End of the Internet as we know it.

[Lionmonkey]

If it happens, our community may dissapear:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=A2XPiqhN_Ns

Spread the word!

[Babar]

Click [Subscribe] to see me naked naked naked naked naked lol

* Babar is mesmerised by the silly animated GIF

And it's nice to see that scraggly hair + scraggly beard + geekglasses is 'cool' now.


Hmmm....there may be a glimmer of truth in what they say, but the whole set-up is too funny. Why do they choose 2012?

[EldKatt]

I'd want to hear that from a source that has just a tiny suggestion of reliability and seriousness before I pay any attention to it.

(I didn't look at the whole thing, so maybe they're doing this all the time, but 06:26 is some truly weird cutting work... who are these people?)

[Andail]

Can someone break down the content of that clip? I got insta-bored

[Lionmonkey]

1:30-3:00 covers the main stuff.

I do not exclude the possibility that this may be a lie. But still, you also can not exclude the possibility that it is true. And if it i so, then this site will stop functioning!

Edit to Evil: Watch Zeitgeist.

[Evil]

Don't worry, we'll all be dead soon after.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=T3bxymRd3WA

I mean, the Mayans had a far more sophisticated calendar system then we do so they must be right. And this big boobied woman has insider access to all ISP decisions, so they must be right too.

[skuttleman]

Don't worry, we'll all be dead soon after.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=T3bxymRd3WA

I mean, the Mayans had a far more sophisticated calendar system then we do so they must be right. And this big boobied woman has insider access to all ISP decisions, so they must be right too.

five'll get you ten that the end of the internet and the end of the world are the same thing.

[EldKatt]

I think this video is a HOAX... perpetrated by the ISPs! They're actually going to do this in 2010, and they want us to believe we have more time than we really do. They're all in on it...

[evenwolf]

The Beglians basically say that they have it on high authority that ALL major ISPs have agreed with major corporations to constrict and sell off access to the internet.    Ending all traffic to smaller websites and possibly killing the spirit of the internet as soon as 2012.


They are activists asking for people to take notice.   Even though they look a scraggly bunch I'm happy they do what they do.  Net neutrality isn't going to be covered on any network TV shows any time soon.

[EldKatt]

There's a whole world of stuff in-between network TV and these guys. I don't even watch network TV, but I'm still holding off my reactions until I find information from a source just a few steps above this happy band on the ladder of reliability.

Sure, they may well be completely right, but they don't even try to help me verify it. I'd be a very busy man if I trusted everything random people on YouTube said. Busy and stupid.

The particular thing they're suggesting is really huge. Let's assume it's true. If there isn't already a bunch of real information about it (I couldn't find any real quick) there will be tomorrow. I can wait until tomorrow before even worrying a bit.

[SSH]

For those of use who prefer not to watch videos, can someone tell us WTF this is about?

[skuttleman]

For those of use who prefer not to watch videos, can someone tell us WTF this is about?

According people that claim to be anti net neutrality activists, most of the major ISP's are going to start charging basic subscription packages to access all the popular sites (google, MSN, yahoo) so if you want to access any other sites, like say, this one, you'd need to pay an additional subscription fee. They liken it to getting basic cable and then upgrading to get more chanels.

The people in the video further go on to assert that this will fairly rapidly do away with most if not all the sites that aren't on the A-list.

...

Then, the other video is about the Mayan's predicting that I'm going to blow up the world as soon as I have to start paying for internet porn.

[Adamski]

Yeah, net-neurtality is a big big thing, but all it takes is one new start-up ISP to say "hey folks, we offer unrestricted internet access! no two-tier internet for us!", everyone who cares flocks to them, all the other providers sit around looking a bit foolish and making less money and the whole silly idea goes away.

At least, that's what I'm hoping happens!

[Nikolas]

At least, that's what I'm hoping happens!

Here's to that hope as well!

[evenwolf]

At least, that's what I'm hoping happens!

Here's to that hope as well!

My concern is this,   In almost all cases where the government SHOULD have stood up against lobbying and added regulation against this sort of thing, ultimately the large corporations do get their way.   Either through mergers, monopolies, or even public policy.

The government sold our digital airwaves for peanuts a few years back.  I can just imagine threats of internet security somehow twisting public opinion into somehow favoring this idea.       I do believe it is a threat and should NOT fall under the conspiracy theory category.

The only questionable fact in that video, IMO, was the date 2012.

[Matti]

Well, I hardly believe these guys were serious. If you watch any other video of that Athene-channel (pretending to be porn), you see those guys talking nonsense about some stupid things. They don't want to be taken seriously..

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Yeah, net-neurtality is a big big thing, but all it takes is one new start-up ISP to say "hey folks, we offer unrestricted internet access! no two-tier internet for us!", everyone who cares flocks to them, all the other providers sit around looking a bit foolish and making less money and the whole silly idea goes away.

Evenwolf brings up a very valid point:  in a perfect world (or at least one in which governments kept their fingers out of the economic pie as much as possible) free markets would work precisely as you suggest, and inferior and/or immoral business practices would be pushed out by popular choice.  However, we are living increasingly in a world where governments are playing favorites with special interest groups, so in the climate of today something like this is a very real possibility. 

The solution?  Stop walking around with your eyes shut and start taking an active interest in your government's lawmaking and ethical behaviors.  And especially for Americans, stop feeling so damned apathetic and get out there and vote on the issues!  Governments by and large prefer their citizens to be complacent and not particularly bright (we're easier to rule that way) and many, many questionable pieces of legislation have been slipped under the radar just because enough people aren't interested/paying attention until the ramifications slap them in the face.

That said, this could be largely a false report, but there is at least some beginning of a precedent with a particular UK service provider (I simply can't remember the name, just that they are planning on a surcharge for internet subscribers NOT on their service to access sites on their servers).  This is essentially a first step towards what the video describes, so take it for what you will.  I've personally watched more than a few US congressmen discussing how Congress is scrambling to come to grips with the freedom of information in the internet, and more regulation is never the answer in a free society.

[TwinMoon]

The same thing happened with radio: in the 1920's / 1930's the airwaves were free and there were millions of amateur broadcaster. Then under pressure from the music industry that was banned and only a few channels were allowed. It's all about license money and royalties.

The industry is bound to try something like it with the internet since they're losing bucketloads of money from it.
I don't know how difficult or easy it'll be to be a 'pirate' in such a system, but they will try to put internet on a leash.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I don't think it's accurate to say they are losing money, but rather just not making what they imagine they could if they had total control.  Losing money implies that the internet is damaged and needs fixing; wanting more money implies something else entirely.

[skuttleman]

Losing money implies that the internet is damaged and needs fixing; wanting more money implies something else entirely.

I want more money! Why not me? Why do big conglomerates keep getting richer and I keep getting fuckeder?