Obama's Plan to Regulate the Internet is 332 Pages. The Public Can't Read It!

[gourimoko]

What makes you think isn't possible? If it really isn't possible based on our current infrastructure, then that is a huge relief, because having the government regulate the internet as a utility is a surefire way to ensure that we have the same infrastructure 100 years from now.

Because the way datacenters work in our country and in most Western countries, there is no single backbone. Instead, traffic is generally routed through many networks depending on their routes. It's not really feasible that the government would or could censor all of these networks. We call this multihoming.

We also don't generally use the same DNS servers, and those servers are interlinked. This is not how countries like China operate, where name servers are generally under strict government regulation. Net neutrality allows anyone to run such a server; however, the status quo (without neutrality) allows the banning of such servers for private use.

Add to that the increased usage of end-to-end encryption for almost anything and then the situation becomes even more dire.

Without net neutrality, companies would simply downthrottle this type of encrypted traffic, making it less desirable to end users. But with net neutrality, that would no longer be legal; effectively taking away the only feasible means of real internet censorship.

 

[Maximus]

Yes, more than one. I'm in the AR system, my older brother is into AK's. It's a hobby of mine.

Better buy more bullets. Obama using executive privilege to ban 5.56mm ammo.

 

[Otsego Mar]

Yes, more than one. I'm in the AR system, my older brother is into AK's. It's a hobby of mine.

Get that ammo while you still can

 

[gourimoko]

Better buy more bullets. Obama using executive privilege to ban 5.56mm ammo.

Nah.... That's ridiculous.

EDIT: Oh wow... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2560750

 

[Man Called X]

OR PRODUCE YOUR OWN FUCKING AMMO.

 

[OptimusPrime]

Nah.... That's ridiculous.

EDIT: Oh wow... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2560750

LOL. One day soon you will regret campaigning for this pig.

 

[Man Called X]

Because the way datacenters work in our country and in most Western countries, there is no single backbone. Instead, traffic is generally routed through many networks depending on their routes. It's not really feasible that the government would or could censor all of these networks. We call this multihoming.

We also don't generally use the same DNS servers, and those servers are interlinked. This is not how countries like China operate, where name servers are generally under strict government regulation. Net neutrality allows anyone to run such a server; however, the status quo (without neutrality) allows the banning of such servers for private use.

Add to that the increased usage of end-to-end encryption for almost anything and then the situation becomes even more dire.

Without net neutrality, companies would simply downthrottle this type of encrypted traffic, making it less desirable to end users. But with net neutrality, that would no longer be legal; effectively taking away the only feasible means of real internet censorship.

Net neutrality might allow anyone to run their own DNS server, but their ISP doesn't. Comcast, TWC, Charter, AT&T, all have exclusions in their terms and conditions that make it against the terms to run any kind of server including FTP, HTTP, DNS, etc.

The average internet user uses the same ISP defined DNS servers that everyone else on their ISP uses. Very few if any bother to change to an openDNS like googles.

While theoretically the gov't couldn't control DNS, for the average user, they really could.

I think what makes me laugh the most about Gour's argument is that the legality of censoring the internet is what would stop them.

 

[RonG]

Glad my last two AR's are 300 blackouts. Not the same range as the 556 but great up to 400 yards.

 

[OptimusPrime]

I think what makes me laugh the most about Gour's argument is that the legality of censoring the internet is what would stop them.

I just want to know if it is physically possible. If it is then they will do it starting now. If not, then you will know why they pour billions and billions of dollars into the infrastructure. Government sponsored utility monopolies have no reason to invest in infrastructure because their profits are protected by government, so the taxpayers will pay for the improvements to ease the job of government data collectors.

 

[gourimoko]

Net neutrality might allow anyone to run their own DNS server, but their ISP doesn't. Comcast, TWC, Charter, AT&T, all have exclusions in their terms and conditions that make it against the terms to run any kind of server including FTP, HTTP, DNS, etc.

Right, that's the point. Net Neutrality prevents "(2) content- or service-sensitive blocking or censorship on the part of broadband carriers."

It prevents exactly this type of service blocking that you are describing because it more or less invalidates the distinction without a difference that are termed "servers."

Meaning that if a person purchases n bandwidth, and t speed, the provider cannot use filtering mechanisms to control, throttle, or block transmissions based on the services they choose to use.

The average internet user uses the same ISP defined DNS servers that everyone else on their ISP uses. Very few if any bother to change to an openDNS like googles.

Agreed, but that could and likely would change if any attempt at censorship actually happened. We would almost assuredly move towards peer-to-peer forms of DNS.

While theoretically the gov't couldn't control DNS, for the average user, they really could.

I disagree with this. The government has no standing to control name resolution, and it would be next to impossible for them to do so from a technical standpoint.

 

[gourimoko]

I just want to know if it is physically possible.

It is not possible today. There is no switch Congress could flip to make this possible. It could be possible with future technologies or investments in ASIC or GPGPU based content filtering systems. But a simple DNS firewall like China uses would not work in the United States.

What makes it unlikely that we would see any development in this area is the inherent cost to doing so. Again, you would need a level of filtering that just doesn't currently exist, and you would need to use a level of processing that isn't available in most datacenters.

If it is then they will do it starting now. If not, then you will know why they pour billions and billions of dollars into the infrastructure. Government sponsored utility monopolies have no reason to invest in infrastructure because their profits are protected by government, so the taxpayers will pay for the improvements to ease the job of government data collectors.

I go to a datacenter every other week or no less than once a month. As part of my business, I own a rack of servers in a multihomed datacenter in Las Vegas.

Again, it's just, not possible. The government doesn't own the infrastructure, they don't own the hardware, the datacenters, the servers, the network.

The government does not own it, and they have no means of imposing any level of censorship over it. They could regulate DNS, but that simply wouldn't work for a number of reasons.

If they started regulating what software we used in our routers and servers then possibly. But that's quite a leap from what we're talking about here.

 

[Man Called X]

Right, that's the point. Net Neutrality prevents "(2) content- or service-sensitive blocking or censorship on the part of broadband carriers."

It prevents exactly this type of service blocking that you are describing because it more or less invalidates the distinction without a difference that are termed "servers."

Meaning that if a person purchases n bandwidth, and t speed, the provider cannot use filtering mechanisms to control, throttle, or block transmissions based on the services they choose to use.



Agreed, but that could and likely would change if any attempt at censorship actually happened. We would almost assuredly move towards peer-to-peer forms of DNS.



I disagree with this. The government has no standing to control name resolution, and it would be next to impossible for them to do so from a technical standpoint.

Net neutrality passed. My bandwidth using P2P networks is still being shaped and throttled. I don't see it changing. Big business doesn't care what the gov't says it can and can't do. We get caught being bad, we'll just pay the fine. That's what they've done up to this point, don't see net neutrality changing that.

You say technically the gov't doesn't have a way of censoring the internet. I think they've had the technology and it's just a matter of when they could implement it. If I told you 10 years ago that there was technology available that would allow someone to see thru the walls of your home, would you have believed me that it existed? Probably not, but it's been proven to exist and has existed for quite a while.

 

[gourimoko]

I think what makes me laugh the most about Gour's argument is that the legality of censoring the internet is what would stop them.

It's not the legality of censorship, it's the feasibility of it. The legal part goes to show that we do not prosecute people in this country for hearing the "F" word, but we do fine people for saying it over the airwaves. That's very different than say, China, or other such nations which would literally go after someone for going around the national firewall.

 

[Man Called X]

Get ready for the beginning of government datacenters.

If you believe the only thing keeping us safe from gov't censorship of the internet is the feasibility of it, then get ready. Because that's what they are going to make sure happens.

This is the same country that made it a crime to speak out against America less than 6 years after it came into existence. The same country that made speaking out against World War 1 a punishable offense. And the same country that has made protesting anywhere near the President a federal crime.

You say it's not possible to be done based on the current infrastructure. I'm telling you they'll just build a new infrastructure. Wait for it.

 

[gourimoko]

Net neutrality passed. My bandwidth using P2P networks is still being shaped and throttled. I don't see it changing.

Net neutrality passed today. You'll likely see a great deal of litigation over the matter before any changes are evident.

Also, if your P2P is being throttled, why aren't you using a secured connection?

Big business doesn't care what the gov't says it can and can't do. We get caught being bad, we'll just pay the fine. That's what they've done up to this point, don't see net neutrality changing that.

What net neutrality does is preserve how the internet is built today. I've tried to get this more technical point across as being the most important. "Fast lanes" and "slow lanes" entails your ISP being a sole, discrete network, onto itself.

This network topology is akin to how BBS' connected local users to the Internet via Telnet/WWW/Fidonet ages ago. Those BBS' grew into systems like America Online, Prodigy, and Compuserve; offering "premium," and "special" content that was incompatible with the open standards of the open internet.

Again, the most serious issue with net neutrality is the preservation of the internet as an open system. That would have changed otherwise.

You say technically the gov't doesn't have a way of censoring the internet. I think they've had the technology and it's just a matter of when they could implement it.

It's not possible. I did research on this type of packet filtering and I'm well aware of the computational cycles necessary for such filtering. We looked into using off-the-shelf GPUs using GPGPU and RTOS environments to implement DDoS protection which is an analogous system.

Again, the government does not have a switch they can throw to censor the net.

If I told you 10 years ago that there was technology available that would allow someone to see thru the walls of your home, would you have believed me that it existed?

Visually? On the visible light spectrum? No.

On a different light spectrum? Sure, the technology has existed for decades.

Probably not, but it's been proven to exist and has existed for quite a while.

It has? Within the visible light spectrum? I'd like to see that.. Sounds interesting.