http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester

To quote this:
This could collapse everything. sciforum, our personal sites, everything. And with them watching us like the article says, I would be afraid to use the internet any more. Even I, an Internet junkie, would not pay loads of money per download or however they want it.

I know it seems unlikely, but there's still that possiblity. Anyone else afraid/angry/bothered/whatever?

Weren't we supposed to pay to a fee for each e-mail and instant message we went like 8 years ago? ;) I doubt this'll happen.

While something like this would suck, it wouldn't even be the end of the internet. Hell, they could charge $100 a month and it'd still be tons less than what I used to pay to be online 9-10 years ago.

- N

Cool. Death to the internet.

This is bullshit. The market would not allow it. period. No matter how big and powerful the corporations, it can never happen. You think ebay, google, yahoo, etc.. etc.. would allow that?

the endof the internet,

will be when the government ban it, because they think sadam hussain is making WMD inside of it somewhere,


in all seriousness the police and agents will be monitoring everything, then they will try to ban it or something and make it illegal to have connection to the www.


peace.

IT wont happen...

the price will only go up...

-MT

It will never cease to amaze me as to how people will so easily buy into some conspiracy theory.

That entire article is bogus along with the distorted, out of context quote by the Chairman of AT&T. No one ever has or ever will "use their pipes for free." Data transmission over the Internet has always - and always will be - paid for by the individual subscribers (like you and me) to those backbone companies (like AT&T) through the access charges we pay our ISPs.

It's refreshing to see from the replies that some here aren't buying this hogwash and that others are at least doubtful about it.

We've talked here before about source credibility and that comes into play on this "news" article and the site where it was found. Just remember that these people (The Nation.com) are totally anti-business and anti-government. Anything they publish should not be taken with just a grain of salt but rather with a whole truckload of it. Be wise - always know your source and then you can more accurately judge what they say.

It will never cease to amaze me as to how people will so easily buy into some conspiracy theory.

That entire article is bogus along with the distorted, out of context quote by the Chairman of AT&T. No one ever has or ever will "use their pipes for free." Data transmission over the Internet has always - and always will be - paid for by the individual subscribers (like you and me) to those backbone companies (like AT&T) through the access charges we pay our ISPs.

It's refreshing to see from the replies that some here aren't buying this hogwash and that others are at least doubtful about it.

We've talked here before about source credibility and that comes into play on this "news" article and the site where it was found. Just remember that these people (The Nation.com) are totally anti-business and anti-government. Anything they publish should not be taken with just a grain of salt but rather with a whole truckload of it. Be wise - always know your source and then you can more accurately judge what they say.



i dont even think my reply had anything to do with the conspiracy theory, i was just typing a reply tot he title, i havent read the theory yet, but i know you wasnt refering to me anyway,

but i do think the government will later find that the internet helps terrorist organizations, and encourages revolutionist behaviour etc, and try to stop people somehow,


but im not saying anything if certain atall.


peace.

i dont even think my reply had anything to do with the conspiracy theory, i was just typing a reply tot he title, i havent read the theory yet, but i know you wasnt refering to me anyway,

but i do think the government will later find that the internet helps terrorist organizations, and encourages revolutionist behaviour etc, and try to stop people somehow,


but im not saying anything if certain atall.


peace.

Hello Chi,

There's no doubt it helps the "bad guys." So does regular phones, cellphones, instant messaging, radios and any other form of communication. I'm not downplaying the Internet's role at all because it is THE biggest and easiest form of anonymous communication there is. Anyone can access it from dozens of different places without anyone else even noticing.

But when you get a chance to read the article you'll see that it isn't about that at all. It's claiming the big companies, with the help of the government, are going to turn it into a commercial-only venture.

oh, well i dont see that happening to be honest,

in my opinion ofcourse,

peace.

That article has some truth in it. I always thought e-mail was putting certain people out of business. Its a matter of time before the internet gets embraced by the longer arms of the govs and NGO's. In fact its going to have its own judiciary and enforcement bodies.

Internet Titans of USA will fall. Google, Yahoo, MS. Good for us.

Please explain why the fall of Google will be good news?

I would not take this so lightly. The AT&T guy has said such things numerous times now, and given the ongoing consolidation in the tel-com market, it is very possible.

In the US, we do exactly what this guy is asking for in the cell-phone market. You pay to make a call, and you pay to receive a call. You pay more for text messages, and even more for video/web browsing/ringtones....

Now, don't get me wrong, removing the nuetrality of the internet would be a HORRIBLE thing, and would, IMO result in a major downgrade in quality and further adoption; however, there is a very small amount of competition in the backbone space (as oppose to the last-mile ISP space). AT&T is one of the backbone carriers; they have some clout in this matter.

Google, Yahoo, Ms...are not ISPs or backbone providers, so thats of little worry. If google has indeed been buying up black fiber around the country, AT&T does impliment this teired payment system; then maybe we will finally have the onus to create the Web 2.0 - a P2P baed system w/o central DNS servers or Root cert systems.

Maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing for greedy businesses to bury the current web.

If that were true, I could tell that AT&T guy exactly where to shove his 'pipes'...

But I doubt it is. A move like that would cripple the global economy. In South Africa we have a telecoms monopoly (www.hellkom.co.za) which has already put us at a disadvantage...

"We are microsoft, resistance is futile, you will assimilate"

Please explain why the fall of Google will be good news?
I hope U r aware that USA has denied to quit controlling the internet. The more internet business is lost from USA the better off world will be from US internet Dictatorship.

I hope U r aware that USA has denied to quit controlling the internet. The more internet business is lost from USA the better off world will be from US internet Dictatorship.

That first sentence ranks among the most awkwardly written I've ever seen.

If you are tying to say the U.S. is maintaining control of the root servers and ICANN (and international organization, by the way) still has a leadership role, then you would be correct. But I doubt you are even aware of ICANN and what it does, are you?

And it's pure foolishness to claim that ANY one country controls the Internet. China places limitations on what it's population can see and Germany has a ban on the sale of Nazi items on the Internet - but even they cannot control the Internet itself.

This remark was made about a post by Anomalous.That first sentence ranks among the most awkwardly written I've ever seen.Clearly you have not read any of his other one thousand one hundred and tweny nine posts. ...... Smart move. ;)

This remark was made about a post by Anomalous.Clearly you have not read any of his other one thousand one hundred and tweny nine posts. ...... Smart move. ;)
Thank you. :)

And you're quite right. I completely avoid them (or at least I have for quite some time now) unless they just happen to appear in a thread that interests me. And the norm is still to ignore them even then. ;)

Thank you. :)

And you're quite right. I completely avoid them... No wonder U r always so right.

hey Light, look at your American attitude, guess what , someone is comming

http://www.physorg.com/printnews.php?newsid=6901

No wonder U r always so right.

hey Light, look at your American attitude, guess what , someone is comming
http://www.physorg.com/printnews.php?newsid=6901

OK, I read it. What makes you think it really means anything? That's pretty old news, by the way.

And I ask again - do you even know what ICANN is, how it's made up and what it does? (Didn't think so!)

Last edited by Stryder : Today at 04:25 AM. Reason: Edited both previous posts to remove annoying Iframe

I thought he has stepped down as a Mod,

Death to all Mods

The Iframe is annoying. It has some kind of print code in it. Provide a link next time.

The Iframe is annoying. It has some kind of print code in it. Provide a link next time.
What ever U say James R.

Excuse' moi? Ich nich bin James R.

Where the hell did you get James R from anomalous?

Amoanalot has strange sources for his thoughts, for they rise up out of the primeval gestalt of the Universe.

But only on alternate Tuesdays.

Last edited by Stryder : Today at 04:25 AM. Reason: Edited both previous posts to remove annoying Iframe

I thought he has stepped down as a Mod,

Death to all Mods

I had stepped down, however until things have been sorted within the forum moderators etc (And until I actually decide to sell all my worldly possessions and disappear into the forever unknown.) I still feel that with privileges intact I can still offer my services dealing with unwanted spam, trolls and posts that are concerning.

(The reason for removing the Iframe was having people use the "reply" button and quoting the Iframe meant a flood of printer commands deluge your browser.)

As for this "Death" you speak, Could the same be said "for all trolls"?

Now its death to all humanity
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=969627#post969627

I'm going to let that one post slide Anomalous, but do realise the reason it got deleted from the 3-4 other threads you posted it to is because it's no way connected with the threads topic.

You vouch for blood over someone that posted in this preportion of the forum just to query about computer related issues bares no real grounds of support. If the person you are after posts flames in another part of the forum or says conteraversial material, keep it to those posts, don't spread the muck about (we don't need trolls fertilized in this part of the forum)

I'm going to let that one post slide Anomalous, but do realise the reason it got deleted from the 3-4 other threads you posted it to is because it's no way connected with the threads topic.

You vouch for blood over someone that posted in this preportion of the forum just to query about computer related issues bares no real grounds of support. If the person you are after posts flames in another part of the forum or says conteraversial material, keep it to those posts, don't spread the muck about (we don't need trolls fertilized in this part of the forum)
U mods of Sci forums have destroyed your planet just now becuase U think its ok to close threads.

U mods of Sci forums have destroyed your planet just now becuase U think its ok to close threads.
Ooooooooooooooooo! Should I borrow someone's tinfoil hat to protect myself from this threat?

Naw, I think I'll just back to watching something on TV for better entertainment than this.

U mods of Sci forums have destroyed your planet just now becuase U think its ok to close threads.

I've mentioned in a previously long departed post here far below all the recent posts about the potential for a new internet to be born, one that gives in fully to mass consumerism, that doesn't run the same way as the current one. (It's made safe, policed and commercially control)

I mentioned it because rather than the End to the Internet it would just split people between the two.

I do believe that the overall internet as a whole shouldn't have boundaries placed by one or other country, in fact that was one of the "Romantic" thoughts that people like to believe about it. However it should be noted that the internets basic structure was based upon Coldwar communications & espionage technology, notibly by one more extrovert superpowers.

This means this very "Romantic" Cyberspace that you believe to have no extents or boundaries has for the early years been under the watchful eye of those who's network it once was. Of course this is probably why the EU and UN have the stance they do on it being made more Globally acceptable, rather than being very one sided with "Laws" potentially being defined by the county or "occupancy" (Namely for a while the net lived about 80% in the US)

in reply to your comment:
Mine and moderators closing of a few threads to remove flaming or to stop continued flaming is no way closing down the internet. Afterall you can always open another thread up, just when you realise you have to open a second one... try thinking about what you are posting first which you might have neglected the first time.

watch....well have the "internet" and separately the... "forumnet"....at least thats how I see it

Stryder jusitce is still Unknown to U, U will always remain StryderUnknown.

you would have te be retarded to believe that anyone could shut down the internet completely. it wolud be a matter of mere weeks before intra-continental networks were established to replace it. it may take a bit of money to get satellites linking the networks though.

you would have te be retarded to believe that anyone could shut down the internet completely. it wolud be a matter of mere weeks before intra-continental networks were established to replace it. it may take a bit of money to get satellites linking the networks though. I hope U were not adressing that to me, I never said anything about internet.

I believe that you have mentioned the internet before in this thread Anomy.

I believe that you have mentioned the internet before in this thread Anomy. where when ? Are U nuts too ?

Anomalous,
You really have some issues to work out. I wouldn't be suprised if you and a few of the others came from that forum that was setup just to innitiate trolling activities, so why not go back to it?

Anomalous,
You really have some issues to work out. I wouldn't be suprised if you and a few of the others came from that forum that was setup just to innitiate trolling activities, so why not go back to it?Ya I was expecting this from U, If U look at my threads they are out of Genuine interest but its the mods that screw them, And OffCourse the lack of features here in Sciforums.

So Now U have a Conspiracy theory on your mind ?

you would have te be retarded to believe that anyone could shut down the internet completely. it wolud be a matter of mere weeks before intra-continental networks were established to replace it. it may take a bit of money to get satellites linking the networks though.

True.

Congress held a hearing on the issue of network nuetrality this week; I like Lawrence Lessig's speech:
http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/lessig-020706.pdf

The internet could not be banned. Imagine the stock market after Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google shares all dropped. Walstreet would take a very long time to recover. Now however it is true that the decline in this would make up in other stocks. But would they take the risk? Would they want to? I could imagine these are posted to put a scare on share holders on the internet to sell stocks at a cheaper price.