The End Of The Internet?

[+JuggerNaut+]

an interesting article that would certainly change the way alot of us get online if somethihg along these lines came true. within the article, make sure you read the bit named "mining your data" using deep packet inspection. yay.

The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online.

Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are developing strategies that would track and store information on our every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing system, the scope of which could rival the National Security Agency. According to white papers now being circulated in the cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the deepest pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major advertisers--would get preferred treatment. Content from these providers would have first priority on our computer and television screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out.

Under the plans they are considering, all of us--from content providers to individual users--would pay more to surf online, stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling new subscription plans that would further limit the online experience, establishing "platinum," "gold" and "silver" levels of Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received.

[Foo]

I'd almost welcome it because I think there's a solid chance of a grassroots movement in creating community networks - Wireless equipment is now trivially cheap and for urban areas it would be possible to connect hundreds of people using minimal equipment.

As for how many people would have the know-how, patience or drive to do that come the time, who knows.

Point is many applications of the internet can be acheived on a local scale and yeild similar benefits. Plus you lose a lot of the commercialised crap that's built up over the last 10 years.

I remember when the net used to be pretty much game sites, porn and universities.

[plained]

ah the pre-internet world

[+JuggerNaut+]

I'd almost welcome it because I think there's a solid chance of a grassroots movement in creating community networks - Wireless equipment is now trivially cheap and for urban areas it would be possible to connect hundreds of people using minimal equipment.

As for how many people would have the know-how, patience or drive to do that come the time, who knows.

Point is many applications of the internet can be acheived on a local scale and yeild similar benefits. Plus you lose a lot of the commercialised crap that's built up over the last 10 years.

I remember when the net used to be pretty much game sites, porn and universities.

i don't think i'd "welcome" it in such a sense, but it would certainly be the catalyst for multiple developments of smaller scaled networks directly aimed at users like most of us. certainly not an improbability, but would be a shame for this sort of scenario to happen.

[Underpants?]

I don't ever remember foo's internet, in fact, correct me if I'm wrong but I think KB articles were around before NT4. Thus, breaking apart the internet to me=loss of resources and ultimately limitation / privitization of once public information. Am I mistaken?

[ScooterG]

No, I think you've got the right take on this...unfortunately.

[+JuggerNaut+]

some white papers on the subject

http://www.democraticmedia.org/issues/n ... ality.html

[Grandpa Stu]

a couple points i want to touch on...

As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of AT&T, told Business Week in November, "Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!"

but they arent really "free" are they? dont these companies such as those mentioned still pay for usage of those "pipes?" i know on an individual level we all pay a subscription fee to get online but i thought that also applied to online companies, no?

and foo, i had similar thoughts but on section of the article sorta dashed my hopes...

Besides their business interests, telephone and cable companies also have a larger political agenda. Both industries oppose giving local communities the right to create their own local Internet wireless or wi-fi networks.

i realize that quote doesnt tie exactly into what you're saying but it holds a certain amount of significance. a grassroots ISP can only go so far until it has to tap into one of the big brothers in order to retrieve data from far reaching places. the companies in tact have the current equipment and wires already laid out--i couldn't even begin to speculate how much money it would require to basicaly re-lay all of that junk to get to the state where we are now. the major communications companies already have a monopoly on us of sorts in this regards and it will be even more set in stone if this new proposal comes to full affect.

but, like everything else of this nature i'll believe it till i see it. until then i will oppose it but i'm not gonna lose sleep over it.

[Kat]

In the UK ISPs have to 'buy' time from the main BT network, which then has the end user subscribing to the ISPs service, so yes, time is bought from the main network infrastructure.

The thing about WiFi networks is that in the UK radio transmission frequencies are regulated as well, WiFi uses a specific bandwidth iirc so in many ways it's already 'privatised' ('watched').

There'd probably massive political opposition to 'local networks' becasue it'd be something over which they have even less control than they currently do over the internet, I mean how long have political bodies being trying to get a grip on current ISPs and user data!?.

[Nightshade]

Goddamn money-grubbing corporate douchebags.

[R00k]

Goddamn money-grubbing corporate douchebags.

Sums up most of my thoughts on the matter.

Foo, your community-based internet ideal is great in theory. The problem is, in that situation you're not only going to lose massive amounts of resources due to being more isolated, you're going to lose most of the rendundancy/reliability of the internet in its current form, and you're also going to be going back to dial-up speeds when you are connecting to anything outside of your local network.

The community-based/decentralized internet would be great if it could match the usefulness and availability of the current net, but I don't think that's possible without massive investment from somewhere. And once you have massive investment, you're right back to the commercial internet we already have.

[dzjepp]

There's no way this is going to happen.

[+JuggerNaut+]

There's no way this is going to happen.

"no way"?

don't be so sure.

[seremtan]

Goddamn money-grubbing corporate douchebags.

[Transient]

I remember when the net used to be pretty much game sites, porn and universities.

This just made me realize that at some point later in my life, some kid will ask me how the internet got started.

"It all started with geeks and porn, kid. Geeks and porn."

[R00k]

The internet started in my dorm room!!!!

[bitWISE]

As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of AT&T, told Business Week in November, "Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!"

That's like the owner of a rental property coming up to you and demanding more rent because you make too much money.

[Captain]

But what would happen to the evergrowing pornography, hacker, or cannibals-finding-people-to-eat-over-the-internet industries?

[zewulf]

This just sounds like AOHELL taken a step further :icon6:

[mjrpes]

Wouldn't major internet portals like yahoo and google be adversely affected? So wouldn't companies like google and yahoo be on the our side and do their best to inform the consumer of this issue and defend the internet as it stands now?

[+JuggerNaut+]

...and also could be a reason why Google's been buying a good share of dark fiber

[eepberries]

That would be kinda neat if Google ended up to be the superhero of the new age internets

GOOGLE HAS COME TO TOWN
COME TO SAVE YOUR TORRENT DOWNLOADS
MONEY TOOK THEM AWAY
NOW THE NET'S REALLY GAY
BUT WAIT 'TIL GOOGLE SAVES THE DAY!

[Scourge]

Googlenet?

[+JuggerNaut+]

AOL is rolling out a paid email service to "combat spam"

In a bid to protect its members from e-mail fraud and phishing, and to offer consistency to commercial e-mail senders, AOL today will begin implementing Goodmail's cryptographic CertifiedEmail program and phasing out its IP-based Enhanced Whitelist.

"Our focus and goal here is to provide a safer and more secure environment for our consumers, and restore some trust in the e-mail inbox," Charles Stiles, AOL's postmaster, told ClickZ News.

CertifiedEmail will cost senders a fraction of a cent per message sent, which Gingras said will be offset by the ROI it generates in the form of assured delivery, improved open rates, and enhanced click-through rate. Rates have not been set in stone, and Goodmail expects to offer senders significant discounts through 2006 under its charter program, he added.

article

[eepberries]

Why would anybody pay to send an email?