What does loss of net neutrality mean for volunteer computing?

Message boards : SETI@home Staff Blog : What does loss of net neutrality mean for volunteer computing?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 8 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 455
Credit: 2,287,375
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1539304 - Posted: 10 Jul 2014, 20:20:46 UTC - in response to Message 1539135.  

After reading Eric's blog & doing some further research on this, I can see this becoming the "sub-prime" disaster for the Internet.

There is a simple solution but one that will be difficult to implement: -

Have all non-US ISP's block ALL content to & from the Continental US. Hit these companies where it hurts the most - Their wallets!

I wonder what the NSA would say with no access to worldwide net traffic...

=========================================================================
the problem with this is all the domain name servers are in the us and the nsa has so far blocked any attempt to move them.

the solution here is to go to a decentralized net topology then no domain name servers would be necessary, also more paths = faser network so no high speed backbone is necessary.
although then who would the nsa snoop and they would have to re task all those supercomputers that they have hooked in to the backbone and may west portal.
ID: 1539304 · Report as offensive
Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 455
Credit: 2,287,375
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1539307 - Posted: 10 Jul 2014, 20:23:03 UTC - in response to Message 1539148.  

look up and read up on onion routers
ID: 1539307 · Report as offensive
Profile AndrewBeard
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 8 Dec 02
Posts: 9
Credit: 1,029,166
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1539308 - Posted: 10 Jul 2014, 20:23:19 UTC - in response to Message 1539224.  

nice !
ID: 1539308 · Report as offensive
Profile AndrewBeard
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 8 Dec 02
Posts: 9
Credit: 1,029,166
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1539311 - Posted: 10 Jul 2014, 20:27:26 UTC

I miss the plug ins , so I could convert the prodject into a .wav file ..
ID: 1539311 · Report as offensive
wal

Send message
Joined: 24 Apr 05
Posts: 1
Credit: 907,641
RAC: 654
United Kingdom
Message 1539313 - Posted: 10 Jul 2014, 20:29:26 UTC - in response to Message 1538884.  

like the motto a lot , have fun
ID: 1539313 · Report as offensive
Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 455
Credit: 2,287,375
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1539314 - Posted: 10 Jul 2014, 20:30:38 UTC - in response to Message 1539188.  

My comment to the FCC,

The internet, though new compared to many technologies we use today, has quickly become a service that people rely on for most aspects of their daily lives. Most people rely on a fast reliable internet for Doing business, Entertainment, Commerce, even Basic Communication. For example many people use the internet for their home telephone service including 911 access.

Internet access should be treated as common carrier. If ISPs can’t afford to keep up with demand (which is not the case) they can charge more for access, i.e. raise their rates. They should not be allowed to give preferential treatment for some customers’ traffic over other customers’ traffic. This practice could and most likely would lead to unfair competitive advantages for the few companies that afford to pay for the preferential treatment.

In this country we supposedly have anti-trust laws that prevent large companies from gaining too much of an unfair advantage over other companies. It is the duty of the government to try and keep the playing field at least somewhat level. The FCC needs to do its duty as a regulating commission and prevent some companies form abusing their resources to gain an unreasonably unfair advantage over others.

=============================================================
this does seem to bring up the comers clause be interesting to see how this plays out having congress sueing the fcc for impeding interstate trade.
ID: 1539314 · Report as offensive
Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 455
Credit: 2,287,375
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1539321 - Posted: 10 Jul 2014, 20:45:35 UTC

eric thankyou for the important and timely heads up it will be nice
if we can keep the internet open and free.
but in the long run having choke points may be just too tempting,
decentralizing the net topology can be done without changing the current
one,just adding too.
a few individual could make a huge difference this way maybe thou ham radio?
ID: 1539321 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15640
Credit: 59,259,556
RAC: 44,091
United States
Message 1539340 - Posted: 10 Jul 2014, 21:02:44 UTC - in response to Message 1539304.  

After reading Eric's blog & doing some further research on this, I can see this becoming the "sub-prime" disaster for the Internet.

There is a simple solution but one that will be difficult to implement: -

Have all non-US ISP's block ALL content to & from the Continental US. Hit these companies where it hurts the most - Their wallets!

I wonder what the NSA would say with no access to worldwide net traffic...

=========================================================================
the problem with this is all the domain name servers are in the us and the nsa has so far blocked any attempt to move them.


Untrue. There are DNS servers all over the world. The NSA has done nothing of the sort of blocking the moving of DNS servers. I think you are confusing root servers ( represented by literally a dot ".") and DNS servers.

the solution here is to go to a decentralized net topology then no domain name servers would be necessary, also more paths = faser network so no high speed backbone is necessary.


The internet is already a decentralized network topology. A backbone will always be required, and the backbone exists worldwide, but mostly in major countries like the U.S., China, and the E.U.

although then who would the nsa snoop and they would have to re task all those supercomputers that they have hooked in to the backbone and may west portal.


Again, the NSA has nothing to do with net neutrality in the sense that all they do is leech off of major connections to snoop. The worse thing the NSA has done is to purposely weaken encryption protocols to make their snooping easier, but they are not the primary anti-net neutrality opponent.

Net neutrality is about backbone providers peering data with each other unimpeded, and ISPs allowing those bits to travel to you in the same manner.
ID: 1539340 · Report as offensive
Speedy
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Jun 04
Posts: 984
Credit: 8,759,469
RAC: 1,064
New Zealand
Message 1539352 - Posted: 10 Jul 2014, 21:29:03 UTC
Last modified: 10 Jul 2014, 21:35:07 UTC

I certainly hope the proposed changes do not happen and Seti and other projects are not closed down. Does anyone have an idea as to when we will know whether the charges will be applied?
ID: 1539352 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15640
Credit: 59,259,556
RAC: 44,091
United States
Message 1539364 - Posted: 10 Jul 2014, 21:49:30 UTC - in response to Message 1539352.  
Last modified: 10 Jul 2014, 21:50:46 UTC

No changes are currently being applied. The debate is whether the FCC should force all bits to be treated as equal, which was attempted previously and struck down by a court as overstepping their bounds. So now the question is whether to reclassify ISPs as common carriers, which would give the FCC the authority needed to force ISPs to great all bits as equal.

The current head of the FCC is a former industry lobbyist that seems to favor the ISPs and not the consumer. That is why it is important to let the FCC know we feel so that our voice can be heard and considered.
ID: 1539364 · Report as offensive
Speedy
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Jun 04
Posts: 984
Credit: 8,759,469
RAC: 1,064
New Zealand
Message 1539368 - Posted: 10 Jul 2014, 21:54:53 UTC - in response to Message 1539364.  

No changes are currently being applied. The debate is whether the FCC should force all bits to be treated as equal, which was attempted previously and struck down by a court as overstepping their bounds. So now the question is whether to reclassify ISPs as common carriers, which would give the FCC the authority needed to force ISPs to great all bits as equal.

The current head of the FCC is a former industry lobbyist that seems to favor the ISPs and not the consumer. That is why it is important to let the FCC know we feel so that our voice can be heard and considered.

Okay thanks. Will it help if people from outside of the states post comments? I am in New Zealand
ID: 1539368 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15640
Credit: 59,259,556
RAC: 44,091
United States
Message 1539372 - Posted: 10 Jul 2014, 22:00:59 UTC - in response to Message 1539368.  

No changes are currently being applied. The debate is whether the FCC should force all bits to be treated as equal, which was attempted previously and struck down by a court as overstepping their bounds. So now the question is whether to reclassify ISPs as common carriers, which would give the FCC the authority needed to force ISPs to great all bits as equal.

The current head of the FCC is a former industry lobbyist that seems to favor the ISPs and not the consumer. That is why it is important to let the FCC know we feel so that our voice can be heard and considered.

Okay thanks. Will it help if people from outside of the states post comments? I am in New Zealand


Unfortunately, since the FCC only has jurisdiction in the U.S., only U.S. citizens can have influence.

However, the internet belongs to the world, so I personally think we all have a stake in this. There's just no central authority at play in this issue that would allow non-U.S. citizens their voices to be heard and matter.
ID: 1539372 · Report as offensive
William

Send message
Joined: 2 May 14
Posts: 1
Credit: 45,586
RAC: 14
Message 1539438 - Posted: 11 Jul 2014, 0:25:03 UTC - in response to Message 1538832.  

I posted my comments to FCC. Thanks for the reminder.
ID: 1539438 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 21727
Credit: 33,660,086
RAC: 33,686
United States
Message 1539451 - Posted: 11 Jul 2014, 0:59:50 UTC - in response to Message 1539372.  

No changes are currently being applied. The debate is whether the FCC should force all bits to be treated as equal, which was attempted previously and struck down by a court as overstepping their bounds. So now the question is whether to reclassify ISPs as common carriers, which would give the FCC the authority needed to force ISPs to great all bits as equal.

The current head of the FCC is a former industry lobbyist that seems to favor the ISPs and not the consumer. That is why it is important to let the FCC know we feel so that our voice can be heard and considered.

Okay thanks. Will it help if people from outside of the states post comments? I am in New Zealand


Unfortunately, since the FCC only has jurisdiction in the U.S., only U.S. citizens can have influence.

However, the internet belongs to the world, so I personally think we all have a stake in this. There's just no central authority at play in this issue that would allow non-U.S. citizens their voices to be heard and matter.

Well I wonder about that. Aren't IP addresses given out from an international authority now? How about a petition to them that any ISP that isn't neutral doesn't get any IP addresses. Force them to peer or they aren't part of the internet.
ID: 1539451 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15640
Credit: 59,259,556
RAC: 44,091
United States
Message 1539472 - Posted: 11 Jul 2014, 1:49:52 UTC - in response to Message 1539451.  

Unfortunately, since the FCC only has jurisdiction in the U.S., only U.S. citizens can have influence.

However, the internet belongs to the world, so I personally think we all have a stake in this. There's just no central authority at play in this issue that would allow non-U.S. citizens their voices to be heard and matter.

Well I wonder about that. Aren't IP addresses given out from an international authority now? How about a petition to them that any ISP that isn't neutral doesn't get any IP addresses. Force them to peer or they aren't part of the internet.


No, IP addresses are handled by IANA, a division of ICANN, and are managed by regional internet registrars depending on location around the world (e.g. ARIN for the United States & Canada). IANA and ICANN are still very much US-controlled.

Such a dictate would be well beyond their role or responsibility given they are all non-profit organizations with interoperability as their goal. Net neutrality isn't so much about interoperability as it is about treating all bits as equal. I could easily see blacklisted ISPs litigating, and winning, against such tactics, similarly to when the FCC attempted to regulate net neutrality and were challenged in court with the panel of judges stating the FCC overstepped their authority given the classification ISPs are currently under.

Because of that case, the only option now is to reclassify ISPs as common carriers which would give the FCC more authority of regulation of ISPs.
ID: 1539472 · Report as offensive
Buzz Fuzzel

Send message
Joined: 8 Jun 14
Posts: 1
Credit: 5,570
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1539479 - Posted: 11 Jul 2014, 2:26:01 UTC - in response to Message 1538992.  

This blog post ignores the concept of competitive markets and assumes monopolies will go unchallenged by a free market. Monopolies require the support or of the state to exist. With free markets monopolies can not exist.

Common carrier is a euphemism for state controlled media. Proponents of "net neutrality" are usually big fans of socialism, statism and collectivism. I prefer Liberty and free enterprise.
ID: 1539479 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15640
Credit: 59,259,556
RAC: 44,091
United States
Message 1539486 - Posted: 11 Jul 2014, 2:36:52 UTC - in response to Message 1539479.  

This blog post ignores the concept of competitive markets and assumes monopolies will go unchallenged by a free market. Monopolies require the support or of the state to exist. With free markets monopolies can not exist.


Free markets should also be fair markets, which is why we have regulation. Regulated markets do not allow for monopolies to exist either.

Common carrier is a euphemism for state controlled media. Proponents of "net neutrality" are usually big fans of socialism, statism and collectivism. I prefer Liberty and free enterprise.


No, common carrier is a heavier form regulation that ensures that services which are deemed by the citizens of a nation as an important part of life remain fair and do not use their market power to abuse consumers into paying higher than necessary prices. Telephone is an example of a common carrier industry; you cannot get a job without a telephone, therefore the telephone is an integral part of everyday life that shouldn't be gouging people for money through anti-competitive practices.

ISPs in many parts of the US have agreed to stay out of each other's turf, essentially avoiding the free market altogether by not having to compete so as to be able to monopolize a "free market" in specific regional areas.

As a Civil Libertarian, I generally do not like government regulation, however, I accept that I cannot allow that to be a blanket to cover all my views so naively. The guarantee of a neutral internet where all data is treated equal is far more important to me, and the future of any developing or civilized nation than my personal dislike for government regulation.

Do try to step out of your own personal idealistic politics and understand exactly what is at stake here.
ID: 1539486 · Report as offensive
Profile Uli Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Feb 00
Posts: 10848
Credit: 5,743,225
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 1539491 - Posted: 11 Jul 2014, 2:45:46 UTC

Thank you for this Blog entry Eric.
Pluto will always be a planet to me.

Seti Ambassador
ID: 1539491 · Report as offensive
danieloconnor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 16 Nov 05
Posts: 18
Credit: 30,821,901
RAC: 8,377
Canada
Message 1539532 - Posted: 11 Jul 2014, 4:58:30 UTC - in response to Message 1539045.  

This is something that has already been decided in Canada. We went Net Neutrality.


Well, that's good news!
ID: 1539532 · Report as offensive
Profile JD Crownover

Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 10
Posts: 3
Credit: 9,235,573
RAC: 3,413
United States
Message 1539574 - Posted: 11 Jul 2014, 6:17:24 UTC - in response to Message 1538832.  
Last modified: 11 Jul 2014, 6:20:37 UTC

Withdrawn.
ID: 1539574 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 8 · Next

Message boards : SETI@home Staff Blog : What does loss of net neutrality mean for volunteer computing?


 
©2018 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.