The Internet is not like the public highway system where anyone who wants to ride the Freeway can regardless of whether you drive a beater or a Lamborghini. The Internet is a patchwork of thousands of private networks. Some networks owned by the big players are called backbone networks and they handle a lot of the traffic but they only take the traffic so far.
Go to your command prompt or terminal and type in traceroute followed by a url. You will see how many networks and nodes it took to get to your
destination. I did >traceroute youtube.com. I got 10 different networks that were traversed before it got to youtube.com
When you make a request to a server the request and the result of that request can traverse many networks to get to the server that hosts the information. These networks have cooperative agreements with other networks to allow traffic to go through them in return they get reciprocated with their traffic. When one network gets overloaded they cut off through traffic and the packets get rerouted someplace else that can handle the traffic. Sometimes there is no other option so the network has to throttle some traffic to handle the load. This is going to jeopardize this cooperation since they will want to protect their own traffic. The Internet cannot work without Inter network cooperation. If all networks circle the wagons nothing will get in or out and we will be left with thousands of private networks that can only talk to itself.
Why net neutrality will hurt and slow everyone down is because Networks will not be able to manage their networks based on the priority of the traffic so the result will be more traffic on their systems which means they will have to throttle Everyone to handle it. The result is it will take longer to receive packets and with streaming services such as Netflix it means you will see more of the dreaded buffering especially at night when most people want to watch Netflix.
What is interesting too is everyone is so concerned about net neutrality mainly because of Netflix but the funny thing is that Netflix uses a protocol that is low priority. The highest priority is TCP which requires every packet send back an acknowledgement that it was received or it sends it again. This makes no sense with streaming because if a packet doesn’t make it it is too late. Plus the protocol does not require every packet to be received to run the program. If anything you may lose a pixel of two. Netflix uses a protocol that has a “Best effort” protocol which is lower priority. So net neutrality will actually have no net benefit at all in streaming.
There are certain protocols used by the Internet to set priority for traffic. There is QoS (Quality of Service) and COS (Class of Service). These are part of the network protocols are are essential to operate the Internet smoothly and not bog it down. These prioritize traffic based on the nature or importance of the traffic. Net Neutrality is a small part of this and actually has little effect on the Internet and will not change QoS or Cos which means in reality Net Neutrality is mainly a marketing term. Sad something so insignificant has now resulted in the government taking over the Internet.
Obama was all gung-ho and used the full force of his administration to get ISPs to police copyrights but had no interest at all in doing the same thing to get ISPs to voluntarily adopt net neutrality. Rather he went the government takeover route. Hmmm wonder why?
Hey try the Android Game I created called CHOMP. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bingham.ken.chomp.android
Only a short time ago the thought of a government takeover of the Internet would have caused a massive movement against it from the Internet and tech communities. The Internet and tech communities that defeated SOPA, and PIPA have been lulled to sleep and in many cases welcome the takeover with thunderous applause.
The FCC is doing this all in secret with no public input. Just like Obamacare, we won’t know what is in it until they pass it and by then it will be far too late.
Net Neutrality is the Trojan Horse the Obama Administration is using to take control of the Internet. The FCC is about to vote to make the Internet subject to Title II under the Telecommunications Act. An act that is 80 years old and is ill equipped to address issues of Today’s Internet but gives the FCC far sweeping power to regulate without Congressional oversight or public accountability. What Title II does is allow Monopolies to exist but regulates them in return. Regulations that will bar any new comers from popping up and keep the existing players as the only players for decades to come. The FCC by law is an independent agency and does not have to answer to the Congress or the White House for their actions.
Like the idea of Google Fiber? Say goodbye to it unless you are lucky enough to already have it. The Internet of tomorrow will require a lot more bandwidth than we have today but regulations will slow that process to a crawl and with it all the benefits we will now wait longer to receive. All so we can get our Netflix which we were never denied anyway.
Wake up people. Tomorrow may be the last day the Internet exists as we have known it.
The looming shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at midnight Friday is a fake crisis. Speaker of the House John Boehner has the votes to pass a “clean” DHS appropriations bill. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already caved on the Tea-GOP’s shutdown threat.
This thing is totally fake. Why are the media talking about it as if it were real?
1. Friday afternoon now,and Speaker Boehner is still refusing to allow a vote on the “clean” DHS appropriations bill.
2. Democrats to the Rescue: Congress Averts Shutdown for One More Week
NEW YORK — Rudy Giuliani went straight for the jugular Wednesday night during a private group dinner here featuring Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker by openly questioning whether President Barack Obama “loves America.”
…“I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America,” Giuliani said during the dinner at the 21 Club, a former Prohibition-era speakeasy in midtown Manhattan. “He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country.”
When you start out with, “I know this is a horrible thing to say…” maybe you should not say it?
I think it’s time to question whether the Tea-GOP “loves America.” The Bush administration failed to defend us from the single worst terrorist attack in history. They sent millions of Americans to fight unwinnable wars halfway around the world. They ruined America’s reputation as a defender of human rights, replacing it with wars of aggression and torture. They put the NSA to work spying on all of us. They abandoned New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. They topped themselves by crashing our economy, causing millions of Americans to lose jobs, homes, and retirement savings. Then they waged a years-long campaign of economic sabotage in a failed attempt to stop the Obama administration from helping America recover from Bush’s Great Recession, including a government shutdown, a near-default on the National Debt, and the so-called “sequester” (aka austerity budgeting). Now they are trying to take away health insurance from 13 million Americans, and prevent millions more from getting any in the first place.
I am NOT feeling the love!
It’s impossible to describe this place. Even pictures do not do it justice but this movie made by some new friends of mine provides a good overview.
I’m sailing with a friend and great script writer from Berlin, Germany, Daniel Karl Krause, on a robust old lady called Gypsy Spirit – a Gulfstar 37.
We are headed for the Virgin Islands then further south.
If heaven exists, this is it.
Peace and love,
Ben Carson is one of the Tea-GOPers thinking about possibly wanting to be the Commander in Chief of our military. Let’s hope nobody else shares his views about war crimes.
Hashtag Presidents’ Day?
Source: The Daily Mirror
The Constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.
President Obama asked Congress on Wednesday for new war powers to go after the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The draft resolution (PDF) asks Congress to enact a three-year Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIS. The resolution notably restricts the use of American ground troops and seeks to avoid a prolonged conflict.
Obama announced his plan to launch airstrikes against ISIS back in September, and the White House’s AUMF resolution seeks to formalize the U.S. military campaign to “degrade and defeat” ISIS.
The draft AUMF has already been criticized as imprecise. For example, it defines the enemy as “ISIL [sic] or associated persons or forces.” But that would include the so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels (armed by the U.S.), who routinely fight alongside ISIS. Like the 2001 AUMF (which would remain in effect), there is no geographical limitation in the new draft AUMF. Potentially it could authorize attacking Boko Haram in Nigeria.
Asked today if he agreed that language was “fuzzy,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest replied with a firm yes, saying it is “intentionally” fuzzy “because we believe it’s important that there aren’t overly burdensome constraints that are placed on the commander-in-chief.”
I left the Army with the rank of captain, but it doesn’t take a four-star general to realize you can’t fight a war intelligently unless you know who the enemy is, and where to find them. Oh, and by the way this draft AUMF is probably a violation of the U.N. Charter – though that’s somewhat debatable.
“The devastating and costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us that when we give military authority to the executive, it should not be a blank check,” Progressive Caucus Co-Chairs Rep. Reps. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN), and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) said.
“Unfortunately, the authorization proposed by the president this week is too broad. In order to ensure meaningful limits on executive branch authority, an AUMF should at a minimum contain a clear objective and geographical limitations. It should also include an enforceable ban on the deployment of ground troops with exception for only the most limited of operations, unambiguous language, and a repeal of the 2001 AUMF,” they said.
Grand Staircase-Escalante NM
Via CREDO Action:
The way the law works now, presidents can use the Antiquities Act to quickly set aside public lands for protection and conservation through national monument proclamations, instead of going through the difficult congressional process of designating a national park. In fact, it’s often the first step to creating a national park – the Grand Canyon was first proclaimed a monument under the Antiquities Act by President Theodore Roosevelt.
The power to proclaim national monuments is a presidential privilege that has literally shaped America’s landscape and its history, but Republicans in Congress now think it’s time to end all of that. Last month, Representative Don Young (R-AK) introduced a bill that would strip the president of this authority. H.R.4988 (the MAST Act) would overhaul the Antiquities Act, making it nearly impossible for presidents to declare new national monuments. It’s a cynical attempt to forever block the president’s ability to protect our public lands from corporate drilling and mining.
Stop the MAST Act, it could be a big win for the Tea-GOP right-wing agenda. We can’t allow that to happen. Click the link below to sign the petition:
Stop Republicans from blocking new national parks.
The Highs and Lows of the Antiquities Act
Via Firedoglake (why does cable news ignore this?)
The United States government has been given a week to appeal or comply with a federal judge’s order to provide a justification for why approximately 2,100 photographs of torture and abuse of prisoners must remain secret.
Judge Alvin Hellerstein pointed out that the Protected National Security Documents Act of 2009 clearly says the Secretary of Defense must issue a certification for a photograph in order to keep it secret. It does not refer to photographs collectively. So, a process that attempts to justify blanket certification for secrecy is not in line with the law.
Journalist Jason Leopold reported last year that documents from the Defense Department show the photos come from “203 closed criminal investigations into detainee abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq.” Leopold’s report suggested the soldiers had wanted to hold on to these photos as “mementos.”