Whither goes the interent

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sat May 09, 2009 7:54 am

Control of the internet has always been a contentious subject. The UN recently wanted to get control and tax for everything. Control may soon be up for grabs.
"EU information society commissioner Viviane Reding on Monday (4 May) suggested a new model for overseeing the internet from October this year, when the Commerce Department agreement runs out."
"The expiry of the agreement between ICANN and the US government "opens the door for the full privatisation of ICANN"
"Washington was steadfastly opposed to handing ICANN over to the United Nations.

The commission will hold a conference on Wednesday (6 May) in Brussels to discuss the issue with Europe's internet community."

GOV really hates some aspects of the net. Rockefeller says that it should never have been invented.;
With the net, it's gotten so very much harder for GOV and the power brokers to hide their actions. I can easily understand why Rockefeller doesn't like it. He hides behind the excuse of cyber attacks. Load of CRAP !!!

Without the net, 9/11 would have had the same outcome as the attack on the "Maine"

The agreement runs out in October. The bond market is expected to collapse before then. I could easily see the net severely restricted to preserve domestic security.
Cyber Security bill 773; http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/613.html
It should be a real shitfight between the US and Europe.
http://euobserver.com/19/28065?print=1
Dan

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sat May 09, 2009 8:09 am

well,
with the north american power grid all being one, digital tv and radio, and internet control,
information censorship would be easy..............

Toolmaker · Post by **Toolmaker** » Sat May 09, 2009 12:29 pm

Call it wishful thinkin but I don't think the internet can be controlled at all. Its kinda like a monster of commerce swelling with porn seeping out of the pores. But hey.. at least we have instructables and whatnot to keep from watching too much porn.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sat May 09, 2009 3:41 pm

And, just what do you mean by "TOO MUCH PORN" ?

You can bet that Rense and Prison Planet will be censored long before Domai;
http://www.domai.com/photos.html and Hegre

Toolmaker · Post by **Toolmaker** » Sat May 09, 2009 5:14 pm

can't sit still wrote:And, just what do you mean by "TOO MUCH PORN" ?
You can bet that Rense and Prison Planet will be censored long before Domai;
http://www.domai.com/photos.html and Hegre

My point was that they can try to censor specific websites all they want. As long as someone has used an offline webbrowser to make a copy of the website it can be put up somewhere else. This is called mirroring and is done more often than some might think. For instance any time I come across a website with a dandy project I try to keep my own copy just in case it disappears.

As far as Rense going before the pron.. I dunno.. only time will tell. At this point I don't think they really are worried about "conspiracy" websites, they can always make a hollywood movie (or an aussie tv movie like "toxic skies") and folks will think its just more movie stuff. The more people become immune to things I think they are more likely to be accepting of them.

I think censorship on the internet will be enforced marginally at best. In the end the non-geeks will come to realize just how futile it is to try to excersize any control over the internet.

As an example look at the Napster fiasco.. all that time and money to shut down one P2P file sharing program only to have another half dozen or more within the year using newer code. And thats only the half ass pirates.. the real ones are far more nefarious and much harder to catch.

I'm always interested in seeing the outcome of what happens when large amounts of money are apent trying to excersize some sort of control over tech, even more amazed at how teenagers quickly find a workaround.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sat May 09, 2009 6:24 pm

Interesting! thanks for the post.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Sun May 10, 2009 9:57 am

Teh Interent is a concretious subjunct. It enflanges upon each of our personal excrubriences in a multliplicious way. Agreed.

wedeliver · Post by **wedeliver** » Sun May 10, 2009 12:59 pm

Interesting

U.S. telecommunications giant AT&T has claimed that, without investment, the Internet's current network architecture will reach the limits of its capacity by 2010.
Speaking at a Westminster eForum on Web 2.0 this week in London, Jim Cicconi, vice president of legislative affairs for AT&T, warned that the current systems that constitute the Internet will not be able to cope with the increasing amounts of video and user-generated content being uploaded.

"The surge in online content is at the center of the most dramatic changes affecting the Internet today," he said. "In three years' time, 20 typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet today."

Cicconi, who was speaking at the event as part of a wider series of meetings with U.K. government officials, said that at least $55 billion worth of investment was needed in new infrastructure in the next three years in the U.S. alone, with the figure rising to $130 billion to improve the network worldwide. "We are going to be butting up against the physical capacity of the Internet by 2010," he said.

He claimed that the "unprecedented new wave of broadband traffic" would increase 50-fold by 2015 and that AT&T is investing $19 billion to maintain its network and upgrade its backbone network.

Cicconi added that more demand for high-definition video will put an increasing strain on the Internet infrastructure. "Eight hours of video is loaded onto YouTube every minute. Everything will become HD very soon, and HD is 7 to 10 times more bandwidth-hungry than typical video today. Video will be 80 percent of all traffic by 2010, up from 30 percent today," he said.

The AT&T executive pointed out that the Internet exists, thanks to the infrastructure provided by a group of mostly private companies. "There is nothing magic or ethereal about the Internet--it is no more ethereal than the highway system. It is not created by an act of God, but upgraded and maintained by private investors," he said.

Although Cicconi's speech did not explicitly refer to the term "Net neutrality," some audience members tackled him on the issue in a question-and-answer session, asking whether the subtext of his speech was really around prioritizing some kinds of traffic. Cicconi responded by saying he believed government intervention in the Internet was fundamentally wrong.

"I think people agree why the Internet is successful. My personal view is that government has widely chosen to...keep a light touch and let innovators develop it," he said. "The reason I resist using the term 'Net neutrality' is that I don't think government intervention is the right way to do this kind of thing. I don't think government can anticipate these kinds of technical problems. Right now, I think Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem."

Net neutrality refers to an ongoing campaign calling for governments to legislate to prevent Internet service providers from charging content providers for prioritization of their traffic. The debate is more heated in the United States than in the United Kingdom because there is less competition between ISPs in the States.

Content creators argue that Net neutrality should be legislated in order to protect consumers and keep all Internet traffic equal. Network operators and service providers argue that the Internet is already unequal, and certain types of traffic--VoIP, for example--require prioritization by default.

"However well-intentioned, regulatory restraints can inefficiently skew investment, delay innovation, and diminish consumer welfare, and there is reason to believe that the kinds of broad marketplace restrictions proposed in the name of 'neutrality' would do just that, with respect to the Internet," the U.S. Department of Justice said in a statement last year.

The BBC has come under fire from service providers such as Tiscali, which claim that its iPlayer online-TV service is becoming a major drain on network bandwidth.

In a recent posting on his BBC blog, Ashley Highfield, the corporation's director of future media and technology, defended the iPlayer: "I would not suggest that ISPs start to try and charge content providers. They are already charging their customers for broadband to receive any content they want."

Andrew Donoghue of ZDNet UK reported from London.

Simon of the Playa · Post by **Simon of the Playa** » Sun May 10, 2009 2:34 pm

information censorship would be easy

always has been, always will be.

this is nothing new, nor will it ever go away until the singularity occurs and the meshing of our squishy computers with the network of worldwide hard machines allows us our own little omniscience and unilateral connectivity.

you want the truth? YOU WANT THE TRUTH?

you cant handle the truth.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Tue May 12, 2009 6:27 am

I love my blissful ignorance..........

I'm a simple man, with simple thoughts.......please don't disturb us.....

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Tue May 12, 2009 7:15 am

GOV is flat, fucking broke. While Ahrnold is trying to tax and legalize marijuana, Obama will be trying to figure a way to tax the whole world for net use.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Tue May 12, 2009 10:21 am

I am looking for a good source for flint.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Tue May 12, 2009 10:26 am

"Barbarism is the natural state of mankind. "
Up in Oregon, lots of people have a rifle on the rack in their trucks. My brother got a rifle rack and used it to carry a spear and a club.

Toolmaker · Post by **Toolmaker** » Tue May 12, 2009 10:42 am

Ugly Dougly wrote:I am looking for a good source for flint.

http://www.americanmadesurvival.com/ammafist.html

http://www.campingsurvival.com/

http://www.ragweedforge.com/cat-misc.html#strikers

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Tue May 12, 2009 5:06 pm

can't sit still wrote:"Barbarism is the natural state of mankind. "
Up in Oregon, lots of people have a rifle on the rack in their trucks. My brother got a rifle rack and used it to carry a spear and a club.

Now that's forward thinking.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:18 pm

Rockefeller says that oboomerang should control the net in the event of a cyber security problem;
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:25 pm

ygmir wrote:I love my blissful ignorance..........

I'm a simple man, with simple thoughts.......please don't disturb us.....

I remember my teddy bear

life was wonderful then

Ignorance is bliss

then there is Conflicker

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 8:13 pm

Not too surprising;
http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=622292

Sail Man · Post by **Sail Man** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:35 pm

anonymity is getting harder and harder to come by. Pisses me off when the store clerk asks me for my phone number or zip code which I refuse to give them. The other thing that pisses me off is when their "door guards" watch you buy something, then insist on seeing your cash register receipt. Like their gonna verify all of the items on it.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:17 pm

Sailman, I was at the DMV in Bend, Oregon. Evidently, they have so many indigent people that you can apply for a drivers license even if you don't have a residence. They just want you to put down some kind of location. Here is what they gave as an example; " I have a tent by 97 and Baker Rd."
Here's a good example from Vegas;
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/fe ... Vegas.html
Just tell them that you live in the sewers.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:24 pm

Suicide is now painless;
http://www.time.com/time/business/artic ... 31,00.html

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Tue Apr 06, 2010 7:24 pm

I got this in mail;

The future of the Internet is in grave danger.

A federal appeals court ruled today that the FCC doesn't have the authority to protect Internet users. The decision means the agency can't stop Comcast from blocking Web traffic. It can't carry out the National Broadband Plan. It won't be able to safeguard Net Neutrality.

Let's Win Back Control of the Internet:
The FCC Must Act on Our Behalf.

Iâ€™m a policy lawyer at Free Press. They donâ€™t usually let me send you e-mails, but today is different. Let me explain how we got into this mess:

Two years ago, the FCC ruled that Comcast could not block online content, and Comcast challenged the ruling in court. Today, the court ruled in Comcast's favor, effectively placing the Internet in the hands of big phone and cable companies.

This decision exploits a loophole in current law â€” the result of overzealous deregulation by the Bush administration â€” that threatens Net Neutrality and leaves the FCC unable to achieve the crucial goals of the National Broadband Plan.

Thankfully, this FCC can correct its predecessorsâ€™ mistakes, reassert its authority, and close the loophole. (Get ready, this is a tad complicated.)

The FCC needs to â€œreclassifyâ€

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed Apr 07, 2010 4:02 pm

Crud. Saw that in the paper. Stake us out and let the corporate vultures eat us...

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Wed Apr 07, 2010 4:23 pm

Please take a close look at who is behind "Free Press" They are not who they claim to be. These are the same folks wanting the FCC to enforce the "Fairness Act" for talk radio and encourage public funding of the print media. Peel the onion folks!

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:10 pm

Trishntek wrote:Please take a close look at who is behind "Free Press" They are not who they claim to be. These are the same folks wanting the FCC to enforce the "Fairness Act" for talk radio and encourage public funding of the print media. Peel the onion folks!

The people behind this net neutrality, public funded media and bringing down free enterprise can be found right here:

http://www.freepress.net/about_us

They are not about freedom!

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:36 pm

http://www.mediajustice.org/

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Wed May 12, 2010 8:43 pm

Now, the WHO has it's sights set on taxing all of us;
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/10 ... ernet-tax/

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sun Jul 11, 2010 9:14 am

This article is OK;
http://www.opinion-maker.org/2010/07/op ... mment-2109

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:44 am

Consider that there is no such thing as "The Internet".

For example, there is nothing technically preventing you from creating your own Internet. All you need are some DNS servers and start connecting computers together.

You could buy a used switch from eBay, string fiberoptic ethernet cable between your neighbor's houses and the switch Create your own root name servers, divide IP addresses up any way you see fit and there you have it.

Now you can begin linking other neighborhood networks together if you like and you have your own alternative Internet. Local stores might decide to connect to your "internet".

Lets say you are sitting at home right now on Comcast's network and want to send an email to a Yahoo account. Your traffic will go from Comcast's mail server directly to Yahoo's mail server over a private connection between Comcast and Yahoo and never touch any physical thing called "The Internet".

"The Internet" is nothing more than a series of conventions that everyone agrees to like how IP addresses are allocated and how domain names are allocated and looked up and what routing protocol people will use to announce their networks to people they connect to.

That is it. "The Internet" is only a bunch of non-binding agreements that everyone has decided adopt in order to facilitate data flow between private networks. You don't even have to abide by them if you don't want to but not doing so might make your stuff hard for people to get to if they are not on your network.

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:59 am

i kinda like the "make your stuff hard,,,," part