Losing the Internet as We Know It

[Simulist]

Losing the Internet as We Know It

by Megan Tady

How much have you already used the Internet today?

We don't think twice about how much we rely on the Internet. Imagine not being able to map directions on Google or check the weather online. A business that doesn't have a Web site? Forgettable. Or rather, unsearchable. Remember when we didn't have e-mail? Would you want to go back to those Dark Ages? Me neither.

The Internet is in the very fabric of how we communicate, learn, shop, conduct business, organize, innovate and engage. If we lost it, we'd be lost.

But did you know that we're at risk of losing the Internet as we know it? Millions of Americans don't know that a battle over the future of the Internet is being played out right now in Washington. How it ends will have deep repercussions for decades to come.

On one side are public interest and consumer groups, small businesses, Internet entrepreneurs, librarians, civil libertarians and civil rights groups who want to preserve the Internet as it is - the last remaining open communications platform where anyone with access and a computer can create and consume online content.

Right now a film student in Idaho can upload a video the same way a Hollywood movie studio can. A small upstart company can launch a brilliant idea that challenges the Fortune 500. An independent journalist can break a story without waiting for a newspaper to run or print it.

The principle of "Network Neutrality" is what makes this open communications possible. Net Neutrality is what allows us to go wherever we want online. Our relationship with the phone and cable companies stops when we pay for our Internet service. These companies can not block, control or interfere with what we search for or create online; nor can they prioritize some content over others -making the Hollywood video load faster than the kid's video in Idaho.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HRxmARiCVw

On the other side are the Internet service providers, who want to dismantle Net Neutrality. Not only do they want to provide Internet service, but they want to be able to charge users to prioritize their content, effectively giving themselves the ability to choose which content on the Web loads fast, slow or not at all. The film student, the small entrepreneur, and the independent journalist will be lost in the ether, unable to compete with other, more established companies who can pay for a spot in the fast lane.

Gone is the level playing field. Gone is the multitude of voices on the Web. Gone is the Internet as we know it - unless we act now.

The Federal Communications Commission is crafting new Net Neutrality rules right now. The public has until Thursday at midnight to tell the FCC what we value about the Internet, and why we want the agency to create a strong Net Neutrality rule to protect it.

I'm filing my comments today, and I have to admit, it's a little tough -- not because I'm at a loss for words, but because there's so much to say.

I'm filing because:

* An open Internet gives me freedom of expression - freedom to write and share my views and the freedom to find alternative viewpoints;
* I want other, smarter people to come up with the next Google, the next YouTube, the next Web application that I can't even imagine;
* I want to read about people and cultures that are different from me;
* Mainstream media make me scream expletives, and I use the Internet to find alternative sources of news and information;
* I want to e-mail my boyfriend a link to a picture that reminds me of our last vacation;
* Net Neutrality means I don't need anyone's permission to create my own videos, and media execs aren't determining what's funny - we are;
* I come up with potential million-dollar ideas all the time, and some day, I just might start my own business;
* An open Internet feeds the activist in me, allowing me to engage with my community and organize for social change online;
* It's winter and I'd rather shop online, only I still want to support a local business;
* I needed advice on how to prime and paint a room, and found a video online that taught me how to do it; and,
* I don't want to be censored.

This is why I'm filing. Why are you? If you care about how the Internet impacts and boosts your life, and if you care about how the Internet could evolve in years to come, it's essential that you tell the FCC by Thursday.

Published on Tuesday, January 12, 2010 by Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/megan-tad ... 20322.html)

[compared2what?]

It can't hurt to file and it might help. So thanks for posting. Because it's not you, but HuffPo that I'm now going to proceed to bitch and moan about, okay? Okay.

If that damn site had kept its entire editorial staff working late for a year on how to frame the least informative and most alarmist item possible, they couldn't have done better than that. The present publicly stated intention of the FCC is to make the current net-neutrality guidelines the offical rule. Last week, at the 11th hour, Comcast filed a suit contending that the FCC isn't authorized to do that. Which they may very well win, but there won't be a ruling for months. And whatever way it goes, it seems reasonable to assume that once there's a ruling (or maybe even before then) both lobbyists for the gigantic corporations that oppose net neutrality and lobbyists for the gigantic corporations that support net neutrality are drawing up thier battle plans right now anyway so that it canl end up getting decided the good old fashioned American way -- ie, by bribing the legislature.

I wish they would just stop pretending that we don't all know how it works, you know?

[brainpanhandler]

I wish they would just stop pretending that we don't all know how it works, you know?

Yah, that's kind of like how I wish mainstream media outlets would go back to the days when they were openly partisan. Back in the day newspapers had a clear political stance and made no bones about it. Not that that does not come with it's own set of problems, but objectivity is an illusion and I'd prefer the set of problems that arises when we abandon that pretense. It doesn't exist, not even for the well intentioned, so why pretend it does? At least that's my fair and balanced opinion.

[freemason9]

If it weren't for porn, though, it's unlikely that the internet would have impacted so many as quickly as it has. Think about that before you extol the wonder of the internets.

[Maddy]

True. The internet is a many-headed hydra.

Thank gods.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Open network technology = utterly un-killable.

If they make the internets into a paid highway for corporate bullshit, we'll have a shadow system up and running in a matter of months. The smartest tech nerds I know are not worried about this either way, so I'm following their cue. I got ulcers already, I need to downsize my worry budget.

[Simulist]

Open network technology = utterly un-killable.

If they make the internets into a paid highway for corporate bullshit, we'll have a shadow system up and running in a matter of months. The smartest tech nerds I know are not worried about this either way, so I'm following their cue. I got ulcers already, I need to downsize my worry budget.

Thanks, Wombaticus Rex; that's good to hear.

(Not about your ulcers, but about the un-killable internet. )

[blonderengel]

I wish I could be THAT optimistic.

I fear the internet is going the way of network teevee. First a few stations (the good ole days...). then a few more, then cable, then 24/7 and 8 gazillion channels, and nothing but crap.

Yeah, sure, early in the process a few nerds talked about doing their own programming via public access--I think I saw a movie on that subject--today they kitty-sit Rupert's feline companions.

[Wombaticus Rex]

That's a lot like saying "I fear the magazine is going the way of the book." Sure, they're both mediums that involve the same interface, but they're different types of communication. Youtube is definitively not like network teevee, and that's even with "network teevee" stations having sponsored channels there. We interact with the mediums differently, though...not saying the internet is better, just different, because the higher level of engagement probably does more cognitive damage.

Good old days are always horseshit.

Anyways, the good news is, the technology exists to rebuild a shadow internet quickly and there's an awful lot of rich tech genius types with a vested interest in making that happen ASAP. The entire internet is a repeatable process, especially with recent wireless developments. It would actually be an improvement...in addition to a great chance to force intelligence agencies to refine their surveillance techniques.

So, Mr. Smartypants Rex, Why Don't We All Just Do It Now? A: Because all that work would be a huge pain in the ass and there's no need for it.

Yet.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Gee, why do you think that the Google vs China story is suddenly dominating this topic?

DECOY STORY. Google is totally in bed with NSA/CIA/DARPA. 'Those mean old Chinamen.'

"The Federal Communications Commission is crafting new Net Neutrality rules right now. The public has until Thursday at midnight to tell the FCC what we value about the Internet, and why we want the agency to create a strong Net Neutrality rule to protect it."

[Penguin]

Anyways, the good news is, the technology exists to rebuild a shadow internet quickly and there's an awful lot of rich tech genius types with a vested interest in making that happen ASAP. The entire internet is a repeatable process, especially with recent wireless developments. It would actually be an improvement...in addition to a great chance to force intelligence agencies to refine their surveillance techniques.

So, Mr. Smartypants Rex, Why Don't We All Just Do It Now? A: Because all that work would be a huge pain in the ass and there's no need for it.

Yet.

Examples -

http://gnuradio.org/redmine/wiki/gnuradio
"GNU Radio is a free software development toolkit that provides the signal processing runtime and processing blocks to implement software radios using readily-available, low-cost external RF hardware and commodity processors. It is widely used in hobbyist, academic and commercial environments to support wireless communications research as well as to implement real-world radio systems."

Combined with something like -

http://opensourcemesh.org/index.htm

Welcome to our rapidly developing group!!

This group is only a few weeks old and we have over 80 members and growing!! We need more programmers and those willing to trial and test new products! We are all volunteers! So we must be keen!!

Our common goal is a reliable Open Source Meshing Software

We are looking at various routers and their software. We hope the software can work on Meraki, Foneros, MeshAP, old Compaqs....

We are looking at the CnC (Command & Control), known as the Dashboard to many! This needs to be fully configurable if required or left simple for those that want a basic freenet

We are looking at ways to allow us all to monitor as much or as little as we individually require

Currently, this isn't a silver bullet - we don't have the complete answer yet, but would welcome everyones input and expertise into the project.We have on trial different options..... We do need more technical developers....

Thanks for joining and listening!

Currently we are based in Europe and the US. We are working alongside other groups in New Zealand and Canada.

And guys like these good fellows -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_Computer_Club

The Chaos Computer Club (CCC) is one of the biggest and most influential hacker organizations. The CCC is based in Germany and other German-speaking countries and currently has over 4,000 members.

The CCC describes itself as "a galactic community of life's beings, independent of age, sex, race or societal orientation, which strives across borders for freedom of information…." In general, the CCC stands up for more transparency in governments, freedom of information and a human right to communication. Supporting the principles of the hacker ethic, the club also fights for free access to computers and technological infrastructure for everybody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_mesh_network

A wireless mesh network (WMN) is a communications network made up of radio nodes organized in a mesh topology. Wireless mesh networks often consist of mesh clients, mesh routers and gateways [1]. The mesh clients are often laptops, cell phones and other wireless devices while the mesh routers forward traffic to and from the gateways which may but need not connect to the Internet. The coverage area of the radio nodes working as a single network is sometimes called a mesh cloud. Access to this mesh cloud is dependent on the radio nodes working in harmony with each other to create a radio network. A mesh network is reliable and offers redundancy. When one node can no longer operate, the rest of the nodes can still communicate with each other, directly or through one or more intermediate nodes. The animation below illustrates how wireless mesh networks can self form and self heal. Wireless mesh networks can be implemented with various wireless technology including 802.11, 802.16, cellular technologies or combinations of more than one type.

And perhaps something like this for those who need more privacy - (currently this is slow as hell and somewhat clunky, sadly - just an example as it is)
http://freenetproject.org/

Freenet is free software which lets you anonymously share files, browse and publish "freesites" (web sites accessible only through Freenet) and chat on forums, without fear of censorship. Freenet is decentralised to make it less vulnerable to attack, and if used in "darknet" mode, where users only connect to their friends, is very difficult to detect.

Theyve been building a network in Tibet like this:

http://www.tibtec.org/
The web-site of the Tibetan Technology Center
The Tibetan Technology Center is a charitable organization dedicated to harness modern technology for helping the Tibetan community in India.

Immediate targets and on-going projects:

• Provision of high-quality, low-cost, broadband Internet connectivity to non-profit organizations in the Dharamsala area.
• Leverage the unique Wireless-Mesh technology to generate public awareness toward the center and the community. The wireless-mesh and it’s underlying technology should be developed further as it generates great interest world-wide, which will enable partnership, involvement and new initiatives for the community.

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/08/18/ti ... _wifi.html

Tibtec.org, home-on-the-web for a wireless mesh network project aiding Tibetan refugees in Dharamshala, India, was reportedly the subject of a distributed denial of service attack today after being featured in Wired News. Snip from the update (I filed both reports):

Speaking to Wired News via Skype, project founder Yahel Ben-David said that while the distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack on the Tibetan Technology Center website appeared to come from IP addresses from a number of places around the world, they began immediately after scans from an IP address in China.

“There was no immediately evident single source for the attack, but it started right after an extensive series of China-based scans,” said Ben-David.

The tibtec.org website was featured in a Wired News story published on Thursday about the group's efforts to build a wireless mesh network serving Tibetan exiles. The site is built with Drupal, and runs on Apache.

The Wired story mentioned above:
http://www.wired.com/science/discoverie ... 6/08/71608

The volunteers are building a low-cost wireless mesh network to provide cheap, reliable data and telephony to community organizations.

The Dharamsala Wireless Mesh is an example of "light infrastructure," a concept gaining popularity among tech developers: decentralized, ad hoc networks that can deliver essential services faster than conventional means.

Attempts to deploy similar community wireless networks in America have been blocked repeatedly by national phone carriers. It takes a big company like Google to build citywide Wi-Fi networks (the company launched its first in Mountain View, California, this week).

("Community? Fuck them! Bloody communists")

[blonderengel]

That's a lot like saying "I fear the magazine is going the way of the book." Sure, they're both mediums that involve the same interface, but they're different types of communication. Youtube is definitively not like network teevee, and that's even with "network teevee" stations having sponsored channels there. We interact with the mediums differently, though...not saying the internet is better, just different, because the higher level of engagement probably does more cognitive damage.

I was not speaking of teevee as medium, but as message (trust me on this--McLuhan had his off days!), and as such, the message got progressively more crassly profit-oriented. The overall *shamelessness* of the programs (and I'm not talking nekkid people having buttsecks) became nauseating. YouTube has pretty much taken up where network teevee stopped. If we manage to get any dumber, then there's the danger we won't be able to operate the computers to upload the vids.

Good old days are always horseshit.

Yeah, probably, although I question the evolutionary chances of a race of animals who think (not all but all who count) it's a good idea to develop and use weapons with the potential to kill a whole bunch fellow animals, including themselves, and to destroy even the potential for life for generations. Sure, the instinct for destruction seems to have always been with us, but on this scale? Planetary, potentially even extra-terrestrial?

Anyways, the good news is, the technology exists to rebuild a shadow internet quickly and there's an awful lot of rich tech genius types with a vested interest in making that happen ASAP. The entire internet is a repeatable process, especially with recent wireless developments. It would actually be an improvement...in addition to a great chance to force intelligence agencies to refine their surveillance techniques.

So, Mr. Smartypants Rex, Why Don't We All Just Do It Now? A: Because all that work would be a huge pain in the ass and there's no need for it.

Yeah, that's the catch...it's tough to determine the proper time to check in or to check out.

Yet.

[Username]

~
An Orwellian world for Big Brother
By Ken Craggs
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Jan 15, 2010

The Council of Europe document ‘Internet Governance and critical Internet resources’ states (p.7) that “ . . . the Internet of Things refers to the seamless connection of devices, sensors, objects, rooms, machines, vehicles, etc, through fixed and wireless networks. Connected sensors, devices and tags can interact with the environment and send the information to other objects through machine-to-machine communication . . . The Semantic Web promotes this synergy: even agents that where not expressly designed to work together can transfer data among themselves when the data come with semantics.”

Pachube (pronounced Patch-bay) is a platform that helps individuals and organisations connect to and build the ‘internet of things’ and enable buildings, interactive environments, networked energy meters, virtual worlds and sensor devices to “talk” and “respond” to each other. Pachube, according to the founder, Usman Haque, is a vision inspired by Dutch architect Constant Nieuwenhuys and his 1956 proposal for a visionary society, New Babylon.

Around the world, a near invisible network of RFID wireless tags is being put on almost every type of consumer item. Wireless tags and sensors are being produced in their billions and are capable of being connected to the Internet in an instant. Yet this network is being built with little public knowledge or consent.

continued at link

[Penguin]

Thats what Vallee wrote about in his book "Heart of the Internet" in 2003. It is called - confusingly - the mesh phase of internet - where it is connected to most electric devices, houses, cars, phones, and consumer items that are tracked via RFID. Where I live they are now installing "smart meters" for the electric grid, everyone already has a cell phone, and plenty of people carry around internet connected phones, or wireless cell modems.

RFIDs dont have a long range, ie. they need to pass close to a reader to be activated and read, but damn they have gotten tiny lately -
http://pinktentacle.com/2007/02/hitachi ... id-powder/

Like mu-chips, which have been used as an anti-counterfeit measure in admission tickets, the new chips have a 128-bit ROM for storing a unique 38-digit ID number.

The new chips are also 9 times smaller than the prototype chips Hitachi unveiled last year, which measure 0.15 x 0.15 mm.

At 5 microns thick, the RFID chips can more easily be embedded in sheets of paper, meaning they can be used in paper currency, gift certificates and identification. But since existing tags are already small enough to embed in paper, it leads one to wonder what new applications the developers have in mind.

http://www.jacquesvallee.net/heart_of_the_internet.html
The book is available via Google, for free - the link is on that page as well.

[elfismiles]

FCC looks at ways to assert authority over Web access

By Cecilia Kang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 15, 2010; A22

The Federal Communications Commission is considering aggressive moves to stake out its authority to oversee consumer access to the Internet, as a recent court hearing and industry opposition have cast doubt on its power over Web service providers.

The FCC, which regulates public access to telephone and television services, has been working to claim the same role for the Internet. The stakes are high, as the Obama administration pushes an agenda of open broadband access for all and big corporations work to protect their enormous investments in a new and powerful medium.

"This is a pivotal moment," said Ben Scott, director of policy at the public interest group Free Press. The government wants to treat broadband Internet as a national infrastructure, he said, like phone lines or the broadcast spectrum. But federal regulators are grappling with older policies that do not clearly protect consumers' access to the Web, their privacy or prices of service.

The issue may have reached a turning point last week when a federal appeals court questioned the limits of the FCC's authority in a 2008 case involving Comcast. The agency had ordered the Internet and cable giant to stop blocking subscribers' access to the online file-sharing service BitTorrent. But in an oral hearing last Friday, three judges grilled an FCC lawyer over whether the agency had acted outside the scope of its authority.

The appeals court is still hearing the case, but analysts predict that the FCC will lose and that the ruling could throw all of its efforts to oversee Internet access into question. A loss could undermine the legality of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's push for policies that would prohibit service providers from restricting customers' access to legal Web content -- the concept known as net neutrality -- and throw into doubt the agency's ability to oversee pricing and competition among Internet service providers.

The agency said it will continue to argue that it had the authority to rule against Comcast, but it is making plans to deal with a loss.

"If the court removes the legal basis for the current approach to broadband, the commission may be compelled to undertake a major reassessment of its policy framework . . . or Congress will have to act," said Colin Crowell, senior adviser to Genachowski. "Any policies the commission pursues for the broadband marketplace will be rooted in the pro-consumer, pro-competitive structure of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, regardless of how the court ultimately decides."

Specifically, that could mean the agency will reverse policies from the past decade that put cable and DSL Internet services in a special category over which the agency has only "ancillary jurisdiction." Those policies were intended to deregulate Internet services in order to promote competition and innovation in the young industry as it developed. Consumer groups argue that they instead reduced competition and drove prices higher.

Analysts said the FCC may look to put broadband services back into a category alongside phone services that is clearly under the authority of the government.

At issue, some FCC officials say, is the future of how Americans will communicate and receive information. One in five U.S. homes has swapped landline telephone service for wireless. Most of those phones have Web browsers that are fast enough to watch videos and navigate traffic in real time. Consumers are also adopting ultra-high-speed Internet services over fiber and cable for 3-D games and videoconferencing.

"While I am still hopeful that we'll win the case, I am absolutely certain that consumers expect protection against gatekeeper control," said Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat. "That's why we need to move forward with whatever tools we have at our disposal to ensure an open Internet."

A move to reclassify broadband services would almost certainly be opposed. The telephone category is steeped in decades-long rules that are meant to prohibit blocking of services, protect consumer prices and spur competition. Such rules would be a stark change for Internet service providers that invest billions of dollars each year in networks but also receive high rates of consumer complaints over prices and services.

"To the extent that we need more regulation, we think less is more," said Kyle McSlarrow, head of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, a trade group. "The more granular and more regulatory we become with practical and legal issues, we can go too far."

The agency also could ask Congress to grant it explicit authority over Internet service providers. But that approach would also face significant barriers, analysts said.

"The odds are against it," said Paul Gallant, an analyst at Concept Capital, a research firm. "Net neutrality is the most controversial issue in the telecom media world, and even with a Democratic majority, it's not easy to pass."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 17_pf.html