Why do they want to re-create the internet? Is it money?

[AZBlue]

I was just reading the article on msnbc.com about the "need" to scrap the internet and rebuild it. One line immediately jumped out at me:

"...researchers say the time has come to rethink the Internet's underlying architecture, a move that could mean replacing networking equipment and rewriting software on computers to better channel future traffic over the existing pipes. (emphasis mine)

I admit I'm no internet expert, so maybe there's a legitimate reason for the overhaul - if there is and someone on DU knows it, I'd love to hear it. But, nothing in this article gives any good reason for it - other than the obvious it will raise for the companies behind Clean Slate Initiative. It appears to me that every computer in the world, privately and corporately owned, would need to be updated, no?

Article here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18095186/

[annabanana]

1. They are scared to death of the promiscuous spread of information

and need to reassert control. Knowledge is still power, and the democratization of knowledge that the internet has enabled makes it harder to "rule the world".

[Imagevision]

18. Gonzo tried to subpeona Google to give up 10 million email addresses, they failed as

5-6 months later buried in the back of the New York Times Gonzo dropped his case against Google and the whole affair faded...

[tridim]

2. It'd be a nightmare, that much is guaranteed

Who gets to make the decision anyway? The US government? hahahahah. :rofl:

Edit: I'll bet anyone a million bucks that the PR reason will be "To save energy", which of course will be nothing more than a cover for the real reasons, spying on everyone and government control of the flow of information.

[AZBlue]

3. Maybe they'll create an internet czar next??!?

[tridim]

5. And I'm sure Ted Stevens will be at the top of the list

He knows all about them "Tubes".

[Deja Q]

4. Viruses, ID theft, centralized web-based apps, destroying client-side computing...

I don't give a shit anymore. If they had an ounce of compassion they'd drop a bomb here and now.

[kimmerspixelated]

21. Dang! Lighten up!

[SpiralHawk]

32. Tighten up

fer sure

[Ignacio Upton]

6. They want to centralize control over it

And make it into just another redundant version of cable or radio. All sorts of interests, from the NSA, to the RIAA, to Verizon, to Viacom, will be salivating over the prospect of "righting the wrongs" in destroying the current internet.

[tridim]

8. If that's how it goes down, and I think you're right..

The citizenry will revolt. At least I will.

Imagine ads on EVERYTHING. An ad before opening any internet app, check. An ad before watching or listening to any media, check. An ad before every email, check. An ad before logging on to your computer, check. All targeted and marketed directly to your hard coded processor ID.

[Deja Q]

12. CPU serial #s have been in place for years; only more recent models prevent

disabling of the serial #.

The way things are heading, you assume people will have PCs. At least you're an optimist.

[tridim]

17. You think they're going to take our PC's?

Maybe I'm missing a big point here, but how would that work? PC's are used for other things besides Internet access, like running corporate America and their stock exchange for instance.

[Greyhound]

7. While there are legitimate reasons to change the foundations of the

internet (IP address system is one limitation), the only reason these guys are getting any press is that the original design is a completely open architecture. It is a security nightmare but a boon to information exchange, and is the reason it was designed that way in the first place, as a flexible, instantly re-routable, communications network that is invulnerable to physical attack (from Russian nukes).

Now that it's beginning to realize its potential, the authoritarian money mongers (corporations) are trying to come up with some excuse to turn it into a fee-for-service controllable environment with them in control.

[AZBlue]

9. I see the need for more security.

But couldn't they create a secondary structure that would be used for that purpose?

I, like you, am very suspicious.

[Greyhound]

25. The security issues have already been addressed and the answer is easy,

strong encryption, but they don't like the idea that we would have a viable means to frustrate their access to our information, and that my friend, is the real reason they want to change it.

So be prepared, the necessity of stopping the "Evil Terrorists_®" will be decried from every TV station, newspaper, and reich-wing radio show, soon. I only wish I had some confidence that, this time, the sheep will not listen.

[NashVegas]

11. Aye. They Love to Paint the Image of the Wild Wild West for Voters

But seeing that it's upon them, it becomes a different matter.

[Democrats_win]

10. Reminds me of the mandate to change to digital TV: to pay off national debt.

The reasoning behind the TV change is that the government wanted to sell the airwaves that were freed up by the change. But the money was to be used to pay off the national debt. Instead it will pay for Bush's follies.

For the internet, just think of all the tax revenue that this change will generate. Everyone must buy a new computer from Wall Street crooks manufacturing computers in China. It won't really help Americans, but helping Americans is no longer government policy.

[Deja Q]

15. Wait, I looked at the map. America is just a different shape...

It's in the shape (and size) of Asia.

[GAspnes]

13. Good explanation

The effort is being driven by 'net researchers who feel the performance and security can be vastly improved.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/15/1830217&tid=95

"Stanford University researchers have launched an initiative called the Clean Slate Design for the Internet. The project aims to make the network more secure, have higher throughput, and support better applications, all by essentially rebuilding the Internet from scratch. From the article: 'Among McKeown's cohorts on the effort is electrical engineering Professor Bernd Girod, a pioneer of Internet multimedia delivery. Vendors such as Cisco, Deutsche Telekom and NEC are also involved. The researchers already have projects underway to support their effort: Flow-level models for the future Internet; clean slate approach to wireless spectrum usage; fast dynamic optical light paths for the Internet core; and a clean slate approach to enterprise network security (Ethane).'"

The reasons are neither nefarious nor suspicious, although there is a great deal of debate about if the transition could be accomplished. For now it's a theoretical exercise.

http://cleanslate.stanford.edu/">Clean Slate Design

[AZBlue]

16. And I do see the limitations and security concerns present with the internet today.

I would very much like to see these issues addressed. But do we really have to tear down what's there and completely replace it? I guess this is where my suspicious nature and my limited understanding of the internet come into play.

[Imagevision]

14. Presently the government doesn't control the internet, let's hope it stays that way.

[kimmerspixelated]

22. Here, here!

[BadgerKid]

31. But content providers still want to.

Some light reading for those private moments:

Protected Media Path
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_Media_Path

DRM — It's Not Really About Piracy
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/31/1725221

[gravity]

19. Some academics suggested doing it to make it more effecient and secure

They said the only way to truly do it is to recreate the internet and are exploring the possiblity. It probably is never going to get implemented so I wouldn't worry.

The internet is global, so you have to convince basically the whole world if you really want to switch over. If this idea ever gets implemented, the reasoning has to be transparent, or else you will just piss off everyone in the world and they won't use it.

[Captain Angry]

20. The protocols for transmitting data are antiquated.

The internet was developed decades ago for text transmittal when a storage was measured in bytes and kilobytes.

The methods used to transmit the video and phone data we see online these days have to be reformed into chunks that fit the existing transportation scheme. It's not efficient.

The internet was also designed for use by people at military and educational institutions where access was closely guarded. Therefore, no security protocols were enacted. As access was granted to a wider audience, security wasn't added along with it, and therefore we get the spam, botnets and other awful crap we have now.


So, if a new internet was built, the infrastructure would all have to change. The network adapter in your PC would have to be redesigned for the newer methods of transmitting data. But that can be done very inexpensively to most fairly recent computers.

I'm not saying this is a good idea, I'm just saying that there is a lot of ways that the internet *could* be improved.

Keep in mind that this is indeed a global network, and that it would take forever to migrate people. So, I think we're staying right where we are.

[AZBlue]

26. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Captain Angry]

29. Thanks. :-)

[SoCalDem]

23. because it grew up like a little unnoticed weed.

and has now overtaken the whole yard :)

they cannot control it, and in the beginning, they obviously did not understand it and now they are scared to death of it :)

[Demeter]

24. Compare A Locally Grown Summer Tomato to a Mid-Winter Import

They want to take the juice, flavor and vitamins out of our newly-found Freedom of the Press for everyone. And Charge an arm and a leg, too.

[gravity]

27. Instead of comparing apples and oranges,

it's tomatos and the Internet

[Frogger]

28. Don't know if

this is the reason, but some time ago I read that the internet was running out of IP addresses as more and more people and societies came on line. Maybe that's th ereason?

[AZBlue]

30. Interesting - hadn't heard that!

Welcome to DU!
:hi:

[Frogger]

35. Thanks

Glad to be here.

[Captain Angry]

33. That is kind of true.

The current addressing scheme is called IPv4. This allows for theoretically 4.3 billion addresses.

The replacement is called IPv6 and supports 340,282,366,920,938,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 addresses.

IPv6 hasn't been fully implemented yet, but will be someday, and can work with the existing physical equipment for the most part. It will be an ugly process to move, but all recent equipment has no problem with this new system.

[Frogger]

36. Thanks for

filling in some details. My memory is hazy about what I read.

[Triana]

34. CONTROL (N/T)