The topic for consideration is Net Neutrality. Net neutrality refers to the internet, and is the concept that a data network should have no restrictions. That the network at its base should allow any equipment to hook up and communicate with any other equipment, it does not regulate how that equipment communicates, nor does it set one type of communication higher than another.
The other position is that due to the increase in large bandwidth traffic and the development of new ways to access some regulations may be needed. For instance the ability for multiple homes to use a wireless connections instead of individual connections could cause the providers to lose large quantities of revenue. Also, with the increase in large bandwidth traffic (i.e. high quality and real time video and audio) the chance of high latency or a complete interruption in service could occur, and with such things as remote surgery being developed, the results could be severe. They propose a tiered services model where certain applications and "high priority traffic" would have a dedicated service in order to maintain quality.
There it is. What do you think? Feel free to comment on the original post as well as subsequent comments. Enjoy
-The IR Herald
Great minds talk about ideas, Average minds talk about things, Small minds talk about other people. --Unknown
p.s. This topic was proposed by another admin, but we are still in the process of getting everyone "admin" status. Once added his handle will be "Omniscient Fool". I only say this to make sure proposal credit is given where credit is due. Much of my information came from this website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality feel free to peruse it as needed. Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Alright, I hope the post was written neutrally, I tried. I think the idea of net neutrality is an honorable one, but with more and more applications taking up more and more bandwidth I think a tier system is innevitable. Remote surgeries is only the beginning of the possibilities. But without a dedicated server the chance of a crash or lag is very possible and would be disastrous for the patient and everyone involved. Plus without a dedicated server, the chance of being hacked during surgery is greater. Yes, I know it's possible to hack secure sites, but it's harder.
I agree that the increase in bandwidth usage and wireless subscribers can become a problem. However,their proposed fixes and solutions could mean an end to amateur website making at large. THe big name companies such as google, msn, yahoo, ect... Will get to pay all the big bucks to allow constant flow and usage of their websites. With more and more people desiring to work from their home providing special services/ products, we will see many new entrepreneurships crumble under the pressure to attract traffic to their website. Again, all commenters feel free to disagree with anything that is said and propose fresh new ideas, this is simply my initial thoughts on the subject.
So does it have to be a choice of one or another? Is there a compromise that can be found? Do we simply put up with the chance at creating a "the rich get richer" scenario? Or do we put a halt on advances such as remote surgery and other things like it?
Personally I think the tier type system you mentioned is an inevitability, for many reasons, my main reason being capitalism. We are a country that supports the free market and someone has to make money, whether or not it is noble has nothing to do with it. Although systems like remote surgery can be set up outside the regular system by hospitals that wish to use their own money or insurance from the person needing the operation.
I say either way it looks like those bigger companies are going to have to be spending money. Depending on legislation they would either be spending it on maintaining a large population/getting a larger one or doing research and buffing up their security. I personaly think the money is better spent on security. In fact this is the ideal time for new security whizes to make a fortune! And heres another thing, who is it that is controlling all of this. Does anyone have a right to do that? The internet is public property to my knowledge...but I may be wrong.
The ISP's are the ones that are controlling it all, NetZero, Earthlink, AOL, etc..., perhaps it is better spent on security but no matter what they do someone will find a way to beat it, so the economical thing to do would be to spend it on increasing their base, which is what they do. Through advertisement and free trial subscriptions.
Ok, so if we assume that a tiered system is in the future, will regualar dial-up be completely abandoned at some point? We have hdtv and satellite feeds and xm and sirius radion now, but you can still get radio with a transistor and they still sell rabbit ears for tvs. Will there always be dial-up providers? or will it become to small a profit to run them?
I am all for Net Neutrality. The internet has become the main traffic of information and research in the past decade and will only grow more. If there are blocks on internet only allowing high speed bandwiths to access certain sites, many people will not be able to get the information they need for a project whether it be in school or for the corporate world. I believe that websites would eventually become like software systems of today (certain programs can not run on higher processing systems); some websites may not be accessable by higher bandwith just like some not being able to be accessed by lower bandwith. I don't know much about this topic, however, so please enlighten me if anyone feels different so I can have some more information to base my ideas off of :)
I believe the effects will start to show with the dialup providers, they will either have to find a way to miraculously bump up their speed or go down to a virtually free service. The only thing you would be able to do on that is possibly play a matrix version of tetris. Im sure that there will be loopholes found for those smaller companies though. I can see a big company coming to power because it hosts all those smaller companies....i can see that happening. So in reality is the content going to change? No..I think it will find a way.
Until the entire world is wired up with the ability to have a wireless/cable access. There will always be a market for the dial-up providers, given the advances with laser technology have made this a possibility. The profit may be small, but since nearly everywhere is wired up with a telephone line the capabilities of cheap dial-up internet will be dominant for some time yet.
I'm not entirely sure were we are going with this but i am sort of a pc geek myself and i have hacked into things before and when i don't i get kind of frustrated. There are people like me out there that can do this sort of thing and when they get frustrated with a system because they are blocked they hack through and leave behind a trail of destruction. They could mess with peoples personal info.
I agree that secure sites are secure for a reason. But sometimes people do get through and can mess stuff up. Thats why there are people doing the job of tracking these people down. If they were to get into a server during an operation and did damage they could be charged with crimes. If anything should be changed about the net it should be that certain computers would be able to identify what computer enabled something to happen. From there you could track down the hacker.
Couple of things... First, I'm glad to see that this expansion of the IR project seems to be getting off the ground nicely... Second, welcome to adherent youth, we hope you continue to share your thoughts, and as far as "where this is going" these threads are completely free flowing as it is any time discussion commences. Most times we just follow to see where it leads, and in the rare occurance that it seems to hit a lull or dead end, one of the admins will simply direct it back to a new kicking off point... Finally, do you think we can devise a system that can accurately be one step ahead of the hackers? Just like with steroids in sports about the time a steroid is identified and able to be detected, the creators have already made 10 new ones.
We can already track down people pretty well though. I dont think its tracking them down that there is a problem. It is a matter of detection as well. I mean i guess theoretically if all these large sites did "take over" they could have hightened security to detect and help prevent more from happening. I only sound like I know a little of what im talking about because I know how insane the government can monitor ones computer.
Government work only pays so much and as such they don't have the best or the brightest. Those people usually work for larger companies, or start them themselves. Secondly investing a huge amount into security isn't worth the cost as you said someone will always be right behind them with something different or perhaps better. Unless you base your business, such as Norton, on the premise of security it isn't worth it. Lastly, Norton for all that it does is very expensive itself.
I agree that the cost of updating security would be huge... yes, you can easily track people's activity on the net now, but that is usually only applicable to the general public. The hackers, who would be the ones doing the major crime type of damage, are the ones who are savvy enough to stay ahead of the game. You or I would probably be easy to track, but we also don't have the know how to do anything of that magnitude anyway. If we do end up with a tiered system, would there need to be new cables laid, or is our current equipment able to handle the change? (see I'm showing my lack of net savvy right here.)
From what I have seen and heard, the next step to globalization of the internet is the idea of laser data transfer, satellite to dirigible to hub to computer. There have been several experiments done and all that I know of have gone well. The next few decades should be really interesting.
Well I have also heard good theories talking about how there is enough evidence that supports that a unification of media storage will happen. By that I mean dvd's will be gone, cd players will be gone, everything will be one type of memory storage device. I personally see that as a possibility technologically but i dont know how that will work onthe business perspective...
Matt so are you saying that everything will end up looking like an iPod? As for security, I don't think an open network will change much from this current one, because people still hack bandwith right now so if net neutrality were not the case, anyone could search for a connection, break through a firewall on a connection, and jump on the higher speed. I think the only thing that would change is the reason for the person hacking into a connection. Instead of it being not wanting to pay for their own internet or whatever, it would be to access those sites restricted to the bandwith they currently own.
I don't think he means that everything will look like an ipod... but that all data will be stored on memory sticks, or something like them. Instead of dvds and .mov it will just be .mov, or instead of cds and mp3's, just mp3's... now I would guess .mov and mp3's would both be made obsolete with this hypothetical technology... but you can see my point. But as long as there is a market for the lesser types, I think they will continue...you can still get vhs tapes because the market is there... yes it's slowly being phased out, but I don't think we will ever have just one type of market. Capitalism won't allow it... we're always looking for new innovations to push the market.
Agreed, of course that is what a capitalist system is good for. Though unfortunately a good capitalist system affects government policy to much. Personally I think a seperate body would be better suited to govern over the economy and leave the rest of the affairs to congress.
I agee with Alan. I believe this would now be a good time to bing up Alan's idea of having the separate divisions of government specialized on certain aspects of our nation such as a committee of environmental scientists on a board discussing issues directly dealing with their field of work. Great idea, and I would be all for it if this idea ever went into motion.
Post a Comment