The end of the internet by 2012??

[maryf]

http://ipower.ning.com/netneutrality2

video at link.

Update: Bell Canada and TELUS (formerly owned by Verizon) employees officially confirm that by 2012 ISP's all over the globe will reduce Internet access to a TV-like subscription model, only offering access to a small standard amount of commercial sites and require extra fees for every other site you visit. These 'other' sites would then lose all their exposure and eventually shut down, resulting in what could be seen as the end of the Internet.

Dylan Pattyn *, who is currently writing an article for Time Magazine on the issue, has official confirmation from sources within Bell Canada and is interviewing a marketing representative from TELUS who confirms the story and states that TELUS has already started blocking all websites that aren't in the subscription package for mobile Internet access. They could not confirm whether it would happen in 2012 because both stated it may actually happen sooner (as early as 2010). Interviews with these sources, more confirmation from other sources and more in-depth information on the issue is set to be published in Time Magazine soon.
What can we do?

The reason why we're releasing this information is because we believe we can stop it. More awareness means more mainstream media shedding light on it, more political interest and more pressure on the ISP's to keep the Internet an open free space. We started this social network as a platform for Internet activism where we can join forces, share ideas and organize any form of protest that may have an impact. If we want to make a difference in this, we have to join together and stand united as one powerful voice against it.

Join the movement.

Don't let the Internet evolve to this:

[That Is Quite Enough]

1. Scary stuff. We can't allow this to happen.

If it's accurate, anyway.

[Zywiec]

2. 2012 is the end of the world anyway.

I thought everyone knew that. Who cares about the internet.

http://www.december212012.com/

[sam sarrha]

5. yea.. for sure.. Obama's economic adviser is a Milton Friedman disciple

[maryf]

26. and his foreign advisor Zbniew Brezinski

is pretty near a fascist.

[RadiationTherapy]

85. Is ZB Obama's foreign advisor?? nt

[maryf]

88. Yep

For a while now...scarier than the internet stuff, IMO.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

6. I do. I want to post the last note on DU.

I failed to post the last note in GD-Primaries, so, goddammit, I want to post the last note before the world ends.

[KansDem]

8. And that last note will be...

CALL CONGRESS RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

49. I was thinking of something more like

IN BEFORE THE ...

:nuke:

[librechik]

61. "Goodbye, DU. I'm leaving...

Even though I've been lurking here for _______years, there is just too much________ for me to tolerate. Best wishes to all who didn't flame me."

[Clark2008]

35. I was going to post that exact thing.

I was just having a conversation with my physical therapist about that date.

His theory is that the enlightened will go to another plane and that those Left Behinders will be... um... Left Behind because of all the judgment in their hearts.

:)

[crimsonblue]

47. I do hope you are being snarky....

the mayans never believed that the date would mean the end of the world. It was just that their calender restarted at the point. Think of it as Ancient Y2K. Now, we should be worried about April 13, 2029 and April 13, 2039. In 2029, it falls on a Friday. In 2036, it falls on Easter Sunday. Now, why are these two dates important? It's when the asteroid apophis will first streak by Earth at its closest level (2029) and then, if it goes through the right gravitational keyhole will rebound and hit the earth 7 years later (2036). I kind of hope it happens, because it would make the religion fundies go crazy, what with it being a 7 year tribulation of trying to stop the big one and having it hit of Easter. If there is a God, he most assuredly loves irony.

[SpiralHawk]

51. Stop catapulting the false 2012 BS. That's not what the Daykeepers say...

I have spoken with many, many of the Mayan Daykeepers about their calendar and other traditions. They even held a meeting among themselves in Antigua, Guatemala last November because so many exploitive people around the world are stirring the fear pot by propagating the "END OF THE WORLD" bullshit for their own imagined power and profit.

That lie honks the elders off tremedously, because it is just people exploiting indigenous wisdom and traditions. As usual.

What they say is that the calendar marks the end of the Fourth World (epoch of time) and the start of the Fifth World (new epoch, Age of Flowers).

So just flip your flipping Mayan calendar over. There will be Major Changes undoubtedly, they say, and those changes are already obvious to anyone paying attention.

But the panicky BS of "We are all going to die" is a massive -- and harmful because it stirs up FEAR -- pack of foma.

[Bake]

86. Who in their right mind would be afraid because of the Mayan calendar??

There's no difference between that crap and any other religion that predicts the end of the world. They've all been wrong so far, and with that kind of track record, it's not terribly likely that they'll be right this time either.

Science, people, SCIENCE.

Bake

[Recursion]

67. "End of the world" is an Abramic interpolation

...that has very little to do with the actual sense of the Mayan rollover; it's no more an end of the world than the year 2000 was for us.

[Leopolds Ghost]

75. Isn't it the Mayan Apocalypse?

That's what all the train-hoppers and crusty punks down in New Orleans
keep saying.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

89. I'll be there all day. Thanks!

-snip

Would the resulting infant/piglet be granted human rights, or only animal rights?

-snip-

[Auggie]

3. Extremely disturbing. Here is the graphic not seen in the main post:

[hootinholler]

14. "Full access does not include access to illegal material."

Um, who decides?

-Hoot

[tridim]

19. And who decides who gets to be on the tier 1 "Internet"?

[Auggie]

21. It reminds me of what Cable TV has become

[Leopolds Ghost]

76. "Full Internet access available on request." Imagine if ballots looked like that.

Oh wait, fuck, many of them do.

"Full candidate list available on request. Choose from the following great candidates. Mark your selection at right."

[tridim]

18. That is completely fucked up

The Internet is the Internet, when they start blocking access they should be forced to call it something else.

[maryf]

27. Thanks!

I should have included that.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

28. you do realize someone just made that up to make a point...

that graphic was not 'leaked' from some marketing dept for this article...right?

sP

[KamaAina]

31. That's a Photoshop that the authors made

just plausible enough to :scared: me for a second...

[file83]

45. Yes, but it illustrates what the article is essentially saying.

[Canuckistanian]

32. Wow! Over 200 websites for $50/month!

What a DEAL!

Where do I sign up?

[high density]

36. umm, that's a hypothetical joke

The internet isn't going anywhere. This thread is an example of tinfoil hatters at their finest.

[Zuiderelle]

4. I read in the NY Times that companies like AT&T and Comcast will start charging for the amount of GB

used. With plans starting at 1 GB a month, 5 GB, 10 GB, etc., then charging $1 for each GB exceeding the plan. They are starting some pilot of this in some podunk town in Texas.

I'm too lazy to search for the story, it's probably here somewhere. I don't think they will get away with it though.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

7. This may bring back text-based usenet

Streaming video / audio may bite the dust. Adios youtube. The volume cost will kill it.

[NanBo]

11. Uhmmm

according to that picture, we could pay for Teh Google, but then who would we be reaching with teh google if everyone else is shut down??? And who would be blogging if no one can see it?

[JackRiddler]

13. The picture is a critical parody of the nightmare scenario...

Unfortunately, it looks disturbingly plausible!

[Speck Tater]

9. The reason why this will never happen

Thousands and thousands of small businesses around the world depend on the Internet for some or all of their income. Crippling those businesses would destroy the economy, and neither those businesses nor their customers would stand still for this for a single minute.

[kimmerspixelated]

15. Exactly,

And GIANTS like GOOGLE are certainly not going to put up with it. This is how they have made their fortune! At least there would be some very big money behind the fight. Imagine the lawyer power behind Google,Yahoo, and EBAY all beating this really bad idea down at once! But, it is scary to think about. It is just what the neocons want! Then we would be forced once again to only get news from their corporate owned networks!

[Occulus]

23. Search engines could kill this

The large search engines could, for example, start returning hits that only air criticisms of the companies tiering Google's content, or delete them from the search results completely.

The companies pushing this had better ask themselves if they really want what they're asking for.

[Leopolds Ghost]

77. Are Dems cheering for Google to manipulate Internet content, though?

The way cable has manipulated the news, and the way
both parties (including McCain and Obama) have manipulated
the campaign finance system? We are moving more and more
towards a security obsessed, monopoly run mercantile society
run by businesses and for their benefit.

[Sheets of Easter]

50. Precisely. That's why I don't buy it either.

These websites are money machines that rely on heavy internet traffic. Still, I'm sure the "old money" corporations (like telecom and corporate media) don't like the fact that they're being beaten at their own game by "new money" internet companies.

[Duppers]

20. an argument could be made for the opposite conclusion

Given the reality that the huge conglomerates want to shut down small business competition now, this would be another convenient way of doing that.

[file83]

44. That's exactly why it WILL happen: Big business wants to destroy the little competition.

[tomg]

52. Their model is dead wrong. Their point

is dead right. They are using a cable TV model. The various internet providers won't control access to web surfing. The economic and social disruption on the part of the users ( and country) would be disasterous. Google, Ebay, far too many small businesses, every damn university admissions office in the country, town governments, newspaper, Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, on-line communities ( DU and FR equally).

It would be like destroying public access to a mall.

In many ways, it is not about controlling access to the information but controlling the potentially unlimited production of information. And it is not simply a case of stopping grass root movements (they honestly don't care).

The situation, I think, is analogous to whenever there is a change in technology ( beginning - very long story short - with writing and the introduction of, seriously, vowels into the alphabet in Greece c. 650BCE ; going through printing, photography and cheap reproduction, to cheap tapes to Cd and so on) that always leads into, loosely speaking, the democratization of information. ( re-arrangement among "producer of knowledge," "distributor/controller of knowledge" and "reciever of knowledge" - new cheaper, more democratic technologies always screw first with the middle).

In some ways, the attempts to control individual distribution of information on the internet is analogous to the development of, say, copyright law in, I think, the mid-to late 1700s, or, the NYU teaching assistant court case on xeroxing material for classes, or bootleg tapes, or more recently, trying to stop the reproduction of cd's and to stop file sharing.



Just as there has been a consolidation of media, there will be a consolidation of ISPs with the big ones knocking out the small. So control the source of onramps to the highway. Once that is under control, the possible sites of "publication" will be controlled. So the next money is in really controlling Facebook, MySpace (owned, finally, by NewsCorp), YouTube (owned by Google) and the like under a few generic groups. And people in one group - say Facebook - are going have sites on another MySpace.

Eventually, the only place an individual will be able to set up a site is through the corporate owned sites: MySpace, Facebook and all. In other words, really economically regulate domain names.
It is scary shit. Just not the kind of scary that is going to charge individuals for sites.
To limit access to websites wipes out the reason most people use the net.

[Leopolds Ghost]

78. All they need to do is slowly decrease people's expectations of the number of different sites

Just like most Americans really, honestly believe that if their favorite
restaurant is any good, it will have branches in every US city allowing
them to eat there wherever they go.

"Do you have that here? It's my favorite place. It's very unique.
I think they only have five in Houston."

Which is why EVERY TIME there's a poll of best coffee shops,
etc, Starbucks, Applebees, etc. always win out. Idiocracy.

[tomg]

81. While I agree with what you are saying

as to the general idiocracy, and the mass nature of consumption, and I certainly agree that there is the corporational desire to control it all, and that there is an obvious attempt to control the net, the nature of the system they are looking at makes consumer restriction of the number of sites as the source of revenue impractical and self-destructive.

For example, I teach at a college with a generally fair-to-middling, mid-major sports program and a nationally ranked top 25 in one. There are at least 150 other schools like ours. People access our sports info all the time. We get around 10,000 web inquiries for admission every year. And so on and so forth. The traffic is extensive (we are also ranked as one of the most-wired colleges, so that could be a factor). And there are at least six other generally colleges in our immediate area. Multiply all of that. The local rec team my son swam for in a summer league: web site. Out town government, town free street festival, town pickle festival ( seriously), all sites. If access to all of those sites is gone, people will simply stop using the net to the extent that they do, drying up revenue. Aside from DU ( and some other progressive sites, and during college basketball . . .), I spend most of my time at academic sites ( or, as right now, trying to find cheap flights to the Uk, good luck). Gone. And, then, of course, why keep a website actively running that no one goes to?

Control of the net, I think, will come in a number of ways: in control of ISP providers, control of domain names, control of webpage hosting sites. If there is control of individual users ( and there will be some, clearly), it will be, I think, in a few ways: increased provider fees for heavy downloaders of content - but we are talking heavy here; minimal charges for individuals who want their own web sites as they are now ( as opposed to the Facebook, MySpace stuff which every 12 year old has and will continue to have and has to stay free); slightly higher fees for individual business and the like. This will really effect the .coms, but not the .govs, the .edus, the mils., the non-profit .orgs.

Where it will, I think, have potentially lethal damages will be in the area of some free speech, and the explosion of opinion as far as sites are concerned. If we think of the .com domain region metaphorically as a mall and most of us as consumers, they could theoretically apply the "you can't wear a t-shirt in my mall" concept in different ways. It could also result, if you have to get domain names through the ISPs for businesses through a kind of zoning regulation system. And it would lead to, I think, to extreme left and extreme right having a tough ( if not impossible) time having sites. I think, generally, that we are in tricky waters here and the potential for censorship is extreme. But they won't restrict 99% of access, 99% of idiot comercialism, 99% of free speech, 99% of bands of MySpace, 14 year olds Facebooks pages, discussion communities, and the like. That is not where the money is. They want to control the system, not 99% of the content, nor 99% of the users access to that content.


Sorry to go, but this is all peripherally related to one of my subfields (textual production). Because of the nature of the system, the past model is much closer to a blend of the rise of print and the development of relatively cheap recording and reproduction equipment with cds.

[smiley_glad_hands]

10. Whats ironic is the the Verizon ad I see in the OP. lolz

[Cleita]

12. So that's what they meant by the end in 2012, the end of the internet.

I don't think they can do it. It's like the old song, "How are you going to keep them down on the farm, once they've seen Paree." Internet users will fight it, will hack, will do what needs to be done to keep it free and available to all.

[peacetalksforall]

16. We have one year to move out of this country if Cheney manages to

take full control in 2008.

Thirty years ago, it was predicted that we would only have three U.S. airlines.

The choice for all the services is three - such as CNNTIMEWARNER, GENBC, FOXMURDOCH.
That way it is easy to keep track of our every move, transaction, penny, and every time you even think about buying something or eating something or watching something.

It's easier on the database that holds all of our information.

Only Bill Gates has enough money to survive the drop in sale of computers. Back to mail and the post office will all be privatized and they will require our codes on the envelopes to make it easier to track our mail. They may even outlaw any mail that isn't a payment to a corporation.

Remember, they keep going backwards - to Hitler and Mussolini, to pre-suffragette and child labor laws, and they wiped out the value and legacy of the 10th(?) century Magna Carta and brought back the Inquisition.

They also brought back barbarian invasion, pillage, plunder, prisons, and massacres. Then they turn around and belittle other cultures for their non-Western content.

We have a Republican GOBACK Party brought to us by barons and stockholders.

[tridim]

17. If the ISP's really want this they should create their own Internet..

And leave ours alone.

[Bjorn Against]

22. Expect a huge public uproar if they actually attempt this.

This is something the public will not stand for. The internet has always been a part of the public domain, if some big conglomerate wants to charge for people to visit a site which they did not even have any role in creating people are going to be pissed. No one wants to have to pay to visit sites they have never had to pay for before. If they try this we have to fight hard, but I am very confident that we will be able to stop this. I can guarantee that at least 95% of the public would oppose this idea, we could destroy any politician who would even try to make this happen.

[sandyd921]

69. It won't be the politicians

It will be the telecoms and other corporations that have bought and paid for the politicians.

[Dover]

71. oh...like the uproar over sky high oil?. I'm sure they are quaking in their boots..n/t

[Bjorn Against]

72. You are comparing apples to oranges...

The increase in oil prices did not require a change in how that oil was distributed. They are still getting the oil out of the ground the same way, they are still getting it to the gas stations the same way, they are using the same methods they are just charging a hell of a lot more for it.

This article talks about changing the entire way the internet operates, it is a hell of a lot more complex than just a spike in prices. Do you realize how massive of a change that would require? It is not something that could be done without massive coordination between businesses and corporations worldwide. Considering that no one owns the internet now it would certainly result in enormous legal battles, and these battles would certainly prevent anything from happening as soon as 2012.

[Phillycat]

82. You mean like how people prevented the US presidency from being stolen?

Oh, wait.

[Bjorn Against]

87. I guess I have to repeat what I said to the last poster, you are comparing apples and oranges

I know the public hasn't always expressed outrage when they should have, but you can not compare a massive change in the way the internet is structured to a Presidential election. People may not follow politics as closely as they should, but they do like their internet access and they don't like bills.

If you are going to make comparisons then you need to compare things that are actually similar to one another.

[dkofos]

24. With the end of the world comes the end of the internets. 12/21/2012

[Leopolds Ghost]

79. But how are we supposed to watch it or blog about Armageddon if the Internet is down?

I never go to TV or radio for the big events... demonstrations,
revelations, natural disasters. I go straight to my computer!

:crazy:

[Uncle Joe]

25. The evil, greedy bastards, they're doing their best to destroy what little democracy is left.

Too much power for the people, they literally want corporations to rule.

[maryf]

29. Amen

Our voice is getting too loud for them...

[GreenTea]

41. Kick!

:kick:

[ThoughtCriminal]

30. Welcome to 1992

Sounds like AOL and Compuserve in the pre-Internet BBS era.

Nope - don't buy it. It's like television networks telling us that they have decided to go back to black and white broadcasting only.

[Leopolds Ghost]

74. To be fair, the quality of the content and discussion on a BBS was much higher

Than your average blog today.

Except for AOL, those people always were the miserable
lowest common denominator, and who should figure but
they have some ties to the government being located
in Dulles, the heart of the nation's security services
industry and all.

[roamer65]

33. They want to reduce the internet to the level of the poison known as TeeVee.

Gotta keep the people stupid, otherwise they may revolt.

[MrScorpio]

34. There are over 300,000 Google hits for "2012 End of the Internet"

The word is spreading

[LiberalPersona]

37. Everyone would switch

to small, local ISPs and the big, greedy ones that did this would go out of business within mere months.

[snot]

40. no help unless they own the infrastructure?

[Fox Mulder]

38. This is fucking bullshit.

I hope to gods that the Obama administration will not allow this to happen.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

57. You're right, it's bullshit.

It's nonsense written by some dumbass on a blog, who doesn't even understand the information he's linking to.

[LaPera]

39. Republicans did the same with the corporate media (Murdoch, GE, Disney, Time-Warner & Viacom) with

the "Big (and only) Five" - Fox, NBC, ABC, CNN & CBS, owning & controlling what we see and what we don't see, and where 85% of the American people get their television "news". These same republican fascist certainly want to control the information we now have access to on the Internet!

The republicans really thought they had total control of what we can see, but the Internet has pissed them off, with alternative information, free speech, donations. blogs, forums, YouTube, etc....So they surely have to gain absolute control of the Internet and the best way to do that is through their corporations (AT&T Verizon).

This is real....their fascist imperialism to control our information, freedoms & civil rights depends on it.

The republicans aren't going to just give up....

We have to fight their privatization plans!

[Evoman]

42. PAYING FOR PORN??? HA! I think Telus and Bell Canada would be burned to the ground within a month.

[snot]

43. Google et al. shd get on this, shdn't they?

What's the point of a "browser" if it only takes you to corp. media etc.?

[file83]

46. Well, it was fun while it lasted. Back to HAM radio I guess...

[liberalla]

48. This sounds so extreme and impossible

I know they'd love to control and police the net, even more than they do now, but it's hard to imagine it just ending.

We have plenty of time to prevent this! right?

[solara]

53. K&R

:kick:

[no limit]

54. I'm sorry I can't believe this. This story is BS, the internet is global

what some ISP does in North America has absolutely no bearing on the rest of the world. If the big telecoms did this here you would see hundreds if not thousands of other ISP sprung up. Remember, anyone with a phone line and a computer can become an ISP if they know what they are doing.

So I'm sorry, but this is extremely alarmist and is virtually impossible to occur and I bet you money that when the time article they are pointing to comes out it will say nothing remotely close to this.

[maryf]

55. I hope so

Most people are so untech savvy, that while the geeks will undoubtedly be able to do something, I'm not sure about the rest of us. Something to be aware of anyway...

[no limit]

56. It's not a matter of being techy

I could provide you with a 56K connection today and as long as you know how to dial up to the internet, which if you have been online for more than a year you should know how to do, you would have an internet connection. I'm not going to bog you down with specifics but just understand that the internet is a very redundant system that no single telecom company has control over. The backbone for the internet is a part of a network controlled by governments, non-profit organizations, private individuals, and yes, global telecoms. A single one of those can't simply shut everything down without getting everyone to cooperate.

Net neutrality is a very serious issue. But a lot of people don't really seem to understand the concept behind it, and this OP plays on fears generated as a result of that misunderstanding, fears that are unfounded.

[Sundoggy]

59. Sorry, this is simply incorrect

A layman's view of the internet is a bit dangerous. Net Neutrality is a real issue. The Internet is a little more complicated than you think - from one who has made his living on it for a quarter century.

[no limit]

62. Then please, by all means explain.

How can a few greedy telecoms in the US bring down the entire global internet. I saw no explaination for this in the OP, maybe you want to take a shot at it?

[Sundoggy]

58. Your tech information is inaccurate

This is a very real possibility.

[no limit]

64. As I said in a post above you need to explain to me how

how can a few greedy telecoms in north america shut down the global internet. The OP didn't explain, so go for it. Feel free to be specific, trust me, I'll understand.

[27inCali]

60. because the Internet undermines MSM bullshit

period.

[sarcasmo]

63. It was a GREAT ride will it lasted.

[MonkeyFunk]

65. Why do people believe such nonsense?

[maryf]

66. I actually didn't know

If this could be true or not, figured some here would so I posted it, with question marks. Seems like this huge jury is still out...I am really very ignorant on how all of it works, but put nothing past the mega corporations...

[Posteritatis]

68. Righteous indignation is addictive

Am I worried about this kind of thing? Yes. But a plan to tier the Net that stringently by 2012? Bullshit of the lowest sort. The Net is not and cannot be that organized.

[maryf]

70. Thats good to hear!

I'm not enamored with the idea!

[no limit]

84. Hey, monkey funk. Now that the primaries are over we can finally agree on something

:toast:

[Leopolds Ghost]

73. Sounds like what the hippies wanted when I was a kid. TV, Networked computing, oven all in one box.

So you never have to leave the home. All subscriber based.

That's what I was taught.

"TV-like subscription service." Love how the author of this piece
has gotten used to Pay TV so fast that he or she doesn't even question
the notion that TV should operate in this fashion, nor is there
any mention or objection to the strategy behind digital broadcast
television to make ALL TV paid TV, which was instituted as part of the
telecom deregulation act.

[Trillo]

80. Tron

It strikes me that with wireless routers you are able to connect to other computers directly. By placing the router's antenna on your roof, the range is much increased, or so I've read, without needing to increase transmission power. There's little reason to believe that if the ISPs do this, that a Shadow Internet would not form that would bypass the corporate pipes.

The very interesting thing about the Internet was that it was originally built as a decentralized communication tool for the military that could self wire around interruptions. This seemed to change somewhere around the 90s (it was gradual), with ISPs developing alliances and so forth with other companies, and favoring their wires or pipes. In other words, the Internet became more centralized and hierarchical.

It is not hard to conceive that if the ISPs do this, a Shadow Internet would return to its roots, as a decentralized, non-heirarchical system using wireless roof-to-roof repeaters, essentially diverging from the design of the parallel corporate system with its heriarchy.

Where each one would go, and how each separate system would change and evolve after that, it's hard to say.

[papapi]

83. Free Internet for ALL, locality sponsored as part of the educational system.