cloudsession.com · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

FCC Complain ID#12-C00422224 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 06:59 · Score: 0 · on 'The End Of The Level Playing Field' (avc.com)

Conspiracy Theory: Vincent Cerf while employed for Google argues for a 'level playing field' that ultimately helps Google escape the transportation costs of it's massive as-snooping traffic that the NSA considers a benefit to national security. Perhaps less sellable under Trump than Obama post-Snowden. Because despite what the FCC said in 10-201 about the nature of the 'level playing field' I always said to myself that I'd believe it when I saw it. And I've never seen it.

The bottom line- while I may also be able to compete by partnering with
existing cloud infrastructure services companies, am I free to compete on my own, paying the
same published rates for my data traffic on the 'general purpose technology'6 of the internet as
my neighbor?

https://lwn.net/Articles/657561/

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7522219498

http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-k121024.pdf

https://www.wired.com/2013/07/google-neutrality/

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/google-accused-of-betraying-its-net-neutrality-stance/ (some facts wrong in article)

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/10/google-fiber-now-explicitly-permits-home-servers/

Re:Why is this about security? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-13 17:04 · Score: 0 · on Clinton Home Servers Had Ports Open (ap.org)

Right To Serve -- http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-k121024.pdf

This doesn't make sense to me given the timeline and media attention given to this story. I suspect there is a criminal motive that benefits Google and other large corporation's bottom line, while simultaneously making it easier for the NSA to get away with things like PRISM. Hell, even the FCC complaint number boggles my mind.

Re:um no by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-02 05:49 · Score: 0 · on Real Net Neutrality Problem: 'Edge Provider' vs 'End User'

Are they 'end users' when they email their friends but 'edge providers' when they switch windows to check their business metrics?
and that right there sums up why people who don't know how networking works, shouldn't write news articles about it.
In both cases in this example the user is consuming data.

And that right there sums up why people who don't understand digestion shouldn't write networking articles. As far as the cost of running the network is concerned, data is being sent and received, not consumed. That you want to fit everything into the word 'consumer's pigeon-hole shows that the advertisers have already rotted out your brain.

A better example would be once the user is hosting data locally, like a webpage... And then, in fact, they'd be required by nearly every ISP in the county to have a business account.
The author acts like he's come up with some novel argument that questions the basic foundations of the ISPs business model, but in fact, it's a question that was asked and answered over 20yrs ago. You want to host a website from your house? Get a T1.

Here however, I'll grant you have half a point. Though it is one I targeted like a LAZER-BEAM in my 2012 54 page manifesto to the FCC titledThe Right To Serve. While I was disappointed that my crusade against GoogleFiber's "any kind of server hosting prohibited" ToS didn't quite make the NYT or the WaPost, it did make the rounds in wired/huffingtonpost/forbes/mcclasky.

The fact of the matter is that business models are not immutable things, much as the corporate oligarchs would like them to be. Ask the newspapers about how fun the internet age has been for them in the competitive business arena.

The business model the ISPs want, is to literally be able to tax anyone profiting disproportionately from the data traffic they are using. If person A can make $1M via the same 3.14GB of upload data traffic and 4.2GB of download traffic, then the ISP would like $100,000 please. But the proper answer to that is to politely tell them to go fuck themselves.

"Get a T1"? In the day and age of fiber optic cables, are you fucking kidding me? Nice troll buddy.

"The Internet of Things" by deconfliction · 2014-01-07 08:54 · Score: 2 · on Intel Puts a PC Into an SD Card-Sized Casing

"it launched last year as its attempt to muscle in on that other flavour-of-the-month market: the so-called Internet of Things."

I had to specifically point out to the Wired.com journalist writing about my "Right To Serve" issue that he was putting the phrase "Internet of Things" into my mouth in his first draft article. The "Internet of Things" from what I can tell is the establishment dipping its toes into the wonderous waters of IPv6, but finding a way to do it without allowing the residential user to _profit in any way_ from their "internet of things". Because all profit shall be reserved for the establishment. Or so goes the party line.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/07/google-neutrality/
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121024.pdf
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/google-we-can-ban-servers-on-fiber-without-violating-net-neutrality/
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/google-fiber-continues-awful-isp-tradition-banning-servers
http://crossies.com/pissed.html
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/10/google-fiber-now-explicitly-permits-home-servers/
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/01/198327/googles-call-for-open-internet.html

Re:Common Carrier by deconfliction · 2014-01-03 10:13 · Score: 1 · on Facebook Being Sued Over Mining of Private Messages

If anyone is interested in the common carrier argument, I urge them to read the following as it relates to being able to treat your residential ISP as a 'common carrier' (so that for instance one could host their own server running an open source or commercial solution that provides an alternate to facebook messaging).

http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121024.pdf
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/google-we-can-ban-servers-on-fiber-without-violating-net-neutrality/
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/google-fiber-continues-awful-isp-tradition-banning-servers
http://crossies.com/pissed.html
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/10/google-fiber-now-explicitly-permits-home-servers/
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/01/198327/googles-call-for-open-internet.html

Re:The insecurity right now by deconfliction · 2013-12-28 07:44 · Score: 4, Insightful · on NSA's Legal Win Introduces a Lot of Online Insecurity

The insecurity is on the side of the NSA.
They wouldn't go through such hoops if we didn't have the most powerful freedom tool ever, namely the Internet.

Use it properly and they shall vanish.

You are right. But the problem is that the ISPs will not allow you to use the internet properly (e.g. hosting your own data on your own server at home, thus giving it the strongest possible U.S. 4th ammendment 'papers' protection.

http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121024.pdf
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/google-we-can-ban-servers-on-fiber-without-violating-net-neutrality/
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/google-fiber-continues-awful-isp-tradition-banning-servers
http://crossies.com/pissed.html
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/10/google-fiber-now-explicitly-permits-home-servers/
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/01/198327/googles-call-for-open-internet.html

Re:They should be much more paranoid. by jdogalt · 2013-11-16 12:10 · Score: 0, Offtopic · on How Big Companies Can Hamper the Surveillance Infrastructure

My older brother is a VP-Eng at Google (maps). I can assure you that the whole thing is utterly corrupt. The day after active duty U.S. Navy Information Warfare Officer Dave Schroeder posted publicly here that he thought my GoogleFiber "Right To Serve" Manifesto[1] was "very good" and that he agreed with everything I wrote about the core net neutrality argument, my brother finally said he agreed with some part of my arguments. To this day he has never clarified which part, though still asserts that I should have gone about my complaint in "the better way", namely submitting myself subserviantly to the Google technocratic leaderships opinion. The fact of the matter is, IMHO, that being able to host server/s on your residential internet connection, and being able to expect the user/customer base of all "internet service" to have the same basic right, is a key aspect of reclaiming our informational privacy and security on the internet. No, it's not bulletproof, but it's the foundation with which to have a fighting chance. I personally wish the EFF would get some guts and go further in their call. The fact of the matter is that I am right about my Net Neutrality argument, though certainly resolved to believe that after the forthcoming verizon ruling, that is not legally likely going to be relevant. But I think to reclaim our ability to use the internet, rather than being used by it, we need to demand that hosting servers that control our own data, is something everyone ought to be able to do from home. And in order for the residential server software market to thrive, there can't be arbitrary bullshit raqueteering loopholes like Google's new "no-commercial-servers-allowed" activity. I mean, why the fuck is it ok for residential users to commercially profit on transactions with a 3rd party like ebay, but not if they independently run their own LAMP stack and accept payment by check via USPS? I mean seriously, what the fuck?!?

[1] http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121024.pdf
http://www.provobuzz.com/google-fiber-now-allows-home-servers/
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/07/google-neutrality/
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/google-fiber-continues-awful-isp-tradition-banning-servers
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/01/198327/googles-call-for-open-internet.html

Net neutrality by ortholattice · 2013-10-04 00:04 · Score: 5, Insightful · on ArkOS: Building the Anti-Cloud (on a Raspberry Pi)

To me, it seems that providers that prohibit home servers (either by TOS or by actually blocking e.g. port 80) are in violation of FCC-10-201 (net neutrality).

This was brought up before on Slashdot http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/07/30/2322253/google-argues-against-net-neutrality with specific reference to Google Fiber's TOS prohibition of incoming ports. The complaint is described in http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121024.pdf . I wish someone would pursue this against all major providers, not just Google Fiber.

There is simply no valid reason to prohibit incoming ports. This issue is not bandwidth - most home servers use far less than say streaming video. In any case if it's abused, the providers can use their existing procedures to deal with bandwidth abusers.

This is really at the heart of network neutrality. The only reason I can see for prohibiting incoming ports is to prevent individuals from competing with commercial interests that provide network services. Personally, it really PO's me that my ISP blocks ports 80 and 443. I keep my files on a home server, and although I can access them via ssh, many public wifi services (e.g. at hospitals) block every port, in and out, except 80 and 443. I can't really complain about the public wifi (well, I can complain, but they'll just tell me that it's a free courtesy they're under no obligation to provide, so if you don't like it, don't use it). So, to access my personal files, I need to use a 3rd party's commercial server (cloud or VPN) that allows port 80.

(As for the dynamic DNS, that hasn't been a serious problem for me - my ISP keeps it fixed as long as my cable modem is powered and connected, and the IP only changes when I restart the cable modem. Anyway, that is a secondary and minor problem.)

Re:I remember this story by jdogalt · 2013-09-15 08:59 · Score: 1, Informative · on Doctorow: Rivalry Keeps Google From Doing Evil

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/07/30/2322253/google-argues-against-net-neutrality [slashdot.org] its a dupe.

The original complaint I filed with the FCC, then the Kansas Attorney General, and then back to the FCC is here-

http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121024.pdf

Another slashdot echo of the EFF's take is here-

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/08/13/2148245/eff-slams-google-fiber-for-banning-servers-on-its-network

Its the same dumb points from anonymous cowards.

Ad hominem much tuppe666? My name is Douglas McClendon.

Google want to charge businesses for attaching servers to the internet...and yet this has been twisted into a Net Neutrality argument,

Here is my twist, I'll just post a paragraph from 10-201 (aka 'Net Neutrality')

FCC-10-201 Paragraph 13 (see appendix B for the entirety) ...
(Under Section Heading:)
The Internet’s Openness Promotes Innovation, Investment, Competition, Free Expression, and Other National Broadband Goals
13.
Like electricity and the computer, the Internet is a "general purpose technology" that enables new methods of production that have a major impact on
the entire economy.(12) The Internet’s founders intentionally built a network that is open, in the sense that it has no gatekeepers limiting innovation and
communication through the network.(13) Accordingly, the Internet enables an end user to access the content and applications of her choice, without
requiring permission from broadband providers. This architecture enables innovators to create and offer new applications and services without needing
approval from any controlling entity, be it a network provider, equipment manufacturer, industry body, or government agency.(14) End users benefit
because the Internet’s openness allows new technologies to be developed and distributed by a broad range of sources, not just by the companies that
operate the network. For example, Sir Tim Berners-Lee was able to invent the World Wide Web nearly two decades after engineers developed the
Internet’s original protocols, without needing changes to those protocols or any approval from network operators.(15) Startups and small businesses
benefit because the Internet’s openness enables anyone connected to the network to reach and do business with anyone else,(16) allowing even the
smallest and most remotely located businesses to access national and global markets, and contribute to the economy through e-commerce(17) and
online advertising.(18) Because Internet openness enables widespread innovation and allows all end users and edge providers (rather than just the
significantly smaller number of broadband providers) to create and determine the success or failure of content, applications, services, and devices, it
maximizes commercial and non-commercial innovations that address key national challenges -- including improvements in health care, education, and
energy efficiency that benefit our economy and civic life.(19)

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1_Rcd.pdf

by changing the definition of Net Neutrality "discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality [wikipedia.org] . I'm just shocked its not an Ars Technica...maybe they are still defending the iPhone launch.

And here, I will emphasize a quote from Vint Cerf, about what IPv6 _ought_ to enable

the fine print by jdogalt · 2013-07-30 11:55 · Score: 4, Informative · on Google Argues Against Net Neutrality

here is what they were responding to-

http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/mcclendon_notice_of_informal_complaint.pdf
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121024.pdf

the fine print by jdogalt · 2013-07-30 11:55 · Score: 4, Informative · on Google Argues Against Net Neutrality

here is what they were responding to-

http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/mcclendon_notice_of_informal_complaint.pdf
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121024.pdf

Re:Blame ISPs by jdogalt · 2013-07-22 04:51 · Score: 5, Interesting · on Google Now Serves 25% of North American Internet Traffic

Can you imagine the explosion in Internet traffic if ISP customers were allowed to host servers?

Why Yes! Thank you for bringing it up in the first post. Go ahead and follow this rabbit trail if you are more interested in the situation-

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3929983&cid=44170993

I've used the fact that GoogleFiber was my first ISP choice involving IPv6 to press a new novel interpretation of NetworkNeutrality. It seems to be going somewhere. ComIntercept(FCC->Google):

"The enclosed informal complaint, dated September 1, 2012, has been filed with the Commission by Douglas McClendon against Google pursuant to section 1.41 of Comissions's Rules, 47 C.F.R. // 1.41. Also attached is Mr. McClendon's October 24, 2012 complaint forwarded to the FCC by the Kansas Office of the Attorney General. Mr. McClendon asserts that Google's policy prohibiting use of its fixed broadband internet service (Google Fiber connection) to host any type of server violates the Open Internet Order, FCC 10-201, and the Commission's rules at 47 C.F.R. // 8.1-11.

We are forwarding a copy of the informal complaint so that you may satisfy or answer the informal complaint based on a thorough review of all relevant records and other information. You should respond in writing specifically and comprehensively to all material allegations raised in the informal complaint, being sure not to include the specifics of any confidential settlement discussions. ...

Your written response to the informal complaint must be filed with the Commission contact listed below by U.S. mail and e-mail by July 29, 2013. On that same day, you must mail and e-mail your response to Douglas McClendon.

The parties shall retain all records that may be relevant to the informal complaint until final Commission disposition of the informal complaint or of any formal complaint that may arise from this matter. See 47 C.F.R. //1.812-17. (seriously, can't I and Google just depend on the NSA's backups of our records? :)

Failure of any person to answer any lawful Commission inquiry is considered a misdemeanor punishable by a fine... ... ...

http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/mcclendon_notice_of_informal_complaint.pdf [cloudsession.com]
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/mcclendon_oct24_2012_complaint.pdf [cloudsession.com]

This represents Google getting 'served' this week, my form 2000F 'informal' 53 page complaint that suggests that NetNeutrality provides protections against ISP blocking to my home servers as well as to Skype's. Google has been compelled by the government to respond to me on July 29th. GoogleFiber's 'evil' terms of service prohibit hosting any kind of server without prior written permission against your residential connection. And zero transparency for any alternate server-allowed plan rates, or what kinds of reasons they might use to disallow a requested written permission (which is laughable as the FCC 10-201 NetNeutrality document goes out of it's way to laud Tim Berner Lee's invention of the web atop tcp/ip, specifically, without having to have gotten any permission from any government or network provider)

I forwarded the documents to schneier@schneier.com and requested any insight he might have into the matter. I got an email response (theoretically perhaps spoofed) that read "Thanks.\n\nGood Luck."

Re:Blame ISPs by jdogalt · 2013-07-22 04:51 · Score: 5, Interesting · on Google Now Serves 25% of North American Internet Traffic

Can you imagine the explosion in Internet traffic if ISP customers were allowed to host servers?

Why Yes! Thank you for bringing it up in the first post. Go ahead and follow this rabbit trail if you are more interested in the situation-

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3929983&cid=44170993

I've used the fact that GoogleFiber was my first ISP choice involving IPv6 to press a new novel interpretation of NetworkNeutrality. It seems to be going somewhere. ComIntercept(FCC->Google):

"The enclosed informal complaint, dated September 1, 2012, has been filed with the Commission by Douglas McClendon against Google pursuant to section 1.41 of Comissions's Rules, 47 C.F.R. // 1.41. Also attached is Mr. McClendon's October 24, 2012 complaint forwarded to the FCC by the Kansas Office of the Attorney General. Mr. McClendon asserts that Google's policy prohibiting use of its fixed broadband internet service (Google Fiber connection) to host any type of server violates the Open Internet Order, FCC 10-201, and the Commission's rules at 47 C.F.R. // 8.1-11.

We are forwarding a copy of the informal complaint so that you may satisfy or answer the informal complaint based on a thorough review of all relevant records and other information. You should respond in writing specifically and comprehensively to all material allegations raised in the informal complaint, being sure not to include the specifics of any confidential settlement discussions. ...

Your written response to the informal complaint must be filed with the Commission contact listed below by U.S. mail and e-mail by July 29, 2013. On that same day, you must mail and e-mail your response to Douglas McClendon.

The parties shall retain all records that may be relevant to the informal complaint until final Commission disposition of the informal complaint or of any formal complaint that may arise from this matter. See 47 C.F.R. //1.812-17. (seriously, can't I and Google just depend on the NSA's backups of our records? :)

Failure of any person to answer any lawful Commission inquiry is considered a misdemeanor punishable by a fine... ... ...

http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/mcclendon_notice_of_informal_complaint.pdf [cloudsession.com]
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/mcclendon_oct24_2012_complaint.pdf [cloudsession.com]

This represents Google getting 'served' this week, my form 2000F 'informal' 53 page complaint that suggests that NetNeutrality provides protections against ISP blocking to my home servers as well as to Skype's. Google has been compelled by the government to respond to me on July 29th. GoogleFiber's 'evil' terms of service prohibit hosting any kind of server without prior written permission against your residential connection. And zero transparency for any alternate server-allowed plan rates, or what kinds of reasons they might use to disallow a requested written permission (which is laughable as the FCC 10-201 NetNeutrality document goes out of it's way to laud Tim Berner Lee's invention of the web atop tcp/ip, specifically, without having to have gotten any permission from any government or network provider)

I forwarded the documents to schneier@schneier.com and requested any insight he might have into the matter. I got an email response (theoretically perhaps spoofed) that read "Thanks.\n\nGood Luck."

Re:As if by jdogalt · 2013-07-07 09:07 · Score: 1 · on US Spies Have "Security Agreements" With Foreign Telecoms

That has to be the most disturbingly accurate and *apropos* analogy I have heard yet...

There, FTFY. Given that what we've learned is that the powers that be will consider it our parents fault if they happened to have their laptop/gameconsole/mobilephone's cameras (err. 'sensors') aimed at the bed that night. Because they collect it by default because that might help national security. And they keep it forever. In a world of big brother, the only way to go forward is with little brother tactics...

http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121024.pdf

"Right To Serve" (with your home ISP) related?? by jdogalt · 2013-07-03 13:53 · Score: 1 · on MasterCard and Visa Start Banning VPN Providers

It just looks like the gloves came off with the whole Snowden affair. They now know they can get away with pretty much anything

To be more of an optimist- keep in mind that "They" is a lot of people. Some of them are helping trample human rights. Many of them however just need to be shown an effective way to fight back against the organized criminal snoops. I know this will sound very tinfoil hattish, but hey, it's the snow crash season I think, so, I'll just spam about how I think my current 53-page manifesto that just got served to Google(Fiber) via the FCC(and Kansas Attorney General, and with schneier@schneier.com wishing my cause "Good Luck.")...

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3929983&cid=44170993

I've used the fact that GoogleFiber was my first ISP choice involving IPv6 to press a new novel interpretation of NetworkNeutrality. It seems to be going somewhere. ComIntercept(FCC->Google):

"The enclosed informal complaint, dated September 1, 2012, has been filed with the Commission by Douglas McClendon against Google pursuant to section 1.41 of Comissions's Rules, 47 C.F.R. // 1.41. Also attached is Mr. McClendon's October 24, 2012 complaint forwarded to the FCC by the Kansas Office of the Attorney General. Mr. McClendon asserts that Google's policy prohibiting use of its fixed broadband internet service (Google Fiber connection) to host any type of server violates the Open Internet Order, FCC 10-201, and the Commission's rules at 47 C.F.R. // 8.1-11.

We are forwarding a copy of the informal complaint so that you may satisfy or answer the informal complaint based on a thorough review of all relevant records and other information. You should respond in writing specifically and comprehensively to all material allegations raised in the informal complaint, being sure not to include the specifics of any confidential settlement discussions. ...

Your written response to the informal complaint must be filed with the Commission contact listed below by U.S. mail and e-mail by July 29, 2013. On that same day, you must mail and e-mail your response to Douglas McClendon.

The parties shall retain all records that may be relevant to the informal complaint until final Commission disposition of the informal complaint or of any formal complaint that may arise from this matter. See 47 C.F.R. //1.812-17. (seriously, can't I and Google just depend on the NSA's backups of our records? :)

Failure of any person to answer any lawful Commission inquiry is considered a misdemeanor punishable by a fine... ... ...

http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/mcclendon_notice_of_informal_complaint.pdf
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/mcclendon_oct24_2012_complaint.pdf

This represents Google getting 'served' this week, my form 2000F 'informal' 53 page complaint that suggests that NetNeutrality provides protections against ISP blocking to my home servers as well as to Skype's. Google has been compelled by the government to respond to me on July 29th. GoogleFiber's 'evil' terms of service prohibit hosting any kind of server without prior written permission against your residential connection. And zero transparency for any alternate server-allowed plan rates, or what kinds of reasons they might use to disallow a requested written permission (which is laughable as the FCC 10-201 NetNeutrality document goes out of it's way to laud Tim Berner Lee's invention of the web atop tcp/ip, specifically, without having to have gotten any permission from any government or network provider)

I forwarded the documents to schneier@schneier.com and requested any insight he might have into the matter. I got an email response (theoretically perhaps spoofed) that read "Thanks.\n\nGood Luck."

"Right To Serve" (with your home ISP) related?? by jdogalt · 2013-07-03 13:53 · Score: 1 · on MasterCard and Visa Start Banning VPN Providers

It just looks like the gloves came off with the whole Snowden affair. They now know they can get away with pretty much anything

To be more of an optimist- keep in mind that "They" is a lot of people. Some of them are helping trample human rights. Many of them however just need to be shown an effective way to fight back against the organized criminal snoops. I know this will sound very tinfoil hattish, but hey, it's the snow crash season I think, so, I'll just spam about how I think my current 53-page manifesto that just got served to Google(Fiber) via the FCC(and Kansas Attorney General, and with schneier@schneier.com wishing my cause "Good Luck.")...

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3929983&cid=44170993

I've used the fact that GoogleFiber was my first ISP choice involving IPv6 to press a new novel interpretation of NetworkNeutrality. It seems to be going somewhere. ComIntercept(FCC->Google):

"The enclosed informal complaint, dated September 1, 2012, has been filed with the Commission by Douglas McClendon against Google pursuant to section 1.41 of Comissions's Rules, 47 C.F.R. // 1.41. Also attached is Mr. McClendon's October 24, 2012 complaint forwarded to the FCC by the Kansas Office of the Attorney General. Mr. McClendon asserts that Google's policy prohibiting use of its fixed broadband internet service (Google Fiber connection) to host any type of server violates the Open Internet Order, FCC 10-201, and the Commission's rules at 47 C.F.R. // 8.1-11.

We are forwarding a copy of the informal complaint so that you may satisfy or answer the informal complaint based on a thorough review of all relevant records and other information. You should respond in writing specifically and comprehensively to all material allegations raised in the informal complaint, being sure not to include the specifics of any confidential settlement discussions. ...

Your written response to the informal complaint must be filed with the Commission contact listed below by U.S. mail and e-mail by July 29, 2013. On that same day, you must mail and e-mail your response to Douglas McClendon.

The parties shall retain all records that may be relevant to the informal complaint until final Commission disposition of the informal complaint or of any formal complaint that may arise from this matter. See 47 C.F.R. //1.812-17. (seriously, can't I and Google just depend on the NSA's backups of our records? :)

Failure of any person to answer any lawful Commission inquiry is considered a misdemeanor punishable by a fine... ... ...

http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/mcclendon_notice_of_informal_complaint.pdf
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/mcclendon_oct24_2012_complaint.pdf

This represents Google getting 'served' this week, my form 2000F 'informal' 53 page complaint that suggests that NetNeutrality provides protections against ISP blocking to my home servers as well as to Skype's. Google has been compelled by the government to respond to me on July 29th. GoogleFiber's 'evil' terms of service prohibit hosting any kind of server without prior written permission against your residential connection. And zero transparency for any alternate server-allowed plan rates, or what kinds of reasons they might use to disallow a requested written permission (which is laughable as the FCC 10-201 NetNeutrality document goes out of it's way to laud Tim Berner Lee's invention of the web atop tcp/ip, specifically, without having to have gotten any permission from any government or network provider)

I forwarded the documents to schneier@schneier.com and requested any insight he might have into the matter. I got an email response (theoretically perhaps spoofed) that read "Thanks.\n\nGood Luck."

"Right To Serve" might help by jdogalt · 2013-07-02 10:38 · Score: 4, Interesting · on Technology, Not Law, Limits Mass Surveillance