Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Luckily, there are people and organizations out there, that are taking things a step further.
To continue with the theme of preserving the democratic nature of the internet via promoting decentralization so no centralized authoritarian power can monopolize it, 1st up:
"The proposed BitTorrent based DNS will be protected from government shutdown. Currently, ICANN's control of the DNS allows them to easily shut down "misbehaving" domains. The Dot-P2P project, as it has dubbed itself, will decentralize the DNS system by distributing the system through an application that can be installed on the computer. The new system would run on a .p2p domain suffix.
"By creating a .p2p TLD that is totally decentralized and that does not rely on ICANN or any ISP's DNS service...there will be a way to start combating DNS level based censoring like the new US proposals as well as those systems in use in countries around the world including China and Iran," the project's mission statement reads."
"Sasha Costanza-Chock, one of the initial visionaries of the project, has a strong interest in media use at social movements. Currently Assistant Professor of Civic Media at MIT and a Fellow at Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard, he answers some questions about technologies and the decentralization of information.
To decrease reliance on corporate media, protestors are moving towards building their own open source tools."
I can see their domains or content they own, but not the rest.
See I have AT&T DSL, not any broadband cable who also owns TV cable.
Forget regulation..don't let monopolies form to begin with. Separation of media ownership and don't let a few own a lot.
That's what the FCC has done..monopolies forming via merge or buyout.
"Sasha Costanza-Chock, one of the initial visionaries of the project, has a strong interest in media use at social movements. Currently Assistant Professor of Civic Media at MIT and a Fellow at Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard, he answers some questions about technologies and the decentralization of information.
To decrease reliance on corporate media, protestors are moving towards building their own open source tools."
Good news, bcs corporate media is reason I threw out my cable and satellite last year-other than Linktv.com or free speech tv, there is now real news for those of intelligence on tv anymore...."info-tainment" and trash reality shows is NOT what I desire to subscribe to.
I hope these protestors are for raising the IQ of American audiences, because from what I read on this forum, (people who watch reality trash, Fox, and Beck and take it as "news") it is truly frightening.
Rupert Murdoch and trash tv producers should not be controlling what we see in hard news. Even Lou Dobbs is gone (HLN channel), lol replaced by Nancy Grace and histrionics diverting the masses from the economy.
I see a definite agenda there on the part of CNN as well. CNN is losing its Indep. and more intelligent viewers who see through the corporate sponsors. I do NOT want my news delivered by multinational banksters.
"Sasha Costanza-Chock, one of the initial visionaries of the project, has a strong interest in media use at social movements. Currently Assistant Professor of Civic Media at MIT and a Fellow at Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard, he answers some questions about technologies and the decentralization of information.
To decrease reliance on corporate media, protestors are moving towards building their own open source tools."
Looks like developers are devising ways to make centralized authoritarian laws like SOPA obsolete.
"Right now the internet is mostly client/server based but this technology would make it possible for every computer on the internet to be it’s own server as well as a client. A kind of MESH topology that would be very difficult to control. It also opens up a realm of other possibilities where information could be replicated and stored in as many places as there are computers to store it. There by making access to it even more robust.
The more the powers that be attempt to control the internet, the less they will be able to succeed."
Hopefully a fully functional decentralized web will become a viable alternative in the near future.
Looks like developers are devising ways to make centralized authoritarian laws like SOPA obsolete.
"Right now the internet is mostly client/server based but this technology would make it possible for every computer on the internet to be it’s own server as well as a client. A kind of MESH topology that would be very difficult to control. It also opens up a realm of other possibilities where information could be replicated and stored in as many places as there are computers to store it. There by making access to it even more robust.
The more the powers that be attempt to control the internet, the less they will be able to succeed."
Hopefully a fully functional decentralized web will become a viable alternative in the near future.
Apparently many more in the software development community are hard at work building weapons of mass information and mobilization against any hostile actions by a centralized authoritarian figure than I thought.
"A scabrous and successful champion of the everyman, Louis C. K. decided last week to go direct with his fans: no cable special, no middleman, just a simple download for $5 on his Web site to see his comedy show “Louis C. K.: Live at the Beacon Theater.”
While I was talking with him on the phone Thursday night, he checked his Web site and about 175,000 people had bought his special through PayPal. He expected 200,000 total downloads by the weekend, which meant he would have grossed $1 million. After covering costs of about $250,000 for the live production and the Web site, that’s a $750,000 profit. And he owns the rights, and the long tail of buyers, in perpetuity. The transparency of the enterprise, including its cost in relation to how many people bought in, was the subject of media coverage all last week.
“O.K., so NBC is this huge company and they have all these studios and these satellites to beam stuff out,” he said, “but on the Web, both NBC.com and LouisCK.com have the same amount of bandwidth. We are equals and there are things you can do with that. This has been a fun little experiment.” "
And this is part of the reason why now, we have these SOPA and Protect IP and other draconian internet bills floating around.
The CEOs and Chairman of the boards of these multi-national conglomerates can not directly monopolize either access to the internet nor overtly influence the content and information which flows through its many channels.
When you take into consideration the recent political organizations both domestically and abroad, its not hard to see why the media and political elites are somewhat spooked about how well their subjects and peons are beginning to utilize this crucial digital resource.
Now the serfs are learning how to take advantage of this global medium in order to build wealth and businesses outside of multi-national conglomerate control as well. There goes the neighborhood.
I just like to make this crucial point, globalization is not an evil, demoniac, end of the world phenomenon. Man has traded ideas, goods and services with other men since the Stone Age. That is how we got out of the Stone Age, those tribes/kingdoms/empires that were isolationists, stuck their heads in the sand and did not keep up with new innovations and developments either got slaughtered and/or brutally dominated by those that did.
Once again, my fellow middle income and working American man its not globalization, in and of itself, that should trouble you. Its those that want to restrict the benefits of globalization for themselves and those of their ilk, while conditioning you to see this golden opportunity as the worst possible crisis imaginable.
Frankly, the internet is one of the best possible platforms to market your goods, services, skills, talents and abilities to the world with little or no paid, middleman/gate keeper. Its a wonderful tool to use to further strengthen and build a business and network of clients and associates.
So IMHO, the question that middle income and working Americans should be pondering is not how evil and scary globalization is, but what are the best strategies to ensure it continues being an accessible resource, one of which I proposed a while back:
"26-year old Amanda Hocking is the best-selling "indie" writer on the Kindle (http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/amazon - broken link)Novelr says.store, meaning she doesn't have a publishing deal
And she shouldn't. She gets to keep 70% of her book sales -- and she sells around 100,000 copies per month.
That's not the case with Hocking, who published stories on her blog before turning to Kindle. In fact, out of the top 25 best-selling indie Kindle writers, only 6 were previously affiliated with a publishing house.
Back of the envelope math suggests that selling 100,000 copies a month at $1 to $3 a pop and keeping 70%, Hocking can make millions per year, straight to her pocket."
"Cable has long been the gatekeeper to content -- Comcast decides what channels I can choose from. But right now on the Internet, I choose what content I can choose from.
Community networks, which put the public good above maximizing potential profits, are far less likely to interfere in the way that big companies like AT&T have admitted they would like to. It ultimately comes down to whether one views access to the Internet as just another product in the market or as an infrastruture or platform for everything else.
While the FCC should ensure that service providers cannot prioritize some content over similar content (CNN video over Bloomberg video, for instance), communities are smart to establish networks that are locally accountable -- as hundreds of communities already have. Depending on the FCC to police distant corporations is a poor strategy."
The problem is in some areas Comcast thinks it had (and deserves) a monopoly. The day they regulate anything is the day I pull the plug.
DirectTV helped ameliorate some of this.
The internet is not just another "product" to many people, they use it for info. on current events, entertainment, etc.
If oligopolies start regulating content, it will be a disaster, just like fox and cable news.
Community networking is a good idea.
You are correct in that the FCC is too broad based, and rarely intervenes anyway.
"The Federal Communications Commission is voting today on new rules that may effectively abandon net neutrality, the concept of a free and open Internet. The FCC proposal would let Internet providers charge media companies extra fees to receive preferential treatment, such as faster speeds for their products and content. Under previous regulations struck down earlier this year, providers were forced to provide all content at equal speeds. Just steps from the vote, demonstrators have set up an "Occupy the FCC" encampment calling for federal regulators to reclassify broadband service as a public utility, which would allow for the requirement of net neutrality rules. The CEOs of 28 U.S. broadband providers and trade groups have asked the FCC not to classify broadband as a utility, arguing that regulating broadband would "impose great costs, allowing unprecedented government micromanagement of all aspects of the Internet economy." We host a debate on net neutrality with two guests: Timothy Karr of the media reform group Free Press, who backs greater regulation, and Joshua Steimle, a tech entrepreneur who argues the government should not be entrusted with regulating the Internet.
TIMOTHY KARR: Well, one of the—one of the things here in the United States is that we actually do have—we do have a First Amendment, we have a Second—a Fourth Amendment that protects our right to free speech. Those are government rules. Those are rules to prohibit government from censoring free speech and from invading our privacy. The problem that we’re seeing these days is that the—a lot of free speech is taking place via private platforms. You have billions of people—more than a billion people on Facebook. You have people using Twitter. You have people using social media to speak. And these are private entities that actually can censor free speech at will. If you read the fine print of their terms and conditions, they say that they can block their customers for any—almost any reason. So, we have faith that because in the United States we have a structure of law that protects free speech, that the government does have a role in making sure that free speech is protected. And so, it’s more important for us to have a regulatory structure that prohibits these private entities from blocking free speech than it is to just let them decide what they’re going to do with our communications at will.
JOSHUA STEIMLE: Yeah, I think, when it comes down to it, Tim and I and everyone else, we agree on the ends that we want to accomplish. We all want a more open Internet. We want a more free Internet. Really, what we want is we want cheap, fast Internet. That’s what everybody wants. And I want that, too. It’s the means to get there. I see the government as essentially the enemy of the open Internet. I don’t trust this organization. I don’t trust the telecoms, either, but I see the telecoms as being limited by the marketplace, by individuals. The government doesn’t have those limitations. It has the force of law. And we’ve seen that the government is content to violate our freedoms and violate our constitutional rights. So when it comes to who’s the best steward over providing this cheap, fast Internet, I look at the government as being the least trustworthy steward there. I don’t trust the telecoms, either, but I have great faith in entrepreneurs and technology. We’ve seen innovation over the past 10 years that’s been miraculous. And 15 years ago if we were having this debate, everybody would be saying AOL was the enemy. Where is AOL today? They’re pretty much irrelevant. Ten years from now, Comcast will likely be irrelevant, as well, and it will be somebody else providing the service. I’m not worried about Internet getting slower or being restricted. I’m more worried about the government intrusions."
"The Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, has just voted three to two to move ahead on a net neutrality proposal. One of the core issues in the debate is whether content providers can be charged additional fees by internet service providers to create so-called internet fast lanes to deliver its contents to users.
Here to discuss the FCC's proposal and their visions of how the internet should be controlled and regulated are two guests.
Christopher Mitchell is a national expert on community broadband networks within the Institute for Local Self-Reliance in Minneapolis.
Also joining us is Ryan Radia. Ryan is the associate director of technology studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and histrionics diverting the masses from the economy. 
