2012: The Year The Internet Ends

[Maxintosh]

The date might not be an absolute, but don't kid yourself, the battle for the Internet is on.

This is why I refuse to buy an iPhone. AT&T has been in the forefront to control the internet for years! Anyone who who supports AT&T is supporting the end of the internet as we know it today. People need to start standing up for their rights. Everyone who is reading this helped to make the internet what it is, but it only happened because people were able to go to whichever site they wanted to FREELY. Once you sit on your hands and let these big companies take control of the internet, you will never get it back to where it is today. What this generation needs is a modern day Boston Tea party

[Maxintosh]

The article below has a lot more detailed information about how the big telephone and cable companies are planing on tricking everyone into this.

 

They DO have the power to do this - IF you allow them to do it.

 

The End of the Internet?

 

 

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.

 

Click here to see how you can help defend net neutrality. 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.

 

To make this pay-to-play vision a reality, phone and cable lobbyists are now engaged in a political campaign to further weaken the nation's communications policy laws. They want the federal government to permit them to operate Internet and other digital communications services as private networks, free of policy safeguards or governmental oversight. Indeed, both the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are considering proposals that will have far-reaching impact on the Internet's future. Ten years after passage of the ill-advised Telecommunications Act of 1996, telephone and cable companies are using the same political snake oil to convince compromised or clueless lawmakers to subvert the Internet into a turbo-charged digital retail machine.

 

The telephone industry has been somewhat more candid than the cable industry about its strategy for the Internet's future. Senior phone executives have publicly discussed plans to begin imposing a new scheme for the delivery of Internet content, especially from major Internet content companies. 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!"

 

The phone industry has marshaled its political allies to help win the freedom to impose this new broadband business model. At a recent conference held by the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a think tank funded by Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and other media companies, there was much discussion of a plan for phone companies to impose fees on a sliding scale, charging content providers different levels of service. "Price discrimination," noted PFF's resident media expert Adam Thierer, "drives the market-based capitalist economy."

 

Net Neutrality

 

To ward off the prospect of virtual toll booths on the information highway, some new media companies and public-interest groups are calling for new federal policies requiring "network neutrality" on the Internet. Common Cause, Amazon, Google, Free Press, Media Access Project and Consumers Union, among others, have proposed that broadband providers would be prohibited from discriminating against all forms of digital content. For example, phone or cable companies would not be allowed to slow down competing or undesirable content.

 

Without proactive intervention, the values and issues that we care about--civil rights, economic justice, the environment and fair elections--will be further threatened by this push for corporate control. Imagine how the next presidential election would unfold if major political advertisers could make strategic payments to Comcast so that ads from Democratic and Republican candidates were more visible and user-friendly than ads of third-party candidates with less funds. Consider what would happen if an online advertisement promoting nuclear power prominently popped up on a cable broadband page, while a competing message from an environmental group was relegated to the margins. It is possible that all forms of civic and noncommercial online programming would be pushed to the end of a commercial digital queue.

 

But such "neutrality" safeguards are inadequate to address more fundamental changes the Bells and cable monopolies are seeking in their quest to monetize the Internet. If we permit the Internet to become a medium designed primarily to serve the interests of marketing and personal consumption, rather than global civic-related communications, we will face the political consequences for decades to come. Unless we push back, the "brandwashing" of America will permeate not only our information infrastructure but global society and culture as well.

 

Why are the Bells and cable companies aggressively advancing such plans? With the arrival of the long-awaited "convergence" of communications, our media system is undergoing a major transformation. Telephone and cable giants envision a potential lucrative "triple play," as they impose near-monopoly control over the residential broadband services that send video, voice and data communications flowing into our televisions, home computers, cell phones and iPods. All of these many billions of bits will be delivered over the telephone and cable lines.

 

Video programming is of foremost interest to both the phone and cable companies. The telephone industry, like its cable rival, is now in the TV and media business, offering customers television channels, on-demand videos and games. Online advertising is increasingly integrating multimedia (such as animation and full-motion video) in its pitches. Since video-driven material requires a great deal of Internet bandwidth as it travels online, phone and cable companies want to make sure their television "applications" receive preferential treatment on the networks they operate. And their overall influence over the stream of information coming into your home (or mobile device) gives them the leverage to determine how the broadband business evolves.

 

Mining Your Data

 

At the core of the new power held by phone and cable companies are tools delivering what is known as "deep packet inspection." With these tools, AT&T and others can readily know the packets of information you are receiving online--from e-mail, to websites, to sharing of music, video and software downloads.

 

These "deep packet inspection" technologies are partly designed to make sure that the Internet pipeline doesn't become so congested it chokes off the delivery of timely communications. Such products have already been sold to universities and large businesses that want to more economically manage their Internet services. They are also being used to limit some peer-to-peer downloading, especially for music.

 

But these tools are also being promoted as ways that companies, such as Comcast and Bell South, can simply grab greater control over the Internet. For example, in a series of recent white papers, Internet technology giant Cisco urges these companies to "meter individual subscriber usage by application," as individuals' online travels are "tracked" and "integrated with billing systems." Such tracking and billing is made possible because they will know "the identity and profile of the individual subscriber," "what the subscriber is doing" and "where the subscriber resides."

 

Will Google, Amazon and the other companies successfully fight the plans of the Bells and cable companies? Ultimately, they are likely to cut a deal because they, too, are interested in monetizing our online activities. After all, as Cisco notes, content companies and network providers will need to "cooperate with each other to leverage their value proposition." They will be drawn by the ability of cable and phone companies to track "content usage...by subscriber," and where their online services can be "protected from piracy, metered, and appropriately valued."

 

Our Digital Destiny

 

It was former FCC chairman Michael Powell, with the support of then-commissioner and current chair Kevin Martin, who permitted phone and cable giants to have greater control over broadband. Powell and his GOP majority eliminated longstanding regulatory safeguards requiring phone companies to operate as nondiscriminatory networks (technically known as "common carriers"). He refused to require that cable companies, when providing Internet access, also operate in a similar nondiscriminatory manner. As Stanford University law professor Lawrence Lessig has long noted, it is government regulation of the phone lines that helped make the Internet today's vibrant, diverse and democratic medium.

 

But now, the phone companies are lobbying Washington to kill off what's left of "common carrier" policy. They wish to operate their Internet services as fully "private" networks. Phone and cable companies claim that the government shouldn't play a role in broadband regulation: Instead of the free and open network that offers equal access to all, they want to reduce the Internet to a series of business decisions between consumers and providers.

 

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. They also want to eliminate the last vestige of local oversight from electronic media--the ability of city or county government, for example, to require telecommunications companies to serve the public interest with, for example, public-access TV channels. The Bells also want to further reduce the ability of the FCC to oversee communications policy. They hope that both the FCC and Congress--via a new Communications Act--will back these proposals.

 

The future of the online media in the United States will ultimately depend on whether the Bells and cable companies are allowed to determine the country's "digital destiny." So before there are any policy decisions, a national debate should begin about how the Internet should serve the public. We must insure that phone and cable companies operate their Internet services in the public interest--as stewards for a vital medium for free expression.

 

If Americans are to succeed in designing an equitable digital destiny for themselves, they must mount an intensive opposition similar to the successful challenges to the FCC's media ownership rules in 2003. Without such a public outcry to rein in the GOP's corporate-driven agenda, it is likely that even many of the Democrats who rallied against further consolidation will be "tamed" by the well-funded lobbying campaigns of the powerful phone and cable industry. link

[killbot1000]

The article below has a lot more detailed information about how the big telephone and cable companies are planing on tricking everyone into this.

 

They DO have the power to do this - IF you allow them to do it.

 

Great find! Spreading the word

[JonTheSavage]

HAHAHAHA. I told you all this. But no. It won't happen. Go back to sleep.

[killbot1000]

HAHAHAHA. I told you all this. But no. It won't happen. Go back to sleep.

 

Even if what you say here is true, it is mixed in with many things that are not true, so how are we to know whether you are telling us the truth, an exaggeration, or a lie, we cant. So until we see some evidence elsewhere besides yourself, we (or at least I) will give your statements a small face value.

 

Tip:

 

More proof, please show us more proof when you are trying to prove your point. You consistently call people stupid, and then you tell them "I told you so" on every occasion. How the hell do you expect us to react to you?

 

If you spoke to us as a civilized adult, and provided some credible/logical ways to explain your information, more people would probably take you more seriously. This isn't a stab at you or anything, I happen to think you bring up a lot of interesting and relevant topics, but just because somebody doesn't agree with you, doesn't make them stupid. They probably have a good reason for the way they feel. Maybe they grew up in an area with lots of guns shooting people so they don't like guns or something.

 

Often times I have noticed that when you really get into the core of how somebody thinks, it makes perfect sense why they would have their views. We talk about ideologies and right and wrong a lot. But when one enters the realm of reality, we will find that what the real truth is, is that human beings don't quite understand right and wrong, or ideologies. We understand the concept but often times are not able to or don't want to follow through, this makes anything we try to do half assed.

 

The thing is though, some people can understand and do understand, and these people are the ones who become enraged why something that should be so obvious to fix, isn't being fixed.

 

You can't get mad at people for something they don't know/understand. The best thing that we should try to do for these people is to at least get them on the right page, whether they understand the underlying reasons or not, at least for the short term. Long term we should teach people logically and in depth how the world as we know it works, and what we can do to save/help it.

 

Good luck to us all.

[JonTheSavage]

Even if what you say here is true, it is mixed in with many things that are not true, so how are we to know whether you are telling us the truth, an exaggeration, or a lie, we cant. So until we see some evidence elsewhere besides yourself, we (or at least I) will give your statements a small face value.

 

Tip:

 

More proof, please show us more proof when you are trying to prove your point. You consistently call people stupid, and then you tell them "I told you so" on every occasion. How the hell do you expect us to react to you?

 

If you spoke to us as a civilized adult, and provided some credible/logical ways to explain your information, more people would probably take you more seriously. This isn't a stab at you or anything, I happen to think you bring up a lot of interesting and relevant topics, but just because somebody doesn't agree with you, doesn't make them stupid. They probably have a good reason for the way they feel. Maybe they grew up in an area with lots of guns shooting people so they don't like guns or something.

 

Often times I have noticed that when you really get into the core of how somebody thinks, it makes perfect sense why they would have their views. We talk about ideologies and right and wrong a lot. But when one enters the realm of reality, we will find that what the real truth is, is that human beings don't quite understand right and wrong, or ideologies. We understand the concept but often times are not able to or don't want to follow through, this makes anything we try to do half assed.

 

The thing is though, some people can understand and do understand, and these people are the ones who become enraged why something that should be so obvious to fix, isn't being fixed.

 

You can't get mad at people for something they don't know/understand. The best thing that we should try to do for these people is to at least get them on the right page, whether they understand the underlying reasons or not, at least for the short term. Long term we should teach people logically and in depth how the world as we know it works, and what we can do to save/help it.

 

Good luck to us all.

 

Google is a useful tool my friend. I can only show you the door. You are the one who has to open it.

Be careful though. You might just open pandora's box.

[Paranoid Marvin]

Google is a useful tool my friend. I can only show you the door. You are the one who has to open it.

Be careful though. You might just open pandora's box.

 

Oooh, is this the bit where we take the red pill?

[killbot1000]

Be careful though. You might just open pandora's box.

 

Already done, about a year ago... (for me anyway).

 

I just have a different approach.

[JonTheSavage]

Already done, about a year ago... (for me anyway).

 

I just have a different approach.

 

You ever thought about joining WeAreChange, or some other group that confronts these thugs?

[killbot1000]

You ever thought about joining WeAreChange, or some other group that confronts these thugs?

 

I try to take a local approach, talk about these issues to those around me so that they may spread the information. I cannot save people, they must save themselves, but I will not be party to ignorance.

[JonTheSavage]

I try to take a local approach, talk about these issues to those around me so that they may spread the information. I cannot save people, they must save themselves, but I will not be party to ignorance.

 

I'm doing this too. Getting people looking into the Federal Reserve, etc... speaking at local events etc... I'm running for state rep next term. I'm in several groups, SCV, TCCCG (local group against county corruption), White Rose of MS, and League of the South.

[Wayfarer247]

Hmmm... I just don't see this happening. The ISP's start to block access to sites... slowly. Some people notice, others don't. Those who do notice, and do care, switch ISP's. Only to learn that the other ISP has blocked the site as well. As the ISP's start blocking off sites, you realize it, but can't switch... some care.... other's don't.

 

And then comes someone who has money (Seriously, some people have a LOT of money... and this will only make more) and says "Hey, this is terrible! I can't actually reach any more sites! I have Google, and I can Google for 4000 websites. Wtf?" And he starts his own ISP business.

 

It actually has a lot of potential, so don't think it would be so far-fetched. People would want it, because it offers free and ultimate web access, nothing blocked. The person who started it would have to invest a lot of money, but ultimately, with so many customers, he would make it all back. People would switch over to the new "Free" ISP, the internet would be saved, and the other ISP's would have to change or go out of business.

 

The internet would be saved. Praise Capitalism.

[killbot1000]

Hmmm... I just don't see this happening. The ISP's start to block access to sites... slowly. Some people notice, others don't. Those who do notice, and do care, switch ISP's. Only to learn that the other ISP has blocked the site as well. As the ISP's start blocking off sites, you realize it, but can't switch... some care.... other's don't.

 

And then comes someone who has money (Seriously, some people have a LOT of money... and this will only make more) and says "Hey, this is terrible! I can't actually reach any more sites! I have Google, and I can Google for 4000 websites. Wtf?" And he starts his own ISP business.

 

It actually has a lot of potential, so don't think it would be so far-fetched. People would want it, because it offers free and ultimate web access, nothing blocked. The person who started it would have to invest a lot of money, but ultimately, with so many customers, he would make it all back. People would switch over to the new "Free" ISP, the internet would be saved, and the other ISP's would have to change or go out of business.

 

The internet would be saved. Praise Capitalism.

 

It's not going to go down like that (I wish).

 

Here's what I am guessing. The preliminary actions that will take place will look something like this:

 

Silver, Gold, Platinum

 

Silver is cheap (maybe even 9.99 a month). You get to download X amount of GB a month worth of video, etc. But it isnt a lot, you can go to all the sites but some load slower than others, but for 9.99 a month why should you complain?

 

Gold will offer higher bandwith and speed at a moderate price

 

Platinum will be the internet as it is now but it will cost a lot more, most people will be satisfied with the gold or the silver so they will not complain about the price of platinum.

 

After these reforms (bad reforms) are in place for a few years, the "bandwidth" will get "full" again and they will try to pare it down even further, raising prices, while at the same time, taking fees and kickbacks from websites that would like to load faster on their isp service (non net neutrality).

 

It will happen just gradually enough for people not to notice until its too late, by the time that rich investor opens up their own isp company, its already too late, demand for small independent sites and bit torrent has already flown out the window years ago (from the perspective of the future). And people wont get this new isp because the sites that they love to go to are already gone. This situation would be magnified if all the ISP's did this at the same time too.

 

It makes me sick though to hear about bandwidth being taken up. If these networks use fiber, then the connection should be as fast as the computers can handle on each end. A bandwidth shortage is simply an artificial construct. All we have to do is replace our antiquated lines with fiber instead and this bandwidth issue (the only excuse they have), flies right out the window.

 

But the government, the ISP's, and the media will continue to shove down your throats the myth that there is a bandwidth problem, or that theres a child porn problem, or that there's some other problem in which action "must be taken". The result will be less internet for us, with every one of our packets (data through the internet) being traced, the government with information on every link you clicked on, the ISP's selling your surfing habits to other companies to pocket more profit for themselves, and the media being able to feed you whatever propaganda they want (as their sites will be the biggest and most able to pay the ISP's to be on the silver plan and higher). Big Business, Big Media, and Big Government will win, the people will lose. Enjoy the internet while it lasts.

[JonTheSavage]

Hammer, nail, head. You hit it!

[g33]

check NASA project BLUE BEAM, read about 33rd degree of Masonery, alister crowley and the Illuminati... We have to resist!

[DarkCarnival]

Awww {censored}, are people really beginning to listen to those 4 wannabe-prophets ?

 

Listen. Paid content has always been there on the net and it will always be there. Similarly the net can't really be so easily restricted.

In my country, they've tried banning sites like allofmp3 and thepiratebay but with what success ? Next to none!

 

The ISP's tried and people could circumvent it easily, if there's one thing you can never fight, it's technology.

The notion of an ISP being able to supremely decide what content you can and cannot access is really far fetched. Even DRM technologies have proven to be broken consistently and they always will, it's fundamentally impossible to protect files from spreading (if you're really doubtful, go read up on it, I've heard software engineers say it was on several occasions).

 

The original ARPA-net (the precursor to what we know as the internet) was built to handle the downtime of nodes and automatic addition of nodes, back then it was because the realiability of the equipment wasn't great, but what it means for us today is that we can actually create our own networks.

Internet connections can be made from everything from satelites, wireless, copper, phonelines and so on.

 

Besides, before you get all hyped up. This so-called I-Power "movement" is made up of 4 normal youtube bloggers from some random European country and they've been bitching about various things for a couple of years now.

 

Anyway. I'll be amused if they try, they'll fail

[Maxintosh]

Paid content has always been there on the net and it will always be there.

Are you trying to convince us, or yourself?

 

Similarly the net can't really be so easily restricted.

They own the lines that the data travels over and go in your house, they can do pretty much anything that they want.

[Paranoid Marvin]

They own the lines that the data travels over and go in your house, they can do pretty much anything that they want.

 

Precisely, all the points made above about the ability of the internet to continue as long as there are computers connected, but I doubt many of us have dedicated lines to a private exchange!

[DarkCarnival]

Meh, for reasons unknown I cannot get the quote functions to work as they should (admittedly the fault lies with my setup, somewhere)..

 

Anyway.

 

Will the internet continue to have commerical elements ?

Maxintosh: Am I trying to convince you or myself ?

 

I would say you're somewhat contradicting yourself here. On one end, you view the ISP's as capable of restricting your internet access completely, on the other you seem to question whether or not the internet will continue to host commercial content.

 

Now, if anything, we should be able to agree that ISP's themselves are commercial by nature, many allow you to buy extra products on-line and there have been talks of how one could be able to purchase content such as films, games et cetera and simply be billed via the ISP. Just as you can get a surcharge from ordering remote storage and music from your ISP (at least those services are readily available in my country).

 

So, as long as the ISP's function as our primary gateway to the internet, will you not the admit that the internet will, in part, continue to host commercial content ?

 

I'm not even going to touch the recent developments in terms of digital content from services such as FilePlanet (games), EA Link (games), Itunes (music) and Adobe (books) but suffice it to say, I don't see the companies shutting these profitable operations down anytime soon.

 

So no, I'm not trying to convince anyone that commercial content will stay on the internet, it's such a huge part of it that it won't just go down like that.

 

Moving on.

 

As to whether or not people can build their own networks

 

The internet is built on standards which are set in stone more or less. You have HTTP, FTP as two hugely popular communication protocols and you have TCP and UDP as the primary means of DATA communication.

Anyone can get the equipment needed to start a network. I'll put it this way. It took me 10 days to setup some systems which basically were meant for a 200 person LAN event and the equipment is within the price range of most people. Similarly, the software required to implement the protocols are free.

So yea, you really can start your own network.

 

With simple things as make-do wireless antennaes and such you can get coverage of 10 kilometers easy. If you want then you can create connection hubs every 10 kilometers apart and work from there. The equipment required to do this should be obtainable within 140 USD's (that's using the prices in my country, which are generally higher than the US ones).

 

Example link: http://www.nickcoons.com/blogs/comments.php?blog_id=43

 

(NOTE

The example here is with Wireless G networks which have a maximum bandwitdth of 54,4MBPS, if you want more, go find compatible Wireless N routers which have a bandwidth of 300MBPS. Considering a 1mbps line for browsing purposes would suffice....

)

 

I have the equipment they use here myself, and getting this stuff running is not as hard as it may sound. Ask yourself this:

If that's what you can do with really simplistic, cheap and readily available components, what could you do if you made a poll and collected say... 40,000 USD ?

(Addition: using the same equipment, I've used this to extend my wireless network range dramatically, the signals can be "bounced off" from the next point on the path so even if you have 100km of distance, all you'd need would be 10 spots along the way.)

 

While we're at it, the internet is (again going back to ARPA-net) designed in such a way that if you have say.. 10 clients on either side that cannot reach eachother (let's imagine a ISP actually did physically BREAK the connection between them) then as long as you establish ONE link, you can route connection through that link and the two once separate polls of computers are now interconnected once more.

 

Even so, imagine how it would be if certain sites were obtainable through a gold membership ? What's to stop this guy from setting up a TOR encrypted network exit node ? All you'd do then was to hop on TOR which encrypts the requests and pop through an exit node which was actually connected to the part of the net you wanted to see and there you go.

 

 

Meh, I honestly have more ideas to put on the table for workarounds straight off the bat but I think it would be pointless to enumerate all of them. Let's just say that as long as lines aren't physically severed, circumventing things are quite easy. If they're physically severed you'd have to establish WIRELESS point-to-point bridges and go from there.

 

 

Historically speaking, the attempt to refuse people access to content has always failed

Come to think of it, the listening equipment that eventually picked up the leftovers of what was to be known as "the big bang" was actually being built and funded by two engineers. TWO.

Now, if that can be done by two people with reasonable income, I should think that normal people would be able to establish a wireless equivalent of a internet, free from the ISP clutches, given enough will.

 

When the russian regime tried to destroy certain types of litterature, all the people needed was one measly copy and they would re-distribute the book among themselves, organising get-togethers where people read the book.

They also tried to block the Western television signals, did that go well ? They tried to block radio signals as well with just about the same success.

See the truth is, you cannot stop a determined people, but you can stop those who are willing to be stopped.

 

But that's just history, the technology today is so super advanced that ISP's can truly sift through all information and restrict all access based upon my access permissions !

Short answer.. Nope..

 

Anyway. To bypass censorship and restriction on the regular internet which we ASSUME will fall victim to censorship, we can route data through networks like Tor or even Freenet.

In modern day China, people can actually install Freenet and get access to knowledge that the Chinese ISP's are actually required to keep them from seeing. Now granted, the FreeNet doesn't have much more than 2 million users at its present state, but the technology is there and all it requires is a simple install.

It runs under Linux, Windows and OS X, it's as decentralized as can be, its users are protected from being spotted and everyone contributes to sharing the data that FreeNet stores (in encrypted form).

 

Phew. I think that covers it..

 

In summary, we have established the following

 

* ISP's and the commercial parts of the internet are intertwined to a large extent

 

* Setting up communication links between large distances is cheap and can be done with over-the-counter equipment

 

* Even rather advanced equipment can be obtained by people with reasonable income

 

* Equipment required to drive hubs of hundreds of users are actually not out of reach for middleclass to upper-middleclass people

 

* The internet is not as centralized as some people will insist, in fact it's possible to create many self-maintained connections and thus connecting what was disconnected

 

* It's indeed very possible to route connections through nodes. So if an ISP wants to limit content access, it's even completely or not at all. There is no in between, really. (Proxies, Tor, FreeNet, Proxy caches)

 

* The software required to drive both long-distance connections as well as centrals for several hundreds of people is easily obtainable and free of charge (Linux and BSD's)

 

* The complexity of such a system is actually not any worse than a simple student with no prior knowledge is able to replicate and create this on a small scale (200 people) out of his own pocket and with just 2 weeks worth of studying. (While he maintained his actual school-related studies)

(in this example it's me, and there are FAR more talented people out there. I'm your average computer tinkerer, really).

 

 

Anyway, wall of text I know, just wanted to answer all the questions and objections in advance.

Do I think we should lean back then ? Well, not really I think one should always offer resistance when others try to limit one's freedom of speech, but I'm just demonstrating how impossible it will be to truly limit the free flow of information (and in fact the internet).

[Maxintosh]

Will the internet continue to have commerical elements ?

This has nothing to do with commercial elements. It's all about keeping the Internet the way it is today.

[DarkCarnival]

Well your statement was rather ambiguous. But about the keeping part, read the wall of text

[killbot1000]

Precisely, all the points made above about the ability of the internet to continue as long as there are computers connected, but I doubt many of us have dedicated lines to a private exchange!

 

Exactly! And private networks are great for families/neighbors, but not much more than that. This is about the internet, this is about everyone! To lose that would be a great pain human beings would have to endure, we will appreciate it more if it goes away.

[DarkCarnival]

I know big posts scare people for some reason. But before you guys jump to conclusions and all agree with eachother, I'll once more stress that I've listed working solutions in post 69 which clearly states that it's perfectly possible to create private nets and it's not expensive in any way.

 

I'm tempted to steal a headline from Microsoft (they misused it though).. Get the facts

[killbot1000]

I know big posts scare people for some reason. But before you guys jump to conclusions and all agree with eachother, I'll once more stress that I've listed working solutions in post 69 which clearly states that it's perfectly possible to create private nets and it's not expensive in any way.

 

I'm tempted to steal a headline from Microsoft (they misused it though).. Get the facts

 

Yes that is true, but 99% of human beings will not even try to do this, and the internet is a public network. We all want a public network, there is no other way to get as much information as quickly as on a massive public network, if we're reduced to thousands of private networks then the reason the internet was created in the first place becomes null and void. Also, small, private, local networks are cool. But the massive backbone of fiber going across the country cannot be replicated on a private network without a significant investment of capital, these would be at the mercy of the big telecoms who will show no mercy.

 

I am not scared of big posts, I post a lot of big posts haha. Everything you say IS possible, anybody with a decent computer brain can get around it, but the average person wont, and demand for small, independent sites will wither and die. That's the point!

[DarkCarnival]

I'll somewhat agree. If unmotivated, they might not want to.

 

But if the regular media keeps feeding them {censored} and they start feeling cut off from the truth, that would lead people into being angry. As someone mentioned earlier ( I thought it wise), if you make people angry, they'll try to fix their problems

 

I mean, all it would require are a few operators of these nets and the common person can just chip in a little, for him or her it's really not going to pose any significant configuration problems. You could simply charge them for a router which you preconfigure to pick up the signal, they'd then turn it on and plug an RJ45 cable from the router to the PC and they're on

 

Anyway, I'm just stating that if the ISP's don't tread very carefully, they'll have a full-blown rebellion on their hands. While we might not be able to replace the overcharging mechanic down by the corner, we sure can replace the ISP's.

 

Anyway. I still hope that you yanks try to bring the problem to the attention of your politicians. Politicians in general aren't necessarily evil, they're just humans, and humans cannot know everything about every field of life, that's why they need your help

 

Just don't be ringing on their doorbells at midnight only to howl "The end is near! The end is near!" when they actually open the door or you'll risk them writing you off as a complete lunatic.