The eagerness for private companies to jump on the Internet to market to end-users is historical fact. Given such demand, why did not private companies create such a secure and accountable internet? Were the benefits not so obvious?
Doing it right takes time, and it usually takes trial-and-error. In most new industries there are quite a few attempts that fail, sometimes because the technology and the market aren't ready yet, sometimes because the because a company doesn't do things right.
The point I was trying to make is all that was too much risk for private companies to undertake at the time or else they would have -- and some did.
There were, and are, privately-managed internets connecting companies (been there, done that, in the late '90's). The free market operated, just not like you expected, because "free marketers" usually fail to take into account that land-lines require laying cable on/in/over public lands, which requires franchise, which requires scale, which led to tiers of service providers and ISPs.
Remember modems? Computers can actually talk on phone lines. Part of the build up of technology is to use what's there. As demand increased the cooperation with government needed for new cable in public and private lands would have come - and it would come when the industry was ready for it.
Heh. My home email address is > 25 years old. I remember modems. That aside, what you describe is exactly what happened, especially the "use what's there" part. Even in the modem age, cable TV was ubiquitous. Who runs one of the largest nation-wide networks these days? Comcast.
As for competing technologies, the ultimate government-sponsored protocol set is the OSI stack. It competed with the US DARPA/University Researchers/Private Company derived technology and lost, now existing mostly as concepts (compare to an 7-Layer Taco Bell burrito -- google it), and impinges on us in the form of LDAP and Microsoft Exchange.
So there was a little bit of competition. What about all the other competitors that never were because they were pre-empted?
It is not the government's fault that private companies have not [yet] come up with something to displace the IP of TCP/IP, as/IP displaced, say, the perfectly workable X.25 packet-switching technology, or XNS. Innovation with the common transmission mediums is thriving, and the Ethernet of today doesn't at all resemble that which competed with and won over ARCNet and token-ring.
Remember Atari and Odyssey? They were a little bit of competition too. One was better than the other. Imagine where video games would be if we had decided at that point that we were done, that Atari was the standard for all future video games.
I don't understand your beef. The government funded some technology development, and later put it out there for the private industry to use and expand upon as it would. That is not at all like Europe mandating GSM for wireless, whereas the USA left all the carrier technologies to battle it out in the consumer market. I am sure you approve of the latter, but please recognize the difference between the two cases.
The eagerness for private companies to jump on the Internet to market to end-users is historical fact. Given such demand, why did not private companies create such a secure and accountable internet? Were the benefits not so obvious? There were, and are, privately-managed internets connecting companies (been there, done that, in the late '90's). The free market operated, just not like you expected, because "free marketers" usually fail to take into account that land-lines require laying cable on/in/over public lands, which requires franchise, which requires scale, which led to tiers of service providers and ISPs.
As for competing technologies, the ultimate government-sponsored protocol set is the OSI stack. It competed with the US DARPA/University Researchers/Private Company derived technology and lost, now existing mostly as concepts (compare to an 7-Layer Taco Bell burrito -- google it), and impinges on us in the form of LDAP and Microsoft Exchange.
I'm with you, wonderboss. I read the decision, and the judges found plenty of precedent and demonstrated careful awareness of the Constitutional issues.
Demand for a 4-year degree has been ever-increasing, with applications/available freshman positions at a higher multiple than our current 5/1 jobs debacle. Why would prices not go up? Besides the availability of student loans, parents were able to use their houses as ATMs to support college costs, until ~2008.
There are lots of people that should not be in college, or, more accurately, would be more suited to 2-year tech programs or direct employer training IF we had the manufacturing base of yore. But NO, America is now a "service economy" that no longer makes things. A Golgafrincham colony.
A few months ago, I dug through my old Science Fiction Bookclub books, circa 1970's, and came up with this gem, an anthology of short stories specifically to comment 30 years in the future.
Pretty laughably wrong on most of the problems solved by 2000, and way off on what new problems we might be experiencing 30 years in the future (from 1970).
Didn't the '.xxx' suffix get approved for pr0n sites, recently?
Make access to.xxx IPv6-only and you'll see millions of consumers really, really needing to connect to *cough* "ipv6.google.com", and the ISPs will finally have to cave and provide it.
There is no "certainly" that the released documents compromised any soldiers or our assets. Only 5000 documents of the 250K have been released, and they were redacted with the help of the news outlets that published them.
Quantity and QOS controls would not bother me, though quantity implies tiers and I want my tiers to be quite broad, of course. QOS is best implemented over IPv6. It is content and source filtering that galls me.
So, it is OK with your conservative values if *corporations* restrict your access to internet content? To take your "views" to a logical extreme, it is OK with you if, as a Comcast subscriber, you only have access to content made available by NBC even though you are paying for flat-rate or volume internet access? Oh, you will play your "free market" card and switch? To what? Maybe the single other monopoly that can provide you broadband?
The 'Net is pretty much neutral now. There is a place for government regulation to keep it that way.
Why do you think you ever had control of the last mile? Where did you live where that was true? What percentage of any population lives in such a place?
This is what we get when the Court takes up a case just because Roberts wanted to. The case was not ready for the Supreme Court, and the judges rules on arguments less mature, as well as with less standing, than should have been. Activist judges!
Slashdot Mirror
See Robert Silverberg's "The World Inside", about humanity concentrated in near-wholly self-contained skyscrapers.
Paging Roger Zelazny...
Your hindsight suffers from macular degeneration.
The eagerness for private companies to jump on the Internet to market to end-users is historical fact. Given such demand, why did not private companies create such a secure and accountable internet? Were the benefits not so obvious?
Doing it right takes time, and it usually takes trial-and-error. In most new industries there are quite a few attempts that fail, sometimes because the technology and the market aren't ready yet, sometimes because the because a company doesn't do things right.
The point I was trying to make is all that was too much risk for private companies to undertake at the time or else they would have -- and some did.
There were, and are, privately-managed internets connecting companies (been there, done that, in the late '90's). The free market operated, just not like you expected, because "free marketers" usually fail to take into account that land-lines require laying cable on/in/over public lands, which requires franchise, which requires scale, which led to tiers of service providers and ISPs.
Remember modems? Computers can actually talk on phone lines. Part of the build up of technology is to use what's there. As demand increased the cooperation with government needed for new cable in public and private lands would have come - and it would come when the industry was ready for it.
Heh. My home email address is > 25 years old. I remember modems. That aside, what you describe is exactly what happened, especially the "use what's there" part. Even in the modem age, cable TV was ubiquitous. Who runs one of the largest nation-wide networks these days? Comcast.
As for competing technologies, the ultimate government-sponsored protocol set is the OSI stack. It competed with the US DARPA/University Researchers/Private Company derived technology and lost, now existing mostly as concepts (compare to an 7-Layer Taco Bell burrito -- google it), and impinges on us in the form of LDAP and Microsoft Exchange.
So there was a little bit of competition. What about all the other competitors that never were because they were pre-empted?
It is not the government's fault that private companies have not [yet] come up with something to displace the IP of TCP/IP, as /IP displaced, say, the perfectly workable X.25 packet-switching technology, or XNS. Innovation with the common transmission mediums is thriving, and the Ethernet of today doesn't at all resemble that which competed with and won over ARCNet and token-ring.
Remember Atari and Odyssey? They were a little bit of competition too. One was better than the other. Imagine where video games would be if we had decided at that point that we were done, that Atari was the standard for all future video games.
I don't understand your beef. The government funded some technology development, and later put it out there for the private industry to use and expand upon as it would. That is not at all like Europe mandating GSM for wireless, whereas the USA left all the carrier technologies to battle it out in the consumer market. I am sure you approve of the latter, but please recognize the difference between the two cases.
Your hindsight suffers from macular degeneration.
The eagerness for private companies to jump on the Internet to market to end-users is historical fact. Given such demand, why did not private companies create such a secure and accountable internet? Were the benefits not so obvious? There were, and are, privately-managed internets connecting companies (been there, done that, in the late '90's). The free market operated, just not like you expected, because "free marketers" usually fail to take into account that land-lines require laying cable on/in/over public lands, which requires franchise, which requires scale, which led to tiers of service providers and ISPs.
As for competing technologies, the ultimate government-sponsored protocol set is the OSI stack. It competed with the US DARPA/University Researchers/Private Company derived technology and lost, now existing mostly as concepts (compare to an 7-Layer Taco Bell burrito -- google it), and impinges on us in the form of LDAP and Microsoft Exchange.
I took a class in Mandarin, and was sorely disappointed to learn that KFC is not actually called the "House of the Ancient and Inscrutable Colonel".
Actually, "the debate" can be taught as a topic in part of the "This is the Scientific Method and This Other is Not" curriculum.
"... Rev 1.1 ALEC@master"
.. last name for anyone, let alone a politician, to have.
Is the family name derived from an occupation or behavior, such as "miller" or "hunter"? :-)
I'm with you, wonderboss. I read the decision, and the judges found plenty of precedent and demonstrated careful awareness of the Constitutional issues.
Demand for a 4-year degree has been ever-increasing, with applications/available freshman positions at a higher multiple than our current 5/1 jobs debacle. Why would prices not go up? Besides the availability of student loans, parents were able to use their houses as ATMs to support college costs, until ~2008.
There are lots of people that should not be in college, or, more accurately, would be more suited to 2-year tech programs or direct employer training IF we had the manufacturing base of yore. But NO, America is now a "service economy" that no longer makes things. A Golgafrincham colony.
A few months ago, I dug through my old Science Fiction Bookclub books, circa 1970's, and came up with this gem, an anthology of short stories specifically to comment 30 years in the future.
Pretty laughably wrong on most of the problems solved by 2000, and way off on what new problems we might be experiencing 30 years in the future (from 1970).
Not that it wasn't a good read...!
... it's not just for a day.
-- B. D.
Didn't the '.xxx' suffix get approved for pr0n sites, recently?
Make access to .xxx IPv6-only and you'll see millions of consumers really, really needing to connect to *cough* "ipv6.google.com", and the ISPs will finally have to cave and provide it.
That'll spark traffic and equipment sales!
The Pertwee Doctor was proudly spoke Chinese in a couple of episodes.
They couldn't have entangled a Z-80's worth of bits and called it good. Sigh.
I already have an IPv6 address. Isn't that good enough?
There is no "certainly" that the released documents compromised any soldiers or our assets. Only 5000 documents of the 250K have been released, and they were redacted with the help of the news outlets that published them.
WORD
Quantity and QOS controls would not bother me, though quantity implies tiers and I want my tiers to be quite broad, of course.
QOS is best implemented over IPv6.
It is content and source filtering that galls me.
I agree with much of your post, especially on traffic-shaping.
I consider applying QOS and traffic-shaping to be "neutral" actions when not based on content or specific endpoints.
Insightful my a$$.
So, it is OK with your conservative values if *corporations* restrict your access to internet content? To take your "views" to a logical extreme, it is OK with you if, as a Comcast subscriber, you only have access to content made available by NBC even though you are paying for flat-rate or volume internet access? Oh, you will play your "free market" card and switch? To what? Maybe the single other monopoly that can provide you broadband?
The 'Net is pretty much neutral now. There is a place for government regulation to keep it that way.
Why do you think you ever had control of the last mile? Where did you live where that was true? What percentage of any population lives in such a place?
You have it backwards. Nobody is imposing fees on ISPs. Net Neutrality is to protect ISPs from imposing fees on content providers.
Cue gangster voice:
"Nice content you have here.. Would be a shame should anything untoward happen to it during delivery over our networks."
with the Fairness Doctrine, dead since Reagan.
Gah, you gotta read the comments over in the Yahoo! pages on this.
"I feel a strong stupidness in the Force."
This is what we get when the Court takes up a case just because Roberts wanted to. The case was not ready for the Supreme Court, and the judges rules on arguments less mature, as well as with less standing, than should have been. Activist judges!