Do We Need A New Internet?

To be perfectly honest? I think we have bigger problems with non compete laws with ISP's and our infrastructure being on the large extremely poor.
 
I would love to see a more secure internet, the current version is pretty easily hacked.
 
damn cant edit, I agree with the above poster on improving out infrastructure as well.
 
I think the internet needs to evolve to meet the needs of a fast growing online community. Ultimately I think a updated internet is necessary. Also this effort would create new jobs! :)
 
Chuckles. People who think that creating a "new" internet shared by multiple users would be safe from attacks, hackers, and mechief are sadly mistaken. Everything is touchable. The only part of the internet that cannot really be touched in theory is/was Arpanet. And that's because you had an armed guard standing next to you while you spent time on the terminal. So in short, no.
 
what is wrong with our current internet.....

if you make it more secure then the hackers will just get smarter....

i say get FIOS to us poor folk in central kansas and let us enjoy a truly fast connection first
 
There is nothing "wrong" with the current internet. Thus I don't know why all these new internet ideas keep coming up. There is nothing that can't really be done now that can't be done period. If something new comes out as far as transmitting data then it is added the the internet and all are happy. The internet is always evolving. Thus there is no need to try to get rid of everything and come up with some new idea. People just need to work on fixing issues that are currently out there.

Yes security is a concern, but that isn't going to change much just because of a few changes here or there. Making it "gated" like the article said isn't going to do much as people will find aways around that. What is needed is better security on the users end not the network. The reason that most of these virus spread is becasue the end user doesn't want to take the time to learn even a little bit about the machine they are using nor do people use some common sense when using the computer. Instead they click on every popup, install every program they see, open every email.... On top of that they dont' think they need antivirus, so when their 30-day trial that came with their machine is up they dont' renew it as they dont' want to pay that much money. So they have unprotected machines that otherwise might hold up a little better to their surfing habits.

I say leave the internet alone and improve security at the end user level. If people's machines were not as easily infected, and networks wheren't so easy to hack into to steal a companies information then this wouldn't be an issue as fewer people would bother trying.
 
DeathCloud said:
I would love to see a more secure internet, the current version is pretty easily hacked.
Click to expand...

any internet will be easily hackable as long as stupid admins and users exist.the internet it's self isnt the problem so much as the people behind it.
 
Dekoth said:
To be perfectly honest? I think we have bigger problems with non compete laws with ISP's and our infrastructure being on the large extremely poor.
Click to expand...

DeathCloud said:
I would love to see a more secure internet, the current version is pretty easily hacked.
Click to expand...

Both of those can be done now. Any ISP can upgrade their backbone and fix the infrastructure issues. But they won't as that would cost money.

Same with security. It isn't the connection between your grandma's house and server that make her machine easy to hack. It is the lack of security on her machine and her desire to click on any random popup that shows up, or her desire to pay her medication from cheapmedzRus.ru that sent her that email telling her about a deal they are having, or her sending her bank information to that poor man in nigera that is just trying to help her get the money that some distant relative left her when they died.
 
Exavior said:
her desire to click on any random popup that shows up, or her desire to pay her medication from cheapmedzRus.ru that sent her that email telling her about a deal they are having, or her sending her bank information to that poor man in nigera....
Click to expand...

I admit, I laughed out loud. It's very true though.
 
If a new Internet was created now it would be even more commercial and restricted than the current Internet has become. It would resemble a giant cable TV network full of ads and pay per view websites. I don't want that. The vulnerability to viruses and hackers is a small price to pay for the freedom that the Internet still offers in its current form.
 
I think what needs to be done is a "new" internet needs to be defined? A new protocol? a new http service replacement? more pipes? bigger pipes? infrastructure? redundancy? etc.

People think of a new internet like they think of replacing the entire car. The fact is, it's not so "new" as it still will use the infrastructure we have and the current connectivity technologies we have.

This is what happens when media/politicians gets involved.... they simply think we can just swap over.
 
1. Need better security
2. Needs to be affordable for widespread growth
3. FASTER! Media is getting larger, thus the need for more bandwidth, thus more equipment needed.
 
wiseoracle said:
1. Need better security
2. Needs to be affordable for widespread growth
3. FASTER! Media is getting larger, thus the need for more bandwidth, thus more equipment needed.
Click to expand...

1. use encryption, a "new" internet would have this same issue
2. new infrastructure would greatly increase costs
3. add more tubes

All of those can be addressed with the current system.
 
Exavior said:
Both of those can be done now. Any ISP can upgrade their backbone and fix the infrastructure issues. But they won't as that would cost money.
Click to expand...

This is what drives me crazy!! At some point the ISP are going to need to upgrade they just keep putting it off. We are slowely becoming one of the worst nations for high speed connectivity.
 
An internet isnt an internet unless everyone has it.
I cant see all ISPs ditching their current networks + hardware and subscribing to an even more expensive new version internet.
 
Speed,reliability,security,all these areas are in need of improvement.The ISP's are too busy raking in the money to put some of it back in to improve service.Verizon,for example,has been dragging it's feet making FiOS available.
 
I don't care about what people decide to do with the internet as I am only concerned about a few specific things..

1. Access to Pron
2. Access to [H]ardOcp / [H]ardForum
3. High speed transfers of online files
4. Ability to do information & research

Should the internet become NFG, I'm going to find the persons involved and ____ ____! Fill in the blanks as seen fit. :D

If all is done and said.. I would be happy to host all webspace files and plug our members in directly should world war 3 happen. :cool:
 
Techdirt has a blog post about this that if find interesting.

Having an open internet is what makes it work. Yes there can be problems but if people are properly taught how to protect their computers and themselves, that would be a better solution then having big brother tell you if you can innovate or not.
 
Just dump ipv4, no more kludges with nat, dump old/broken protocols like ftp/smtp.

Just getting rid of SMTP would make my life a heck of a lot easier ;)
 
Nemesis999 said:
Ummm... by that claim we don't currently have an Internet, and likely never will. Good thing what you said makes no sense...
Click to expand...

You're trying to read too much into it.
We currently dont have 2 internets.
 
MrMike said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cZC67wXUTs
Click to expand...

ROFL!!

I was watching that on tv, live when that guy gave his little "internet tubes" speech. I immediately knew that was a quote that would go down in infamy.

The irony of this, is the uber-geeks that would react to "tubes" with such scorn are the same people that have been calling their fast connection a "fat pipe" for years.


It is time to segregate teh intarwebz. Divide it in two. Have one internetz for the @aol.com stoopidz, and anot[H]er intarwebz for us.
 
What's great about the current internet is that it's open, which allows backwards compatibility and expandability for each layer. cable and dsl speeds have been going up. FIOS has been introduced. wireless broadband has been introduced. IPv6 has been stumbling along.

to put it simply, any shortcomings with the existing internet are generally problems that shouldn't be fixed by the internet to begin with. Security? That's a client-side issue (or an IRL issue. Hackers should be dealt with IRL consequences) Speed? That's a service-provider issue. availability? Yes....you have to pay to play.
 
Conficker remains a ticking time bomb. It now has the power to lash together those infected computers into a vast supercomputer called a botnet that can be controlled clandestinely by its creators.
Click to expand...

How is conficker still an issue? It's been patched since Oct 2008. Is there actually an antivirus vendor out there that has not yet got conficker in it's virus definitions?
 
Well there are valid reasons for looking at a "new" internet design. People saying we don;t need one because what we have is fine are like folks with radios wondering what all the fuss about TV is all about.

A new architecture could provide for better perf, better redundancy, better security. A better mail solution could be mandated on such a new network.

Yes, hackers could still hack it. And if it was more secure than much of the anonymity you enjoy now would probably vanish. But it's like a lock on your house vs. leaving the door open. One is harder to crack than the other.

The current net is a joke, security wise. Even if all the admins were awesome.
 
Exavior said:
Both of those can be done now. Any ISP can upgrade their backbone and fix the infrastructure issues. But they won't as that would cost money.

Same with security. It isn't the connection between your grandma's house and server that make her machine easy to hack. It is the lack of security on her machine and her desire to click on any random popup that shows up, or her desire to pay her medication from cheapmedzRus.ru that sent her that email telling her about a deal they are having, or her sending her bank information to that poor man in nigera that is just trying to help her get the money that some distant relative left her when they died.
Click to expand...

Which is why I mentioned the non compete change. ISP's need to be forced to compete, not this "You have your area and we have ours" mess we deal with now. There has been some limited headway in that area in recent years, but it needs to have a major focus put on it.
 
You know, the article is right, we do need a new internet. We can call it the "people that aren't retards net".

ISP level mass ban of all current machines, and required intelligence tests to recieve a new, valid access key to the PTARNET (tahr-net). That will solve 99.9% of all current internet-related problems.

That and some common sense cost assessment. Oh noes, so many machines are infected with Conficker and might become bot slaves!

reformat, reinstall, done.
 
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.
 
1. MOAR TUBES. Get rid of all the copper. Recycle that shit and put it to use elsewhere. Such as 1 billion dollar Monster Cables. :D j/k But seriously, MOAR FIBER.

2. Porn will take care of itself. It always has, it always will. It's been in existance since the first day man looked down and saw what he had between his legs and figured out what to do with it. Not worried about porn.

3. Security? Pfft. Leave it to the individual person. In the end they can bitch all they want. In the end they're the ones who aren't running the most basic forms of protection for themselves. They can cry to their ISP and the government all they want. If you can't sue a locksmith because your dumbass won't lock the doors to your house at night, you shouldn't be able to sue an ISP or a computer maker because you won't install or run proper protection on your computer.

4. NO MORE CAPPING/THROTTLING.

And that about sums up what I'd want in a new internet. Don't care if it's improving the current or if we scrap it all and start anew.
 
Dekoth said:
Which is why I mentioned the non compete change. ISP's need to be forced to compete, not this "You have your area and we have ours" mess we deal with now. There has been some limited headway in that area in recent years, but it needs to have a major focus put on it.
Click to expand...

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.


ianken said:
Well there are valid reasons for looking at a "new" internet design. People saying we don;t need one because what we have is fine are like folks with radios wondering what all the fuss about TV is all about.

A new architecture could provide for better perf, better redundancy, better security. A better mail solution could be mandated on such a new network.

Yes, hackers could still hack it. And if it was more secure than much of the anonymity you enjoy now would probably vanish. But it's like a lock on your house vs. leaving the door open. One is harder to crack than the other.

The current net is a joke, security wise. Even if all the admins were awesome.
Click to expand...

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 [email protected] 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.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top