Users who Dugg This
itsmeserious
192 Followers
SleepingZombie
332 Followers
Jimmy Walker
2259 Followers
Dave Spencer
121 Followers
Lauren Elder
3046 Followers
Mendokusai Daiyo
17822 Followers
Lt Gen Panda
17116 Followers
chupracabraAug 15, 2010
needs more tubes!
roebeetAug 16, 2010
My god, Ted Stevens was right all along.
pilot85Aug 16, 2010
perhaps in some kind of series...
akairennAug 16, 2010
Nay, there, matey. Th'tubes we 'ave be fine, we just be needin' t'scrape th'barnacles offa 'em.
polartxAug 16, 2010
def not a big truck
dread08Aug 15, 2010
f**k this, go pro wireless everywhere
yellowsnowconeAug 16, 2010
And what are you going to have as back-haul for your wireless services?
chris4404Aug 16, 2010
Keebler Elves, Duh!
strictneinAug 16, 2010
More wireless! It's wireless all the way down.
doshindudeAug 16, 2010
We got bigger problems at the moment, like IPv4 running out.
danielphermousAug 16, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
chris4404Aug 16, 2010
Do you work in IT because you seem to have a really firm grasp on the industry.
doshindudeAug 16, 2010
Um, it's a HELL of a lot more than just a simple patch. Whole networks would need to be redone, stuff needs to be upgraded, lots of money needs to be spent. It's not just a "simple patch."
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
You could make a hardware IPv6-to-IPv4 tunnelling device to enable continued use of obselete hardware, possibly.
phr34kyAug 17, 2010
One cannot simply walk through an IPv6 to IPV4 tunnel. Even if my ISP started offering IPV6, both my modem and router would first need new firmware before it would even work.
Well, I'd probably just get a router that supports DD-WRT so I don't need to worry about crap like this again. I'm pretty sure Billion won't "patch" a router that's 3 years old.
grantmoore3dAug 17, 2010
Oh thank goodness there will be an IPv4 patch disc, here I was thinking the entire backbone of the internet would have to be uprooted and re-configured.
linuxbeatswin7Aug 17, 2010
Bwhahahaha! You forgot your /s tag though...
fattestfootAug 16, 2010
IPv4 has been "running out" for a decade. NAT solved this s**t a long time ago. If it were really a problem, we'd be using v6 already.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
axcess99Aug 16, 2010
NAT didn't solve the problem, it mitigated it and bought us time.
Either we need mass ISP level NAT roll-outs in the next year or ipv4 is going to become very constrained. http://ipv6.he.net/statistics/
akairennAug 16, 2010
This.
I can still buy s**tf**kingtons of IPv4 addresses for a buck a piece.
Nothing is going to change until I have to pay $50+ for an IPv4 address.
suricouAug 16, 2010
NAT delayed the problem, and created new ones.
Here are a few things you can't do if your ISP is using NAT:
VoIP (EXcept Skype, which had counter-NAT technology)
Host a game server.
Run p2p software properly.
Host a webserver.
DCC file transfer on IRC.
IM file transfer.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
@Suricou
It depends on what level your ISP is using NAT. As long as you still get a unique public IP address given to you via DHCP from your ISP then you're fine.
chriscanadaAug 16, 2010
@doshindude I agree that IPV4 is a larger issue. Switching protocols is far harder than laying some new fiber. Also, we're not going to run out of capacity this year. No more IPV4 addresses means everything goes to s**t.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
How is running out of ipv4 addresses a bigger issue? When we run out then start handing out ipv6 addresses instead and slowly start changing existing networks to ipv6 most routers and OS's it is just a drop box to select between ipv4 and ipv6.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
linuxbeatswin7Aug 17, 2010
Well, because then there would be 2 Internets and the tubes would all explode.
Although I would not put it past Google to create their own IPV6 network to solve the world's troubles...
mymainmanAug 16, 2010
This is once again the scare tactics with "Video is killing the internet" being used. The last five years the same headlines have been repetated where the bandwidth isn't enough for Video and filesharing.
But nothing seems to have happened in a negative manner during these years.
In the same time period, talks about giving up net neutrality have also been raised and I think that this is just another of these well planted stories that the ISP;s just really want to be known.
But even the author concludeds that "Before we reach the end . . . [we] will install new cables or invent new technologies to squeeze more out of the existing cables,".
It even costs just a fragment of what it did when they did the exact same thing in 1998-2001.
ultraseamusAug 16, 2010
The 3rd sentence is: "But a crisis is not looming."
That is the opposite of scare tactics; if anything he is trying to lull us into a sense of security. After reading your comment I expected him to tell us that we have almost run out of material needed to make cables, or that the internet traffic is mutating deep sea fish which will rapidly lead to a NWO where mutant fish rule.
You are just pulling things out of thin air to try and start some kind of argument.
tukaAug 16, 2010
The falacy of your conclusion derives from the lazyness of the common reader. Welcome to the present, all facts and conclusions MUST be in the headline. All other words will be disregarded no matter how contradictory or supportive they are of said headline. Watch, I'll demonstrate.
<b>OBAMA'S "HEALTHSCARE" PLAN SHOW TRUE SOCIALIST COLORS</b>
(story inside, but really, don't bother, we just told you...)
inajeepAug 17, 2010
Citation needed.
yellowsnowconeAug 16, 2010
Can't we just make the tubes bigger or hire more trucks?
werfwerAug 16, 2010
i've always thought we could fit more packets in those gas truck type trucks than on the flatbeds.
factorof13Aug 16, 2010
RIP Ted Stevens. We need you now more than ever!
siskorabanAug 16, 2010
VINDICATION!!! :x
gorftronAug 16, 2010
He went to that big tube in the sky.
tukaAug 16, 2010
I'm pretty sure he's up there talking to god right now about divinely inspired optical signal wavelength multiplexing.
Kinda like taking this http://www.thefoa.org/tech/dwdm.htm, and adding jesus steroids to save us all.
doctechnicalAug 16, 2010
I've done my part. I laid some cable just now. Eat more fiber! For the Internet!
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
But I need more porn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
eh123Aug 16, 2010
{insert tubes joke here}
diggwithaforkAug 16, 2010
This is the 1996 AOL busy-signal debacle all over again.
athinnesAug 16, 2010
Wow that brings me back. Thank you.
werfwerAug 16, 2010
"you've got mail!"
aplusjimagesAug 16, 2010
What's AOL?
G.SanchezAug 16, 2010
American Online.
werfwerAug 16, 2010
they were once Americas largest "coasters by mail" company.
trainofthought6Aug 16, 2010
werfwer - Don't forget those round and shiny Christmas tree ornaments!
captininsanityAug 16, 2010
Don't worry, I still have a few disks with 2000 free hours still on them!
goose117Aug 16, 2010
Odd, Last Time I laid some Cable it caused a Big Jam.
messsssAug 16, 2010
Necessity is the mother of invention. Need more capacity? Raise the speed limit on the tubes... 10mb went to 100mb went to 1Gb went to 10Gb... etc etc...
dremspiderAug 16, 2010
My question is who is going to pay for the cables? The tax payers or the companies? If history is any indicator, the tax payers will pay for it and then the government won't want to be socialist so they will give it to the telecoms who will then complain that they aren't making enough money off the lines they didn't run. If you don't want to be socialist... no more handouts, period. As it stands most of the Republicans are now socialist for corporations and free market for individuals.
clevercommenterAug 16, 2010
How about the T3 ISPs that charge other ISPs to use their lines?
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
I don't care who pays for them as long as my internet works.
s201Aug 16, 2010
Why does everything on Digg come back to Republicans versus Democrats?
linuxbeatswin7Aug 17, 2010
No, it is Apple versus Microsoft- or Android versus iPhone.
alwaysskepticalAug 16, 2010
Did you even read the article?
FTA:
"a company or a consortium of companies will plunk down the funds for more bandwidth across the watery abyss."
If you must protest, do so against unnecessary government spending, not against projects that work to enhance communications. Not everything can be simplified to "socialist" and "free market".
vdoogsAug 16, 2010
[citation needed]
Really, it seems like the author is misinformed or mindlessly speculating there. More than likely it will be paid for at least partially through government subsidy.
kinggeoffAug 16, 2010
Yep, subsidy that will go unaccounted for while the telecos get to work fudging tons of numbers for vague public reports on how the upgrades are going.
We've been through this situation before... :(
tukaAug 16, 2010
@201
because if you're discussing something involving big business, it involves big money, which brings in big lobby power, which brings pre-paid politicians, which brings political spin, and leaves us all flinging poo and worrying about Mosques in NYC rather than how we're getting bent over today.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
This is interesting. I remember reading in the book The World is Flat how we had way too many cables from over production in the 90s. I guess the internets got popular.
joannchiladaAug 16, 2010
I'll start practicing my smoke signals now.
derangedpenguinAug 17, 2010
The signal travels at the speed of light, just like in fiber, but the baud rate kind of sucks.
tgc1Aug 16, 2010
Better not say anything about Dark Fiber. What happened to that problem? I guess these companies are conveniently ignoring that. You know, 'cause the fiber is already laid. They just want more money. f**k 'em.
suricouAug 16, 2010
Dark fiber tends to not be running under the ocean. You don't put fiber in such an expensive place unless you expect to use it. Optical repeaters are expensive.
tgc1Aug 17, 2010
Sorry bro, but those lines are already laid under the ocean. You think we're still on giant ass copper? Do you know how much money it costs to run a massive copper cable vs. a bundle of fiber? Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
suricouAug 17, 2010
Do you even know what dark fiber is?
tgc1Aug 17, 2010
Fiber optic cabling that has been laid but is not used. Hence dark.
suricouAug 17, 2010
Right. And laid where? Yes, you can bring up dark fiber on a lot of overland routes. But those ocean bottlenecks? No dark fiber there. Undersea fiber is expensive - it's not the cost of the fiber, it's the cost of the repeaters.
linuxbeatswin7Aug 17, 2010
You are right- there is tons of dark fiber in metro areas, but not so much under the ocean.
skellobissisAug 16, 2010
How about they get broad band availability at my house, in North East PA then worry about talking to Europe!
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
You'd be missing out on a huge portion of the Internet if you weren't connected to Europe... such as me, for instance.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
Just finished my morning coffee. I am going to go lay some cable... if you know what I mean.
xboxhuegAug 16, 2010
Masturbate into the toilet?
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
poop. geez.
factsahoyAug 16, 2010
Hang a rat?
blackgnosticAug 16, 2010
Luckily the world expires in 2012.
jason51873Aug 16, 2010
Yea really!
formerbabbyAug 16, 2010
Can't we get the post office to run packets?
factsahoyAug 16, 2010
Ugh, they'll never get there then.
SpoolUpAug 16, 2010
Good time to buy Level 3 stock, it's a bargain @ 1.10 a share. (level 3 owns tons of dark fiber)
factsahoyAug 16, 2010
Buried as spam.
linuxbeatswin7Aug 17, 2010
Not really. Level 3 was bailed out by the gov't. I can't stand them but then again I don't think they spam Digg.
captobliviousAug 16, 2010
In five to seven years someone will have already figured out a way to make money solving this problem, why is it that people think that creating a (false) panic is a good or useful thing?
Needless to say, buried.
kelchmAug 16, 2010
I seriously read that as: "Traffic jams ahead unless more cabies laid"
xboxhuegAug 16, 2010
YOU MUST CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PYLONS.
snardtbAug 16, 2010
f**k! Supply blocked!
jason51873Aug 16, 2010
CAN'T BUILD THERE!
texanwithabrainAug 16, 2010
As long as I can still stream porn from Asia, I don't care that much about the speed to reach Europe.
jaimequinAug 16, 2010
I found this company that solves the bandwidth issues and uses current infrastructures to give more Bandwidth vs having to lay out more pipes. http://bit.ly/9Vzkd4
fosefAug 16, 2010
Thats what she said!
bobadobalinaAug 16, 2010
Internet Traffic Jams would be lessened if more Diggers were laid
noclss2000Aug 16, 2010
we need bigger pipes! I'm all about laying pipe...
jason51873Aug 16, 2010
Buried for far mongering...
buyingthewarAug 16, 2010
40G/100G per channel on DWDM will be widely deployed in 5 to 7 years. Next gen optical systems don't even need to compensate for dispersion. We should be OK.