Re: Re: Re: Given that executive orders don't create new laws
If I voted in the US I could *try* to avoid both parties. But there aren't alternatives unless there's something beyond R's and D's I'm missing. Still, there are good names in the Democrats such as Wyden and I would probably vote Sanders. I"d probably have voted Clinton with a lot of heart pain just to avoid the current dipshit (which would be moot because he won with minus 3 million votes). Not that we are much better here with most parties with their noses deep under the corruption quagmire.
Re: Given that executive orders don't create new laws
Not only that but the entire population should be up in arms when they started using secret interpretations of whatever law there is and wouldn't even let the legislative take a look. Seriously?
You have to declare valuable items precisely because of it. Their standard insurance covers up to a determined value (I guess it depends on the company but I'm not sure).
"As a paying customer, I don't care whether you're reducing my speed because of network congestion, testing or because you're trying to screw over your streaming media competition, you're ripping me off."
We are testing some stuff here so instead of getting your whole BigMac you are getting only the bun because of transportation restrictions. - Said no McDonnalds ever.
That comic book you are reading there, "V for Vendetta" isn't it? It advocates for the bombing of Government targets. You are in trouble little terrorist. - TSA in a very possible future.
I wonder when we'll revisit this article but won't laugh about it.
"The only way to have a free-market is when the citizens are commanding one. We want regulation instead.
It's all about being lazy."
No, just no. Regulations are needed to prevent abuse. The most obvious would be food and drug regulation. And you don't even need to mention expiration date.
That put aside, free, unregulated market would inevitably lead to concentration, monopoly. Go play Monopoly with your friends and tell me about a game where at least 2 players shared wealth and divided the market. I'll be waiting. While at it read about the origin of the game.
Re: Re: Is Techdirt ever going to grasp what inTRAnet verus inTERnet means in practical terms?
Also, explain how ISPs instantly started offering Gigabit speeds where Google deployed if there wasn't surplus capacity ready to use. Coming from you it should produce some twisted alternate reality facts.
Re: Is Techdirt ever going to grasp what inTRAnet verus inTERnet means in practical terms?
1) Your inTRAnet needs updating. Any decent setup nowadays is in the gigabit range.
2)You paid for a X mbit gateway so it's the ISPs job to provide it. If your network can't handle what you bought then though shit. If the ISP can't provide what you bought then it's fraud. Netflix paid their share to reach the ISP network and you paid your share to reserve capacity in the ISP network to reach Netflix.
3) Not your problem, the ISP should be wither increasing their capacity or not selling speeds they can't sustain.
4) Yes, they are. Capital expenditures have been steadily growing despite NN rules. And Google has stumbled upon barrier after barrier to lay their network due to legislation brought to you by your friendly incumbent ISPs so they are probably figuring out how to deploy without suffering with such unfair burdens (and remember, Google never received billionaire tax cuts to deploy) hence wireless solutions.
The above amount to why NN is a GREAT idea. And it is perfectly defined: ISPs must treat packets equally regardless of where they come from which include their own services. It's quite simple and it's kind of amusing how your brain can't fathom it.
"My own position is that good regulation is good and bad regulation is bad."
Nope, your own position is that you don't know what you are talking about at best and you are just a paid shill at worst.
"But blithe demands for unlimited use of limited resources is just Techdirt's persistent inability to grasp that ARE physical limits."
Actually, it's demands the ISPs apply these "structural" limits to every packet including their own services. And that the measures to address structural limits are not just fireworks that don't address such limits like data caps (if everybody decides to use their data at the same time the network capacity will still be reached).
"SO this bit of testing is likely to learn what'll happen when the network is saturated. Why should Verizon have announced it? No one but a few hyper-weenies noticed. And how many tests have those weenies missed? Perhaps dozens."
I guess you'd be ok with McDonnalds selling you a bigmac and just delivering the bread because their transportation system got saturated, no? Because that's what Verizon did, it sold a speed and throttled it *for specific services* (remember NN?) thus delivering only the bun.
"I guess Techdirt would prefer Verizon ignore looming problem, be totally unprepared."
Or maybe be honest with everybody and sell speeds it can sustain. Or throttle *every single packet* equally when congestion is detected. And obviously invest in expanding its capacity. I've told you before, my ISP never throttled and never complained of my 1Tb+ monthly consumption. Why Verizon, a much larger ISP, can't cope with it is a mystery.
Overall, this is just another of your routine attacks on Techdirt for no actual cause.
So as I said above change your tone. I do agree with you and even TD has already criticized Obama for enacting tools that "would never be abused because we are the good guys" that are promptly being abused by Trump.
As for the selective enforcement there are ways to mount pressure than going "no regulations" at all. And remember it's only 4 years. The beauty of democracy is that presidents get swapped. We need to tweak it to bring it to the legislative and to the judiciary but in a way less prone to abuse by the economic power. I've seen ideas where people could get elected twice, three times then never again in any public position for instance. I see value there but the need to tweak it. I don't know how, I'm still processing a lot of things.
You clearly see there's a human factor at play which is why neither Capitalism nor Socialism will ever work in their 'pure' forms. Then let us discuss on how to deal with it instead of negating and criticizing all efforts in a negative light. Get them and improve.
Anyway, the idea is, provide more value instead of saying "govt bad" and posing as the overlord of the subject.
Aside the enormously egocentric tone of your post, you do present some points that are worth paying attention to and that need addressing such as how to prevent the Govt from abusing the tools given to them or to make such tools that are sometimes needed to be resilient against abuses. It's a legitimate problem we need to discuss.
It seems to me that you can see value and the need of proper regulations but life somehow got you cynical to a point that you think no regulations are going to escape corruption. I personally can understand that because It's the feeling I have concerning copyright. I used to support some protection to creators but it got so distorted, corrupted by the MAFIAA and its ilk that I started supporting total abolition. While I still maintain my position, I believe it should be abolished while we can't put in place something more resilient to corruption. It is kind of hard to do it with some other more urgent subjects like drugs or even broadband given how important it is to our daily lives nowadays.
So I would suggest you at the very least change your way of presenting your ideas. It would be interesting to discuss what kind of regulations would be effective to tackle the issue of ISPs abusing their last mile for instance given there are restrictions that can't be easily overcome (ie: you can't increase competition overnight which could avoid more egregious behavior). It's a suggestion. Nobody is going to buy the 'no regulations because govt is bad' mantra but I'm sure discussions that take into account reality and possible ways out will be welcome even if they are a bit heated.
I wonder if there is enough evidence of bad faith or abuse of the system and both the lawyer and the client can be sanctioned/fined somehow. That should be interesting to serve as a deterrent. In my opinion the Government should bear the burden of the costs at the very least for the defense with limitations of course (ideally for both) and they should be awarded to the losing part of the process. That should prevent a lot of bad litigation.
This is clearly a problem with the current FCC head because the current regulations in place (that he is trying to take down) are not a problem. In fact they are a quite light-touched approach that could have been better but it's actually not too bad. You know, balanced between public and private interests.
And interestingly, when it was put in place by the last FCC head some stuff magically fixed themselves like the Verizon lack of ports to serve their customers in that Netflix case and other petty spats. So yeah, regulations bad!
Ah, that was the best and most well sourced comment I've seen on this issue, it's worth sharing. I'll post the link then the text but visit the original for the sources.
We caught them red handed -- they claimed 'cyber attack' but we have the uptime reports. We have the connectivity reports (their CDN is Akamai - you can view real time attack data for their network -- if the FCC site was down, a big chunk of the web would have been too). It would have made big news in the IT/networking world if Akamai hiccup'd... since they were able to handle the world's largest DDoS last fall. That got noticed... by, erm, everyone. Network Operations Centers all over the world saw it. Did anyone see the FCC DDoS? crickets
There's evidence that the bot is being run on an API -- in other words someone inside the FCC specifically gave access. They have to issue special keys (just like with Reddit!) -- and they're rate limited. They would know who's doing it instantly, because that API isn't available for just anyone: You have to ask for it -- click on the link, it'll show you the form; It asks for name and e-mail. Someone from the FCC said as much -- it was API accesses, not public-facing. If there was a connectivity issue it wasn't external, it was internal, preventable, and that's why they won't give out the server logs. Because they knew who was doing it, could have stopped it, didn't, and are letting it continue to happen as we speak. They know exactly which comments are being submitted by bots, and who owns them. Purely for my own amusement, I went looking for the Terms of Service for accessing the API. Click. Click. Aaaand here we are: "FCC computer systems employ software to monitor network traffic to identify unauthorized attempts..." :snip: "If such monitoring reveals evidence of possible abuse or criminal activity" :snip: cough Fraud cough "Unauthorized attempts to upload or change information on this server are strictly prohibited". Not going to do anything, FCC? Says what they did is "strictly prohibited"... soooooooo.... crickets
The previous link provides evidence it's a grand total of... five. Five different copy pasta text; And all sourced from the same stolen identity databases. And the submission times are painfully obvious that it was automated: The number of submissions per second was nearly constant too, like clockwork. And submitted alphabetically. What's more... They prepared for this years ago. You can say, unironically, "Thanks Obama" for that one. They specifically upgraded the public comments after the last network neutrality comment crush. Rather a lot (footnote: ECFS is the comment system -- and it was specifically targeted for a revamp and big bump to system capacity). That capacity wasn't exceeded -- not by the general public anyway. The inflow rate of submissions from John Oliver's gofccyourself.com came in well under -- 150k versus 1.1 million? It's hard to imagine how they'd add all that extra capacity only to have it fall over dead under a fraction of the load. Someone was even nice enough to make a map of who's submitting the comments. Look at the first time this happened. Then look at that one. Notice anything? This time around, the map looks like a mirror of the population distribution of the entire country. By the numbers, the whole nation knows about Network Neutrality, across every demographic... equally. Including the deceased.
Oh, they never filed a report with the Department of Homeland Security, which is what every government agency is supposed to do if they experience a cyber attack. Double bonus round, Here's the FCC's own page on cybersecurity preparedness and response. And what do they say? "The FCC, because of its relationship with the nation’s communications network service providers, is particularly well positioned to work with industry to secure the networks upon which the Internet depends." Sounds like someone who'd have a plan, you'd think.They claimed to the media something their own policies dictate what the response should be -- and they didn't do those things. It's right there for anyone who cares to go hunting for the data and published documents. They didn't file the report because it wasn't a DDoS: It was access approved by them.
The FCC may be run now by a corrupt chairman but the institution itself was built on transparency and this guy sits in his office with an oversized coffee mug and posts Youtubes about how tech savvy he is. Behold, he can Twitter. Well, he isn't, actually. His pants are down and his ass is hanging out if you know where to look. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither was the FCC. No matter how much him and the rest of the Trump administration tries to silence, coerce, replace, and otherwise generally screw with freedom of information and transparency... those institutions are staffed by tens of thousands of people operating under policies and rules enacted over decades. The FCC doesn't operate in a vaccum either: It's part of the internet. An internet catalogued and backed up by the NSA no less. Anyone remember Snowden and metadata? We log the shit out of all internet traffic. There are no logs. That's damning enough evidence all by itself.
You can't CTRL-Z that. We have all the proof we need; We don't need server logs. We don't need confirmation from them. They can throw up a wall of silence and deny all they want -- we have them dead to rights and it amazes me that nobody in the media has come out and flatly said these guys are full of shit beyond any reasonable doubt. This isn't accusation, it's not supposition, it's hard fact. The. End.
Here's a parting thought: How about we all hit up the FTC and report identity theft? About, erm, what, a million or so cases so far? Let's subpoena the shit out of the FCC and unmask our identity thieves. While we're at it, let's grab their e-mail server too. Something something but her e-mails. I, for one, find it materially relevant how my identity was stolen, and some of that evidence is in the FCC's possession. That chairman's a lawyer right? Surely he wouldn't begrudge us lawyering up.
.
EDITs: Added links and some extra details.
EDIT: Press refresh after the edits and... Oh. For those wanting to go to the press: You have my permission to copy pasta this in whole or in part to anyone you want -- just link back to this comment or credit me. Thanks.
EDIT: Several users pinged WaPo here; They're investigating. #WeDidItReddit
EDIT: Gizmodo is too.
EDIT: Hello El Reg! They were nice enough to post the FCC's statement regarding the DDoS. I'll save you the trouble of reading it: "We were DDoS'd and the evidence is ███████, using ████ ███████, and we're ███████. Thanks. "
On the post: Senator Wyden Wants To Know How Many Times Americans Have Been Targeted By Executive Order 12333
Re: Re: Re: Given that executive orders don't create new laws
On the post: Lawsuits Pile Up For CenturyLink After Years Of Bogus Fees, Fraudulent Billing
On the post: Senator Wyden Wants To Know How Many Times Americans Have Been Targeted By Executive Order 12333
Re: Given that executive orders don't create new laws
On the post: United Says TSA Wants All Comic Con Comic Books Searched; TSA Says 'Not Us'
Re: CYA, but pass the blame
On the post: United Says TSA Wants All Comic Con Comic Books Searched; TSA Says 'Not Us'
Re: Playing devil's advocate
On the post: Verizon Throttles Netflix Subscribers In 'Test' It Doesn't Inform Customers About
Re: Re: Is Techdirt ever going to grasp what inTRAnet verus inTERnet means in practical terms?
On the post: Verizon Throttles Netflix Subscribers In 'Test' It Doesn't Inform Customers About
Re:
We are testing some stuff here so instead of getting your whole BigMac you are getting only the bun because of transportation restrictions. - Said no McDonnalds ever.
On the post: United Says TSA Wants All Comic Con Comic Books Searched; TSA Says 'Not Us'
I wonder when we'll revisit this article but won't laugh about it.
On the post: Verizon Throttles Netflix Subscribers In 'Test' It Doesn't Inform Customers About
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's all about being lazy."
No, just no. Regulations are needed to prevent abuse. The most obvious would be food and drug regulation. And you don't even need to mention expiration date.
That put aside, free, unregulated market would inevitably lead to concentration, monopoly. Go play Monopoly with your friends and tell me about a game where at least 2 players shared wealth and divided the market. I'll be waiting. While at it read about the origin of the game.
You need to better educate yourself.
On the post: Verizon Throttles Netflix Subscribers In 'Test' It Doesn't Inform Customers About
Re: Re: Is Techdirt ever going to grasp what inTRAnet verus inTERnet means in practical terms?
On the post: Verizon Throttles Netflix Subscribers In 'Test' It Doesn't Inform Customers About
Re: Is Techdirt ever going to grasp what inTRAnet verus inTERnet means in practical terms?
2)You paid for a X mbit gateway so it's the ISPs job to provide it. If your network can't handle what you bought then though shit. If the ISP can't provide what you bought then it's fraud. Netflix paid their share to reach the ISP network and you paid your share to reserve capacity in the ISP network to reach Netflix.
3) Not your problem, the ISP should be wither increasing their capacity or not selling speeds they can't sustain.
4) Yes, they are. Capital expenditures have been steadily growing despite NN rules. And Google has stumbled upon barrier after barrier to lay their network due to legislation brought to you by your friendly incumbent ISPs so they are probably figuring out how to deploy without suffering with such unfair burdens (and remember, Google never received billionaire tax cuts to deploy) hence wireless solutions.
The above amount to why NN is a GREAT idea. And it is perfectly defined: ISPs must treat packets equally regardless of where they come from which include their own services. It's quite simple and it's kind of amusing how your brain can't fathom it.
"My own position is that good regulation is good and bad regulation is bad."
Nope, your own position is that you don't know what you are talking about at best and you are just a paid shill at worst.
"But blithe demands for unlimited use of limited resources is just Techdirt's persistent inability to grasp that ARE physical limits."
Actually, it's demands the ISPs apply these "structural" limits to every packet including their own services. And that the measures to address structural limits are not just fireworks that don't address such limits like data caps (if everybody decides to use their data at the same time the network capacity will still be reached).
"SO this bit of testing is likely to learn what'll happen when the network is saturated. Why should Verizon have announced it? No one but a few hyper-weenies noticed. And how many tests have those weenies missed? Perhaps dozens."
I guess you'd be ok with McDonnalds selling you a bigmac and just delivering the bread because their transportation system got saturated, no? Because that's what Verizon did, it sold a speed and throttled it *for specific services* (remember NN?) thus delivering only the bun.
"I guess Techdirt would prefer Verizon ignore looming problem, be totally unprepared."
Or maybe be honest with everybody and sell speeds it can sustain. Or throttle *every single packet* equally when congestion is detected. And obviously invest in expanding its capacity. I've told you before, my ISP never throttled and never complained of my 1Tb+ monthly consumption. Why Verizon, a much larger ISP, can't cope with it is a mystery.
Overall, this is just another of your routine attacks on Techdirt for no actual cause.
On the post: Verizon Throttles Netflix Subscribers In 'Test' It Doesn't Inform Customers About
Re: Re: Not Correct....
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
On the post: FCC Won't Release Data To Support Its Claim A DDOS Attack, Not John Oliver, Brought Down The Agency's Website
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for the selective enforcement there are ways to mount pressure than going "no regulations" at all. And remember it's only 4 years. The beauty of democracy is that presidents get swapped. We need to tweak it to bring it to the legislative and to the judiciary but in a way less prone to abuse by the economic power. I've seen ideas where people could get elected twice, three times then never again in any public position for instance. I see value there but the need to tweak it. I don't know how, I'm still processing a lot of things.
You clearly see there's a human factor at play which is why neither Capitalism nor Socialism will ever work in their 'pure' forms. Then let us discuss on how to deal with it instead of negating and criticizing all efforts in a negative light. Get them and improve.
Anyway, the idea is, provide more value instead of saying "govt bad" and posing as the overlord of the subject.
On the post: FCC Won't Release Data To Support Its Claim A DDOS Attack, Not John Oliver, Brought Down The Agency's Website
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It seems to me that you can see value and the need of proper regulations but life somehow got you cynical to a point that you think no regulations are going to escape corruption. I personally can understand that because It's the feeling I have concerning copyright. I used to support some protection to creators but it got so distorted, corrupted by the MAFIAA and its ilk that I started supporting total abolition. While I still maintain my position, I believe it should be abolished while we can't put in place something more resilient to corruption. It is kind of hard to do it with some other more urgent subjects like drugs or even broadband given how important it is to our daily lives nowadays.
So I would suggest you at the very least change your way of presenting your ideas. It would be interesting to discuss what kind of regulations would be effective to tackle the issue of ISPs abusing their last mile for instance given there are restrictions that can't be easily overcome (ie: you can't increase competition overnight which could avoid more egregious behavior). It's a suggestion. Nobody is going to buy the 'no regulations because govt is bad' mantra but I'm sure discussions that take into account reality and possible ways out will be welcome even if they are a bit heated.
On the post: Judge Dumps Stupid Libel Suit Featuring A Man Suing A Third Party For Things A Journalist Said
On the post: FCC Won't Release Data To Support Its Claim A DDOS Attack, Not John Oliver, Brought Down The Agency's Website
Re: Re: Re:
And interestingly, when it was put in place by the last FCC head some stuff magically fixed themselves like the Verizon lack of ports to serve their customers in that Netflix case and other petty spats. So yeah, regulations bad!
On the post: FCC Won't Release Data To Support Its Claim A DDOS Attack, Not John Oliver, Brought Down The Agency's Website
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then you clearly have a very bad cognitive dissonance problem.
On the post: FCC Won't Release Data To Support Its Claim A DDOS Attack, Not John Oliver, Brought Down The Agency's Website
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: FCC Won't Release Data To Support Its Claim A DDOS Attack, Not John Oliver, Brought Down The Agency's Website
Re:
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6odans/fcc_now_says_there_is_no_documented_anal ysis_of/dkgxguo/
[–]MNGrrl 18.6k pontos 1 dia ago*x50
We caught them red handed -- they claimed 'cyber attack' but we have the uptime reports. We have the connectivity reports (their CDN is Akamai - you can view real time attack data for their network -- if the FCC site was down, a big chunk of the web would have been too). It would have made big news in the IT/networking world if Akamai hiccup'd... since they were able to handle the world's largest DDoS last fall. That got noticed... by, erm, everyone. Network Operations Centers all over the world saw it. Did anyone see the FCC DDoS? crickets
There's evidence that the bot is being run on an API -- in other words someone inside the FCC specifically gave access. They have to issue special keys (just like with Reddit!) -- and they're rate limited. They would know who's doing it instantly, because that API isn't available for just anyone: You have to ask for it -- click on the link, it'll show you the form; It asks for name and e-mail. Someone from the FCC said as much -- it was API accesses, not public-facing. If there was a connectivity issue it wasn't external, it was internal, preventable, and that's why they won't give out the server logs. Because they knew who was doing it, could have stopped it, didn't, and are letting it continue to happen as we speak. They know exactly which comments are being submitted by bots, and who owns them. Purely for my own amusement, I went looking for the Terms of Service for accessing the API. Click. Click. Aaaand here we are: "FCC computer systems employ software to monitor network traffic to identify unauthorized attempts..." :snip: "If such monitoring reveals evidence of possible abuse or criminal activity" :snip: cough Fraud cough "Unauthorized attempts to upload or change information on this server are strictly prohibited". Not going to do anything, FCC? Says what they did is "strictly prohibited"... soooooooo.... crickets
The previous link provides evidence it's a grand total of... five. Five different copy pasta text; And all sourced from the same stolen identity databases. And the submission times are painfully obvious that it was automated: The number of submissions per second was nearly constant too, like clockwork. And submitted alphabetically. What's more... They prepared for this years ago. You can say, unironically, "Thanks Obama" for that one. They specifically upgraded the public comments after the last network neutrality comment crush. Rather a lot (footnote: ECFS is the comment system -- and it was specifically targeted for a revamp and big bump to system capacity). That capacity wasn't exceeded -- not by the general public anyway. The inflow rate of submissions from John Oliver's gofccyourself.com came in well under -- 150k versus 1.1 million? It's hard to imagine how they'd add all that extra capacity only to have it fall over dead under a fraction of the load. Someone was even nice enough to make a map of who's submitting the comments. Look at the first time this happened. Then look at that one. Notice anything? This time around, the map looks like a mirror of the population distribution of the entire country. By the numbers, the whole nation knows about Network Neutrality, across every demographic... equally. Including the deceased.
Oh, they never filed a report with the Department of Homeland Security, which is what every government agency is supposed to do if they experience a cyber attack. Double bonus round, Here's the FCC's own page on cybersecurity preparedness and response. And what do they say? "The FCC, because of its relationship with the nation’s communications network service providers, is particularly well positioned to work with industry to secure the networks upon which the Internet depends." Sounds like someone who'd have a plan, you'd think.They claimed to the media something their own policies dictate what the response should be -- and they didn't do those things. It's right there for anyone who cares to go hunting for the data and published documents. They didn't file the report because it wasn't a DDoS: It was access approved by them.
The FCC may be run now by a corrupt chairman but the institution itself was built on transparency and this guy sits in his office with an oversized coffee mug and posts Youtubes about how tech savvy he is. Behold, he can Twitter. Well, he isn't, actually. His pants are down and his ass is hanging out if you know where to look. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither was the FCC. No matter how much him and the rest of the Trump administration tries to silence, coerce, replace, and otherwise generally screw with freedom of information and transparency... those institutions are staffed by tens of thousands of people operating under policies and rules enacted over decades. The FCC doesn't operate in a vaccum either: It's part of the internet. An internet catalogued and backed up by the NSA no less. Anyone remember Snowden and metadata? We log the shit out of all internet traffic. There are no logs. That's damning enough evidence all by itself.
You can't CTRL-Z that. We have all the proof we need; We don't need server logs. We don't need confirmation from them. They can throw up a wall of silence and deny all they want -- we have them dead to rights and it amazes me that nobody in the media has come out and flatly said these guys are full of shit beyond any reasonable doubt. This isn't accusation, it's not supposition, it's hard fact. The. End.
Here's a parting thought: How about we all hit up the FTC and report identity theft? About, erm, what, a million or so cases so far? Let's subpoena the shit out of the FCC and unmask our identity thieves. While we're at it, let's grab their e-mail server too. Something something but her e-mails. I, for one, find it materially relevant how my identity was stolen, and some of that evidence is in the FCC's possession. That chairman's a lawyer right? Surely he wouldn't begrudge us lawyering up.
.
EDITs: Added links and some extra details.
EDIT: Press refresh after the edits and... Oh. For those wanting to go to the press: You have my permission to copy pasta this in whole or in part to anyone you want -- just link back to this comment or credit me. Thanks.
EDIT: Several users pinged WaPo here; They're investigating. #WeDidItReddit
EDIT: Gizmodo is too.
EDIT: Hello El Reg! They were nice enough to post the FCC's statement regarding the DDoS. I'll save you the trouble of reading it: "We were DDoS'd and the evidence is ███████, using ████ ███████, and we're ███████. Thanks. "
Next >>