End of internet as we know it 2012?

[mrgnome]

I just found out internet activists are worried about leaked information about ISPs planning on restricting free internet access, and opting a "pay per klick" type of service. This would enable them to control the "dangerous" free movement of information between people, and of cource would make them make and media companies more money since noone will care about wathing TV at that time.

I just wrote a story about this in my blog mrgnome.pcriot.com, please read it and look at the video.

Thank You
MrGnome

 

[Spartan Erik]

Not too worried, as ISPs that don't restrict access will become more competitive.

What I'm more worried about is the poor infrastructure the internet is built on. With all the data going through the pipes it's no wonder it hasn't sprung a major leak yet

 

[Hazirak]

Not too worried, as ISPs that don't restrict access will become more competitive.

Feel free to prove me wrong, but... I think you're assuming that everyone has a choice over who their ISP is. Thing is, I know many people in the US who would grab another ISP if they could without a second thought, but Comcast happens to be the only broadband provider in the area. There simply isn't another option other than POTS, which for many simply isn't acceptable. Then you've got Verizon who offers fiber optic internet service... and is only too happy to dig up the copper they're forced to share while they lay the fiber that they don't have to share.

Of course, saying the year 2012 may be a bit extreme - different incarnations of this are already being implemented. Might seem insignificant or even borderline noble, but this could very well just be them "testing the waters" for future ventures. Wouldn't be the first time.

 

[CruveniumGX4]

Hmm, I was thinking.

Technology is so advanced, and almost prices for everything are going up too. Do you think the Internet could live till 2012? By that time, it's most likely filled with viruses, spam, I just can't imagine.

The world. Might be ending soon, in a few year. Imagine resources used up so much, in a day. Prices for rice, petrol, oil are going up. Can you imagine, maybe in 2010 the prices for rice are 3x? Just can't think of it. Live life to it's fullest, and don't think too much, or you'll be like me, lol.

 

[marshian]

Let's not talk about the end of the world and continue to the discussion about the end of the internet...
@Hazirak:
You have a great point there, many people can't choose what their isp is, just because it's the only one around... But if you think about it, that makes them vulnerable! Imagine they start with a lot of things their users don't like (pay per click for example). Suddenly, a large part of their customers see their internet bills go up, let's say they double.
Now you assume the poor customers are stuck with their doubled bills and can't do anything about it... but that's wrong... Sooner or later, a person will notice that there's a lot of people paying a lot for their internet and want to change isp's... What do you do if you're in that situation (and have quite some money)? You found a new isp! Don't use the stuff your users don't like (pay per click in this example) and make sure your price is lower then what they're paying now (which is twice the normal amount). This new isp could ask 1.5 times the normal amount of money for their services, and still have a lot of users!

Of course, this would trigger a battle between the old and the new isp, causing their prices to go down overtime, but you've got some margin there...


- Marshian

 

[Hazirak]

You have a great point there, many people can't choose what their isp is, just because it's the only one around... But if you think about it, that makes them vulnerable! Imagine they start with a lot of things their users don't like (pay per click for example). Suddenly, a large part of their customers see their internet bills go up, let's say they double.

Now you assume the poor customers are stuck with their doubled bills and can't do anything about it... but that's wrong... Sooner or later, a person will notice that there's a lot of people paying a lot for their internet and want to change isp's... What do you do if you're in that situation (and have quite some money)? You found a new isp! Don't use the stuff your users don't like (pay per click in this example) and make sure your price is lower then what they're paying now (which is twice the normal amount). This new isp could ask 1.5 times the normal amount of money for their services, and still have a lot of users!

Of course, this would trigger a battle between the old and the new isp, causing their prices to go down overtime, but you've got some margin there...

While it does make them more vulnerable, you have to acknowledge that companies like Comcast are consistently rated average at best by their customers and horrible at worst... but they have yet to lose their monopoly position in areas where they hold it. It's easier for them to buy up any competition rather than actually compete against them, and so far the competition they've had was more willing to sell out to them than compete. If you don't sell out and they want you gone badly enough, they have the resources to hold their prices below average points longer than you can. The average consumer has shown that they will push morals and long-term interests aside for a better price now, especially Joe Average who knows little to nothing about computers aside from they 'just work' and might not know about the long-term effects to begin with.

 

[Smith6612]

The internet most likely isn't going to end in 2012. It's become too important to people already to even lose it. As for ISPs in my area, right now it's Verizon DSL (soon to be FiOS), Verizon Wireless, AT&t Wireless, Sprint Wireless, Time Warner's Roadrunner, and Frontier (which I'm two miles away from their small service area). There's also a few local ISPs in my area such as Wizard Communications (which is dial-up), and then because I'm right by two major cities, there are Tier 1 ISPs like Level 3 and Cogent who would consider my location an On Network location because they have loads of fiber optic links coming into the two nearby cities, and I can get a Wal-Mart like deal on bandwidth from them if I needed to. So really, I'm quite covered

 

[tnl2k7]

Following on from what Spartan Erik said, the Internet is, in my opinion, built on a pretty bad infrastructure. It was never intended for such widespread usage, which has lead to it becoming really inefficient. The old copper phone lines were never set up to cope with the immense about of stress they're under.

The Internet was of course just there to allow basic text and maybe a few graphics to be transferred within a few limited people. Now there's hundreds of protocols, billions of people and unimaginable amounts of data being carried by an old network, which really could do with modernising. DNS could be improved by the right people, phone companies could, over time, upgrade the copper lines with fibre optics....it could be improved beyond compare.

Back on topic I must agree; censorship is a massive issue which needs to be monitored. Dictatorships are dangerous, and put lives at risk. Information is restricted, and a few people have control over the news and everything. The Internet is a prime example of how freedom of speech is important.

I really don't see how ISPs can make it if they do start restricting access though, unless it's enforced. I'd say this is something that needs to be monitored, but I wouldn't expect it any time soon.

-Luke.

 

[frankfriend]

I doubt that the Internet is about to end, but I do not doubt that the forces of restriction will try to shackle it, probably calling the process liberalisation. The forces of darkness are casting huge shadows over so many areas of life, with the massive growth of jobsworth puny wretches cutting our freedoms on all fronts. So the Internat is a prime target!

 

[kkenny]

Feel free to prove me wrong, but... I think you're assuming that everyone has a choice over who their ISP is. Thing is, I know many people in the US who would grab another ISP if they could without a second thought, but Comcast happens to be the only broadband provider in the area. There simply isn't another option other than POTS, which for many simply isn't acceptable. Then you've got Verizon who offers fiber optic internet service... and is only too happy to dig up the copper they're forced to share while they lay the fiber that they don't have to share.

Of course, saying the year 2012 may be a bit extreme - different incarnations of this are already being implemented. Might seem insignificant or even borderline noble, but this could very well just be them "testing the waters" for future ventures. Wouldn't be the first time.

As for my area, AT&T and Comcast are two separated supposedly big competing companies. I have AT&T but it's crap according to speedtest.net compared to Comcast. I'm not sure why I don't have Comcast yet, but I wish I did.

 

[Hazirak]

As for my area, AT&T and Comcast are two separated supposedly big competing companies. I have AT&T but it's crap according to speedtest.net compared to Comcast. I'm not sure why I don't have Comcast yet, but I wish I did.

Wasn't trying to lump everyone in one group. I was just saying, most everyone I know who has Comcast service, between the 24/7 hindering of BitTorrent traffic, service cut-off notices for using too much bandwidth on an unlimited package, and other related practices, would only be too happy to drop them at the first opportunity.

But this isn't about Comcast, AT&T, or any other specific ISP - I only used the names as examples.

... phone companies could, over time, upgrade the copper lines with fibre optics...

Yes, they could, and likely eventually will... but only out of necessity after doing everything they possibly can to avoid it, first. AT&T got a check from the government to upgrade their infrastructure some time back. The upgrade never happened, and the money was never spent... and yet, AT&T complains that the internet's infrastructure will be 100% saturated by 2010.

 

[componentwarehouse]

I dont get why your limited to certain services in the US? Could someone explain how that works, as we have a different system in the UK where anyone can pretty much use any ISP they like, as long as it is distributed through the BT phone network, and not with fibre optics or things like that.

That seems like a better system in the UK, as if you dont like, you can switch, no problem.

But back to the topic, here in the UK, people would just switch ISP if they did that, as you can.

Alex

 

[tnl2k7]

I dont get why your limited to certain services in the US? Could someone explain how that works, as we have a different system in the UK where anyone can pretty much use any ISP they like, as long as it is distributed through the BT phone network, and not with fibre optics or things like that.

That seems like a better system in the UK, as if you dont like, you can switch, no problem.

But back to the topic, here in the UK, people would just switch ISP if they did that, as you can.

Alex

Well, the only broadband service that runs at a speed over 20 kB/s is BT broadband, which is overpriced and pretty damn sucky compared with other ISPs. And BT are a bunch of lazy so and sos, not willing to spend the cash on replacing our crappy lines. Seriously, this should be enforced by the government; it ain't never gonna happen otherwise.

-Luke.

 

[vol7ron]

There is no way an ISP would institute a pay-per-click service. There's no way they could, they don't control the scripts/browser events, unless they force to use their own browser software, which would not be feasible and there would be too many alternatives.

The only thing ISPs could do is to make you start paying for bandwidth usage - meaning, $.05/MB down, $.01/MB up. Something to that affect. What will really be affect is the online-gaming and those that stream video and music. The typical mom/pop peruser that occasionally views a page to go shopping or check the weather would probably be saving money, it's the hardcore users that would be paying more.

DNS could be improved by the right people, phone companies could, over time, upgrade the copper lines with fibre optics....it could be improved beyond compare.

All the major phone companies are using fiber optics. I'd like to know any major company that is not. They converted over 10 years ago.

The issue isn't just the speed, it's also the bandwidth. Fiber Optics also have bandwidth limits.

The problem that people have is they don't understand how telephony structure works. You can't just have the same bandwidth throughout the whole system, there would bottlenecks beyond compare. The system works like a tree - you have a huge cable that acts like the trunk (between the ISPs). Then you get to the branches that are a little smaller (ISPs->Cities) then you get to the stems that are smaller (Cities->Neighborhood Connections).

I think the largest Fiber Optic cabling at the moment is OC-255, which transfers data at I think 13.21 gigabits per second. Stick a few of those on the trunk line, then some OC-192s and OC-48s for neighborhoods and there would be no bandwidth problems for 15-25 years.

 

[Hazirak]

There is no way an ISP would institute a pay-per-click service. There's no way they could, they don't control the scripts/browser events, unless they force to use their own browser software, which would not be feasible and there would be too many alternatives.

It would actually be trivial to implement, considering there are already ISPs that inject ads into web pages as you browse. All that needs to happen is for code to be injected into the page that registers when a user navigates away from that page or closes the window. Got a smartie who disabled JavaScript to avoid getting billed? It would be just about as simple to serve him a page telling him to turn his JavaScript on whenever he tries to browse instead of taking him to where he wants to go.

Another option would be to force users to install a plugin, ActiveX or otherwise, that will log page clicks and send information back to the ISP so they can determine how to bill a user. If the plugin is missing or disabled, the user is served a page saying they need the plugin before they can browse the interwebs. This wouldn't work with as many browsers, but there would potentially be a greater degree of control.

In both cases, if someone manages to find a way around it, they can simply be cut off - it's not hard to write an automated script that can check for and flag accounts with bandwidth usage registered, but a running balance of $0.00.

You don't need control over a browser's behavior to decide what it can and cannot do. You simply need to know how to work with its existing capabilities.

 

[nooshd]

I just wrote a story about this in my blog mrgnome.pcriot.com, please read it and look at the video.

Thank You
MrGnome

Hey, I don't know if it's just me, but the page doesn't come up! The message says page doesn't exist. It would be good to read...

 

[Sohail]

Oh no, I think this might be true as people have even said that the world will in in 2012, whoever knows about this story would probably understand but it's too long for me to explain, search it up in Google if anyone is interested in this.

 

[krotoc]

Based on what I heard, the end isn't suppose to be like this. It's suppose to like the world has too much servers and the underground cables we use today can't support the large amount of data and eventually goes overdrives.

 

[zapperpost]

INTERNET DIES!!! lol
I hate AT&T so much. They charged me a $13.95 setup fee, and when I called them, they said, "That was an accident."! And their prices keep going up, and they are competing with better cable companies that 6x DSL's upstream. And they use THE PHONE LINE!!!

 

[Smith6612]

INTERNET DIES!!! lol
I hate AT&T so much. They charged me a $13.95 setup fee, and when I called them, they said, "That was an accident."! And their prices keep going up, and they are competing with better cable companies that 6x DSL's upstream. And they use THE PHONE LINE!!!

There's nothing wrong with using the phone line. Though cable is more tolerant to the distance of a signal, don't forget that the cable signal also needs a higher SNR than DSL does, and DSL is working over a very weak signal (it has to be so you don't screw up POTS phone service). DSL has been a lot easier to set up though. When I got DSL three years ago, all my provider had to do was come down and install a new NID for us, and change our wiring at the RT which doesn't take too long. They sent us a self installation kit the day before our service was switched on early (which they told us about as well), which told us how to set up the DSL and what to look for, along with connect to my ISP's server to get us started with an account for the modem.

Also, DSL can be pretty fast, though because of the weak signal DSL is stuck with, you can really only get DSL for about 4 miles at the most on ADSL2+ before it gets to dial-up speeds. I'm close enough to the main feed where I am to the point where since I'm running ADSL2+, and my signal is good enough to where I can get a 30Mbps line via DSL on the download, and get around 4Mbps upload. Or, if I was running VDSL2, I could get a full 100Mbps up and down.

But the thing about DSL is, it's got to run through old copper lines, some of which aren't even consisted of twisted pair wire. Some of the telephone lines where I live are fed out of 50+ year old copper, some of which are fed out of those big metal junction boxes, and some of which are fed out of old underground remote terminals. One of the places I go to is at the max physical possible limit for ADSL to send at the speed they have, and despite the age of the copper, their line is working fine without a problem.

AT&T is mainly raising their prices because of how expensive RVADs are for their U-verse, along with the fact that they have a massive terretory and because of the gas prices, which are almost $4.50 in my area.