ISP's confirm 'End of The Internet' by 2012
- Thread starter mr.sly
- Start date
IP.
Thanks. The smaller sites, such as this, are more useful anyway. And if, for example, Ebay gets swallowed into the higher package then other auctions sites might flourish.
I am not trying to be a **** or anything, but if you know of any laws that state an ISP is not allowed to limit which websites its service can access then could you please link me to one of them?
You can find pretty much all legislation in full at www.opsi.gov.uk for public viewing.
There is a possibilty.
I think something else that might happen, is that people will set up "proxy sites" that are just a copy of everything on YouTube, eBay and so on. That users on the basic package can access. Then we'll start to see a cat and mouse game between the ISP and "hackers".
in order to limit them surely they must be tracking you to see what your going to and trying to go to and as such surely that breaks some sort of law if not then it looks as though its not impossible and we dont want that do we ?
No they can simply block the websites at their end. ISPs already block certain content at their end (terrorist websites, child pornography, that sort of thing) and we just get a 404 or similar if we try to get to it.
Please see post #10.
When you register for your "package" they might give you a static IP address or something similar (like a code) that allows you to access the major sites.
I've just re-read the opening paragraph. It implies you have to pay extra for access to the sites other than Google etc.
"only offering access to a small standard amount of commercial sites and require extra fees for every other site you visit"
So a basic package is limited to the commercial sites, if you want the smaller sites then you pay extra. And that's what would kill off smaller sites like this one.
I don't know why they worded it like that because everything I've ever read on this subject has suggested plans the other way around. Allowing free access to all the minor content on the internet, but charging a premium to access big bandwidth-eaters like YouTube and iPlayer. This makes a lot more sense from a business standpoint.
Who?
Virgin Media have already said they're thinking of charging companies like the BBC for content like iPlayer being used over their network, what makes you think that they won't think about charging customers for it?
Even so, I don't think anyone here has said that this is "definitely going to happen". Just that it's a bad thing.
But that is unrelated to this. Virgin charging the BBC is due to them not investing in their own infrastructure. Maybe if they invested some money in their network they would be able to cope with the demand.
Also if something like this was to come into play, there would be new ISP's with no limits at all.
Also if something like this was to come into play, there would be new ISP's with no limits at all.
It's hilarious the carp spewed by ISP's.
In 2012 the Internet will be pretty much as it is now.
Connection speeds for end users will have increased and there will be more video services but thats about all.
Any ISP that blocks popular websites without good justification will be sued to hell and back.
I work for a corporation which when approached by ISP's holding out there caps told them to adapt or die.
No negotion just "theres the door goodbye.
Those same ISP's have INCREASED there peering with us now so they can provide a better service to there end users.
Folks wan't access to popular sites, if there ISP doesn't provide it, then they walk it's not a hard concept to grasp.
Used to be the only people who used a lot of bandwidth were up to no good downloading lots of warez etc but times have changed.
Mum and Pop can burn up a lot of bandwidth watching Iplayer and the like.
In 2012 the Internet will be pretty much as it is now.
Connection speeds for end users will have increased and there will be more video services but thats about all.
Any ISP that blocks popular websites without good justification will be sued to hell and back.
I work for a corporation which when approached by ISP's holding out there caps told them to adapt or die.
No negotion just "theres the door goodbye.
Those same ISP's have INCREASED there peering with us now so they can provide a better service to there end users.
Folks wan't access to popular sites, if there ISP doesn't provide it, then they walk it's not a hard concept to grasp.
Used to be the only people who used a lot of bandwidth were up to no good downloading lots of warez etc but times have changed.
Mum and Pop can burn up a lot of bandwidth watching Iplayer and the like.
They're all related because its the end of net neutrality. And the reason the American ISPs will be thinking about charging extra is becasue they can't afford to update the infrastructure as well. Especially to rural homes.
Under this idea, they will provide access to the popular sites though. They're not banning them completely, just charging you extra to visit them. And if every ISP has the same service, who will you walk to?
I was just giving you an example of other insane propositions from one of the largest ISPs in the country, and why it wouldn't surprise me if other large ISPs considered other methods like charging extra for "premium content".
You almost make it sound like such a proposition would be illegal. It's not.
It'll be in their terms and conditions no doubt, and people would still have the opportunity to browse the "premium content" by paying more. They would also have the choice of switching to another ISP.