Will the internet be filtered/censored in the future?

[R'as al Ghul]

How about high resolution videos and legal downloads? I download demos for example and while a 56k connection could do it with a flatrate, it would take quite some time to finish if the demo is 2GB for example, I prefer to pay a bit more for my 6MBit line which downloads the demos quite a bit faster.
I also like to watch high-res videos from GameTrailers and they seeme to just about use my full bandwith, the cahing bar is usually just a little bit faster than the video plays so a good connection is useful for that. For the rest of the day I use it mostly to play, browse, chat or listen to internet radio which means it's hardly used to full extent, yet I think the 4EUR I pay for the bandwidth alone are not too much.

First of all, it's wrong to presume that all p2p downloads are illegal. You can watch Highres TV via p2p, the game demos and trailers I get via p2p. My point is that the main traffic on the web is from p2p. Here's a chart from a recent study:

Source: http://www.ipoque.de/media/internet_...net_study_2007

No, no and no.
I know for example that T-Online threw some people out a few years ago for using up their whole bandwidth all day long, I'm not saying I agree with it, I was just saying they do that. And noone can force them to expand anything as you pay for a maximum amount of bandwidth, if you get less out of it then that's your problem, if you want a bandwidth guarantee you have to pay more, like companies do, they pay a few hundred bucks per month extra to reserve a certain bandwidth which guarantees them that bandwidth because for them it's vital to have that guarantee. This guarantee does not exist for the normal home user however.

That's how I see it but then until lately some ISPs seemed to disagree.
This article is in German and from 2006 but although I haven't read it, it seems to adress the issue.

If you had read your link you'd know that the practise is not exactly legal. The providers mentioned there have to buy a volume from the owner of the carrier net, which is Telekom. Obviously they have miscalculated the volume needed because they attracted more Powerusers than expected. Then they try to get rid of those users by paying them for leaving. The practise has caught the attention of consumer groups and legal actions were taken iirc.
Let me ask you a question, how much can your provider reduce your bandwidth before you complain? If you pay for DSL 6000, is 64k okay with you? After all you've no guarantee.....

No it doesn't but it's also not normal, if you have a flatrate it's not like they're saving you any costs, in fact they break all your current connections which I wouldn't call normal at all. they just do it hoping that you won't be connected all day long if they do that.

I meant normal as in "common practise". I don't get your point about "saving costs".
The forced disconnect has two reasons: 1. to free a possibly unused IP and 2. to make it more difficult for people to run their own webserver.
You can set your router to disconnect and reconnect automatically and that way you lose perhaps 3 sec online time.

[R'as al Ghul]

They may want to use it as one, my point was just that they are not dependant on the existance of p2p networking and that some(not all!) who claim that may just be afraid they can't steal their software as easily anymore. I personally think they should keep the internet open and not censor any sites or traffic but then some third parties already do that themselves which resulted in me being unable to access google video in the first few months of it's existance or getting inflated prices and a germanized games lineup on Steam just because my IP can be identified as german.

First, copying is not stealing.
To confuse privacy concerns with the fear of not being able to share copyrighted material derides the effort of organisations like the Electronic Frontier Foundations and similar orgs.
An IP detection to keep an offer restricted to one country is not exactly censorship. Just use an US proxy and you'll get your videos. But if that already bothers you than I don't get your position in this discussion.

[Husar]

First, copying is not stealing.

You really need to read what I write in parentheses...

An IP detection to keep an offer restricted to one country is not exactly censorship. Just use an US proxy and you'll get your videos. But if that already bothers you than I don't get your position in this discussion.

No it isn't censorship, just discrimination. It's not like local stores work the same, maybe I took the whole talk about globalization too serious and should just be more nationalistic...
I also never actually bothered with proxies, guess I'd have to use that proxy everytime I access Steam then and besides they can also note your german credit card. It would have solved the video thing though I guess, not that it was really important anyway, just a minor inconvenience.

But then if you go down the route of proxies, why fear censorship? Just use a proxy in the US or learn how to hack your way through otherwise, it would be preposterous to say that people with no technical skill should have access to the internet.

[HoreTore]

Ever tried paying them with money you printed yourself then?

As you can't ever pay an ISP in cash, fake or not, that's got nothing to do with it, now does it?

[Husar]

As you can't ever pay an ISP in cash, fake or not, that's got nothing to do with it, now does it?

I meant the car manufacturer, but then I forgot my point sometime yesterday so I guess we settle this with you being an evil pirate and me being a naive good guy.

[drone]

Tim Wu from Slate.com, summed up my thoughts about AT&T's actions pretty well. What are they doing?
Has AT&T Lost Its Mind?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

AT&T's new strategy reverses that position and exposes it to so much potential liability that adopting it would arguably violate AT&T's fiduciary duty to its shareholders. Today, in its daily Internet operations, AT&T is shielded by a federal law that provides a powerful immunity to copyright infringement. The Bells know the law well: They wrote and pushed it through Congress in 1998, collectively spending six years and millions of dollars in lobbying fees to make sure there would be no liability for "Transitory Digital Network Communications"—content AT&T carries over the Internet. And that's why the recording industry sued Napster and Grokster, not AT&T or Verizon, when the great music wars began in the early 2000s.

Here's the kicker: To maintain that immunity, AT&T must transmit data "without selection of the material by the service provider" and "without modification of its content." Once AT&T gets in the business of picking and choosing what content travels over its network, while the law is not entirely clear, it runs a serious risk of losing its all-important immunity. An Internet provider voluntarily giving up copyright immunity is like an astronaut on the moon taking off his space suit. As the world's largest gatekeeper, AT&T would immediately become the world's largest target for copyright infringement lawsuits.

[Blodrast]

Tim Wu from Slate.com, summed up my thoughts about AT&T's actions pretty well. What are they doing?
Has AT&T Lost Its Mind?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

AT&T's new strategy reverses that position and exposes it to so much potential liability that adopting it would arguably violate AT&T's fiduciary duty to its shareholders. Today, in its daily Internet operations, AT&T is shielded by a federal law that provides a powerful immunity to copyright infringement. The Bells know the law well: They wrote and pushed it through Congress in 1998, collectively spending six years and millions of dollars in lobbying fees to make sure there would be no liability for "Transitory Digital Network Communications"—content AT&T carries over the Internet. And that's why the recording industry sued Napster and Grokster, not AT&T or Verizon, when the great music wars began in the early 2000s.

Here's the kicker: To maintain that immunity, AT&T must transmit data "without selection of the material by the service provider" and "without modification of its content." Once AT&T gets in the business of picking and choosing what content travels over its network, while the law is not entirely clear, it runs a serious risk of losing its all-important immunity. An Internet provider voluntarily giving up copyright immunity is like an astronaut on the moon taking off his space suit. As the world's largest gatekeeper, AT&T would immediately become the world's largest target for copyright infringement lawsuits.

drone, you can't understand what they're doing because you think too small. It's ok, it's perfectly understandable. Yes, if they go down this path, and they lose the common carrier status, there seems to appear a problem. According to the current law, they will be liable for everything that goes over their network. But see, you're focusing on the wrong part of the issue: what will their problem be ? The law. The solution: simple, change the law. See, it all makes sense when you think of it that way.

Like I said, it's understandable that you don't find this a normal train of thought, because you're not a megacorporation used to pass laws in its own benefit.

Even I might be wrong, and it might be easier than that, and they might not even bother to change the law. If they get sued, they can just ask the gov't for immunity.

EDIT: brainfart. In US the ISPs do not have common carrier status.

[drone]

drone, you can't understand what they're doing because you think too small. It's ok, it's perfectly understandable. Yes, if they go down this path, and they lose the common carrier status, there seems to appear a problem. According to the current law, they will be liable for everything that goes over their network. But see, you're focusing on the wrong part of the issue: what will their problem be ? The law. The solution: simple, change the law. See, it all makes sense when you think of it that way.

Like I said, it's understandable that you don't find this a normal train of thought, because you're not a megacorporation used to pass laws in its own benefit.

Even I might be wrong, and it might be easier than that, and they might not even bother to change the law. If they get sued, they can just ask the gov't for immunity.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...14&postcount=4

[Blodrast]

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...14&postcount=4

Ah, my apologies then. You clearly have the right mindset.