"Door Closes to Open Internet, But All May Not Be Lost" - Polidicks

[QUOTE=maurits150;43593141]It's only a matter of time. [img]http://i.imgur.com/bROv0wR.png[/img][/QUOTE] ISP's wouldn't do this because this would be risky as fuck, you'd lose a lot of customers and eventually realize people are using numerous amounts of exploits and software to bypass a paywall, also with the internet growing faster than we can think about this list wouldn't be able to remotely cover it.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;43598673]ISP's wouldn't do this because this would be risky as fuck, you'd lose a lot of customers and eventually realize people are using numerous amounts of exploits and software to bypass a paywall, also with the internet growing faster than we can think about this list wouldn't be able to remotely cover it.[/QUOTE] I always imagined that so but, fuck me, I think it isn't THAT far fetched in concepts that they will attempt.. [editline]19th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=draugur;43598374]Verizon, while a total shit company in terms of being a wireless phone network, is actually semi-sensible in the internet business department.[/QUOTE] I should get a little more speeds but I'm very happy that I use FIOS internet

[QUOTE=J!NX;43598821]I always imagined that so but, fuck me, I think it isn't THAT far fetched in concepts that they will attempt.. [editline]19th January 2014[/editline] I should get a little more speeds but I'm very happy that I use FIOS internet[/QUOTE] At least you can get FIOS. Where I live there is a fiber optic line that runs directly along our interstate, but I'm stuck with no faster than a 1mb download and upload over copper, and that's on a good day.

[QUOTE=draugur;43598853]At least you can get FIOS. Where I live there is a fiber optic line that runs directly along our interstate, but I'm stuck with no faster than a 1mb download and upload over copper, and that's on a good day.[/QUOTE] that fucking sucks. At least you have facepunch.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;43598673]ISP's wouldn't do this because this would be risky as fuck, you'd lose a lot of customers and eventually realize people are using numerous amounts of exploits and software to bypass a paywall, also with the internet growing faster than we can think about this list wouldn't be able to remotely cover it.[/QUOTE] You also have to consider that all the major ISP's are secretly holding each others backs. They aren't competing with each other to the full extent. They can collectively decide overnight to implement this bullshit and it will end up being extremely hard for any third party or new competitor to break. Also, honestly, how would you even bypass this? The ISP's have full access and insight into the data that passes through the cables that they physically control. Would we attempt to hide behind costly VPNs? What's stopping them from simply dropping any non-authorized connections?

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;43598673]ISP's wouldn't do this because this would be risky as fuck, you'd lose a lot of customers and eventually realize people are using numerous amounts of exploits and software to bypass a paywall, also with the internet growing faster than we can think about this list wouldn't be able to remotely cover it.[/QUOTE] they can do it in the southern/midwest US because Most ISPS have a Monopoly or Duopoly. you can't use the internet otherwise. so people will be forced to either A) Cut themself off from the internet till someone new comes into town that doesn't do that (pretty much impossible to do in this modern time where everything is internet based) B) continue getting fucked in the ass by a ISP Example: the only choices in my area are Comcast or AT&T. im screwed if both of them do that.

If this happens then private ISP's are going to be a thing that is going to explode very, very fast.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;43593192]But that means they will remove the annoying ads on their sites... yeah...[/QUOTE] yes, woe is us for having to deal with a little square window that you can easily ignore for the cost of free internet oh so terrible You'd rather pay to visit a site then?

[QUOTE=katbug;43599314]If this happens then private ISP's are going to be a thing that is going to explode very, very fast.[/QUOTE] You have to realize the traffic has to be routed somehow, if all the rules go away theres nothing stopping the major ISPs from making your shit slow as hell / not go through at all, of course only in certain circumstances, but if you really want to you can do some nasty shit

They will be considering all the options alright. 1. Uphold the ideal of free information. 2. Get a new boat/car/house. 1. Stand resolute against consumer oppression. 2. Do what they have always done. 1. Be nice. 2. Be (rich) doodoo heads. Note, I see this from pretty low on the social ladder, so I'm not optimistic about any of it. Pretty sure that whatever comes out of it, my internet bill will be more expensive because of it.

This is never going to happen anyway. Think about it, do you think Google, Yahoo, and other internet giants would let it? No matter how much lobbying power the ISPs have, I don't think it rivals that of all the major internet presences combined. Hell, even retail and clothing wouldn't let this happen. A pretty big percent of most retailers sales come from the internet now, and they wouldn't let ISPs reduce their traffic.

[QUOTE=TheTalon;43597772]AT&T will definitely do this. My bet is they'll be the first[/QUOTE] Fuck.

[QUOTE=kaine123;43597617]I really want to live in a country that doesn't have a government that seems to do horrible/idiotic things every other five minutes.[/QUOTE] I really want to live in a country where the populace aren't apathetic sheep and actually protest to their own government.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;43598673]ISP's wouldn't do this because this would be risky as fuck, you'd lose a lot of customers and eventually realize people are using numerous amounts of exploits and software to bypass a paywall, also with the internet growing faster than we can think about this list wouldn't be able to remotely cover it.[/QUOTE] That's not going to stop Comcrap from trying it out.

Worse is better. There will need to exist a cascade of events that band the many against the few. This is what I wait for.

Anyone else notice the article is gone?

if it happens we should start a revolution fuck the govenment

[QUOTE=kaine123;43597617]I really want to live in a country that doesn't have a government that seems to do horrible/idiotic things every other five minutes.[/QUOTE] You're out of luck then We put old jackasses resistant to change incharge everywhere and now it's coming back to bite us in the ass

Call me overly optimistic, but I have a feeling not much will ever come of this, and if it does you'll see a lot of friction. Like this, the "worst case scenario": [QUOTE=maurits150;43593141]It's only a matter of time. [img]http://i.imgur.com/bROv0wR.png[/img][/QUOTE] This could never, ever happen. If ISPs outright blocked sites if you don't pay for them, they'd be committing suicide. Not only would people naturally move to ISPs that charge less or nothing for such sites, but you'd also get a tremendous amount of friction from large internet based companies (Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon, the list goes on) and possibly other companies that rely on internet traffic for revenue (newspapers, internet radio, even big tech giants like Microsoft and Apple, as well as some game developers) because in the end you're outright blocking [I]their[/I] customers from using [I]their[/I] services because [I]you[/I] want to turn a nice profit. People don't like people messing with their money, and chances are all of these companies would either want a share of the profit made from these "premium" style services (unlikely because they'd still be turning less of a profit than before) or they'd start pushing the government (along with indie groups and people like you and me) to regulate the system again and bring back at least partial net neutrality. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot because they'd risk losing all the power they got. However, take the more practical and likelier solution for what may happen is that speeds will be throttled for more popular sites unless you pony up more cash. In some cases, this could just be an annoyance at worst, like browsing Twitter or Facebook since most of the content is text or photo based so it doesn't take too much bandwidth in the first place. However, this would become very troublesome if they throttle speeds to places where this bandwidth is needed most, say YouTube or Vine where everything is based on videos or Steam where video games take a very, very long time to download unless you have high speeds, as well as playing games which throttling can cause high pings. In this scenario, too, unless they get paid off (which is more likely since internet-based companies are at less risk of losing customers), I would say there would at least be a slightly significant push by internet companies to at least bring the throttling down to size or eliminate it entirely. For example, they would most definitely be against ISPs throttling speeds to their site from FIOS speeds to dial up speeds because that could most definitely lose them customers. The whole theme here is that people hate when other people mess with their money, and since internet companies are divided separately from the people that provide internet services, it is safe to assume they'll push back against any restrictions ISPs put on their services... unless they get a cut of the profit, which is more probable in some situations than others. The only thing that I don't understand is that if this is such a huge game-changing blow to net neutrality, why isn't there a big SOPA-like push against it? I mean I remember there was a whole site dedicated to that, I just don't imagine that people would just let it slip by.

[QUOTE=maurits150;43593141]It's only a matter of time. [img]http://i.imgur.com/bROv0wR.png[/img][/QUOTE] nah i already pay money per month to use the internet. and too much, mind you. fuck off

So if I scrolled trough this thread correctly, one of their points would be to equalize costs among customers based on the amount of mb's they upload / download? So some guy just using his e-mail and some facepunch would pay less, compared to some guy who plays and downloads a lot of online games. ... Don't they do this already though? As for the whole thing that they called the internet beeïng an "informational service" instead of a "common carrier" (thanks smurfy!), they ARE busy trying to get this rectified right? Because I'd think they would win THAT battle eventually, and then rulings like this can become undone. Right?

[QUOTE=PredGD;43593208]just wait and see, if it ends up like that we'll have to download offline copies of websites[/QUOTE] You still don't understand it do you? This is not about websites being being behind a paygate. This is about speedy access to said websites|protocols|other being behind a paygate. You would still be able to access the websites. Just slooooooooooowly. The fact that there would be an offline copy means nothing if said offline copy downloads sloooooooooowly too. [QUOTE=MyAlt91;43603083]So if I scrolled trough this thread correctly, one of their points would be to equalize costs among customers based on the amount of mb's they upload / download? So some guy just using his e-mail and some facepunch would pay less, compared to some guy who plays and downloads a lot of online games. ... Don't they do this already though? As for the whole thing that they called the internet beeïng an "informational service" instead of a "common carrier" (thanks smurfy!), they ARE busy trying to get this rectified right? Because I'd think they would win THAT battle eventually, and then rulings like this can become undone. Right?[/QUOTE] Basically ISPs right now are essentially dump pipes and they hate this. What they would want to be instead is becoming something like cable companies or standard mobile carriers. WHerein they don't merely act as a pipe but are able to essentially have a lot of different pipes whcih they each can use to funnel customers trough. This is most evident by mobile ISPs who hate loosing their rosey life as more and more of their traditional data is pushed trough the internet instead.

If all I had to pay is subscription fee to use specific sites, I am totally okay with this. My current internet bill is 75 EUR a month. I would end up paying only 20 EUR a month, all I need is: Steam, Facebook, VK, beeg.com, WikiPedia Assuming torrent trackers are still free: I can cross out beeg.com from the list.

[QUOTE=DeEz;43593348]jesus, I would not want to live in the US right now[/QUOTE] Don't get too comfy, the EU abolished net neutrality aswell.

[QUOTE=arleitiss;43614560]If all I had to pay is subscription fee to use specific sites, I am totally okay with this. My current internet bill is 75 EUR a month. I would end up paying only 20 EUR a month, all I need is: Steam, Facebook, VK, beeg.com, WikiPedia Assuming torrent trackers are still free: I can cross out beeg.com from the list.[/QUOTE] Except for the fact you wouldn't be able to go to torrent trackers because they would all be completely blocked, sites like EXAMPLE might be slowed because they are "Special" and you have to pay extra for that one site. Facepunch might not even exist if a system like this was in play. You have no understanding what you are talking about, nothing good could come of something like that.

[QUOTE=Wii60;43599271]they can do it in the southern/midwest US because Most ISPS have a Monopoly or Duopoly. you can't use the internet otherwise. so people will be forced to either A) Cut themself off from the internet till someone new comes into town that doesn't do that (pretty much impossible to do in this modern time where everything is internet based) B) continue getting fucked in the ass by a ISP Example: the only choices in my area are Comcast or AT&T. im screwed if both of them do that.[/QUOTE] In my area, Australia, and for just about most of the Country, lines + exchanges are all handled by Telstra because it used to be Government owned but now some exchanges have hardware of other providers For my area I can get like iiNet, TPG and shit but they have to pay Telstra more for renting the ports which = shitter deals and means Telstra gives us the best service (which they do) What I'm getting at here, is that if anything like this was to be trialed, Telstra and Optus would do it but iiNet would be sooo against it they'd probably go to the High Court to prevent this from happening and I'm not kidding