digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

The History of the internet and Net Neutrality [ VIDEO ]

current.com — MUST WATCH video about the creation of the internet and the issue of net neutrality.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • trumpcard, on 06/07/2008, -32/+3First.
    • Acglaphotis, on 06/07/2008, -0/+15Youtube called, they want their comment back.
      • ultragush, on 06/07/2008, -7/+0oooooooooooh... ya badman... i be reelin from dat comment back te me drum... hear me now
        • b16madman, on 06/07/2008, -5/+1oh look it's a super subcomment hooray
  • TGMD, on 06/07/2008, -27/+5One thing I don't get about this whole net neutrality debate is that we can all agree that it sucks. I mean, only the most stupid companies would enforce it and the internet is supposed to be for everyone, a bit is a bit.

    But the thing I don't get is why do people want to enforce it? I mean, it's the company's network. What right do we have to force them to adopt what we think is right?

    Instead of trying to get the government to pass net neutrality legislation maybe we should vote with our pocketbooks?
    • FapCommander, on 06/07/2008, -1/+11Problem is all major ISPs are in on this, so you won't have an alternative ISP to turn to
      • p014k, on 06/07/2008, -2/+5But once one doesn't do it, they win.
      • TGMD, on 06/07/2008, -1/+4We have laws to prevent collusion, we just need to enforce them.

        Then after that we've just got to rely on market forces.

        If there's a demand there will be a firm to provide it.

    • nogahide, on 06/07/2008, -2/+6The companies were subsidized by the gov (all of us) to build the network. They built up the backbone but fiber to the house never got done.

      The backbone was paid for by you and me, not the big telcos. They just run them.
      • TGMD, on 06/07/2008, -3/+3I hear that a lot but I don't see anything to back that. But let's assume the gov did pay for it, The Telco's now own it, if you want have them pay the govt back.

        Problem solved.

        Look, I want Net neutrality, it's just I don't think it's the government's right to enforce it.
    • verkon, on 06/07/2008, -1/+6It isn't the companys network, they just own the infrastructure.
      • TGMD, on 06/07/2008, -2/+2Don't they have the right then to use that infrastructure anyway they want?
    • KingMoses, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1"What right do we have to force them to adopt what we think is right?"

      Welcome to the mindset of the Left. You know, I bet that thought didn't cross a one of their heads. They believe they're entitled to that control because of this false dichotomy they've constructed of "people" vs. corporations, as if companies aren't made up of or owned and operated and depended on by people. They don't think that the fat cat neo-cons (read: successful people who own companies) have any right to make their own decisions about how their company operates; they believe companies must follow in lockstep to their political whims.
      When they don't get what they want in the marketplace of ideas, they'll run to the legislators. In cases where the legislation is already against them, they'll run to the courts. They have no regard for the marketplace of ideas, they have no regard for the right of ownership, and they are so convinced of their own superiority that they will do all of this with their self-righteous attitude like the world would fall apart without them here to save us from ourselves.
      Welcome to the new American Socialism; four legs good, two legs better.
  • ZGambit, on 06/07/2008, -30/+4Don't Digg this ***** please........... Bury it because it is Lame
    • FapCommander, on 06/07/2008, -2/+8I'll bury you for being a *****
      • ZGambit, on 06/07/2008, -3/+2Fap Commander I would like to do the same after all I do know that this is old ***** for Net Neutrality and I already understand the idea behind it. So personally I believe burying this discussion would be a good idea as this is now becoming a daily thing which has been put up by the same group,

        I would question your internet understanding of what today's internet has created for business, consumers and etc. If you think hard enough you will understand that it is not possible to make internet like pay TV.

        Areas I have covered my understanding across this issue is:
        Global Business
        Economy
        Consumer rights
        Marketing
        Digital Media adaptability we have mobile phones, satelite not just computers which can access internet which don't require lines.
        Public Relations
        Governmental Issues
        The ability to restrict broadbrand strengths dependent on website portals. Is highly difficult due to the effort of variations which are required and the continual growth of new sites.

        FapCommander now I believe you should reframe the ***** comment as I believe you understand less then me across this issue.

        Thank you,

        ZGambit: expert in Digital Communications
    • HomieG6189, on 06/07/2008, -2/+9I didn't know the CEO of AT&T was on Digg?
  • bytock, on 06/07/2008, -12/+4it is truly amazing that the internet blew up like it did. And then from a different point of view, it was expected. Just 5 to 8 years ago most people werent even gaming online. Look at Xbox live and PSN now. The internet will only continue to grow until everyone can use and contribute.
    • xNIBx, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2You could play pc games online for almost 2 decades now. Just because consoloids only recently got online play, doesnt mean that noone played online before.
  • Shawn4168, on 06/07/2008, -11/+1Relevant:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cZC67wXUTs
  • jasonlfunk, on 06/07/2008, -7/+21How does Net Neutrality not conflict with free market principals?
    • Puppyfam, on 06/07/2008, -3/+27Because, if the theories are right, the major ISPs are acting as a cartel. If it was just one corporation trying to pull this, the free market would shift away from their service. However, since there is allegedly a cartel-like collaboration going on, there would be nowhere for the market to turn.

      I hate unnecessary government regulation, but when corporations try to hijack the free market, someone needs to step in.
      • logandurand, on 06/07/2008, -9/+2Nobody "needs" to do anything; cartel-like behavior, while immoral, is hardly criminal.
        • Loornadune, on 06/07/2008, -3/+2So... robbing you of your money is legal/right now?
        • logandurand, on 06/07/2008, -3/+2How are they "robbing you of your money"? They're simply changing the product they sell. If you don't like it, tough luck.
        • Puppyfam, on 06/07/2008, -2/+10They're "robbing you of your money" by disallowing competition.
        • JayD16, on 06/07/2008, -1/+9We have anti-trust laws because when you have monopolies the markets are NOT free...

          Net neutrality is the same thing.
        • patchshorts, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1Not true. The military created the seed that became the internet, so should they have a say so? I don't think so because it has been adopted by everyone. It should be governed by every one. Group's of people making decisions together is, by definition, politics. Who are our stewards of public decision??? Our government.
      • Puppyfam, on 06/07/2008, -1/+3Even so, the concept of a cartel does conflict with free market values. Take oil companies for example. In a free market system, each company should be vying to dominate the oil market; they should be appealing to customers trying to gather a following... Cutting prices or offering services different from their competitors. Instead, we have essentially no competition between major oil companies: they all provide the same service at the same price. It's essentially a variation of a price-fixing cartel: there's no healthy economic competition.

        The government has a responsibility to maintain the values of the free market system we live in; they shouldn't allow a cartel to control a market.
    • nogahide, on 06/07/2008, -3/+5The same way that the roads dont. The roads belong to us and what goes across them is our business.

      The internet backbone was paid for by us and now the telcos want to control what goes across it.

    • cubicledrone, on 06/07/2008, -7/+2Free market is *****. There is no free market. A free market would mean that anyone has access to the marketplace. And that... why that would be... THE INTERNET!

      This restaurant needs rules to make sure someone doesn't wipe their ass on the tablecloth. Thank you.
    • HonoredMule, on 06/07/2008, -5/+2Net Neutrality (in non-perverted form) > Free Market

      Currently, we have neither.


      I say in non-perverted form because most of the arguments against Net Neutrality are straw men. QoS, for example, has absolutely nothing to do with Net Neutrality. QoS prioritizes time-sensitive packets for transmission through your limited pipes. It does not in any way restrict non-prioritized data from using whatever bandwidth is left over. So if you have VoIP prioritized for example, but aren't using it, you non-VoIP data will still go through at maximum speed. In other words, you can only limit your use of bandwidth for A by using it YOURSELF for B instead. QoS cannot limit what applications or services you use.
    • u8eR, on 06/07/2008, -1/+4The dilemma is that when you have government regulations telling corporations what they can or cannot do, you do not have a free market by definition. Having a neutral Internet is not in conflict with a free capitalistic market per se, but only arises when the government enforces or regulates it.
  • 0Xonox0, on 06/07/2008, -2/+9The internet is in danger? This sounds like a job for the internet!
    If everybody who sees this sends just one Email to their congressmen and ISPs expressing their outrage that this should even be a POSSIBILITY, we can stop it.
    Get to work people!
    • ronaldst, on 06/07/2008, -1/+11. "Big bad" corporations lobby incompetent politicians;
      2. "Special groups" want incompetent politicians to get additional power;
      3. Profit.

      Makes sense? Net Neutrality doesn't.
    • JayD16, on 06/07/2008, -1/+3You can't just dump all these emails to congress on the internet. Its not some kind of truck!
  • Twinnie, on 06/07/2008, -5/+9I'm still not convinced this is even happening, all I've heard about it is a few people on Digg saying they have inside sources. I've not seen anyone link to credible sources on this.
    • 0Xonox0, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Good point... I still don't doubt it, I think its time for us to do some digging! (no pun intended)
    • Betrayer, on 06/07/2008, -1/+13You obviously dont have comcast!!!!!

      comcast has already started shaping the internet to there liking....

      they say the torrents take up too much bandwidth, but id bet the porn takes up MORE.
      whos to say they wont cut off your free porn next.

      the NEW thing Comcast is working on, is ***** you by setting limits on the internet... if you use more then a set amount of data you pay extra.
    • MalusMalo, on 06/07/2008, -0/+0even if you're not convinced by it, you shouldn't deny the possibility of it being true.
  • emehrkay, on 06/07/2008, -5/+13This is so disgusting, I want to throw up.

    This level of control is the main reason why I am scared of Verizon Fios. I know that Comcast is probably worse, but Fios has that full control over your whole pipe.

    I am leaving the country if our leadership does to the internet what they did with radio
    • Chalks777, on 06/07/2008, -3/+8if you actually leave the country, good for you.

      Buried though, because we all know you won't actually leave the country.
    • Braddeharder, on 06/07/2008, -3/+7Then leave, because it was the Government that killed radio and TV with the FCC
  • icndvl, on 06/07/2008, -1/+5I look forward to buying satellite Internet from China...Its still better then AT&T.
    • Psythik, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Good luck with getting a low ping.
      • Observant1, on 06/08/2008, -0/+2I might want to see how cute she is first
  • kookbutt, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2The internet is just a series of tubes that can get clogged and it will take days for emails to get to people if that happens.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE&NR=1
  • hermes369, on 06/07/2008, -0/+4I think we have the processing power to create our own internet with RF. Time to start building.
  • miles920, on 06/07/2008, -1/+6this vid is incredible. we need to do something.
  • kenvsryu, on 06/07/2008, -3/+12The companies have been given $25,000,000,000 of our tax dollars to build the networks. They do not own it! They can't control it!
  • mikephimikephi, on 06/07/2008, -5/+4Old video is old
    • Betrayer, on 06/07/2008, -0/+5and yet its happening before our eyes.
  • icndvl, on 06/07/2008, -3/+2Many people are willing to pay a small fortune to have a real internet connection. I would personally pay up to $300 if I needed to. So with these kinds of incentives, if AT&T doesn't someone else will. For the net generation unrestricted Internet is a necessity like heat and water. If large companies can't keep their market share, someone else will. Wimax, Satellite, improved dial-up technology (I am sure we could squeeze a little over 56kbits if their was a clear economic incentive) are always options.
  • jumbalia, on 06/07/2008, -4/+11I may be wrong but, even if the phone companies do try pull this BS, wouldn't it be easy enough for another company to come along and offer full access to the Internet for the same price. In a sense all the companies would be doing is blocking access to certain sites; you don't need the Internet to make a web page. Unless the government/corporations (same thing) come up with a way to block access into the network provider industry I can't see how companies could do away with net neutrality and stay competitive in th market. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong.
    • cramtod, on 06/07/2008, -1/+5Another company would come along if it was easy. The problem is that entry into the marketplace is prohibitive. This includes not only the cost to lay the lines but also the cost to negotiate with the individual towns for the right of way to do so.

      It used to be that cable companies were required to open their networks to internet companies to provide service. However, that went the way of the dodo with when the Supreme Court upheld the FCCs (wrongly reasoned) decision in "FCC v. Brand X Internet Services" which eliminated the the only cost effective way to enter the marketplace.


  • Sidzilla, on 06/07/2008, -1/+7I need glasses. I thought it said Net Nudity. :(
  • kenvsryu, on 06/07/2008, -2/+5It will be like Chinese internet if Net Neutrality dies. Call your politicians.
    • Braddeharder, on 06/07/2008, -7/+3It will be like the Chinese internet if net neutrality becomes a reality. Government control is what Net Neutrality means.
      • HonoredMule, on 06/07/2008, -1/+7You need to take the blinders off and see just how much your government controls in the name of corporate interests already. Ironically, it takes government control to control the government.

        Maybe you like it better when only corporations get government to pass laws. That seem to be working out swell.
  • FreeTalkLIve, on 06/07/2008, -3/+9Shoulda had a Ron Paul.
  • flipperBaby, on 06/07/2008, -0/+6Haha theres a big giant AT&T banner at the top of this post
  • skoartrojan2, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1Very rightly said and edited... !!!

  • b16madman, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1let me guess it plays some old 80's news intro music, shows something about lobotomy and teh internet clouds

    yep, real new there
  • sjweiss1, on 06/07/2008, -2/+4It's strange how every day the Internet is becoming more accessible and usable for more people (FF3, iPhone etc.), yet the men in the high rises feel compelled to limit what it is we are allowed to view, create, access, and distribute.

    Earlier this morning I was working at a used computer liquidation at my local library. One woman came up to me with tears in her eyes, a smile on her face, and a computer in her hands. She said ,"My son makes movies, my nephew makes music, and my daughter takes pictures. Today I will finally be able to see and hear what they make. Thank you." We can't let the Internet we know fade away. Not with so much at stake.

    Also, I don't care if this video is old, I hadn't seen it. I thought it was very well made.
    • godseyeview, on 06/07/2008, -3/+1she will prolly find out her son is in a bunch of youtube jackass type crap, her nephew makes uninspired fruity loops and her daughter is in a bunch of porno.
  • JointVenture, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1That was a great video. I wish I knew what we could really do about it.

    So what can we really do? Id be willing to hit the streets on this issue more than I would some special interest group.

    This is really the only issue that goes beyond SPECIAL INTEREST groups.

    What needs to be done is we need to somehow separate the P2P groups from the issue because that is the angle they will use for controlling access. If they can paint net neutrality as something only p2p users want they will win. Its kind of like marijuana, they show a scumbag being busted selling pot and crack to the folks who dont smoke so that all they see when hearing the legalization issue is scumbags. (no im not implying p2p users are scumbags)

    We need to be honest , there would be a lot fewer sites if it were not for google ads.

    Do you think the LIFEHACKER site would be kept up to date if they did not earn income from it? How abot Gizmodo, or Kotuku?
  • awuwish, on 06/07/2008, -2/+2It's like how Kevin and Alex were talking on Diggnation about net neutrality and internet tiering. Once one company doesn't do this, the whole thing falls apart. Everyone will go to that company, and then the other companies won't have any other choice but to abandon the idea.
  • mclewell, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Net neutrality is starting to become a very pressing issue. Just look at what happened to Revision3. I think that if the ISP's get full control of the internet, a whole new form of mass communication will be created. Then the new system will eventually get taken over, and the cycle will continue of the existence of man.
  • renegadeafk, on 06/07/2008, -4/+1informative video, but the narrating guys voice is ANNOYING as *****
  • hojin994, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1STEP UP PEOPLE!!
    Lets stop this.
  • earthwormzim, on 06/07/2008, -4/+6Net neutrality is a farce. I think it is a bunch of phony hoo-ha perpetrated by the large companies for the very purpose of creating regulation. Why? Because, regulation is ALWAYS beneficial to the large companies, and harmful to the small companies, due to the fact that the large companies can afford it, and the smaller one's can't. It's a big protectionist racket.

    The big companies...I bet their underpants get wet just at the very thought of actually achieving net neutrality. Why? Because, net neutrality would mean that they would no longer have to work hard to innovate, and no start-up company would be legally allowed to innovate beyond them. They'd all be on a "level playing field"...and thus, the big companies could sit on their laurels, and just reap a continuous stream of profit.

    Without net neutrality, though...the large companies have to continue to research, and innovate, and work hard to please their customers, else they would lose their customers to competitors. Not only would they have to be worried about the competition of the other large companies that are in plain sight...but they'd have to be doubly worried about the possibility of some upstart company (like Google, perhaps), just springing out of nowhere, and taking over the market. Without net neutrality, the large companies dominances would not be guaranteed, whereas, with net neutrality, it would.

    The plan is simple: get rid of the cumbersome necessity of having to innovate so that we don't have to innovate, and so that we can just keep the profit margins roughly the way they are for all eternity.

    Listen up you Dems, and other net neutrality supporters: if you support net neutrality (or any governmental regulation for that matter), then you support harming the "little guy" in favor of big business.
    • xexx, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2Regulation is always beneficial to large companies? No, it's really not, being regulated to NOT do something is really pretty easy, all you have to do is NOT do anything.

      How in the hell do you claim companies won't have to innovate? Am I the only one who's baffled at the ***** you're spewing out? How do you write out such paragraphs and come to each conclusion that's completely backwards from what a normal person would reach? You claim with net neutrality they don't have to innovate? WHY? You've given no reason, and you just expect us to believe that ***** or something? It's exactly the opposite, without net neutrality, they don't need to innovate at all because they can use their position as "owners of the network" that our tax dollars paid to put together and throw all the startups and small companies on the back burner with limited (or no) access while producing their small plethora of controlled content upfront and shoving it down your throats.

  • GIScope, on 06/07/2008, -1/+6Dear Diggers,

    Never in its history, human kind has been so powerful in its individuality. The Internet is the vehicle of this power. Individual ingenuity powers the Internet. You and I, and other ordinary people are the Internet. On the other hand, the new aristocracy of our time: media, corporations and government see their power slip away. They see themselves following the trends established by the people instead of stating their own to be followed. In fact, for the first time in history, they are starting to serve the people as they were initially designed for..and that scares them. So now they are starting to build literally a gate around the people to have them controlled.

    This is a critical moment in our time as human beings. Our evolution as a specie is threatened and our children and our children's children will hold us accountable for it.

    DO SOMETHING TO KEEP THE ONLY DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM OF OUR TIME ALIVE!

    Yours,
    -a scared digger
    • earthwormzim, on 06/07/2008, -3/+1Democracy is disgusting. All it equates to is 2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding on what's for dinner.

      Democracy is not equal to freedom. The very concept..."a majority decides for the rest" is antithetical to freedom. The two are mutually exclusive. "Freedom and Democracy" is an oxy-moron. It's an impossibility.

      Shall I demonstrate my claim? Here, in the US, if 51% of the population votes in person A to lead them, then am I free to choose my own leader? No, apparently not. But, it's not even 51% of the population...it's a simple majority of the VOTING population. An extreme super-majority of the United States does not vote, and of the people who do...they tend to be bureaucrats and/or socialists, as voting is the only way they can get pay raises and/or bigger government welfare checks!

      So, it's not 51% of the population that determines policy...it's a majority of a very, very small minority...i.e., "the voters".

      But, even so...if this tiny minority votes to do one thing...no matter what it is...whether it's higher taxes to give their professions bigger budgets, or to get bigger welfare checks...I am not free to opt-out. This is not freedom.

      PERIOD!

      So what's worth preserving about it?
  • earthwormzim, on 06/07/2008, -3/+3This video is just ***** retarded Commie/Socialistic tripe. Disgusting. The fact of the matter is: who ever owns the "pipes" of the internet SHOULD be able to control it in whatever way they want! If they wanna disconnect it from the WWW, and then cover each bolt and screw with human feces...that's their prerogative. However...if they want to continue to make profit and grow, they will HAVE TO CONTINUE TO MAKE THEIR CUSTOMERS HAPPY! And...if they don't...someone else will.

    If Viacom suddenly cut off all the access to regular customers to all personal websites, and only allowed access to large websites...their business would suffer dire consequences in a matter of days, if not weeks...as there would be a mass exodus of customers to other companies that would offer better access, at a better price.

    It's how the free market works. Free market = common sense. How many times do we have to try Communistic/Socialistic ideas/concepts/"business models" before we realize it just does not work?
    • stinkymonkey, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1No, that is not true and not a strong argument.

      You are forgetting one of many things. There are only a handful of companies that control an important resource. Therefore, its not like you can walk down the street and get another provider or boycott the one you have.

      These companies do have a responsibility, and they must uphold it. And the government must force them (yes force them) to uphold it.

      But this is nothing new. There are many different types of government regulations on many different types of companies. Is that communist? No, not by any means. One reason the the government (we the people) is there is to protect us, so companies don't get out of control and take advantage of a resource they completely own.

      BTW: On a side note. You use the word socialist and you state it doesn't work. I hate to break it to you, but the socialist model is exactly the police and fire departments in your town. Police and Fire have departments have nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with socialist ideology and practice.
    • KingMoses, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2+friend
  • BrendanSheehan, on 06/07/2008, -0/+4THIS MAN HAS TO WIN IN NOVEMBER!!!!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd8qY6myrrE

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-mW1qccn8k
  • earthwormzim, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2If you don't respect the private property of your neighbors...even if they are rich...sooner or later, your private property will be violated in the ways in which you allow others to violate theirs.

    Freedom is a catch 22. If you want it, you have to be willing to grant it to your neighbors as well, or else you too will be enslaved.
  • kall, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1Old, but I'll Digg for the sake it.
  • godseyeview, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2this will save the internet .
    http://gizmodo.com/369436/intel-finds-a-way-to-tra ...

  • kjcdude, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1this is like the third time this has been posted.
  • ThaDRD, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2It's so sick that the regulations changed allowing them to keep all their profits and not put them back into upgrading their networks.
  • Jalh, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP_3WnJ42kw
  • isimon42o, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Digg This!
  • stinkymonkey, on 06/07/2008, -0/+4I can offer my view as a hardware designer of routers to the issue of net-neutrality. Only read if you're interested in how routers work.

    A router is basically a black box with inputs and outputs. Its job is to "route" data (internet packets) from the appropriate input port to the appropriate output port so it can go on its merry way. These ports can be physical or virtual. The way it is routed is called a "connection". For example, we could have a connection between input port 5 with output port 7. In reality, a telco company could have millions of these connections in one enterprise router.

    One of the biggest problems is the physical reality of a bottleneck at the output ports. Meaning, you can't physically get all the data packets, all the time, from one port to another. The hardware can only work so fast - its based on clock ticks. For example, if you had 10 input ports wanting to go to just one output port at the same time, well...you can't do it. So we had to "drop" packets - meaning they get thrown away (don't worry, the internet protocol (IP) is designed to resend a packet when it is dropped). Its sloppy, but that's the way it is. People like to use the analogy of a car trying to get on a busy highway, except that when the highway is full, you and your car disappear. We would do tricks like add large buffers to help the situation (basically hold some information until the input ports calm down a bit) but again, this is just a temporary solution because eventually these buffers would get filled up and
    now you're in the same situation.

    So what to do? The solution to this data bottleneck problem is to have Quality of Service (QoS) levels. Meaning, prioritize some "connections" over other "connections". For example, I will make sure Billy's data will go from input port 3 to output port 5 100% of the time. And Julies data,,,well, to bad, it will be dropped. Her data will only get there when Billy isn't using his connection.

    And of course, this priority level is based on who pays more. If you want a better Quality of Service (your data to get from point A to point B) then pay more money.

    So how does this relate to net-neutrality? Well, the hardware is already in place today to limit bandwidth on certain people (using the above mechanism). Its not something that needs to be designed at the hardware level. Its already done. And its already in use. For some DSL and cable companies you pay for your bandwidth. You pay more, you get a higher Quality of Service (Its faster). And in Texas, there is a pilot program that only lets you use you connection up to a certain amount of data per month, then you must pay more for every GB of data you use over that. Its wrong and it will only get worse.

    Another point. What about limiting content? Easy as pie in a router. In these routers there are many tables that keep ceratin IP addresses. They are there for different reasons. Lets say your favorite website is apple.com. Well, I could just program a table in the router to drop all IP taffic from this website when I see this IP address. OK, its not a great solution since the tables can only be so big, but it works. There are also few ways around it, but the point being, there is hardware is in place.

    So my point is, there are very elegant solutions already in place at the telco level to limit bandwidth and content.


    As a side note on a different subject - My forte was IP multicasting. Meaning, how to "duplicate" a connection or groups of connections in a router. It's really good for broadcasts. For example, lets say you have a sporting even and you want to get your video to 1 million people. Well, rather then broadcast from the source 1 million times, lets use the routers in the network to split the data (multicast) as it travels. Think of it like a tree. The video broadcast is the trunk of the tree, and as it travels it splits into branches (the routers) and eventually makes it to you (the leaves).

    Well, multicast is great, but its design is also perfect for another application. Spying. Meaning, the router can duplicate (100%) any connection it wants and split it off to any location in the world. No one would know except a handful of people who control the router. Because you can't physically see what going on inside a router. Remember that story about the technician who physically connected a port from a router to a special room. Well, what a brute force solution. Its bulky and hard to control. Its better to use the capabilities of "multicast" and copy the connection inside the router and output it to wherever in the world you want. So spying is much more elegant and easier then the idea of physically connecting something. It's also very difficult to catch.


  • FrankHope, on 06/08/2008, -0/+2We need a digital Bill of Rights!
    The right to bear blogs.
    The keyboard is mightier than the AK-47.
  • e1evene1even, on 06/08/2008, -0/+0Considering how much of a role the internet has played in Barack Obama's campaign one would hope that as President he would recognize this and take steps to protect it, including vetoing any bills that compromise net neutrality and making sure the new FCC chairman has teeth...

    If McCain becomes President on the other hand, he would likely (and rightly) view the internet as a threat and take an opposing stance.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.