Comments on: Is the end (of the Net) nigh? http://www.p2pnet.net/story/11287 p2pnet.net - reader powered Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:11:09 -0300 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/11287/comment-page-1#comment-133511 Reader's Write Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:41:05 +0000 #comment-133511 I agree too and I'm not an expert either. Decentralization has always been the answer.It is what p2p is all about in the first place. However, it also means loss of control for those who are used to having it and they will fight it tooth and nail. I agree too and I’m not an expert either.

Decentralization has always been the answer.It is what p2p is all about in the first place. However, it also means loss of control for those who are used to having it and they will fight it tooth and nail.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/11287/comment-page-1#comment-133507 Reader's Write Sun, 11 Feb 2007 08:12:34 +0000 #comment-133507 What the doomsday theorists seem to forget is that Web creator Tim Berners-Lee warned that services such as streaming media and Flash would severely congest the Web by the end of the century. This was solved in two ways. One was the expansion of broadband to consumers over the original dial-up method of consumer access. The other was the creation of then-revolutionary content delivery networks such as Akamai. There is no reason that P2P can't become the Internet norm in a few years. However, the Internet will need to be severely decentralized. When I say "decentralized," I mean with respect to the current client-server method, where the server provides a majority of the bandwidth to its users. The decentralized method would almost be a "net nutrality" of bandwidth distribution. There's no question that the Internet and ISPs would have to severely be reorganized to support this idea that everyone connected would have the same distribution abilities, regardless if they are Google or someone accessing Google. This would mean that content providers would have much more limiting abilities than they do now because "bandwidth neutrality" would cause them to have less then they have now, but the new P2P-based Internet could make up for that by having the "server" upload the same bandwidth quantity that the "client" downloads back. This is probably how the Internet operated back in the pre-commercialization era. I would imagine that almost every governmental or educational entity connected to the early Internet had just as much sending power as they did receiving power (i.e., there were no "hosts" or "clients"), and that this model was drastically shifted during commercialization in the 1990s because of the established linear method of goods distribution. If this is the case, there's absolutely no reason, in theory, that total bandwidth can't be re-proportioned back to the consumers. Yes, this might cause the amount of total bandwidth available to everyone to shrink as more and more people connect, but I can imagine a semi-centralized method of setting up "super-supernodes" being set up to combat this on all levels. Of course, I am not a network traffic analysis expert nor do I have any true knowledge about how material is distributed through the Internet, and it is very possible that my ideology is flawed (perhaps greatly flawed). What the doomsday theorists seem to forget is that Web creator Tim Berners-Lee warned that services such as streaming media and Flash would severely congest the Web by the end of the century. This was solved in two ways. One was the expansion of broadband to consumers over the original dial-up method of consumer access. The other was the creation of then-revolutionary content delivery networks such as Akamai. There is no reason that P2P can’t become the Internet norm in a few years. However, the Internet will need to be severely decentralized. When I say “decentralized,” I mean with respect to the current client-server method, where the server provides a majority of the bandwidth to its users. The decentralized method would almost be a “net nutrality” of bandwidth distribution. There’s no question that the Internet and ISPs would have to severely be reorganized to support this idea that everyone connected would have the same distribution abilities, regardless if they are Google or someone accessing Google. This would mean that content providers would have much more limiting abilities than they do now because “bandwidth neutrality” would cause them to have less then they have now, but the new P2P-based Internet could make up for that by having the “server” upload the same bandwidth quantity that the “client” downloads back.

This is probably how the Internet operated back in the pre-commercialization era. I would imagine that almost every governmental or educational entity connected to the early Internet had just as much sending power as they did receiving power (i.e., there were no “hosts” or “clients”), and that this model was drastically shifted during commercialization in the 1990s because of the established linear method of goods distribution. If this is the case, there’s absolutely no reason, in theory, that total bandwidth can’t be re-proportioned back to the consumers. Yes, this might cause the amount of total bandwidth available to everyone to shrink as more and more people connect, but I can imagine a semi-centralized method of setting up “super-supernodes” being set up to combat this on all levels.

Of course, I am not a network traffic analysis expert nor do I have any true knowledge about how material is distributed through the Internet, and it is very possible that my ideology is flawed (perhaps greatly flawed).

]]>