Do We Need A New Internet?

No, a new internet is not necessary. As Exavior posted earlier, anything that could be done to create a "new internet" could also be done to update the existing one.

The whole idea of "creating a new internet to better protect you" is a scam.
 
A "new internet" proposal sounds to me like a way for politicians to become involved in a more regulated internet, lying to people by telling them it's "safer".

That's exactly what we don't want.
 
This is all a marketing ploy by Big Internet. They release New Internet, we all hate it. They then rename Internet as Internet Classic, jack up the price, and we drink it down.

:eek:
 
I'm not so sure a "new interwebz" is what we need right now.
I think what we really need is for better implementation of what we all ready have.
How about catching up to the rest of the world in "interwebz" technology and start improving the infrastructure and equipment first before talking about a new 'net.

... :cool:
 
It seems like my download speeds have increased significantly over the years, but web page delivery times have not improved much. When you consider the processing power available on a modern PC or even laptop, the web seems a bit sluggish. I'd like to see pages load instantaneously.
 
Blackstone said:
It seems like my download speeds have increased significantly over the years, but web page delivery times have not improved much. When you consider the processing power available on a modern PC or even laptop, the web seems a bit sluggish. I'd like to see pages load instantaneously.
Click to expand...

Its not all down to the network.
If a place becomes popular too fast, they need time to upgrade their servers/network infrastructure.
It also may be beyond budget to do, so some places wont get any faster no matter how good the network.
 
This is ridiculous.
Yes, improvements need to be made.
But saying we need a new internet is ridiculous.

Security is relative and it will be no matter how well the network is engineered. Its just a matter of how hard it is to "hack" something. You have to make it so the juice isn't worth the squeeze...simple as that.

The low hanging fruit is what gets picked.
 
Well just replace the old internet when weve run out of IP addresses and what nots. Well let the goverment/military do it all over again, but this time the we'll have no freedom. theyll need my ssn just i can play l4d. No but seriously im moving to canada and starting my own internet. Itll be dedicated to HardForum,pr0n, and gaming.
 
Blackstone said:
It seems like my download speeds have increased significantly over the years, but web page delivery times have not improved much. When you consider the processing power available on a modern PC or even laptop, the web seems a bit sluggish. I'd like to see pages load instantaneously.
Click to expand...

Nenu said:
Its not all down to the network.
If a place becomes popular too fast, they need time to upgrade their servers/network infrastructure.
It also may be beyond budget to do, so some places wont get any faster no matter how good the network.
Click to expand...

Onther thing you are overlooking is content. As connections get faster and faster the more stuff that gets put onto web pages. Before it was just text and images, now we have sound,movies, flash, java apps... All of that slows down the load time of the pages also.
 
Fendrix said:
A "new internet" proposal sounds to me like a way for politicians to become involved in a more regulated internet, lying to people by telling them it's "safer".

That's exactly what we don't want.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing. If there is to be a new "Internet" it will probably be created and controlled by governments. Information that knows no bounds or borders is a threat to those that hold power - hence the reason why many (if not all) governments hate the Internet in it's current form.
 
Methadras said:
The basis that there is something wrong with the internet is nothing more than PC Orwellian code-speak for certain types of speech/extremist views plus the absolute control of content and propaganda that government wants eyeballs to view. This is the type of 'change' that a lot of people do want to revamp on a new internet. That is the intent and basis for such a proposal.
Click to expand...

This is the truth. Please everyone who is interested, look into this. I believe that this will be one of the most important issues our society will face in the coming decade. Understand the power that freely available, non-manipulated (if you look hard enough) political and economic information gives to individuals. I am not an IT professional like many on this forum so I am not in a great position to influence policy on this issue, but many of you are. Those of you who are IT pros and who understand the importance of your great United States Constitution and the First Amendment which guarantees your right to freedom of speech and expression and assembly, and therefore your right to be informed, please take a stand on this and inform others of your concerns.

As others in this thread have implied, imagine an Internet that is like television, where all the information you get is CNN, Fox News and Dancing With The Stars, where every website is controlled by two or three giant media corporations feeding you your daily government approved "terror alert" and celebrity worship report.

We are constantly bombarded by dark warnings about the evils of the Internets - pron and "predators" and extremists and terrorists and such. On the lighter side we are inundated with the smokescreens of credit card fraud, network security and download speeds. These are not the things that those who seek to control the Internet truly worry about. What they fear is regular good people controlling their government, as the Constitution intends they should do, by arming themselves with information.

Sorry, end of rant...this is important.
 
Exavior said:
That will never happen as that would put ever single smaller telco out of business and get us back to only having 3 or so larger ones. At which point wouldn't help as then there would just be larger companies not doing anything. Although its not as non compete was you might think, or at least not in all areas. I work for a small Telco. We service a small rurual area of about 13,000 homes spread accross about a 120+ square mile area. They way I have been told, as long as we stay in our area the larger companies around us (Embarq, Verizon, AT&T (formally SBC)) can't come into our area. However, that is only because we are small. Embarq could go into Verizon's area if they wanted. But they won't. That said our sister company is the only ISP in town. Comcast provides TV and internet in our area, another smaller cable company offers a triple play package (tv, internet, phone) in our area. There are at least wireless internet providors in our area. So there is competion even in "non compete" areas. Our current DSL speed we offer is 3Mbps down, however I heard that a firmware update planned for next month will upgrade some of the equipment out in the field to support ADSL 2+. So there is always the chance that they might be planning a faster plan for some areas. I also know they are working on improving the main backbone from being the current OC12 to what I think is a 10Gbps connection (might only be 1Gbps although I want to say it is 10). There is nothing stopping the rest from doing stuff like this except their desire to not spend money. They don't want to expand their service as it will cost them time and money. Same as upgrading equipment.




Nobody is saying that no changes need to be made. Just that we don't need to scrap everything we have now to build an entirely new system. Again everything you listed can be done NOW if people actually gave a fuck about it. Better performance could be obtained by IPS's getting rid of bottlenecks in their networks. Better redundancy could be obtained by adding more fiber and other equipment, that way if one route goes done there is another to take its place. Email could be improved now if people actually used some of the stuff out there. Lock down mail servers so that you have to log into it to send mail out. While I can't think of its name right now, there is also the "service" where a mail server will check to see if it has permission to send on behalf of another mail server. So if you try to send an email from johnsmith@mydomain.com from smtp.someotherdomain.com unless mydomain.com has a dns entry out there that says I give smtp.someotherdomain.com permission to send on my behalf then the email won't be sent. Problem now is that even if mydomain.com has that in place unless everyone else does then it doesn't do any good.

There is plenty of stuff that could be done to the current one to make it better, but nobody wants to do it.

And if they don't want to do some of that now, there is no way they are going to want to have to redo everything. New switches, new routers, new computers, new OSs, new software.....
Click to expand...

You see the problem with the smaller Telco's is the simple fact that they need to be forced to compete as well. I have dealt with my fair share of them and usually they are far worse then the big guys. Obviously this is a blanket statement and does not apply to all, but the ones I have dealt with offer inferior service at higher prices. Frankly most of them are worse then the "Big" guys they claim to be saving people from.

Competition is what drives business, you either offer a superior product at a superior value or you lose business. If the smaller telco's can't offer a superior value, then I will be just fine with them shutting down.
 
Can't we just pour some Draino down this b****?

Screw this, I'm going back to AOL!
 
Exavior said:
Onther thing you are overlooking is content. As connections get faster and faster the more stuff that gets put onto web pages. Before it was just text and images, now we have sound,movies, flash, java apps... All of that slows down the load time of the pages also.
Click to expand...

I'm not overlooking anything. I am talking about like the CNN homepage, not even Youtube. The page load speeds are very consistent across websites in that there seems to be a short lag time for the server to even respond. Given how much bandwidth I have (25meg cable?) you'd think you would be able to flip through website at almost the same speed as if it the site was being hosted locally but that isn't the case. I'm just saying, that would be an improvement if they could get that up to speed.
 
Private_Ops said:
I don't have any TB hard drives but, that statement is VERY true.
Click to expand...

I do, and I also agree that it's true.

I saw this article when I was at work last week, didn't even realize it had made this big of a splash, it seemed so laughable to me.

The internet is fine, network neutrality is one of the most important issues of our time.

One thing that could "help" is better user education. The only reason viruses infect so many computers is because of morons given too much technological power that they don't understand (think grandma on AOL). People who can't distinguish between a paid banner ad and the site they're visiting, people that send chain e-mails, people that open attachments from spam addresses, click on keylogger links, etc...

Personally, none of that has ever affected me, because I know what I'm doing on the internet. So why should the internet change for the majority, when the majority is fine? People buy stuff they don't understand and get burned. So what? It happens in a lot more places than the internet (people who bought into Bernie Madoff or the US financial services market), are we arguing to replace the stock market system right now?

(Well, some people are, but certainly not the politicians or whoever wrote this NY times article.)

TL; DR: No, the internet is fine. Educate yourself on what you're doing if you want to be safer.
 
Just make it faster. The less time I have to wait for something to download, the better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top