Unless there is an overwhelming need, most BOINC projects are on the whole not bandwidth pigs.

As Grant stated to you, net neutrality is not about network bandwidth. It is about the companies in between you and the content you wish to access, whether that be Youtube, Netflix, Google Apps, or even SETI@home workunits.

At issue with net neutrality is the fact that some ISPs have begun charging content providers for peering deals. Those peering deals have always been free in the past, and need to remain free in the future to make sure everyone has access to the content they wish to consume. ISP links are paid for by their customers, they should not be charging content providers for those same links again.

1st
Seti at Home has about 1.5 million participants listed with stats. Out of that only ~128,194 of them have any points earned listed for the last month, and a portion of those are quite low in point values.

Now, in comparison, January of this year Netflix listed as having 44 million members, almost all of them with streaming plans. And the traffic that they bring has to be a hassle for many ISP's as their numbers continue to grow by the millions each quarter. The amount of data being transferred out I am sure far exceeds that of all of the volunteer computing sites combined by multipliers in the thousands or even hundreds-of-thousands.

You are not outlining the problem properly here. It doesn't matter that Netflix has so much traffic flowing through ISPs, it isn't on Netflix to pay for that demand. That demand wouldn't be there if consumers saw no value in a product like what Netflix offers.

Further, that bandwidth is already paid for by you and me, the customers of ISPs. For ISPs to go back to content providers and insist they pay more is double-dipping. If anything, ISPs should be negotiating free peering with Netflix to improve their performance for their customers. By forcing Netflix to pay for peering, that in turn means that Netflix will have to charge it's customers more to offset that cost (that's how business works). So that means you and I already pay our ISP for internet access, and we pay for subscriptions to content such as Netflix, who is charging us more because of a paid peering deal with our ISP. The consumer loses all the way around.

The mere fact that ISPs are allowed to go after content providers like Netflix for paid peering deals means that nothing would be able to stop them from going after distributed computing projects like SETI@home, as the precedence has already been set for paid peering.

2nd
ISP's are going to go money grubbing where the money is at. That means companies making money doing things online. This is sites like Nexflix, Amazon, Facebook, etc.

As I stated to you in my above paragraph, ISP's links are already paid for by their customers - you and me. To allow ISPs to go after content providers would only be the start. If allowed to continue, why should they stop at Netflix, Amazon, or Facebook?

At first they charged more for dancing cat videos, but I did not speak up as I did not watch them.
Then they charged more for Cloud services, but I did not speak up as I do not use Cloud services.
Then they charged more for Software as a Service (SaaS), but I did not speak up because I do not use SaaS.
Then they wanted to charge more for distributed computing, and I wanted to speak up but was unheard because of all the precedence set before me.

3rd
CompuServe is a good example of how things used to be. Having had a sponsored account, I was fortunate to not have to pay the hundreds of dollars that I racked up when I was out of school for the summer. The problem with this comparison, though, is that we have changed from charging by the hour to charging by the GB.

What happens when ISPs charge their customers for internet access, then turn around and charge content providers for access to it's customers?

Either way, there are ways to work with this if the charges do come to us. One, if it is time access based, connecting, transferring all of your data, and disconnecting was something that was done regularly in the old days, so you would use only a few minutes to log on and transfer things with BOINC. If it is data usage based, the current file sizes run by most projects would require you to transfer thousands of them to get to even 1GB (in most cases). BOINC could also be adapted to compress and uncompress files for data transfer if something like that occurred.

Again, this argument is framed from a bandwidth perspective, which isn't what net neutrality is about. Net neutrality is about ensuring that whatever service is consumed by a customer, that the bits are treated the same as all other bits. If an ISP cannot deal with the burden of demand for those bits by it's customers, then it needs to upgrade it's infrastructure using the profits it makes from it's customers, not going back to content providers and demanding money for access to it's customers.

4th
Most projects are hosted on a University, and many of them are connected in some way, shape, or form by the State Governments. If an ISP really wants to get some heat and have the rules changed on them, I say let them go after the volunteer computing sites and see what happens...

My 2 cents. =o)

If the precedence has already been set to allow for paid peering deals, there's nothing to stop ISPs from going after Universities and State Governments, both of which are funded by tax payers and therefore aren't in a position to challenge the paid peering demand unless elected officials deem it worthy. The moment they see that paid peering is done everywhere else will be the moment they determine that it is an accepted form of commerce and will simply pay up.

Maybe if we put it this way.

Rubert Murdoch owns an ISP. You get all the Faux News videos you want. However want to watch CNN? He only allows a single dial up speed connection for all his customers. He won't even sell CNN peering!

In Los Angeles, we already see this, but on cable. Sportsnetla.

---

1. You don't need to use ISPs or webhosts in the US to do distributed computing, that ship sailed about 10 years ago.

How can I do this?

Thanks

It's false information. You cannot access the internet without an Internet Service Provider. ISPs are required, period.

It's not false information, you forgot the text further on that says "ISPs or webhosts in the US" ... a world of difference that makes.

I don't think that there is much to worry about on the volunteer computing end of things. We need to look at a few different things in order to compare this and how it will effect us.

And as I keep mentioning - this is not about bandwidth or data amounts. It's not about how much someone does or doesn't download or upload.

It's about access.

Net Neutrality in Australasia (or Canada for that matter) still has more to do with access than the impacts of Pay-per-use peering agreements. Although the major centres have reasonably good access, the Internet in the bush can still max out at 100kbs in both directions. The web in Australasia is improving, but very slowly ... the tropics are a hard place to run an Internet.

However, the whole peering vs net neutrality issue never really comes up if you don't consume a lot of bandwidth relative to the major bandwidth issues. Not exactly being a rich entity actually helps. That is the REALPOLITIK. The "Deep State" does not care unless you are in the top 100 consumers of bandwith in the US-UK-ANZ-CAN system.

1. You don't need to use ISPs or webhosts in the US to do distributed computing, that ship sailed about 10 years ago.

How can I do this?

Thanks

It's false information. You cannot access the internet without an Internet Service Provider. ISPs are required, period.

It's not false information, you forgot the text further on that says "ISPs or webhosts in the US" ... a world of difference that makes.

No, I read that too, and no matter which part you read, it is completely false. One cannot access the internet without an internet service provider (ISP).

Unless there is an overwhelming need, most BOINC projects are on the whole not bandwidth pigs.

As Grant stated to you, net neutrality is not about network bandwidth. It is about the companies in between you and the content you wish to access, whether that be Youtube, Netflix, Google Apps, or even SETI@home workunits.

At issue with net neutrality is the fact that some ISPs have begun charging content providers for peering deals.

Those peering deals have always been free in the past, and need to remain free in the future to make sure everyone has access to the content they wish to consume.

ISP links are paid for by their customers, they should not be charging content providers for those same links again.

A true loss of Net Neutrality would lead to neverending cycles of RENT SEEKING by ISPs. That is the endgame the original creator of the thread probably forgot, so here it is defined

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking

Rent-seeking is an attempt to obtain economic rent, (i.e., the portion of income paid to a factor of production in excess of that which is needed to keep it employed in its current use), by manipulating the social or political environment in which economic activities occur, rather than by creating new wealth. Rent-seeking implies extraction of uncompensated value from others without making any contribution to productivity.

The classic example of rent-seeking, according to Robert Shiller, is that of a feudal lord who installs a chain across a river that flows through his land and then hires a collector to charge passing boats a fee (or rent of the section of the river for a few minutes) to lower the chain.

There is nothing productive about the chain or the collector. The lord has made no improvements to the river and is helping nobody in any way, directly or indirectly, except himself. All he is doing is finding a way to make money from something that used to be free.

In many market-driven economies, much of the competition for rents is legal, regardless of harm it may do to an economy. However, some rent-seeking competition is illegal – such as bribery, corruption, smuggling, and even black market deals.

Rent-seeking is distinguished in theory from profit-seeking, in which entities seek to extract value by engaging in mutually beneficial transactions.

Profit-seeking in this sense is the creation of wealth, while rent-seeking is the use of social institutions such as the power of government to redistribute wealth among different groups without creating new wealth.

In a practical context, income obtained through rent-seeking may of course contribute to profits in the standard, accounting sense of the word.

However, the whole peering vs net neutrality issue never really comes up if you don't consume a lot of bandwidth relative to the major bandwidth issues.

Not yet.
But if companies can use high bandwidth users as their argument to end net neutrality, then everyone can expect problems in the future, no matter how little bandwidth they may make use of.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

[The reason for this is that governments hate the free flow of information among people. I was born in Cuba and lived through the destruction of liberty by the Castro Regime. The internet is highly regulated and very few people have access to it, speeds are like dead slow. The Obama Regime is following the same model. Make sure you vote in November.

---

If they start charging me for access, I will just buy a lot of games and will not use the Internet. It's bad enough that my ISP charges $16.95 a month anyway since the Internet is supposedly free. However, I don't mind the $16.95 a month for fast access and my wife and I use the same wireless connection. If they start charging me by the minute like they used to do when I first joined the Internet (long before Al Gore thought he invented it) I will not use it. I joined when it was ARPANET and DARPANET.

---

The bottom line is this is not about cost ,but about access if the isp's can

charge the content providers they control access.

If they so choose at that point the only person that may be allowed to afford to

provide content may be the guy with the dancing cat videos.

that is why this is so important.

---

Maybe we need to create a Bigger Brother to watch the Government. It is OUR government right. We should be told what is going on at all times. Why don't we create a Big Brother workload that monitors the monitors. Basically when information is given and recieved it goes through filters and databases that collect those IP's and such and the information that they handle. Well Why can't we just copy the information that they get and collect the same information they collect. We need to quit worrying about what they know and basically collect and process the information and display it so everyone knows what they know. Transparency RIGHT!!!

If everything is out in the open then we all will have nothing to hide.

Don't worry all the people will prevail. Big Business is us. We created everything we run everything the higher ups are up high because of us. We can change that at any time. It takes unity. A collective conscious if you will. Like Bonic is. We are on the right path.

Excelente!!!!

---

A ZD Update on Net Neutrality Hearings with Interesting Links.
http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-delays-net-neutrality-commentary-deadline-after-overwhelming-response-7000031633/?s_cid=e589&ttag=e589&ftag=TREc64629f

---

I Desire Peace and Justice, Jim Scott (Mod-Ret.)

What ever happen to the land of the free

'Land of the Free' is just an illusion and has been for a long time. I'm not sure when USA stopped being a 'can do' and turned into a 'can sue' society?
Allowing lawyers into politics was a very bad idea, they are trained not to give a damn and create a win win situation for themselves .
I'm sure there are some good ones who actually care about the people they work for but I'm sure they are a very small and not very rich minority

I have fired off my missive to the FCC. My focus was on the handing over the keys to what is nothing short of a miraculous experiment in diplomacy and the free sharing of knowledge and ideas on a truly global scale, to the proverbial 1% of the wealthiest corporate entities.

Hope they choke on it. I was a radio DJ in Boston for about 10 years. And I saw the FCC hand over every single "unassigned" radio frequency to 4 major corporations: Westinghouse, Disney, GE, and Turner Broadcast. If you have/had a independent station, and you lost your license somehow - BANG! It was now wearing Mickey-Mouse ears! And they went out of their way to try to cause "indies" to lose their licenses.

So I've seen how low they will stoop.

Good Night & Good Luck,

Dave

Dr. Korpela, 4Pablo2 = me does SETI 24-7 since last millennium. Dec. 2011 was start of this Windows 7 Pro 64 Bit 16 Meg Memory. You can see at Willy de Zuter Stats that the ten best 24 hour periods degraded within 12 months from ~ 100'000 down to now hardly 17'000 credits / 24 Hrs.
I again plan to have a dedicated SETI unit built by our local COD / Computer Outlet Direct. This time I want it to run on LINUX to elliminate "Windows Rot" slow down problems !
What advise can you guide us to build and run a reliably performing 100K / 24Hrs. unit ?

Thank you for your Dedication, Efforts and Guidance.

Sincerely, Paul A. Willi, Eng.

---

Dr. Korpela, 4Pablo2 = me does SETI 24-7 since last millennium. Dec. 2011 was start of this Windows 7 Pro 64 Bit 16 Meg Memory. You can see at Willy de Zuter Stats that the ten best 24 hour periods degraded within 12 months from ~ 100'000 down to now hardly 17'000 credits / 24 Hrs.
I again plan to have a dedicated SETI unit built by our local COD / Computer Outlet Direct. This time I want it to run on LINUX to elliminate "Windows Rot" slow down problems !
What advise can you guide us to build and run a reliably performing 100K / 24Hrs. unit ?

Thank you for your Dedication, Efforts and Guidance.

Sincerely, Paul A. Willi, Eng.

This thread is not for asking questions, and I very much doubt Dr Korpela would have time to go into that sort of detail.

You would be better off asking in the Number Crunching forum where there are experts in Windows and Linux who would definitely be able to advise you.

---

The reason for this is that governments hate the free flow of information among people. I was born in Cuba and lived through the destruction of liberty by the Castro Regime. The internet is highly regulated and very few people have access to it, speeds are like dead slow. The Obama Regime is following the same model. Make sure you vote in November.

Many contrarian economists in the West have conceded that the West is as a whole moving into a Rent Seeking model of economic operation. Rent Seeking has also been called Neo Feudalism.

The European region in feudal era was run by large landowners who merely taxed the inhabitants on the land that the large landowners owned. Land ownership in the Middle Ages was very concentrated, with personal private property being rather rare on most of the European landmass.

-- Only the Plague (or series of plagues up until the 1770s) broke the back of this system.

-- On top of several significant global climate shifts that destabilized the agricultural productivity of the European landmass leading as much to famines as changes in the social structure.

In the modern US and EU -- the concentration of land and property ownership (aka companies) is almost beginning to reach Middle Ages ratios in some geographic regions. The US and EU political classes are almost as inter-related as the royalty of the Middle Ages. It is a demographic and geographic time warp of sorts.

Latin America has mostly been stuck in a Late Medieval neo-feudal model for the past 500 years, so the model has always been next door to North America.

To necessarily think that voting alone will put people in power who will fix the economic problems existent is perhaps being a bit hopeful. Both US political parties have ruling (yet elected) elites that have never really worked for 3 to 5 generations. There is an expectation that the entire US political class will be replaced at some future time by people loyal to a new set of owners on another continental landmass.

Today (~past 20 years) there is the issue of Peak Resources and Peak Population -- that has either created or caused wage deflation. So, the economic and resource base is not of much help.

It is a miracle that Distributed Computing can even hang on as a branch of the sciences, as the multigenerational ruling elites in the West are in each generation growing less and less capable of coping with dissent or change.