Slashdot Mirror
Ajit Pai and the FCC Want It To Be Legal for Comcast To Block BitTorrent (theverge.com)
Nilay Patel, reporting for The Verge: FCC Chairman Ajit Pai released his proposal to kill net neutrality this week, and while there's a lot to be unhappy with, it's hard not to be taken with the brazenness of his argument. Pai thinks it was a mistake for the FCC to try and stop Comcast from blocking BitTorrent in 2008, thinks all of the regulatory actions the FCC took after that to give itself the authority to prevent blocking were wrong, and wants to go back to the legal framework that allowed Comcast to block BitTorrent.
How does the article manage to make the jump from "The FCC does not have the statutory authority to manage computer networks" (which is true) to "Ajit Pai wants ISPs to block content" (not true).
The FCC's own 2015 Open Internet Order says it only applies to "legal" content anyways. Among other things, this excludes most BitTorrent traffic and gambling.
Title II also contains many compulsory provisions entirely incompatible with Net Neutrality, like censorship of explicit material.
If you want Net Neutrality, write to your representative and tell them the Internet is a Title I service.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
You know, not all content shared by bittorrent is illegal.
Every quarter, I get an update email on a software package that I use which is actually distributed via bittorrent, because it lightens the load on the main server when everybody is trying to get the file at about the same time.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Under Title II it is allowed to block bittorrent. Title 2 is not net neutrality and it is foolish to push for it.
We are not going back to ISPs blocking bittorrent(when was that?), we are going back to the clinton rules that ruled they could not; in addition we now have ISPs being required to document if they are going to block ports or traffic.
The MAIN difference here is that GUN RIGHTS are specifically spelled out under the Constitution. If you bother to look even further, and read the Federalist Papers (documents and thought by the founding fathers), you will clearly read that The Founding Fathers of the United States firmly believed it was the right and responsibility of every Citizen to stand against tyranny, and gun ownership was a necessary balance as the last step against a corrupt Government.
I have watched the news religiously. It is mostly covering Republican pedophilia and barely ever mentions a Democrat for more than a quick bit then moves on.
It's because the Democrats like Franken admit wrongdoing, apologize and take steps to make good. So the news story goes away. In Franken's case, his accuser accepted his apology. So there's no story any more.
Republicans like Trump and Moore just shout FAKE NEWS NEVER HAPPENED LIARS SLUTS THE LOT OF THEM!!! so the story continues and continues...
Exactly. And game companies like Blizzard use customized bit torrent clients to distribute patches/updates. It's a lot easier to push out an update to a few million users when those users pitch in to help out.
I refuse to sign
The problem with this is that net neutrality removes a big incentive for the ISP to build and improve their network.
Na, it doesn't. The big guys just want you to think that. They created this artificial situation Ajit Pai points to. Of course they held back deployment since NN. What better way to prove to the regulators that it's harming them. Total BS. This deal was sealed and paid for a long time ago, just pushing the papers around.
Except that's all gun nut bullshit. Article III, Section 3:
Article I, Section 9:
If gun cultists ever try and use the 2nd Amendment the way they think it was meant to be used, the government will throw their asses in prison without a warrant, and if they get a trial, hung for treason.
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
The thing is, you have to accept that in some cases you are never going to have definitive "proof." There is not going to be HD video surfacing with surround-sound audio of Moore taking the clothes off a 14-year-old girl.
What you have is the weight of evidence and you have to make your evaluation on that.
At least five unrelated women have accused Moore - Women who have never met each other, all tell almost identical stories.
In the case of Corfman, her mother and her friends back up the story. Corfman is a Republican who voted for Trump. Court records show Moore and Corfman were at the courthouse that day. People who worked with Moore at the DA's office say it was common knowledge that Moore dated teenage girls. One girl has a high school yearbook that Moore signed.
On and on.
That is a lot of weight of evidence against Moore saying "it didn't happen."
Similar story with Trump - Unrelated women telling similar stories. And what further harms Trump is he lies constantly, so any credibility in his saying "It didn't happen!" is lost.
In the end it comes down to a simple question (with a difficult answer): Who do you believe?