http://bgr.com/2014/01/14/net-neutrality-court-ruling/
:argh!:
Quote"Without broadband provider market power, consumers, of course, have options," the court writes. "They can go to another broadband provider if they want to reach particular edge providers or if their connections to particular edge providers have been degraded."
Quote
"To be sure, some difficulty switching broadband providers is certainly a factor that might contribute to a firm's having market power, but that itself is not market power," the court asserts. "There are many industries in which switching between competitors is not instantly achieved, but those industries may still be heavily disciplined by competitive forces because consumers will switch unless there are real barriers."
Citing Google fiber? WTF?
The court has no fucking idea about technology.
It's time for Kevin Mitnick to whistle into a telephone.
Um. There is no high speed broadband content provider other than Comcast in Boston. There are other PROVIDERS, but they don't have the infrastructure to support high-speed broadband.
Da fuq?
Now the market has been deregulated, there will be!
And if there still isn't, it just needs to be deregulated more!
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/195360-court-strikes-down-net-neutrality-rules#ixzz2qOM5U82J
QuoteThe D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Federal Communications Commission overstepped its authority by prohibiting Internet providers from blocking or discriminating against traffic to lawful websites.
By classifying Internet access as an "information service" as opposed to a "telecommunications service," which is the classification used for traditional telephone companies, the FCC cannot impose its "anti-discrimination" and "anti-blocking" rules on Internet providers, the court said.
So if the FCC doesn't have the authority, we look to Congress?
Given the FCC is the telecom regulatory body as well...yeah, that smells like bullshit.
Looks like it was the court that "reclassified" it as an "information service". I was wrong. Huh.... that does smell.
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf (http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf)
Source.
Posting for later reference.
We didn't really want this whole Internet thing to be a multi-way communication system anyway. One-way is more than enough. Back in my day, we didn't get to talk to each other over the teevee. We used it for getting the evening Truth and watching Beaver Knows Best, and that's it, and we got along just fine. I don't see why we'd want the Internet to be anything other than that. Too many options is bad for Freedom.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 14, 2014, 05:04:58 PM
Um. There is no high speed broadband content provider other than Comcast in Boston. There are other PROVIDERS, but they don't have the infrastructure to support high-speed broadband.
Da fuq?
Verizon monopoly area here.
Comcast is the only other provider in area, seems to be agreeing to allow verizon a monopoly of sucky and overpriced service. :argh!:
Quote from: V3X on January 14, 2014, 11:20:06 PM
We didn't really want this whole Internet thing to be a multi-way communication system anyway. One-way is more than enough. Back in my day, we didn't get to talk to each other over the teevee. We used it for getting the evening Truth and watching Beaver Knows Best, and that's it, and we got along just fine. I don't see why we'd want the Internet to be anything other than that. Too many options is bad for Freedom.
Speeds of up to 25 mbps! Oh wait you wanted to use that to upload, uh, uh, here is 6.
Also not even all that long ago some ISP were arguing that google fiber be disallowed because google could use it as a lose leader to its other industries. Therefore the ISPs were arguing google could create a verticle integration monopoly. Then not that long later they argue against net neutrality and they no longer seem worried about fiber but instead cite it as an arguement for deregulation. Wouldn't this deregulation make google doing verticle integration more of a threat???
Relevant, I guess...
QuoteMore than 80% of new subscribers to high-speed Internet service are going with their local cable providers. It's not because they think those providers are just grand; it's because in most of the country there's no choice. Local cable service is a monopoly almost everywhere; fiber companies such as Verizon and AT&T, which have the technology to bring you higher speeds, won't spend the money to compete.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/23/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20130823
http://www.webpronews.com/akamai-as-proof-of-a-non-neutral-net-2008-01
This article is out of date but I now wonder what a company like Akamai will do with this deregulation. If ISPs have control over web traffic that seems like it would directly impact the service that Akamai provides. Considering that Akamai is purported to route 25% of web traffic from sites like Twitter, reddit, whitehouse.gov, Apple and so on, it seems like they would have an even bigger interest in keeping the net neutral.
Although searching, I can't find any information about their position on this.
Quote from: Bu☆ns on January 14, 2014, 04:59:11 PM
Quote"Without broadband provider market power, consumers, of course, have options," the court writes. "They can go to another broadband provider if they want to reach particular edge providers or if their connections to particular edge providers have been degraded."
Quote
"To be sure, some difficulty switching broadband providers is certainly a factor that might contribute to a firm's having market power, but that itself is not market power," the court asserts. "There are many industries in which switching between competitors is not instantly achieved, but those industries may still be heavily disciplined by competitive forces because consumers will switch unless there are real barriers."
Citing Google fiber? WTF?
The court has no fucking idea about technology.
It's time for Kevin Mitnick to whistle into a telephone.
This is the thing about the whole net neutrality deal. It's like it based around this idea that it's somehow possible for ISP's to prevent access to specific websites via their networks. Now a bunch of clueless dinosaurs like Govt Inc and the Church of Copyright I can understand but there's a counter movement of people who ought to know better, actively campaigning against this ridiculous fiction.
I'm sick of hearing about it. "OMG - your government want to block your access to torrent sites!" Good for them, I want an unlimited supply of solid gold Lamborghini's, so it looks like me and the gestapo are in the same boat. Actually, come to think about it a solid gold Lambo isn't outside the realms of possibility. How to shift the focus of Net neutrality campaigners to something plausible? :evil:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 15, 2014, 03:56:00 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on January 14, 2014, 04:59:11 PM
Quote"Without broadband provider market power, consumers, of course, have options," the court writes. "They can go to another broadband provider if they want to reach particular edge providers or if their connections to particular edge providers have been degraded."
Quote
"To be sure, some difficulty switching broadband providers is certainly a factor that might contribute to a firm's having market power, but that itself is not market power," the court asserts. "There are many industries in which switching between competitors is not instantly achieved, but those industries may still be heavily disciplined by competitive forces because consumers will switch unless there are real barriers."
Citing Google fiber? WTF?
The court has no fucking idea about technology.
It's time for Kevin Mitnick to whistle into a telephone.
This is the thing about the whole net neutrality deal. It's like it based around this idea that it's somehow possible for ISP's to prevent access to specific websites via their networks. Now a bunch of clueless dinosaurs like Govt Inc and the Church of Copyright I can understand but there's a counter movement of people who ought to know better, actively campaigning against this ridiculous fiction.
I'm sick of hearing about it. "OMG - your government want to block your access to torrent sites!" Good for them, I want an unlimited supply of solid gold Lamborghini's, so it looks like me and the gestapo are in the same boat. Actually, come to think about it a solid gold Lambo isn't outside the realms of possibility. How to shift the focus of Net neutrality campaigners to something plausible? :evil:
Actually and ISP
can block or limit your access to sites and services it has decided to restrict access to. When you connect to the "Internet," you're really connecting to a private network owned by your service provider. The only reason you're allowed to go anywhere online is because your ISP allows your device a network route through its network and out one of its exit nodes. They have complete control over the information your device receives while it is connected to their network, including the routing information to services and sites outside of their network. There are numerous ways they can poison that information to prevent you accessing said services or sites, or they can just limit the bandwidth your connection is allowed to use. This is the entire point of the Network Neutrality debate: ISPs claim that they have the right (and the duty, in some cases) to do exactly that - because you're not on the public Internet anyway, you're on their private network, which they own and should be allowed to manage in whatever way they deem best, including limiting your access to things inside and outside of that private network.
Quote from: V3X on January 15, 2014, 05:49:46 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 15, 2014, 03:56:00 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on January 14, 2014, 04:59:11 PM
Quote"Without broadband provider market power, consumers, of course, have options," the court writes. "They can go to another broadband provider if they want to reach particular edge providers or if their connections to particular edge providers have been degraded."
Quote
"To be sure, some difficulty switching broadband providers is certainly a factor that might contribute to a firm's having market power, but that itself is not market power," the court asserts. "There are many industries in which switching between competitors is not instantly achieved, but those industries may still be heavily disciplined by competitive forces because consumers will switch unless there are real barriers."
Citing Google fiber? WTF?
The court has no fucking idea about technology.
It's time for Kevin Mitnick to whistle into a telephone.
This is the thing about the whole net neutrality deal. It's like it based around this idea that it's somehow possible for ISP's to prevent access to specific websites via their networks. Now a bunch of clueless dinosaurs like Govt Inc and the Church of Copyright I can understand but there's a counter movement of people who ought to know better, actively campaigning against this ridiculous fiction.
I'm sick of hearing about it. "OMG - your government want to block your access to torrent sites!" Good for them, I want an unlimited supply of solid gold Lamborghini's, so it looks like me and the gestapo are in the same boat. Actually, come to think about it a solid gold Lambo isn't outside the realms of possibility. How to shift the focus of Net neutrality campaigners to something plausible? :evil:
Actually and ISP can block or limit your access to sites and services it has decided to restrict access to. When you connect to the "Internet," you're really connecting to a private network owned by your service provider. The only reason you're allowed to go anywhere online is because your ISP allows your device a network route through its network and out one of its exit nodes. They have complete control over the information your device receives while it is connected to their network, including the routing information to services and sites outside of their network. There are numerous ways they can poison that information to prevent you accessing said services or sites, or they can just limit the bandwidth your connection is allowed to use. This is the entire point of the Network Neutrality debate: ISPs claim that they have the right (and the duty, in some cases) to do exactly that - because you're not on the public Internet anyway, you're on their private network, which they own and should be allowed to manage in whatever way they deem best, including limiting your access to things inside and outside of that private network.
Yeah, my ISP did this with a few sites I use. So I went through a proxy. Sometimes they play whack a mole with the proxy's. It doesn't matter. Their ability to dns or ipblock sites is not in question. Their ability to block access to the information is and that kinda renders the ban hammer useless. The ones who campaign to have the laws arsed around with don't understand the nature of information in the context of the internet. It's not in a place. You can't cordon off an area. Information is copied, mirrored, routed, rerouted, backed up, hidden, revealed, and, ultimately, downloaded.
I'm more concerned about "throttling". Sure, it will let you reach the information you're looking for, but you'll only be able to do it at 14.4 bauds. And when something is that slow, when an alternative is streaming at T3 speeds, most people are going to go with the faster option.
Granted, that's a concern but attempts at implementation fall prey to many of the same workarounds and many others to boot. Corporations want to take over teh internet, same as they want to take over anything. Their nature is parasitic. All the things must be squeezed to get the money out. Public interest is always the opposite - get as much of the things as you can, so the money doesn't get squeezed out of you. Put the two together in any context and all the systems get bent, broken and subverted to suit public interest.
Many people won't bother with proxy's and workarounds though, and the corporations aren't interested in blocking data for the fringe, they are interested in controlling the total flow.
A dedicated and skilled person will always be able to get to anything, but most people won't once they start blocking sites.
I myself stopped using Piratebay for a few months before i stumbled across a workaround.
Quote from: :regret: on January 17, 2014, 02:14:49 PM
Many people won't bother with proxy's and workarounds though, and the corporations aren't interested in blocking data for the fringe, they are interested in controlling the total flow.
A dedicated and skilled person will always be able to get to anything, but most people won't once they start blocking sites.
I myself stopped using Piratebay for a few months before i stumbled across a workaround.
Most people wouldn't be interested in breaking laws or reading unsanctioned information, anyway. Most people are crap. Most people are the reason we still have governments in the first place. So fuck most people. They'll get the shaft like they usually do and they'll probably ask for more. Good luck to them. What is encouraging to me is the number of people I've met who now know what a proxy is. Anyone motivated in the slightest can quite easily bypass any blocks or restrictions put in place. The reason being - simple instructions are available online.
The shadies are desperately clamouring to keep a lid on things but they really don't have a chance in hell. It's hilarious and, despite their best cloak n dagger arsing around, totally transparent to watch :lulz:
Here's the future of the internet in America:
(http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ku-medium.jpg)
ouch.