![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Abilene is not connected to "the first" Internet. Abilene is seperate, but this Wikipedia article (formerly) seemed to imply that it is actually connected to the so-called Internet1. Abilene is a private network backbone and does not connect to the "commercial" Internet. Qwest's webpage has a good FAQ about Internet2/Abilene. [1] Robotbeat 23:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
This is ridiculous, we don't have "straw polls" for content that violates wikipedia policy already stated.-- Jersey Devil 02:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Has it occurred to anyone that if Alex Jones is as off-base as he appears to be in this case, maybe it wouldn't hurt to email the guy and clue him in? I'm sure he'd withdraw his position, unless he's come across something that frames the argument differently, which us non-investigative journalists wouldn't have prior knowledge of. If the latter is the case, then that'd surely make a worthy addition to this article, for that matter.
@ 2006-04-04 14:07Z
14:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)I reverted the information added that suggests Internet2 is a computer network that is somehow separate from the Internet. This misconception is largely the result of all the recent reporting on the RIAA's lawsuits against students attending several Universities that participate in the Abilene Network. If you will notice, nearly all of the articles that reference Internet2 as a network have been written recently and are the sad result of poorly checked facts. The original text of this article is correct; see the About page on the Internet2 website for very clear confirmation of this. IPv6 and related technologies have been deployed on many backbones and major web service providers for a few years now, and it's a fallacy to call Abilene a 'separate Internet.' Abilene simply forms a major interconnected backbone, on which one can access other backbone members at very high speeds. Abilene members can be accessed from the Internet just like any other major backbone network (I access systems at Georgia Tech from my home all the time, as anecdotal evidence)
I believe the information regarding the "Internet2 controversy" is appropriate, but should be included on the Abilene page, not here. I will put a note on this page mentioning the mislabeling of Abilene as Internet2. -- uberpenguin 18:22, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
"What is Internet2?
Think of Internet2 as a higher-tech version of the regular Internet. Like "Internet1," Internet2 connects computers all across the country. But it uses newer, more experimental technology. That can make it less stable than Internet1 — but it's also about 100 times as fast under typical conditions.
Who gets to use it?
More than 200 universities and 60 companies belong to Internet2, as do a handful of organizations and government agencies. To join, members must contribute research toward "developing a better Internet," says Douglas Van Houweling, CEO of the non-profit group that runs Internet2. It is not open to the public.
Who pays for it?
Users pay fees to the non-profit that administers the network. A typical university would pay about $200,000 a year. Government agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, also provide some funding.
Is it connected to the regular Internet?
No, it's a separate network. Internet2 users can only contact other Internet2 users. That's why all the accused file-swappers are college students.
The original Internet works fine. Why is Internet2 needed?
In 1969, the University of California at Los Angeles and Stanford University set up a simple computer network that could send data back and forth between the two campuses. For more than 20 years, academics tinkered with this network and its successors. They used the networks to test computer technology and send research data.
In the early 1990s, commercial interest in one of the successor networks, now called the Internet, soared. Web pages popped up, and suddenly it became impractical to tinker with the network for research projects. Scientists wanted their own network again, and in 1996, created Internet2."
USA Today [2]
yep, youre right, to the others, go down to the source, not just any newspaper. 84.183.237.195 15:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
How many people here think that the opinion of Alex Jones on the Internet warrants mention in the article? (See [3] [4] [5])-- Jersey Devil 17:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
My point exactly, it is just that the user ( User:Striver) who put it up goes around putting up Alex Jones' opinions on many articles including this one claiming that not doing so violates NPOV (claiming that NPOV requires all views to be shown in an article) and is an "attack" on his point of view. It gets quite frustrating when certain users refuse to stop reverting articles to interject their POV claiming that I am the bad guy. This guy put an Rfc on me for this kind of thing.-- Jersey Devil 00:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Anyone intrested in you can take a look at this Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Articles for deletion. But im not here to talk about that.
Ill change the headline to "views". Alex is a notable jornalist with a notable site and has 2 millions of subscribers. You dont need to like his views to accept that NPOV demands that his views to be represented, no mater how much you hate them. -- Striver 14:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, his views are cirtical, so the headline is correct. However, i added a disblaimer.-- Striver 14:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The guy has no idea what he's talking about. His speculations are completely irrelevant to Internet2. -- Mmx1 18:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Wait a minute. It doesn't matter whether this guy (Alex Jones) is a brilliant, insightful, intrepid revealer of shadowy conspiracies, or a nutcase freak-show publicity hound. Striver's references are primary sources, which is to say, opinions, and unless you can find a credible secondary source reporting on Alex Jones's opinions, it doesn't belong here. Encyclopedias are not newspapers. -- Gnetwerker 07:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Here are some more information Alex Jones has seen fit to reveal to us. We should start putting those facts in relevant articles! Who starts with Vicente Fox being able to morph into a green devil?! Surely that's important relevant information; suppressing it is POV CENSORSHIP! What, are you all a part of the the evil tyrannical secret rulers of the world who are trying to kill 80% of world population? Weregerbil 10:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Alex Jones is a well known journalist, radio host, and conspiracy theorist. He has been interviewed on the Coast to Coast AM national radio show several times. His criticism is warranted and cited and should not be removed. -- Northmeister 07:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy does not allow this. We require reliable sources, in particular this violates the partisan websites policy which states:
Therefore it is not plausible that we cite Alex Jones on every single page on Wikipedia because "he is a famous talk show host".-- Jersey Devil 08:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
"831 mbps of data sent from Redmond, WA to Arlington, VA in under 82 seconds."
Should this read "Data was sent at 831 Mbps from Redmond [..]"? Given that it was sent in under 82 seconds I think the author of this point confused the speed with amount of data actually sent (in other words, I don't think it should read "831 megabits of data was sent...")
I saw that too and it doesn't make sense. I don't know where that information came from either, but I did find a record event similar to this one where 8.4 gigabytes were transfered for 81 seconds over 5626 kilometers (probably about the right distance between Redmond, WA and Arlington, VA). I changed this and added a reference.
http://www.internet2.edu/lsr/history.html
Thepatriots
19:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like there is a new record, the page needs to be updated. Akubhai 12:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
This article appears to be obsolete according to the information at the Internet2 Network Upgrade blog. See also my comments on the [ Abeline Network talk page]. I'm sorry that I don't have the knowledge to make the necessary edits myself!— Blanchette ( talk) 04:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Can we have some "not to be confused with" header, or some mention of the common misconceptions. As argued a while back about Alex Jones, a lot of people have a misconception that internet2 is going to be the future for regular user, and there will be heavy censorship involved.
The issues these people are talking about, are more to do with net neutrality, the european 'telecoms package', and other plans that want a more cable tv like system instead of the 'free access' we have now. These of course have nothing to do with internet2. I saw some of the government documents that Jones was using to justify his noise, and they talked about the future "Internet 2" as a generic term, more alike to web 2.0, not connected to the internet2 project.
So can someone with the right knowledge add something to the article about these common myths? Whatthewhatwhat ( talk) 14:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The article as it stands now (00:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)), the article is pretty free of speculation, and that's for the best right now. If the article was like 5 pages long, then maybe a speculation or political dispute section could be added, but to add speculation into such a short article would be to confuse people reading it and (worse) perhaps give credibility to those who claim that Wikipedia is simply an Internet chatroom for people to vent their opinions.
"I have to wonder, isn't anyone else suspicious of the true motives behind implementing Internet 2? I have yet to see a convincing case as to its necessity (from a rights-respecting perspective);"
You seem to be confusing Internet2 with something it's not. Abilene is what you probably are refering to when you say "Internet2." Abilene is for research purposes only. It is not the next-generation of the Internet. It is not for the general public, nor is it ever going to be. Some of the things learned during the Abilene project will certainly help when doing future upgrades to the Internet, but Abilene itself is NOT an upgrade to the Internet that the public uses. And most experts agree that the Internet will need to be upgraded at some time in future. IPv6 is one technology used by Abilene which will become more and more necessary for the public Internet as time goes on.
On a personal note, I think that you should be more careful in making wild speculations like this when you don't know what you're talking about. I believe that people should not hold strong opinions about things they do not understand. Robotbeat 00:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
-- To touch on what you said about the true motives, from what Ive gathered, the Internet2 is faster because it cuts out most of the internet....the system only allows certain people to make pages, essentially it is a way to police the internet by removing all blogging and other forms of free speach, as well as all personal websites....
Ive also heard that the internet2 was passed by the house in one of those 900 page doccuments they use to sneak laws in, and will be put into effect for the public next year, and at that point all major internet companies will conviniently stop maintaining their servers so that the old internet dies out but its done legally...
I am working to find more sources on this, however media is highly filtered about it.
Take it with a grain of salt, and look into it, I am just trying to contribute what I have heard. Akanna ( talk) 05:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
With people like George Tenet saying:
"I know that these actions will be controversial in this age when we still think the Internet is a free and open society with no control or accountability," he told a closed information-technology security conference in Washington, "but ultimately the Wild West must give way to governance and control." - [6]
I have to wonder, isn't anyone else suspicious of the true motives behind implementing Internet 2? I have yet to see a convincing case as to its necessity (from a rights-respecting perspective); perhaps that could be elucidated in this article?
Additional reading:
[7] - "Kiss your Internet Good-bye"
Eventually. With Internet 2, No more free speech.--
Edtropolis
19:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this is an issue that has to be addressed. The Internet is breaking down the monopoly of traditional, commercial media. In my opinion it is not paranoid to consider the possibility that the freedom of speech the Internet has given the humanity, could be a "bad" thing for those who have been able to control the flow of information before the Internet. It does seem quite suspicious to me that one of the objectives of the Internet2 consortium is to be able to Monitor, filter and limit all traffic on the network. -- Jyri-poika ( talk) 10:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
just google it if you dont beleive me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.77.238 ( talk) 09:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This page needs an added 'criticism' chapter, so that critics who have voiced opinions that reflect possible negative aspects or abuses of power that the a governtment monitored and controlled Internet 2 may be susceptible to. The internet is a government controlled and monitored service for it's people in China, and the Chinese people suffer great restrictions on their uses of it and also the world's content of information on the internet is available to them only in a highly censored manner. If a criticism section is not added then this article needs to be tagged for lack of neutrality.
@ 2006-12-02T16:01Z
@ 2007-01-09T17:24Z
Perhaps not a criticism section, but a "controversy" section, is what is in order. -- Luftschiffritter5 1 ( talk) 16:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Second sentence of the article should read 'roles' instead of 'rolls' Dunnski007 ( talk) 16:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence of paragraph 2 contains an error. The project was started in 1996 under the auspices of EUDCOM (NOT EDUCAUSE). EDUCAUSE was not formed until 1998 in a merger of EDUCOM and CAUSE. See for example: http://www.educause.edu/About+EDUCAUSE/OperationsandBackground/CAUSEHistory/695 Internet2 was spun off from EDUCOM in 1997 as part of gthe new University Corporation for Advanced Internet Development. See for example: http://www.educause.edu/About+EDUCAUSE/OperationsandBackground/EducomHistory/696
67.164.81.26 ( talk) 21:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Jack McCredie mccredie@berkeley.edu Former president of EDUCOM (1980 - 1984) Associate Vice Chancellor Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley 67.164.81.26 ( talk) 21:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The article is tagged as follows:
Re 1: There seem to be plenty of references through the text. They are a bit thin in the 'Objectives' and 'Achievements' sections. If anyone wants to challenge the statement in these sections, perhaps they can tag the sections, and start a discussion here?
Re 2: It is true that the majority of the citations are to somewhere in the http://internet2.edu domain. Maybe this should stay?
Re 3: It has been heavily edited every week since November 2007, so, whoever thought that something new was needed then has had plenty of time to add it themselves, or see it added by others. This should go.
Do others here agree that it is time to clean up these headers? -- Nigelj ( talk) 17:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on this subject, but just after a quick first read, this article definitely strikes me as having a bias in wc. While, admittedly, it has become much more common to have articles written in an overly friendly tone, it's heavy enough in this article that I actually feel it's an issue, and I can't remember the last time I commented on an article on wikipedia. I don't really know enough about the subject to make said changes, but I'm thinking this article could do with some rewrites. Zanotam - Google me ( talk) 05:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the article's history is just a series of back-and-forth edits; an IP address adds a conspiracy theory and then somebody with a wikipedia account removes it. This is not productive.
Personally, I'm open to compromise on including a bit about Alex Jones' claims, although we really shouldn't be giving much weight to fringe claims that are incompatible with what reliable sources say. However, we can't achieve a compromise whilst somebody keeps in adding their preferred text over and over again.
Any thoughts?
bobrayner (
talk)
09:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The tone of this article reminds me of a commercial advertisement. Phrases like "next-generation", "delivers production network services to meet the high-performance demands", "critical to the future of the Internet" are too much like commercial buzz phrases.
The article would be better if it didn't sound so over-enthusiastic. I suppose it may have been written by some student who is excited about recently being allowed on to Internet2, but even so, SOME restraint could be expected.
Where the author writes: "Many fields have been able to use the Abilene network to foster creativity, research, and development in a way that was not previously possible", the author should instead have enumerated those fields, and provided examples of the creativity, research and development that is mentioned. In that way, it would be up to the reader to decide which superlatives, if any, the R&D in these fields may merit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.106.170 ( talk) 14:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The Internet2 ″... network ... is ... a hybrid optical and packet network.″
If this is not nonsense, then it may be important: the article should explain it.
Sadly, the word 'optical' appears again only in a reference, and 'packet' does not appear again. Optical technology is physical ( OSI Layer 1), an alternative to copper or radio: how the are signals carried from one place to another. Packet technology is logical , an alternative to sending the entire message in a single transmission: it breaks a chunk of data into smaller parts for transmission. (I'd place it at OSI Layer 4, but let's not start a side discussion if you disagree.)
Not only does the article read like an ad; it reads like the copy writer was ignorant of the product being advertised.
Interstate2 is a hybrid concrete and motorcycle highway system.
If there is no response to this note, I'll assume the phrase is nonsense, and delete the sentence. Joaquin Miller ( talk) 16:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
This means that users can access both the packet network (traditional IP network) AND directly access optical WAN connections (over which they typically will run a layer-2 ethernet point-to-point connection). The average end-user will never see an optical connection, but researchers doing huge data transmissions (e.g., data from the Large Hadron Collider) can and do use them. See
http://www.internet2.edu/products-services/advanced-networking/ for the various capabilities of the network. I agree, though, the phrase does sound like it's from an ad.
User:danpritts — Preceding
undated comment added
19:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Is the internet2 connected to the regular internet? Or is it a complete independent network? thanks, -- Abdull 12:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I just want to point out that all this information is already mentioned in the article. It states that it is a completely independant network. If that's not already clear, perhaps we should work on rewording it so it is. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:03, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
that doesn't seem correct, i believe people do have access to normal Internet (1 or 2 is nonsense 1 is made up and 2 it's a consortium) even if only one point(gateway) is connected to the Internet people in Abilene network do have access all over. but, if more gateways are available there probably will be mechanisms not to route through the Abilene network.
It is true that it's an independent network, but any site on the Internet2 network also has a connection to the commercial Internet. Internet2 is usually the preferred path between Internet2-connected sites, but for almost all users, this is handled transparently. User:danpritts - source, personal knowledge - I used to work for Internet2.
I think the practical distinction is whether the Internet and Internet2 share the same address space or not. I came here trying to find the answer to this question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.189.100 ( talk) 18:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Abilene is not connected to "the first" Internet. Abilene is seperate, but this Wikipedia article (formerly) seemed to imply that it is actually connected to the so-called Internet1. Abilene is a private network backbone and does not connect to the "commercial" Internet. Qwest's webpage has a good FAQ about Internet2/Abilene. [1] Robotbeat 23:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
This is ridiculous, we don't have "straw polls" for content that violates wikipedia policy already stated.-- Jersey Devil 02:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Has it occurred to anyone that if Alex Jones is as off-base as he appears to be in this case, maybe it wouldn't hurt to email the guy and clue him in? I'm sure he'd withdraw his position, unless he's come across something that frames the argument differently, which us non-investigative journalists wouldn't have prior knowledge of. If the latter is the case, then that'd surely make a worthy addition to this article, for that matter.
@ 2006-04-04 14:07Z
14:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)I reverted the information added that suggests Internet2 is a computer network that is somehow separate from the Internet. This misconception is largely the result of all the recent reporting on the RIAA's lawsuits against students attending several Universities that participate in the Abilene Network. If you will notice, nearly all of the articles that reference Internet2 as a network have been written recently and are the sad result of poorly checked facts. The original text of this article is correct; see the About page on the Internet2 website for very clear confirmation of this. IPv6 and related technologies have been deployed on many backbones and major web service providers for a few years now, and it's a fallacy to call Abilene a 'separate Internet.' Abilene simply forms a major interconnected backbone, on which one can access other backbone members at very high speeds. Abilene members can be accessed from the Internet just like any other major backbone network (I access systems at Georgia Tech from my home all the time, as anecdotal evidence)
I believe the information regarding the "Internet2 controversy" is appropriate, but should be included on the Abilene page, not here. I will put a note on this page mentioning the mislabeling of Abilene as Internet2. -- uberpenguin 18:22, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
"What is Internet2?
Think of Internet2 as a higher-tech version of the regular Internet. Like "Internet1," Internet2 connects computers all across the country. But it uses newer, more experimental technology. That can make it less stable than Internet1 — but it's also about 100 times as fast under typical conditions.
Who gets to use it?
More than 200 universities and 60 companies belong to Internet2, as do a handful of organizations and government agencies. To join, members must contribute research toward "developing a better Internet," says Douglas Van Houweling, CEO of the non-profit group that runs Internet2. It is not open to the public.
Who pays for it?
Users pay fees to the non-profit that administers the network. A typical university would pay about $200,000 a year. Government agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, also provide some funding.
Is it connected to the regular Internet?
No, it's a separate network. Internet2 users can only contact other Internet2 users. That's why all the accused file-swappers are college students.
The original Internet works fine. Why is Internet2 needed?
In 1969, the University of California at Los Angeles and Stanford University set up a simple computer network that could send data back and forth between the two campuses. For more than 20 years, academics tinkered with this network and its successors. They used the networks to test computer technology and send research data.
In the early 1990s, commercial interest in one of the successor networks, now called the Internet, soared. Web pages popped up, and suddenly it became impractical to tinker with the network for research projects. Scientists wanted their own network again, and in 1996, created Internet2."
USA Today [2]
yep, youre right, to the others, go down to the source, not just any newspaper. 84.183.237.195 15:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
How many people here think that the opinion of Alex Jones on the Internet warrants mention in the article? (See [3] [4] [5])-- Jersey Devil 17:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
My point exactly, it is just that the user ( User:Striver) who put it up goes around putting up Alex Jones' opinions on many articles including this one claiming that not doing so violates NPOV (claiming that NPOV requires all views to be shown in an article) and is an "attack" on his point of view. It gets quite frustrating when certain users refuse to stop reverting articles to interject their POV claiming that I am the bad guy. This guy put an Rfc on me for this kind of thing.-- Jersey Devil 00:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Anyone intrested in you can take a look at this Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Articles for deletion. But im not here to talk about that.
Ill change the headline to "views". Alex is a notable jornalist with a notable site and has 2 millions of subscribers. You dont need to like his views to accept that NPOV demands that his views to be represented, no mater how much you hate them. -- Striver 14:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, his views are cirtical, so the headline is correct. However, i added a disblaimer.-- Striver 14:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The guy has no idea what he's talking about. His speculations are completely irrelevant to Internet2. -- Mmx1 18:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Wait a minute. It doesn't matter whether this guy (Alex Jones) is a brilliant, insightful, intrepid revealer of shadowy conspiracies, or a nutcase freak-show publicity hound. Striver's references are primary sources, which is to say, opinions, and unless you can find a credible secondary source reporting on Alex Jones's opinions, it doesn't belong here. Encyclopedias are not newspapers. -- Gnetwerker 07:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Here are some more information Alex Jones has seen fit to reveal to us. We should start putting those facts in relevant articles! Who starts with Vicente Fox being able to morph into a green devil?! Surely that's important relevant information; suppressing it is POV CENSORSHIP! What, are you all a part of the the evil tyrannical secret rulers of the world who are trying to kill 80% of world population? Weregerbil 10:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Alex Jones is a well known journalist, radio host, and conspiracy theorist. He has been interviewed on the Coast to Coast AM national radio show several times. His criticism is warranted and cited and should not be removed. -- Northmeister 07:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy does not allow this. We require reliable sources, in particular this violates the partisan websites policy which states:
Therefore it is not plausible that we cite Alex Jones on every single page on Wikipedia because "he is a famous talk show host".-- Jersey Devil 08:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
"831 mbps of data sent from Redmond, WA to Arlington, VA in under 82 seconds."
Should this read "Data was sent at 831 Mbps from Redmond [..]"? Given that it was sent in under 82 seconds I think the author of this point confused the speed with amount of data actually sent (in other words, I don't think it should read "831 megabits of data was sent...")
I saw that too and it doesn't make sense. I don't know where that information came from either, but I did find a record event similar to this one where 8.4 gigabytes were transfered for 81 seconds over 5626 kilometers (probably about the right distance between Redmond, WA and Arlington, VA). I changed this and added a reference.
http://www.internet2.edu/lsr/history.html
Thepatriots
19:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like there is a new record, the page needs to be updated. Akubhai 12:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
This article appears to be obsolete according to the information at the Internet2 Network Upgrade blog. See also my comments on the [ Abeline Network talk page]. I'm sorry that I don't have the knowledge to make the necessary edits myself!— Blanchette ( talk) 04:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Can we have some "not to be confused with" header, or some mention of the common misconceptions. As argued a while back about Alex Jones, a lot of people have a misconception that internet2 is going to be the future for regular user, and there will be heavy censorship involved.
The issues these people are talking about, are more to do with net neutrality, the european 'telecoms package', and other plans that want a more cable tv like system instead of the 'free access' we have now. These of course have nothing to do with internet2. I saw some of the government documents that Jones was using to justify his noise, and they talked about the future "Internet 2" as a generic term, more alike to web 2.0, not connected to the internet2 project.
So can someone with the right knowledge add something to the article about these common myths? Whatthewhatwhat ( talk) 14:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The article as it stands now (00:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)), the article is pretty free of speculation, and that's for the best right now. If the article was like 5 pages long, then maybe a speculation or political dispute section could be added, but to add speculation into such a short article would be to confuse people reading it and (worse) perhaps give credibility to those who claim that Wikipedia is simply an Internet chatroom for people to vent their opinions.
"I have to wonder, isn't anyone else suspicious of the true motives behind implementing Internet 2? I have yet to see a convincing case as to its necessity (from a rights-respecting perspective);"
You seem to be confusing Internet2 with something it's not. Abilene is what you probably are refering to when you say "Internet2." Abilene is for research purposes only. It is not the next-generation of the Internet. It is not for the general public, nor is it ever going to be. Some of the things learned during the Abilene project will certainly help when doing future upgrades to the Internet, but Abilene itself is NOT an upgrade to the Internet that the public uses. And most experts agree that the Internet will need to be upgraded at some time in future. IPv6 is one technology used by Abilene which will become more and more necessary for the public Internet as time goes on.
On a personal note, I think that you should be more careful in making wild speculations like this when you don't know what you're talking about. I believe that people should not hold strong opinions about things they do not understand. Robotbeat 00:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
-- To touch on what you said about the true motives, from what Ive gathered, the Internet2 is faster because it cuts out most of the internet....the system only allows certain people to make pages, essentially it is a way to police the internet by removing all blogging and other forms of free speach, as well as all personal websites....
Ive also heard that the internet2 was passed by the house in one of those 900 page doccuments they use to sneak laws in, and will be put into effect for the public next year, and at that point all major internet companies will conviniently stop maintaining their servers so that the old internet dies out but its done legally...
I am working to find more sources on this, however media is highly filtered about it.
Take it with a grain of salt, and look into it, I am just trying to contribute what I have heard. Akanna ( talk) 05:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
With people like George Tenet saying:
"I know that these actions will be controversial in this age when we still think the Internet is a free and open society with no control or accountability," he told a closed information-technology security conference in Washington, "but ultimately the Wild West must give way to governance and control." - [6]
I have to wonder, isn't anyone else suspicious of the true motives behind implementing Internet 2? I have yet to see a convincing case as to its necessity (from a rights-respecting perspective); perhaps that could be elucidated in this article?
Additional reading:
[7] - "Kiss your Internet Good-bye"
Eventually. With Internet 2, No more free speech.--
Edtropolis
19:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this is an issue that has to be addressed. The Internet is breaking down the monopoly of traditional, commercial media. In my opinion it is not paranoid to consider the possibility that the freedom of speech the Internet has given the humanity, could be a "bad" thing for those who have been able to control the flow of information before the Internet. It does seem quite suspicious to me that one of the objectives of the Internet2 consortium is to be able to Monitor, filter and limit all traffic on the network. -- Jyri-poika ( talk) 10:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
just google it if you dont beleive me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.77.238 ( talk) 09:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This page needs an added 'criticism' chapter, so that critics who have voiced opinions that reflect possible negative aspects or abuses of power that the a governtment monitored and controlled Internet 2 may be susceptible to. The internet is a government controlled and monitored service for it's people in China, and the Chinese people suffer great restrictions on their uses of it and also the world's content of information on the internet is available to them only in a highly censored manner. If a criticism section is not added then this article needs to be tagged for lack of neutrality.
@ 2006-12-02T16:01Z
@ 2007-01-09T17:24Z
Perhaps not a criticism section, but a "controversy" section, is what is in order. -- Luftschiffritter5 1 ( talk) 16:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Second sentence of the article should read 'roles' instead of 'rolls' Dunnski007 ( talk) 16:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence of paragraph 2 contains an error. The project was started in 1996 under the auspices of EUDCOM (NOT EDUCAUSE). EDUCAUSE was not formed until 1998 in a merger of EDUCOM and CAUSE. See for example: http://www.educause.edu/About+EDUCAUSE/OperationsandBackground/CAUSEHistory/695 Internet2 was spun off from EDUCOM in 1997 as part of gthe new University Corporation for Advanced Internet Development. See for example: http://www.educause.edu/About+EDUCAUSE/OperationsandBackground/EducomHistory/696
67.164.81.26 ( talk) 21:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Jack McCredie mccredie@berkeley.edu Former president of EDUCOM (1980 - 1984) Associate Vice Chancellor Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley 67.164.81.26 ( talk) 21:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The article is tagged as follows:
Re 1: There seem to be plenty of references through the text. They are a bit thin in the 'Objectives' and 'Achievements' sections. If anyone wants to challenge the statement in these sections, perhaps they can tag the sections, and start a discussion here?
Re 2: It is true that the majority of the citations are to somewhere in the http://internet2.edu domain. Maybe this should stay?
Re 3: It has been heavily edited every week since November 2007, so, whoever thought that something new was needed then has had plenty of time to add it themselves, or see it added by others. This should go.
Do others here agree that it is time to clean up these headers? -- Nigelj ( talk) 17:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on this subject, but just after a quick first read, this article definitely strikes me as having a bias in wc. While, admittedly, it has become much more common to have articles written in an overly friendly tone, it's heavy enough in this article that I actually feel it's an issue, and I can't remember the last time I commented on an article on wikipedia. I don't really know enough about the subject to make said changes, but I'm thinking this article could do with some rewrites. Zanotam - Google me ( talk) 05:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the article's history is just a series of back-and-forth edits; an IP address adds a conspiracy theory and then somebody with a wikipedia account removes it. This is not productive.
Personally, I'm open to compromise on including a bit about Alex Jones' claims, although we really shouldn't be giving much weight to fringe claims that are incompatible with what reliable sources say. However, we can't achieve a compromise whilst somebody keeps in adding their preferred text over and over again.
Any thoughts?
bobrayner (
talk)
09:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The tone of this article reminds me of a commercial advertisement. Phrases like "next-generation", "delivers production network services to meet the high-performance demands", "critical to the future of the Internet" are too much like commercial buzz phrases.
The article would be better if it didn't sound so over-enthusiastic. I suppose it may have been written by some student who is excited about recently being allowed on to Internet2, but even so, SOME restraint could be expected.
Where the author writes: "Many fields have been able to use the Abilene network to foster creativity, research, and development in a way that was not previously possible", the author should instead have enumerated those fields, and provided examples of the creativity, research and development that is mentioned. In that way, it would be up to the reader to decide which superlatives, if any, the R&D in these fields may merit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.106.170 ( talk) 14:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The Internet2 ″... network ... is ... a hybrid optical and packet network.″
If this is not nonsense, then it may be important: the article should explain it.
Sadly, the word 'optical' appears again only in a reference, and 'packet' does not appear again. Optical technology is physical ( OSI Layer 1), an alternative to copper or radio: how the are signals carried from one place to another. Packet technology is logical , an alternative to sending the entire message in a single transmission: it breaks a chunk of data into smaller parts for transmission. (I'd place it at OSI Layer 4, but let's not start a side discussion if you disagree.)
Not only does the article read like an ad; it reads like the copy writer was ignorant of the product being advertised.
Interstate2 is a hybrid concrete and motorcycle highway system.
If there is no response to this note, I'll assume the phrase is nonsense, and delete the sentence. Joaquin Miller ( talk) 16:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
This means that users can access both the packet network (traditional IP network) AND directly access optical WAN connections (over which they typically will run a layer-2 ethernet point-to-point connection). The average end-user will never see an optical connection, but researchers doing huge data transmissions (e.g., data from the Large Hadron Collider) can and do use them. See
http://www.internet2.edu/products-services/advanced-networking/ for the various capabilities of the network. I agree, though, the phrase does sound like it's from an ad.
User:danpritts — Preceding
undated comment added
19:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Is the internet2 connected to the regular internet? Or is it a complete independent network? thanks, -- Abdull 12:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I just want to point out that all this information is already mentioned in the article. It states that it is a completely independant network. If that's not already clear, perhaps we should work on rewording it so it is. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:03, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
that doesn't seem correct, i believe people do have access to normal Internet (1 or 2 is nonsense 1 is made up and 2 it's a consortium) even if only one point(gateway) is connected to the Internet people in Abilene network do have access all over. but, if more gateways are available there probably will be mechanisms not to route through the Abilene network.
It is true that it's an independent network, but any site on the Internet2 network also has a connection to the commercial Internet. Internet2 is usually the preferred path between Internet2-connected sites, but for almost all users, this is handled transparently. User:danpritts - source, personal knowledge - I used to work for Internet2.
I think the practical distinction is whether the Internet and Internet2 share the same address space or not. I came here trying to find the answer to this question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.189.100 ( talk) 18:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)