The Internet: "Too Big to Fail"?

[23skidoo]

That term "Too Big To Fail" is being tossed around these days in much the same way that "Unsinkable" was originally used to describe the Titanic. And of course we've seen that, in the business world, nothing is really "too big to fail".

But what about the Internet?

I ask because I just read an article on the fear and loathing over the SOPA act and other anti-piracy legislation, and some of the more extreme opposition to it say it will destroy the Internet, and that Hollywood in particular "wants the Internet to die" (direct quote).

I have to admit the bloom came off the rose for the Internet a long time ago for me. And while it's great for doing stuff like, well, this BBS and sending e-mails and finding out when the next episode of Doctor Who is going to air, it really - in my opinion, at least - has never lived up to its potential. And as one who is upset almost to the point of tears as I see our cultural heritage endangered by the move from permanent physical media to digital, part of me would love dearly to see the Internet just go away so I can keep enjoying my bookstores and CD and DVD shops instead of expecting any day to find my favorite shops closed (an event that happens with increasing frequency - I'm going to have to start getting interested in fashion because soon those will be the only brick-and-mortar stores left to visit).

Yet then I sit and think of all the things my job relies on that are Net-based. E-mail is #1 - I work from home and as such it's the only way I can, in a timely fashion, get my writing and other work to those who pay me. And I need it for accessing research materials that are no longer (or have never been) available in physical form. I don't even need to list more examples - those two are the deal-breakers were the Internet to ever just end. On the one hand, my line of work (professional journalist and editor) will be safe instead of being threatened by untrained amateurs taking over. On the other hand, I'd be royally screwed and unable to keep up the volume of work necessary to remain self-employed.

So here's my question - we hear people say that SOPA will "destroy the Internet" and we hear of people voluntarily removing themselves from aspects of the Net community. But, realistically speaking, are we at the point where it is simply physically impossible now for the Internet to, as it were, ever die? Or has it reached the point where it's on par with water, sewer, and power - they are so much part of our society that they simply must keep going?

Alex

 

[ALF]

I don't even know if I like the present day internet or not. Maybe it has failed.
Luckily, we can always build another one, a better one.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

The Internet is a genie you can't put back in the bottle. You have to consider the different parts of the modern Internet that make it work:

* IP address allocation
* Backbone providers
* Domain name system
* Hosting companies/datacenters
* Internet access providers (ISPs)

With IPv6, address allocation is much less problematic--no shortage of addresses for anyone. We now have so much cable laid that individual backbone providers aren't as important as they used to be. There are usually multiple ways to route traffic from one point to another.

The domain name system, however, remains a single point of failure. Under the current setup, the US controls the root name servers for the most popular top-level domains (.com, .net, .org). Even if government authorities can't directly shut down a site, they can easily seize a domain name and make it difficult for anyone to access it. I think if a law like SOPA is passed, there will be more of a push for an alternative to DNS.

The problem with a truly distributed DNS is, of course, deciding what is authoritative in terms of who owns what domains. Who decides who the real owner of trekbbs.com is? Right now, the only reason the global DNS works is because there's consensus on what the root name servers are. If the US starts to fuck that up, it's hard telling what might happen. There might be a concerted effort to usurp Verisign's control of .com, etc. through a new consensus.

Aside from the domain name system, it's not at all difficult for the government to figure out who is hosting a particular site. Since IP addresses are allocated to specific organizations, and can often be traced to a rather narrow geographic location, demanding a hosting company take a particular site offline isn't too hard as a practical matter. SOPA would just make it easy to make such a demand with legal teeth to it, and consequences for noncompliance. But it doesn't provide for any accountability if the purported claimant is wrong.

ISPs already engage in some forms of traffic shaping/throttling, and some have even blocked specific sites. I think this is a bad precedent. Managing traffic for quality of service is one thing; blocking particular kinds of traffic because the company doesn't like it is another matter entirely. You pay for Internet access, not Web access or email access. Either you're paying to access the whole Internet or they're selling you a bill of goods.

Anyway, the bottom line is that even if the US totally fucks up our Internet, the rest of the world will work around it. The technology is well-documented and easily available. Anyone could set up their own publicly-accessible network if they were so inclined. I think the US will only hurt itself and its own economy by instituting more and more draconian laws trying to fight "piracy."

I'm not sure what the OP's rant about the decline of book/DVD stores has to do with anything, though. It really has no bearing on a discussion of the Internet. New technology comes that obsoletes older technology. That's the march of progress.

 

[Winterwind]

On the one hand, my line of work (professional journalist and editor) will be safe instead of being threatened by untrained amateurs taking over.

I find that view interesting considering traditional journalism is considered by many to be a dead career path now because of the internet and that everybody and their dog has a blog. So many print publications are in danger of closing up shop and many already have. And I find the standards for online journalism to be pretty low compared to the calibre of writing you'd find in the more reputable print magazines and newspapers.

 

[RoJoHen]

On the one hand, my line of work (professional journalist and editor) will be safe instead of being threatened by untrained amateurs taking over.

I find that view interesting considering traditional journalism is considered by many to be a dead career path now because of the internet and that everybody and their dog has a blog. So many print publications are in danger of closing up shop and many already have. And I find the standards for online journalism to be pretty low compared to the calibre of writing you'd find in the more reputable print magazines and newspapers.

Indeed. Journalism is by no means a field I would consider "safe."