"Sep 10, 2004 (financialwire.net via COMTEX) -- (FinancialWire) Remember those "End of the World" signs? Well, Intel Corp. (NASDAQ: INTC) says it may be nearer than we think. Except the sign says "End of the World Wide Web."

It's a vision apparently shared by Cisco (NASDAQ: CSCO), Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ) and AT&T Corp. (NYSE: T), all of whom are working feverishly, either together or apart to save the World Wide Web, which Intel and others see as becoming so overloaded it will eventually break.

At Intel's technical conference, CTO Patrick Gelsinger said the Internet will begin to collapse as millions of new computer users from developing nations begin to sign on.

"We're running up on some architectural limitations," Gelsinger was quoted as saying.

Gelsinger's solution is to build a new network over the current Internet, that would monitor and direct traffic and better fight security threats or traffic surges.

It's PlanetLab, some 429 computer nodes in 181 sites around the world, is supported by 150 universities and corporate research labs, including Princeton, Cambridge, Hewlett-Packard and AT&T.

However, Cisco controls most of the routers and switchers comprising the current web, and it may have other ideas."

From http://www.forbes.com/execpicks/feeds/general/2004/09/10/generalcomtex_2004_09_10_ir_0000-5884-KEYWORD.Missing.html
===========SNIP===============
"Gelsinger's solution is to build a new network over the current Internet, that would monitor and direct traffic and better fight security threats or traffic surges."

Hmmm...."monitor and direct traffic" and "better fight security threats"...

Yeah, yeah...more monitoring and more fighting of "security threats"....yeah,
I see...and, do folks sharing files via P2P constitute a "security threat" ?

they'll build another network, and it'll become bogged down again by all the spam and ads and kiddie porn and crap that plagues the current network.
lets hope that doesnt happen with Internet2

Implement IPv6 instead.

This is an exerpt from CodeWarrior:
...and, do folks sharing files via P2P constitute a 'security threat'?

Expect most P2P filesharing to be verboten.
But that doesn't mean the end of it, anymore than Prohibition eliminated the consumption of ethyl alcohol.

Between the hackers, spam artists, trojans, spyware, netsearchs by hijackers, DoS attacks, ads, and port scans there is quite a load of internet traffic without considering anyone else using it.

Seems there are a lot of folks want to make money with the net. That is if they can just come up with some sort of scheme that will get us to fork over the money.

The RIAA has come up with one such scheme, heck just sue em. They can bilk potentially millions out of people that way.

If you ever run a popup blocker, a spam filter, an antivirus, an ip blocker, or a firewall, you know just what traffic is on the net. Heck you don't get to connect to a site without something trying to jump on your computer to find out what you do or to try to sell you something.

This is one of the rare sites. Don't seem many ads, there isn't a popup waiting in the background for when you leave, there isn't spyware waiting on you to log in or appear. About the only thing you see is some of the pictures might have a link to somewhere else that will trip something.

Got to be where it is a sort of war to surf the net and try and protect your privacy. If that was not enough, there are those that wish to cause you all sorts of grief. You almost have to be armored to go where you wish on the net and that isn't ever a guarentee.

No wonder it is so crowded in the electronic pipes.

Three words: Passive Optical Networking.

It is implemented in japan, supports symmetrical connections at thousands of times the rate of conventional copper and even cable infrastructure, and is approximately 8 times cheaper to maintain (after a tremendous initial investment laying fiber optics).

This "concern" is reminding me of those who said humanity would starve to death by 1985, then 1995, and then 2005....

Yeah, we could waste our time building a gargantuan new network, or we could just have severe (cruel and/or unusual?) punishments for spammers. That would be a good way to help cut traffic by 90%.

Oh, but my dear Sherminator...

You must remember that one good note (preferably a Ben Franklin) to our senators, no matter your country of origin, will get you the much asked for "loophole."

I don't see how the internet is overloading though. More servers are constantly being placed that at least ease off some of the excess right?

America is getting closer, and closer, and closer to becoming a police state under a dictatorship, lead by a banjo-picking redneck hick named George W. Bush, and voters don't give a shit, and think all of this is for the better good. Know what? Fuck them, ok? Fuck them hard. First signs of dictatorship, I'm moving to Canada.

Hmmm, doesn't this sound familiar? Like the Y2K "bug"?

JC - servers aren't the problem. Routers are. Routers can only handle a certain amount of traffic before they start to lag (the basis of Denial Of Service attack). I doubt that the problem will be that severe, just because higher-bandwidth (OC192, OC76 backbones can handle the extra traffic. As new OC768 backbones are added, they help siphon away traffic from routes that are lagging.

"Gelsinger's solution is to build a new network over the current Internet, that would monitor and direct traffic and better fight security threats or traffic surges."

They want to turn the Internet into another form of Tv with a "top down" model so that the people using it are not the ones also supplying the content. (It hurts their dollars.)

Temjin, don't you DARE suggest W can play that instrument. Banjo pickers are highly offended!

Yeah, I can imagine George W, coming along with his hat in his hand, looking for a leg up on his banjo picking career with DMusic.

This sounds familiar:
Create "dire" problem, beat drum hard, push for oppressive changes that lead to compromising rights of citizens.
It's worked before, especially since 9/11; why should these control-freaks be expected NOT to keep playing the same rotten record?

And when I say "they" and "them", I mean any and all of the globalism facilitators, their ilk and their dupes -- corporate OR governmental!

awwww man .. i better delete my over 500 albums in 320kb perfect audio with perfect ID3 Tags ...


ahhahahahaha .. its just funny now kids.

Well you have to know that if the internet did fold, the guys at the riaa would be dancing in the street big time....

Yeah, they'd do that until Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera and Jessica Simpson all came to them and said "Hey, no one anywhere is listening to our music anymore. What happened?"

Then they'd all commit ritual suicide. Granted it wouldn't be a bad thing, but the Internet would have to die as a result.

bull.
shit.

http://www.againsttcpa.com/

intel are a part of the Trusted Computing

wise up, this is not about improving the net, this is about locking out free and open systems to stop competition

Bl0ck,

depending on the codec you used to create those 320k files; you might be wasting even more hard drive space and gaining nothing in return. The codec makes the difference.

Food for thought:

"The more corrupt the state, the more muerous the laws." - Tacitus, Roman historian

I couldn't have said it any better myself when it comes to how business and government are trying to regulate the internet.

I mean numerous of course.

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."

Intel are part of Trusted Computing? Actually, they are the entire hardware side of trusted computing. Microsoft is the software. Everyone else does as they dictate.

The internet is reaching the limits of scalability, yes. Currently its running on inprovisations such as NAT. But that doesn't need anything like Intel is proposing, just IPv6.

No, this is just Intel seeing a chance to make a tidy profit. Even if they make it open and so lose the licensing money from propritary technology, a large-scale technology switch would still mean a lot of new hardware, all with Intel chips.

IPv6 must be implimented soon really. Its the initial stage thats taking so long. There is no incentive for networks to upgrade until a significent number of other networks have upgraded. Also, commercial users dont want to use IPv6 yet as it makes communication with IPv4 hosts difficult. Not impossible, just difficult.

hmmm...

With the thing microsoft is trying to do that I read about earlier and the new internet they are trying to wipe P2P out with one crushing blow arent they? Its all about control with these guys. I tinhk though, if there was a "new internet " create, the we could turn the old internet into and undeground thing and use it to utterly destroy the RIAA, and microsoft and all those evil corps.

Can you say manufactured crisis,
create a dire need so big brother can step in.

And, in typical collusion-style, they'll gleefully walk in step with a proven program:
1. Create dire crisis.
2. Beat drum hard for news media.
3. Get paid-for legislators to pass oppressive laws.
4. Citizens incrementally lose more liberties.

People outside our group who may still harbor a misguided notion that the government exists primarily as servants of citizens need to get pinched out their doleful dream.

Correction; I should have written:
People outside our group who may still harbor a misguided notion that the government exists primarily as servants of citizens need to get pinched out of their deceptive dream.

If the internet can't be regulated to suit their purposes, predictably they will still work to find a way to bring power to bear over file-sharing technology by having current 'uncontrolled' P2P software labelled as inducement to infringing.

Aren't these people making enough money already? What can you REALLY do with 86 billion dollars if you're only going to be alive for 100 years at the most? honestly?