Slashdot Mirror
The FCC Net Neutrality Comment Deadline Has Arrived: What Now?
blottsie writes After months of heated debate, viral campaigns, deliberate "slowdowns" and record-breaking public responses, the Federal Communications Commission is finally set to decide how "net neutrality"—the principle that all data must be treated equally by Internet service providers (ISPs)—should look in the U.S., or if it should exist at all. Today, Sept. 15, the FCC officially closes its public comment period on its latest net neutrality proposal. The plan enables ISPs to discriminate against certain types of data, in certain circumstances, by charging extra for broadband “fast lanes” between content providers—like Netflix or YouTube—and users.
Sadly, they do not care.
And now that all our objections have been duly noted, they'll go ahead and end net neutrality anyway.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
First, they'll go golfing. Then, they'll go out to have fancy dinners. Finally, they'll go back to work and ask their underlings why they haven't finished deleting all those complaints and tell the media that they worked very hard to reach the conclusion that the average person just isn't lining their pockets as much as these cable corporations, so net neutrality is officially dead.
Easy. Now that they've given us a chance to "participate" by commenting, that bothersome necessity is taken care of, and the FCC will now ignore the comments and proceed to do whatever they are told to do by their rich friends.
There will be a 18000 page report with 567 recommendations, none of which will be implemented over the next 2 decades.
And despite my 53 page complaint about the right of home use'rs servers being (not so) protected devices in the traffic discrimination arena, the 99 page 14-28 plan/request-for-comments took no troubles to clarify whether or not under the principle of network neutrality, it is hunky dory for ISPs to charge extra for the same amount of packet traffic, just because the user is running a 'server' insetead of a 'client'. Network Neutrality was a farce from the beginning to hide Google's advertising traffic, allong with the symbiotic NSA spying traffic, under the radar of people who would see it's uselessness (at best) more clearly if they had to pay for it.
Now they notice that its a million comments for Net Neutrality and a few hundred for and then screw us over by:
Giving us a watered down version of Net Neutrality "regulations" that the ISPs and Carriers can drive huge trucks through
or
They just let the mask slip and enable the fast and slow lanes exactly like the ISPs and Carriers want.
This truly will make me sick. I have no hope that the Internet will be regulated as common carrier like it should be. No hope at all.
(store-comments comment /dev/null)
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
There are large corporations such as google & netflix that spent money lobbying as well. Does anyone know the amount of lobbying money spent for both sides of the argument?
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
My guess, the FCC chair will do whatever his former employers tell him to do so that he can guarantee when he's done pretending to be the regulator he can go back to his cushy lobbying job.
Does anybody really believe they're going to do anything not endorsed by the cable, wireless and content cartels?
Having that guy in there is pretty much the definition of regulatory capture.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I thought we covered this in the other thread: 1984 is fiction. There's no such thing as oligarchical collectivism.
And double-dumbass on you, too.
Well look at it this way, with net neutrality your upstream home connection may be slow but the traffic would be as "important" as anything else - with a tiered Internet, upstream home traffic would be put in the Internet infrastructure's leper colony. Unless it's streaming video over Skype or something "important" (run by people who make deals with ISPs).
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Whether you like or dislike net neutrality, you should NOT like government regulatory agencies setting public policy unilaterally without legislators involved. Name one person at the FCC you can vote out of office at the next election based on your feelings over how they rule on this issue.
with a tranny wife
If giving little mewling fucks like you an aneurysm is what comes in the box, then the price of the police state is well worth the cost.
1984 is fiction.
Only those who've read it will get the irony.
So, let's say this passes...What do we do then? How can I continue to fight this?
How can I start a campaign to eject Tom Wheeler from his chair if he doesn't listen to the overwhelming response from the public?
`A concerned internet user.
Now we all bend over.
Pitchforks. And torches.
Only those who've read it will understand how stupid you look railing against the government and screaming "1984!" in every thread even tangentially related to government entities. Since you clearly only glean your information on pop culture from what other people tell you, I'll explain it to you: we wouldn't be having this pleasant conversation if 1984 was reality; nearly everyone on /. would be in prison, yourself included.
Think before you copypasta, citizen.
It does not seem that hard to me, apply the common carrier requirements to ISP's and be done with it.
No lengthy committee meetings, findings, reports, etc.
If the ISP wishes to be a contract carrier and not a common carrier then so be it, but by turning it down they are legally responsible for all the content including the child porn, the pirated software, etc. Accept common carrier and you can not choose but you get legal protection.
Hang them for treason
That is what people who generally buy into the spirit of NN want to believe, but at the end of the day, it hasn't been true, even for those periods of time that NN was thought to actually be in effect and enforceable. Home server operators have been getting 'tiered' into more expensive 'business class' plans, despite having no more bandwidth use than their average skyping neighbors. Which has the noticable effect of being detrimental to the class of internet solutions that involve ordinary broadband users from operating their own servers. Like e.g. something that might obviate the resultant emergence of gmail as a defacto replacement for the masses SMTP needs. Yes, operating a mail server is hard to do right, but if everyone knew that every broadband user had the _right_ to try, I'm pretty sure some rock solid solutions would emerge in short order that would seriously threaten gmail's dominance. Same goges for Skype/GHangouts. Etc. But its a rigged game for the centralized establishment.
If the FCC allows throttling, under any label, the US will have moved one little step deeper into fascism. At what point will the corporate/ruling US oligarchy have us mired in inescapable regulatory quicksand?
This is actually a Brave New World...
Soma, anyone?
Well, he shoved the pen up his asshole. And his phone is a blackberry.
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
I don't know what you're talking about, I was merely commenting on the post before me. You should read the threads you're replying to before you go on a rant.
Oranges and lemons say the bells of St. Clements!!!!!
*starts dial-up modem* look at all those suckers on cable, who is lagging now? I have the power of common carrier!
It is good to see this topical announcement from Google today in which they are directly supporting application-specific unmetered internet:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com...
"In an effort to reduce data costs, if you have an Airtel SIM card, you’ll get these software updates for free for the first six months. As part of this same Airtel offer, you’ll also be able to download up to 200MB per month worth of your favorite apps (that’s about 50 apps overall) from Google Play—all without counting toward your mobile data usage."
This is directly against the principles of network neutrality.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
We the Corporations have replaced We the People.
To get bandwidth/speed back you paid for ("D1" below): My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"
...apk
Can adblock do the following things (that custom hosts files can):
1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources
"?"
* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.
APK
P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?
That's illogical, but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!
... apk
W. Palant wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).
I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!
Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!
He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!
ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!
Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google And Others Reportedly Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk
and you get screwed
Also, if Washington mandates a policy, there is a good chance they'll do something stupid like say "all bits must be treated equally". All bits are not in fact equal. The right thing to do is to block connections from that Nigerian prince with a billion dollars to give away, and prioritize the communications of the search and rescue team.
I'm in favor of network neutrality as a concept. I don't trust Washington to get it right.
Further, even if Washington gets it right, there is little chance that the common understanding of the regulations will be correct or even reasonable. As an example, HIPPA says that hospitals may not sell patient data to marketers. Health care professionals MAY discuss patient care with family members and anyone else that they think the patient would approve of. However, two staff members at the local hospital refuse to discuss with me the billing for my newborn daughter's care, because they think HIPPA prevents them from discussing anything until the patient signs their form. My daughter won't be able to sign her name for another few years, so I guess the hospital won't be getting paid for a few years.
What are the odds that Washington is going to come up wuth regulations that are both reasonable (you can block attackers and spammers) AND simple enough that the high school kid working the support line understands the regulations as they affect hos job.
John Oliver made a really good point about Netflix (especially if you look at that nice bandwidth chart with Comcast before and after the deal -- http://knowmore.washingtonpost...). Ending net neutrality will give internet providers the freedom to extort anyone and everyone who needs significant bandwidth. And there's absolutely nothing to stop them.
Oh well, perhaps for those who give a crap about this country.
Except that the legislators were involved... by passing a law allowing the FCC authority to do certain things. And Congress can expand, contract, or revoke that authority at any time.
The end of the net as we knew it. That is what. Greed crashes the net like the economy.
Now everyone can please shut the heck up about "net neutrality," please.
Until cpu's or nic's have the ability to compress/decompress a 5 - 10 gigabyte data to 1kbyte - 50Mbytes on the fly we will continue to see bandwidth saturate since corporations don't want to upgrade their infrastructure. But why offer 30 - 300mbit for the home if you can't access Netflix, hulu, youtube at the maximum speed. When I had TWC my 15mbit would end up at 300kbit in the evening when I got home from work.
Same with power consumption, it starts at the home, it would be amazing to run all appliances at milli or picowatt power. This would mean each individual person can use one or two solar panels at home or the u.s can completely convert their grid to solar and rid of coal and nuclear. But this shit won't happen either. This is what happens when corporations have too much influence over our government.
If I, as a third party, want to offer telephone services that use broadband internet (VoIP), Comcast will be able to make my access to their consumers so crap
Well it's a shame then the FCC rules under discussion would have nothing whatsoever to do with that,.
Gosh, I wonder what you are getting if it's not at all what you thought. I wonder what you are getting from an agency intertwined with the cable companies, when you ask them to provide regulation from same companies... Perhaps utterly the opposite of what you wanted?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
as every other effing piece of legislation that congress gets locked up on. anything they can't decide, say in thirty days, PUBLIC VOTE on the legislation.
WE become the true "fourth estate". WE then bypass, overrule and supercede the media and political marketing bullshit.
AND we make jury duty tied to driver's license applications, instead of VOTING. a license is a privilege, not a right, so tie jury duty to that instead.
Now that everyone has commented, the monied Powers That Be will weight it accordingly, and rule in favor of the Biggest Lobbyist donations to the corrupt Congress.
What? You thought you weren't actually Serfs?
Yeah, sure.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Now the Koch Brothers get what they want. What were you expecting?
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..."
I don't know what you're talking about
That much was obvious from the start, but it's hardly any concern of mine.
And despite my 53 page complaint about the right of home use'rs servers being (not so) protected devices in the traffic discrimination arena, the 99 page 14-28 plan/request-for-comments took no troubles to clarify whether or not under the principle of network neutrality, it is hunky dory for ISPs to charge extra for the same amount of packet traffic, just because the user is running a 'server' insetead of a 'client'. Network Neutrality was a farce from the beginning to hide Google's advertising traffic, allong with the symbiotic NSA spying traffic, under the radar of people who would see it's uselessness (at best) more clearly if they had to pay for it.
"Hey buddy! I got a tin foil hat to sell you...real cheep!"
looking forward to demands that denial of service attacks have the same priority as surgery data
still not clear what problem this is solving or when internet users suddenly wanted the nanny state to take care of their information
Wheeler is just making face. He's not listening. His objectives are clear.