look up and read up on onion routers

---

nice !

---

I miss the plug ins , so I could convert the prodject into a .wav file ..

---

like the motto a lot , have fun

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

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?

---

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.

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

---

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.

I posted my comments to FCC. Thanks for the reminder.

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.

---

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.

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.

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.

Thank you for this Blog entry Eric.

---

Pluto will always be a planet to me.

Seti Ambassador
Not to late to order an Anni Shirt

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

Well, that's good news!

---

Withdrawn.

---

Survival of the fittest is an idea also used by famous eugenicists like the Nazis. The salient feature of human evolution has been altruism and cooperation. Without it we would not be here. There is nothing wrong with capitalism, but it does lead to oligarchy and complete and overwhelming monopoly by corporations who then defend themselves by touting this "survival" stuff. Oligarchy and monopoly are the enemies of capitalism and the leaders of these monopolies will tend to form a crony-capitalist state. In a crony-capitalist state only cronies do business - everybody else sits out. Survival of the fittest should apply to products and not corporations. Corporations see it the other way, of course. In the 1970s better cars started to be imported from Japan to the US. Did US auto makers then start to produce a better product? No, they lobbied the government for import tariffs.