The US does not have controll over the network, but ICANN who controll top domain names. Internet is made up of many smaller national/regional etc networks linked together. These networks are owned by ex. privat companies. So i dont think building a new network is a problem since its already build, but they would need to disconnect from the current internet and try to form another. Then one could end up with one network for north america, one for europe, on in asia and so on. And then there wouldnt be a internet anymore. I dont think this is a very likely situation.
Short version: There is a difference in control and ownership of the physical fiber/cables in the ground and domain names.
I have a friend that works in the sales department for the buisness market at Telenor, he told me that first the ISP's competed over price, and when the price reach the floor (or close to it) they started to offer more bandwidth for the same price. They cant lower their prices anymore, but they can increase the bandwidth. Atm i pay 447 NOK (67.50 USD)/month for a 10/2 Mbit cable connection flat rate, i consider that pretty cheap. As bandwidth grow users will ofcourse start to request "more bandwidth comsuning" services, and ofcourse as the bandwidth increases content providers can offer bigger and better(?) products.
So perhaps the ISP's shoot themself in the foot with increasing the bandwidth, since supply and dempand for high bandwidth content increase faster than they can handle (increase capasity in their net/backbone).
Telenor had a few years ago a download limit on their subscriptions, when the limit was reached the speed was reduced to 64kbit unless you bought another quaota(?). What happened was that the other ISP's just this against them in their markeding, X amount of money for this speed WITHOUT a download limit. Hopefully something simular will happen with bandwidth trotteling/prioritizing.
-- "The theory of evolution is as the name implies, just a theory. "
-- It is a scientific theory,like gravity, music theory, numbers theory, etc... -- Or maybe you don't think numbers exist either?
You misunderstood my meaning, perhaps because i wasnt aware of the definition of a theory and hypothesis. Ive always considered something a theory until it can be proven a 100%, and then its considered a fact. Guess i have to change that a little bit.
By your reply i gathere that you understood me as i believe that the evolution is crap. My knowledge of the theory of evolution is somewhat limited, to me it boils down to creatures over time will adapt to their enviroment, mutations will happen and new (sub)spicies will arise. So life has started as bacteria(?) and developed/evolved into the creatures we see today, and some have died out over time due to different reasons.
-- oh, and the effects are happening NOW, not 100 years from now. With this i guess you are refering to this part: "About global warming and such, as one noted that the effects might not hit for about a 100 years or so.", if you read it again you will see that im refering to another poster further up, and ask a few questions regarding that statement. Yes you are correct it is happening now, but we still havent seen what the long term effects will be, and i dont really want to find out. Thats why i also wrote that we have to start early. We should have started a long time ago really. So please try to read everything and which context is in, and not just parts of it.
The theory of evolution is as the name implies, just a theory. As with alot of stuff in science its an theory until it can be proven, and the results repeated. Everything can be disputed, and if some things doesnt make sence, the scientists have to go back and rework their theory.
Even if many theories as considered facts, like evolution or big bang, it still remains a theory. I guess those are pretty hard to prove and repeat the results in our life span.
Religion on the other hand presents a answer, this is how it is, no ifs or buts about it, it says so in my holy bood. You cant really dispute it (but there are different interpidtations of it). Either you believe it or you dont.
I dont believe in god, but i also acknowledge that there is a posibility for a devine creator "creature" since it cant really be proven if it exists or not. I have no problem with a co-existence of god and science. It could be as simple as science is uncovering the creators creation, and in so doing just shows that the bible and other holy scriptures have it wrong.
About global warming and such, as one noted that the effects might not hit for about a 100 years or so. If the effects doesnt harm us, does that mean that we could simply ignore it ? The debate isnt so much about the short term effects, but the long term. And long term effects are much harder to fix, so i guess its importent to start early to try to avoid them. I guess its more a question about "survival of the species".
Slashdot Mirror
"starting building a separate network"
The US does not have controll over the network, but ICANN who controll top domain names. Internet is made up of many smaller national/regional etc networks linked together. These networks are owned by ex. privat companies. So i dont think building a new network is a problem since its already build, but they would need to disconnect from the current internet and try to form another. Then one could end up with one network for north america, one for europe, on in asia and so on. And then there wouldnt be a internet anymore.
I dont think this is a very likely situation.
Short version: There is a difference in control and ownership of the physical fiber/cables in the ground and domain names.
(comments not just to parent post)
I have a friend that works in the sales department for the buisness market at Telenor, he told me that first the ISP's competed over price, and when the price reach the floor (or close to it) they started to offer more bandwidth for the same price. They cant lower their prices anymore, but they can increase the bandwidth. Atm i pay 447 NOK (67.50 USD)/month for a 10/2 Mbit cable connection flat rate, i consider that pretty cheap.
As bandwidth grow users will ofcourse start to request "more bandwidth comsuning" services, and ofcourse as the bandwidth increases content providers can offer bigger and better(?) products.
So perhaps the ISP's shoot themself in the foot with increasing the bandwidth, since supply and dempand for high bandwidth content increase faster than they can handle (increase capasity in their net/backbone).
Telenor had a few years ago a download limit on their subscriptions, when the limit was reached the speed was reduced to 64kbit unless you bought another quaota(?). What happened was that the other ISP's just this against them in their markeding, X amount of money for this speed WITHOUT a download limit. Hopefully something simular will happen with bandwidth trotteling/prioritizing.
-- "The theory of evolution is as the name implies, just a theory. "
-- It is a scientific theory,like gravity, music theory, numbers theory, etc...
-- Or maybe you don't think numbers exist either?
You misunderstood my meaning, perhaps because i wasnt aware of the definition of a theory and hypothesis. Ive always considered something a theory until it can be proven a 100%, and then its considered a fact. Guess i have to change that a little bit.
By your reply i gathere that you understood me as i believe that the evolution is crap. My knowledge of the theory of evolution is somewhat limited, to me it boils down to creatures over time will adapt to their enviroment, mutations will happen and new (sub)spicies will arise. So life has started as bacteria(?) and developed/evolved into the creatures we see today, and some have died out over time due to different reasons.
-- oh, and the effects are happening NOW, not 100 years from now.
With this i guess you are refering to this part: "About global warming and such, as one noted that the effects might not hit for about a 100 years or so.", if you read it again you will see that im refering to another poster further up, and ask a few questions regarding that statement. Yes you are correct it is happening now, but we still havent seen what the long term effects will be, and i dont really want to find out. Thats why i also wrote that we have to start early. We should have started a long time ago really. So please try to read everything and which context is in, and not just parts of it.
The theory of evolution is as the name implies, just a theory. As with alot of stuff in science its an theory until it can be proven, and the results repeated. Everything can be disputed, and if some things doesnt make sence, the scientists have to go back and rework their theory. Even if many theories as considered facts, like evolution or big bang, it still remains a theory. I guess those are pretty hard to prove and repeat the results in our life span. Religion on the other hand presents a answer, this is how it is, no ifs or buts about it, it says so in my holy bood. You cant really dispute it (but there are different interpidtations of it). Either you believe it or you dont. I dont believe in god, but i also acknowledge that there is a posibility for a devine creator "creature" since it cant really be proven if it exists or not. I have no problem with a co-existence of god and science. It could be as simple as science is uncovering the creators creation, and in so doing just shows that the bible and other holy scriptures have it wrong. About global warming and such, as one noted that the effects might not hit for about a 100 years or so. If the effects doesnt harm us, does that mean that we could simply ignore it ? The debate isnt so much about the short term effects, but the long term. And long term effects are much harder to fix, so i guess its importent to start early to try to avoid them. I guess its more a question about "survival of the species".