Time for a real Internet highway (?)

/* LET THE FLAMES BEGIN */

No fatalities, minor damage. Work and play for some Internet users was
interrupted or disrupted. A short inconvenience, but then normal life
resumed.

I wonder what the author would have said if major medical facilities would
have had casualties because of the Level3/Cogentco debacle. Say a surgeon
speaking via VoIP to another doctor about some brain surgery and the
patient flatlines. What about a daytrader about to click on a nice sized
trade... Oops.

Two questions remain: Who owns the Internet? Is competition the best or
only way to determine that ownership?

Personally I think competition the way it has been going will end up
shooting itself in the foot and forcing governments to take a second look
at intervention. Be it because of a natural catastrophe (FEMA article
concerning the Internet
http://news.com.com/U.S.+cybersecurity+due+for+FEMA-like+calamity/2100-7348_3-5891219.html)
or some other incident it will only be a matter of time before government
intervenes against companies not playing fair with each other.

An art gallery without walls, an archive without shelves, the planet's
largest collection of sound and music.

Is it me that sees the amusement with organizations crying foul against
music on the net then promoting it? Microsoft: "Sharing music is illegal
and wrong..." Microsoft commercial "NOW YOU CAN SHARE ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL OF
YOUR FAVORITE HITS!..."

That scope means that the Internet is far more important than mere
media. Daily, local newspapers are disappearing in America, and almost
nobody is noticing. If certain TV or radio programs were to disappear
for a day or a month, we'd all find substitutes. But take away the
Internet?

Many can do without it. All the net has done is created a couch potatoe
culture who no longer visit libraries, art galleries, laundromats for
dates instead opting for the easy way out. Can we all do without the
Internet absolutely but why would anyone want to. I cannot find one
instance of thinking whether or not it's detrimental to have the
Internet outside of utter convenience. Even using my doctor scenario it's
pretty much overhype. I can recall who knows how many ASP's, MSP's who
promised to take your entire company online right now! Many now somewhere
delisted or dumpster diving and/or selling spyware or something.

The Internet is a utility, without which our daily lives cannot be
productive or interesting. Governments, companies and institutions now
need it to function. So do you and I.

Nonsense.

We already have our highway system and our electricity. Time has come
for our broadband. It's a utility. We now need broadband to live, work,
recreate and even make a profit. Whether in Palo Alto, Calif., or
Cavalier, N.D., we need our broadband. Many local areas of America are
attacking the need for broadband ubiquity, but perhaps it's time for a
national program.

My prior sentiment to a degree. I think there should be an interstate
peering system. http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg12312.html

I wonder what the author would have said if major medical facilities would
have had casualties because of the Level3/Cogentco debacle. Say a surgeon
speaking via VoIP to another doctor about some brain surgery and the
patient flatlines. What about a daytrader about to click on a nice sized
trade... Oops.

  I think that mission-critical Internet doesn't exist. I have no objection
to creating it, but I do have an objection to replacing the best-effort
Internet with a mission-critical one. There are legitimate reasons to want a
best-effort service at the lowest possible cost. Because there isn't a
mission-critical Internet yet, it is a serious mistake to put mission
critical services such as the ones you speak of on the Internet.

  DS