What's the End of The Internet? My View

My exposure to the internet dates back to acoustic coupler modems where 150 baud was the norm, 300 baud was a luxury.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the members here couldn't remember when there was anything but broadband. Ask them what is Compuserve? "Huh..."

While I'm dating myself with this post, I find myself with little choice to make a point. In the early days, (dare I say in the late 60's to early 70's) the internet was really solely a military construct. The average person couldn't foresee an Atari, nevermind quad cores and 3-way SLI with broadband speeds reaching further toward light speed.

Initially, the mainstream internet (some semblance to what we know and see now) was primarily populated with free thinkers, mostly technical savvy guru types. We, the plumbers and electricians and basic blue-collar workers stayed far away from it.

Amidst this population was a central theme...freedom and free. We needed (and paid) for avenues to reach our "guru-type" brethren, and everything following that was fair game. From the early stages of IM's, to "bulletin boards" to the most rudimentary of multi-player games. So long as we paid our way into this technology, once there it was an open highway and we rode til we dropped.

What will kill it?

To answer this I suggest the following excerp and source from Rupert Murdoch:

"We are now in the midst of an epochal debate over the value of content and it is clear to many newspapers that the current model is malfunctioning," the News Corp. Chairman and CEO said.

"We have been at the forefront of that debate and you can confidently presume that we are leading the way in finding a model that maximizes revenues in return for our shareholders... The current days of the Internet will soon be over."

Source

In summary what have we got now?

We've got to pay for our ISP's. We've got to pay a Telecommunications surcharge for the privilege of using that ISP. Now, it's being proposed that in addition to the former 2, we will ALSO have to pay "mileage" (aka, by the byte count), and top all of THAT off with what was once at least the last freedom the internet had to offer, that being information, yes you guessed it....pay for that too.

At what point does the telegraph and ham-radio seem to start to sound better and better for transmission of information.

Full circle, what was once, will be again....we moved away from the old to embrace this new technology. But do we need to go back to the old, to appreciate what we lost in the new?

I personally believe this is exactly what will kill the internet. Not President Obama with a "kill-switch", not a nuclear attack, not the NWO, and not the NSA.



AB1

I personally don't see it happening. To me it seems like eventually the interent will be integrated into everything. Its where the technology is going. I think you will see kitchen appliances with access to library of recipies, tv has already been merged so to speak with "online" content. IMO, its gonna become more of a free thing rather than a more expensive thing, you are going to see cities provide more and more free wi-fi, corded internet will be a thing of the past. I think we will see the cliche' gadgets from futuristic films. I for one wouldnt' mind getting my email in the shower, haha.

The "web" is way to big and too many ppl depend on it for it to be taken away in the context we know. And if they do, something else will come up to replace it. Again, just my humble opinon.

reply to post by stereovoyaged


No, I'm not suggesting that the internet will be taken away at all.

You're absolutely right, it's too indelibly etched and woven into our society now for that to happen.

What I'm suggesting though, is that what it was designed to be (and what a lot of us have to come to love it to be) is radically different than the direction it's headed. By placing such a heavy "taxes" if you will, on the ability to use it for what some of us have loved it for, may end up seeing a huge decline on it's use simply because (more pronounced in these economic times) of their inability to keep paying and paying and paying for things that were once free.

I do appreciate what you're saying, don't get me wrong and thank you for the input


AB1

[edit on 7-5-2009 by alphabetaone]

Originally posted by stereovoyaged


The "web" is way to big and too many ppl depend on it for it to be taken away in the context we know. And if they do, something else will come up to replace it. Again, just my humble opinon.

The internet can easily be manipulated and controlled. If you need to control information (information is power), you need to insert new rules, and those new rules are coming in the very near future.

Yes, alot of people depend on internet, and business is a very big part of this. So, business ($$$$) will take over our last frontier of freedom of expression. We live in a world where we're constantly bombarded with publicity to make us "want" and desire stuff we don't even need most of the time.

reply to post by alphabetaone


I think I see what your getting at, but I can't see the "by the byte" kinda thing happening. The way media, file storage, online abillities, etc are going, the required bandwidth required for us to have and use even right now is incredible. Thats only gonna get bigger, I see and end to different "tiers" of internet. Its just gonna be all encompassing, everywhere, unlimited, never capped, exponentially bigger than anything we can imagine now.

Originally posted by stereovoyaged
reply to post by alphabetaone

 

I think I see what your getting at, but I can't see the "by the byte" kinda thing happening.

Seriously? You don't see it happening?

Well, actually, it happening now:

Time Warner Cable, which operates under the Road Runner brand, said it has been offering tiered, capped service in Beaumont, Texas for some time and in March began testing that pricing in four new markets: Austin and San Antonio, Texas; Rochester, N.Y.; and Greensboro, N.C. Still unpriced is Time Warner's maximum available offering: 100GB per month, said Time Warner Cable spokesman Alex Dudley. Usage exceeding those caps is charged at $1 per gigabyte.

Others among the nation's largest ISPs are also experimenting with caps and tiers.

The largest ISP, AT&T, says it started similar trials Nov. 1 in Beaumont, Texas, and in Reno, offering between 20GB ($19.95) and 150GB ($65) per month depending on connection speed, with excess usage charged at $1 per gigabyte.

No. 2 ISP Comcast Corp. allows up to 250GB per month for a flat fee, calling the 1 percent of its users who exceed that limit and "asking them to moderate their usage," but not charging them more, said spokesman Charlie Douglas. Verizon, at No. 4, said it has no caps or tiers, while No. 5 AOL offers no broadband service and in any case said it's not considering consumption-based plans.

Source

You seriously don't think that these "tests" will become reality? I sure do.


AB1

[edit on 7-5-2009 by alphabetaone]

Originally posted by lagenese
Yes, alot of people depend on internet, and business is a very big part of this. So, business ($$$$) will take over our last frontier of freedom of expression. We live in a world where we're constantly bombarded with publicity to make us "want" and desire stuff we don't even need most of the time.

I'll agree, that it seems we have no restraint when it comes to purchases...the internet tends to exacerbate that just via it's convenience.

But to sell products over the internet, IMO, is ok... using it for a revenue stream is ok. Especially if that's exactly what you're "selling" to the public, the fact that you ARE selling a product.

However, let's look at this as Sirius versus Regular radio....why do you think Sirius is failing? Because people have realized that they simply just dont want to pay for something they never had to before, and primarily that's information (whether in the form of comedy, music, or otherwise) ... what used to be public airwaves.

Thank you for your input

AB1

In my current area, one ISP has a cap the other doesn't, I know A LOT of ppl that have switched due to this restriction and more and more everyday.

With our bandwidth demands for media and sharing, I cannot concieve a scenario where the "cap" wins. Media files will be larger, streaming better quality, larger downloads, if people can't do online what they want, they will go with an ISP who can provide that (same therory as sirius, ppl wont pay extra for something they can get for free)

Im not saying I am right, not saying your wrong, I have just been in the tech/ISP/internet etc line of work for years and basing this on my experiences

Webservers and stuff already pay by the bite, we just buy plans that include up to that amount. Same principle though. And if you go over that amount, it's ouch time on what you pay per usually.

I think if people end up starting to pay in that way, it will have to be in the name of better technology and connections. Just like with the servers, you have to pay for it that way, because of your needs and how much bandwidth you need.

So I dunno, I think that is mostly a bunch of scare stuff. Even if they did move to that format, it's going to have to be competitive, otherwise people will stick to the company that doesn't do it, and that company will get all the business.

What should be watched out for are regulations on these things. Because that is how they really do such things. Add in regulations that force people to do something or another, or force them to increase their costs, small business can't keep up, big business eats a bit of cost, makes up for in the end with the customers gained. Big business plays dumb, errr I dunnt know what yer talkn bout, we had to pay more to.

Originally posted by stereovoyaged
In my current area, one ISP has a cap the other doesn't, I know A LOT of ppl that have switched due to this restriction and more and more everyday.

And don't think the company they switched too doesn't know it either. That is how business works. Switch to the better company. If people do that, then it falls on it's face and free market principles win again.

There is nothing wrong with an ISP who up and decides to do this. AT ALL. It is their business, go elsewhere if you don't like it. It just opens up the door to other companies, and hello - isn't that exactly what is wanted? Or do you just adore Rupert and those like him so much that you are dieing to give him your money?



[edit on 7-5-2009 by badmedia]

reply to post by badmedia


I won't disagree with you necessarily (except perhaps on how Webservers are already paying by the byte, this isn't necessarily true or false) on the evolution (ie., what's happening NOW) to the internet.

I guess my point is somewhat synonymous with "if you Genetically Modify an orange, it's still an orange"... but is it the SAME orange?

This I believe is the point I'm really trying to make, not to dissent what's already in motion.

Thanks for the input though



AB1

Originally posted by badmedia

And don't think the company they switched too doesn't know it either. That is how business works. Switch to the better company. If people do that, then it falls on it's face and free market principles win again.

Although this is somewhat skewing away from the initial topic a bit, I do feel compelled to say this much about what you've said in that quote.

The reality of greed and human nature is not for the other companies who DO know it too to stand back and say "wait they're charging?? Hell I better keep myself free!" ... It's more along the lines of "wait they're charging?? Hell I better get a piece of that pie too before it's too late!"

The too late being, NOW they have to be competitive on pricing and not get as BIG of a piece of the pie as they could have early on.


AB1

Originally posted by alphabetaone
reply to post by badmedia

 

I won't disagree with you necessarily (except perhaps on how Webservers are already paying by the byte, this isn't necessarily true or false) on the evolution (ie., what's happening NOW) to the internet.

I guess my point is somewhat synonymous with "if you Genetically Modify an orange, it's still an orange"... but is it the SAME orange?

This I believe is the point I'm really trying to make, not to dissent what's already in motion.

Thanks for the input though

Well on every dedicated server I've ever bought/used we have paid for bandwidth packages. I guess if you are hosting them yourself etc, you would really only pay for the connection. I guess that would be what you mean? The difference between co-locating or getting your own line.

But getting your own line at the speeds you can get at a co-location place is pretty expensive as well. We co-locate because it's cheaper. Of course, you get what you pay for. We spend thousands a month in bandwidth costs. But we buy packages, rather than paying per bite. But the package itself is based on a certain amount of usage.

We are talking about rather large bandwidth usages here too. It seems to me the big deal over all this usage on the net is because of people using large amounts more than others. And that usually comes from running services and uploading/downloading things 24 hours a day nonstop etc, like a webserver.

Sorry, I may not agree with or like if someone increases the cost of the internet. But I'll never agree that the business doesn't have the right to determine their own price for the services.

And that is what this is about right? The price people pay. If the packages come out, and it's cheaper for the majority of people, then is it ok?

Originally posted by badmedia
And that is what this is about right? The price people pay. If the packages come out, and it's cheaper for the majority of people, then is it ok?

Honestly no, that wasn't my intent of the OP.

My intent was that how and why and the availability of information upon it's inception and subsequent fame was radically different than now, and to ME, in MHO, was a far more valuable tool.

Now, I hardly see the difference between it, and simply turning on the television. This is what I mean by the "End of the Internet"....TV has become an extension of the internet and the Internet has become an extension of TV (or other media and information outlet)...thus rendering it defunct as a source of (previously) free and uncontrolled information.


AB1

reply to post by alphabetaone


Seems to me the information available and the rate at which one can get it is more than it's ever been.

What are you unable to do these days that you were able to do in those days? I'm not sure I am following you.

Originally posted by badmedia
What are you unable to do these days that you were able to do in those days? I'm not sure I am following you.

Well, if you go back to my OP, the question I posed was "What will kill it?" which infers that some of it is still the same, but there is potential for it to be forever changed.

That said, the OP gives all of the details on why I think such a thing could happen...and within that, is information (once upon a time, long long ago) which used to be uncontrolled and free, now everyone wants to charge for it. In many different ways, and along many different avenues.


AB1

[edit on 7-5-2009 by alphabetaone]

reply to post by alphabetaone


I think we have a fundamental difference on what is free. You talk of those things like "everything after that was free", but if it is "free", then that also means the businesses and such are "free" to charge for their services and you are "free" not to use them. That is what I consider to be freedom, not forcing or expecting everyone to do things for free on it.

I just don't see how you are less free to do the things other than back then. There was no foxnews.com back then, pretend there isn't now.

This whole business about charging for websites is not a new topic and has been going on for years. Most sites would just go bankrupt, and the ones that didn't must have been worth the info to atleast that user.

reply to post by badmedia


I think perhaps I'm not communicating to you effectively what I'm trying to say....I'll attempt another route.

You fall asleep for twenty years, you wake up and look at yourself in the mirror. When you see yourself, are you at all how you remember? Most likely not. Chronology has taken it's toll.

The same principle applies here. Is that the internet (as many of us who have been there since it's heady days as BBS' up to and including this point) is slowly eroding into a mass revenue stream instead of (the aforementioned) beast that we were nurturing.


Edit to add that, where it's applicable is that if HOW some of us remember the internet and how we used it and what was available to us, in years past, DOES in fact erode to this mass revenue stream, then the "Internet as we Know it" is beginning to or has died.

AB1

[edit on 7-5-2009 by alphabetaone]

reply to post by alphabetaone


Well I just think I couldn't disagree more. Up until this point it's only gotten better. I don't at all feel as though I'm being ripped off for my internet. Would be nice if it was free, but I am willing to pay more for better service.

reply to post by badmedia


I think you are still misinterpreting me, you're free to disagree with me all you want, but I do prefer to have my intent clear though.

I'm not asking for or desiring my ACCESS to the internet to be free. I'm simply saying it's changing to the point that fee upon fee upon fee is being aggregated (upon the content of the internet, not it's access).

If you walk into a public library, you EXPECT that you will not have to pay for the wealth of information that is contained therein.

I feel the same should apply here.


AB1