From Information Super Traffic Jam: “A new assessment from Deloitte & Touche predicts that global traffic will exceed the Internet’s capacity as soon as this year. Why? The rapid growth in the number of global Internet users, combined with the rise of online video services and the lack of investment in new infrastructure. If Deloitte’s predictions are accurate, the traffic on many Internet backbones could slow to a crawl this year absent substantial new infrastructure investments and deployment.”
Now Hearing- Blind Faith – Had to Cry Today
- Blind Faith – Jam No. 3: "Change of Address Jam"
- Blind Faith – Jam No. 4: "Slow Jam No. 2"
- Dire Straits – Two Young Lovers Intro: The Carousel Waltz
- Dire Straits – Walk of Life
- Dire Straits – One World
- Stevie Wonder – I Believe (When I Fall in Love It Will Be Forever)
- Stevie Wonder – Boogie on Reggae Woman (1982 Musiquarium Version)
- Stevie Wonder – Higher Ground
- Herbie Hancock – Heartbeat
One Comment
The article linked to here is against the “Net Neutrality” agreements being proposed by Democratic interest-groups such as MoveOn.org. Because the source is Forbes.com, it should come as no surprise that the writer is in favor of allowing companies who choose to support the infrastructure of the Internet to create a multi-tiered system whereby data flowing from “premium content-providers” moves faster than data flowing from “regular content-providers” — as the writer makes clear, you can think of this as a fast lane and slow lane on the Internet, where only those providers who pay the necessary fees to the infrastructure companies will have access to the fast lane. The idea is movitated by the cost of building and improving the infrastructure of the Internet, which this writer suggests should be shared by content providers and infrastructure companies. In other words, software makers should share the cost of the developing the hardware, because without it, the software is useless.
Those in favor of Net Neutrality argue that this would create a kind of class system to the Internet, where only those people who can afford to be in the fast lane have de facto control of the information. Why would someone wait for a video off some dude’s blog to download when that person could go over to one of the providers who use the fast-lane and watch three or four videos before the one from the blog even has the chance to load? Without Net Neutrality agreements, the egalitarian nature of the Internet — that is, the very thing that makes the Internet so usefull and important — would be lost.
The writer concludes, “If network neutrality proponents have their way the Internet may be frozen in time, an information superhighway with Los Angeles-like traffic delays. The Internet doesn’t need to be saved–it needs to keep getting better.”
But what the writer doesn’t seem to understand is that “faster” is not “better” if we lose the essence of the Internet in order to gain speed. That’s what proponents of Net Neutrality are talking about when they say “save.” They’re talking about preventing a class system from becoming a reality in the virtual world too.