6 ms·
How to Access the Internet (A Guide from 2025)
- kksm19820117 16y agoSomehow, I don't see this happening; there's too much of implied control for this to be a realistic scenario.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- djb_hackernews 16y agoHmm. I feel the exact opposite. The fact we are even debating net neutrality is scary.
- kksm19820117 16y agoThe fact that it has generated debate suggests that any attempt at Internet access control will be micro-examined end to end. Even if rationality and human decency fail to prevail, I trust that bureaucracy will slow things down well enough.
- ff0066mote 16y agoThe fact that we have to rely on the nature of bureaucracy scares me. It shows that rationality and human decency are failing. I do not believe that current attempts to control internet access and content are being micro-examined end to end.
- donw 16y agoNot to sound too defeatist, but over the course of human history, when have rationality and human decency ever succeeded?
- tkahn6 16y agoCivil rights movement?
- ff0066mote 16y agoRegardless, there is no reason we shouldn't continue to help them succeed (by being rational and decent).
- pyre 16y agoI was under the impression that there was debate because people in general don't trust either big business or the government to police things properly.
- SkyMarshal 16y agoThat's basically it. It's just that the dittoheads think net neutrality = government policing when it's not. The telecoms have done a bangup job of misinforming the free market dogmatists on that matter.
- jbooth 16y agoWell, the hippies are for net neutrality, you see. The rest of it follows from there. Brain need not engage.
- pyre 16y agoGovernment mandated net neutrality is basically what most of the debate is about. I don't see much of the net neutrality debate framed outside of whether or not the government should enact regulation.
- tkahn6 16y agoReally? The debate is a valid one. Net Neutrality (forcing telecom companies to relinquish control over their property), is only potentially a valid idea because they hold a government-assisted monopoly. They receive government subsidies and have specific permission to lay down fiber-optic cable. If these were totally independent companies that existed and thrived without the aid of government, appropriating their property for the public would be illegal and immoral.
- cia_plant 16y agoI believe it is legal in many or most countries. In the USA the power of the state to expropriate property for the public good is called eminent domain, and it is affirmed by the US constitution.
- vollmond 16y agoHowever, in that case, you don't force the original propertyholder to continue maintenance of the site.
- jbooth 16y agoThe US has anti trust laws, too, you know. And they were introduced for a reason. You're not allowed to collude or leverage dominance in one market (infrastructure) into an unfair advantage in another market (content). This is why free markets work -- if we refused to regulate anything, ever, it'd be oligarchy, and there'd be precious little "free" about it.
- tkahn6 16y agoYou're not allowed to collude or leverage dominance in one market (infrastructure) into an unfair advantage in another market (content). Citation needed. Apple dominates the college student/professional artist demographic. They sell hardware coupled software - it is illegal to run their software on any non-Apple hardware. This is why free markets work -- if we refused to regulate anything, ever, it'd be oligarchy, and there'd be precious little "free" about it. That is absolutely wrong. By definition a free market has no regulation (besides prevention of fraud). In fact the only thing giving telecom companies a monopoly is the government. EDIT: To the person who voted me down, would you mind explaining why? I'd be fascinated to know. EDIT 2: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market A free market is a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to enforce ownership ("property rights") and contracts
- djb_hackernews 16y agoI'd like to clarify because my comment is ambiguous. It's scary either way. Either we end up with a fragmented internet like the article suggests, or end up with a heavily regulated internet like the article suggests. Both are scary outcomes. and someone playing the false dichotomy card in 3...2...
- mseebach 16y agoIt's oddly appropriate that the first comment to this is [deleted]
- thecircusb0y 16y agoI saw Full Metal Jacket when I was 4 years old and I loved it. I saw Texas Chainsaw Massacre and I laughed. This scared the shit out of me.
- perplexes 16y agoSeconded. It made me feel the same as reading 1984. I hate the future.
- patrickk 16y agoWhy does the future always have to be negative? (philosophical question) If you look at history, things generally improve over time
- thecircusb0y 16y agoBased on what?
- VMG 16y agoreminded me of brain jail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JILWKaQgUC0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JILWKaQgUC0
- edw519 16y agoSetting up your RealIdentity is easy, as your computer (MacOS 15 or ChromeOS7 and higher) will automatically connect... Hmmm...no mention of Microsoft. Does this mean I'll have to upgrade from ie6/xp before 2025?
- pyre 16y agoWe don't like to talk about the great MicroPocalypse of 2015... dark days... Let's think happy thoughts instead! ;)
- barber 16y agoDoes this mean real.com crawled from it's grave? Millions of people tricked into buying RealIdentity Plus?
- gwern 16y agoIt's a reference to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act
- prodigal_erik 16y agoOn the bright side, maybe all those videos from the nineties will have finished buffering.
- crististm 16y ago"Why exactly is it bad for people to badmouth their governments or big companies online?" Funny enough, there's a discussion in our local press these days about the "Press" considered to be a vector of insecurity to government/local agencies (e.g. they badmouth justice for being a mock-up).
- shabda 16y agoNeeds a think of the children argument to be more convincing.
- rgrieselhuber 16y agoOk, that was depressing.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- jtnaka 16y agoThey hate our freedoms... Never forget.
- jpwagner 16y agoLOL...(it has also replaced Bless You as a reply to when someone sneezes)
- pistoriusp 16y agoIn South Africa we've got a completely free, community driven and supported Wireless User Group comprising of ~2000 nodes. Whilst it's certainly not the Internet I've seen a marked improvement and understanding in creating large, relatively free networks. (You still have to buy your own equipment.) One can only hope that by 2025 the technology will have increased to such a point that it'll be powerful (no line of site required), cheap and abundant. (And in effect, uncontrollable by a single entity, corporation or organization.) A bit more about the WUG: (http://ptawug.co.za http://ptawug.co.za) They use standard 802.11g/n (5.8/2.4 GHz) Wi-Fi equipment. And mostly Mikrotik router hardware and software. I'm just a user - So my information might be a bit wrong...
- alex_c 16y ago(You still have to buy your own equipment.) If a society has regressed as much as the one depicted in the article, it's not inconceivable that the necessary equipment would be made illegal (or at least require a license).
- jeebusroxors 16y agoA friend of mine has been interested in setting something like this up in the states. Is there a website documenting the process/pitfalls?
- pistoriusp 16y agoI'm just an end user - So I don't know much about the process. Here's the project's website: http://ptawug.co.za http://ptawug.co.za
- jeebusroxors 16y agoThanks. These types of things always hit that "this is awesome" spot due to both the engineering and community aspects.
- Hoff 16y agoSearch the googlephant for wifi mesh setup or related terms.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- drtse4 16y agoAnd what about the multitude of darknets with Petabyte/s of bandwidth?
- shabble 16y agoNice (but quite scary) article. Reminds me a lot of the 'if the internet were like cable TV/mobile phone pricing' image I saw a while ago: http://imgur.com/5RrWm.png http://imgur.com/5RrWm.png
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- cmelbye 16y ago1. Technically no, but it does occasionally happen in practice. 2. Yes, iAd will target ads to you based on your location. Go ahead and type in "pet groomers" to Google, and I'll bet that you'll see a local ad displayed to you. Google is using your location, and I believe it's even using past search habits to display more relevant results. This isn't Apple's doing, it's the norms of the market that they've just entered into. 3. What? Because you have to use open standards and codecs, the media will be wrapped in "insane amounts of red tape"? I haven't seen signs of that yet. My experience with HTML5 audio and video has been quite pleasant on Apple's devices. Furthermore, Apple no longer uses DRM for Music and if I had to guess they could be going that way for other forms of media in their store as well. But again, this generally isn't something that Apple is doing. It's the entertainment industries dictating terms by which Apple must sell the media.
- blitzo 16y agothey had me at "goo://" and "dis://"