So the message is: if you are a security researcher, hide behind several layers of anonymity and protection (TOR, VPN, Proxies etc) and just dump everything in the wild to cause as much mayhem as possible so 1- the responsible for the problem will be forced to fix it and 2- you'll be protected.
Doesn't sound like a good outcome for anybody. We should instead be protecting these guys.
So you are again saying that having the government deal with it is good even after you just yelled "REGULATIONS BAD, GOVERNMENT BAD". The cognitive dissonance is astonishing.
"NN, does nothing to dismantle the monopoly... only control it just as I stated. You support NN."
Yes. Because it's a fucking natural monopoly. Laying new infra-structure is expensive enough that you don't see anybody trying their luck there and even when the deep pocketed try to they face another face of the problem that needs to be tackled which is the regulatory capture (which has nothing to do with the regulations put in place in 2015 by the way).
Sure you have to deal with the monopoly and for that you need to combat such regulatory capture but you can also rein them in with regulations. We have a strictly regulated environment in Europe and it works wonders. Another way is going with municipal broadband because the government has enough money to deal with the steep capital costs and there are multiple success cases out there. Of course you also need to dismantle some regulatory capture in some places as well. But again, it's an effort that doesn't invalidate the need for good NN rules.
You are hopeless. Please enlighten us on how to dismantle this monopoly. Multiple people have asked and you simply don't answer. I suspect you can't answer that so it's easier to avoid the question, right? The best I've seen from you were incoherent babbling on how wise you are because regulations are bad.
Re: Question: is network bandwidth unlimited or not?
"Question: is network bandwidth unlimited or not?"
Question: are you overselling your capacity? Are you engaging in false advertisement when selling a determined speed? Are you lying? (By you I mean Comcast).
If you have a congestion problem then throttle everybody. And clearly state it when selling further.
On the contrary. The rules that took effect in 2015 instantly ended some petty disputes regarding interconnection.
Netflix had been in a battle with Verizon that involved it PAYING for the equipment that would solve the connectivity woes Verizon customers were suffering when using it (and other services, there were problems with online games as well for instance). At the time the equipment cost 25k USD and acquiring it would make it better for Verizon customers to use any service including Netflix. Verizon was dragging its collective feet while breathlessly arguing that they needed to impose throttling and caps because Netflix users were gobbling up so much capacity.
When the rules went into effect and could be enforced the dispute suddenly solved itself. So yeas, the monopoly can be controlled. And since dismantling it is kind of hard because it's a natural monopoly Wheeler took the right path into controlling them. Exactly what Pai is dismantling.
Of course you'll never admit you are full of shit but facts are facts, deal with it.
Except Google and Facebook aren't the internet of course. And it's not social media that would take a major hit but also any platform that allows user generated content. Hardly an hyperbole but luckily we haven't been able to test whether it is or not. And I hope we don't get to test as it would be very destructive for everybody.
Also, check the meaning of "false news". It doesn't mean "stuff I don't agree with".
"The mass-shooter at the Capital Gazette got a woman fired by lying about her to her employer, btw."
Which is very different from opining about her, no?
Section 230 protects platforms from people like you that would love to extract easy money from them instead of going after the perceived libel and lose when it's clear it's protected speech (which seems to be the case). And as the guy up there properly noted Yelp isn't even the receiving end of the lawsuit and it has been denied due process. But yeah, you illustrate quite well my partially incoherent rant.
Oops, I failed at communications. I actually understood Yelp isn't the receiving end of the lawsuit but I failed to mention it. My idea is that Yelp didn't even had the chance to defend exactly because of this "go after the platform" mindset. I thought it but didn't write so it came out as a semi-related rant. My apologies, you are absolutely right.
It's tragically amusing how people seem to throw all logic through the window when you add "on the internet" to whatever regular activity. I mean, you don't see people coming after Taurus because somebody used their guns to commit some crime or Ford and InBev because somebody caused an accident while speeding drunken. Because you go after the individual behind the actions, not the providers of the tools. Even if such providers know their products could be used for criminal actions they can't possibly babysit every single customer to make sure they are using them responsibly.
And then in this case you have the speech protections added. Even if, say, McDonnalds decided the guy could place a wooden box in their property and talk about his opinion I'm fairly sure they'd be going after the guy and not after McDonnalds. Note I'm saying they are letting people speak their mind, not endorsing it. But because it's the internet then ZOMG LAWSUIT against the platform, not the one allegedly defaming.
Hopefully this will change as people get more internet-savvy as the new generations come.
Death threats are stupid regardless of the receiving end ideas. I'd argue it's idiotic to make death threats against neo-nazis that make death threats to drive my point home.
That said, I can understand the feeling in this specific case and generally in cases involving blatant corruption, cronyism. I mean, the moron is harming everybody without even caring about hiding the obvious telco dick stuck deep into his mouth. If we go a little back in time heads rolled literally in France for quite similar reasons. Sometimes I honestly think a few heads need to roll to remind politicians where the power resides but alas we theoretically are in more evolved times so I can't really advocate for that. Nor I actually would condone such thing even if it comes to mind when frustration hits badly.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pipes -- Why shouldn't Google be a "dumb pipe" too, then?
"Which would be why it's a good thing that there are many other ways in which they can compete, most of which benefit the end consumer rather nicely."
You can differentiate by offering cheaper pricing for capped connections at peak times so you can shove more people in the same network. Offer guaranteed up time for a premium (or use higher up times as a way to differentiate). Offer advanced connectivity capabilities like DNSSEC, added security in the ISP side (ie, a firewall with advanced capabilities), parental control with IP filtering for inbound and outbound connections. There's plenty you can offer that will instantly differentiate you from your average ISP. And once you establish your brand it's difficult for others to take your post. See Comcast. When you think shit you think Comcast even if Verizon is just as bad.
On the post: Over The Top Sports Streaming Comes To Europe With Amazon's Deal With The Premier League
Good riddance. They could die faster.
On the post: The Death Of Google Reader And The Rise Of Silos
Re: Re: @ "
On the post: DHS Subpoenas Twitter For New Zealand Security Researcher's Info
Doesn't sound like a good outcome for anybody. We should instead be protecting these guys.
On the post: Comcast's Wireless Service Will Charge You More To Stream HD Video
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Comcast's Wireless Service Will Charge You More To Stream HD Video
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes. Because it's a fucking natural monopoly. Laying new infra-structure is expensive enough that you don't see anybody trying their luck there and even when the deep pocketed try to they face another face of the problem that needs to be tackled which is the regulatory capture (which has nothing to do with the regulations put in place in 2015 by the way).
Sure you have to deal with the monopoly and for that you need to combat such regulatory capture but you can also rein them in with regulations. We have a strictly regulated environment in Europe and it works wonders. Another way is going with municipal broadband because the government has enough money to deal with the steep capital costs and there are multiple success cases out there. Of course you also need to dismantle some regulatory capture in some places as well. But again, it's an effort that doesn't invalidate the need for good NN rules.
You are hopeless. Please enlighten us on how to dismantle this monopoly. Multiple people have asked and you simply don't answer. I suspect you can't answer that so it's easier to avoid the question, right? The best I've seen from you were incoherent babbling on how wise you are because regulations are bad.
On the post: Comcast's Wireless Service Will Charge You More To Stream HD Video
Re: Question: is network bandwidth unlimited or not?
Question: are you overselling your capacity? Are you engaging in false advertisement when selling a determined speed? Are you lying? (By you I mean Comcast).
If you have a congestion problem then throttle everybody. And clearly state it when selling further.
On the post: Comcast's Wireless Service Will Charge You More To Stream HD Video
Re: Re:
Netflix had been in a battle with Verizon that involved it PAYING for the equipment that would solve the connectivity woes Verizon customers were suffering when using it (and other services, there were problems with online games as well for instance). At the time the equipment cost 25k USD and acquiring it would make it better for Verizon customers to use any service including Netflix. Verizon was dragging its collective feet while breathlessly arguing that they needed to impose throttling and caps because Netflix users were gobbling up so much capacity.
When the rules went into effect and could be enforced the dispute suddenly solved itself. So yeas, the monopoly can be controlled. And since dismantling it is kind of hard because it's a natural monopoly Wheeler took the right path into controlling them. Exactly what Pai is dismantling.
Of course you'll never admit you are full of shit but facts are facts, deal with it.
On the post: Comcast's Wireless Service Will Charge You More To Stream HD Video
On the post: Cops Are Telling Paramedics To Inject Arrestees With Ketamine. Worse, EMS Crews Are Actually Doing It.
Re: Re: Re: Re: short memory?
FIFY
On the post: Cops Are Telling Paramedics To Inject Arrestees With Ketamine. Worse, EMS Crews Are Actually Doing It.
Re: Disagree.
On the post: Cops Are Telling Paramedics To Inject Arrestees With Ketamine. Worse, EMS Crews Are Actually Doing It.
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Cops Are Telling Paramedics To Inject Arrestees With Ketamine. Worse, EMS Crews Are Actually Doing It.
That's the best I could come with after reading this. And they criticize authoritarian regimes.
On the post: California Court Not Yet Ready To Undermine The Entire Internet; Rules Yelp Can't Be Forced To Delete A Review
Re:
Also, check the meaning of "false news". It doesn't mean "stuff I don't agree with".
On the post: California Court Not Yet Ready To Undermine The Entire Internet; Rules Yelp Can't Be Forced To Delete A Review
Re:
Which is very different from opining about her, no?
Section 230 protects platforms from people like you that would love to extract easy money from them instead of going after the perceived libel and lose when it's clear it's protected speech (which seems to be the case). And as the guy up there properly noted Yelp isn't even the receiving end of the lawsuit and it has been denied due process. But yeah, you illustrate quite well my partially incoherent rant.
On the post: California Court Not Yet Ready To Undermine The Entire Internet; Rules Yelp Can't Be Forced To Delete A Review
Re: Re:
On the post: This Shouldn't Need Saying: Threatening To Kill Anyone Over Net Neutrality Is Idiotic
Re: net neutrality
On the post: California Court Not Yet Ready To Undermine The Entire Internet; Rules Yelp Can't Be Forced To Delete A Review
And then in this case you have the speech protections added. Even if, say, McDonnalds decided the guy could place a wooden box in their property and talk about his opinion I'm fairly sure they'd be going after the guy and not after McDonnalds. Note I'm saying they are letting people speak their mind, not endorsing it. But because it's the internet then ZOMG LAWSUIT against the platform, not the one allegedly defaming.
Hopefully this will change as people get more internet-savvy as the new generations come.
On the post: This Shouldn't Need Saying: Threatening To Kill Anyone Over Net Neutrality Is Idiotic
That said, I can understand the feeling in this specific case and generally in cases involving blatant corruption, cronyism. I mean, the moron is harming everybody without even caring about hiding the obvious telco dick stuck deep into his mouth. If we go a little back in time heads rolled literally in France for quite similar reasons. Sometimes I honestly think a few heads need to roll to remind politicians where the power resides but alas we theoretically are in more evolved times so I can't really advocate for that. Nor I actually would condone such thing even if it comes to mind when frustration hits badly.
On the post: Verizon's Sad Attempt To Woo Millennials Falls Flat On Its Face
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pipes -- Why shouldn't Google be a "dumb pipe" too, then?
You can differentiate by offering cheaper pricing for capped connections at peak times so you can shove more people in the same network. Offer guaranteed up time for a premium (or use higher up times as a way to differentiate). Offer advanced connectivity capabilities like DNSSEC, added security in the ISP side (ie, a firewall with advanced capabilities), parental control with IP filtering for inbound and outbound connections. There's plenty you can offer that will instantly differentiate you from your average ISP. And once you establish your brand it's difficult for others to take your post. See Comcast. When you think shit you think Comcast even if Verizon is just as bad.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Funniest is what you don't see: the Week In Review and ZOMBIES!
Next >>