What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
46 Comments
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+31they should call it "skynet" or something cool like that.
- geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+22No, they don't want anything of the kind. They want to build a system that emulates users sending various kinds of data over the net, and collects statistics on how that data is delivered. Any significant deviation of those numbers would qualify a company for sanctions. The major difficulty is assuring your system's end nodes are well hidden from the network so they can't tell when someone's trying to do a measurement or when someone's actually trying to send data. Any user that would want to participate in enforcing net neutrality would simply install one of these "Net Neutrality Arbiter" services, let it send data across a global network and time the latency of the packets, and report back to some head honcho somewhere.
Think Tor, only with the goal being timing the network latency for various kinds of packets (multimedia, HTTP requests, various other protocols) and not anonymizing them.
We already have a similar system in place today that's used to detect viral/bot-net activity and the overall Internet's stability and latency, check out any site that's running so-called "storm watch" servers, http://isc.sans.org/ for example, but those centers are mostly based off router traffic and not end-user traffic. This could be an *extremely* powerful enforcement tool, but keeping up with the security demands would be daunting (not making all of your arbiters a giant bot-net would be the goal here), and this is something that definitely needs a regulatory body behind it to report to and not just a civil watchgroup. It'll be all great for us to use this tool and find latency, but getting around it would basically be a pain in the ass without someone in DC threatening to fine them per hour. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13except you know, creating it in the first place and stuff.
- MonkeyFarts, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Believe it or not, the word "arbiter" was around before Halo 2.
- NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Well thats an interesting idea... Although, is that even possible? o-O
- zanzzz, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Read your broadband service provider's terms of service. It basically says they can cut you off for any silly reason they want. Tell me again Net Neutrality is FUD when there is little competition and you are forced to put up with the tripe these oligarchs dream up.
- derekjgo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Anyone notice most of the barred comments on this thread are anti-government comments.
- Roberib, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6All that is asked is for network operators to function like the phone system.
ie. Don't listen in without a warrant. Just transmit the information and charge by quantity. - FredSpeaking, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Something tells me this guy would have made it with or without their help
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.C.R._Licklider - EntangledPhysx, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5We've sent rovers to Mars. So I think this is possible ;)
- ronaldst, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6lol
The people who are digging down comments against Net Neutrality have no idea what's in store for them once they give up their liberty to their government. They will only put themselves more and more into a greater mess than it's already is... - manicallday, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think that the benefit is that this technology can help me make better decisions as a consumer. I think that there will be a market for Neutral Net.
- judsond, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't see why the government should do this, but a distributed client a few people could run and report to some trusted non governmental source seems like it wouldn't be too hard. Just a random ping-bot that used different ports, sizes etc with each other. People would probably use it just to see if they were being throttled.
- Scheissen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What the *****? You need to look into Net Neutrality. The ISPs want to charge websites that use the most bandwidth more money. That seems perfectly reasonable. And when they do that, they can lower there prices so more Americans can get high-speed internet access.
- Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Then you need governments to stop handling monopolies to your broadband service providers. Net neutrality is hoping the monopolies will play nice, when what you actually need is more competition.
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Nope...only the government has the power of law enforcement. Anything else would be totally pointless and not what the big government types want anyway.
- Scheissen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Then boycott that company. God you people make the simple decisions so freaking complicated.
- logandurand, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4The Internet is not a "thing", it is an agreement - an agreement that computers will all speak a common language. What we call "the internet" is simply a bunch of computers talking together - no one created "the internet" because it is nothing more than a language.
- Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think that's the idea behind Freenet. Look it up
- JoshuaGross, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Everyone's talking about the government. Wouldn't it be more effective for some non-profit group, or open source group, or whatever.... to release a software package, run some central server, and track various networks by having the software communicate with the central server every now and then? Then they could just publish statistics, and if say, AT&T (perish the thought) was throttling certain traffic, give them some bad press?
- jeremycobert, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2the government does such a fine job at at managing everything else, so why not the internet...
- Wosat, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5I encourage you to look into it further. Network neutrality will reduce government control as well as corporate control while keeping prices low by keeping bandwidth a commodity and ensuring that you, the consumer, are in control of your own internet connection. The reason the large ISPs want to abolish network neutrality is so they can charge you more to buy intrusive equipment to inspect all your packets so they can charge you more! The Justice Department opposes network neutrality because they want to be able to hook into the ISP's snooping equipment. I understand where you are coming from, being a Libertarian myself, but you have got it totally backwards -- along with most of the political right. Of course, if the Dems write they legislation they're sure to screw it up, so I feel like I'm in between a rock and a hard place. I only wish there was some way to change more minds. Read this if you want to know more: http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/Deep-packe ...
- Scheissen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1^^^
RETARD - ronaldst, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3How much did the RIAA/MPAA pay you?
- bogoslav, on 04/15/2008, -0/+0One of these 'loud' innovations that never work properly
- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2It's not enforcing net neutrality, it's detecting potential traffic prioritising. There is no recourse other than changing ISP's once it's detected. Since so few companies own so much infrastructure there's really no recourse at all.
- Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1In your dreams pal. We all know politicians like to reward their friends and punish their enemies.
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Dug down. What want more government in our lives!
- Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Ok name me one thing government has done correctly.
- TheMeatball, on 10/10/2007, -13/+12Oh god. Like we really need our "series of tubes" government appointed idiots managing the internet.
Why does the government have to be involved with the internet?! It has nothing to do with their job of governing a nation. - Error601, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Yea, and I've got a bridge to sell you too. Network or Brooklyn. Why are people so suckered into big government regulation and monitoring by sticking "neutrality" in the name?
- mrwhitethc, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1*****
- mrwhitethc, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Thumbs up for the funny
- SN3AKattack, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Why would the MPAA and RIAA back something they couldn't make money off of?
- kevinmotel, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4A Net Neutrality Arbiter? the covenant (AT&T, comcast, et al are doomed!)
- Wosat, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Why would the RIAA or the MPAA be against ISPs deploying equipment that would allow them to degrade or block most filesharing happening on their networks? Network neutrality would *prevent* that from happening by giving ISPs less control over how you use your internet connection. Your comment makes no sense. Please read up about it before asking any more stupid questions.
- SpykerSpeed, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6How about making the whole internet one massive torrent? That way websites become decentralized and governments and ISPs couldn't interfere.
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -15/+10Net Neutrality advocacy groups are mostly lunatics spewing FUD.
- lazyfisherman, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0Hmm... sounds crazy but you might be on to something there.
- Yarnage, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3Correct. There is no way to implement such a system. You're talking a huge cluster of servers to facilitate a system that will most likely be prone to latency and what's to stop someone from collecting the logs from such an application? You know it'll have logs otherwise how else could it tell if someone is abusing the net without something to compare?
- .Steven, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3IF(MESSAGE is ANTI-APPLE)
{
//delete
} - SilverBlade2k, on 10/10/2007, -14/+5I have a feeling that this group has backing from the MPAA and RIAA
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -20/+11So, they want to install a massive spy system. Who is getting the kick back for all those equipment sales they want to mandate?
- Squarsh, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2---
- mrdeathgod, on 10/10/2007, -14/+4Jesus, can't there be just one article out there where the author doesn't talk about 'levaraging' something?
- wwnexc, on 10/10/2007, -20/+8LOL.
LMFAO.
This is a joke.
This will never work and it will never be implemented.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is