Will the internet die in 2012? O_o
This summer, a network of shocking information has spread that by 2012 the Internet, as we know it, can cease to exist, it can be said, will die. It was based on rumors that appeared on one western site that leading providers are preparing an agreement according to which by 2012 they will provide access to several dozens of the most popular sites as part of a basic subscription, and to pay an additional fee for visiting others. That is, a user can sit on MySpace for as long as he likes, for example, but if he wants to visit a site that is not included in the subscription, he will pay for traffic. Obviously, in this case, the fate of all small and medium-sized sites is unenviable, they will be forced to close sooner or later. In the video message on the site (And Tanya has cool tits! - Approx. Author) states that access to the trackers will also be limited, that is, porn will not be so easy. = (These rumors are illustrated by the possible advertising of new tariffs:
“Some kind of nonsense! Another duck, ”was my first reaction. In this I was not alone, as evidenced by the lack of mention of this on Habré or Vebplaneta.
But more than 100 days have passed since the publication of these rumors, during this time the link received a rating of 12,770 at Digge , becoming very popular, and the topic was replenished with new information. The authors allegedly received confirmation from representatives of the Bell Canada and Telus providers that such an agreement really exists, and it can be signed before 2012. In addition, for example, Telus is already blocking sites that are not included in the mobile Internet subscription unit , which indicates in favor of such an opportunity to develop the Internet.
')
Is it true that there are such plans and a contract I do not know. However, I propose to look at this problem from the other side: are the users ready for such a turn of events? Most probably will say: “Yes, how can you ?! Users will not allow such restriction of freedom! ”But, for example, Mist will not agree with this . In an article on Webplanet, the author comes to the conclusion that many Vkontakte users do not need anything other than Vkontakte. Recently, my classmate said that he usually uses no more than a dozen sites. All this creates doubts in my soul about the future development of the free Internet. What do you think?
If, nevertheless, a runet degenerates into a connection to a limited number of sites, which ones will be included in the basic subscription, in your opinion?
In principle, the most important question about users, I have already asked.
If you are not tired of reading, then a number of my thoughts go on; if you are tired, you can immediately share your thoughts in the comments. I would be happy to discuss the future of the Internet.
I am an economist and I know that if there is a demand, in particular for unlimited access to the Internet, then it will be satisfied. There will be providers that will be able to provide equal access to all sites. It seems to me that several years ago, due to the “last mile” problem , providers could monopolize the market, in fact, every household was a monopoly of one provider, given the high costs that prevent a company from changing. But today, thanks to the development of wireless technologies, it is no longer possible to monopolize the market with technical means.
However, even this does not inspire hope. Suppose that most people do not go beyond Odnoklassniki and Mail.ru, but still there is a certain percentage of people, Internet fans who continue to visit other sites, such as Habr. As I suppose, the next situation is possible: the old-timers Habra leave with time, this is a natural process, due to the fact that the influx of new people has decreased, the audience is thinning every year. The Habr administration, understanding that it cannot rely on advertising revenues, is forced to cut funding. This leads to the need to introduce paid services, or even goes to the subscription mode for money, which further reduces the influx of new people. As a result, Habr turns into a small closed network for its dubious future, or dies. The same fate over time will befall any thematic portal. Thus, the Internet will be limited to a couple of hundreds of the largest portals. So it turns out?
Still not bored? =)
The second thought that came to my mind after reading the ear was the assumption that the guys misinterpreted the intentions of the providers. The latter seek to provide better services, for this they conclude agreements with producers of content on infrastructure development, providing higher speed access to the servers of partner companies. Thus, users can download videos from YouTube faster, but since Vimeo , for example, is not one of the partners, its speed remains the same, but is perceived as slower. Next, operators have a choice: the first option is to leave the tariffs unchanged, but for them some of the traffic has become cheaper, and in a competitive environment they are forced to lower overall prices, the second option, providers offer a number of sites by subscription, and for visiting those sites with which no agreements, charge extra. At the same time, the second option is cheaper for consumers. Do you think this logic has the right to life or is it an oversimplification?
And finally, the picture with the tariffs, in my opinion, is a great example of a vivid, understandable to the consumer advertising services for providing access to the Internet. He sees what benefit, that is, services, he gets and for what to pay a lot of money. It compares favorably with the advertising of our providers: “You have to feel the speed” (Corbina) - How do I feel 1728 Kbps, is it just like that? Or “I have the biggest peering!” (Netbynet) - What is it like that, eprst? : D
Thank you for reading! =)
P.S. The author of the note Youri_M4U , but he has negative karma, so he asked me to publish it.
UPD: What is my karma minus for? I just posted a friend's topic.
“Some kind of nonsense! Another duck, ”was my first reaction. In this I was not alone, as evidenced by the lack of mention of this on Habré or Vebplaneta.
But more than 100 days have passed since the publication of these rumors, during this time the link received a rating of 12,770 at Digge , becoming very popular, and the topic was replenished with new information. The authors allegedly received confirmation from representatives of the Bell Canada and Telus providers that such an agreement really exists, and it can be signed before 2012. In addition, for example, Telus is already blocking sites that are not included in the mobile Internet subscription unit , which indicates in favor of such an opportunity to develop the Internet.
')
Is it true that there are such plans and a contract I do not know. However, I propose to look at this problem from the other side: are the users ready for such a turn of events? Most probably will say: “Yes, how can you ?! Users will not allow such restriction of freedom! ”But, for example, Mist will not agree with this . In an article on Webplanet, the author comes to the conclusion that many Vkontakte users do not need anything other than Vkontakte. Recently, my classmate said that he usually uses no more than a dozen sites. All this creates doubts in my soul about the future development of the free Internet. What do you think?
If, nevertheless, a runet degenerates into a connection to a limited number of sites, which ones will be included in the basic subscription, in your opinion?
In principle, the most important question about users, I have already asked.
If you are not tired of reading, then a number of my thoughts go on; if you are tired, you can immediately share your thoughts in the comments. I would be happy to discuss the future of the Internet.
I am an economist and I know that if there is a demand, in particular for unlimited access to the Internet, then it will be satisfied. There will be providers that will be able to provide equal access to all sites. It seems to me that several years ago, due to the “last mile” problem , providers could monopolize the market, in fact, every household was a monopoly of one provider, given the high costs that prevent a company from changing. But today, thanks to the development of wireless technologies, it is no longer possible to monopolize the market with technical means.
However, even this does not inspire hope. Suppose that most people do not go beyond Odnoklassniki and Mail.ru, but still there is a certain percentage of people, Internet fans who continue to visit other sites, such as Habr. As I suppose, the next situation is possible: the old-timers Habra leave with time, this is a natural process, due to the fact that the influx of new people has decreased, the audience is thinning every year. The Habr administration, understanding that it cannot rely on advertising revenues, is forced to cut funding. This leads to the need to introduce paid services, or even goes to the subscription mode for money, which further reduces the influx of new people. As a result, Habr turns into a small closed network for its dubious future, or dies. The same fate over time will befall any thematic portal. Thus, the Internet will be limited to a couple of hundreds of the largest portals. So it turns out?
Still not bored? =)
The second thought that came to my mind after reading the ear was the assumption that the guys misinterpreted the intentions of the providers. The latter seek to provide better services, for this they conclude agreements with producers of content on infrastructure development, providing higher speed access to the servers of partner companies. Thus, users can download videos from YouTube faster, but since Vimeo , for example, is not one of the partners, its speed remains the same, but is perceived as slower. Next, operators have a choice: the first option is to leave the tariffs unchanged, but for them some of the traffic has become cheaper, and in a competitive environment they are forced to lower overall prices, the second option, providers offer a number of sites by subscription, and for visiting those sites with which no agreements, charge extra. At the same time, the second option is cheaper for consumers. Do you think this logic has the right to life or is it an oversimplification?
And finally, the picture with the tariffs, in my opinion, is a great example of a vivid, understandable to the consumer advertising services for providing access to the Internet. He sees what benefit, that is, services, he gets and for what to pay a lot of money. It compares favorably with the advertising of our providers: “You have to feel the speed” (Corbina) - How do I feel 1728 Kbps, is it just like that? Or “I have the biggest peering!” (Netbynet) - What is it like that, eprst? : D
Thank you for reading! =)
P.S. The author of the note Youri_M4U , but he has negative karma, so he asked me to publish it.
UPD: What is my karma minus for? I just posted a friend's topic.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/41112/
All Articles