In the 1960’s the world seemed to be ready for the internet. The idea of a universal network which utilized packet switching, existed in Plato’s pure form as multiple independent parties tapped into it. It was the trigger on a bomb. The discovery was embraced and the concept of the internet, which was at that time called the ARPANET, exploded into the long ready modern world. At first the ARPANET was merely intended for researchers and not long after for the department of defense. It was this lucky few who first got to enjoy the perks of e-mail, who first discovered TCP/IP protocol; however, through an abundance of antagonizing acronyms, the internet made its way into the hearts and homes of the populous. The article specifically talks about how the first documents to be made available on the internet were about the internet itself in the form of protocols and such. It also gave a detailed account of the evolution of organizations involved in the internets creation such as DARPA, IAB, and IETF. It also highlighted the success of the integration of the internet and the TCP/IP protocol with vendors and software. I may have missed a few points and certainly very many details, but I would like to press on to the interesting topic of Quality of Service (QoS). QOS is a concept applying to multiple fields (not just the internet) that gives priority to some things more important/necessary than others. With the internet, voice communications or other live communications might be deemed more important than large file downloads, and thus the network prioritizes them. The author of this article bases the justification of his opinion on an analogy to emergency road use, makes many assumptions, doesn’t cite any sources, and all in all left me wondering how well informed this person was about the topic. All of the car analogies aside, I saw nothing to convince me not to trust QOS. I do not feel I have nearly enough information to elaborate on the topic; however, I do feel that QOS may possibly be successfully applied to internet service. For one thing, there doesn’t seem to be any doubt that it would improve the overall quality of service. I’d rather have my online video game connections take priority over file download, and thus reduce the dreaded lag. So what’s to lose? They say the effort is better applied to improving the speed of a connection. First of all, implementing QOS may very well take significantly less effort than improving network connectivity. Second of all, network connectivity will always be limited by the speed of light, and this will become an ever more imposing limit onto the speed of the connection as networks become faster. Third, if QOS is implemented correctly now, it may be carried over and built upon for more future efficiency. Writing protocol efficiently has lead to the greatest improvements in computer technology from what I know (which isn’t too much), but I’d be willing to say that QOS is very much worth looking into. We stand on the shoulders of giants. If Gauss had never simplified the physics that Newton proved two hundred years earlier with his Gaussian surface based on the divergence of an inverse square function, much of modern physics wouldn’t have happened. It’s best we simplify things now and keep on pushing.
The question of net neutrality has up until recently evaded the concern of the everyday internet junkie. A year or two ago, the topic was thrust into the forefront of debate as internet service providers threatened to charge companies extra for privileged internet service (in this case, allowing huge amounts of user traffic). Never before has the net been anything other than free and indiscriminate, and now change seems imminent. This touchy topic, like any other, is the result of having multiple perspectives for one idea, the future of the internet. Both perspectives are reasonable, thereby causing people to jump to conclusions before considering the other. In order to work out of this predicament, to find an unbiased opinion, and to come up with a viable solution, one must consider both sides of the arguments. To start, I will cover the defense of net neutrality. The net has always been a free-for-all. Its simplicity and capacity for innovation has allowed budding entrepreneurs to realize the American dream with limited resources. This has shaped the internet today. Music downloads, live gaming connections, online video stream rentals are all new and amazing options for using the internet, all of which will have the potential for price increases if the service providers tack on charges. In general, nobody wants to see the internet become a biased, unfair plane of communications. Who knows what will happen once it has begun. On the other hand of this argument, it seems that it is economically becoming more and more stressful on the service providers to keep increasing the speed and quality of connections without over charging users for the service. This is because of the huge bandwidth used by companies like netflix and itunes for online media transfer. A true capitalist would believe everything will work out based simply on how much of a market there is for something. In this case, there is a huge market for good internet, however, providing this becomes ridiculously expensive as companies send more and more information over the network. Somebody needs to pay for it, and the consumer more than likely is reluctant. Assuming that both of these viewpoints are correct, then the U.S. government should abandon net neutrality and replace it with strict guidelines as to how service providers may charge companies for use of the network (to prevent abuse). I must admit that I am skeptical regarding the latter of the two perspectives. Companies like itunes that use up large amounts of the network capacity send that information fairly evenly through the internets user base. In a way, all the users share this cost. I believe it may be possible, economically feasible that is, to simply distribute the expenses of the providers for the quality of the network to the consumer (at least for the time being). The problem with this is there is no financial deterrent for downloading twice as many songs this year as opposed to last year. If the cost is extended to companies like itunes then the price of music will go up and provide a more direct price for the increased use of the net. Because of this, I support the resolution I made at the beginning of the paragraph. It is not ideal, but it offers economic stability in the future.
The heart of the internet governance issue is simply other countries being eager to join in overseeing control that has for the last decade been the job of the United States. In 1998 the U.S. formed ICANN, which is responsible for the Domain Name Service. ICANN assigns country codes, maintains standards, and distributes domain names. Thus far, it has done a pretty good job, at least from the American perspective. It would only seem fair to distribute this power throughout the countries using the internet, say through the UN. As a matter of fact, the U.S. at a prior point in time also thought this way; however, standing before the eager eyes of the other countries, they got cold feet and withdrew their offer of control. As far as preserving the freedom of the internet goes, it is in our best interest to keep the privilege to ourselves. It seems that the U.S. would be uncontested at least for a while with this attitude. Fairness must, however, rule. A committee of representatives from all internet-using countries (not the UN) should rightly be in charge of ICANN. If this organization were ever to consider manipulating the free-reign of American internet, I am sure the U.S. and other progressive countries could be bad-ass and use persuasive measures to change the committee's opinion on the matter. Despite all of these ideal positions I hold in the above paragraph, I really have no problem with the U.S. being inconsiderate as they are simply because it makes the preservation of the internet a sure thing as opposed to a likely thing. Sooner or later, though, ICANN will have to shift control to an international board of some sort. If we wait too long it could pose problems for the smoothness of the transition, and therefore might end up worse for our beloved internet.
Since 1998 the DMCA has stirred up quite a bit of fuss concerning copyright violations, freedom of speech, digital media user rights, and so on. Copyright Acts have always been around, but it is the DMCA that has made circumvention of digital media protection illegal. Not only that, The DMCA has made it illegal to merely talk about or communicate in any way how to perform such a circumvention (talk about a violation of the freedom of speech). Researchers are not allowed to analyze such protection code and share their thoughts even for the good of the public. Software or format users cannot creatively use such things with ease due to such protection. On the other hand, it is necessary to financially support our media. Movies and video games are costing more and more to produce, so the money needs to come from somewhere or else the industry will dwindle. Music may not cost a lot to produce, but artist still require their pay. It only makes sense that we pay for media in some way shape or form. So it's difficult to resolve the situation. You get the idea. The truth of the matter is that Americans have not had the freedom of speech for a long time. It is illegal to say many things (fighting words, threats to public safety), and it is no surprise that this right will be limited any more. It is true that it is unfortunate to limit such a basic right, after all the idea of the constitution is that your rights end where someone else's begin. Making software loopholes in order to legally distribute or modify a certain type of media (say a font you created) is not violating anyone's right, but it allows for the potential of others to violate the rights of other people. Modifying software to allow circumvention of security measures is like giving someone a gun. It is no direct violations of someone else's rights for a child to have a gun, and moreover, it would seem intuitive that the child be allowed to wield a weapon as long as it is used in self defense, it would only be a violation of someone's natural rights if the child used it against someone; however, in today's world, kids can't carry guns to school. Its not safe and things would go haywire. There are many necessary evils that go with this. Even if you are well intentioned, you may not carry a gun in a shopping mall, but as John Stuart Mill says, the laws are merely our best general approximation as to what is morally acceptable. Thus, just like how a gun should not be distributed, carried, pointed, or shot in any desired manner, software that circumvents security features may not either as it would lead to copious amounts of illegal file sharing. I also would just like to say that the DMCA, although necessary and good at heart, needs fine tuning very badly. Itunes' has a format monopoly, and ignorant ipod listening 12-year-olds don't know any better than to perpetuate this monopoly. When I try to watch an hd-dvd legally in 1080p resolution, I may not use component video cables because the data stream is unencrypted. Instead I must spend fifty dollars on an HDMI or VGA cable to encrypt and view the data. That is even more bogus. There are many necessary evils with copyright protection, but action must be taken to prevent wrongdoings like these. Also, kudos to radiohead for offering a free album and making tons of money off of donations. In case you don't know, radiohead released their latest album for free and averaged 8$ a pop through donations. They probably quadrupled their earnings by doing so and at the same time gave the whole DMCA/ copyright issue a kick in the arse.
Peer to peer file sharing has had a dominating impact on the music industry over the last decade and an ever-increasing effect on that of video, software, and other media. Terms like Napster, Kazaa, Limewire, and Bittorrent are terms common to all, thus I will refrain from laboring through the last decade's history with these applications and rather speak of the lesser known legal and social impacts resulting from P2P file sharing, and especially my opinion on the matter. P2P applications are used to share any type of file between two or now often more users. The vast majority of these files tend to be in the form of copyrighted media. Anyone using the application who uploads such media to other individuals has reproduced and distributed it and is therefore guilty of copyright infringement. There are many interpretations, exceptions, and requirements of infringement laws, and much of the legality of the file sharing application is debatable, for the most part the blame is passed on to the individual users. One of the more interesting lines of argument from the managers of the application is appealing to the Sony Betamax hearing from 25 years prior. P2P software companies claim that they are out of the line of blame because they can demonstrate legal use of their application. The application of this argument to digital media has yet to be set in stone by the courts. Where P2P stands now, and has stood since the Napster trial, is a stride ahead of the law. Every time a new suit is filed, a new application is released more cleverly designed to place its creators out of harms way and to give courts and media rights organizations more to chew on as users continue to download media. My opinion on this matter is simple. People are starting to take for granted their music, and pretty soon all of their media. Music and media in general is a privilege given to us by an artist, and people simply need to get jobs and pay for it. Those who are not willing need to live their lives in the absence of the sweet sound of music. File sharing like this is no doubt illegal and in violation of copyrights. It ought to be stopped immediately, not debated.
Most internet users are familiar with spyware, what it is, what it does, and how one acquires it. You download something, unknowingly agree to an attached applications installation, and there you have it, spyware! It does things that annoying, inconvenient, nasty, or terrible. Normally pop-up advertisements or personal data logging is the end of it. I suppose the real threat of spyware lies in the other more rare symptoms like key logging and such. In my personal opinion, I believe that spyware makes applications economically feasible to be free. If the government were to introduce stringent legislation regulating and prosecuting spyware, then much of the innovation involving free software would have lost incentive. It is funny because this is the very thing many net neutrality openists are all up in arms about. Its best we keep software as unregulated as possible. That means, yes spyware can be allowed to continue, and yes, internet browsers and antispyware filters may continue to thrive at the benefit of those smart enough to utilize them. Such advances in software can minimize or eliminate malware and keep adware in check. On to phishing. Phising is a form of internet fraud in which naughty people attempt to fool people into providing them with personal information leading to identity theft. This is usually done with e-mail. Now with this problem, unlike spyware, I believe the worst is yet to come. As the benefits and profits of phishing are realized more clearly, phishers will dedicate more time and energy into more elaborate schemes designed to fool all but the most wary of network users. As of right now few people are very well educated in how phishing works and rely more so on street smart in staying out of a long lost uncles business. The worst will be over only when the population of internet users know to look at the actual address of links before providing personal information. In general, it must be admitted that these two topics are not of as much concern to the technologically experienced as some other hot internet issues like net neutrality, p2p file sharing, and QoS, and thus the topic doesn't see as much light in the said communities.
The past has shown that the internet, its applications, and its functions have evolved with seemingly unpredictable innovations fueled by social needs. This trend will undoubtedly continue, and I will give my predictions regarding that in a bit, but I will first spend some time going over what is likely to occur in the future of the all-powerful internet that hasn't in the past. The biggest issue is economics, and the path that this factor will take is vitally dependent on the outcome of the recent net neutrality debate. The topic of net neutrality, despite the many persuasive advertisements preaching social threats of a regulated vs. unregulated internet, is only reasonably considered in terms of economics. The past has proven that network providers will do what is economically in their best interest, whether its good or bad for society. Once the government is done analyzing he economic incentives of this problem and the issue settles down, with or without network neutrality legislations, the network providers will set into motion in retrieving money from their huge investment. After experimentation, they will embark on whatever is economically to their benefit. With only large corporations controlling the networks and ISP's, the internet and its applications and services will have become a slave to economic forces. It is already set in motion and our efforts can only minimally impact what will happen as far as this goes. Now as for technology, I would have to agree with the common opinion that ordinary every day affairs will become more dependent on the internet and more interrelated. If you haven't read about Microsoft Surface, id recommend checking it out. I haven't heard anything about it in a while, so maybe they gave up on it, but it's a perfect example of how a task as ordinary as ordering a drink at a restaurant will be tied into the network. Smaller devices will be given free reign over many fields. People will continue the trend of socializing over the internet with less direct interaction (a bad thing) and there won't be much anyone can do about it. Also, physical media like cd's, dvd's, and computer software will phase out nearly completely. Shopping centers (particularly small specialty stores) will experience less in-store business at the hands of the greatly diversified options with internet shopping. Overall, I'd have to say that in the future we will look back at today as a time of simplicity, as if it were a desireable thing at the hands of the future.