What is Digg?55 Comments
- OBDriftwood, on 04/11/2008, -2/+58... or fewer billboards
- trghpy, on 04/11/2008, -0/+33We don't need more roads or traffic lights. We need less cops, traffic cameras, speed zones and those damn speed bumps.
We're so paranoid we're encrypting traffic we wouldn't normally encrypt cuz some music person might sue me.
We can't rely on single source load balanced services because they're not the ones who will support what we want so we go to globally distributed networks which causes 10 times more traffic across the global network than a single sourced globally distributed .. distribution source.
So our telcoms are pissed cuz we're causing all sorts of unneeded load and instead of putting up with this insane bandwidth growth they're pushing to put in more traffic signals and speed bumps in order to make this unwanted traffic go away.
So in the end, lets go back to blaming the RIAA, MPIAA, and all the other ***** who've put a kabosh to progress of better media distribution methods. - Winston84, on 04/11/2008, -0/+22What is worth talking about is this : How can it be a problem that the amount of traffic increases,
didn't the providers know how much traffic they could handle and how many people they have sold the
bandwidth to ? or are they actually selling more than they have, ie scamming the consumers ?
- LordSkywalker, on 04/11/2008, -1/+18Make the dump trucks bigger.
- smacksaw, on 04/11/2008, -0/+15While this is an interesting concept, I can't really support this article.
If South Korea or Japan can have internet access so fast that these "problems" like P2P are irrelevant, I don't think we need to resort to management. This analogy is like asking for more stop lights...on dirt roads. Hey, here's a novel concept: let's pave the roads and build some freeways to get capacity going AND THEN we'll see what sort of management (if any) we need.
This is a red herring. It almost is like shilling for Comcast. I don't feel sorry for them suffering with network management. Scale back the goddamned video on demand ***** that no one wants and give us the bandwidth we paid for. What sort of ***** business model is predicated on compromising the service we are asking for to give us a service we don't want?
Hello, Comcast? - BigManOnCampus, on 04/11/2008, -0/+14Wider roads, wider merge lanes, more addresses.
Traffic signals are not what you need, neither are more roads. - andritchie, on 04/11/2008, -0/+10Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads.
- tbone63, on 04/11/2008, -0/+9The networks get filled with useless items. My university's email server receives 500,000 emails a day, a good portion of which is spam. While this amount of data is small impact compared to most things items sent over the internet, it does contribute to congestion.
- Dantetheinferno, on 04/11/2008, -0/+8Possibly less drivers that don't have a ***** clue how to drive and wreck havoc on everyone else on the road.
- tbone63, on 04/11/2008, -1/+9So....***** the RIAA!!!!
- Ockniel, on 04/11/2008, -0/+8Corporate companies? Scamming people? Nahhh, thats silly talk.
- jdubdub, on 04/11/2008, -1/+6Hey, wait! Wouldn't this suggest that the Internet is a vital infrastructure rather than a private service, and would be better suited to consolidated/government management rather than a random mashing of private companies?
- inactive, on 04/11/2008, -0/+5We need bigger tubes
- RonBurgundy76, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3GTFO.
- daborg, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3"When they get online to check the latest YouTube video of some jackass getting his nuts crushed"
Video or it didn't happen. - Winston84, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3You don't seem to understand how the DNS system works .
There are 13 ROOT-SERVERS operated by the IANA and you do not use those for your DNS-queries .
There are other root-operators like http://european.ch.orsn.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System - xenoc1de, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2Similar to the recent grid article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/a ...
I agree with wider roads. - gibler, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2In New Zealand we have dirt roads, one way bridges and dangerous corners. The Internet access isn't much better...
- TekTrixter, on 04/11/2008, -1/+33 words for you: AD BLOCK PLUS
- randomtexan, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2I wouldn't call it 'scamming' exactly. They do oversell bandwidth, but under the assumption that not everyone will be on at the same time. Now that streaming video and other high bandwidth applications are popular, it becomes more of a problem. If all the companies customers got online at the same time to check their email, maybe not such a big deal. When they get online to check the latest YouTube video of some jackass getting his nuts crushed, that becomes a problem.
- CrimsonBlur, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2NO.
- broscup, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1I clicked on this story just to write that comment...If someone hadn't beaten me to it. Nice one.
- Le3f, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Theoretically, yes, that's a correct analogy; greater bandwidth / throughput is needed for increased traffic.
- latova, on 04/11/2008, -1/+2Rogers also throttles torrenting.
- synyster, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1slow! school ahead,
where should this signal be on internet(children website)? - jeremyduffy, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Less toll-booths
- BobScratchit, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Airbags, if you are running Vista that is.
- Cubedude04, on 04/11/2008, -1/+2I pay $100 a month for internet a month with a 25 GB cap and it sucks.
- lightningrod220, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1This is where a la carte offerings on their TV side could help - when the subscribers can choose, they're A) more likely to subscribe to cable in the first place if they don't have to pay for crap they don't want, and B) it will encourage the cable networks to improve those offerings to compete (so people won't have to run to the Internet to get good content anymore). If consumers can decide, from month-to-month, check out how cut-throat the TV business could be... sadly, it's good for the consumer, so it will never happen.
- Enron1985, on 04/11/2008, -1/+2The red light district is certainly big enough.
- damonic, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1I'm waiting in line for the internet bullet-train.
- randomtexan, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Do you REALLY want the government controlling this infrastructure? REALLY? I don't think you know what you're asking for. Unless you're being sarcastic. Even then, be quiet, they might hear you! Maybe a little kick in the ass from time to time by the government, but not full management.
- tonytopper, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Powerful Lobbyists + Monopoly + Misleading Marketing + Ignorant Journalists = We're all screwed
Our Government needs a complete code refactoring. - XZanatos, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1I say we need more of both. I am of the opinion that more internet, however we get it, is always a good thing.
- c0r3file, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Less idiots?
- inactive, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Just as all things... my breakfast, pay check, and ***** -to name a few.. bigger is better.
- crossmr, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Multicast needs to be used far more effectively with streaming video/audio/etc
The person originating the stream should never be sending out more than 1 packet - inactive, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Oh yay. Unreliable wireless. Great.
- Totov, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1wider roads
- Zephyrspecial, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1What about bigger packets? I mean, seriously, a packet is 1500 bytes, max - just over 1 kilobyte. When the internet was designed, that was a lot - over 1024 characters of text. Home computers had 16 kilobytes of RAM when they later came out, for example. Nowadays, 1kb is teensy. It may not amount to more than a few characters in a modern document format, with all the formatting info figured in.
Think about it like you were to send a jigsaw puzzle through the mail. Instead of sending it in a box, you put each individual piece in an envelope, address it, and send it. Rather than 1 box with a puzzle in it, you get 500 separate pieces.
Couldn't networking hardware be designed to send, say 50kb packets, for example? Or maybe even more? It seems like it would seriously reduce overhead to route a smaller amount of larger packets. It would require some testing to find the ideal size, and then completely new hardware; however, I see no reason it couldn't still use TCP/IP, with no other change than increasing the maximum packet size. - inactive, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1In the internet 'more roads' can create a wider virtual 'road'.
- spartanseraph, on 04/11/2008, -0/+0we need more tubes. you cant just dump something on it.
- TomK88, on 04/11/2008, -2/+2Data transfer caps need to stop. Rogers in Canada just instituted a cap, but there's no alternative available that I know of without a cap. :(
- ithasacarb, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1So what do you mean? Ads just pop up on your computer and block the screen?
- chandan333, on 04/11/2008, -1/+13 Billboards distracted me while driving(digging) through this story.
- johnmearns, on 04/11/2008, -0/+0Telecommuniciations is all about overselling. Its done on your pots line, its done on your cell phone, and its done on your internet service. Honestly if you don't realize you're not paying for dedicated bandwidth at $40 a month you're not being a very educated consumer. The conflict here seems to be the rate of overselling that is acceptable. To give you an idea of what dedicated bandwidth from a tier one ISP can cost me, the local ISP that resells to you, I might be paying $400-800 a month to get 1.5Mb/s. This works great to split among average users. I can buy a bunch of bandwidth and everyone can dip into a huge available bucket now and then. You couldn't afford the level of dedicated service from a tier one that you get as a burst-y service on a home use account. Obviously 1 user who tries to use 1.5Mb/s all the time on his $30 a month plan isn't even coming close to paying for what he is using. As consumers become more bandwidth hungry they're going to have to become willing to pay for improved infrastructure or accept some traffic shaping. I'd love to have all the bandwidth in the world to give to my customers, but bandwidth is actually expensive for the ISP.
So anyway the short of it is ISPs have always been about reselling and overselling bandwidth, its the only way to make broadband to the home affordable. If the usage model is changing then we're going to have see some major technological innovations or consumers are going to have to pay more to pay for the build out of more infrastructure. If its just a handful of people running torrents then they're probably just going to be treated as mooches taking far more than their fair share. - johnmearns, on 04/11/2008, -0/+0Its easy to look at some countries like that and think you're being screwed but wiring the US is a very different thing than wiring a very small country with a very high population density. The size and population density of the US make it much harder to pay for infrastructure upgrades.
- tp17, on 04/11/2008, -0/+0Not more tubes. Need more lightning bolts!!!
- treelovinhippie, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1Scrap the roads, put in some maglev bullet trains!
- tcardone05, on 04/11/2008, -3/+2More cleaners, cause the tubes get clogged.
-
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is