Is your ISP or government filtering your internet experience?
Most don’t realize how the Internet is the ultimate free source of information. People these days are learning more from the internet and the information that (Google in particular) has made available compared to standard U.S. Education curriculum. Maybe thats why most adults are amazed at how smart new generations of youth are? Not only that but dont forget the internet is bringing country’s together to help understand each others cultures better.
One thing I worry about is Government intervention of this freedom.
The thing most “techies” like myself love about Google is that they dont release traffic data to government agency’s (besides what is made public). As of April 20th 2010 they’ve launched a Google Government Search Tool: State Censorship, User Data Requests Released By Google (as shown on huffington post).
However some Internet providers (ISP) block websites with high bandwidth use (video/data transfer).
The less bandwidth use means the more people on their system at a lower price. The one way around these blocks is to use a “proxy bypass“.
Google currently blocks media from playing through most unknown proxy’s.
I think more bandwidth is used by malicious traffic then pirating or streaming. Some company’s find themselfs fighting off UDP attacks that lasting for 10 hours and 50Gbps of bandwidth lost. This is much more bandwidth then your casual file shared could use in use in a very long time.
Other computer programs are used to boost youtube hits. Which is smart to block because then you are keeping a free speech media network. Not who ever has the best programs to boost your crappy video of you busting your fat a$$ on a table.
Heres more from PDPNET.NET
You also have some “ISP’s” that block high volume of data transfer in terms of downloads and P2P networks.
Also known as “traffic shaping” “traffic shaping”, ISP’s are starting to limit what sites you visit. Along with your bandwidth usage (upload/download ). The one concern that is very alarming is that Australia is already dealing wit.
Find out here: http://wiki.vuze.com/w/Bad_ISPs
Some providers are (either openly or secretly) applying “traffic shaping” policies, tracing their users’ bandwidth usage and intervening directly to limit their transfer speeds, notes the site.
“In the States,” we posted, “users have people trying to look after their rights and interests, but there’s no one doing that in Canada,” going on, “If you’re signed on with Bell-Sympatico and you’ve been unsuccessfully trying to coax a little more speed out of your suddenly sluggish computer; or, if you’ve been calling Bell-Sympatico support only to be told it’s not them, it’s you —- it isn’t you, says Ottawa Gal. Because here, “Bell-Sympatico is now following the Rogers lead,” she states. “It’s traffic shaping and throttling.”
Bell-Sympatico said it was taking action against ‘network abusers’ and performing ‘Traffic Management during periods of peak usage’, she said, but since Bell-Sympatico “didn’t or won’t” explained in detail why, how, and exactly who is affected, it was left to her to go into detail.
Following the p2pnet revelations, the company issued a script representatives are supposed to follow when they’re talking to unhappy customers who want out of their contracts.
The Federal Government will introduce legislative amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act to require all ISPs to block Refused Classification (RC)-rated material hosted on overseas servers.
The introduction of mandatory ISP-level filtering follows the release of the Enex TestLab report which trialed the viability of ISP-level filtering among nine Australian ISPs.
Virgin (UK ) is one of the biggest players in that field… but..
most importantly, the pressure comes from international free market organizations, and pretty much all the technological fathers of the Internet (Bob Kahn, Dave Farber, etc..) along with the actual people who “run” the internet (Cisco, Alcatel, 3M, etc..) , and anti-government-regulation organizations.
And it’s more a principal of letting the government(s) regulate the Internet, or let the market do it for himself. So either way, that report, along with the headline, are simply… meh .
We reaffirm our commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, impart and use information, in particular, for the creation, accumulation and dissemination of knowledge. We affirm that measures undertaken to ensure Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, must protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom of expression as contained in the relevant parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Declaration of Principles. – Chris K. Ridder Residential Fellow, Stanford Law School Center for Internet & Society
Bizoost – Business development