What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How to Make Your PC as Fast as the Day You Bought It view!
howlifeworks.com - What's the fastest way to restore a computer to its original blazing glory
35 Comments
- schestowitz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+45This would be very sad because you put price tags on access to information. The Internet was supposed to prevent and eliminate such barriers.
- reeder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24Commoditization will only inhibit progress. People horde what they perceive as valuable. We have the tech to provide free access to everyone everywhere, but instead companies like AT$T steal our money and prevent real progress.
We should all have 50 Mbps wireless by now, instead we have an average of 3 Mbps. - WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17You mean like monthly ISP contracts? There's already a price on bandwidth; it just hasn't been completely commoditized.
- bitcloud, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12In other news 77 Diggs in and Harvard has become bankrupt...
- WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7This is an interesting development. After our oil economy goes the way of the dinosaur, I would guess the next core foundations will be 1) clean water, 2) electricity (possibly in the form of Hydrogen), and 3) bandwidth. Other commodities including food basics will keep their important place, but these are the next big commodities that can scale to a global level.
- Xplodzion, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4What a terrible idea.
- reeder, on 10/10/2007, -2/+51) We paid for it already
2) "Bandwidth currency" is just another way ISPs would try to could get around any enforceable Net Neutrality regulations we desperately need.
3) If you have any doubt commoditization of bandwidth would negatively affect the consumer, ask yourself how the oil and gas markets are doing, or look at your local gas station.
When concentrated in a few hands, manipulation is inevitable because greed and selfishness are at the root of humanity, ESPECIALLY where corporations are involved. - fuckingstudent, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Confused: when I go to download it offers two very strange choices:
1. A version which offers 10% faster video download speed + Limited upload
2, 'normal' speed downloads + unlimited upload
I don't get this - keruha, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Energy is always the number one commodity. The whole meritocracy internet access seems strange at best. Maybe for select applications, it might work, but probably not on the global scale.
- SeanG, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The problem with this idea, although novel, is that no one would truly be in control of their own bandwidth to be able to distribute. Let's take a look at this. You as an individual go out and pay your $39.99/mo to AT&T for your DSL line and let's say you get a 1.5Mbs up and down connection. With that connection you are able to "rent out" 768Kbs or maybe even the whole 1.5 and in return you make $50/month in bandwidth credits - hypothetically. Are we really all that naive to think that AT&T isn't going to want that extra $10.01 that you just make off of "your" bandwidth - which, in their eyes, is really theirs? I've got $20 bucks here that says that the telco lobbyists shoot this thing down before it gets anywhere close to being a reality. Any takers? No? None?
Not to mention that should this come to pass, the banks the article refers to as disappearing, will just become your ISP - it's just transferring the job not getting rid of it. - epluribusunum, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Guess who already tried this?
Does the name "Enron" ring any bells?
http://www.derivativesstrategy.com/magazine/archive/2000/0800fea1.asp - SeanNorton, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1While this might encourage infrastructure advances that are desperately needed, I don't think I could support this model, especially since I value my speed.
- WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Whether or not bandwidth is a commodity (meaning that any one supplier is easily-replaced with another), corporations will be greedy. Look at our current situation, with little competition, local monopolies, we have companies like Comcast or AT&T, who are able to kill off certain web protocols (like bittorrent seeding) or charge exorbitant prices for measly connections. An increased commoditization of bandwidth would benefit end users, as it would by definition mean that they can select from a variety of suppliers, and that the market forces will have a much larger say in pricing and services offered. What we have now is the worst possible system we could have.
- SergeiGolos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yeah but bit torrenting already takes care of that, where the more and faster you seed the faster you can download.
- cbackert, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Does no one remember Enron's bandwidth as commodities scheme?
- darknailblue, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1While both points are true, I think that putting something like this - in the manner that it is presented - in front of the public are going to make people feel like they are once again loosing control. I also feel like if they are going to put in an Internet currency system, then make ALL ISPs completely free. While something like that would take years to reach, it would turn the Internet into one huge on-line community. This way anyone could access the Internet and everyone would have to participate.
Aside from that the article also mentions a 'trust' system like its some ingenious idea. Almost EVERY web app now a days (ESPECIALLY user-generated-content apps) have trust measures implemented. Such examples are the feedback ratings on eBay, the ratings on forums, and while not exactly a trust thing but similar in functionality the positive and negative diggs that we all use. - Grimdotdotdot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, that's not fair. I'd expect to pay far more for information about your left foot than for another crap record from some people who haven't got anything right since 'Dookie'.
- darlyn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1What the...
- bincoder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0That sounds like more work than worth.
Why can't I just decide right now to run my own isp? Other person gets bandwidth, I get money.
No credits, ratios or strange software involved. And what is to be done for those who cannot run any server of any type in any way shape or form, as they agreed to on their isp EULA, which is the Vast majority of peeps with internet.
I guess they are to suffer with useless forms of money, like gold ingots, real estate, and the dollar. - catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Nothing is free. Internet access will always require man-power and energy.
- chrismgtis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The ***** working at these jobs should simply say "No, this is *****", just like those on a sub manning a nuclear strike.
- mthoringen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1As pointed out, there is already a price on bandwidth; a free market for it has some very promising characteristics:
1) This shifts power from ISPs to end users. In effect, everyone becomes an ISP.
2) Pricing gets more connected to usage. Right now, flat rate pricing models mean that light users subsidize heavy users.
3) Because of point 2, existing resources will get used more efficiently.
4) Because of point 2, the barriers to potential new light users (e.g., low-income, people in developing nations) will drop.
5) If people want more bandwidth, a free market can respond to this a lot better than entrenched corporations and governments.
I'm disappointed that I should have to explain obvious benefits of a free market for bandwidth. When I read the article, I immediately saw this as a potential huge boost to worldwide Internet use, much like Wikipedia has been for information. I was surprised by the negative Digg comments. - SpykerSpeed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The ultimate goal should just be decentralization of information - the end of servers. I agree that the ISP's are ruthless with their profit margins, but I think we're witnessing the beginning of the end of those types of portals with Google's acquisition of a portion of the wireless spectrum.
- LYMrandy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0wonderful...another absolutely wonderful internet idea with rock solid economic foundations...I'm sure somewhere in the scheme will be lots of clicking on ads and not buying anything...
- lakmar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0There are two major problems.. Some of you are looking at only the money angle.. You need to be looking at the control aspects as well.. We may have bandwidth mafia cropping up too.
But since the US only believes in capitalist approach, all US based research will have that angle. Within a paragraph of each other, we have two contradicting statements...
A: More broadly, this paradigm empowers individuals or groups of users to run their own “marketplace” for any computer resource or service.
B: The researchers envision an e-commerce model that connects users to a single global market, without any controlling company, network, or bank.
What do we understand?.... Read my take at http://mareddy.com/lakblog/2007/08/31/researchers-aim-to-make-internet-bandwidth-a-global-currency.html - MageLordy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0im totally confused after reading the article. can someone explain?
from what i understand, the more you upload, the more you can download.
so...what makes this different than a private bittorrent tracker? - karipatila, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Someone said that computer science is the worst thing that has happened to either computers or science. I think this applies to the computer scientists as well.
- lakmar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Yup. No one seems to be looking at the mafia angle yet? Or shall we call it organized business?
- benlat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0its so typical of someone to try and capitalize on what we know to be free and neutral, and turn it into a monetized and horrible system restricting users and upsetting the masses. net neutrality is going to be quite an issue in the coming years I think.
- krnldmp, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Horse *****.
- sint4x, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2How can you use bandwidth for currency? How can you account for more valuable data? For example, if I write an article on my left foot and it ends up the same size as Green Day's new CD, its not fair that it would be the same price?
If you send the same file compressed and uncompressed the uncompressed version will be cheaper? - synctext, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Not really I think, because by simply opening up your upload bandwidth you can earn this "virtual bandwidth currency".
Seems like a nice method to do sharing ratio enforcement... - j3utton, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5i hate people from harvard... so gay
- elhunt, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1seems like you missed the point of the argument here.
- jazzcommander, on 10/10/2007, -11/+0We don't need to have 50Mbps, 3 Mbps is more than sufficient for file sharing and even for instant video-on-demand. If it were possible to use the available resources more efficiently than previous BitTorrent clients are doing it (as proposed in the Harvard article) then that would already be perfect. Introducing a "bandwidth currency" is one interesting way of doing.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is