Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Internet2 Turns 15. Has It Delivered?

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the scientists-call-it-erotic dept.

The Internet 120

stinkymountain writes "With nearly $100 million in new funding, Internet2, the faster, better Internet reserved for research and education, has embarked on an upgrade that will boost backbone capacity to a staggering 8.8Tbps and expand services to hundreds of thousands of libraries, schools and medical centers. Internet2 was created by 34 university research institutions in 1996, when the commercial and non-commercial branches of the Internet's evolutionary tree split off and went their separate ways. The mission of Internet2 was to provide reliable, dedicated bandwidth to support the ever-growing demands of the research and educational communities, and in doing so, to develop technologies that would advance the state of the 'commodity' Internet. Some say it has failed in that latter category."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yes! It has delivered! (3, Funny)

unassimilatible (225662) | more than 3 years ago | (#35781236)

I've found that surfing for pr0n on my school network is amazingly fast, er, throughputy, or whatever the adjective is.

A job well done, sir!

Re:Yes! It has delivered! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35781242)

This doesn't make sense, unless you are getting your pr0n directly from your friends at other schools.

Re:Yes! It has delivered! (2)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 3 years ago | (#35781306)

Isn't that the source of most pr0n anyway?

Re:Yes! It has delivered! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35781322)

This doesn't make sense, unless you are getting your pr0n directly from your friends at other schools.

Perhaps you missed the message of The Social Network.

Re:Yes! It has delivered! (2)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#35781524)

Amateur co-ed is the best kind anyway. So yes, that is where it comes from.

Re:Yes! It has delivered! (3, Funny)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#35781382)

ISP, in addition to Internet Service Provider, has come to mean Infinite Supply of Porn. I would call this a grand success!

Re:Yes! It has delivered! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35782754)

Indeed. No longer do I have to go into the woods to hunt for damp and torn 1970's pornographic magazines. I can get all the porn I will ever possibly need from the comfort of my commode.

Re:Yes! It has delivered! (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783506)

So, it's as fast to finish as you are?

IPv6 (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35781238)

Does Internet 2 come with IPv6, or is that extra?

Re:IPv6 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35781988)

IPv6 is supported on the I2 networks. Not all the GigaPoPs necessarily support it but most do.

Failed? (1)

agentgonzo (1026204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35781246)

"Some say it has failed in that latter category".
Some say that it succeeded in the category of mass-enabling of piracy at fantastical new speeds.

C*Net (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35781260)

In Canada we have CA*Net [canarie.ca] . Same idea, works very, very well.

No (4, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35781268)

[...] to develop technologies that would advance the state of the 'commodity' Internet. Some say it has failed in that latter category.

I'd say that's a problem caused by the ISPs not by this initiative.

Re:No (-1, Troll)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35781324)

I'd say that's a problem caused by the ISPs not by this initiative.

Rather than take on an initiative to improve the internet, they've built a walled garden where only elitists are allowed to connect. They have all the bandwidth in the world, but no connectivity to speak of.

Seriously... where would we be if the internet was done like this?

There would be no Slashdot or Facebook, for sure.

Re:No (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35781420)

The whole point of Internet 2 was to not waste bandwidth on crap like Slashdot or Facebook and reserve it for academic needs. It was never intended to replace or improve what the internet is now, but rather to recreate what the internet was originally envisioned as. I would say that it has failed in that regard to some extent though, because the unavoidable fact of the matter is if you give college students an assload of bandwidth, they're going to waste it on stupid crap.

Re:No (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#35781578)

Your stupid crap is another's priceless content, and vice versa.

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35784342)

Reminds me of the glory years when multiplayer PC games weren't occupied by the hordes of idiots because only 20-30+ year-olds in IT had access. Quake1 in its initial release was probably the last shooter to enjoy that bliss.

Re:No (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#35781464)

Technically, that is what the Internet looked like originally. Guess what? Home users still managed to connect to BBSes and Fidonet. Social networking still happened online, and so did news delivery and discussion.

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35781586)


We send huge datasets from various lab equipment across the country at (pretty much) gigabit speeds. Not university, but government research.

No need to compete with the torrents, facebookers, etc.

Signed,
An Elitest

Re:No (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#35781604)

My thoughts, too. I'm still working with less than a 1 MB connection - and I know lots of people who are still on dial-up because the telcos can't be bothered to go that "last mile". The walled garden does me no good, or millions of other Americans who live far from the cities and colleges.

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35781786)

...still on dial-up because the telcos can't be bothered to go that "last mile".

...still on dial-up because the telcos need to make a profit and can't on that "last mile". There, FTFY.

Re:No (1)

Bucc5062 (856482) | more than 3 years ago | (#35782234)

define "profit"? 5%, 10%, more? lets try this one more time so it does not seem so soft on the providers....

...still on dial-up because the telcos need to maximize profit and can't on that "last mile". There, FTFY.

Profit is good, greed is not.

Re:No (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35782526)

Exactly.

AT&T's wireless ads are a prime example. "We cover 97% of Americans" However that means AT&T thinks that 10 million people aren't worth having as customers.

Sadly Verizon isn't any better on the national scale. So many places where both of them drop to speeds barely able for phone calls only miles from the interstates.

Re:No (2)

schnell (163007) | more than 3 years ago | (#35782708)

10 million people aren't worth having as customers.

No, it means that the companies in question would lose money instead of making it by deploying those services to the low-population-density areas where those 10 million people live. Telcos do a ridiculous amount of data modeling, backed by years of results, to determine where they can make money by deploying infrastructure and where they can't. Some businesses require a certain customer density to recoup investment costs and this is one of them. It's not anything personal against the people who live in those areas, it's just economics.

While it's true that connectivity to remote areas is subsidized by taxpayers, remember that the Universal Service Fund in the US currently only pays for POTS connectivity, not broadband data. If we wanted the USF to subsidize 20 Mbps broadband everywhere, the bill would be passed by Congress onto users and we'd all be paying a lot more on our broadband service bills to subsidize that.

Re:No (0)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784742)

Well then can we have our $200 billion back with interest [newnetworks.com] that we paid the ISP for national broadband back in 96? No? Then STFU ISPs and get your asses to work! I propose we give them 90 days to pay back the money WITH INTEREST or we go eminent domain on their last mile infrastructure and open it up to competition!

You want a monopoly? We'll give you 10 years for fiber to the neighborhood, 15 for fiber to the home, and NO cherry picking! For each one we give you a monopoly on one unserved area must be added at the same speeds or you don't get ANY protection!

So lets cut the bullshit, we already paid for nationwide broadband and all we got for the money was a low res pic of Goatse and CEOs wiping their asses with OUR money. It is time to set them straight, give us what we paid for our we take back their public right of way and open competition up TO ALL like it was in the days of dial up.

meh (1)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 3 years ago | (#35782424)

They ISPs like would have simply turned this funding into profits while continuing to throttle individual connection speeds.

I mean seriously, what would out bandwidth look like without the throttling they put on the cable & DSL Modems?

Re:meh (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784406)

They ISPs like would have simply turned this funding into profits while continuing to throttle individual connection speeds.

Ever hear of attaching 'strings' to funding?

"Technologically feasible efforts must be undertaken to ensure the highest individual connection speed possible."

Conditions are in place 15 years from the date of funding; in case of breach, all funding is to be returned with a 200% penalty.

At the end of 15 years, provider has the option of repaying the funding, and ending the agreement.

"No end user metering based on a count of total bytes transferred."

"No throttling of end user connection speeds below throttling minimum."

"No terminating a user based on amount of usage, if bytes in a month transferred are less than twice the throttling minimum times the number of seconds in the month."

"No terminating a user based on amount of usage, except at the end of a billing period, where the entire month is utilized to calculate the usage."

No usage based billing or metering except if half the throttling limit is exceeded for at least 10% of the service billing hours in the month, and then, only based on the 90th percentile of rate of network traffic.

"Any usage based billing fees must be cancelled or credited if there is any outage of network service during the month. And monthly service rates must be prorated and refunded or credited based on the number of outage hours in the month divided by total number hours in the month times the monthly rate; rounding up to the nearest full hour -- so a 60 second outage is 1 outage hour."

"Throttling minimum starts at 20 megabits per second and increases by 50% every year."

Re:No (3, Interesting)

Entrope (68843) | more than 3 years ago | (#35781496)

That is a curious conjecture. I would think that Internet2's primary distinction from the commercial Internet is the speed of individual links. For most of Internet2's life -- in particular, the last three quarters of it -- commercial gear vendors have greatly increased link speeds, routing table capacity, capacity to handle routing changes and other "carrier grade" features. Vendors for edge routers have focused on distinguishing features like deep packet inspection. Do you allege that ISPs are at fault because they selected equipment, technology and approaches that were inferior to what Internet2 developed? If so, why?

Re:No (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#35781618)

Consumers... They just see the "up to 500gigabites!" and forget the backbone. It takes someone with a bit more clue to actually look at the backbone, and a lot more clue to pay for it. I have a 30meg Comcast line at my office and a 5 meg Quest dedicated fiber. Which one is faster? Which one is more expensive?

Re:No (1)

Entrope (68843) | more than 3 years ago | (#35782734)

What are you going on about? Internet2 is all about backbone(-like) technologies. Almost by definition it does not care about the very edge of the network (consumers) except to the extent that some of the edge nodes -- users of scientific computing -- have some really large data sets to move across the backbone. Internet2 is not trying to solve whatever problems you think distinguish those two network links (or solve "last mile" issues in general). If that focus on the backbone makes it fail to advance the "commodity" Internet, that makes it a problem with Internet2's mission, not with ISPs.

Re:No (1)

memyselfandeye (1849868) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783080)

To be honest, I do not really understand what the hell Internet 2 actually means, but I know I've got it at work here in Cleveland. All the components are certainly off the shelf switches and routers, at least in the lab I work at, so I'm not sure it's all that different than commercial equipment except for one simple fact - my "trace rout" is very few hops from origin to destination. I'm told, and believe this to be the case, that the whole point of Internet 2 is reduced latency and increased throughput. Whatever Internet2 is, It matters for me, and everyone else who likes metal that doesn't rust and such, when I need to manipulate an instrument located at Raleigh from 700 miles away while receiving very large data sets and images in real time.

Re:No (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784390)

What are you going on about?

The prior post asked a question, and i answerd it. I should have quoted...

Do you allege that ISPs are at fault because they selected equipment, technology and approaches that were inferior to what Internet2 developed? If so, why?

And my answer...

Consumers... They just see the "up to 500gigabites!" and forget the backbone.

Since there is no consumer push for sustained throughput at high speeds, they don't build it. The last mile is solved. It is the 10 miles between that and the backbone that is choked now.

Who else thought they were talking about Web 2.0 (2, Informative)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#35781310)

Who else thought they were talking about Web 2.0, was confused by the comments and then went back and read TFA?

Re:Who else thought they were talking about Web 2. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35781354)

Honest enough mistake, considering that nobody outside of a very select group has ever gotten to use it and likely never will.

Re:Who else thought they were talking about Web 2. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35781620)

Actually anyone who has ever attended, lived at, worked for, or visited a university that is a part of the Internet2 consortium has used it. I wouldn't call that a very select group, because we're talking millions of people per year...

Re:Who else thought they were talking about Web 2. (1)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35781528)

Yep, now I wish I hadn't wrote my comment. Oh well. Fuck it, TFA's usually filled with ads and there's usually far more insight and information in the comments. Otherwise I wouldn't include slashdot in my daily readings, I'd just subscribe to news feeds. Yes, digging through the slashdot comments is more stimulating to me than reading editorials by half-wits. I don't know what that means in general, but to me it means I need better reasons to RTFA most of the time when it comes to the subject of 'news'.

Re:Who else thought they were talking about Web 2. (1)

trentfoley (226635) | more than 3 years ago | (#35781628)

Apparently this guy [slashdot.org] who posted 14 minutes after you. With the exception noted that he did not go back and read TFA, and, apparently, the comments as well.

Re:Who else thought they were talking about Web 2. (1)

e70838 (976799) | more than 3 years ago | (#35782020)

Web 2.0 is a commercial buzzword, it has no place on a site for nerds.

Re:Who else thought they were talking about Web 2. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35782964)

Get a load of this guy.

Well it has managed to give us Beiber vs Slipknot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35781406)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kspPE9E1yGM

Re:Well it has managed to give us Beiber vs Slipkn (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 3 years ago | (#35782904)

Metal screaming actually grates on me more than pop autotune.

[I dig some clean-singing classic metal though.]

Ya it worked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35781470)

It presents an example that we can point to whenever commercial ISP's complain about torrents and netflix crippling their system. Internet2 can do it, why can't you?
Also, you know it's working when commercial ISP's try to make it illegal for anyone but corporate entities to own fiber. They feel threatened.

Yeah, thanks to wikis and open source (1, Offtopic)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35781476)

It definitely has, thanks to the revolution of the wiki. If it weren't for that, the internet would have jumped the shark. Wikis truly brought us Web 2.0 as far as users are concerned. It's a shining example of how the internet is truly interactive and collaborative, and it's one of the few methods that consistently upholds the basic principles of what the web should be. OSS has also proliferated and grown thanks to the internet, and has in turn enabled better services from a wider variety of non-commercial entities. The spirit behind phenomenons such as OSS has also permeated the web, for example we have creative commons content, massive public domain efforts. We also have a brilliant distribution methods that peers independent producers with massive commercial business. Hopefully the internet will continue to uphold equality, freedom, creativity, sharing, and collaboration.

Re:Yeah, thanks to wikis and open source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35781538)

What are you even on about? Are you in the wrong section? We're not talking at all about Web 2.0.

Re:Yeah, thanks to wikis and open source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35781542)

Yet I still can't find an easy-to-use wiki with a WYSIWYG interface so that Joe Public can use it.

Re:Yeah, thanks to wikis and open source (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35781626)

Fuck Joe Public. The markup language raises the bar to "slightly above average intelligence". This is not a bug, it's a feature.

Re:Yeah, thanks to wikis and open source (1)

inglorion_on_the_net (1965514) | more than 3 years ago | (#35782556)

Given the success of Wikipedia, it seems to me that Joe Public has no trouble at all using Wikis, WYSIWYG or no.

Re:Yeah, thanks to wikis and open source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35782924)

Given the success of Wikipedia, it seems to me that Joe Public has no trouble at all using Wikis, WYSIWYG or no.

It would seem like he still has one problem or two, after all the GP didn't even ask Wikipedia to learn that Internet2 != Web 2.0

a new era of open honest communication & comme (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35781516)

not yet. could happen. after the big flash, & associated disarmaments.

Absolutely (5, Interesting)

JambisJubilee (784493) | more than 3 years ago | (#35781592)

(Disclaimer: I work at a European university and have collaborations with a university in the US)

Internet2 is absolutely a godsend. In my work, it allows the sharing of large, expensive cluster computers (which can generate huge datasets). Wouldn't be possible without Internet2.

As for advancing the state of the 'commodity' Internet, meh. The infrastructure pays for itself in shared resources alone.

Re:Absolutely (1)

Asaf.Zamir (1053470) | more than 3 years ago | (#35781902)

Which European university? just curious

Re:Absolutely (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35782038)

Well since the majority of people on Slashdot do not seem to know what it is I would say that it is a smashing success.
I am sure that it is great to have a fast high speed network that connects research centers that is not filled with LOLCats, pron, and Youtube videos is worth it's weight in gold.

Yep (4, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35782106)

The I2 network has become one that is practical and useful, rather than pie-in-the-sky. Well part of that means building it on technology that you can actually deliver for a reasonable price. That does mean that it is not a latest, greatest, fastest at all costs network. IT is not composed of the biggest, baddest OC lines you can get with CRS-3 routers behind it.

However what it does do is give good bandwidth to universities that is dedicated. I2 doesn't do transit for regular Internet traffic, it is only for communicating with peer institutions. It is a big WAN, if you want to look at it like that. That means the bandwidth is much less used and more available. Thus you get nice, fast, transfers basically all of the time.

This also has the advantage of saving the university money on their normal Internet connection. More or less you just set up your routers so that I2 is preferred, and then all traffic that can use it does. Well that is traffic that doesn't have to use your most costly I1 link and thus money is saved.

Now something else to consider about the technology is that I2 has moved over to almost all Ethernet these days. The core is all 10GigE and many connections are gig or 10 gig. This is not as high bandwidth as some other technologies but has a big advantage in the latency department.

See when you are talking all Ethernet you can do layer-3 switching. That lets you hybridize a router and a switch. More or less you get the capabilities of a router, but with the low latencies of a switch. You find that is real, real common on large networks, like campuses. The campus I work on is 100% Ethernet internally, all but the edges layer-3.

Ok well if I2 is Ethernet, then you can have layer-3 switching going on there too. This can reduce your latency. You still have some if for no other reason than the speed of light, data doesn't move instantly over long distances, but you can lower it over other kinds of routing.

Combine that with generally less hops on I2 and you latencies can be much better than I1, which is really nice for a lot of things like various kinds of cloud computing.

I2 may not be the most amazing thing out there, suing the latest tech, but it does its job damn well. It lets universities exchange data quickly, and do so at less cost.

Re:Yep (1)

AJH16 (940784) | more than 3 years ago | (#35782932)

AFS on Athena is quite nice too.

Re:Absolutely (1)

virgnarus (1949790) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783532)

I concur. Our cancer research division doesn't have a cluster computer that can generate the sample data we have in some of our larger projects, so we would resort to using Internet2 to connect to Uni. of AZ's supercomputer cross country from our NC location. There's little to no caching involved: The throughput is only limited by the speed of the supercomputer (which can process several GBps in certain circumstances).

Depends on how you define 'Delivered' (5, Interesting)

mcnut (712202) | more than 3 years ago | (#35781594)

Has Internet2 provided a network for Research and Education for 15 years, continuing to grow capacity with the needs of its community? yes. Has Internet2 built a set of middleware and tools that it has open-sourced for this same community to enhance the state of research and education network operations? yes. Has Internet2 pushed the boundaries of what router vendors support, Having IPv6 when it was still considered an 'advanced service' by most network device providers, multicast, and providing a Telepresence VOIP bridge? yeah.. they've done that too. So, I suppose it depends on how you define 'Delivered.' Full disclosure: I work for an institution which is an Internet2 Member.

Re:Depends on how you define 'Delivered' (2)

tsm_sf (545316) | more than 3 years ago | (#35781706)

From TFA:

"The bottom line," Nolle says, "is Internet2 a science project? If it doesn't have any relevance to the issues of the [commercial] Internet as it is now, then what good is it really going to do? My view is that the success or failure of any publicly-funded project is whether it benefits the public, and I suspect that most everyone in the general population would say that if Internet2 isn't going to fix problems with the [commercial] Internet, it's not helping them."

I think that most everyone in the general population would think that Nolle is a dickhead, and that his attitude typifies the point of view that's pulling America down into technological irrelevance.

Re:Depends on how you define 'Delivered' (2)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35781880)

I think that most everyone in the general population would think that Nolle is right, and that his attitude typifies the point of view that's pulling America down into technological irrelevance.

FTFY. The US has been poisoned from the top down to only care about the next quarter. No wonder the long term sustainability of the business isn't there.

Re:Depends on how you define 'Delivered' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35782040)

Not wanting to invest in technology that 99% of the population is never going to use, and thus is irrelevant, is causing America to be pulled down into technological irrelevance? That... makes no sense.

Re:Depends on how you define 'Delivered' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35783106)

Actually his comment makes sense if you remember that in PR-speak "the public" means "big business". This is also apparent in the the etymology of "republican".

Re:Depends on how you define 'Delivered' (1)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784920)

I agree with him. However, that hinges on the definition of "whether it benefits the public," and I don't agree that the definition in this case is "if Internet2 [is] going to fix problems with the [commercial] Internet" (though I can also agree that that probably is what most people would think).

Re:Depends on how you define 'Delivered' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35784834)

*1

Until the masses over-run it again. (1)

Joe Snipe (224958) | more than 3 years ago | (#35781654)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that what internet(1) was all about?

Re:Until the masses over-run it again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35782044)

$ man internet
No manual entry for internet
$ apt-cache showpkg internet
N: Unable to locate package internet

Sorry, I've never heard of internet(1), and it doesn't seem to have a man page or a package in Debian. Can you tell me where I might find it?

How woud I know? (-1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 3 years ago | (#35781656)

I don't have access to it, being just a private citizen with an average-paying job, all I do is pay the taxes to support it. Not for me to use.

Re:How woud I know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35781848)

Unless, of course, you get the benefits of the science going there in 20 years, when you're in the brink of death and something that is being cooked up today with the help of the distributed clusters running in inet2 saves your worthless ass.

Re:How woud I know? (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784054)

How do you know my ass is worthless? You know nothing about me, nor do you even know how I feel about paying taxes towards Internet II.

All I do is point out that I pay taxes, and the long-haird, dope-smoking, maggot-infested liberals come out and chastise me for my narrow, intolerant, unenlightened attittude.

See? It sounds just as stupid coming from me as it does from you. Go get an account.

Re:How woud I know? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35782414)

stupid tea bagging idiot!!

don't you know that this is for the betterment of everyone. Sometimes the government has to fund these kinds of endeavors because it's not like you would on your own free will. You live in the same society as the rest of us so pay your dues.

Re:How woud I know? (1)

cobrausn (1915176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35782966)

stupid tea bagging idiot!!

Is it just me or is this a pretty typical left-wing kneejerk troll reaction whenever someone complains about taxes in any way, shape, or form, even if they just disagree with some particular use case? Had this complaint been voiced under the rule of Herr Bush, I doubt we would see this reaction.

Re:How woud I know? (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784040)

Hey, Asshat, I do pay my taxes. my making a point of that is the reason some others of your ilk are trying to offend me. And hey, are you as interested in funding spaceflight and military research as much as I am funding Internet development? Bet you are NOT.

Sheesh, read huh? Oh, and you ought to get an account too.

Re:How woud I know? (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784104)

1) If you knew how I felt about the Tea Party movement, you wouldn't waste the bits unless you just want a platform to vent your hyperbole.

2) Using the term 'tea bagging' is an intentional slur. You are diminished by it, except for your own insular group of the fellow-minded, which leaves you more isolated. Really, grow up and consider engaging in useful discourse. The insults remind me that this isn't about what is best for our country, it's about winning the battle and crushing the opposition. Short-sighted to go along with narrow-minded.

Re:How woud I know? (1)

hesiod (111176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785234)

Using the term 'tea bagging' is an intentional slur

It probably was in this case, but it's worth noting that "Tea Party" members originally called themselves "tea baggers" until they learned that the term had less savory connotations.

Re:How woud I know? (4, Insightful)

spauldo (118058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35782444)

You pay taxes for fighter jets as well, but no one is going to let you fly them.

Also particle accelerators, rockets, deep sea submersibles, aircraft carriers, police cars, and all kinds of other things. What's the point?

Re:How woud I know? (1)

cobrausn (1915176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35782930)

Last I checked, all of those had potential life/death consequences if used incorrectly (and correctly for some of them). Hooking up rickb928 to the Internet2 would not. Nothing wrong with feeling a little bit cheated there.

Re:How woud I know? (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783432)

Cheated? How so?

We allowed you on the Internet, and moved our stuff to Internet2. You can Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, and browse the webs. You can clog the tubes with bittorrent and netflix to your heart's (*cough* ISP's) content.

In return for allowing the public on the Internet, the government funded the Internet2 so we can have enough bandwidth to still perform work with room to grow.

If it wasn't for Internet2, we would have been forced to pulled our collective weight and kept the internet in the 1990's. You should be grateful you have access, and that research and collaborative work can still go on unimpeded.

It's not like you are still using dial-up and logging into BBS.

Re:How woud I know? (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784162)

"In return for allowing the public on the Internet"

Um, having paid for most of it, especially the DARPA work that made it all practical, I don;t feel the least bit of shame for taking advantage of some something I pay for still.

Yes, I pay for my Internet access, I pay for my servers and their access, I pay even for people who can't so they can go to the library and get access. I don't begrudge a dime of it. The Internet has changed everything, pretty much. Good deal.

But I don't know that I benefit much from Internet II, and it's instructive that so far no one has offered me any information on that, just a vague reference to some day when I'm sick, and of course, complaining that I'm complaining about taxes, which I'm not. They read that in where it wasn't.

Pus.

Re:How woud I know? (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784584)

You indirectly benefit from Internet2 by having unrestricted growth on the original Internet.

Re:How woud I know? (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785120)

Unrestricted growth? We pay for that. Internet II doesn't impact spending on infrastructure. It might impact design, but iron costs.

Re:How woud I know? (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784262)

Hey! If hooking me up to Internet II had the same consequences as the last time I was hooked up to a university-centric system, there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth, and ultimately the entire state of Arizona would be disconnected from the Internet until I was expunged and prevented from further annoying the professors and grad students/TAs.

That was fun. I'd do it again if it wasn't so disturbing to so many otherwise decent people, but the few cannot tolerate such behavior, and care not that their actions impacted so many. Hehe. Ask me some time, I might tell you about the glory days on NovaNET.

Re:How woud I know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35782968)

So I shouldn't be forced to pay for them.

Re:How woud I know? (1)

spauldo (118058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783580)

You're not.

You don't have to pay for any of those things. Find you a place up in Idaho where no one's been in fifty years, bring a copy of the $50 Underground House Book, and squat. If no one knows where you are, then they can't make you pay for stuff. Or you could be homeless - panhandlers don't (generally) pay taxes, and live in shelters or on the streets. Maybe even join a gang, squat in an abandoned building, and mug people for a living - you'd be paying sales tax, but at least sales tax generally doesn't go to any of the things I mentioned (maybe police cars, depending on your location).

Hell, it's even easier. Kill someone in a state with no death penalty. You won't have to pay taxes for the rest of your life.

You only have to pay for these things if you choose to be part of society.

You need to dumb it down more... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35783426)

He pays taxes for scientists' salaries, offices, labs, glassware, lab coats, pocket protectors, and Bic pens too. I suppose he should also be bent out of shape that he doesn't get to use any of those directly.

Re:You need to dumb it down more... (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784214)

At least I got GPS, Velcro, and some prescription meds out of those.

And I'm not complaining about paying for Internet II, just pointing out that it doesn't seem to impact me directly, and you STILL don't offer me any example of the beneifts. You could, but you don't. You just perpetuate the response that I must be a Luddite, right-winger, or daft to not embrace Internet II as a remarkable achievement and worthy of my admiration and support.

And you still don't seem to know if I do support it or not. Like you care.

I will wait.. (2)

fragfoo (2018548) | more than 3 years ago | (#35781730)

until it comes out of beta.

Cost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35781732)

250,000 /per year for 1Gbps = 250 /per year per Mbps ..... way cheaper than any for-profit ISP

Yes, no and I don't know. (3, Interesting)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 3 years ago | (#35781758)

I'd say that having an IP infrastructure solely for academic, research and non-commercial needs alone is an accomplishment and is a success.

I'd say that the lack of visible results by the common lay person, even technophiles, means that visibily the project has failed on some level. The fact that we haven't found a transition plan to IPv6 from the growing pains of I2 also means on some level, we're looking at some sort of failure(my personal hope of what we'd get from Internet2).

However, given that it's restricted access, the whole thing is largely up in the air and tech columnists and even technogeeks(Unless you're one of those academics who's pushing billions of records across the network to be processed through a giant cluster on the other side of the world) really can't comment on what I2 has achieved. Plus, what constitutes "success" is largely in the eye of the beholder. I doubt there will ever be a quantitative metric we could actually use to measure whether or not I2 is a success or not.

Despite that though, it's continued existence and growth, slow or not, does tell us that it wasn't a mistake, and it's not a failure, but it doesn't tell us whether or not it was a success, and if it is, by what measure.

Has It Delivered? (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 3 years ago | (#35781838)

No. I'm only in late on weekdays and I don't want to wait in all Saturday. Shopping on line can still be a pain. Meat space holds back the net every time.

Entertainment companies limit internet speeds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35781876)

It's a shame how entertainment companies force ISP to limit nternet speeds for the average user.

Commercial Entities on I2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35781992)

Commercial entities with interests in research/education/government can be on I2 also. The I2 traffic I see mostly consists of Microsoft updates.

Advancement of commercial internet. Not like that (2)

macpacheco (1764378) | more than 3 years ago | (#35781998)

What made the Internet more affordable today was (in order of importance):
1 - Drastic reduction in fiber equipment costs
2 - Availability of Gigabit and 10 Gig ethernet over long range fiber / DWDM
3 - L3 ethernet switches (switches that are routers)
4 - Improvements in Linux technology (specially ever faster CPUs and IO busses) to force Cisco(and the rest of the prime IP router suppliers) routers price down
5 - Availability of GEPON and other end user fiber solution

Ultra high speed internet isn't making its way to end users because most ISPs don't see financial returns in replacing copper cabling (twisted pair and coax) with fiber yet. Anywhere end users have fiber service, you will see users with 100Mbps+ speeds. That's a financial issue, not a technological issue. Places that need fiber the most (users far from the ADSL DSLAMs and Coax Optical Nodes) are the least likely to see their cabling replaced with fiber, due to longer fiber runs needed to reach them ($$$$).

Right here in third world country Brazil, in a 2nd tier city (1 million people metro area), I could purchase a 100Mbps down / 10Mbps up fiber broadband service. But it costs US$ 300/month. But this is Brazil, far, far from the world internet core. Obviously, I couldn't find such service in a smaller countryside city.

Monopolies slow the Internet (1)

witherstaff (713820) | more than 3 years ago | (#35782848)

I'd also point out that somewhere in the middle of your list, at least in the US, would be competition. When the 1996 telco reform act forced the monopoly phone companies to allow interconnects with startup local exchanges you saw a drastic drop in price. You also saw the forming of thousands of ISPs across the country reaching into areas that none of the big companies were serving. Also backbone service got cheaper with competition. I remember having MCI lines. When MCI merged with UUnet they had to sell off their backbone as part of the regulated deal to stop them from being a complete monopoly. Cable and Wireless ended up with my contract and I instantly saw better pricing.

Once Bush put Powell's kid in charge of the FCC they rolled back all the telco reform and we saw pretty stagnant growth, the death of independent ISPs, and prices that didn't fall compared to service. There's a reason the US is so far from other countries in Internet speed and reach, monopolies suck for consumers.

For more of a rant against legislated monopoly telco, they received hundreds of billions to run fiber across the country. They still haven't delivered and never will. Most everyone in the US should be on fiber by this point, it's already been paid for.

Re:Advancement of commercial internet. Not like th (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35783054)

In Sweden at least 100/100 can be had for $30/month (1000/100 for 1.5x that). This is in many mid-sized towns. The build out of fiber is to a large extent via mid-sized ISPs.

The cost of installing the fiber (up front, you own the fiber afterwards, no monthly costs for the fiber plant) is about $3000. After that it is about $30 for internet connectivity + maintenance of the fiber plant. Most of the time the company doing the build-out offer pre brokered loan deals for those who want to amortize the investment.

Re:Advancement of commercial internet. Not like th (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783498)

It's about $45/month (300 SEK, including tax) for my 100/100 connection here in Stockholm, although the fibre still belongs to B2. But there are no caps, no throttling, no filtering, and no restrictions on running servers or torrents; I get to control which ports I want to have open/closed; and although we don't yet have IPv6 support, I get 4 public IP addresses. It'll do.

Merit Network, not Internet2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35782678)

Didn't the $100M in funding go to Merit Network, not Internet2?

Obligatory Simpsons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35783280)

[Homer Simpson] The Internet2... Is that thing still around? [/Homer Simpson]

My Tubes! (1)

chucklebutte (921447) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783342)

Clogged up by shitty flash and java...

If you can read this... (3, Funny)

hoppo (254995) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783630)

...then Internet2 has delivered.

Bridge installed in 3...2...1 (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783644)

Enjoy the spam, suckaz.

Friend works at an I2 institution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35784456)

My friend works in the IT dept. at Portland State University and tells me wonderful stories of super high speed transfers and all kinds of awesome multicast TV shows along with collaboration w/ other Universities on high speed computing and new ways to deploy/share data and the management of these computer systems.

Also, torrents are screaming fast.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?