Re: Re: First they came for the sex traffickers...
I dunno, little AC, but it seems to me that sex trafficking isn't exactly the same thing as free speech. But I don't think selling other people's stuff without the appropriate licenses isn't free speech either.
Help me clarify: when the US dropped the atom bombs on Japan, was that what you call speech?
It's hard to tell who's alive and who's dead in this debate. Those who trust the FCC to protect free speech or who see ISPs as key enemies to speech don't have their thinking caps on.
Speedtest Global Index ranks the US ninth in average download speed at 74.99 Mbps. The top 8 are Singapore, Hong Kong (SAR), Iceland, South Korea, Romania, Macau (SAR), Sweden, and Switzerland. The SARs aren't countries, so we're actually in 7th place on a national level.
I wouldn't spend a penny of taxpayer money for a higher ranking.
The FCC gets to decide how to regulate ISPs. ISPs were always regulated under Title I, and the Wheelerbot failed to provide a serious rationale for departing from precedent in 2015.
Net neutrality fiends generally confuse the regulatory status of DSL qua transmission service vs the status of ISPs using DSL.
As the Wanderer explains, net neutrality can't offer meaningful protection from Internet censorship, surveillance, and personal privacy abuses because the companies that we need to worry about are out of scope. Net neutrality is misdirection, making consumers fear the companies that make the Internet work while giving up personal sovereignty to the big monopolies such as Google and Facebook.
Wrong, Title II was never applied to Internet service before 2015.
DSL was under Title II for some years, but that was the DSL transmission service itself, not Internet service provided over DSL. DSL uses the wires as Title II telephone service, so it seemed to make sense.
This post rambles all over the place and ultimately lands in the Magic Kingdom. Most of the references go to blog posts, and the rest go to Wikipedia. Public Knowledge, Free Press, and EFF get links, but those are activists who deal more in spin than in fact and impartial analysis.
The suggested solution - users should test their ISPs for "discriminatory" conduct - is a placebo. The fact is that none of the tools that are supposed to detect discrimination actually work. They can't, because they don't have the necessary vantage point to compare parallel streams of different types, correcting for server performance and congestion on unaffiliated networks.
As far as the list of six offenses go, most didn't happen and those that did - Comcast's throttling of P2P piracy that degraded Vonage on the old DOCSIS 1.1 network - happened for fairly coherent reasons.
Oddly, the one real net neutrality violation - Madison River's blocking of Vonage - gets no mention.
The author might do better to stick to what he knows, whatever that may be.
The Wheeler scam passed in Feb. 2015. Genachowski's Title I Open Internet Order passed in 2010.
Regulation of ISPs under Title II is a very new thing in the history of the Internet. So far, the number of complaints sent to the FCC indicates it's not working well.
Net neutrality is a scam that cannot guarantee the things it promises: free speech, unrestricted piracy, Internet privacy, and fast & cheap broadband. Consumers are much less worried about ISPs these days than we are about the big surveillance companies that helped put Putin's candidate in White House.
The time has come to stop fighting imaginary demons and refocus your efforts on real ones.
The fake net neutrality complaints were mostly made while his holiness Tom Wheeler was head of the FCC.
Why didn't he release them?
Could it be that they're about as well thought-out as the typical blog comment? I suspect the release of these comments will embarrass the pro-regulation lobby, if that's possible.
It should come as no surprise that Mozilla's "research partner" is funded by Google. And we know, of course, that Google is not interested in selling ads itself, it's just selflessly promoting inclusion and the free and open Internet because it loves free speech, y'all.
"The current owner of SPAM-L, a long-time anti-spam discussion mailing list, announced on September 3rd that long-time subscriber Rich Kulawiec's ability to participate in the list has been terminated.
"This appeared to be in response to Rich's caustic and threatening comments made to a fellow subscriber, an employee of a company called Marketo. After receiving negative feedback regarding the comments he made to the Marketo employee, he responded with a statement, made publicly to the list, that included the phrase "summary execution." Here is an excerpt from one of his posts on August 24 (emphasis added):
The FCC is a regulatory agency and its orders formulate regulations. It is not meant to be a protection racket working on behalf of Democratic Party donors such as Google, Facebook, Netflix, and Amazon.
The EFF letter makes an interesting argument. It claims the creators of the Internet should be entitled to dictate its regulatory treatment because of their special role in the design.
Now what happens if you apply this logic to handguns? Are you OK with having the gun manufacturers write gun laws?
On the post: Internet Association Sells Out The Internet: Caves In And Will Now Support Revised SESTA
Re: Re: Re: First they came for the sex traffickers...
On the post: Internet Association Sells Out The Internet: Caves In And Will Now Support Revised SESTA
Re: Re: First they came for the sex traffickers...
Help me clarify: when the US dropped the atom bombs on Japan, was that what you call speech?
On the post: Internet Association Sells Out The Internet: Caves In And Will Now Support Revised SESTA
Hats...
On the post: Internet Association Sells Out The Internet: Caves In And Will Now Support Revised SESTA
First they came for the sex traffickers...
This looks like progress. Silicon Valley's free pass to profit from unlawful and antisocial behavior is coming to and end.
On the post: Dead People Mysteriously Support The FCC's Attack On Net Neutrality
Support for NN tends to be brain-dead
On the post: San Francisco, Seattle Tire of Comcast, Mull Building Citywide Fiber Networks
Pants on fire
I wouldn't spend a penny of taxpayer money for a higher ranking.
On the post: A Public Focused Approach To Net Neutrality
Re: FCC, Congress, Law
Net neutrality fiends generally confuse the regulatory status of DSL qua transmission service vs the status of ISPs using DSL.
On the post: A Public Focused Approach To Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Protection from abusive companies?
In other words, net neutrality is a scam.
On the post: A Public Focused Approach To Net Neutrality
DSL isn't Internet Service
DSL was under Title II for some years, but that was the DSL transmission service itself, not Internet service provided over DSL. DSL uses the wires as Title II telephone service, so it seemed to make sense.
On the post: A Public Focused Approach To Net Neutrality
Very weak post
The suggested solution - users should test their ISPs for "discriminatory" conduct - is a placebo. The fact is that none of the tools that are supposed to detect discrimination actually work. They can't, because they don't have the necessary vantage point to compare parallel streams of different types, correcting for server performance and congestion on unaffiliated networks.
As far as the list of six offenses go, most didn't happen and those that did - Comcast's throttling of P2P piracy that degraded Vonage on the old DOCSIS 1.1 network - happened for fairly coherent reasons.
Oddly, the one real net neutrality violation - Madison River's blocking of Vonage - gets no mention.
The author might do better to stick to what he knows, whatever that may be.
On the post: A Public Focused Approach To Net Neutrality
Re: Re: "Free and open access to the Internet
Regulation of ISPs under Title II is a very new thing in the history of the Internet. So far, the number of complaints sent to the FCC indicates it's not working well.
On the post: FCC Likely To Use Thanksgiving Holiday To Hide Its Unpopular Plan To Kill Net Neutrality
Blah blah blah blah blah
The time has come to stop fighting imaginary demons and refocus your efforts on real ones.
On the post: EFF, Others Think It Would Be Cool If The FCC Stopped Hiding 47,000 Net Neutrality Complaints
Re: ... what.
On the post: EFF, Others Think It Would Be Cool If The FCC Stopped Hiding 47,000 Net Neutrality Complaints
Tom Wheeler didn't release these comments
Why didn't he release them?
Could it be that they're about as well thought-out as the typical blog comment? I suspect the release of these comments will embarrass the pro-regulation lobby, if that's possible.
On the post: Mozilla Study: Zero Rating Isn't The Miracle Broadband Duopolies And Facebook Pretend It Is
Re: Re: Google-funded research
Wow, hook me up with your dealer.
On the post: Mozilla Study: Zero Rating Isn't The Miracle Broadband Duopolies And Facebook Pretend It Is
Google-funded research
Totally.
On the post: Techdirt: Now With More Free Speech Reporting
Charles Koch Foundation
I've been in meetings in DC with people from Koch and Soros' OTI agreeing on issues like this one. The average tech nerd has no idea.
Good luck with your lawsuit. You deserve a lot of abuse, but not over this issue.
On the post: Over 190 Engineers & Tech Experts Tell The FCC It's Dead Wrong On Net Neutrality
Re: I'm one of the signatories
"The current owner of SPAM-L, a long-time anti-spam discussion mailing list, announced on September 3rd that long-time subscriber Rich Kulawiec's ability to participate in the list has been terminated.
"This appeared to be in response to Rich's caustic and threatening comments made to a fellow subscriber, an employee of a company called Marketo. After receiving negative feedback regarding the comments he made to the Marketo employee, he responded with a statement, made publicly to the list, that included the phrase "summary execution." Here is an excerpt from one of his posts on August 24 (emphasis added):
http://www.spamresource.com/2010/09/rich-kulawiec-booted-from-spam-l.html
On the post: Over 190 Engineers & Tech Experts Tell The FCC It's Dead Wrong On Net Neutrality
Distinction w/out a difference
Sorry, but this is about regulation.
On the post: Over 190 Engineers & Tech Experts Tell The FCC It's Dead Wrong On Net Neutrality
Re: I'm one of the signatories
Now what happens if you apply this logic to handguns? Are you OK with having the gun manufacturers write gun laws?
I suspect some may not be.
Next >>