END of the Internet !! is there any truth to it ?

[Muser]

Take a look at this.

YouTube - 2012: The Year The Internet Ends

Maybe some further research is needed here.

[J-S-Q]

Sounds a bit far fetched to me (I only watched about half of it).

There does seem to be a certain irony though when they ask 'Why would somebody bother to maintain a site anymore when they hardly have any revenue left because so few people are visiting their site?'. Surely they should just do it because they LOVE web design. Surely they wouldn't be motivated by financial gain would they?

[Muser]

Hopefully with this information you can see what is afoot.

The ISP industry and governments and business are positioning themselves for a new technological innovation in optical technology. It is called photonic integration. basically, these are chips which can be integrated into circuitry as an optical coupler. This allows data to be transformed in & out between the (electrical & optical Digital data domain), easily and cheaply with scaleability. This also allows the information flow to be intelligently managed. packets can be removed, data manipulated, charging schemes personalized etc etc etc.

Now we can see why telecoms corporations are lobbying governments against net neutrality.

Dark Fiber:
YouTube - Dark Fiber

Note: there is a great deal of Dark Fiber which is lying unused. The cost problem of using it is however a (real) cost / scalability issue. Photonic Integrated Circuits are a technological solution.. Governments want ISPs (worldwide) to sign an agreement which will entail access to any personal information via these nodes. The US government will be using economic compulsion to force these ISPs to allow them access.

Infinera's Photonic Integrated Circuits
YouTube - Infinera's Photonic Integrated Circuits

........

Internet2 - A Global Copyright Agreement by Executive Order.
YouTube - Internet2 - A Global Copyright Agreement by Executive Order.

This means that the American Government is carrying out these actions outside of the necessity to inform the American people, or anyone else for that matter, by executive order.

........

Global threat analysis on key interconnection points and systems (5 of 6) <-- FCC licensing agreement required for overseas entities. Nat security agreement. YouTube - Global threat analysis on key interconnection points and systems (5 of 6)

.......

Re-architecting the Internet for Sustainability <--- Proof that the infrastructure is being implemented via Dark Cable.
YouTube - Re-architecting the Internet for Sustainability (1 of 6)

The BBC iPlayer takes 5% of UK bandwidth capacity.. This means that IF 19 other similar technologies by Large Media corporations are rolled out then as an example, the UK network will be at FULL capacity. this will impact (every other existing online business capacity).

ISP companies are indeed identifying as a significant structural cost saving, the bypassing router interconnects and connecting more directly. Note: typically DEMAND will be a euphemism for VIDEO.
IP Network Architecture ... Future Mode of Operation.
QUOTE: as IP traffic volume grows.. minimize or reduce amount of end-end IP demands transiting through multiple router hops.
increase number of direct router-to-router core links (router trunks). --- Router "bypass" for end-end demand between nodes..
Optical bypass in WDM layer: Wavelength "pass-through" at intermediate WDM nodes. - leverage optical express and ROADM technologies. -- Minimize use of high cost router ports. Optical bypass will lower the total network operating cost.

NOTE: ROADM is an optical technology which allows for systems of considerable complexity. Also, the configuration of this optical system can be changed (remotely).

........

Is Success Killing the Internet?
YouTube - Is Success Killing the Internet?

Is the Internet as we knew it - an open platform for innovation - a victim of its own commercial success?

In his important new book, Jonathan Zittrain argues that both the Internet and the PC are on a path to a lockdown, devolving into "tethered appliances" that reduce our freedom to innovate. Zittrain argues that the openness of PCs and the Internet spawned an abundance of connectivity and creativity, but have also brought us a growing scourge of spam, viruses, identity theft, and even cyber-terrorism. Zittrain fears we may increasingly accept restricted devices and closed networks as an alternative.

Adam Thierer argues that fears about a loss of openness and innovation are "wildly exaggerated" and, he fears, a pretense for more "net neutrality" and other regulation. In his new Manifesto for Media Freedom, Thierer argues that not only is the Net not dying, but there are signs that digital innovation and online openness are thriving as never before. Thanks to the Internet, we enjoy an unprecedented media abundance beyond what we could have imagined even a decade ago.

Is the iPhone, for example, a sterile "information appliance" - and the harbinger of a locked-down wireless future? Or is it a positive reflection of consumer demand for devices that simply work well, leaving plenty of other options for innovators?

.......

The Death of The Internet?
YouTube - The Death of The Internet?

[lagavulin16]

Originally Posted by J-S-Q

Sounds a bit far fetched to me (I only watched about half of it).

There does seem to be a certain irony though when they ask 'Why would somebody bother to maintain a site anymore when they hardly have any revenue left because so few people are visiting their site?'. Surely they should just do it because they LOVE web design. Surely they wouldn't be motivated by financial gain would they?

I've been on the internet since 1993. There were plenty of people posting on usenet and once the web rolled around plenty of people willing to actually pay to host websites. It was about communication and wasn't about financial gain.

[Barfunkel]

I don't see this happening ever really. Google is such a major player and Google doesn't really work without free Internet access, what's the point if the links don't work?

Their only motivation to do something like this would be to make more money, but they could just raise their rates instead to do that, no point in crippling the Internet and charging extra to access smaller sites.

I'm pretty sure they'd WANT to have something like this, but it just won't happen, mostly because of the whole point of Google and Internet in general. They could just as well go back to the pay per minute model, it's essentially the same thing.

In Finland, television works pretty much like this. If you want to have television at all, you have to pay about 250 euros a year, even if you never watch the channels you're actually paying for. If you want special channels, you have to pay extra. The problem, profit-wise is when people ONLY want the special channels. Paying 250 a year PLUS something like another 200-400 to get the special channels you want is just too much, so I have no TV at all. I'd hate for the Internet to become like this.

[3rd Degree]

Originally Posted by J-S-Q

Sounds a bit far fetched to me (I only watched about half of it).

There does seem to be a certain irony though when they ask 'Why would somebody bother to maintain a site anymore when they hardly have any revenue left because so few people are visiting their site?'. Surely they should just do it because they LOVE web design. Surely they wouldn't be motivated by financial gain would they?

That is not what they are talking about. Basically, if net neutrality goes away and it sites become subscription based, your site basically disappears and nobody will be able to find your site, you will have no visitors anymore. It not about money, it's the idea that regular sites will become pointless. This would probably, in reality push all these small pages to large blog sites and the like, but it could be a very major change for the way the web works. Worse, it tends to, by nature, support the large, popular sites that do not need to be pushed to the front.

In reality, nobody really has a clue how things will change, but is is likely that we will see some type of change. It has been discussed on here before. It may be simple, it may be unimportant. This has the potential to do a lot of bad but I highly doubt it any company would make things so cost prohibitive to where the consumer is turned away from the net.

Basically, what they are saying though is that the owner of this site would have to team up with a bigger company, a bunch of little companies, or charge its own fee to exist. Reason being, you couldn't access every site on the web because you provider will not let you for free, you have a "tiered" internet play, like basic cable to premium cable, to exclusive channels.

In reality, everything right now is speculation

[Muser]

Micro home servers at extremely low cost are also rolling out at the end of the year. The network will be a complex picture but I think that Google will be given the opportunity to aggregate and manage most of the information flow at central nodes.

Googles stated aim is to "know everything about everything". This is essentially Artificial Intelligence Turbo charged. to do that they would need access. I don't think it's a coincidence that ISPs are now being compelled to sign National Security agreements. (I actually have a video link on this being stated btw.) I also don't think it's a coincidence that, Google were centrally involved in a Theater of this (new) global threat which they apparently suffered from Chinese hackers either. All of a sudden they went running to the CIA asking for help and shortly after that this new cyber security threat was trotted out in the media and then the US president was given powers to switch of much of the internet. This also went along with an announcement that three US government agencies are now shutting down domain names for intellectual property theft.

call me old fashioned but I think this (unconnected) cluster of events may actually constitute a very definite (pattern).

to me, it's more likely that google failed in China just like ebay in China failed. They had their own business people there, who better read what it is that Chinese people want. Google and ebay were focused on a market which Chinese people didn't themselves focus on. China is still focused on largely internal Business to Business activity. an internal domestic market, still hasn't really emerged in China. not that the west can seem to get at, at least.

[Muser]

Another twist.

YouTube - &#x202a;Global threat analysis on key interconnection points and systems (4 of 6)&#x202c;&lrm;

I've been doing a lot of looking into this issue and I have to say that I am coming away very concerned about what I have found. I'm concerned for everyones diverse position and interests in that respect. It looks to me like a second and third network infrastructure is being implemented which has the potential to hive off the commercial sector (and) the scientific / technical / teleconferencing and education / teleconferencing sectors onto different Fibre cables.

is any single body or collections of bodies really strong enough to stop file sharing ? or at least render it ineffectual to global electronic commerce.

The Threat.
I guess if it wasn't file sharing then it would be some other pretext that the strong would use for re-structuring the internet. like hate speech or sex crimes or cyber threats. and if none of these existed, I think they might be made to exist so they could act as a justification for re-structuring and removing net neutrality.

generally people think the internet looks like this.



but actually, it looks like this. These are the primary conduits.
Satellites have proved to be useless when cables are cut.



notice where most of the communications aggregate.



There is a department within the US government who are tasked with handling the licensing interaction of all cable operators wishing to land cable into the American continent. They are an ad hoc team who technically do not exist. They don't exist in statute and the agreements they make can't be accessed. The FCC versions can be found however on their web site. but these aren't the only agreements which do exist. This team activate when ever any foreign entity invest in any US critical infra structure and are tasked with carrying out a review for the comity for foreign investments. a US government body. They call themselves Team Telecom.

Lots of the current international cable Telecom companies don't currently have a US national security agreement. (TT) Team Telecom activate when ever a company (needs) something. until then, they lie dormant. When they activate they compel the company to sign the Nat security agreement.
This information is directly from Telco companies themselves btw.

so who makes up (TT).
DHS, DOJ, FBI, DOD, SS, OSTP.


if the internet is really a small collection set of major fibre optical arteries, are there any scenarios which could force a depopulation of what we currently accept as the internet ?

In March, 2007, pirates stole an 11 kilometres (6.8 mi) section of the T-V-H submarine cable that connected Thailand, Vietnam, and Hong Kong, affecting Vietnam's Internet users with far slower speeds. The thieves attempted to sell the 100 tons of cable as scrap.[28]

The 2008 submarine cable disruption was a series of cable outages, two of the three Suez Canal cables, two disruptions in the Persian Gulf, and one in Malaysia. It caused massive communications disruptions to India and the Middle East.[29][30]

In April 2010 the undersea cable SEA-ME-WE 4 was under an outage the South East Asia–Middle East–Western Europe 4 (SEA-ME-WE 4) submarine communications cable system, which connects South East Asia and Europe, was reportedly cut in three places, off Palmero, Italy.

what happens if these cables become decommissioned ?
who's cables will we have to travel through then to make these transatlantic journeys.?
are there any technologies which might block content or censor freedom within the network ?

There is now.

It's a new chip technology called photonic integrated circuits. They translate between optical and electrical digital at 10Gbit. soon to be scaling up towards 100Gb. you can junction these into optical paths and manipulate the data before re injecting back into the optical data stream. in fact, I think you can modulate the chip itself to carry out the function by re-modulating the ultra violet gates on the chip. This can be done remotely too.

The light peak chips mention in SOS are the same technology.

There is a great difference to the historical & socio political value system which underlies Europe and the US. This above procedure is the method by which the US intends on making sure that it's own version will not be adversely affected by anyone else's version.

The problem with the concept of advocating piracy in the same breath as advocating Freedom is that, this will end up getting us all in the dog house.
in fact, it is the very engine by which those in power are given the very justification itself.

If you think that people are not being incentivised to promote the case in forums for an economic case to justify the system outlined above, I would urge you to think again. Harvard have presented the conditions which need to be met in oder to justify action. Those specific conditions are already being fulfilled.

we are between a rock and a very very hard place. all I try to do is get what I consider to be the important information and give it over, so that people can better understand what is afoot and better argue their case.

[Halloween]

lol

[Muser]

Originally Posted by Halloween

lol

I'll leave that one in, for Histories sake.

[Muser]

Watch the whole thing to get a feel for a good picture on the financial melt down.
or look in @ 37:30 for why having access to faster tiered internet might have a bearing on high frequency trading.

Quants: The Alchemists of Wall Street (Marije Meerman, VPRO Backlight 2010)
LOOK @ 37:30
YouTube - &#x202a;Quants: The Alchemists of Wall Street (Marije Meerman, VPRO Backlight 2010)&#x202c;&lrm;



THE NEW YORK TIMES, SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1974 A Media Approach to Inflation
By Marshall McLuhan
A Media Approach to Inflation

QUOTE:
The fact that our economy is now constituted in large degree by information structures of pulsating data (like that of the TV image) means that there are innumerable new intervals in every social situation which provide opportunities for new involvements and obsessions, endless games with futures in antiques, in horoscopes, fashions, and commodities. Such opportunities are nowhere thicker than in the old commodity markets of supply and demand, especially when they move at the speed of light. It is here that it is possible to buy up "futures" in oil, or meat, or grain, or real estate, or antiques, using the time intervals between supply and demand as the point of intervention and gambling. At electric speed it is possible to play Russian roulette with whole economies, with entire educational systems and with political regimes.

[George Necola]

If you don't like something, don't use it. If someone forces you to use it, that's illegal

[AllAboutTone]

Does this mean GS will be TV ? lol

This is much like a book someone put out at a printing company I worked at in the 80s, " Jesus will return in 1988" wow that's been 22 years ago and we are still here, are we ?

There may be changes down the road but I don't see anything HUGE, and I don't see it happening in 2 yrs from now.
Prue B.S

[Muser]

yes.. it's so unlikely that the 26 friends of the channel, hosting the Video.
( Global threat analysis on key interconnection points and systems )

ARE:

GENBANDClips

XOCOMMPR

statevideo

PBS

ericssonp...

NASAtelev...

DODvClips

networkworld

NYPost

Bloomberg

ciscovid

CiscoSP360

WSJDigita...

bing

CNN

verizon

ShareATT

sonyelect...

Starbucks

dell

NASAexplorer

NationalG...

BBCWorldwide

RussiaToday

dialogiccorp

EricssonF...

[Muser]

World Wide Web Creator Worries About Internet Control

YouTube - &#x202a;World Wide Web Creator Worries About Internet Control&#x202c;&lrm;

[George Necola]

I worry about, that you worry so much.

I recommend this:
Bobby McFerrin - Don't worry be happy

[Muser]

Originally Posted by George Necola

I worry about, that you worry so much.

I recommend this:
Bobby McFerrin - Don't worry be happy

I'd like to buy the world a coke.

[petermichael]

i get your concern

having some involvement with the government, i can suggest that internet monitoring on a governmental basis is already existing.

i agree that corporate interests at the levers is calamitous. the only problem is that as much as it may be about "defense", there are non governmental players in the mix inevitably already.

so what i'm interested in is the next step.

a sub net.

if only for a checks and balances, a sub network of fiber, perhaps not even worldwide, that allows for "off grid" traffic. that will be in my opinion the solution to all the mischief. off grid towers, wifi, and fiber.

that's what i want. of course it's difficult to get people believing such things are possible. ( i also have difficulty explaining my position on the future gains in storage AND capacitance causing electricity theft to actually be a concern in the future)

[syntax]

When I saw the thread my first thought was, "Good, then I will no longer indulge this odd urge to read policy speculation by autodidacts and conspiracy buffs."

[Muser]

Originally Posted by syntax

When I saw the thread my first thought was, "Good, then I will no longer indulge this odd urge to read policy speculation by autodidacts and conspiracy buffs."

yes I agree.. it's always easier to call your old professor.

I'm mainly just putting some information out there.

am I concerned ? sure.