# This should cause a good discussion



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Get it while the getting is good.









 *Information Super Traffic Jam* (Read as the price is headed up big time $$$$$.







)


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Terrific!!


----------



## Richard Smith (Jan 2, 2008)

Hmmm! Looks like I'd better repair the holes in the ol' blanket and chop some wood for the bonfire.


----------



## cubythewater (Jan 14, 2008)

Isn't that article from January 2007?


----------



## altterrain (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By cubythewater on 05/02/2009 10:14 AM
Isn't that article from January 2007?


Why, yes it is!









-Brian


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

This is a highly dubious argument. There is no lack of bandwidth, it's that internet service providers want to find a way to charge us more.


Think about it--why don't cable TV providers make the same argument, and try to charge you more for watching more? They don't have to, because the more TV you watch the more ads you watch. But the internet was designed to be free--it was designed as a free (meaning taxpayer subsidized) way for physicists and Defense agencies to share the use of supercomputers. It has no "front door," no "top". That's why, for example, it's hard to keep images from being simply appropriated. The internet was designed not as a profit making scheme, but as a way to share defense related info in a network that could not be easily "taken out" by the Russians, because it had no central core, no "headquarters."

This is frustrating to ISPs, because they realize there is heavy use and it's going to get heavier and they want a way to secure a bigger profit. The broadcast model, where ads pay for the service, seems to be working but they think they could make a lot more if they started "metering." 


If I were king, I'd commit taxpayer dollars to improving the internet and making access as free and and widely available as possible. It's done a great deal of good. Not only online communities like this, but also online political communities and public interest informational sites. Not to mention how much has the internet boosted commerce? 



But that;'s probably too much of a political discussion--in the meantime, I just tend to be very wary and very skeptical about this kind of argument. \They floated in back in 2007, and it didn't fly, but it will be back, I proimise


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

If I were king, I'd commit taxpayer dollars to improving the internet and making access as free and and widely available as possible.
Me, I'd commit America heavily to the space program, both unmanned robotic missions and to returning men to the moon and going beyond. Not only would it be a huge boost to the economy and create jobs, it also spurs technical development and science like nothing else. Estimates are that every dollar invested by the U.S. in space exploration returns around eight-dollars in economic benefit. An there are many additional reasons besides economic... it inspires kids to study science and math, can promote peaceful international cooperation towards common goal (in "2001: A Space Oddessy", A.C.Clark wrote about space exploration, "Man had finally found something as exciting as war!"), promotes advances in medical technology, advances national prestige, advances our knowledge of our own planet and biosphere by giving us something (other worlds) to compare it to (fundametal to gaining any real knowledge about anything), and may ultimately save us as a species though colonization and not "having all our eggs in one basket", and all with very little downside. 

Is it dangerous? Absolutely, and lives have been and will be lost. Such has always been the case when exploring new frontiers. But the people who take those risks do so knowingly and voluntarily, and for peaceful purposes.

Most importantly, it offers the possibility of answering questions man has asked since the dawn of time. Who are we? Why are we here? Are we alone?


----------



## sheepdog (Jan 2, 2008)

*It's a sales pitch. Invest your money with me because I/we can see into the future*.

Craig


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By cubythewater on 05/02/2009 10:14 AM
Isn't that article from January 2007?
Yes sir, it is, but it's comming around again.

*Beware surfers: cyberspace is filling up*

*And if you're interested in the original & revised study by Nemertes*


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Dwight Ennis on 05/02/2009 10:41 AM
_{snip...}_ Is it dangerous? Absolutely, and lives have been and will be lost. Such has always been the case when exploring new frontiers. But the people who take those risks do so knowingly and voluntarily, and for [_peaceful purposes[/b]_].

That is the only part of what you've said that I don't think you'll find support for across all of mankind's history, and as technology advances the control that governments have enjoyed thus far, will diminish.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

I was talking of the people who will go into space. Admittedly, the original Moon Race was spurred on by the need to develop ICBMs, and any space effort by any nation (USA, Russia, China, etc.) will have National Security implications, but on the whole, people who voluntarily become astronauts/cosmonauts/whatevernauts and go to the Moon or Mars aren't going for the primary purpose of weapons or war.  mho.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Dwight

I understand, what I was referring to was the higher level of entry by private enterprise into the arena, resulting from the lessening of the requirement for access to special launch facilities. The associated conflicts that arise from competition when great reward is at hand. I'm not saying that this will result in open warfare (well maybe, but not in the conventional sense anyway







), but I don't think it would classified as peaceful either.


----------



## xo18thfa (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 05/02/2009 10:30 AM
This is a highly dubious argument. There is no lack of bandwidth, it's that internet service providers want to find a way to charge us more.


Think about it--why don't cable TV providers make the same argument, and try to charge you more for watching more? They don't have to, because the more TV you watch the more ads you watch. But the internet was designed to be free--it was designed as a free (meaning taxpayer subsidized) way for physicists and Defense agencies to share the use of supercomputers. It has no "front door," no "top". That's why, for example, it's hard to keep images from being simply appropriated. The internet was designed not as a profit making scheme, but as a way to share defense related info in a network that could not be easily "taken out" by the Russians, because it had no central core, no "headquarters."

This is frustrating to ISPs, because they realize there is heavy use and it's going to get heavier and they want a way to secure a bigger profit. The broadcast model, where ads pay for the service, seems to be working but they think they could make a lot more if they started "metering." 


If I were king, I'd commit taxpayer dollars to improving the internet and making access as free and and widely available as possible. It's done a great deal of good. Not only online communities like this, but also online political communities and public interest informational sites. Not to mention how much has the internet boosted commerce? 



But that;'s probably too much of a political discussion--in the meantime, I just tend to be very wary and very skeptical about this kind of argument. \They floated in back in 2007, and it didn't fly, but it will be back, I proimise





I don't think there is any lack of band width either. Technology advancement in splitting frequencies, multi-plexing and all that grows exponentially. New equipment is obsolete the day it hits the market.

Remember when a 4.8K dial up modem was the cat's meow. This stuff now is pure magic to me.


Thought the Gov't had something like $32B earmarked for internet upgrade in the stimulus bill. That's fine. My only concern is where the money goes. I would not want it going into public libraries so more people can waste time NOT reading good books.


----------



## xo18thfa (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Dwight Ennis on 05/02/2009 10:41 AM
If I were king, I'd commit taxpayer dollars to improving the internet and making access as free and and widely available as possible.
Me, I'd commit America heavily to the space program, both unmanned robotic missions and to returning men to the moon and going beyond. Not only would it be a huge boost to the economy and create jobs, it also spurs technical development and science like nothing else. Estimates are that every dollar invested by the U.S. in space exploration returns around eight-dollars in economic benefit. An there are many additional reasons besides economic... it inspires kids to study science and math, can promote peaceful international cooperation towards common goal (in "2001: A Space Oddessy", A.C.Clark wrote about space exploration, "Man had finally found something as exciting as war!"), promotes advances in medical technology, advances national prestige, advances our knowledge of our own planet and biosphere by giving us something (other worlds) to compare it to (fundametal to gaining any real knowledge about anything), and may ultimately save us as a species though colonization and not "having all our eggs in one basket", and all with very little downside. 

Is it dangerous? Absolutely, and lives have been and will be lost. Such has always been the case when exploring new frontiers. But the people who take those risks do so knowingly and voluntarily, and for peaceful purposes.

Most importantly, it offers the possibility of answering questions man has asked since the dawn of time. Who are we? Why are we here? Are we alone?


I am with you on that. We are losing a generation of intelligent, creative kids really fast.


----------



## John Roppel (Jan 2, 2008)

where I am at in vargina metrocast the only cable company wants $5 a foot to get me cable for internet, the cable run is 2500 ft.that comes out to $12,500. Verison, said we do not have FIOS in that county. A T1 would cost me $450 a month (yes I did look) 
I would love to see some of the stimuless money used to get broadband out in to areas where the ISP's will not spend the $$ to up grade the infostructure to be able to provide service.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

I'd commit taxpayer dollars to improving the internet and making access as free and and widely available as possible


To get back to the subject (not that I'm against stimulating kids' minds and getting more math/science graduates,) there is a whole argument about 'utility service' versus 'commercial'. 

A few years ago, the 'competitive local exchange carriers' all failed because the local telephone companies owned the wires to your home - a very substantial investment that no-one wanted to replicate, and no community wanted to duplicate for aesthetic reasons. There was a very good case to be made for splitting the wires out of the telephone co, and making them a local utility, just like the electricity and water, and the telco could offer switching using those wires in competition with anyone else who wanted to install a switch (VoIP, cable co?) 

The same argument can be made for 'the internet'. The wires (which carry the info/content/ads) ought to be a utility, owned and suppoerted by tax dollars so we can all share the benefits. The content (Google searches, email, online movies, internet radio) could be free, ad-supported or subscription, as it is at the moment. 

Your ISP should perhaps be a regulated utility, allowed to make a minor profit but responsible to a local board who make sure we get good service at minimum rates. 

_Unfortunately, although that's what a lot of other countries do very successfully, the concept is 'anti-american', 'anti-capitialist' and too 'socialist' for most folk around here. Personally, I think it's time this country grew up and decided that a little socialism is a good thing._


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By John Roppel on 05/03/2009 8:56 AM
where I am at in vargina metrocast the only cable company wants $5 a foot to get me cable for internet, the cable run is 2500 ft.that comes out to $12,500. Verison, said we do not have FIOS in that county. A T1 would cost me $450 a month (yes I did look) 
I would love to see some of the stimuless money used to get broadband out in to areas where the ISP's will not spend the $$ to up grade the infostructure to be able to provide service. 







Ever see that PBS advert where the fellow talks about being up on a power pole and saying "Maybe were were too young to be scared."... and "We were just bringing power to light the porch light." 

I remember the tail end of those days and that is exactly what the mentality was... just bring power "to light the porch light"... look what it is now.


Sounds like it is time to create a counterpart to the REC (Rural Electric Cooperative) and form an RIC (Rural Internet Cooperative).


----------



## ThinkerT (Jan 2, 2008)

Me, I'd commit America heavily to the space program, both unmanned robotic missions and to returning men to the moon and going beyond. Not only would it be a huge boost to the economy and create jobs, it also spurs technical development and science like nothing else. Estimates are that every dollar invested by the U.S. in space exploration returns around eight-dollars in economic benefit. An there are many additional reasons besides economic... it inspires kids to study science and math, can promote peaceful international cooperation towards common goal (in "2001: A Space Oddessy", A.C.Clark wrote about space exploration, "Man had finally found something as exciting as war!"), promotes advances in medical technology, advances national prestige, advances our knowledge of our own planet and biosphere by giving us something (other worlds) to compare it to (fundametal to gaining any real knowledge about anything), and may ultimately save us as a species though colonization and not "having all our eggs in one basket", and all with very little downside. 


Fully agree. I would argue that the internet itself, is, in a sense, a product of the space program. Getting a viable long term lunar base up and running would be a nice goal for the next decade or so; after that, look into getting a settlement established on Mars. For those willing to thing ahead in terms of centuries rather than decades, terraforming Mars might be a good long term project.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By ThinkerT on 05/03/2009 2:12 PM


Fully agree. I would argue that the internet itself, is, in a sense, a product of the space program. 











That's a stretch I think. It's a product of the Cold War, and so was the space program, and so was the Vietnam War. The Cold War was the precondition that led to the spaced program, and the internet was invented to research nuclear physics/nuclear defense, not space exploration--although NASA did get involved later
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet


----------



## Al McEvoy (Jan 3, 2008)

So if the internet gets too crowded we'll all have to find something else to do...like run our trains!!!


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 05/03/2009 2:47 PM
{snip}[/i] and the internet was invented to research nuclear physics/nuclear defense, not space exploration--although NASA did get involved later {snip...}[/i]
Mr. O'Malley

Mr. Gore isn't going to be happy about someone else getting all the credit, for that which he invented.


----------



## imrnjr (Jan 2, 2008)

6 years ago when I retired from Verizon's wireline entitiy as a wholesale product group manager for Network private Lines, (meaning AT&T, MCI, Sprint, and other LD and internet companies were my customers), the primary/long haul network band width was plentiful in major city to city routes (top 125 to 200), and probably still is. Get off those routes and into the cities and country side you find a real mixed bag. (I doubt the town I live in today has a copper T1 in it, let alone the capability for a glass DS3.) 

However the gateways between internet networks were and may still be a significant problem. They are traffic cops, the servers that route your traffic from my little podunk network to your big or little net work, and as the size of the messages (meaning the increasing number of video/multi-megabit pictures and audio files) continues to grow they will reach their processing capacity and need to be augmented/upgraded/replaced at some cost. 

If there is a choke point it'll probably be at the local internet provider's network and servers or as said before the gateways between networks, not in the basic back bone network. One of my son in law's parents have a wireless (MMDS radio) internet provider who's gateway is set up so that it will not pass a file attachment greater than 3.5Mb so I can't forward a high res or multiple low res pictures. Which I guess is one way to limit bandwidth and the individual utilization of scarce resources allowing more customers to have a mediocre experience. I think its stupid in the long run, but small companies are cash strapped.


Increased bandwidth at the home is only making the issue come faster,.... the internet is not free ...is not an entitlement,...and is a baseline business for this country and the world. Somebody's got to pay for the capability/capacity and in the long run it will be the consumer. Either directly to network providers, or thru higher costs of products via a trickle down of higher ad or hosting costs and maybe something like prioritized response times. Buying something may be differentially treated with better response times than that of IM'ing your grandkids.

Oh yeah if I remember correctly there were three primary gateways between all of the networks in the US and out to the world in '03. I don't know if that's changed, but I'd say it's unlikely because they were in places where the all the major fiber optic networks came resonably close together and had point of presence to allow reasonably economic access and interconnection to the rest of the world via undersea cables like Miami, NYC, and LA and that is where they still are.

Mark


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

I think all the soon to be millions of twits "twittering" that they've just finish taking a shower, or that they just buttered their toast, or that they just missed their train, are going to so clog up the ether with their stupid & inanely mindless chatter, maybe just such an information shutdown might be a good jolt to the system...


----------

