Fuck these guys "Researchers explore scrapping Internet"

[lonestarnot]

Researchers explore scrapping Internet By ANICK JESDANUN, AP Internet Writer
51 minutes ago



NEW YORK - Although it has already taken nearly four decades to get this far in building the Internet, some university researchers with the federal government's blessing want to scrap all that and start over.

The idea may seem unthinkable, even absurd, but many believe a "clean slate" approach is the only way to truly address security, mobility and other challenges that have cropped up since UCLA professor Leonard Kleinrock helped supervise the first exchange of meaningless test data between two machines on Sept. 2, 1969.

The Internet "works well in many situations but was designed for completely different assumptions," said Dipankar Raychaudhuri, a Rutgers University professor overseeing three clean-slate projects. "It's sort of a miracle that it continues to work well today."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070413/ap_on_hi_te/rebuilding_the_internet

[Little Wing]

1. It's a dumb headline

nothing more

[lonestarnot]

10. Just be one who kicks back in their easy chair and let it happen.

I don't like to see it talked about, let alone in print. And dumb is a bad word around here.

[whoneedstickets]

35. Yeah, they want to REPLACE the internet, with something better!

Rather than graft stuff on to an existing, outmoded and inefficient networking concept.

Unfortunately technology is often path dependent and 'locked in' -- look at your keyboard. We've been trying to transition TV signals for a decade, by the time we get there the protocols will be obsolete.

[mainegreen]

2. So, what, are we scrapping IP6 now?

[Recursion]

4. I think it's the higher-level protocols they are looking at

Though clearly I think any re-engineering of the net would have a bigger address space and hopefully have a more sane system of how both names and addresses are allocated. Ever since IANA died it's been a complete travesty.

[Xenotime]

44. Good question..

I think * wants his hands on the Internet. They have been trying to figure out how to tax the Internet for years. I'm sure their "Master Plan" requires all traffic going through Govt. routers.

[Recursion]

3. I think it's a great idea

The Internet of today is massively overstretched; the protocols were not meant for the depth or breadth of usage they are getting (particularly SMTP). A redesign from the ground up could be a very good thing. Plus, as an early adopter I would probably be able to live some blissful early-90's-like Net years before the rest of you rabble showed up :)

[lonestarnot]

6. Yeah if you want government control over the internet, just fall for this.

They can't figure a way to manage it as is, so I think it's fine just like it is thank you!

[Recursion]

13. This version was government funded and designed; why would another one be worse?

If I start seeing proposals that drastically reduce the freedom of the Internet, I'll worry. So will all the other geeks like me who actually make the beast run.

[Atman]

17. Why would another one be BETTER?

What is "bad" about the current internet is precisely what is "good" about it, too. Content distribution is still largely in the hands of content providers. When the government takes over, content will simply be government-approved. Why do you see ANYTHING good in this?

.

[lonestarnot]

18. Well there was no incentive for control under Clinton and now there is.

[originalpckelly]

28. And what about all the other years the internet has been in operation?

There are already projects developing a new internet, internet2 is testing the technology for the nex gen inet, even though inet2 won't be it.

[Warren Stupidity]

48. Because that was then and this is now.

Are you really so naive to think that a completely new design would not include all sorts of features to allow the NSA et al to probe peak and vacuum to their heart's content?

Since you work making the beast run you surely recall that when the last generation of highend routers were designed and deployed they came complete with NSA tap points pre-installed.

[WinkyDink]

59. Kind of like how the Illegal Invasion is worse than WWII.

Times have changed.

[Mojambo]

7. I think it's a terrible idea

A clean slate is going to give any number of very powerful institutions (government and corporations namely) a chance to build in all sorts of controls that don't exist today.

It will be a far less free Internet.

[lonestarnot]

9. precisely!

[Ignacio Upton]

24. People ranging from the NSA to the RIAA would love this

n/t.

[Ignacio Upton]

21. Only if it restores the Wild West mentallity of the web

Which is shrinking by the day. However, part of me worries that such new infrastructure could result in the government creating a top-down internet without the current democratic nature. DARPA let it be lawless the last time because they never expected it to be anything more than a Cold War-era last line of communication between government and academia.

[Recursion]

32. I guess I got into it too early

To me the Wild West side of the Internet stopped about 1998 or 1999, about the time that "web" and "net" became synonymous (though I still have a minority of my personal traffic as WWW, so that's a good thing...)

Anybody remember Usenet? NNTP? Gopher? MUDs? Ah, those were the days, before MP3s or Amazon, when you were looking up text filez about how to take down AT&T, or bitmaps of Gillian Anderson.

[Jonathan50]

36. I cut my rhetorical teeth on Usenet political groups.

That's why flaming doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Actually I was on local BBSes a good long time before I got an internet connection.

[Cha]

33. Hey!

:)

[paparush]

5. Why, is Halliburton going into the Internet Backbone business?

[Atman]

8. There is nothing "dumb" about it. It's scary.

I, for one, am amazed "the internets" have lasted as long as they have. I'm reminded of a story on NPR from several years back, around the time the Berlin Wall fell and historical stories were everywhere. One such story quoted a Russian who was simply amazed that in the United States they allow copy machines to be used by regular citizens. No way in Russia! he said. A copy machine is just a small printing press, and people could use them to spread dissent!

The internet is no different, and we'd be fools to think that the United States Government couldn't pull the plug on the whole shebang in a moment's notice. They've already tossed a few framing issues out there -- Al Qaida uses message boards and web sites to plot their overthrow of the world -- and they continue to look for excuses. But if you think this is a joke, or far-fetched scenario, do so at your own peril.

.

[Recursion]

14. Then why did the government spend so much money creating it? nt

[Uncle Joe]

29. As a former Marine,

I have always believed in Semper Fidelis, but for the first time in my life since Bush came to power, I have lost a great deal of faith in my government, and this makes me nervous as well.

I believe if the truth served them better Bush and the neocons would lie anyway, and I have similar feelings regarding the mass corporate media. To me, the internet is the last source of getting to the truth and I believe they will stop at nothing to neuter it.

[Cha]

34. That's right...If their

lips are moving they're in full fly lie mode..you definetly couldn't make this shit up.

[WinkyDink]

60. Do the names "Bush" and "Cheney" mean anything to you? There would be NOTHING

about this new tack that wouldn't mean Federal control and censorship. You think Bushco doesn't see the success China has had with this?

We live in the infamous post-9/11 world.

[Atman]

15. Huh?

I thought Al Gore created the internets?

.

[Ignacio Upton]

22. Gore was responsible for one key piece of the internet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Performance_Computing_and_Communication_Act_of_1991

The High Performance Computer and Communication Act of 1991 helped provide funding for the first web browser, thus ushering in the commercial internet as we know it today. It was the use of the World Wide Web IN ADDITION to the internet that made the internet popular with average citizens and businesses. For the first quarter century of the internet's existence, you just had a far-flung group of academics and nerds who sent sparse emails and posted on USE-NETS and IRC clients.

[Atman]

23. I wasn't serious.

But thanks, just the same.

.

[TahitiNut]

11. Moving to IPv6 isn't going to be easy ... even if it's possible.

:scared:

[dfgrbac]

12. Corporate control of the Internet

That's what it is all about. Look at these proposals very critically. Corporations can't wait to control the Internet the same way they control all the other media. On the Internet, we can watch the videos that reveal the political facts of today. But try to see these videos on the commercial TV networks - you won't!

Be cautious - very cautious.

For one thing, they would love to squash the 9/11 Truth Movement. It continues to grow stronger in spite of the lack of commercial media attention.

[Atman]

16. I wish we could rec individual posts. You're 100% spot-on.

This is all about control of the message, and putting that control in the hands of the corporate media. Period. Seriously. Anyone who thinks the internets are the media "of the people" are fucking nuts. Your service is piped through just another mega-corporate-whore-bag who will do anything at all to protect their bucks. If they can find a way to make everyone pay more than the current $19.95-49.95/month for less content with more control you can bet your ISP payment that "making more money" will win out over any absurdist notion of a "right to know," you're nuttier than they are.

.

[lonestarnot]

19. They are definitely after it.

[kimmerspixelated]

20. But ,but, but there are an awful lot of

corporations that will lose out big time if they close the net for even a short term. Money talks. And remember these same corps would still be behind getting the rethugs re-elected, so they would have a lot to lose!

[Ignacio Upton]

25. It won't involve closing the net down

That alone would cause a global recession if it were possible. You can create new infrastructure for the internet without "shutting it down" especially since it's one giant decentralized computer network.

[JackRiddler]

26. To those pointing out that Internet is a government creation...

yes it is, and they retain significant control over it.

However, over time it was re-purposed into something not originally anticipated. The "market" at work (see, sometimes the consumer really is powerful).

Rebuilding it from a blank slate would surely mean giving the government and corporations that last bit of control they do not yet have over it. Hence something to oppose.

[Ignacio Upton]

27. It might be possible to create new infrastructure without destroying

the democratic nature of the internet. However, until we get net neutrality and tell the copyright cartel and NSA to stop spying on us (ie. repeal the Patriot Act and the DMCA), then I'm in your camp.

[JackRiddler]

30. Sure!

I'm sure you and all the good people on this thread could come up with the concept for a model (if not the programming code) that is more efficient, secure, free, democratic and protective of privacy. Unfortunately, DARPA, the NSA, the FBI, the justice and commerce departments, the EU and the G-8, Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Hollywood, the music industry, the twelve corporations who control close to 100 percent of the broadcast media and 80 percent of the print, and the phone companies are not going to ask us.

[lonestarnot]

46. ewwww, I see one big pile of drewl....ick.

[moondust]

40. Yes.

I don't know of anything stopping them from building their own separate Internet for people to test drive before buying into it. :shrug:

Suggesting first that the "old" Internet be scrapped--before a replacement is built or even widely discussed--is itself highly suspicious.

[JackRiddler]

41. Well this is what they are doing.

They're not going to scrap the existing structure, whatever phrases may be used in this article (unless an arranged disaster of some kind does it for them). They are building a separate Internet, GOVNET, in the planning since 2002 (Ashcroft was the one who publicly introduced the idea).

[frogcycle]

52. they have it

it's called ARPANET and it is the precursor to the open internet. They can do whatever the fuck they want with it.

[warren pease]

31. "works well in many situations but was designed for completely different assumptions,"

Assumptions like freedom of information; like unmonitored communications; like no NSA web spies; like a functional democracy; like Karl Rove's off-site email servers. Assumptions like that.

wp

[woo me with science]

37. Great! A way to keep Don Imus off, and everyone else we dislike. nt

[windy252]

38. K&R

This needs to go to greatest.

[BeFree]

39. Yep #3

You'll take my internet when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

[Neshanic]

42. Fear not. Cox, Comcast and the gang will put a stop to that pronto.

[Xenotime]

43. I thought Al Gore created the Internet...

well...didn't he? :sarcasm:

[Joanne98]

45. We're not doing ANYTHING to the internet until the criminals are out of the WH!

[Canuckistanian]

47. Exactly my thought

They tried to do away with net neutrality for obvious reasons. They let the NSA tap into ALL aspects of communications, internet included.

They can't be trusted, period. ANYTHING they try to do is suspect.

[frogcycle]

49. more to the point...

the 'net is not one monolith. developing new standards and/or protocols is of course good. no technology should stand still. And it is not just a US-based entity.

they aren't talking about ripping out all the wires, erasing all the content, for cripes sakes.

if technology were to be developed with the specific goal of better enabling censorship or monitoring, THAT would be disturbing. Efforts in that regard in today's world are what we should be alarmed about.

[Jonathan50]

50. What makes you think that enabling censorship and monitoring

Isn't part of the motivation of this restructuring of the intertubes?

The powers that be are extremely concerned about the freedom of information on the intertubes. They will be overturning heaven and earth to undo what is done.

[frogcycle]

51. agreed

but I dislike automatically ascribing ulterior motive to every damned thing. I think keeping eyes wide open and attacking real issues is a whole lot more productive than inventing yet another bogeyman every five minutes. I didn't say I thought enabling censorshop and monitoring was not part of the motivation; I merely suggest that fact-based arguments have a whole lot more merit

I get sick and tired of people who respond to a simple statement with "I know what you really mean and I'm taking you to task for it." My answer is if i meant that I'd have said it.

[Usrename]

55. Yeah, sure, but where can we get these facts from?

That's the problem. Are we to believe anything they tells us?

Remember, these are the same guys that tell us that evolution and global warming do not exist.

It's just fine to look at their recent track record in an effort to discern their motives; it's a lot more accurate than whatever they say.

[frogcycle]

56. be skeptical, call for probitive inquiry, don't take it at face value

but don't claim you already know what they are really up to

I agree that they have created an atmosphere in which we literally cannot trust ANYTHING not to be some sort of devious plot. There is not a department, not a federal agency, that remains unpolluted by these body snatchers. They have driven us to the point of feeling like the remaining humans in the Terminator movies, conducting a guerrilla war against the machines.

Shoot, I am beginning to find more credibility in the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

but it is essential to remain fact-based. That means not accepting their assertions as fact, to be sure, but it also means not making up our own "facts"

[EstimatedProphet]

53. So, they're going to replace the internet with a series of linked computers?

I assume next they're going to work on solving our energy and global warming problems by replacing cars with automobiles.

That constitutes a dumb headline.

[ArmchairMeme]

54. Ken Olsen

My grandson was looking through some things I had stored in the cellar and said "what's this". He was holding up an 8" floppy disk from the days of Digital Equipment Corp. The old days! They employed 120,000 people a lot of them in the North East. A lot of people I talk to have worked there and have stories to tell. The creator/owner/CEO knew people by their first names and often stopped to talk to them when they were working. It was definitely a people centered company. The Alpha chip was at one time the fastest in existence. They also worked on robotics and voice recognition. A very interesting company to work at. It is gone now. Broken up and sold off.

My grandson is fascinated with all the "old" stuff that I have.

[frogcycle]

57. I worked for Digital for 11 years

they had a good thing going. Sadly, Olsen got stuck on successes of the past and allowed the industry to leave them behind - despite the fact that they had better networking, clustering, and OS 15 years ago than much that is out there today

An object lesson for the US of A!

It doesn't matter that we invented the best governmental system in history - it can and will be scrapped by those who seek their own success

[entanglement]

58. The yahoo headline is misleading and sensational

Your hostility to university researchers is surprising and hurtful. Many are honest, dedicated and hard-working people striving to make life better for everyone and deserve a 'thank you', not a 'f**k you'.

For starters, it takes a very long time for a new internet standard or protocol to go from design, through testing, deployment and finally acceptance. Consider that IPv6 was *finalized* in the mid 90s or so and is still very far from replacing IPv4 completely. So you'd have to do research now to get something developed by say 2015 or 2020.

These researchers are looking at several promising new features: timely packet delivery (for applications like video streaming), better handling of wireless, better security (though IPv6 takes care of some of it). All worthy and laudable goals, and likely better achieved with a complete re-design than adding more layers to an already convoluted framework.

OTOH the stakes are too high to keep out telcos, spy / police agencies, hardware and software companies (And I'm just as suspicious as you of these entities). While their involvement cannot be avoided (unfortunately), informed citizens, non-profit groups like the EFF and other activists should also be included in any such re-design (whenever it does occur) to ensure that the essential character of the net isn't allowed to change and netizens retain all their freedoms.