End of the internet nearing?

[Kaliden]

Building a city out in international waters and making my own ISP. WHO'S WITH ME? we cud b lyk stargate atlantis ^- ^

Will there be cheesecake?

[Fallso]

Well, that's bollocks.

Your government can go a bit over the top sometimes

[Lordwafik]

Nooooo if that happens to USA, then Australia will follow suit because John Howard's nose is basically permaglued to G.W.Bush's behind.

[Fallso]

Nooooo if that happens to USA, then Australia will follow suit because John Howard's nose is basically permaglued to G.W.Bush's behind.

Doesn't the queen still hold rule over Australia?

[Senoska]

FEAR NOT FOR JAPAN BRINGS GOOD NEWS
http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/415487

BRASILIA — Japanese communications minister Yoshihide Suga said Friday that Japan will start research and development on technology for a new generation of network that would replace the Internet, eyeing bringing the technology into commercial use in 2020. Suga said an organization will be set up as early as this fall with cooperation from businesses, academia and government offices for promoting the technology when the Internet is seen to be faced with increasing constraints in achieving higher throughputs of data as well as ensuring data security.


The envisaged network is expected to ensure faster and more reliable data transmission, and have more resilience against computer virus attacks and breakdowns. The ministry is hoping Japan will take a lead in development of post-Internet technology and setting global standards, a move that ministry officials believe would help make Japanese companies competitive in the global market for hardware and software using such technology.

[Lordwafik]

Nooooo if that happens to USA, then Australia will follow suit because John Howard's nose is basically permaglued to G.W.Bush's behind.

Doesn't the queen still hold rule over Australia?

The queen is Australia's Assasin's Armlets.

[Fallso]

Nooooo if that happens to USA, then Australia will follow suit because John Howard's nose is basically permaglued to G.W.Bush's behind.

Doesn't the queen still hold rule over Australia?

The queen is Australia's Assasin's Armlets.

She still holds some power over what goes on though doesn't she?

[Lordwafik]

Depends on some situations, there are some bills which will pass where she can (optionally) put her input in, but I can't remember the last time she's denied a bill from passing Then again, I don't watch our news because it's basically a 30 minute tourism guide of the united states.

[Fallso]

Fair enough..that's still bollocks though

[Fhqwghads]

I'll admit I'm no networking guru either, but I'd imagine an ISP can easily bottleneck all IP addresses, unless they're on a list of "preferred" IPs. The preferred IPs would of course belong to the big companies. It would be easier to choke the hell out of everything by default, and maintain a smaller list of premium IPs. Like someone else mentioned though, there's more than one protocol out there that uses the interwebs. Messengers, net meetings, FTP, games, etc. Would net neutrality end for all these other services as well? Peer to peer apps crawling? No more video conferencing? Ventrillo?

There's huge issues that go beyond web pages loading slowly or not at all, and I wouldn't trust big business to work out all the caveats any further than I could throw them.

[Kiro]

Japan to the rescue I guess?

[Amastacia]

I'm not completely fond of net neutrality going bye-bye, but I think people are overestimating how badly ISPs would abuse the end of enforced neutrality (especially considering how much business they stand to lose by trying to wring people dry).

Given how much video and voice is flowing over the internet now, I'm not sure how practical net neutrality really is, especially if the trend continues (I'm lookin' at you YouTube). Waiting an extra few hundred milliseconds for an image or text on a webpage is an annoyance, but waiting an extra few hundred milliseconds for voice/video stream traffic can be extremely problematic.

That's not to say I'm all for ending net neutrality, but at this point I think you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Some degree of exploitation is bound to occur, but the question comes down to whether it ends up being a net benefit or detriment given the amount of time-sensitive traffic on the internet now.

[Charla]

I'll admit I'm no networking guru either, but I'd imagine an ISP can easily bottleneck all IP addresses, unless they're on a list of "preferred" IPs. The preferred IPs would of course belong to the big companies. It would be easier to choke the hell out of everything by default, and maintain a smaller list of premium IPs. Like someone else mentioned though, there's more than one protocol out there that uses the interwebs. Messengers, net meetings, FTP, games, etc. Would net neutrality end for all these other services as well? Peer to peer apps crawling? No more video conferencing? Ventrillo?

There's huge issues that go beyond web pages loading slowly or not at all, and I wouldn't trust big business to work out all the caveats any further than I could throw them.

A tiered system based on IP address would be far easier to get around than the reverse shaping that Netz mentioned. There are several ways to disguise an IP address, but all I could find out about shaping involved giving time-sensitive usages priority. So getting around a shaping algorithm that deliberately gave time-sensitive packets coming to/from low-tier users a low priority would probably require a way to mask the packet's origin itself, which is a lot more complicated, but still possible.

About what Amastacia said. Packet shaping itself does not necessaraly violate net neutrality, because giving a time-sensitive packet higher priority doesn't discriminate between users. Also, Youtube isn't streaming, it buffers the file locally. True video streaming is pretty rare in my experience, because its apparent quality suffers so much more from each dropped packet than buffered video.