ISP's confirm 'End of The Internet' by 2012

Big companies will sue for loss of revenue.
ISP's could find themselves burning up a lot of resources fighting legal battles.
 
If this did happen we'd simply setup an ISP branch and e-mail our customer base. I think 99.99% of our hosting clients would rather find it useful if their websites were viewable by their tens of thousands of users!

It'll never happen - no chance.
 
I think it will happen. There will be a separate internet. Sponsored by big business. I can see it being advertised now "Inter web - SECURE, FAST, DIRECT". Sponsored by Microsoft. It will only be large business websites or other sites will have to pay to be on it. A bit like the Yellow Pages.

99% of the internet is rubbish anyway. :D

Interesting times.
 
I bet Virgin would love to do something like this, charge users for seclected websites you visit, if you visit them during peak hours your charged more, and your onlly allowed to visit them so many times a day and if you fart whilst doing so you must pay royalties to the BPI because they own the right's to the sound.
 
Rhys said:
I think it will happen. There will be a separate internet. Sponsored by big business. I can see it being advertised now "Inter web - SECURE, FAST, DIRECT". Sponsored by Microsoft. It will only be large business websites or other sites will have to pay to be on it. A bit like the Yellow Pages.

99% of the internet is rubbish anyway. :D

Interesting times.
Click to expand...

'Skynet' I reckon - and when it goes global.......:eek::eek::p
 
gnr26 said:
I bet Virgin would love to do something like this, charge users for seclected websites you visit, if you visit them during peak hours your charged more, and your onlly allowed to visit them so many times a day and if you fart whilst doing so you must pay royalties to the BPI because they own the right's to the sound.
Click to expand...

Yeah I bet they would. I had Virgin for 5 years, they were fine for 4 years then they got greedy, manipulative and their technical support was rubbish. It took them 3 months to fix my net access. Then when I tried to take them with me to my girlfriends house they charged me a £100 cancellation fee - as it is "part of the process but you'll get it back". A load of bollix.

If it came to having a seperate internet exclusively for so called major sites then fine - they can keep them. It's the fact that the protest group state that you will have to pay extra for the smaller sites - like this one. In which case small sites would close and you'd only have the major ones left.
 
Ive no doubt Virgin will try something like this, they are using the underhanded business tactics handbook 101 in the last couple of months, they will take to this like a pig in the proverbial muck, the screw tightens every couple of months it seems.
 
Last edited:
I can see there being a hack to get past it within a few days of anything like this happening.
 
teaboy5 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think Virgin are charging the BBC anything extra - unless it's the costs of getting the IPlayer working on the Virgin system (and i think that was a joint project).

Most large ISP's in the UK are finding the IPlayer is starting to cause problems due to it's uptake being high, and the bandwidth it uses, some (such as VM) are actively working with the BBC to lower the impact (by either putting BBC servers directly into the network backbone, or other methods), others are just complaining and sticking their heads in the sand.



Personally I think the link in the op has it the wrong way round*, at the moment most of what i've heard suggests that ISP's on the no "net neutrality" side of the fence would be more likely to limit the speed of high bandwidth commercial sites (IE those that could afford to pay towards their bandwidth on isp networks), than limit the access to small sites that use next to no bandwidth.

It's also worth remembering that they are predicting things that might happen in 4+ years time - i'm fairly young and i've seen such predictions proven wrong soo many times it's silly ;)


For those that are saying the ISP's should invest more in their networks - are you all ready and willing to pay a considerable amount extra for your basic package?
The ISP business in many countries is based on offering connection for the lowest price possible, which doesn't tend to leave much for investment, add to that the way the average use of the internet has changed over the past few years and many ISP's across the world are playing catchup in some ways to the changes in use, and discussing possible options (many of which will never see the light of day, but cause panic when people hear snippets of the discussion).
It wouldn't even surprise me too much if the bit of news in the op link is regarding a very specific type of package.



*I also think that a lot of people are panicking over every rumour and bit of misinformation/bad reporting and screaming about the sky falling - but then I've spent the past 8 years being told continuously that a game i play is "going to be shut down" every time a member of it's dev team leaves, or a new game in the genre is announced.
 
ISPs have show themselves in the foot by offering ever increasing speeds... "Oh customers will never use it all..."

And now there are some real, legal applications of the bandwidth, the ISPs are having to pay. They're trying to offload the cost of delivering the content to the end user to BBC et al, except BBC already pays for their bandwidth to their transit providers. It's up to the ISP to pay for "the last mile".
 
Isn't this just a variation on port-blocking and bandwidth capping? There are plenty of ISPs out there that do this already - often without the end users knowing about it, or even caring about it. Those people who want an uncapped or unblocked service pay more.

Seems like a natural evolution of the Internet TBH, but I'm not sure it'll happen in such a drastic and totalitarian way as the original article suggests.

If all ISPs limited your bandwidth (depending on your fees) and blocked undesirable ports from their network (limewire, edonkey etc) except at certain hours (already being done) unless you pay more, would't that bring certain benefits?

If they could do that, then there is a good chance they could get control of the net back again and wipe out things like spam - which I for one would support.

On the flip side, I can't see the draconian measures mentioned in the OP actually succeeding because all of the hackers in the world who are currently running botnets would simply turn their attention to the ISPs concerned.

Just my tuppence worth.
 
this is scaremongering. isps dont control the internet. no-one does. the first isp to move to this model will go out of business overnight.
 
I hope your right hedgey

Man i use the net for research to gaming and about everything else inbetween

Seems to me a bit weird but then the world's going weirder by the day

Ciao

Def
 
mr.sly said:
I think it says in the video, that ISPs are aware of that. So they're banding together to make sure that no one has the option of switching to a "open" service.
Click to expand...

They can't band every single ISP together. In fact, even a few of them banding together would summon a pile of legal **** their way for behaving like a cartel.

And even in the unlikely event that they DO get away with it, there will always be some ISP not doing this, some of the smaller ones that the big boys overlooked. A whole lot of people will go to these small ISPs, and the big boys will go "WTF where'd all my customers go?"
 
Could never happen, if Isp's tried to do it people would create their own private networks, as is done currently with wi-fi etc. Which could be mapped accross the whole country for free.
 
Last edited:
helmutcheese said:
I did not realise VM provided a service in Poland. :p

I assume they are in UK and the only good part of both videos is the chicks boobs at start, she never says much after that. :D
Click to expand...
They're from Belgium, and you don't have to live in Britain to know about things that happen here.

You really need to educate yourself in future before doing things like jumping on anti-Polish bandwagons in topics that are totally unrelated to immigration, you're just making yourself look like a fool. I reported your spam post.

As for her boobs, it gets peoples attention. They do a lot of things like that around their videos and such.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom