2012: The Year The Internet Ends

ARE YOU #%&@& KIDDING ME!!!!!

ipower.ning.com...

People if this happens you can say goodbye to ATS because i have a feeling that it will be in the best interest of the companies running this little sick thing to not have it online, this will completely damage the way we get information...also i find it strange that 2012 is the date they chose!

WATCH THIS VIDEO:


www.youtube.com...

Almost all smaller websites/services will disappear over time and multinationals who are used to using big budgets to brute force their content into every media outlet will finally be able to approach the internet in the same way.

that means they will have control of a very powerful force, the internet! and have control over the information flow!!!

And google will own most of the sites you will watch anyhow,
google owns yahoo, google owns wiki.
Just 2 of the sites that you will only be able to watch, Ill bet in the next 4 years google will own a lot more.

It seems like the next step is to get some independent confirmation from other ATSers who might know management types at ISPs. This sounds plausible at least, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was rolled out under the guise of copyright protection. Anybody have any ISP contacts?

[edit on 2-6-2008 by flybynight]

Well, if you look around the site, there are quite a few folks who believe that everything will end in 2012, so I guess to them the internet is small potatoes.

I don't know about anyone else, but it is unlimited access to the internet that keeps me glued to the computer as much as I am.

Limit that or price unlimited access out of my reach and I guess I'll have to start reading books again and shopping at brick and mortar establishment exclusively.

I think that eventually ISPs are going to have to control bandwidth more strictly because of the P2P explosion and indeed, my ISP, Comcast, does that by slowing download speeds when P2P software is detected, but this is a solution that is fraught with legal issues that will eventually wind up in court.

I remember when internet access was much more expensive, you paid by the minute or hour, and speeds were so slow that you could go grocery shopping while some sites downloaded.

My personal opinion is this. The internet is a wonderful thing. It is the most positive technology that I've witnessed in my lifetime, allowing that there are many technological advances that make the internet possible, but you get my drift.

The people are getting fed up with inflexible cable TV packages and beginning to scream for menu type systems, where you get what you want and pay for what you get. Personally, I only use about a tenth of the channels I have. It sucks.

That ad in the article is I presume just a mock up of what an ad of the future might be like. I have heard that in Australia, subscribers must request full access, but this is a measure to limit access to inappropriate content by minors--a kind of passive protection system if you will.

This kind of model would not bother me. If some people only want limited access to the internet, let them have it, as long as I can still get unlimited access at a reasonable price and insofar as this is what most consumers want, any move to gouge customers for full access is just going to force consumers to find something else to do with their time and will in effect be killing the goose that laid the golden egg, besides screwing with the economy big-time.

Other ATS discussions of this topic.

/4xrg3z

[edit on 2008/6/2 by GradyPhilpott]

reply to post by GradyPhilpott
Hey, check this out. New Movie coming next year about 2012.communities.canada.com...

Cheers

You mean, it won't be Niburu/Planet X's fault?! This quite a revelation!

To GradyPhilpott on the Australia net dealie, we don't have to ask our ISPs for full access - that was more or less just a proposal that got shouted down fairly quickly. I think it would work by ISPs providing a "clean feed" as the government put it, then you'd have to request to get the, well I supposed it would be called the "unclean feed"

Big media has been trying to control 'net since forever, you could see it when Murdoch bought out MySpace for instance.

[edit on 3-6-2008 by mattguy404]

First of all... think out of the box!
We use ISP's today because it is the most simple way to access unlimited information at a low cost. If this would be restricted in such a manner as the video suggests, we can always set up our own Internet.
Have you never heard of peer to peer in the real sense of the word? Like from antenna to antenna? It will go back to the "old" times (much like BBS), people will run web-sites at their home to get their message out (or knowledge sharing).
The freedom you have is only limited to that what you want to do for it.

Gr.,
Dr4g0n

Hubba Hubba....what a frame to start the video!


You got my interest.....now what was the question?

I'm suprise that they didn't get rid of the the internet as we know it already. The Internet is nothing but trouble, it's full of bullies, conspiracy theorist and haters....makes me wanna cry.

reply to post by bismarcksea


haha same here... are they from the Netherlands? I want one of those.

On the subject, for those who are outside the U.S. they have more liberty of internet surfing than the regular U.S. citizen. You don't get watched...

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
First of all... think out of the box!
We use ISP's today because it is the most simple way to access unlimited information at a low cost. If this would be restricted in such a manner as the video suggests, we can always set up our own Internet.
Have you never heard of peer to peer in the real sense of the word? Like from antenna to antenna? It will go back to the "old" times (much like BBS), people will run web-sites at their home to get their message out (or knowledge sharing).
The freedom you have is only limited to that what you want to do for it.

Gr.,
Dr4g0n

The only difference is that the pipes that your packets are going thru are owned by the ISPs, you won't be able to create your own Internet, it's not like waves that travel in the sky.

If they say "our customers modem will only receives packets from this, this and this source" you are pretty much screwed.

It will only cause the people using Bell and Rogers here in Canada to go to third party, net neutrality supporting ISPs.
This is what I have already done.