Chamber005
Carbonite Member
I actually found this article oddly comforting. I like that the internet isn't this limitless thing.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html
The internet is hitting its limit
- Thread starter Chamber005
- Start date
I'm a bit skeptical of this:
Hawk Teflon
Veteran
But the internet isn't a place. It's not an area I can visit. How does it just stop?
Reminds me of this: http://www.schuessel.org/
Reminds me of this: http://www.schuessel.org/
Chamber005
Carbonite Member
The whole thing can probably be viewed with some skeptism as it's a guy from AT&T talking. This has been a pretty consistent viewpoint overall for the last few years -- the notion that the internet will someday soon hit its ceiling.
Personally I think it would bring a new level of relevance to the internet if everyone who wanted to post a video on it had to pay to do so. Until something like that, some kind of filtering process occurs, the internet will never be able to compete with television or printed news sources (the latter only in the reputable sense).
Imagine if people had to pay money every time they posted a video of their cat tackling their baby? Or if they at least had to pay a subscription fee. Personally I think there's too much undigested crap on the internet. If people had to pay up maybe things would calm down a bit. I'm completely against any sort of regulation as it regards our freedoms, but I can't say I would be remiss to see some structure and comformity just in the process of utilizing the internet.
Right now most everything online is free, which is why so much of it is rubbish.
DeviantArt has a great system wherein you have to pay a subscription fee to remove all the ads and to receive some extra features. You can still use the site without being a subscriber and everything works fine, but the experience is much less enjoyable. Similar to the way Vimeo charges a subscription fee if you want to post videos of a certain size. I'd like to see the internet someday operate in the same fashion. My only worry is that for something that widespread to occur, it would require government intervention which could eventually lead to regulations, rating systems, overall government oppression as it attempts to guide all users to its own perspective -- just a bunch of crap no one wants to see happen.
We'll see...
Chamber005
Carbonite Member
But it IS a place. It's not infinite. It's data. Just like your computer has a harddrive capacity, as does the internet. Its harddrive is just really, really massive and is being maintained by several different private entities.
Now it SEEMS that the internet is more like electricity -- we need more electricity so we generate more electricity and we pass the cost of said generation onto the subscriber. But I don't think that's exactly the case. I think they're saying that you'd not just have to generate more electricity, you'd also have to literally build more generators, which costs more than what any subscriber would (apparently) be willing to pay. Hundreds of billions of dollars.
I think what we'd see happen is places like YouTube and every other host provider charging additional monies for video postings, as those companies would be getting taxed for their bandwidth, right? I think that's the next logical step. Increased fees from our ISPs and increased (and new) fees for using sites (and especially video posting sites).
Last edited:
Hawk Teflon
Veteran
But we can always add more hard drives. There can always be space added. Even if you covered the United States with mainframes, you can always "up" what's in the mainframe, right? I guess technically it CAN reach an end, but it won't. I won't believe it.
Efexone
Well-known member
thank you.
its a shame these type of articles are surfacing without any fact checking, its a "moral scare" tactic.
ISP's/telecommunication companies, have been pocketing the money they should of used to pay for new infrastructure that could easily handle todays demand. they were given tax incentives for that one reason - so they can invest it back into the infrastructure. now they are complaining that they need to throttle traffic and have people pay for services that have been free until now. this is just a ploy for corporate america to control the internet so they can continue being a middleman, instead of being replaced by it.
the fed/state governments/municipalities need to hold these companies accountable for their inability to provide the necessary bandwidth for todays internet demands.
ZazaCast
Major Contributor
The 'scare' is that they are (will) run out of URL's in the current v4 by 2010.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/18/www-end-internet-face-cx_je_0516autofacescan02.html
"Internet protocol addresses are essential to Internet use, as every computer and web address carries its own unique IP address. The problem is that under the current version, known as "v4," every address is restricted to four numbers, each between 0 and 255. Given that some network types even have their own specific initial number, the possibilities are far from limitless."
This is a money-making opp...TimeWarner has been testing in different markets the idea of charging a subscriber by their usage instead of a basic fee.
Now lets just all hope the government doesn't get involved!
http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/18/www-end-internet-face-cx_je_0516autofacescan02.html
"Internet protocol addresses are essential to Internet use, as every computer and web address carries its own unique IP address. The problem is that under the current version, known as "v4," every address is restricted to four numbers, each between 0 and 255. Given that some network types even have their own specific initial number, the possibilities are far from limitless."
This is a money-making opp...TimeWarner has been testing in different markets the idea of charging a subscriber by their usage instead of a basic fee.
Now lets just all hope the government doesn't get involved!
Hawk Teflon
Veteran
That would mean that there's only 4,294,967,296 available websites up until now, right? Does that include pages off of those sites? What I mean is www.dvxuser.com is a site. Let's say that one is 3.5.46.23 Is this thread a part of that site? I mean, is it 3.5.46.23/v6/showthread.... I would imagine not, as it would not be solely numbers anymore. So how then, have sites like youtube and ebay taken everything?
It'll be back to the crazy days when companies pay insane prices to buy domain names. My brother in laws sister is married to the former owner of business.com, he and his business partner (founder of Earthlink) paid $7.5M for it in 1999 and sold it for $345M two years ago, actually I think they just bought it back in backrupty court for pennies on the dollar.
The internet is about to be held hostage in a big way.
Andrew McCarrick
Carbonite Member
They're already implementing a move to IP V6; which uses Hexadecimals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6#Notation
Also as stated before the internet is not a thing. It is mantained by numerous private corporations, that provide access to other, private, webservers that serve out the content of the internet. Data on the internet is stored on hundreds of thousands of different servers throughout the planet.
For example a basic routing procedure would be, You type a URL into your browser window, That goes through your ISP, out from the ISP, into a DNS server that converts that URL to an IP address (IP V4 or IP V6), which then is sent to the corresponding IP addressed Content Server, which processes the request, then feeds out the data, back to the ISPs router and down the line to corresponding requester. And to think all of that happens within 100 milliseconds.
Last edited:
Doc Bernard
Indie Arms Member
A little known fact: The internet is controlled by the government with this switch:
A little known fact: The internet is controlled by the government with this switch:
Thank god for Al Gore!