World of Ends

I'd say First Post, but it probably isn't so... by soulctcher · 2003-03-07 05:44 · Score: 4, Funny

So what I will say is that this has got to be one of the most confusing, yet clear topics I've read on /. in a long time.

Re:I'd say First Post, but it probably isn't so... by Masami+Eiri · 2003-03-07 05:46 · Score: 1

I agree wholeheartedly. That was a good read.
Re:I'd say First Post, but it probably isn't so... by cosmosis · 2003-03-07 08:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

Well first post or not, the whole end-to-end paradigm of the stupid network, is so simple and brilliant with economic abundance and endless innovation for everyone, except the telcos, that the only reasons we are not seeing the benefits is because of corporate welfare and monopoly power being given back to the Telcos. I say get them out of the way by letting them die fast in the free-market. We have everything to gain it. Now if only Michael Powell, FCC head, would get the simple message thru his head.

Planet P Blog

--
www.enthea.org

Theorem by telstar · 2003-03-07 05:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

8. "No one owns it.

Everyone can use it.

Anyone can improve it."

4. "Adding value to the Internet lowers its value."

So the Internet is destined to fail?

Re:Theorem by Minna+Kirai · 2003-03-07 05:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

So the Internet is destined to fail?

Yes, Doc & Dave have set themselves up to be misinterpreted with those particular headings.

It makes sense if you read the text, and see that "improve it" in item 8 doesn't mean modifing the internet in any way- only modifying protocols that use it.

"Adding value" to the internet, on the other hand, would mean changing the internet itself, which would break old applications, and make it harder to add new apps.
Re:Theorem by d0ggi3 · 2003-03-07 05:55 · Score: 1

did you read the article? the internet is not destined to fail. "it grows at its ends"
Re:Theorem by ManUMan · 2003-03-07 05:56 · Score: 1

Any one can improve it. Good thing certian people don't realize that. There are certian people that should be kept as far away from "improving" anything.

--
If you are never moderated, do you really exist?
Re:Theorem by Omega's+Wildfire · 2003-03-07 06:01 · Score: 1

I hope so. Then we can use Internet2, 923 Mbps. :) Oh the dreams. hehe
Re:Theorem by Derg · 2003-03-07 06:06 · Score: 1

I think you are misunderstanding the terms "adding value" and "improve". The Value, as I assume them to mean, implies importance and desirability. Placing it upon a pedestal, thusly de-valuing, or taking from a place of equal footing, things which should be equal. Taking from one to feed the other, when in reality both need the food. To improve however, is to add ability and power to it, not to change ones evaluation of it.

To improve is a measure of ability and capability.
To Add Value is to change ones opinion and evaluation.

--
I'm a little tea pot.
Re:Theorem by sniser2 · 2003-03-07 06:13 · Score: 2, Informative

In the context of the Article "adding value" doesn't equal "improve" - that's kinda the whole point...
Re:Theorem by gmuslera · 2003-03-07 06:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Think in i.e. Riverworld of P.J.Farmer, you have a river that connects all places in the world, the river is owned by nobody, everyone can use it, and everybody can build whatever they think around and over it, but if you change the river itself (contaminating water, redirecting or trying to stop it, adding to it some drink concentrate to make the water taste better, whatever), all the world loses, they can't use the same river in all the possible ways that they could before (and, if I remember well the book series, you will face a war very soon :)
Re:Theorem by Strange+Ranger · 2003-03-07 06:35 · Score: 1

So MS .NET decreases the value of the internet and is destined to fail?

That does seem to tie in pretty nicely with this.

--

Operator, give me the number for 911!
Re:Theorem by coyote-san · 2003-03-07 06:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

I understood the point to be that there's been a huge disconnect between what people want and companies think they want. Or more often, what they try to convince consumers they want... and which only they can provide.

Filtering contents adds value, right? Nobody really wants those porn sites? In reality, we all know that porn has been the driving force behind many internet protocols - in some cases people had no real options, in other cases they could go to local stores but didn't because of fear the neighbors/boss/whoever would see them and judge them.

Music downloads adds value, right? Except the "solutions" replace an easily scratched plastic disc with an even more fragile piece of DRM-crap. With a CD, I can dub it to a tape so I can listen to it in my car. I can put it onto an MP3 player that I can take to the gym. But the "value-added" downloads can only be played on one system, for only a brief time.

I believe that was their point - that almost everything claimed to "add value" to the internet has actually removed something people actually value. In contrast almost every time the net has been opened up (e.g., AOL becoming a gateway to the internet at large, instead of its own lake) has been considered valuable by the users.

--
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Re:Theorem by los+furtive · 2003-03-07 06:45 · Score: 1

I Reply to This, therefore I am.

--
I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.
Re:Theorem by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 06:50 · Score: 1, Insightful

And every single thing that's opened up, even AOL, has become more profitable as a result. Even though this is completely contrary to conventional wisdom, it is true. Being open means more opportunities and more value, and people are willing to pay for that.

What this means for economic and business theory remains to be seen.
Re:Theorem by Minna+Kirai · 2003-03-07 06:56 · Score: 1

Firstly, the phrase "destined to fail" was introduced by a poster, neither did the "World of Ends" article nor myself said anything about that. The article said that abusing the internet's founding principles would be bad, but didn't claim it would be impossible. A sufficiently wrongheaded government, backed up with public fear and acquiesence, could close down the internet and replace it with a regulated, censored information utility.

It also might be possible for Microsft, through careful leveraging of monopoly powers, to force all their users to change to closed, proprietary protocols, cutting them off from much of the internet's value.

Opinions are divided on whether they'll actually try this. Some people claim that .NET protocols are open enough to be non-dangerous. And, depending on who's in the Whitehouse in 2005, an attempt to leverage desktop software dominance into control of a new data-communication monopoly could land Microsoft in more serious legal trouble than they've ever had before.

However, in terms of the "World of Ends" article, .NET is an application at the edge of the cloud, not in the center of it, and thus falls under section 8c "Anyone can improve it", rather than section 4 "Adding value lowers value".
Re:Theorem by Minna+Kirai · 2003-03-07 07:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

Filtering contents adds value, right?

ISP level filtering is one of those things which some people think adds value to the internet, but really damages it. Host-level filtering, however, is a voluntary, application-level process which the host can disable at any time. This is why improvements to the internet should come at the application level (where they can be easily changed and removed if they turn out to have downsides), rather than deeper in the network (where it's harder to convince the sysadmins that you need changes made to do your work).

(Host-level filtering may still be damaging in some cases, such as in a library whose users are forbidden from modifing local software. But that is a separate issue)

Music downloads adds value, right?

From the Internet's point of view, music downloads are "just another file transfer application". They are beyond the scope of section 4. They "improve" the internet by providing another use at the ends. But, as you may have noticed, DRM-based music downloads aren't very popular yet. That's because, as the authors suggested, non-open protocols lack explosive popularity.

an even more fragile piece of DRM-crap

I think that the majority of music-downloaders still manage to find non-DRM files. Not as much as when Napster was running, but it still seems that most music downloads wind up as MP3 files on multiple, redundant CDRs.

Hypothetically, the RIAA might someday propose modifying the internet to make their music transfers more secure, and that would be bad.

(If they could push DRM onto 80% of newly manufactured PC hardware, that would be very bad for other reasons)
Re:Theorem by Strange+Ranger · 2003-03-07 07:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Your're right. Guess I should have said; "Destined to fail in an ideally realized internet such as this article supports." Sorry.

However, please further support this statement
".NET is an application at the edge of the cloud, not in the center of it, and thus falls under section 8c "Anyone can improve it", rather than section 4 "Adding value lowers value".

.NET requires IIS, .NET will interact with the worlds most popular browser, operating system, and applications suite. .Net will require subscriptions. .NET comes along with the MS version of "Trusted Computing. .NET will control content by its ubiquitous nature. If .NET really takes off I can't see how it'll be at the edge of the cloud. The cloud will gradually transmogrify into MSInternet with some renegade fringes.

--

Operator, give me the number for 911!
Re:Theorem by Minna+Kirai · 2003-03-07 07:37 · Score: 1

I agree that widespread adoption of Microsoft-controlled .NET opens a doorway for abuse.

However, from a simplistic Internet-centric perspective, implementing .NET only involves adding new applications to hosts at the Edges. There's no plans for it to change the way routers handle packets, which is what a "change to the internet" would imply.

Yes, it is possible that someday in the future, Microsoft will decide that to optimize .NET, they'll need to transition it away from the real internet, and either create an alternative, "value-added" network, or fund the deployment of ".NET support servers" inside major IP backbones.
Re:Theorem by MasterRa · 2003-03-07 08:08 · Score: 1

I take it you didn't actually read the article. It's actually VERY good. In fact, i read it before it was posted on here.. kinda funny.. i didn't notice the /. post until just now.. :)
Re:Theorem by Strange+Ranger · 2003-03-07 08:35 · Score: 1

I think my point is that it doesn't matter how routers handle packets if every interface is MS, every IP packet is stamped with .NET, etc. MS is outside the scope of the whole analogy simply because they are MS. They don't need to change the internet, they can just co-opt the whole thing

I dunno though, it's Friday and the sun is out for the first time in a LONG time. Spring fever! Been nice chatting.

--

Operator, give me the number for 911!
Re:Theorem by Robotech_Master · 2003-03-07 08:39 · Score: 1

"Adding value" =/= "improving".

Remember, "adding value" is marketdroid speak for "screwing with." :)

--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Re:Theorem by PurpleFloyd · 2003-03-07 16:22 · Score: 1

And, depending on who's in the Whitehouse in 2005, an attempt to leverage desktop software dominance into control of a new data-communication monopoly could land Microsoft in more serious legal trouble than they've ever had before.
Yeah, they might get two slaps on the wrist. Unless Bush can get the economy out of the smoking hole in the ground he seems to have made, the next president will be tasked with bringing the US economy back into shape. This means that MS could simply whine about how Evil Government is oppressing their God-Given Freedom to Innovate. Suddenly, the DoJ will tread very carefully around anything that might infringe upon their right to bend the customers over and ream them up the arse, because that might hurt the recovering economy.

--

That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.

In that case by Raul654 · 2003-03-07 05:45 · Score: 4, Funny

I hope he goes for a real-world case study -- the end to end transfer of a given porn movie. Definetely something your manager can read and relate to, plus it gives you an easy springboard onto such topics as average throughput, burst transmissions, etc :)

--

To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton

Are they technological-age hippies? by Meat+Blaster · 2003-03-07 05:45 · Score: 4, Funny

Because (at least by the writeup) it sounds like they're delivering some sort of Zen-style analysis from within a cloud of blue smoke. How well does the sound of a hand stream over the Internet?

Re:Are they technological-age hippies? by sniser2 · 2003-03-07 06:19 · Score: 1

Because (at least by the writeup) it sounds like they're delivering some sort of Zen-style analysis from within a cloud of blue smoke. How well does the sound of a hand stream over the Internet?

Huh? What is your point, ie. what do you mean by "writeup" - it seems pretty to the point, one could even say technical? And what do you mean by Zen style, as lumping it together with "hippies" indicates you have no clue wtf you're talking about?

=)
Re:Are they technological-age hippies? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 06:27 · Score: 0

you expect intelligence from one known as "meat blaster"?
Re:Are they technological-age hippies? by mekkab · 2003-03-07 06:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

easy, tiger...

He's not dissing Zen, he's using it as an adjective; specifically, he's saying "Zen style" as in, "Not zen, but a cheap knock-off."

Its like the word "Trustafarian"- the people who classify aren't trying to be Rastas.

Now, to swing this whole thing back towards the topic at hand:
Infact, your complaint of the parent post, is the parent post's complaint of the article! Sweeping generalizations are indeed not technical, the imply some underlying dogma. Hence, the term Zen-style (or Zen-steeze, if you get down like that). The tip off is the "evne a manager could understand it!"- technical went out the window.

--
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.

World Ends by Slycee · 2003-03-07 05:46 · Score: 5, Funny

Oh God I missed the "of" at first.

Heaven help us. I found out about Armageddon on slashdot.

---

Re:World Ends by CoolVibe · 2003-03-07 05:52 · Score: 1

Dammit, you beat me with that joke. grmbl. :-)
I too read something similar at first, but somehow my brain contorted it into "End of World". Weird.
Re:World Ends by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 06:00 · Score: 0

Dammit, you beat me with that joke. grmbl.

What Joke? Seriously.
Re:World Ends by Sgs-Cruz · 2003-03-07 06:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

On an offtopic, but very interesting tangent, that is an extremely interesting, scary thought. If a nuclear bomb went off in St. Petersburg and 50 megatons of H-bomb were headed for every major city in the US, what would Slashdot report (assuming the editors knew it was going to happen - remember, this is hypothetical). Weird.

--
Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).
Re:World Ends by daeley · 2003-03-07 06:07 · Score: 2, Funny

Think that's bad? I kept seeing a certain person's monogram with every, er, repetition of Repetitive Mistake Syndrome. :)

--
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
Re:World Ends by gosand · 2003-03-07 06:11 · Score: 3, Funny

Oh God I missed the "of" at first. Heaven help us. I found out about Armageddon on slashdot.
In that case, all the trolls would be trying to get "Last Post". But how would you know who finally got it?
Earth has been slashdotted.

--

My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Re:World Ends by nurightshu · 2003-03-07 06:13 · Score: 5, Funny

Only subscribers would know about it -- by the time it hit the front page for the rest of us rabble, the nukes would already be here.

--
They that would sacrifice their .sig space for that cliched Franklin quote deserve neither.
Re:World Ends by hibiki_r · 2003-03-07 06:24 · Score: 1

I thought the same thing at first, but then I realized that slashdot would never report the world's end, since it would be impossible to post a dupe 2 weeks later.
Re:World Ends by PD · 2003-03-07 06:30 · Score: 5, Funny

They'd write this:

"Nuclaer bombs' on thier weigh"

And we'd all be complaining about spelling errors when the big one hits.

--
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Re:World Ends by The+Evil+Couch · 2003-03-07 06:32 · Score: 1

it'd look kind of like this:

The page cannot be displayed

The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings.

--
The World's Worst Webcomic!
Re:World Ends by fyzix · 2003-03-07 06:49 · Score: 1

I missed the "of" too. For a second I thought I was a slashdot subscriber.
Re:World Ends by Nightpaw · 2003-03-07 07:00 · Score: 1

Except meltier.
Re:World Ends by ErikRed1488 · 2003-03-07 08:00 · Score: 1

I'd like to think that if the world was coming to an end the editors of Slashdot would be spending their last minutes on Earth with their loved ones. Call me a softie.

--
I was not touched there by an angel.
Re:World Ends by khendron · 2003-03-07 08:02 · Score: 1

I'm sure it would be reported twice.

--
Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
Re:World Ends by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 08:09 · Score: 0

Actually, this is a disguised pre-dupe so they can post the end of the world when it comes.
Re:World Ends by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 08:14 · Score: 0

Finally a cure for duplicate posts! Destroy the world.
Re:World Ends by Vantage13 · 2003-03-07 08:56 · Score: 1

Another one of the benefits of being a slashdot subscriber! You get to see future posts and find out about the end of the world before it happens!
Re:World Ends by caudron · 2003-03-07 09:39 · Score: 1

Don't worry it's a future post, so if you are a /. subscriber, you still have 20 minutes or so to comment about the end of the world before it really happens.

-Tom

--
-Tom
Re:World Ends by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 10:07 · Score: 0

Sgs-Cruz said:

If a nuclear bomb went off in St. Petersburg and 50 megatons of H-bomb were headed for every major city in the US

and you said:

I'd like to think that if the world was coming to an end...

Here's a clue: USA != The World.

And you're probably wondering why the vast population of the world hates your sorry, fat American arse.
Re:World Ends by FearUncertaintyDoubt · 2003-03-07 10:11 · Score: 1

Oh God I missed the "of" at first
Me too. I thought it was a dupe.
Re:World Ends by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 10:20 · Score: 0

I don't know, but according to this story:

When Earth explodes, the end is momentarily near.

At this point, there is still a short interval before atoms and even their nuclei break apart. "There's about 30 minutes left," Caldwell said, "But it's not quality time."
Re:World Ends by roman_mir · 2003-03-07 10:54 · Score: 1

There are a lot of major american cities, so if it were 50Megaton H-Bombs it would most likely be the end of the world due to radiation and dust fallout.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:World Ends by jamesh · 2003-03-07 15:22 · Score: 1

there's always one isn't there :p

(btw, you're a softie :)
Re:World Ends by Have+Blue · 2003-03-07 17:29 · Score: 1

They would accidentally touch off a second nuclear exchange when they posted the "missile launch" story again a week later.
Re:World Ends by ErikRed1488 · 2003-03-07 23:59 · Score: 1

Truth be known, I'd spend the last minutes/hours praying alone. I love my family, but my last few minutes would have to be spent between me and my God.

--
I was not touched there by an angel.
Re:World Ends by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-08 07:12 · Score: 0

Truth be known, I'd spend the last minutes/hours praying alone. I love my family, but my last few minutes would have to be spent between me and my God.

Yep, when things get that bad just slip into fantasy and denial. Nothing else is going to help anyway.

terms... by thrillbert · 2003-03-07 05:47 · Score: 1, Funny

in terms so clear even your manager could understand them

You greatly under estimate the power of the dork side.

---
Reality is for people who lack imagination.

Re:terms... by telstar · 2003-03-07 06:04 · Score: 2, Funny
"in terms so clear even your manager could understand them"
- "You greatly under estimate the power of the dork side."
  - I'd say they greatly overestimate the power of management.

Huh by maximillianarturo · 2003-03-07 05:48 · Score: 3, Funny

So should I sell my internet stock... or what?

Hey hey hey! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 05:48 · Score: 0

"The Internet isn't complicated. The Internet isn't a thing. It's an agreement. The Internet is stupid. Adding value to the Internet lowers its value."

Looks like John Katz is back!

This is the end by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 05:49 · Score: 0

my beautiful friend...

wow, now that the internet is at an end, does it means we'll have to scale back to AOL and Compuserve and MSN?

That'd be fine for me if their servers have the security of Uplink mainframes..

so, in other words.... by d0ggi3 · 2003-03-07 05:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Adding value to the Internet lowers its value."

internet + 5 = internet - 5?

Re:so, in other words.... by robmon · 2003-03-07 05:58 · Score: 1

It makes sense, haven't you heard of the law of conservation of the internet? ;)
Re:so, in other words.... by Omega's+Wildfire · 2003-03-07 06:08 · Score: 1

total internet value = 1/internet

thus... as you increase the value of the internet, the total value decreases. It is your clasic inverse law. They said it was simple.
Re:so, in other words.... by Minna+Kirai · 2003-03-07 06:24 · Score: 4, Interesting
I do take issue with that particular writeup, although it is true in many senses.

Today, many so-called internet users have their access mediated by firewalls and NAT. This reduces the set of internet services available to them.

(I'd even say, as a slight exaggeration, that their ISPs had engaged in false advertising by calling it "Internet Access")

By the original definition of the internet, anyone with access (control of one host) could send packets to any address:port combination, and open any port to inbound connections.

This means that everyone with internet access should be able to run an HTTP, FTP, or UT server. But many people are prevented by their ISP's routing policies.

Firewalls and NATs supposedly "add value" to the internet by making it safer for some users. But it's not made a lot safer (worms get through even today), and it has "lowered value", because creating new applications is more difficult. For example, today there is a movement towards SOAP; XML-RPC. Unfortunately, one of the motivations to promote it is to allow arbitrary, application-specific traffic to travel over port 80. To work around firewalls which only permit HTTP, we're starting to see a legitimization of tunneling commands over HTTP.

(I'm not saying that was the original goal of SOAP- but sneaking around firewalls is one reason that some developers are eager to try it)

So there's an example of why "adding value to the Internet" is generally bad.

However, there are cases where it may be good. We all know that IPv6 will be a postive (someday). Multicast extensions to the internet were developed well after it was first created, and are generally accepted as a good thing, although their deployment so far is well short of universal. Multicasting is a superset of existing internet functionality (assigning a single packet to be destined to multiple recipients).

Multicasting may turn out to have downsides, depending on how it's implemented (and I haven't followed development closely enough to be sure what the direction is). If it creates an unfair environment, where large corporations (CBS, MTV, RIAA) can create multicast streams, but individual users cannot, then it will cement inequality and make internet use move closer to resembling traditional television viewing. I feel justified in hoping this won't happen, however.

And QoS (quality of service) is a debatable issue, not a flat-out bad one like the article suggests. IP, the existing internet protocol (not to be confused with Intellectual Property), makes no guarantee that packets will arrive quickly or in order. It doesn't state that packets will travel at the same speed as each other. It doesn't even state that a packet which is sent will ever arrive, only that the network make a "best effort" at getting it through someday.

Since IP makes no guarantees of transmission speed, adding an optional mechanism to request QoS efforts won't break the existing protocol definitions. Yes, it may disturb some people to consider that internet packets, which used to be fair and unbiased, may someday have preference given to them based on the sender's bank account- but look at the alternative:
- Today, internet access is filtered by bank account- if your wealth is too low, you can't use the internet at all. Allowing some packets to be more expensive to send allows the rich to subsidize the poor, who might be able to afford some access instead of none.
- Today, deploying applications like voice, moving video, and arcade games over the internet is difficult, because your packets have latency and jitter. That's because they are competing will all kinds of email, IM, HTTP, FTP, and NTTP protocols as they move accross the network. To make low-latency interaction work better, we can either invest a lot to make the entire internet super-fast, or invest a little to recognize which packets need high speed, and bump them ahead of the lines.
- Someday, your ISP will decide to charge you by the gigabyte. Won't you want to be able to request a reduced rate, by intstructing your software to request low-priority packets, instead of rapid-response ones? (This is analogous to last-minute airline tickets)
Basically, there are only a few internet applications which really need low-latency response: speech, video, gaming, and maybe some forms of web browsing. Everything else, especially emails and big downloads over HTTP or FTP, would work absolutely fine with 10 or 100 times the per-packet latency.

As long as there is a reasonable bound on how much faster a quick, expensive packet is than a slow, cheap one- say, not more that 100 times slower- QoS won't block any people out from using the internet, and it'll make it cheaper and easier for high-speed users to get going.
Re:so, in other words.... by OneEyedApe · 2003-03-07 07:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

The Internet is for the most part IP (Internet Protocol). IP sends packets in the direction of a specified destination, UDP directs the packets at a certain port, and TCP/IP makes sure all packets arrive at their destination, in the proper order. HTTP uses TCP/IP to transfer text.
The Internet is a way for data to get from one computer to another. Latency mostly comes from the protocols placed on top of IP, such as TCP. I don't think there is a good way to prioritize packets. And implementing such a system would require discarding the current IP, and all the supporting software, and probably a significant amount of hardware.

I think what the article was trying to say is that most people, and especially business and government do not understand the nature of the Internet. To improve quality of service, the ISPs basically have to hold to existing open standards, provide a decent line in/out, and cut down on the extraneous garbage

--
Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all....
--Thomas J. Kopp
Re:so, in other words.... by Minna+Kirai · 2003-03-07 07:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

Latency mostly comes from the protocols placed on top of IP, such as TCP.

It's true that TCP adds a kind of latency when it stops to wait for a retransmission. But UDP messages on their own have a lot of latency. For most users, most of that latency comes from the first mile and last mile links (especially if they're on dialup).

However, there are sources for latency deep inside the internet as well. Congestion. Actually, the most commonly damaging form of congestion is when someone else on your subnet is making a large download or streaming radio, and you want to run an interactive (VNC or SSH) session.

A non-FIFO router protocol might help alleviate this. It could recognize that the 95% of packets beloning to a big download can afford to wait until the VNC user's mouse-updates have gotten through.

I don't think there is a good way to prioritize packets.

There might be. It could be as simple as a single bitflag for "normal/fast". We'll never know unless we try. And we can't try until packets have a way to indicate desired QoS (the IPv6 "flow label", for instance), and more importantly, users enjoy some financial benefit, however small, for selecting reduced priority for their data.

Of course, there are other things which need to be fixed with the internet before it presents a fair place to test QoS. In particular, firewalls and NATs already block some of the applications which could best make use of QoS, so until they're removed, there'd be little point in doing the experiment.
Re:so, in other words.... by garrulous · 2003-03-07 07:59 · Score: 1

I'd imagine that the author would allow that IPv6 is an actual improvement to the internet because it still maintains the internet's desired "stupidity". So long as the improvements are focused on the generic transfer of data, it still obeys that primary tenet.
Re:so, in other words.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 09:29 · Score: 0

internet + 5 = internet - 5
so, internet + 10 = internet
or, internet = internet + 10

So the way to get the internet to be more valuable is to leave it alone. :-)
Re:so, in other words.... by Have+Blue · 2003-03-07 17:32 · Score: 1

Maybe they discovered the old "slashdot math" sigs.
Re:so, in other words.... by WolfWithoutAClause · 2003-03-08 06:21 · Score: 1

There might be. It could be as simple as a single bitflag for "normal/fast". We'll never know unless we try.
It's not as simple as that though; otherwise I would hack my protocol stack to stick 'fast' on all my packets. My ftp downloads will fly ;-).
No. The only solution is to have some way of rationing of fast packets. I suspect a good way would be for the ISP to allow a certain percentage of your packets to be 'fast'. For example, allowing no more than the contention ratio of your pipe to be fast; either up or downstream. That way if you're rich- you buy a better contention ratio, and you can run all of your packets fast.
One problem is what happens if somebody with a low ration of packets is talking to somebody with a high ration. Do you allow a 500kBit/s fat pipe to connect to a 50kBit/s thin, that is burstable to 500kBit/s? I think the answer is no- any packets that are above 50kBit/s should have been sent 'slow' and so would be thrown away by the ISP (I did consider dropping the priority down, but by the time it reaches the ISP, it has already used up the bandwidth of the ISP, but chucking packets away causes the sender to slow down due to the anticongestion algorithms in the IP protocol). The upstream guy with the 500kBit/s pipe should send 50kBit/s 'fast' and the other 450kBits/s 'slow' to avoid this problem. This would introduce problems to some protocols in some cases, but atleast there is a floor to the number of bits/second that can be carried, and both ends should be able to negotiate before they start.

--
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
Re:so, in other words.... by Minna+Kirai · 2003-03-08 09:29 · Score: 1

It's not as simple as that though; otherwise I would hack my protocol stack to stick 'fast' on all my packets. My ftp downloads will fly

I guess you skipped reading my post. It was all based on the ISP charging a higher fee for faster packets!

Anyone who hacks his FTP client to request low latency will boost his usage charges, and recieve the total file in 24:36.67, instead of 24:38.12 for a normal connection (for one representative set of numerical assumptions). 1 whole second faster.

If a user feels that's an acceptable use of money, fine.

Also, when I used "fast packets" above, I was referring primarily to latency, which is different from bandwidth. You seem to be focusing on bandwidth, which is unrelated to QoS, and isn't what I was discussing. Here's a discussion about bandwidth vs latency, if you need a refresher.

If an ISP allows QoS flags to indicate that some packets need improved latency, it doesn't have to change that user's bandwidth limits at all. Regardless of the latency setting, he can still only send 150kB/s (or whatever the speed is). But, these packets will "skip over the line" at routers on his ISP (and cooperating network providers, which eventually will be most of them). They will arrive at the destination in only 25 milliseconds, insteal of 100.

That means if he's talking on the phone, or aiming a railgun at a gladiator, the response time for updates is 25% of what it had been. Yet the total data rate he can transmit remains the same.

QoS for low-latency doesn't help FTP at all. Email, IM, HTTP, and audio streaming likewise recieve no benefit. There is no incentive to request QoS for those applications. Only a few uses- voice chat, remote desktop, and gaming- can get much benefit.
Re:so, in other words.... by WolfWithoutAClause · 2003-03-08 10:20 · Score: 1

Anyone who hacks his FTP client to request low latency will boost his usage charges, and recieve the total file in 24:36.67, instead of 24:38.12 for a normal connection (for one representative set of numerical assumptions). 1 whole second faster.
Not if the network is congested.
I guess you skipped reading my post. It was all based on the ISP charging a higher fee for faster packets!
So was mine. I just didn't find that 'your' idea is a good one. Charging per packet is expensive for the provider. Also if the incremental cost is low, then everyone will end up using high priority traffic all of the time, and then it makes no difference. If it's high, then people won't use it at all; and the breakeven point varies depending on the user, not on the nature of the service.
Also, when I used "fast packets" above, I was referring primarily to latency, which is different from bandwidth.
Yes. It's also different to jitter, which is normally about as important; probably more.
You seem to be focusing on bandwidth, which is unrelated to QoS
I don't know why you say that. A high priority packet system improves latency, bandwidth (particularly worse case bandwidth) and helps jitter.
the response time for updates is 25% of what it had been. Yet the total data rate he can transmit remains the same.
Not in the face of congestion it isn't. Also, it solves issues with timeouts- if high priority packets are permitted then the chances of a connection dying from congestion is much reduced, and may be negligable.
QoS for low-latency doesn't help FTP at all. Email, IM, HTTP, and audio streaming likewise recieve no benefit. There is no incentive to request QoS for those applications.
I don't agree. They all can benefit from a minimum guaranteed bandwidth/improved latency/improved jitter; especially audio streaming.
Only a few uses- voice chat, remote desktop, and gaming- can get much benefit.
Yeah right.

--
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
Re:so, in other words.... by Minna+Kirai · 2003-03-08 10:55 · Score: 1

Not if the network is congested.

That is not the common case optimizations should be targeted for. Congested states should be rare- plan to avoid them, not discard other plans because they'd have flaws during it.

If a network gets overloaded in the face of FTP-like uses, then it needs to be upgraded, that's not disputed. (Otherwise, setting the priority flag won't help any individual once everyone starts to do it)

Networks designers should aim to leaving a portion of their bandwidth free in normal use. It's in situations with utilization of 30%-40% or so that QoS flags are really helpful. They'll insulate interactive streams from being disrupted by the occasional 3MB file download.

Simply going ahead and upgrading every single link to be high speed, high bandwidth- without an opportunity to differentiate price for different applications- will encourage users to saturate the lines. ("Leave streaming music videos on all night long? Why not?"). Then we're back to the case of the data which truely needs low-latency not getting it... and another expensive cycle of all-around upgrades begins again.

This is a "defense of the commons" problem. To allow the free market to automatically solve the problem of consumers requesting more than they need, we need a mechanism to allow some variation in price for using the service. With that capability in place, the Invisible Hand will choose an effective incremental cost.

In the future, paying internet users will be better off if they can be charged less for a 1 gigabyte music broadcast than for 1 gigabyte of videophone traffic. The latter application is more vulnerable to small changes in congestion, so it should be able to offer the network more money to protect it. Applications not needing that service shouldn't need to pay for it.

They all can benefit from a minimum guaranteed bandwidth/improved latency/improved jitter; especially audio streaming.

Audio streaming is the textbook example of a high bandwidth, high-latency application. Latency only matters if timeouts/ACKs are important, and they only matter if packets are being dropped. And if that's happening, it's a separate, major problem, which should be fixed on its own.
Re:so, in other words.... by WolfWithoutAClause · 2003-03-08 11:49 · Score: 1

That is not the common case optimizations should be targeted for. Congested states should be rare- plan to avoid them, not discard other plans because they'd have flaws during it.
Hey, let me introduce you. Real world meet Minna Kirai. Minna Kirai meet the real world. In the absence of congestion QOS is basically not an issue; you have great QOS- all of the queues are empty all the way. The whole point of QOS is to handle the network better when congestion occurs- the high priority packets need to see the network as empty even when the low priority packets are congested.
To allow the free market to automatically solve the problem of consumers requesting more than they need, we need a mechanism to allow some variation in price for using the service.
Free markets are unstable. We require stability in our network protocols.

--
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
Re:so, in other words.... by Minna+Kirai · 2003-03-08 12:16 · Score: 1
Minna Kirai meet the real world.

Networks have 3 states:
- Empty. 0% utilization. No need for QoS.
- Loaded. 10-50% util. Delays at intermediate routers cause packets to be slowed. QoS can help packets which need speed to achieve it.
- Congested. 60-90% util. Overflowing routers destroy many packets. QoS could mark some packets as less likely to be dropped, but for fairness, it shouldn't. Instead, router/link throughput should be upgraded, or incoming links throttled.
Free markets are unstable.

They are stabler than any other economic system yet attempted.

We require stability in our network protocols.

We don't have it today, yet are proceding swimmingly.
Re:so, in other words.... by Minna+Kirai · 2003-03-08 13:10 · Score: 1

The expanded address space allowed in IPv6 fits neatly into what those authors call "good". In fact, abudant addresses will help remove some intelligence that has crept into the internet in the past few years: NAT boxes which assume they know better than the end-user which address he really wanted to send to.

Ending the sarcity of addresses will eliminate one excuse to have intelligence inside the network.

However, IPv6 includes some other changes, including provisions for "flow labels" and QoS, which those authors might not approve of. (At least, those features are still continually disputed)
Re:so, in other words.... by WolfWithoutAClause · 2003-03-09 07:04 · Score: 1

Empty. 0% utilization. No need for QoS.
I assume you mean 0-10%; that's really my point though, in my view IP networks need to have entry controls to allow, up to say, 10% of the available to be high priority traffic. That way the high priority traffic sees an empty network, giving excellent latency, jitter and bandwidth, even in the face of congestion.
Free markets are unstable.
They are stabler than any other economic system yet attempted.
No, I hope I never see a truly free market; that way leads to Enron, robber barons and a tremendous amount of evil; businesses are essentially amoral (not immoral or moral); and yet we require a certain level of morality in our societies to survive and flourish. We need to impose morality on companies, even the trivial example of not continuing to trade whilst bankrupt.
Also, rules to stabilise situations are often beneficial. For example having a minimum percentage of assets as collateral against loans.
On the internet stability is very important; also morality (in a totally non religious sense) is critical for the internet to work.

--
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"

excellent. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 05:50 · Score: 1, Insightful

the public needs to be made aware of these important facts about the Internet, and how being end-to-end and "dumb" is where its value lies.

Internet is not slow TV... by $$$$$exyGal · 2003-03-07 05:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

There's another reason the Internet hasn't done a great job explaining itself: The Big Money would prefer to keep telling us the Net is just slow TV.

Does anyone really consider the internet to be just slow TV? I thought that idea went out 3 years ago. Even my grandparents are googling for information when they have a medical problem or want more info about something they saw on TV. They do not think of the Internet as slow TV.

--
Very popular slashdot journal for adul

Re:Internet is not slow TV... by Raul654 · 2003-03-07 05:57 · Score: 0

Even my grandparents are googling for information when they have a medical problem

Tell her I'm sorry, I didn't know those legions were from syphillis.

--

To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Re:Internet is not slow TV... by mgs1000 · 2003-03-07 05:59 · Score: 1

I thought TV without TiVo is "Slow TV"
Re:Internet is not slow TV... by Marco_polo · 2003-03-07 06:19 · Score: 1

Yes, the Roman legions from Syphallis.. almost as good as the legions from carpathia.

--
I am the lord of the pun. Dance Knave!
Re:Internet is not slow TV... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 06:19 · Score: 0

lesions
Re:Internet is not slow TV... by Logic+Bomb · 2003-03-07 06:20 · Score: 1

Um... the quote explains itself. "Big Money" thinks that way. The idea behind that line is that big media companies want the public to view the Internet in terms of a handful of channels and limited resources coming from corporations, not blogs and search engines and open source software collaboration and whatnot.
Really, duh. Do the other moderators have a crush on this user or what? I've never seen a story without a modded-up comment from this person. They're not always inane, but sometimes...
Re:Internet is not slow TV... by bitspotter · 2003-03-07 06:23 · Score: 1

Business learned it's lesson, by and large, sure.

Government still wants to "promote the net" with bills entitled the "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act".

Yes, to these people, the net is Slow TV.
Re:Internet is not slow TV... by Mantrid · 2003-03-07 06:24 · Score: 1

HEY! those legions are property of MY guild, I found 'em first - go find your own planet to steal soliders from!
Re:Internet is not slow TV... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 06:33 · Score: 0

quite, I'll mod this user down at any chance I get.
Re:Internet is not slow TV... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 06:37 · Score: 0

Does anyone consider $$$$$exyGal to be a fucking homosexual faggot man

not sure about homosexuall faggot, but certainly very annoying...
Re:Internet is not slow TV... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 07:54 · Score: 0

it is probably true.
weird, awkward men with blogs are dubbed "creepy" and ignored.
weird, awkward women with blogs are dubbed "hot" and jacked-off to.
your birth gender aside, which would you rather claim to be on the internet, where nobody knows you're a dog and social approval is yours for the stealing?
Re:Internet is not slow TV... by senahj · 2003-03-07 09:01 · Score: 1

> Does anyone really consider the internet to be just slow TV?

Hardly anyone.
There are, however, some notable holdouts:
Senator Fritz Hollings, D. Disney^H^H^H^H^H^H SC
Representative Dan Berman, D. CA San Fernando
Jack Valenti and the MPAA
Michael Eisner

--
Wait a minute. Didn't I say that on the other side of the record? I'd better check ...
Re:Internet is not slow TV... by jcast · 2003-03-08 20:04 · Score: 1

Really, duh. Do the other moderators have a crush on this user or what?

Sure, just like every other red-blooded /. reader...

--
There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
-- David D. Friedman

What? by Raul654 · 2003-03-07 05:52 · Score: 1

So you are using an OC3 line as well? Very well... your schwartz is as big as mine...

--

To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton

Basically, this is right by Sgs-Cruz · 2003-03-07 05:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

Despite this article's annoying use of absolutes (I know, I know, they're effective, but I hate it when people write an article as if its the last thing that will ever be written on that subject), they're mostly right. Think about it. We can do more on the Net now than 5 years ago, despite the best efforts of the RIAA, MPAA, US Govt, and pretty much every corporate interest out there. I have a feeling this will continue into the future, too.

--

Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).

that is not what AOL told me. by stonebeat.org · 2003-03-07 05:53 · Score: 2, Funny

seriously :)

--

Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better

Re:that is not what AOL told me. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 06:00 · Score: 0

Just out of interest, what exactly DID they tell you?

Wow! Someone making sense by haplo21112 · 2003-03-07 05:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

Someone talking about the internet and actually making sense doing it....we can't have that!

Someone who realizes that it is what it is and can't be bent to everyone and their brothers whims...

My thought has always been that the Internet is Chaos and it works best that way....

--
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.

Hold on by Raul654 · 2003-03-07 05:54 · Score: 3, Funny

Oh God I missed the "of" at first.

Yep, you're definetely qualified to be the new slashdot editor

--

To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton

The internet isn't stupid... by CoolVibe · 2003-03-07 05:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

The Internet is stupid

Well, I tend to disagree. It tends to make people stupid though, and it's hellishly smart at that as well. Just look at this place :-)

Re:The internet isn't stupid... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 06:03 · Score: 0

It tends to make people stupid though

You know that people don't need any help with that.
Re:The internet isn't stupid... by gosand · 2003-03-07 06:14 · Score: 1

The Internet is stupid. Well, I tend to disagree. It tends to make people stupid though, and it's hellishly smart at that as well. Just look at this place :-)
It doesn't make people stupid, it just allows them to shine a spotlight on their own stupidity for the world to see.

--

My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Re:The internet isn't stupid... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 06:17 · Score: 0

The Internet makes you stupid.

The Internet is stupid. by stratjakt · 2003-03-07 05:57 · Score: 5, Funny

No, you're stupid, you big stupid!

Signed,
The Internet

PS: I'm rubber you're glue

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!

Re:The Internet is stupid. by Ataeagina · 2003-03-07 18:51 · Score: 1

Heh. Funniest damn thing I've ever heard.

--
We're siamese children created by heart. Nothing, nothing can tear us apart.

No one can own it???! by eidechse · 2003-03-07 05:57 · Score: 1

Well then it's obviously an evil thing made by godless evil-doers that promotes terrorism...probably communism too, corrupts our children, and will bring an end to freedom loving people everywhere. But if we act fast to privatize it we'll all be saved.

Re:No one can own it???! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 06:15 · Score: 0

I though Al Gore designed it, and AOL owns it!!!!!!
Re:No one can own it???! by DeltaSigma · 2003-03-07 08:02 · Score: 1

...I've got a nice piece of real estate to sell you on the gopher protocol...

Seems a bit utopian? by cindy · 2003-03-07 05:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

"That's also why the Internet feels to so many of us like a natural resource."

...which explains why so many would like to strip mine it without regard for the future or for the rights or best interests of others.

The new RMS by mmerlin · 2003-03-07 05:59 · Score: 1

RMS = Repetitive Mistake Syndrome

"We have nothing to lose but our stupidity"

--

smile, it makes everyone else wonder what you're up to :-)

Not ver y enlightening by Cebu · 2003-03-07 05:59 · Score: 1

Clarity is certainly a quality one would wish an article to have, but this particular article appears to vastly over-simplify the subject at hand. It offers the reader a few wide reaching statements, which basically amount to precepts, and those, for some strange reason, I generally find obscene. To me, the article simply sounds like a repetition of a set of proverbs and nothing more.

If someone posted the URL of the world here... by burgburgburg · 2003-03-07 05:59 · Score: 1

the /. effect might very cause Armageddon!

Hmmm... by natron+2.0 · 2003-03-07 06:00 · Score: 4, Funny

I wonder if Al Gore realized this when he invented it...

--
[n8.r0n] http://petesweb.spymac.net/

Re:Hmmm... by Sgs-Cruz · 2003-03-07 06:07 · Score: 1, Informative

Sigh.... Yes, I realize it's a joke. But this is Slashdot, where nitpicking is encouraged and adored, right? Right?

--
Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).

The answer to Chicken Little economists by urbazewski · 2003-03-07 06:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Great article --- I tried to make some of the same arguments (and didn't do as good of a job) several years ago in response to proposals being put forward academic economists to "improve" the allocation of bandwidth with complicated pricing schemes and "smart markets". The efficiency fetish common amongst economists blinded them to the real strengths of the protocol --- stupidity, flexibility and reliability. (Alas, the NSF didn't bite on the funding, and I moved on to other unrelated projects.)

We had a great working title for the project though:

The Internet: Triumph of the Commons.

--
foldplay your photos won't know what hit them.

Excellent Article by MojoRilla · 2003-03-07 06:06 · Score: 5, Interesting

This reminds me why the original MSN failed and Yahoo succeeded. Microsoft wanted to control the content providers (making them use its own proprietary tools), while yahoo used HTTP and HTML.

Sure, absolute control might mean they can offer more features, but absolute control also means everyone can't play. The file format of Microsoft Word was closed, and so it is hard to write programs which understand it. Microsoft gets richer, but users can't get their own data. Finally, when Microsoft sees there is no other big driver to get users to upgrade, they open up their file formats.

The internet succeeded because of its simplicity, and because of HTML and HTTP. Almost anyone can serve HTTP. And write some sort of HTML. The protocols are simple and well documented.

Re:Excellent Article by JUSTONEMORELATTE · 2003-03-07 06:37 · Score: 1

Or was we used to say (circa 1994)
The beauty of HTML is that any fool can understand it and create a web page.
The problem with HTML is that any fool can understand it and create a web page.

adding value in the sense of not adding value by feepcreature · 2003-03-07 06:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

The collision between Anyone can improve it and Adding value to the Internet lowers its value goes away once you realise that Doc&Dave are using "Adding Value" in the sense of "not adding value at all, but changing things so that some stuff works better but the rest is worse".

It's Humpty Dumpty logic:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."
"The question is, " said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty. "which is to be master--that's all."

--
Paul
Humpty Dumpty was wrong

--
Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"

Re:adding value in the sense of not adding value by unitron · 2003-03-08 02:29 · Score: 1

Humpty Dumpty wasn't wrong, Humpty Dumpty was pushed.

--
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

Pretty damn obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 06:10 · Score: 1

To me this article just points out what I feel is very obvious, both to me and to everyone else.
Nothing new about it.

But if it's so damn obvious, why do people still make these mistakes?

Because the mistakes made aren't mistakes from a first-person-perspective, but they ARE from a third.

wtf? my 2cents...

My greatest fear is by Thud457 · 2003-03-07 06:10 · Score: 1

when we hit the singularity and the oosphere becomes sentinent, because part of it is made up of /. , it's gonna be a troll. With a taste for tentacle rape.

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Re:My greatest fear is by CoolVibe · 2003-03-07 06:35 · Score: 1

Ooh, you might be on to something there. Indeed, that is a scary prospect.
So basically, a sentient internet would be a tentacle rape admiring, attention deficit disorder inflicted, skr1pt k1dd13 talking, english language murdering, goatsecx link posting, warez trading, smut flinging, movie trading, blazingly intelligent, music pirating slashdot troll...
Eek...
Re:My greatest fear is by Thud457 · 2003-03-07 06:54 · Score: 1

Worse yet, it turns out to be a grammar nazi, and starts correcting people's posts.
Unfortunately, GI->GO!

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Happened in industrial revolution too by argoff · 2003-03-07 06:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

A lot of people thought that the whole purpose of the industrial revolution was to use inventions like the cotton-gin to expand their plantations for unlimited controll and profits. While most people saw the invention as a great tool to end slavery, for others it was impossible to think of wealth in any other terms other than the size of a plantation, a farm, or estates. These people pushed slavery controlls to the point of civil war and were responsible for the deaths of millions.

I think today we have the same problem with "intellectual properties". It is impossible for people to think of wealth in any other terms than the number and amount of industires and people they can extract royalties from. It is impossible for them to understand that properties are not just about government edicts, or personal incentive, but natural forces - like everyone not being able to use the same thing at the same time. Well, with information - they can. And that is the real value of the internet.

Re:Happened in industrial revolution too by Hard_Code · 2003-03-07 07:14 · Score: 1

That's interesting. I'll make sure my lobbyist mentions that to my senator during one of their "brunches".

--

It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Re:Happened in industrial revolution too by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 08:28 · Score: 0

how do you define wealth? Differently, then, say, the definition?

wealth ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wlth)
n. An abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches.

I doubt if my manager can understand this by watzinaneihm · 2003-03-07 06:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

In manager speak value=money.

From rule 6 and 4 , money moves to suburbs and adding value to internet lowers its value. So the suburbs have real low value. Now rule 5 says All of internets money grows on its edges, again edges=suburbs . So rule 4 and 6 together contradict rule 5.

So if all these rules hold at once, Internet is real complicated, hence rule 1: "Internet is simple" is false.
So only rule 2 holds :"Internet is stupid".

--
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR

Re:I doubt if my manager can understand this by AWhistler · 2003-03-07 07:26 · Score: 1

You are mis-applying rule number 4. In fact, rules four and 6 are complementary, according to the authors. The money moving to the suburbs is referring to the value being on the endpoints of the Internet. In other words, there's money in providing services.

Rule 4 means that trying to tinker with the core network that delivers the bits among the endpoints diminishes its value. If you deliver some bits at a higher priority than others, there is inequality, and you diminish the power and therefore value of the endpoints. In other words, you end up with mansions and slums instead of equality.

Personally, I don't like this article, as it oversimplifies a lot of what happens in the Real Internet. While it may be true that anyone can send bits to anyone else, some idiots have decided that sending LOTS of bits to everyone's email box is a good thing, and others have decided that viruses are a good thing. So we need NAT's and Firewalls to prevent just anyone from accessing my endpoints.

And even then... by pr0ntab · 2003-03-07 06:14 · Score: 1

slashdot would still be up all day long - maybe without comments enabled. ^_^

--
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice

Rise of the Stupid Network by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 06:15 · Score: 3, Informative

The "attempting to add value decreases the value" theme was very well explored in a paper called "Rise of the Stupid Network." It's at: http://www.rageboy.com/stupidnet.html

It explains very well why networks should only get data from one place to another while doing nothing else.

A coworker just bet me it would be less than an hour before this post was marked as a troll since I'm an unregistered user. I think it will be marked as a flame, because it's on-topic.

Re:Rise of the Stupid Network by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-08 08:24 · Score: 0

This far down you're lucky to be moderated at all.

I hope you're right.. by Joe+the+Lesser · 2003-03-07 06:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

Dumb companies will get smart or die. Stupid laws will be killed or replaced.

I'd really like to believe this, but then I look at corporate welfare(often the saving of dumb companies) and I look at the laws being passed by people completing out of touch(Napster's not a glamorized FTP program! It's criminal, not sharing!(Or maybe sharing is criminal!))

It's kind of depressing.

--
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)

Dude by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 06:19 · Score: 0

I thought it was funny. Oh well, sorry for you. I guess there must be some touchy moderators out there.

he can if you let him read the whole thing by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 06:20 · Score: 0

value DOES equal money in some ways, and the value of end-to-end of the internet, and the networking being "dumb" has made a LOT of people very rich.

depends upon congestion! by mekkab · 2003-03-07 06:21 · Score: 1

Also the general bandwidth, your download rate and the "Hand" server's send rate; find the bottleneck and that will limit your "Ommmmm"'s per second, young grasshopper.

--
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.

More proof. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 06:21 · Score: 0

$$$$$exyGal ignored my Valentine day request for a date

Re:More proof. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 06:37 · Score: 0

this is destined to become the next slashdot theme joke.

Their position is a bit too mystical by InternalWave · 2003-03-07 06:25 · Score: 2

The Internet is actually a thing. It's clearly defined in technical terms. They (the authors of that exposition) are blurring the boundaries between the technical and the sociological when they describe TCP/IP the way they do, for example. Yeah, IP is an agreement; hell, so is SSL. So is a file format. A technical protocol is a technical agreement, not a philosophical one.

If they (and other pundits) want to start discussing the sociological, philosophical and economic impacts of the Internet on society, then they should coin a new term for it. The Internet is precisely what it is - a technical construct. The societal impacts of it are something else entirely, and ought not to be also called The Internet.

Sorry for getting irritated. Slow burn over many months with the self-important and self-indulgent pronouncements of pretentious people.

World Ends by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 06:25 · Score: 0

Is it just me, or did anyone else read that as "World Ends"?

Stupid is sturdy by Edball · 2003-03-07 06:26 · Score: 1

From the Article:

[[snip]] "Stupid is sturdy." [[/snip]]

Well, that certainly explains my geeky lack of anything resembling musclemass..

...double its price... by loxfinger · 2003-03-07 06:29 · Score: 1

"We can build businesses without having to worry that Internet, Inc. is going to force us to upgrade, double its price once we have bought in, or get taken over by one of our competitors."

But what if RoadRunner decides to raise the price of my cable access? I could pay the price, or just not use broadband, eh?

He's The Sphinx of Internet Culture by milktoastman · 2003-03-07 06:32 · Score: 2, Funny

"To make the internet right...."

"...First you must go left, that's what you were going to say, wasn't it?"

"Not necessarily..."

Hi. by Meat+Blaster · 2003-03-07 06:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

If you weren't born yesterday (or, say, 70s or later) you'd be aware that the link between the practice of Zen and the hippie lifestyle were inexorably linked in American pop culture, both having been introduced around the same time and with no small degree of overlap what with the beat culture of the 50s evolving into the hippie lifestyle of the 60s and all. It makes for a pretty interesting read, and you can get your start here or here.

I was referring to the "by adding value, you take away value" line in the writeup, and apologize for not making this clear. I certainly didn't mean to make digs at either the writeup or the site, I was just making a witty observation without the wit.

HTH, and have a nice day.

Re:Hi. by unitron · 2003-03-08 02:56 · Score: 1

If you associate Zen with hippies instead of beatniks you were probably born fewer yesterdays ago than was I.
"...I was just making a witty observation without the wit."
Somewhere there's an empty sig file waiting for those words to move in and take up residence.

--
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

Much as I hate it by gr8_phk · 2003-03-07 06:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

I always thought the "information highway" analogy was most accurate. The net is simply a way to get your data from here to there. This makes it clear that the only way to make money from the net is in construction/materials (think Cisco) but like road construction I can pay anyone that knows how to do that. Or put up a toll booth, bu notice how many real roads don't have em because people take other routes. It's like infrastructure - everyone uses it, but it's not a business in itself. Get a clue, provide something of value and people will give you money for it. And remember, what used to be of value may not be today.

More preaching to the converted ? by OneInEveryCrowd · 2003-03-07 06:44 · Score: 1

Nice article but the people who really need to be forced to read and comprehend it are SBC and Yahoo management.

For the past several months SBC has been attempting a hard sell to get me to 'upgrade' to Yahoo DSL and install their quality monitoring software. I haven't fallen for this in spite of increasingly frantic snail mails and emails. People on craigslist have reported that the 'upgrade' destablizes windows and the new email has alot of problems. I see this so-called upgrade as an attempt to install spyware and turn my dsl bill into the equivalent of a cell phone bill. Since I'm a linux user their software won't run on my machine anyway. I'm waiting to see if I get my service terminated for not signing up.

Anyway, how do we get these clueless newbies also known as CEOs to give up and realize that the internet isn't TV ?

[OT] Re:I'd say First Post, but it probably isn't. by gauche · 2003-03-07 06:45 · Score: 1

This has to be one of the most ironic, yet appropriate First Posts subject lines I've seen on /. in a long time...

Cluetrain Reprise by mrkurt · 2003-03-07 06:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

This site is a reprise of some of the themes that were in their book from a few years ago, The Cluetrain Manifesto. It is still available online. I think of the internet as a kind of infrastructure that nobody owns, like a highway. The potential perils are of a takeover of large companies that want to make you carry p(Assports) or "pay tolls" to cross into certain parts of it. They are the ones who, in the words of the book, believe in "engorging people with material goods so as to make them poop out dollars". The internet has another potential that is not so crassly commercial: for self-expression, for the acquisition of knowledge, to be able to connect with others wherever concerning almost anything. People have the ability to turn away from the crassly commercial, if they choose to see something else of value besides what the popular culture puts before them.

--
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)

Re:Cluetrain Reprise by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 07:38 · Score: 0

But highways ARE owned. They're (indirectly) owned by those people who have a driver's license and pay road tax. Those people have elected a government that they trust to oversee its operation. With the internet, you have to pay to get online (to your ISP), but there is no overseeing body that people have elected. We're pretty much at the mercy of the bandwidth and content providers. If one day a backbone provider decided to pull the plug or the content providers did an rm -rf / there is very little we could do. This is one area where internet regulation would be good thing. But how do you get billions of people across the planet to vote?
Re:Cluetrain Reprise by cford · 2003-03-07 09:36 · Score: 1

But how do you get billions of people across the planet to vote?

Put the options on a /. poll?

The internet is not stupid; it is... by damien_kane · 2003-03-07 06:47 · Score: 1

'The Internet isn't complicated. The Internet isn't a thing...'

'The internet is a place where people the world over gather to bitch about movies and share pronography'

Holden McNeil, Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back

Nitpicky by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 06:52 · Score: 0

...civil war and were responsible for the deaths of millions

This might be a little nitpicky, but I think the number of deaths caused by the U.S. Civil War was closer to 600,000.

Yep! Re:Are they technological-age hippies? by mabhatter654 · 2003-03-07 06:55 · Score: 1

yep!
The college kids and profs of the 60's and 70's scoffed at Ma Bell's near bullet-proof monopoly [at the time]. They also had DARPA money to design an always reliable Military network--one where as long as a single wire remained between two points there was communication.

Look at the results of what they created. Contrast that with the 80 year-old telcos. Why didn't the telcos inovate this stuff first? Because they didn't have to! And if they didn't want to, they kept anyone else from innovation too! So yeah, they were techno-hippies just like those other guys in the late 1700's [Tomas, george, ben, john, etc were equally if not more "hippie" at the time. Look what they created!] Free markets mean just that. Most capitalist believe in free markets right up until they expect the Govt. to step in and protect their lucrative monoploies!

On SBC/Yahoo... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 06:58 · Score: 0

...The Internet Logs Onto YOU!!

It is true, Al Gore lied by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 07:14 · Score: 1, Informative

In his exact words, he said he created it. However, invent is a valid word to use in a paraphrase of his statement. (Create tends to be used for artworks, and invent for technology)

His statement is also false. The Internet existed, and it had the name Internet before Al Gore got involved. Al Gore created the Internet sure as he created the Mona Lisa.

So Gore mis-spoke. No big deal. The greater damage is done by him and his defenders who years later insist it is true that he created something at a certian time when in fact it was around before and was created by someone else. It takes a big man to admit a mistake, and it takes a small man to weave a web of lies to cover it up.

Gore claimed he did, but really did not. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 07:21 · Score: 0

In a CNN interview on 9 March 2000, Al Gore claimed "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Was Al Gore really the "Father of the Internet"? Well, no. Albert Gore, Junior, was not elected to Congress until 1976, although his father Albert Gore, Senior, was previously a Senator. Junior represented Tennesee's Fourth District in the House of Representatives, then was elected to the US Senate in 1984. (Source: "Current Biography Yearbook 1987", page 213, edited by Charles Moritz, published by The H.H. Wilson Company, NY, copyright 1987 and 1988.) The Pentagon funded the original development of the Internet, and the military contracting company Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN) began constructing it in 1969. It was originally called ARPAnet, since the agency that funded it was named ARPA. By 1973 it was a modest success.

Wired News does a nice job of debunking Gore's claim.

Prioritizing packets by epeus · 2003-03-07 08:06 · Score: 1

The best thing to do is add capacity, so that fewer packets get queued. However, TCP will do it's level best to saturate any link, and will always force packets to be queued (or dropped) during ramp-up, unless the total transfer length is shorter than the integrated ramp-up time.
What I propose is that short packets go to the head of the queue. If you're doing file transfer with TCP, you'll be using path MTU-sized packets, whereas if you're doing VoIP or telenet, your packets will be much smaller. Move the shortest packets to the head of the queue, and TCP will accommodate.

Re:Prioritizing packets by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 13:27 · Score: 0

"What I propose is that short packets go to the head of the queue."

Which works until about 30 seconds after the RFC is publicized, when everyone promptly downloads the new TurboFtp app to fetch their warez, pirated MP3s, and pr0n using 64 byte packets instead of the previous MTU, thus simultaneously cratering efficiency and defeating the original purpose.

To implement QoS, you have to have some sort of differential pricing; otherwise, people will just hop on the "gimme fast" bandwagon. Whether that's bits in the header labelled "QoS" or bits in the header labelled "packet size", the same principle applies.

And, contrary to the original article, you _do_ need QoS to avoid wasting lots of resources on unnecessarily over-engineering the network so that it can deliver every packet instantly. The "all bits are equal" line sounds nice, but it doesn't fit the real world. Some of those apps on the ends can tolerate delay and jitter, and some can't and still remain functional. If the network in between can't deliver QoS, then you're essentially eliminating those apps from widespread, explosively popular use, and limiting the value of the endpoints.
Re:Prioritizing packets by Minna+Kirai · 2003-03-08 12:42 · Score: 1

As an AC said, it is quite possible to alter software on your local machine and abuse "small packet preference". That would have the dual damages of breaking the intent of the system- but also, the smaller packets will increase the header:content ratio, bringing a greater percentage overhead onto the network.

(There are techniques one could attempt to combat such abuse. Much experimentation has gone on in this area. For example, build routers with multiple layers of queues intended for packets of different sizes or priorities, so that lower priority packets have more total space, and are less likely to be dropped. That system might allow applications to work which are either high bandwdith or low latency, but not both)

Additionally, some applications needing low-latency might still use big packets: videoconferencing, or something. (A VC protocol might tend to feel out the bandwidth available, using larger and larger packets until they start to be dropped, then stick with the large size).

Existing TCP relies on some trust between users, so that one person doesn't hurt everyone else to speed himself up. The "short packet preference" idea is even more fragile that way. I'm not sure we can continue to rely on that in the future.
Re:Prioritizing packets by Minna+Kirai · 2003-03-08 12:53 · Score: 1

Why couldn't you log in and help me out with an argument about the "real world"?

So... by ShieldW0lf · 2003-03-07 08:37 · Score: 1

You're suggesting that by creating an environment that allows the (rich) decision makers to have a fast internet, without requiring the (poor) others to also have a fast internet, is going to make the internet better?

Simple concept for you: If your structure resists preference, the rich will insist that it's good for everyone so it will be good for them. If your structure accomodates preference, the rich will insist that it's good for them.

--
-1 Uncomfortable Truth

Re:So... by Minna+Kirai · 2003-03-07 15:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

The very rich are almost always going to be better off than anyone else, that's unavoidable.

If your structure resists preference, the rich will insist that it's good for everyone so it will be good for them.

Or they'll just hire someone to build a completely separate structure. That'll deprive my structure of the resources they might've contributed to improving it.

There is already a tendency for this today- large companies are transitioning their voice and videoconference systems on IP networks. But they often don't put it on the public internet, or even the same IP network their workers use for desktop applications- they actually fund separate networks just for their chat traffic.

That kind of massive oversupply of bandwidth assures them that they'll have low latency connections when they need them- but they're not using them all the time. All those mighty routers sit quietly at night, helping neither their employees, nor the general public.

If IP supported some kind of QoS tag, then these users might be able to meet the needs of real-time videoconferencing simply by spending $1000 to upgrade the routers on their LAN, rather than $10,000 to build a whole different network. And they'd reap many flexibility benefits.

It's a "big tent" philosophy. The rich will want to spend money to go faster. The Internet can either find a way to take their money, or drive them away to build a competitor, which the poor won't be able to access at all.

The fact is: not all packets need to be quick. For some applications, 3 seconds of delay is absolutely fine. For others, 3 milliseconds is unbearable.

If the internet acknowledges this fact, it becomes a little more complicated, but much more powerful. And it wouldn't be a flag day change- the upgrade can be piecemeal.

(Today, some people already abuse the bandwidth-conserving principles of TCP and HTTP to accelerate their own transmissions, at the expensive of everybody else. QoS tags would provide a legitimate way to do this, without interfering with other packets so much)

You've made mistake #2 by Ryan+C. · 2003-03-07 08:49 · Score: 1

You're thinking of the Internet as a thing that could have been invented, you're thinking of the IP protocol. Gore didn't claim to have invented that. He's taking just credit for taking the initiative in creating "The Internet" as we know it today. He played a major role in creating a worldwide, free, and open network. The fact that it was based on existing technology is irrelevant. If it was based on BITNET, IPX, EtherTalk, or some new network protocol, it would still be the Internet. The Internet wasn't invented, it was, and still is being, created.

-Ryan C.

--
-Ryan C.

Mistake was yours by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 09:25 · Score: 0

"He's taking just credit for taking the initiative in creating "The Internet" as we know it today."

More spin. The Internet was around before Gore was on the scene. The Internet as we know it today is just a LITTLE bit different from the time Gore was involved, wouldn't you think?

Face it, he blew it. No big deal, except for those who distort words and history to try to get around the fact that people, including Al Gore, do make mistakes sometimes.

"He played a major role in creating a worldwide, free, and open network."

If true, then he helped the Internet along. He did not create it.

History lesson: Henry Ford did not invent the automobile. Bill Gates did not create the GUI. Apple did not invent the personal computer (nor did IBM).... and Al Gore did not create, invent, conjure, implement, materialize, or otherwise bring the Internet into being.

Re:World Ends {Score -1, Troll} by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 13:38 · Score: 0

Oh God I missed the "of" at first.

Don't worry, George Bush will see that you were right the first time! He'll get rid of those nasty Iraqis, hoarding all that sweet, sweet oil for your SUV. While he's busy destabilizing the Middle East, more terrorist attacks may be prompted here in the US, and North Korea (you know, that crazy guy who threatened war?) will go forgotten while he builds an arsenal of long-range nuclear weapons.

Here's a helpful score card:

Iraq: Tiny dictator that hasn't attacked anyone since Bush's daddy while trying to steal Kuwait over 10 years ago. Has short range missiles that don't fly too straight. Leader enjoys gassing rebels (especially when Reagan was paying for it), torture, killing family members, and long walks along the perimeter. Problem to nearest neighbors that claim to be "friends" of America (you know, those guys that fund and house terrorists, pay blood money to families of "martyrs", spew hatred of America in their schools, etc.)

North Korea: Tiny dictator that has nuclear weapons or is very close. Has medium range missiles and will have long range missiles capable of hitting American targets. The leader also enjoys starving and torturing his subjects, and saber rattling with an eye toward actual global war

Moderators: this is NOT flamebait. It is a troll. Learn the difference!

178 comments