say this, Bball, but you're not cynical enough. The above proposal is FAR more beneficial than an open internet. And by "beneficial" I mean "easy for media companies to monetize."

Bad for consumers? Sure. But good for Comcast and Time Warner Cable.

This is basic net neutrality stuff. The ISPs want to double-charge for their connections... charge me once for the privilege of connecting to Google, and charge Google once for the privilege of connecting to me. PLUS charge Google for its own connection to the Net. There's about a billion writeups on the web: google is your friend. Here's an example of this principle in action:


Virgin Media CEO Neil Berkett has attacked the principle of net neutrality, whereby internet service providers do not interfere with or degrade the speed at which content is delivered from websites to consumers, branding it as “bollocks”.

Berkett’s cable operator ranks as the second largest internet service provider in the UK with approximately 3.6m customers.

In an interview with the Royal Television Society’s Television magazine, Berkett said that “this net neutrality thing is a load of bollocks”, and revealed that Virgin is already in talks with unnamed content providers about paying to have their content delivered faster than others.

Feeding into the debate between internet service providers and the BBC over iPlayer, Berkett even warned that public service broadcasters who choose not to pay for faster access to Virgin’s subscriber base would end up in “bus lanes”, effectively having their content delivered to consumers at a lower speed.

Thus far, Ofcom has made little comment on the network neutrality debate. In 2007, long before the current iPlayer discussions, the then Ofcom policy chief Douglas Scott indicated that the regulator planned a “hands off” approach to the issue. Scott has since departed the regulator for Channel 4.

Here's another perspective:

7vD0g9Z0egQ