Dynaverse.net
Dynaverse.net => Hawkeye's Roost => Topic started by: stoneyface on February 16, 2011, 03:06:04 pm
-
there was an interesting article today calling for "ground rules" pertaining to and protecting the internet in this country. i found it encouraging since i have been watching as the government slowly but surely has been pushing for things like a "kill switch" "in case of emergency" as they claim and net neutrality and other things that on the surface look like they are trying to help us but in reality could be used "not as intended". we say egypt pull the plug on their entire internet infrastructure in an attempt to curtail the civil unrest there. i very much see the government in our country wanting a kill switch for the same purpose. they may claim all they want that it is in case of terrorist net attacks (which i admit is a REMOTE possibility, no pun inteneded) but i really think it is more of a way for the government to be able to deprive us of the internet if there is some form of internal revolution. i also see our government slowly but surely backing down from net neutrality. i expect that we will be forced to deal with tiered internet someday. so much for the right to "free" information.
so anyway, here is the article. http://www.dbune.com/news/tech/4409-clinton-calls-for-qground-rulesq-protecting-internet-freedom-and-security.html (http://www.dbune.com/news/tech/4409-clinton-calls-for-qground-rulesq-protecting-internet-freedom-and-security.html)
-
I agree with you Stoney, and It is why I have taken a stance against these kinds of things.
Stephen
-
The only kill switch our government really needs for terrorist attack is on their own systems. Set up the Washington complex on a WAN that can be unplugged from the internet so if you get a nasty attack, just pop it off the net and the whole government can still run the computer systems between themselves until the attack is done. Simple, easy, doesn't effect the real world.
-
You need to stop making so much sense, Marstone.....
-
The only kill switch our government really needs for terrorist attack is on their own systems. Set up the Washington complex on a WAN that can be unplugged from the internet so if you get a nasty attack, just pop it off the net and the whole government can still run the computer systems between themselves until the attack is done. Simple, easy, doesn't effect the real world.
I agree but it must be done for EVERY pc in goverment use your talking several trillion$ for that kind of upgrade. I dont think it could be done or cost worthy in govs eyes. You dont even know how much info a lamer real low level goverment employee can access. Ie say the local nrcs or say the local forest service pc was hacked entire network of data not "top secret" could be hacked and looked at by thugs .
The best way is not to use the damn net on those pcs that have data/info that will secure the country :crazy2: Usb stick the data to transfer or something else would be better.
-
Actually it isn't done at the PC level. But on how you wire the networks of the Capital. You have the internet come into specific access points that are set to be disconnected. Then you run routers and switches to set up the networks between the buildings. That way local computers are just plugged into the network and doesn't have to be setup at all. The whole control is done at the upper network level. Heck the buildings should already be wired in a form similar to what I am talking about, it just takes putting in a procedure to do the disconnect from the actual internet backbone when needed.
I know the local University I work at already has the network set up that would work with what I am saying. Each building is wired with local networks that link into a larger network. So cost wise, it should almost all be covered already, just how you handle the systems would change.
-
http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/113947/20110218/internet-free-software-freedom-box-columbia-law.htm (http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/113947/20110218/internet-free-software-freedom-box-columbia-law.htm)
(caution, insanely huge page, I had to disconnect the modem to get it to stop after 7 minutes of downloading - believe it was the iframed ad at http://www.dianomioffers.co.uk/smartads.epl?id=807 that was to blame, probably a malware download...)
Nevertheless the story was kind of interesting. That law prof's page:
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/now (http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/now)
The current quote on fsf.org (http://www.fsf.org/)'s front page is appropriate to this topic:
A strong free software movement focused on the principled issues of software freedom — and a strong FSF in particular — will determine what freedoms the next generation of computer users enjoy. At stake is no less than the next generation's autonomy.
— Benjamin Mako Hill (http://www.fsf.org/appeal/2009/mako/), writer, technologist and FSF board member
I'm curious what this page linked from the fsf site might have to say but after five minutes on dialup the page is still blank. http://windows7sins.org/ (http://windows7sins.org/) Some web designers just have no idea. I would love to read the page, but they have cleary filled it so much javascript and pretty pictures that I get no content at all. Pretty dumb. So I guess whatever it is they have to say is not very important... (note the nature of Eben Moglen's page. - he has important stuff to say, and his pages download in seconds or less even on dialup.)
Speaeking of network freedom, this tendency to clog pages with megabyte upon megabyte of useless crap that prevents the page from being read at all by the millions of dialup users out there is a real threat to internet freedom that exists right now, today. Dummies.
/me shakes head
So windows7sins.org ... whatever you had to say is lost, I will never know. That is not how websites are supposed to work, they are supposed to provide information... not useless undisplayable random bits... >:(
-
this is exactly the kind of behind the scenes crap i am talking about. they publicly announce trying to work on net neutrality, but then turn around and kill funding for it with little to no announcement... do you really still think our government works for your rights? or theirs?
http://www.nationaljournal.com/house-passes-amendment-to-block-funds-for-net-neutrality-order-20110217 (http://www.nationaljournal.com/house-passes-amendment-to-block-funds-for-net-neutrality-order-20110217)
-
Oh definitely theirs man. Why else would they have tried to control the internet, Capitalism, and Private enterprise through net neutrality in the first place? It wasn't because they where concerned for the private persons rights.
Stephen
-
this is exactly the kind of behind the scenes crap i am talking about. they publicly announce trying to work on net neutrality, but then turn around and kill funding for it with little to no announcement.
[url]http://www.nationaljournal.com/house-passes-amendment-to-block-funds-for-net-neutrality-order-20110217[/url] ([url]http://www.nationaljournal.com/house-passes-amendment-to-block-funds-for-net-neutrality-order-20110217[/url])
No it isn't. Its an example of divided government in action. You have one party which controls the executive branch pushing for net neutrality, while the other party which controls the house is trying to block it.
-
Apologies for the below. I just could not help myself. I keep seeing this image when I think of this topic. ;D
-
without getting into to much on the debate side. I have to say, I can not support the so called net neutrality laws. While it can sound good on one side, and it makes the companies sound bad, you also have to see that it is forcing more government control over us all. They say it is to remove tiered services, and open the way so you can have free use of all network stuff. But it also makes a company that had dumped alot of cash to make the best and fastest network (either wired or wireless) only able to charge as much as the slowest networks do (to be fair). So the money spent will not be recouped and thus, why spend it. It will in the end limit more then it will open up the networks. Many other reasons, but would push debate over the edge to the secret boards (maybe).
-
I dunno... in the expanse of Canada it comes down to who, if anyone, will lay the fiber? I predict it will only come when people start stripping copper directly from the poles. (Glass has a much lower resale/recovery value than copper.) The question of bandwidth is somewhat moot to me. FCC regulations apply, even here. (max 48kbps on the wire) More realistically, as I see it, new, more sophisticated, perhaps musical, digital to analog encoding algorithms are required. (as well as mod_lzma and accept-encoding:lzma... ;))
The cost of high-speed services is irrelevant to much of the world. I would even go so far as to say that the lack of rural bandwidth partially drives current urbanisation trends, it almost certainly does. I can say for sure that in the long run, laying fiber across the country will cost less. How can one "buy local" when there is nobody on the farm anymore? But alas, great national achievements are a thing of the past. Could the Canadian National Railway be built today? I think not. Last spike indeed. :(
-
That is the point. Net neutrality will make it even less likely that a company will put the money in laying high speed glass. It is more expensive as it doesn't have the range that wire does between booster stations. Which in my area (very rural) high speed wireless is not feasable as we don't have the wired speed that can actually support a 4G network (let alone the 3G+ networks being done right now).
IF NN would come about, it would basicly make it a government job to lay the infrastructure as why would any company spend the money so everyone else can use it and not get paid anough to get your investment back timely. It is not the governments job to lay that stuff (at least not in the US, not a power of the feds) Let the market work. As for options, heck even in my bass ackwards area of the country I have four options (at least) for internet. I have less options for electricity, water, tv, and many other things.
The other thing, as you know, once you let the government get its fingers in something. You can't get them out, and they will muck it up.
-
Lolz. One word. Latency.
Actually, add to that three more words: proprietary packet compression.
Bonk-to-normal-mind-translation: Wireless networking is not an acceptable solution. It is the perfect billing solution however. ;)
When it comes to lack of national projects... calculate the cost of employment insurance (or whatever the equivalent is called in the US). I worked it out one day, the man-hours lost are staggering. Idle Canadians could build the great pyramids three times over within 30 years. (just as an example) Instead, these people sit home "waiting for the big one", all with the belief that they can make it to the top (or complete disillusionment)... but sorry, there is only ever room for one Wayne Gretzky, or one Sidney Crosby... hopefully the analogies are clear. But I can say no more on the subject in a public forum. Nor do I want to say more, been down that road, it is pointless to try and convince people, time will just have to teach them, or as history has shown, we may never learn.
-
Hey Bonk, correct me if I'm wrong here bro, but wasn't there a huge bruhaha up north about throttling, bandwidth caps etc? I barely remember hearing how Canada was forcing all the ISP's to change there plans.
stephen
-
Not that I recall, the big issue that told me all of this was coming and it does not matter what we say was back in 2001: something our department of justice called: "Lawful Access". Which meant they intend to log everything. And I mean everything. Every packet, every IP address. I have no idea how we will be able to afford the resources. It is probably eating into our defense and national security budget like nothing else. I expect this is also why American defense spending continues to balloon larger than the visible results as well.
Just wait till IPv6 rolls out completely and your LG fridge and dryer are online and accessible from your smartphone (see current LG offerings - gawd - even the name...). The volume of data to be monitored is insanely huge. No computing budget in the world could possibly compare.
I don't know if our department of justice has since abandoned this insane idea, I don't monitor such things anymore, too depressing. The lack of knowledge, the lack of understanding, it all just brings me down. I like to play with SFC and work on it. It makes me happy. I have to hide. I cannot comment. I always say this but always comment anyway, I am such a dichotomy of myself. ;) :D
Edit: as far as net neutrality and bandwidth caps etc... I'm sure whatever the criminal organisation known as Rogers tells the government they need is how it will be. I have no other explanation for how they continue to get away with highway robbery and fiscal irresponsibility year after year.
P.P.S... are people aware of the Chinese internet hijack? Where all traffic was routed through China for nearly a day back in April 2009 I think it was... they used a simple and well known routing hack... the following year they announce the most powerful supercomputer yet? SSL comms decryption anyone? This is probably the main cause of governments wanting internet kill switches. Too much stuff over SSL encrypted VPNs that people treat as secure. Boeing... etc.
Always keep a carrier pigeon handy, just in case. ;) We cannot depend on technology for our freedom. That much is clear.
-
That is the point. Net neutrality will make it even less likely that a company will put the money in laying high speed glass. It is more expensive as it doesn't have the range that wire does between booster stations. Which in my area (very rural) high speed wireless is not feasable as we don't have the wired speed that can actually support a 4G network (let alone the 3G+ networks being done right now).
IF NN would come about, it would basicly make it a government job to lay the infrastructure as why would any company spend the money so everyone else can use it and not get paid anough to get your investment back timely. It is not the governments job to lay that stuff (at least not in the US, not a power of the feds) Let the market work. As for options, heck even in my bass ackwards area of the country I have four options (at least) for internet. I have less options for electricity, water, tv, and many other things.
The other thing, as you know, once you let the government get its fingers in something. You can't get them out, and they will muck it up.
Talking to Mackie just reminded me to rethink this fallacious argument. How come they can do it but we cannot? (The Finns and Norwegians that is, and it is a purely rhetorical question, I know the answer.)
-
Thanks, bonk, i was just about to bring that up.
-
Rhetorical but I am going to answer anyway.
1. For the US. It is limited by the constitution. States could. Fed can't.
2. Scale. Take any of the European countries that have done free internet or something like it. They have socialist leanings and they are small.
3. Cost. because of number two, costs are not as high.
4. The other contries have done it as a government works project style. While net neutrality seeks to take the investments of private companies away, basicly a step toward nationaling and taking over the companies (small step is regulating them so tightly that the business can't make it's own choices). Kind of what obamacare does to health insurance companies. But for internet and cell networks it would regulate fees and services that have to be provided making it so they can't turn a profit and continue. (Worst case of course)
You see they talk net neutrality and internet kill switches also. Too much control.
-
Ahh ok, here is what I was thinking of Bonk.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/01/canada-gets-first-bitter-dose-of-metered-internet-billing.ars (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/01/canada-gets-first-bitter-dose-of-metered-internet-billing.ars)
200GB to 25GB: Canada gets first, bitter dose of metered Internet
Metered Internet usage (also called "Usage-Based Billing") is coming to Canada, and it's going to cost Internet users. While an advance guard of Canadians are expressing creative outrage at the prospect of having to pay inflated prices for Internet use charged by the gigabyte, the consequences probably haven't set in for most consumers. Now, however, independent Canadian ISPs are publishing their revised data plans, and they aren't pretty.
"Like our customers, and Canadian internet users everywhere, we are not happy with this new development," wrote the Ontario-based indie ISP TekSavvy in a recent e-mail message to its subscribers.
But like it or not, the Canadian Radio-Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) approved UBB for the incumbent carrier Bell Canada in September. Competitive ISPs, which connect to Canada's top telco for last-mile copper connections to customers, will also be metered by Bell. Even though the CRTC gave these ISPs a 15 percent discount this month (TekSavvy asked for 50 percent), it's still going to mean a real adjustment for consumers.
This is going to hurt
Starting on March 1, Ontario TekSavvy members who subscribed to the 5Mbps plan have a new usage cap of 25GB, "substantially down from the 200GB or unlimited deals TekSavvy was able to offer before the CRTC's decision to impose usage based billing," the message added.
By way of comparison, Comcast here in the United States has a 250GB data cap. Looks like lots of Canadians can kiss that kind of high ceiling goodbye. And going over will cost you: according to TekSavvy, the CRTC put data overage rates at CAN $1.90 per gigabyte for most of Canada, and $2.35 for the country's French-speaking region.
Bottom line: no more unlimited buffet. TekSavvy users who bought the "High Speed Internet Premium" plan at $31.95 now get 175GB less per month.
"Extensive web surfing, sharing music, video streaming, downloading and playing games, online shopping and email," could put users over the 25GB cap, TekSavvy warns. Also, watch out "power users that use multiple computers, smartphones, and game consoles at the same time."
You need "protection"
Here's the "good" news: TekSavvy users can now buy "insurance," defined as "a recurring subscription fee that provides you with additional monthly usage." For Ontario it's $4.75 for 40GB of additional data (sorry, but the unused data can't be forwarded to the next month).
There are also "usage vault" plans—payments made in advance for extra data. Consumers can buy vault data for $1.90/GB up to 300GB in any month.
Where once TekSavvy consumers could purchase High Speed Internet Premium at a monthly base usage of 200GB for $31.95 a month, now they can get about half of that data (if they buy two units of insurance) at $41.45 a month.
Very questionable
Starting to hate this? TekSavvy hates it, too.
"The ostensible, theoretical reason behind UBB is to conserve capacity, but that issue is very questionable," noted the ISP's CEO Rocky Gaudrault on TekSavvy's news page. "One certain result though, is that Bell will make much more profit on its Internet service, and discourage Canadians from watching TV and movies on the internet instead of CTV, which Bell now owns."
Given these dramatic changes, and the fact that ISPs around the world have made clear they wouldn't mind implementing similar schemes, it's no wonder that high-bandwidth businesses are fighting back. Last week, for instance, Netflix started publishing graphs of ISP performance in both the US and Canada, and it plans to update them monthly.
Netflix is also stepping up the war of words against ISPs who try to implement low caps and high overage fees:
"Wired ISPs have large fixed costs of building and maintaining their last mile network of residential cable and fiber. The ISPs' costs, however, to deliver a marginal gigabyte, which is about an hour of viewing, from one of our regional interchange points over their last mile wired network to the consumer is less than a penny, and falling, so there is no reason that pay-per-gigabyte is economically necessary. Moreover, at $1 per gigabyte over wired networks, it would be grossly overpriced."
The big question now is how these kind of billing changes will impact 'Net consumption patterns. Many subscribers use minimal data, but that's changing as Internet video becomes the norm. If these new plans simply discourage data hogs from backing up their 120GB pirated movie collection over the 'Net every night, there's no sleep to be lost. But if they scare consumers away from legitimate non-ISP affiliated movie and content sharing sites, that should be a firebell concern to consumers, entrepreneurs, and regulators.
And not only in Canada.
-------------
Anyways, I was wrong on my time line a bit. This was from January , 2011. So just a little over a month had passed then.
stephen
-
Now AT&T did something like that with wireless. They did a market use analysis and found that most users use X amount of capacity a month. That only a smaller percentage uses the large amounts. So they dropped the rate for the low end users, and increased costs on those that use bandwidth up. It makes sense that the low end users shouldn't be supporting the high end users with their fees. But kind of sucks as I am on the upper end (but was grandfathered in with a plan from my old carrier).
-
I hear that. I've often wanted to get in on one of the wireless internet plans, but until I find a good unlimited for under 100 bucks a month, I'll stick with Sat Con.
Stephen
-
I did hear about that, but I'm unaffected. There's too much money to be made in bilking the parents of teenage urbanites to service the entire public.
Most of these capped plans apply to 3G and 4G wireless networks. I have looked at them and it would cost me literally thousands of dollars per month do on 3G what I can do on dial-up for $29.
I was shocked when marstone told me he was doing some large downloads tests for me over 3G. I was worried he would get hit with a bill for hundreds of dollars. That would happen here. We're talking oh $15/GB roughly? Or worse. The contracts here read like a deal with the devil. I think they are. Rogers and Bell are out of control here, completely out of control and the Canadian public allows it for some mysterious reason. I hate to think we are such suckers.
edit: The beauty part of the deal for Bell and Rogers is that once you sign, they don't have to actually provide any service. They can just walk away with your money, and if they don't get it they report you to their goons. Our conservative government condones this criminal behaviour under the guise of free enterprise. It is robbery of the Canadian people pure and simple. No socialist government would ever allow such a travesty to happen. And please, go read up the CCF and Tommy Douglas and western Social Credit before commenting on what socialism means in Canada... it is not the devil himself as helmethead and his american republican friends would have you believe... ok that's it I'm out of this thread for good... I can't keep it in. I broke the rules. Sorry guys. It is just that Rogers the criminal organisation is condoned by our own government just makes my blood boil. I can see it all, right down to the bone, it drives me mad. I cannot think about it or they win. I can only think about SFC. There is no sense in speaking out. I don't control as many guns, pure and simple. The corruption goes right to the top. I have no idea why we tolerate it.
Now, the day they try and cap my dial-up connection, then I will be loud. But maybe not, Who knows.
Hey, wait a minute... it seems we are forgetting the origins of the internet in this discussion. American origins. Government. How did that change, when did it become wrong for a government to serve and act in the best interests of its people? (again, purely rhetorical, I know the answer.)
And I don't want you to feel like I'm picking on you marstone, just exploring the discussion here. (And I'll grant you #2 to some extent... except to note that Canada is really a very narrow strip of people along the 49th. But yeah, our smallest provinces are larger than most european countries.
Too much control? Look into exactly who controls root DNS. Perspective is gained through observation. Here comes the bad word.... it is not socialism, but rather the farthest thing from it that is responsible for the already existing tight control that you fear.
Not saying what is right or who is wrong, that is all relative, (at least I tell myself that lie to stay sane) I'm simply making observations. And for the sake of SFC, here I will stop exploring this discussion. :)
-
i am on several irc networks and know a ton of canadians who were affected by the recent metered internet scam going on in canada. there was a huge HUGE uproar over it and it was forced to be rethunk. yes, i said rethunk. sue me. ;)
just like at&t's experiment, it was killed because of customer outrage. nothing kills a bad business plan faster than most of your customer base saying, i will cancel your service if this continues. most reasonable (not intelligent) services will quickly backskid to keep customers.
i feel it is only a matter of time at this point. corporations run the world and soon they will be dictating net allocation.
-
i feel it is only a matter of time at this point. corporations run the world and soon they will be dictating net allocation.
Better them than the bureaucrats.
-
Better them than the bureaucrats.
There's a difference? ;) I have learned that PHBs are PHBs, regardless of the form the institution takes. (PHB = Pointy Haired Boss -> Dilbert cartoons)
A respected Polish scientist once told me... "at home, there is a very fine line between organised crime and government". I was mildly shocked. But as I age I see that to be the case here as well. The "elected" administration provides a safe cover and absolution from responsibility. More accurately, that line does not exist at all, it is more of a very broad gradient.
I know I said I wouldn't post in this thread again but Stoney's relation of the tale does not seem complete to me for a number of reasons (I don't think the story is over...)
1) They're still at it (Bell example, I'm sure Rogers is even more evil):
http://www.bell.ca/shopping/en_CA_NB.Mobile-Internet-500-MB/TS500.details (http://www.bell.ca/shopping/en_CA_NB.Mobile-Internet-500-MB/TS500.details)
$30/500MB/Month plan ... note "Additional data: $0.05/MB" Holy crap... that's actually about $50/GB... smokins...
Lets try a larger plan (the largest)...
http://www.bell.ca/shopping/en_CA_NB.Mobile-Internetplan-5-GB/TS5.details (http://www.bell.ca/shopping/en_CA_NB.Mobile-Internetplan-5-GB/TS5.details)
$65/5GB/Month and still charging $50/GB over that...
2) You can't cancel. They don't even have to provide any service. It is the wild west up here... no holds barred against the consumers.
They won't sign you up without a credit card, there is always a contract, you have to pay even if they do not provide you with any products or services. It is the perfect scam.
Rogers still believes I owe them $250 from about seven years ago... I will never pay, I will not pay for something I did not get. I smashed to phone to bits until the lithium battery smoked... there was no service available, yet they still wanted me to pay, I could not cancel... they report me to the credit agencies (pure goons) Why do they take Roger's word but not mine? I have to pay to lodge an official objection with the credit reporting agencies... not gonna happen... so ingoring other factors this ruins my credit - not that I want any now after having observed the wage slavery system in action for long enough... nothing is worth it, nothing.
In summary:
You can't cancel.
They don't have to actually provide any products or services.
They are always right.
You word means nothing, theirs is gospel.
This robbery of the public is government sanctioned. (read: Chretien and Harper [Liberals and Tories])
In any sane society people that do this kind of thing would be in jail... but no, we harass and jail pot smokers selectively according to their politics. Oh you can smoke alright, but pay us and don't speak out... Harper's national security platform hinges almost entirely on such harassment... where is he getting the support for that? There is no way the majority of the Canadian population has hearts that black and souls that evil... no way. I refuse to believe it. Maybe they are that stupid though? Nah, they can't be, but they have been very effectively indoctrinated to this system making them blind to its criminal mechanisms and intent? Criminal. Yes, I consider my government criminal by the law of God. (I am not religious, but the standard stands)
Add into that that Rogers has barely escaped bankruptcy several times and been bailed out... (I could never get 5 cents on the dollar... no problem for Rogers though ::))
Additionally, it is a piece of cake to get a phone or connection in someone else's name and rack up thousands of dollars on it within days. Why would they want to prevent that? They don't.
There are only certain telecommunications companies that can be trusted (eastlink, shaw), but they cannot compete against these tactics much longer.
$50/GB with no service guarantee or recourse. It is a wash.
-
/me claps...
perfectly stated. as far as the "better than the bureaucrats" statement, who do you think the bureaucrats work for?
-
<snickers> themselves and there pocket books, But not wanting to turn this into a debate bro.
Stephen
-
/me claps...
perfectly stated. as far as the "better than the bureaucrats" statement, who do you think the bureaucrats work for?
Corporate executives are accountable to their shareholders. Bureaucrats are theoretically accountable to the taxpayers, but in practice accountable to noone. If the government gets involved, at best it will run the telecommunications industry into the ground, at worst, it won't be content to simply police rates, and will start regulating content (I mean political speech). I don't like the idea of getting gouged by metered internet, but government control is much more terrifying.