Early Internet Pioneer Claims The Internet Is Broken… But Oh Look, He's Selling The 'Solution'

from the marketers-dream dept

If I announced tomorrow that some key technology in widespread use today was fundamentally broken, but (oh yeah) that I was selling a solution that would fix it all, don’t you think most reporters would first try to track down an independent third party to find out if what I was saying was actually true? Apparently not all reporters feel that way. So take it with a grain of salt when PC Authority writes a gushing article about how one of the internet’s original designers, Larry Roberts, claims the internet is fundamentally broken. Roberts has been pushing this line for a while, and it’s rather important to note that this is part of the marketing campaign for his company, which is trying to sell a “solution” to the problem. Yet PC Authority focuses entirely on the idea that the internet is broken, checks with no other third party, and only mentions at the very, very end of the article that Roberts’ company just happens to be trying to sell a solution. Whether or not you believe Roberts’ claims, you would think that a reporter wouldn’t put what seems like a blatant press release and pitch it as a news article without at least getting some third party opinions.

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Early Internet Pioneer Claims The Internet Is Broken… But Oh Look, He's Selling The 'Solution'”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
27 Comments
ChurchHatesTucker (profile) says:

What?

“If I announced tomorrow that some key technology in widespread use today was fundamentally broken, but (oh yeah) that I was selling a solution that would fix it all, don’t you think most reporters would first try to track down an independent third party to find out if what I was saying was actually true? “

Why on earth would I think that? Press-release ‘journalism’ has been the norm for as long as I can remember.

RD says:

Um...

“Whether or not you believe Roberts’ claims, you would think that a reporter wouldn’t put what seems like a blatant press release and pitch it as a news article without at least getting some third party opinions.”

Wha…? What news have YOU been reading the last 5+ years?? This is ALL the news is anymore, everyone is in everyone’s pockets. So many “news” articles are just paper-thin whitewashes of press releases or “Favorable” articles thinly disguised as “news.”

Comboman says:

Why limit to the internet?

Replace “internet” in the above article with any other fashionable topic and it still works. “Businessman claims the economy is broken…but oh look, he’s selling the solution”, “Environmentalist claims the climate is broken…but oh look, he’s selling the solution”. Take everything you read with a barrel of salt.

nraddin (profile) says:

get over it

Honestly nothing is going on here that doesn’t happen in the ‘press’ all the time now. Caveat Emptor, and do your own research.

It also turns out that the expert you would want to talk to about packet switching and flow control happens to be the guy that was already talking. The startup in question is not trying to sell a product so much as change the basic underpinnings of the internet. His plan is not to make huge amounts of money on changing a protocol and making it propriety, his plan is to help people change to a new open protocol and system that will run smoother. While his company has some plans to make money helping people with that it does not change the fact that he is correct about flow control on the internet.

WildSubnet says:

Re: get over it

The problem is, he’s wrong. His white paper describes a method of processing packets that went out the window about 10 years ago. All modern day routers process traffic based on flows now. The first packet is examined and the subsequent packets are forwarded based on the results of the first packet. There isn’t anything new or revolutionary here. Most routers in the price range of his product also offer some or all of the features he’s selling.

Memphistopheles (profile) says:

Techdirt reported it first

Funny:

The PC Authority article’s author was practicing journalistic aggressiveness – now, PC Authority can say, “We reported it first!”

And Techdirt can say, “We reported that someone else reported on something first!”

There’s nothing truly unique about the PC Authority article. They were just hurrying to have their fingers in the information pie. All journalists need something interesting to report about…

trollificus says:

Surprised??

Hell, when I taught my kids how to read newspaper articles, I told them to first look in the 3rd paragraph (or later) to find out who had handed the story to the “journalist” who purportedly authored it.

Then, if they were still interested, they should research the group or individual responsible. And THEN read the story with a skeptical eye.

And they wonder why newspapers are “dying”. Tchyuh.

Allen (profile) says:

I’m more disappointed in the IEEE. I expect more from them than some popular PC rag.

Anyone that knows anything about modern routers knows that all manufacturers rely on flows to optimise routing. This is not a new idea. Not even close. But the article contained no comparison with or even acknowledgement of competing technology. Is the Doctor’s implementation fundamentally different from Cisco’s, Juniper’s, or any of the others’? How is it better? Who knows? Not the IEEE.

This may not have been published in one of their academic journals but some sort of critical review would have identified the fundamental flaw.

What is even more concerning is the question of whether or not the IEEE paid Dr Robertsin for his shameless plug.

PC Authority may have failed in parroting the IEEE, but the IEEE failed first

Anonymous Coward says:

What you’re describing has long been common practice among television news organizations, which accept so-called VNRs from companies (and sometimes governments) and air them more or less unedited as filler segments in news broadcasts. It’s basically just free advertising for the companies releasing the VNRs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_news_release

I can’t say I’m surprised to see that this practice has made the translation to paper journalism.

Leave a Reply to Comboman Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...