Slashdot Mirror
Aftermath From The Net Neutrality Vote: A Mass Movement To Protect The Open Internet? (mashable.com)
After Thursday's net neutrality vote, two security guards pinned a reporter against a wall until FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly had left the room, the Los Angeles Times reports. The Writers Guild of America calls the FCC's 2-to-1 vote to initiate a repeal of net neutrality rules a "war on the open internet," according to The Guardian. But the newspaper now predicts that online activists will continue their massive campaign "as the month's long process of reviewing the rules begins." The Hill points out that Mozilla is already hiring a high-profile tech lobbyist to press for both cybersecurity and an open internet, and in a blog post earlier this week the Mozilla Foundation's executive director sees a larger movement emerging from the engagement of millions of internet users.
Today's support for net neutrality isn't the start of the Internet health movement. People have been standing up for an open web since its inception -- by advocating for browser choice, for open source practices, for mass surveillance reform. But net neutrality is an opportunity to propel this movement into the mainstream... If we make Internet health a mainstream issue, we can cement the web as a public resource. If we don't, mass surveillance, exclusion and insecurity can creep into every aspect of society. Hospitals held hostage by rogue hackers can become the status quo.
Meanwhile, The Guardian reports that it's not till the end of the FCC's review process that "a final FCC vote will decide the future of internet regulation," adding that however they vote, "court challenges are inevitable."
Meanwhile, The Guardian reports that it's not till the end of the FCC's review process that "a final FCC vote will decide the future of internet regulation," adding that however they vote, "court challenges are inevitable."
Let me see if I have this right: the key to an open and free Internet, and limiting mass surveillance, is empowering the government to thoroughly regulate the Internet?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Thank the Trump administration for this.
This is Trump's legacy: thugs employed by the government feel immune to any restraint. The stories just keep on coming about this type of behaviour from government employees, for example, the abuses committed by ICE.
Look at the assaults committed by Erdogan's bodyguards. Yes, Erdogan has immunity as head of state, but his bodyguards don't. Why hasn't anyone been arrested and charged?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Calm down. All they're doing is transferring regulatory domain to the Federal Trade Commission.
Why doesn't Mozilla do a Jimmy Wales with Firefox and everytime one visits any world government site have a banner slide from the page top pushing the site down an inch showing that governents stance on net nuetrality and why it is bad for them?
They already made their mind to stop net neutrality ever since that guy was put in charge. Nothing you say will change that. Better luck in 4 years.
if we want Net Neutrality back. I know it's not popular to bring up politics (which is odd, since this discussion couldn't get any less political) but the ruling party has always been opposed to NN. Their arguments are pretty straight forward: It's undue and unnecessary regulation that stifles innovation. Let the Market sort it out.
There's plenty of counter arguments that I want get into. I don't want to get off track anymore. Bottom line is this: The Republican party is ideologically opposed to Net Neutrality. It is, after all, a massive government regulation. It just so happens to be one that's popular with techies. Said it before, say it again: If you elect a party that takes as a central tenet that regulation is usually unnecessary, bad and a drain on Free Market principles you're going to have to accept the results. Net Neutrality is fundamentally incompatible with that ideology.
TLDR; Vote in your Mid Terms.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Base the whole thing on Wifi, and a very few strategic tunneled internet hops?
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Mozilla is already hiring a high-profile tech lobbyist to press for both cybersecurity and an open internet
When your so called democracy has paid high-speed lanes, what do you expect from your Internet service?
and it's ridiculously counter intuitive.
Look, I get it. Nobody likes to have a ruling class. But you've got one. You always will. That's because people pass money, property and other advantages to their children and those things build up over time. Then those children form groups, organizations and societies to protect and expand that wealth. It's always been this way and it will continue for the foreseeable future. These days the way it works is they form mega corps and sit on each other's board of directors.
Now, you've got two options. First, pretend the ruling class doesn't exist and ignore their influence. Second, form a large organization comprised of members of the working class who can counteract that influence by shear weight of numbers. We call that organization Government and we call the system that manages it Democracy. When it actively looks out for the interests of the working class we call it Democratic Socialism.
Think of it this way: Government is like a box of loaded rifles sitting out in the open. If you pretend the box isn't there somebody's gonna come along and pick up those rifles (e.g. your ruling class). The only real option is to pick one up yourself. But now you've got a different problem, everybody's armed to the teeth. So you've got to start making rules to keep them from shooting & looting. What I'm saying is, Government is a tool. It's a tool so useful that if you don't use it somebody else will. You're letting somebody else use that tool right now, and they're running roughshod over you with it.Please stop it. The rest of use don't have enough rifles to stand up without you.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The central idea of the internet is NOT that all traffic gets equal priority, not by a long shot. There is a huge amount of networking gear dedicated in fact to traffic shaping and prioritization.
The central idea of the internet is connectivity, period.
There is nothing inherently wrong, and much desirable, about people being able to define what traffic takes priority from what source. If you polled people asking them if they should be able to pay $10/month to prioritize Netflix traffic, I'm thinking 90% of them would say that would be great to be able to do that. Under "Network Neutrality" as commonly thought of, it would be illegal for companies to offer such a service...
You know it's a bad law when it blocks things a vast majority of people want to be able to do. Network Neutrality is just a digital War on Drugs under a different guise. I don't care you if are doing it "for the children" as it were, it's a bad idea to legislate.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That's how they be.
they all go back to print journalism.
They decided that would be the central idea. The DoD decided when they designed the idea.
Indeed the routing around damage is WHY it's the central idea: there's no difference between damaged cables and an ISP blocking from a source. Nothing there about "But only if it's VOIP!".
It's time to start seriously talking about the Sherman Antitrust Act. It has been illegal since 1890 for monopolies to leverage their monopoly status in one line of business into another line of business. ISPs breaking the Internet by violating Net Neutrality are a posterchild for illegal activity. And this isn't difficult to understand. Let's look at the text of section 1, in its entirety:
15 U.S. Code 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
Obviously Comcast doesn't give a damn about a piddling million dollar penalty.[1] But Comcast executives might care a little bit about a federal felony conviction.
There's 38 sections in 15 U.S.C., half a dozen of which have been repealed. Section 15c is an interesting one. That's the one that says State attorneys general are allowed to sue to enforce this law. It does not require a federal prosecutor. There's an aggressive New York state attorney general who might be interested.
Section 15 is also interesting. That's the one that says, "any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court", and recover triple damages plus attorney's fees. And since corporations are persons... Netflix needs to grow some balls and sue Comcast in federal court. They qualify. It's black letter law, with zero difficulty proving damages. The dollar amount Comcast extorted from them is the amount of damage they suffered. It's trivial to prove Comcast is an interstate monopoly. Done and done. I just wish Netflix had a lawyer like NewEgg's general counsel.
ISPs might be more interested in Title II protections after a few felony convictions. Eric Schneiderman, are you listening?
----
[1] Obviously the law needs to be inflation-adjusted. That penalty cap should be at least $25,791,700. Still a drop in the bucket. I would argue it needs to be 10 times the inflation adjusted amount.
It's ok, you don't need to attack others anymore, your one of us.
If there is one thing social media is good at, it's stirring people into a frenzy, and previous frenzies have worked to boycott companies that are deemed offensive. Hit a corporation in the money bags, and it'll adjust. Talk is cheap and politicians can be bought, but corporations fear loss of revenue more than anything else.
Well, given that you can get Gbit internet some places if you're willing to pay more for the connection, I'm not sure I'm seeing much difference really.
Except that lack of Net Neutrality laws will allow ISPs and such to be sued for the content they prioritize/deprioritize. That's what this is all about, ultimately. Net Neutrality protects ISPs from (some) lawsuits. It won't after this change goes through. If it goes through.
The problem is that what we had was regulations, not laws. Laws would provide the ISPs reliably with that protection in court, and given that the MAFIAA and co have been moving to going after ISPs, the odds are likely very good that ISPs will not fight a law that gives them those protections even if Net Neutrality is explicitly intrinsic to getting said protections.
Exterminate the leftists that let them in, too, while your at it. Otherwise you'll just have the same problem over again.
And the rightists and the centrists! And the upsies and the downsies.
Amusing pair of Slashdot stories today.
Sometimes the jokes just write themselves.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
As more and more people become disenchanted with the Internet, don't you think that the money that is made with it will drop? (Money speaks louder than perverted laws!!)
Dildo in Cheif Trump is against net neutrality. There's never been a government policy allowing privledged profiteers to fuck the public that he's opposed. Instead he pops a Tic Tac and a Viagra and bends his ignorant voters over for a wild ride. He's like Bill Cosby.
For every tech savvy person, there are two Republican Trump supporters watching Fox news and drinking beer. in their trailer.