Jump to content

The Internet may be getting slower


ixminis
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 22
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

 

Ohh, Ohhh! Tin Foil Hat time!

-NTM

 

Someone actually did a study about different shaped tinfoil hats & proved it concentrated the radio waves (oh so slightly) vs. protecting against them ::D:

 

Yes. Never wear a tinfoil hat. Wearing tinfoil hats to protect yourself is a government conspiracy, since it's easier to use their mind control devices on you...

 

Don't believe me?

 

PS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Net Neutrality is a big topic among people whose jobs take place online right now. Legislations are being proposed right now, more than ever, that are calling such neutrality into question.

 

My take? I pay to get online. Google pays to have its servers online. Both myself and Google are paying more money for faster connections to this network already.

 

Now. A clever mass-spammer has tools. Say, three hundred blogger sites, and a four kilobyte email message. That four kilobyte message can be sent individually to each of a thousand recipients for roughly four megabytes. It might take forty megabytes to set up a horrific number of spam blogs. One person watching the right clips on Google Video can use that much bandwidth easily.

 

This isn't about spam. It's about content delivery. Youtube, Newgrouds, Google Video, and sites of that nature are entertaining us with high quantities of data. Even though we broadband users pay a lot more for the speed, and even though the fast lines coming out of these servers costs a lot of money, some companies don't feel they're making enough.

 

The history of tax breaks that these same companies got in the 1990s in order to make this current Internet a reality were already supposed to pay for broadband media delivery. If some of these legislations go through, they'll have filled their pockets with corporate welfare, higher rates to consumers, and higher rates against these web sites. It really is a bad deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This particuar mail and others like it may be a scam, but the corperations ARE working on changing the nature of the net.

 

Priority datagrams is one of the last hurdles, and the internet will have completed its transformation from "hippie happy" and "let's all share" to just another aspect of our lives controlled by corporations need for a fatter profit margin.

 

Ohh, Ohhh! Tin Foil Hat time!

 

*puts one on*

 

The moon landings were faked!

 

9/11 was controlled demolition!

 

The Flu vaccine and Muzak are mind control!

 

*Takes it off*

 

Ow, that hurt my brain.

 

-NTM

 

What are you talking about? It's not a conspiracy, noone is trying to hide the fact that data formats are being changed to accomodate prioritized datagrams among other things. You might think it's good/bad/doesn't matter, but it IS real. As I said this has been going on for a very long time, noone is trying to hide it, ISP's are doing this to make more money for their share holders. Nothing conspiratory or weird there. I'm just saying that A: the changes are real, and B I prefered the way it was before.

 

 

The RFC for IPv6 is available all over the internet, go read it. Also read the RFC for IPv4, which is the previous version. RFCs are rather technical and heavy to read so I'll instead refer you to IPv6

IPv6 is the new format (actually it's not really that new but it takes a long time to change a protocol that's in use), as you can see there's 8 bits put aside for "trafic class", which is the priority value.

 

How is what I'm saying even remotely "tin foil hat"-territory? I don't get it.

 

P.S. Here's a link for IPv4 (the old format):

 

IPv4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a battle between two schools.

 

School 1: we all share and we all gain from this sharing

 

school 2: we all keep everything to ourselves unless there's profit to be made, thus maximizing our own profits and minimizing the competitiors profit.

 

I'm with school 1 here. (big surprise)

 

I think it's more complicated than that, to the extent that VOIP and other technologies are making it harder to justify investment in copper wire type infrastructure, and in Australia at least, that investment is desperately, desperately needed. But yes, school 2 is out there, and believe it or not, people who add no productive value but skim money are the enemy of free marketeers too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes they are enemies of the free market. Sadly the free market does not dominate the ISP-business, the freeloaders do.

 

The internet is moving away from its "wild west"/anarchy days. The playing rules are being decided right now, and I strongly feel that anyone who cares even remotely about how these rules are to be defined, should participate in the debate. I'm not saying that I want the anarchy days back, because I don't, but I'm definitely in the "internet for everyone"-camp. So rules are needed, I just don't like the set of rules being produced right now.

 

Sadly for me my side seems to be losing. Prioritized datagrams, the chinese google variant and the way ISPs peer (or rather don't peer) I'm affraid are here to stay. I'd be overjoyed if the free market forces kicked out the old lazy bastards controlling the tiered ISP system now, and enforced a system where there was actualy competition (resulting in better quality for the consumers).

 

The current ISP system is not even close to being "free market", it's a system that seems custom built to maximize the number of middle men. It gets the job done of getting my packets to the right spot, but it is so unbelieveably inefficient.

 

Yes they are enemies of the free market. Sadly the free market does not dominate the ISP-business, the freeloaders do.

 

The internet is moving away from its "wild west"/anarchy days. The playing rules are being decided right now, and I strongly feel that anyone who cares even remotely about how these rules are to be defined, should participate in the debate. I'm not saying that I want the anarchy days back, because I don't, but I'm definitely in the "internet for everyone"-camp. So rules are needed, I just don't like the set of rules being produced right now.

 

Sadly for me my side seems to be losing. Prioritized datagrams, the chinese google variant and the way ISPs peer (or rather don't peer) I'm affraid are here to stay. I'd be overjoyed if the free market forces kicked out the old lazy bastards controlling the tiered ISP system now, and enforced a system where there was actualy competition (resulting in better quality for the consumers).

 

The current ISP system is not even close to being "free market", it's a system that seems custom built to maximize the number of middle men. It gets the job done of getting my packets to the right spot, but it is so unbelieveably inefficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...