Scrapping the Internet? May not be far from reallity

[cycloneye]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18095186/

Can you imagine the internet being eliminated right now,what many problems it would cause not only emotional for many people not having it but in the money world,it would be very bad as the economy around the world would suffer.When I saw the title of the articule I was a not believer of that,but when I read the whole thing,it made sense to me as many things have to be fixed in terms of security as right now there are many breaches that the trolls and hackers can go to very easy.

What do you think guys and gals about this.

[Nimbus]

The entertainment industry wants secure networking to make intellectual property theft obsolete. Initially they will probably use music downloads as a carrot to attract customers to the IPV6 network running in parallel.



By ANICK JESDANUN

OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Transitioning to a next-generation Internet could be akin to changing the engines on a moving airplane.
Routers and other networking devices will likely need replacing; personal computers could be in store for software upgrades. Headaches could arise given the fact that it won't be possible to simply shut down the entire network for maintenance, with companies, groups and individuals depending on it every day.

And just think of the costs - potentially billions of dollars.

Advocates of a clean-slate Internet - a restructuring of the underlying architecture to better handle security, mobility and other emerging needs - agree that any transition will be difficult.

Consider that the groundwork for the IPv6 system for expanding the pool of Internet addresses was largely completed nearly a decade ago, yet the vast majority of software and hardware today still use the older, more crowded IPv4 technology. The clean-slate initiatives are far more ambitious than that.

But researchers aren't deterred. "The premise of the clean-slate design is, let's start by saying, 'How should it be done?' independent of 'Can we retrofit it?'" said Andrea Goldsmith, an electrical engineering professor at Stanford. "Once we know what the right thing to do is, then we can say, 'Is there an evolutional path?'"

One transition scenario is to run a parallel network for applications that truly need the improved functions. People would migrate to the new system over time, the way some are now abandoning the traditional telephone system for Internet-based phones, even as the two networks run side by side.

"There's no such thing as a flag day," said Larry Peterson, chairman of computer science at Princeton. "What happens is that certain services start to take off and attract users, and industry players start to take notice and adapt."

That's not unlike the approach NASA has in mind for extending the Internet into outer space. NASA has started to deploy the Interplanetary Internet so its spacecraft would have a common way of communicating with one another and with mission control.

But because of issues unique to outer space - such as a planet temporarily blocking a spacecraft signal, or the 15 to 45 minutes it takes a message to reach Mars and back - NASA can't simply slap on the communications protocols designed for the earthbound Internet. So project researchers have come up with an alternate communications protocol for space, and the two networks hook up through a gateway.

To reduce costs, businesses might buy networking devices that work with both networks - and they'd do so only when they would have upgraded their systems anyhow.

Some believe the current Internet will never go away, and the fruits of the research could go into improving - rather than scrapping - the existing architecture.

"You can't overhaul an international network very easily and expect everyone to jump on it," said Leonard Kleinrock, a UCLA professor who was one of the driving forces in creating the original Internet. "The legacy systems are there. You're not going to get away from it."

[Janie2006]

Its most likely something that could be phased in over time. There is too much to lose from eliminating the system overnight....capital, et cetera. I am far more interested in the motives behind the proposed "scrapping." Of course, there is the surface justification of a more efficient networking system, but there is far more at work here than economics.

[abajan]

Nimbus, I wonder if by "...So project researchers have come up with an alternate communications protocol for space, and the two networks hook up through a gateway..." they're reffering to a wormhole.

(What other response would one expect from a self-confessed Star Trek junkie like myself)

Seriously though, I read Cycloneye's link and the whole idea seems mighty interesting. I think a parallel network would be the best route to go. That way individuals and organisations will migrate to it as they see fit.

Tinkering with the present internet network to the extent they're talking about seems rather risky to me and could be courting a disaster far worse than what was expected with the Y2K bug.

[Nimbus]

they're reffering to a wormhole.

Neat way to do PM's, I will post the link.

http://www.physorg.com/news95349862.html

[coriolis]

Hmm.

Maybe faster/better communication would be good for data, but for voice communication there is usually an inverse relationship between speed and content.

[lurkey]

There is already a parallel "Internet". Internet2 is used by research universities.

This "clean-slate" approach concerns me. I am concerned of the amount of control that will be exercised by corporations (MPAA, RIAA, Microsoft) and governments by "cleaning" the slate of the internet.

[Cyclenall]

I'm against changing the Internet in any sort of way and this should be shot down as well. The reasons are simply because there is a high chance that our Internet freedoms would go down the hole because of what lurker_from_nc said. Internet 2 is just a way for corporations to nab us in a negative way. I don't care if it's faster or more "secure".

Everyone who loves the Internet should be against this. I know I am. I fear that one of the best inventions of mankind doesn't get mucked up by a few people with not so good "intentions".

[Nimbus]

IPV6 has the capability of identifying every computer that is securely connected sort of like a 9 digit zip code system.

People already have to log in to pay services and receive identification cookies on their hard drives so they can be tracked. Tighter security could have a negative effect on free speech in the usenet area I suppose, but that is a different port and the degree of identification could vary.

Under IPV6 malicious hackers would have to work from public computers where there are typically many witnesses so perhaps the advantages outweigh the dissadvantages?

[GalvestonDuck]

If it wipes out a gazillion dollars worth of kiddie stuff, bomb-making instructions, race war and Islamic extremist propaganda, and pirated music and movies, I say go for it.

[gtalum]

If it wipes out a gazillion dollars worth of kiddie stuff, bomb-making instructions, race war and Islamic extremist propaganda, and pirated music and movies, I say go for it.

Sure, let's give up freedom of speech in the name of protection. Good idea.

No thanks, I'll take the dangerous old internet without corporate and government thugs running the show.

[GalvestonDuck]

Kiddie stuff has nothing to do with speech.

Bomb-making instructions should not be that readily accessible, should they? And what does that have to do with freedom of speech? What kind of speech is someone giving that they need explosives instead of their own voice?

As for Islamic extremists, I don't believe they've covered under our BOR. But, the race war freaks...I'll give ya that one. They can repost their craziness. They have the same rights as you and I, regardless of how much I don't like to hear what they have to say.

And theft of movies and music is not freedom of speech.

[lurkey]

Kiddie stuff has nothing to do with speech.

Agreed. But I believe there are suficient laws on the books to get these sickos. It is matter of enforcement.

Bomb-making instructions should not be that readily accessible, should they? And what does that have to do with freedom of speech? What kind of speech is someone giving that they need explosives instead of their own voice?

I believe the Supreme Court considers this protected speech

As for Islamic extremists, I don't believe they've covered under our BOR. But, the race war freaks...I'll give ya that one. They can repost their craziness. They have the same rights as you and I, regardless of how much I don't like to hear what they have to say.

The defense against this kind of speech is not censorship, but more speech against them.

And theft of movies and music is not freedom of speech.

Yes, piracy of movies and music out of Southeast Asia costs the music and movie industry millions of dollars a years and they should continue cracking down. But the RIAA screwed up big time when Napster appear and they have been paying big time by not adapting to the new technology quickly. I don't think they will able to recover.


I considered it now a form of protest at this point against the RIAA and MPAA. They are losing money, because 1. they make great deal of terrible albums and movies, and 2. they cannot develop new business models to give consumer what they want -- be allowed to move their music and movies to various devices. They rather rip off the consumer (and artists -- that's another rant) and charge consumers for the CD, then charge to put it on iPod A, and then charge them again to move it to Device B, etc. If I buy a CD, I should have right to rip to make a copy to listen in my car , a copy for my iPod, and a copy to listen on my computer.

[gtalum]

Thanks lurker, you addressed all of my points at least as well as I could have.

The laws are on the books to take care of the problems you listed, Duckie. It's not worth it or necessary to give up our freedom to take care of these problems.

[GalvestonDuck]

Lurker -- if you bought the CD and rip it in order to listen to it on your car stereo, computer, or Ipod, what's that have to do with the internet? As long as you're not putting duplicate digital copies out there for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to get for free, I don't think they have an issue, do they? Aren't the above uses consider fair use?

GTalum, what freedoms do you lose if we simply start over with a clean slate? No one would be preventing you from saying anything, would they? And as far as the laws go, it's hard to enforce when stuff is so rampant on the internet (and copies of kiddie stuff are out there as well).

[gtalum]

GTalum, what freedoms do you lose if we simply start over with a clean slate? No one would be preventing you from saying anything, would they? And as far as the laws go, it's hard to enforce when stuff is so rampant on the internet (and copies of kiddie stuff are out there as well).

The internet is an easily accessible medium for expression and speech. The new system takes control of that basically anarchic system and consolidates it in the hands of government and corporate thugs who will use the power to control and restrict the exchange of ideas. Sure we'd be better off without some stuff that happens on the internet, but handing control of it to government and corporate censors isn't the way to go about it.

[lurkey]

Lurker -- if you bought the CD and rip it in order to listen to it on your car stereo, computer, or Ipod, what's that have to do with the internet? As long as you're not putting duplicate digital copies out there for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to get for free, I don't think they have an issue, do they? Aren't the above uses consider fair use?

They don't llike fair use. They have tried to make Fair Use illegal. In fact, they are on the record that they do not consider the above as Fair Use. They put DRM (Digital Rights Management) on the CD to prevent ripping of CDs. They do the same with legally purchased downloads. I buy something on ITunes, I can only listen to it on up to 5 authorized computers. I can only make 5 CDs. And heaven forbid, if your hard drive crashes . . you can't d/l replacements. . . and not everyone backs up their computers. Believe itor not, RIAA isn't happy with what ITunes allows. . . if it were up to them, you pay them money for every device you move it to or for every CD you make. I'm not against paying for legal music. I don't anyone limit what I do with it. Once I pay for the file or CD, it is my property. I refuse to believe that it is like a software license and subject to "Terms of Service". I am tired of being called a music thief because I want untethered access to my music and movies files.

[gtalum]

Lurker -- if you bought the CD and rip it in order to listen to it on your car stereo, computer, or Ipod, what's that have to do with the internet? As long as you're not putting duplicate digital copies out there for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to get for free, I don't think they have an issue, do they? Aren't the above uses consider fair use?

But what if I backup all of my files, including my legal MP3's, to a server? I do in real life.

And what if I need to download those songs, via the internet, from my server to a laptop when I'm traveling? I do this a lot.

[GalvestonDuck]

Like I said, you're not putting it there for others to grab for free, right?

[gtalum]

Like I said, you're not putting it there for others to grab for free, right?

No, but under Internet2 I wouldn't be (legally) able to do what I do.