franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Death of the Internet
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/th...
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/04/27/235805/int...
.
|
|
|
basstabone
Harmless
Posts: 24
Registered: 17-4-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Haha well those are some interesting articles but I am not too sure I agree with their statement. The internet has increased in size since the
beginning of it and yet it is growing faster and faster each year as technology increases. Of course people are turning to the internet for more and
more things everyday but it will adapt as it expands to accommodate for the growing size. Now-a-days there isn't too much you can't do on the
internet!
|
|
|
Saerynide
National Hazard
Posts: 954
Registered: 17-11-2003
Location: The Void
Member Is Offline
Mood: Ionic
|
|
The first author has no idea what he's talking about, as he cannot seem to differentiate the term "servers" from "PCs and laptops."
True that an increase in requests from clients can overload servers and cause data to be distributed at a slower rate, this has nothing to do with
"PCs and laptops" "[operating] at a much reduced speed". Perhaps the internet connection will be slower, but processor speed is determined by, well,
processor technology...
And plus, as demand for bandwidth increases, companies will upgrade their servers, protocols will improve, and telecoms will lay down more trunk
lines. No one is stupid enough to let themselves lose business because they cant keep up with demand.
"Microsoft reserves the right at all times to monitor communications on the Service and disclose any information Microsoft deems necessary to...
satisfy any applicable law, regulation or legal process"
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Those are not opinions but near term projections by those
who run things. Bandwidth is determined by the cable,
and that is at saturation now. The continued rise of video
transmission either as a static file download or streaming
media is the cause. The solution already a hot button issue
is to have tiered fee service. Already some ISP's limit the
allotment on how much use and bandwidth you can have.
.
|
|
|
chemrox
International Hazard
Posts: 2961
Registered: 18-1-2007
Location: UTM
Member Is Offline
Mood: LaGrangian
|
|
the development of mpg allowed compression of audio files by how much I don't know. Possibly similar compression algorithms could be developed for
the u tubeys. Personally I feel there should be an alternate web for the yo-face-ma-face and u-toobys where they pay for bandwidth. Like paying
extra for vanity plates for your toy cars. But it's really all about finding new ways to milk money off the net. When I started using the net I had
to know unix commands... now any idiot can logon from win doze. I've avoided all ma-face yo-mammas-face and most video clips.
"When you let the dumbasses vote you end up with populism followed by autocracy and getting back is a bitch." Plato (sort of)
|
|
|
not_important
International Hazard
Posts: 3873
Registered: 21-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
This story came out of the UK, which has been somewhat lagging in its deployment of fiber and high speed wired capacity. I can see them getting into
trouble in the next half decade, unless they decide to step up their fiber deployment. Perhaps some enterprising Continental type will run a
multi-fiber ring around Britain and tap off spokes to UK seaport cities.
Most of the service providers have backed off their proposed caps, in part because they sold "unlimited access" accounts to pointed out that
"unlimited access" did not include capping and the ISPs lawyers thought court cases just might agree with the customers. That the ISPs sought to
terminate an account instead of applying a surcharge on the excessive transfers was also a strike against the concept.
Another factor was that the caps really didn't limit peak usage, customers with accounts providing transfers rates in the higher end of the somewhat
anemic U.S. concept of high speed access could saturate the ISP's capacity periodically without exceeding the monthly cap on total amount of data.
Thus the cap would do nothing to prevent "server meltdown" if a high percentage of users decided to watch an on-line movie or event at the same time.
It is likely that ISPs in the US will try an alternative payment schedule based on total and peak bandwidth. However past mentioning of this has
resulting in questions of why the sliding scale slide upwards so quickly (one proposed plan would have bumped users of 56K modems into a more costly
class), and other questions as to why "high speed Internet access" in the US means transfer rates much below those in many other developed countries,
and why didn't some of those foreign providers not see a need to cap total monthly transfers (I think it has something to do with those countries not
speaking English as their primary language). These sort of questions tend to make ISPs squirm.
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
http://www.roguesci.org , now redirects to
http://cally.asmallorange.com/suspended.page
maybe it's just dying piece meal
.
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
And without a whimper, let alone a bang. . .
Not that I'm in mourning over RS, or anything!
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
