Shared publicly  - 
 
"We will still need an Internet, once we are done putting the Entertainet in place."

Fantastic comment from Doug Humphrey over on +Dave Farber's IP mailing list: 

"You know what is happening here?
The Internet is being turned into The Entertainet.

"Nothing wrong with that per se, BUT after we get done chopping and channeling the Internet (versitile, duplex, distributed control, datagram, medium performance highly flexible general purpose network) into the Entertainet (dedicated, simplex, centralized control, semi-virtual circuit, high performance, custom purposed network) then we are going to build an Internet again.

"Because we will still need an Internet, once we are done putting the Entertainet in place."

(Reposted with permission from Doug Humphrey.)

Mailing list archive: http://bit.ly/KyCFjL
328
68
Trevor Stone's profile photoMark Baker's profile photoJordan Ballew's profile photoLloyd Almeida's profile photo
45 comments
 
And will I be able to get 1,873,900 movies on it?  :)
 
Which one of those forces me to form my own thoughts?  I'll take the other.
 
The Internet was around a long time before the Web, and it'll be around a long time after the Web. The Web is not the Internet, it just happens to be carried over it. That's not necessarily something that has to continue.
 
It implies that Entertainet and Internet is not the same. I'm unsure. Even old Internet was a kind of Entertainet - but not in a commercial sense. I remember the time it was used for Mud games mainly and Gopher was something like a better mailbox system. The commercial part of the internet is something many people use the internet for. So maybe having some intentionality about how and what we use in internet makes it more easy to deal with all it's bells and whistles. But this will not be possible for everyone.
 
I remember a time before the Internet...  Where all you needed was a PC and a phone line to participate in the information distribution system.  The fall of "the Internet" began when a Centralized Domain Name System was born...  boy was that dumb.
 
This assumes that the two are unable to co-exist. I don't buy that.

Bits and bytes aren't zero sum. We can make more of them.
 
I have to agree.  Now that Obama has proven that the Dems are as corporate as the Republicans, we will see less online freedom not more.  Eventually some sort of new Internet must emerge to preserve freedom of speech, freedom of electronic movement, and the free exchange of ideas.  It won't come from liberal campus protests, they only vote in corporate candidates.  It won't come from some wealthy conservative think-tank or rabble rousing Tea Party-like movement.  It must emerge in the dark.  Encrypted.  Independent.  Every evolving.  Every changing.  Every reacting to dictators outside the US and the corporate politicians (Obama, Bush, whatever) in the US who seek to silence the masses.  Something out of today's science fiction, like Daemon.  Hopefully without the sociopaths in super suits and evil sword wielding robot motorcycles.
 
+Mark Hopkins Can you make more of them?  Have you read your ISP's terms of use agreement?  Does it say you can host a server?  (Most don't).  That's the other real failure.  Distinguishing between clients and servers where all endpoints are actually peers in a web...
 
+Tim Landers If you don't know how to make more peer endpoints and don't think bits are in unlimited supply, you need to go back to school. It's never been easier and more affordable to expand the boundaries of the internet.
 
+Mark Hopkins Bits and Bytes are zero sum ;) Otherwise we talk about nothing (repeating our information). The co-existence of both "networks" that use the same infrastructure is proven. It's a bit of your own ability to find your way of usage of this "new" media. Well, things go bad you can say. But in general - only transfer rates of informations increase. The old internet for example was much slower but had a bit more fun at that time. Well, we can not really take into account what is "fun". Now people do not play "Mud" anymore if they first see the internet... Maybe they play "Angry Birds" or such.
 
+Mark Hopkins In my neighborhood all the ISPs have a stipulation that you will NOT run a server, and, our bandwith is capped.... Its the artificial limitations that stifle us, that was my point.

Besides, your view is fundamentally flawed.  In "school" I learned about the laws of thermodynamics, and you CAN NOT create something from nothing.  Even the Universe has a life span.  NOTHING is unlimited, not even bits.

It's more profitable to over sell and overprice the bits than to build out the infrastructure.  Economics and basic science both say you are wrong.

Now, I happen to be a HAM radio fanatic as well... so it doesn't bother me that much, because I can still send email via packet radio.   However, if all the ISPs in your area cut off your Internet because you ran a game server, then WTF will you do?
 
As I read the quote, the point is not "OMG!  They're commercializing the internet!"  Nor is it "the entertainment industry wants to come into our private clubhouse."

The point is "those bullies from the entertainment industry want to take over our clubhouse and they're going to have the cops arrest us if we don't play by whatever rules they choose to make".

Entertainment on the internet is perfectly fine, but the RIAA/MPAA/etc. are doing their damnedest to ensure that the internet turns into cable TV - just a bunch of consumers sitting at their screens, sucking down whatever the entertainment industry shovels their way without being able to produce or contribute anything which isn't owned by the entertainment industry.  If they succeed at creating laws which limit the internet and force it into that mold of the "entertaininet", then, yes, we'll need to create a new internet.  And the sad part is that, so far, they seem to be doing a pretty good job of getting just that kind of laws passed.
 
If an ISP with a regulated monopoly cut off a disproportionately large group of utility customers because of one game server I would be surprised. Heck, I'd be surprised if they found it. 

My local ISP recently enforced their port 25 block which inconvenienced me for a couple of days. I have a relationship with some people there due to some other service calls and was able to get it restored. It's not secret how little network management actually goes on with the local telcos and cable operators. It seems to me that they could/should be able to monitor every port in the head-end/central office for different kinds of traffic and respond accordingly. I have run port 80 and other services, including port 25/smtp, since 2000 through various ISPs (@home, comcast, quest/centurylink, speakeasy) without any issues until this recent hiccup. I don't think it's something they consciously do, it's just not in their way of thinking.

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence or indifference. 

If I was granting the monopoly rights that telcos and cable providers enjoy within a local service area, I would require the ISP to provide some tools to secure customer/end-user systems (port audits and penetration analysis) for their own protection and that of the local customers. This isn't as hard as it sounds: there aren't that many OS variants to deal with, most of which come with some firewall built-in, and I don't know that cable/DSL interfaces couldn't ship with a reasonably solid firewall/port forwarding component. Best of all possible solutions would be an open source solution, akin to the various Linksys routers. For all the complaining about media files clogging up the tubes, it seems the network managers could be more vigorous in blocking spam and botnets by better securing their net blocks.
 
It's like how people are predicting the demise of the PC. PC adoption may go down, but there are still going to be plenty of gamers and coders who want their computing power. Also, I'm not on +Joseph Milteer 's page.
 
+Alasdair Allan It's not about the Web, it's about control over DNS, and censorship tools in corporate hands. When NBC removes a movie from Youtube that they don't own, that's a sign that the Internet is turning into the Entertainet.
 
Most of what we're doing with the 'Entertainet' is talking to our friends, arranging parties via facebook or keeping in touch with distant relatives via google hangouts.

Meanwhile a lot of our entertainment is coming via the distributed systems such as bittorrent. 

The real distinction isn't entertainment vs communication; it's just that some services have been allowed to become centralised. Open source, open standards developers have simply failed to produce anything with the usability and convenience of Facebook and G+ Hangouts.

People have tried - as with Diaspora - but nobody has come close to succeeding.
 
+Peter Laseau Don't be absurd, you're posting on a service which is fundamentally no different to Facebook.
 
+paul beard: Former ISP network guy here.  I can attest that in most cases, tcp/25 filters are put in place due to spam issues overwhelming available support staff.  We never really cared about power users actually running SMTP/HTTP/FTP or any other services as long as it didn't generate complaints (spam or DMCA usually). :)
 
Fundamentally no different than Facebook? Maybe after FB finished incorporating all of G+'s most compelling features.
 
Where would I get a net-neutral Internet connection if I don't buy it from the 2 ISPs currently available to me locally, both of whom are content providers? I'd have to get it from a hosting company--which is fine--but expensive.  OTOH, there will always be a need for this kind of service, as long as there are non-entertainment uses for the Internet, so at least a net-neutral connection to the backbone on a machine I own is available for a fee.
 
With respect, it strikes me that the Internet will, in my lifetime, be hived off into an "acceptable" arena of action and public speech, and an unacceptable arena wherein which will lie piracy and dissent.
 
I feel that as the internet grows, the ratio of knowledge information to entertainment information grows smaller and smaller. But the plus side is the few information sources are growing much more powerful than they were in the past.
 
Worry not, the "gay porn" will only be accessible to dissenting subversives - ragheads, beardies, anarchists and so forth running their  own DNS servers...
 
Until business and government are removed the internet will always have a "virtual" glass ceiling.
 
Things evolve. Have an open mind. Let's see where this takes us
 
Is Good , but Science is very good on the Internet to Studing
 
Yes , But just , We go About Science well
 
Just to be clear, I will delete comments that are inappropriate or bring down the level of discussion. And no, that isn't ironic given the subject of this post.
 
The Internet has grown in just a few short years. I don't think it will ever cease to exist but evolve further to what WE want and need it to be. Think back just 25 years ago. You see! Very different. Look at social media too.....
 
Is there no way at all that we could use the available wired and wireless connections worldwide without having to go thru ISP's. That would be awesome. Systems linking directly to each other the way the net was originally designed to operate. There has to be a way. Where there is a will, there is a way. Who will rally the warriors? Who will sound the battle cry. Someone with the drive and the know how has to make a stand, and raise up an army to defend the freedom of the net.... Or as Mr O'Reilly says..... We'll have to build an internet again.
 
If we have nothing to hide, then being watched should not bother us. Right?
 
+ANTHONY BYRNE you might find it interesting to read Professor Daniel J. Solove's essay, "I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy"
 
+Theo Gooden It's an interesting idea, and people have attempted to do just this. I remember many years ago, when in Cambridge, that people were putting Pringles cans up on the roof to share their bandwidth with others. It's a nice idea but ultimately you end up have to go through a wired connection at some point as latency becomes an issue and bandwidth requirements are aggregated, not to mention that you want reliability, for which you invariably have to pay.

Now in terms of communicating with others in a "free" manner without restriction there are those that hop on top of the existing ISP infrastructure to do their own thing, as we saw so long ago with the original Napster, then Bittorrent, and of course now Tor. 

So we'll probably see a growth in the "grey" or "black" internet which bypasses the restrictions that the state will be emplacing reasonably soon. The question will be how the public views this "grey" internet usage and to what extent it is criminalised.

Interesting times ahead :)
Add a comment...