Slashdot Mirror
Many US States Propose Their Own Laws Protecting Net Neutrality (seattletimes.com)
An anonymous reader quotes the New York Times:
Lawmakers in at least six states, including California and New York, have introduced bills in recent weeks that would forbid internet providers to block or slow down sites or online services. Legislators in several other states, including North Carolina and Illinois, are weighing similar action... By passing their own law, the state lawmakers say, they would ensure that consumers would find the content of the choice, maintain a diversity of voices online and protect businesses from having to pay fees to reach users.
And they might even have an effect beyond their states. California's strict auto-emissions standards, for example, have been followed by a dozen other states, giving California major sway over the auto industry. "There tends to be a follow-on effect, particularly when something happens in a big state like California," said Harold Feld, a senior vice president at a nonprofit consumer group, Public Knowledge, that supports net-neutrality efforts by the states. Bills have also been introduced in Massachusetts, Nebraska, Rhode Island and Washington.
In addition, a representative in Alaska's legislature has also pre-filed legislation requiring the state's ISPs to practice net neutrality, which will be introduced when the state legislature resumes on January 16th.
"The recent FCC decision eliminating net neutrality was a mistake that favors the big internet providers and those who want to restrict the kinds of information a free-thinking Alaskan can access," representative Scott Kawasaki told a local news station. "That is not the Alaskan way, and I am hopeful my colleagues in the House and Senate will agree..."
The Independent also notes that Europe "is still strongly committed" to net neutrality.
And they might even have an effect beyond their states. California's strict auto-emissions standards, for example, have been followed by a dozen other states, giving California major sway over the auto industry. "There tends to be a follow-on effect, particularly when something happens in a big state like California," said Harold Feld, a senior vice president at a nonprofit consumer group, Public Knowledge, that supports net-neutrality efforts by the states. Bills have also been introduced in Massachusetts, Nebraska, Rhode Island and Washington.
In addition, a representative in Alaska's legislature has also pre-filed legislation requiring the state's ISPs to practice net neutrality, which will be introduced when the state legislature resumes on January 16th.
"The recent FCC decision eliminating net neutrality was a mistake that favors the big internet providers and those who want to restrict the kinds of information a free-thinking Alaskan can access," representative Scott Kawasaki told a local news station. "That is not the Alaskan way, and I am hopeful my colleagues in the House and Senate will agree..."
The Independent also notes that Europe "is still strongly committed" to net neutrality.
The states that have it will see an increase of geeks immigrating to their states and setting up businesses there.
Fuck Ajit Pai.
Fuck Ajit Pai
The FCC ruled that no states can create laws to enforce Net Neutrality. While it would be nice to have a head on attack work, I fear that it may not. So instead the states should make life difficult for ISP found violating New Neutrality. Say a law like "If the ISP is caught violating Net Neutrality, that ISP is banned from advertising" or something like that.
These states will see companies migrate to more business-friendly states en masse. I'm not sure why they think trying to legislate the free market right to determine prices and service level, and the choice that comes along with all the options that will exist, is bad... bud they will pay the price as their labor force moves away to follow the jobs.
The only reason we don't have net neutrality now is because there is no competition. The far better solution would be to outlaw exclusive franchises. The market has to be pried open. And a good way to do that is to make the companies compete against a municipality/state provided service. Net neutrality should naturally follow.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It's not clear to me why anyone thinks ISPs exist in a healthy free market. (I'm not even sure it's possible, for that matter.)
Furthermore, it's not clear to me why anyone thinks it's a good idea to allow ISPs to meddle with EVERY OTHER ACTUALLY FUNCTIONING free market that already exists on the internet.
If you want to protect free markets, we should prevent ISPs from picking winners and losers, no? Don't we want the market to do that?
You must be a large ISP shill because your statements make no sense.
Net Neutrality is NOT anti business, it is PRO business and PRO consumer.
Their is only one industry that does not consistently benefit from Net Neutrality is the mega-ISPs.
Every other business type benefits: they get unfettered access to consumers and consumers do not get false and expensive restrictions on what contents and businesses they can access.
The large ISPs that have little or no worthwhile content for consumers want to get paid twice for the same thing.
Until the Daily Stormer is allowed to register its DNS again this entire argument for so called net neutrality is hypocritical on its face.
I see Comcast cable dangling over my backyard, suspended on utility poles I pay for with my tax money. I don't see any reason to allow that if they get frisky. How about my town does competitive bidding to get a backbone hookup and maintain local routers and wires? If Comcast wins fine, but Silicon Valley has lots of startups who would love to land a big gig.
Net Neutrality is NOT anti business, it is PRO business and PRO consumer.
What it does is shift much of the massive costs for bandwidth for companies like Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google, etc onto other ISP customers like you and me by raising their prices, since they cannot charge those high-bandwidth users at different rates than other ISP customers.
What, you don't think the ISPs are just going to eat the costs, do you? The original NN rules were written by Google! Do you believe Google primarily has your best interests in mind, or their own?
As to TFS/TFA, this is just State politicians grand-standing and posturing like posers do. State law does not override Federal laws and Federal regulations with the force of Federal law. They know this. It's theater.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
i'm just sitting here waiting for one of these idiots to actually pass this stuff, then realize that because All of these so far are worded horrendously. it means they can't block or filter the Bad stuff. Like child pornography. Or DMCA violations. Or fake pharmacy sites.
Kneejerk legislation in response to uninformed opinion is _Always_ awful.
I will be as polite as I can be.
Go fuck yourself, you fear-mongering shill.
Hope all the taxpayers of those states making their own net neutrality laws enjoy footing the bill for the costly lawsuits they're going to lose when the federal government shuts them down in court.
No, it doesn't, this kind of ignorance on /. is shocking. People here should know better.
Facebook, Amazon, Netflix Google, et al., pay for their bandwidth. The customer also pays for their bandwidth, the idea that net neutrality results in us paying for them is ridiculous. They charge for the bandwidth, they're just not allowed to charge differing amounts for that bandwidth.
And BTW, this has been the status quo for the history of the internet. People pay for their uploads and downloads and the other side does as well. The difference now is that ISPs are being allowed to abuse their position to charge differing amounts based upon how much they feel they can extract rather from the customer rather than what it's worth. Meaning that the companies you've listed probably don't have that much to worry about as they're already known. Up and coming or niche sites are the ones that are likely to be screwed under the new system.
It's hilarious how the same leftists who call state's rights a dogwhistle for discrimination are so quick to embrace the same idea when it's convenient for their own purposes. Yet they will never see the point: a central federal government can't possibly make sensible rules for a huge country with regions that differ so much from each other. And it's also susceptible to capture by giant corporations.
What a bunch of hypocrites. If you're going to use federal law as a weapon against others, you better not complain when it's turned on you.
Why can't they charge high bandwidth users more? That's how it works here with net neutrality, you pay different amounts depending on how much data you're likely to use. I pay for a 250 GB cap, which I can use to watch Netflix or a webcam of a fire. I could pay for 10GBs or 500GBs as well. It is none of my ISP's business what I watch, just how much bandwidth I use.
Just like the phone company shouldn't be able to stop me from phoning someone whose politics they don't like, my ISP (and there is only one serving me) shouldn't be able to censor what websites I use. That censorship that you are currently in favour off could change. Best to have no censorship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Facebook, Amazon, Netflix Google, et al., pay for their bandwidth. The customer also pays for their bandwidth, the idea that net neutrality results in us paying for them is ridiculous. They charge for the bandwidth, they're just not allowed to charge differing amounts for that bandwidth.
Yeah, because the hardware & infrastructure costs for ISPs to serve Netflix are exactly the same as Grandma's.
Tell a big lie long enough and loud enough...
50 nation states with 50 different sets of laws. The only legitimate purposes of the federal government are to make sure they don't fight each other and to combine military force to make sure other nations don't invade.
Content speed lanes are what big ISPs want and consumers do not want that. Currently they sell it to consumers based on the service package they buy.....I only want 10Mbps access....all my service is best effort rated at 10Mbps....I want 100Mbps service....all my access is best effort rated at 100Mbps....If Con-cast wants to extract money from Netflix, Google, Amazon, Spotify, etc. for access to me that meets my best effort rating, that is wrong and not the product I am paying the ISP for.
The last thing we need is state rules or regional rules for the internet. Use it or not at your option, as is. Preferably not so my connections are faster.
the states that helped lobby to get it dropped, wouldn't adopt these laws, which is where they usually needed most.
what a bunch of horseshit. Why do you even bother typing that BS out?
Even under Net Neutrality Wheeler said that zero rating was fine. Though he also said it might not be fine of they changed it in the future under the 'general conduct rule'.
http://www.multichannel.com/ne...
Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler said Thursday (Nov. 19) he thought T-Mobile's Binge On zero rating plan was the sort of highly innovative approach the FCC's new network neutrality rules were predicted to thwart, but clearly didn't.
Wheeler, in a press conference following the FCC's November meeting, appeared to endorse the Binge On offering, calling it pro-competitive and innovative. "It is clear in the Open Internet order that we are pro-competition and pro-innovation and clearly, this meets both of those criteria," he said. "It is highly innovative and highly competitive."
He then said that it appeared the plan does not violate the bright-line no paid prioritization rule, but took something off the endorsement.
He said the FCC would keep an eye on Binge On per the general conduct standard in those new open Internet rules, which allows the FCC to look at such business models on a case-by-case basis.
That rule, he elaborated, says a carrier "should not unreasonably interfere with the access to someone who is trying to get to an edge provider and an edge provider who is trying to get to a consumer. So, what we are going to be doing is watching Binge On, keeping and eye on it, and measure it against the general conduct rule."
"The Commission staff is working to make sure it understands the new offering," said FCC director of Media Relations Shannon Gilson, of Binge On following the chairman's press conference.
Binge On is a zero rating plan in which video streaming services including Netflix, HBO Now, Hulu do not count against data allowances.
Commissioner Ajit Pai said following that statement that nobody still knows whether Binge On will pass muster under the general conduct standard. "I don't think it should give any company comfort to know that the state of the law is so unsettled."
Pai said following Wheeler's qualified endorsement that the question remained: "Does T-Mobile's Binge On and any other offerings like it violate the net neutrality order." He said that under the Internet conduct standard nobody can get certainty, which he suggested was illustrated by Wheeler's statement that is was pro-competitive, followed by the signal that it still needed to be vetted under that general conduct standard.
Commissioner Michael O'Rielly said that if someone was looking for a blessing, the chairman appeared to have given it. "someone is looking for a blessing and everyone is kind of holding their breath waiting for a decision. It wasn't an official issuance by the General Counsel's office or the Enforcement Bureau, but they just got the blessing they were seeking and I imagine now we are going to see a lot more offerings like it."
But he also said that holding up those innovative offerings for a moment like the chairman's statement was just the sort of problem he had pointed to with the general conduct standard.
"Tom Wheeler's comments regarding T-Mobile's new BingeOn zero-rating plan calls to mind the good familiar cop/bad cop routine," said Randolph May, president of free market think tank, the Free State Foundation. "On the one hand, Wheeler's statement that the plan is pro-competitive and innovative is commendable. On the other hand, his further elaboration that the FCC will monitor the T-Mobile plan for compliance with the Open Internet Order's 'good conduct' rule is disturbing. This is because the vague 'good conduct' standard means anything that Wheeler's Enforcement Bureau says it means on any given day."
The EFF had concerns about the vagueness of the 'general conduct rule' too
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
You are correct. Fast lanes are extortion Con-cast will steal bandwidth from those that wonâ(TM)t pay (best effort). So they will not get 100mb (expect at 2 to 4 am best effort).
All the connnections are âoepaidedâ by the person wanting the connection like me or you. Higher connections are shared. By two ends. If Con-cast wants more money then take L3 or big boys back to the table. Just like they fight both sides for tv rights
That's not the problem.
To use a specific example, the problem is ISPs partnering with Nextflix to slow down competitors to Netflix.
That's pretty overt, but it could also be something like the ISP offering a package where Netflix doesn't count towards your data cap, but Netflix competitors do count towards that cap. Different technique, similar results.
Now multiply by every other company that relies on the internet to reach customers, and you have a way for entrenched business to artificially limit competition and stifle innovation.
ISPs shouldn't get to meddle with the free market's of other industries/services/content.
ISP are allowed to charge for bandwidth and they are allowed to charge differently for different size pipes to the internet under Net Neutrality. What they weren't allowed to do, until the Trump administration broke things, was have Comcast charge Netflix extra to have their packets go from the NOC (network operation center, a place where ISPs connect to each other) Comast and Netflix's upstream shares to end customers.
To who? In general content speedlanes (i.e video streaming over gaming) has at no time ever been discussed. The problem was source based speedlanes (i.e. Netflix over Hulu). I think you'll find consumers generally do not know if they want content based speedlanes or not since it has never been on the table.
Please. Instead, it is better for states to remove all monopolies AND allow local gov to create muni-fiber broadbands, but keep isp/TV/security/VoIP/etc open architecture and encourage competition.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
in the first place. Starting with local legislation, which then gains traction and becomes state legislation, and (if enough people like the idea) eventually leads to federal legislation requiring net neutrality.
Those of you pissed at Ajit Pai have only yourselves to blame. He only had the power to revoke net neutrality because you gleefully supported his predecessor when he implemented net neutrality in what was a total run-around of the legislative process this country is founded on. By allowing Tom Wheeler to set the precedent, YOU gave Ajit Pai the same power..
No single appointed person or group of appointed commissioners should have the power to make decisions with wide-ranging consequences like this. It always should have been implemented via the normal legislative process, with majority votes of elected representatives. It was wrong how Ajit Pai revoked it. It was wrong how Tom Wheeler implemented it.
Implementing it via legislation also makes it a lot harder to revoke. You need (at the Federal level) enough votes in both branches of Congress and a Presidential signature. It can't be changed willy nilly just on the whims of some guy the President appointed.
There are several problems with your argument that Comcast would block Netflix.
1. Comcast wouldn't outright block Netflix, they will throttle the traffic to the point where Netflix becomes useless. It's effectively blocking, not literally.
2. You claim they wouldn't do it, but they have. ISPs have been caught throttling Netflix traffic and torrents in the past. And that was with net neutrality in place. Now there is nothing to prevent them, legally, from cutting back Netflix traffic or any other competing services.
3. You claim Comcast would lose clients, but in many regions it's them or nothing. Who are you going to switch to if your town only has one ISP?
4. You claim Netflix makes Comcast a ton of money. But they don't. Virtually no one has an Internet account just to watch Netflix. What Netflix does do is compete with other services some cable companies and ISPs are offering, which means those companies have an incentive to get rid of Netflix.
Ah looks like slashdot's regular ISP conglomerate shill is back!
At least I hope you're a shill because if you're doing this for free...
It's not even like Netflix is a competitor to Comcast: the content is nearly orthogonal.
Oh I guess I hallucinated Comcast having a TV service which is a direct competitor to Netflix then.
In fact if you think about it Netflix is a huge, huge draw for getting faster cable internet over various other network options; Netflix is helping Comcast earn a TON of money.
Costing them a ton you mean, because people are actually using the services they've bought. Comcast would much rather have people buy stuff and never use it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
This will probably lead to more implementations of geoblocking and VPN blocking shenanigans
Twinstiq, game news
If Comcast blocked or slowed Netflix, they would lose around 90% of their customers and certainly be fined by the FCC and probably have a few facilities torched by angry mobs.
I guess you missed that part back in 2014 when comcast was slowing down netflix. Yet no FCC fines, (supreme court said the FCC can't fine them), they still have all of their customers and no facilities torched by angry mobs.
At least I hope you're a shill because if you're doing this for free...
I'm not a shill at all; I have no connection with ISP's beyond an extreme loathing for Comcast and an inability to free myself from them as there is nothing even close bandwidth wise.
However I am not doing this for free; indeed the mental toll of constantly correcting fear-driven tech-luddites is a high one. Yet I persist, because I cannot stand to see a clear technical truth silenced or maligned.
Oh I guess I hallucinated Comcast having a TV service which is a direct competitor to Netflix then.
Which has how much overlapping content again? The services cable TV systems and Netflix provide are pretty different. Netflix for example, does not suck. Comcast is way more about offering filler channels you will never want to see along with live content lots of people do.
Costing them a ton you mean, because people are actually using the services they've bought. Comcast would much rather have people buy stuff and never use it.
I find that assertion dubious, because were it not for Netflix it would be YouTube or something else using bandwidth, not to mention for a lot of people a large volume of network is taken up with system updates.
What streaming services (mainly Netflix) do is prompt customers to buy higher speed packages than they would otherwise, and I assure you Comcast is making a KILLING on this, my own gigabit internet service fee probably keeps a nice shine on some executives yacht.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That sleight of hand is why Net Neutrality is needed.
Otherwise what if your cable company gets bought and offers MSNBC for free but charges $200 for Fox?
False equivalence aside.
Why should someone not be able to pay for 10Mbps service that *guarantees* that service level (to 99.9% of the time or whatever) for Netflix, but is as you said best effort for other traffic? Lots of people would not care if web traffic was a bit slow, but they want non-buffering Netflix feeds.
If someone wanted to do that and could have a cable bill $10/month less, why is that a bad thing?
Basically what is so bad about offering some QOS upgrade to my network package that would insure maximum performance to a destination of my choice? Indeed what I would love is some kind of option to pay some amount of money for QOS service to ANY destination I chose, not just streaming sites. Can any technical say they would not want that ever? That would be amazingly useful. That way most of the time the internet speed would be best-effort, but for some specific sites I would have network resources ensure that at least from the ISP to me, I would have full bandwidth...
If I wer an ISP, one thing I would set up is a network speed test that would measure my speed back to the main ISP routers, then the speed from there to whatever site I was speed testing. That would be pretty interesting to see.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You are a terrorist who does not support America or the future of humanity. Please kill yourself.
Dude, if you don't even know the difference between a NOC and a peering point, you should stop commenting on Internet backbone related issues.
Net Neutrality is NOT anti business, it is PRO business and PRO consumer.
What it does is shift much of the massive costs for bandwidth for companies like Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google, etc onto other ISP customers like you and me by raising their prices, since they cannot charge those high-bandwidth users at different rates than other ISP customers.
That's just absurdly wrong, as it implies that companies like Netflix use bandwidth entirely on their own. That's not the way it works. Netflix (for example) sends the data for a movie only when a user requests it. Therefore, the Netflix user was solely responsible for that data traversing the ISP's network, through his or her direct action. If Netflix didn't exist, that same user would have watched content from someone else, which means Netflix didn't actually cause that traffic to flow through that link. That's why the user's ISP is solely responsible for paying the cost of transit between the ISP's network and the backbone.
Netflix, by contrast, was solely responsible for that data traversing the network between Netflix's servers and the nearest backbone, and Netflix and the user share equal responsibility for the data as it passes through the backbone. This approach is really the only sensible way that things can be done.
What you're apparently trying to do is to shift the cost of providing service entirely to one side of that network connection, artificially deflating the impact of user decisions on the user, and artificially inflating the impact of user decisions on the companies that provide content. That approach very bad, because among other things, it means that users don't think about the impact of their decisions. If there's no extra cost for them to have the bandwidth to watch Ultra-HD, many users will dutifully grab Ultra-HD content and watch it on a cell phone or whatever.
It is also bad because the company on the other end doesn't have any real control over what the user's ISP does, or how high their costs are for providing service. Netflix can choose what ISP they work with to get data onto the backbone, minimizing their cost and maximizing efficiency. If every random ISP can decide to charge them an arbitrary amount of money, you're basically turning the cost of individual users' Internet service into an externality that Netflix has to pay for. As such, Netflix will be forced to decide which individual customers aren't worth the money based on how much the customers' ISPs are charging them. At that point, those users will no longer have access to the entire Internet.
And the cost of negotiating contracts with every little 100-customer ISP on the planet would be insane. It would essentially make it impossible for large companies to be viable without running their own cables to everybody's house. And if that happens, we'll eventually find ourselves with the Google Internet, the Amazon Internet, and the Netflix Internet, and they won't talk to each other except for low-bandwidth email. This outcome is in nobody's best interests, including the major ISPs.
In short, the things you're advocating are harmful in the short term to everyone involved except for the big ISPs, and in the long term, would spell their doom as well. Want to destroy the Internet? You just figured out how. And that's not hyperbole.
What, you don't think the ISPs are just going to eat the costs, do you? The original NN rules were written by Google! Do you believe Google primarily has your best interests in mind, or their own?
You speak of those two things as though you believe that they are mutually exclusive. When a company's interests align with your own, you should embrace that company's support. Rejecting that support merely because they also benefit from not letting ISPs completely break the Internet is shortsighted and stupid. Those big tech companies would still have a heck of a lot more lobbying power
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Which six states are working on this?
All I can think is HAHA. We had one consistent set of rules which got shot down by greed. Now there will be wildly varying laws from one state to the next.
It only covered the bottom 3 MEDIA layers of the OSI model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model#Description_of_OSI_layers/ but not content providers up in the FINAL TOP layer(s)!
Thus, so they could censor or delete anything they don't like & promote their own BULLSHIT instead - yes, that includes /. or Google, YouTube + FakeBook!
* Under OLD "net neutrality", content providers (like /., facebook, YouTube + google) are notorious for this to promote "their own agenda"!
(Especially these latter 2 ala facebook's "political arm" of bots trolling for them https://politics.slashdot.org/story/17/12/21/2033245/how-facebooks-political-unit-enables-the-dark-art-of-digital-propaganda/ ).
I am ALL for everyone travelling @ the SAME EQUAL SPEED based on what you pay your ISP for - that's potentially NOW not the case. THAT IS WHAT IS GOOD ABOUT THIS STATE LEVEL ONE WITH NO BLOCKING!
It was abused before too:
E.G. - Comcast throttled NetFlix vs. THEIR COMPETING OFFERING to outcompete it - THAT IS LAME, LOW & WRONG (f'ing cheating is more like it).
(As /. does for OpenSORES, Google YouTube or Facebook + SJW material more often than not as the content here vs. the past being solely on tech almost)
&
THIS YEAR, whipslash & his moderators here have been DELETING POSTS https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11509041&cid=55776597/ when it's widely KNOWN & SAID w/ SLASHDOT BRAGGING "but, But, BUT... /. doesn't DELETE posts" - bullshit. /. is NOT what it once was... period.
Now, I am also ALL for everyone being able to FREELY SPEAK (by all means)!
HOWEVER as you can see with proofs above?
"The downmod OR delete truncheon gets used in lieu of conversation" where discussion, facts & logic would ultimately triumph otherwise!
(No, instead, the "banhammer" is used! That's bullshit & denies freedom of speech (a basic principle of U.S. Society + an inalienable right & THEY ARE HOSTED IN THE USA)).
APK
P.S.=> The OLD net neutrality was done by some SNEAKY BASTARDS using 1/2 truths & NOT telling ALL THE FACTS of how it worked - now, above, YOU HAVE FACTS & SOLID VERIFIABLE UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE of how it actually "worked" (worked against you to promote bogus agendas unfairly is more like it)... apk
It's not like my Comcast network is going to block AT&T traffic
Possibly not, but when ISPs and content producers are the same company then they control both content and distribution and have a perfect incentive to block or throttle content from competing providers. This is Bad(tm), not just in a consumer standpoint but an Orwellian one as well.
See subject: STRONG emphasis on 'flake' for "your kind" UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous trolls - she's HOT - I'd do her but I know "your kind" is of the 'bent-wrist' persuasion & like being the 'pseudo-female' in the 'equation' here (RoTfLmAo) - not that I mind that as long as "your kind" leaves me be (& I've told that to 'your kind' in my city now & also the "San Fran of the South" Altanta when I stumbled into 'your section' of peachtree one night by accident - It's your choice, not mine, & I don't hold it to you (dangerous though boys, wear your rubber socks!)).
* They told me I was a 'safe' person (I am - I am not into 'phag bashing' & figure your type is just a genetic aberration, as you do not follow nature's intended guideliens for reproduction: I asked 'em "what do you SEE in another man's HAIRY ASS?" & even THEY laughed w/ the bartender - they said "you like women since birth right?" I said SURE, they said that about guys so, ok - it's NOT your fault).
In any event? I can't blame BILL for liking women (they're one of LIFE's GREATEST TREATS (& pains too - a real 'double-edge sword' & they say the SAME of us)).
APK
P.S.=> Pres. Trump too - she's be damn near IRRESISTABLE to me personally & he has GREAT TASTE IN WOMEN (his wife is not only a BOMBSHELL too but QUITE a lady too - why "f around" on her? He's a lucky man & picks well, always, every single time) - if he did this ALLEGED thing (doubt it - he's TOO smart for f'ing up that way imo)? Who could blame the man (it'd only show he's a REAL MAN & men? We're like ROOSTERS in a henhouse - we can't help it - only takes 1 of us for millions of 'em lol))... apk
" If an ISP starts throttling some site the FCC will step in and stop them."
Earth to moron. Earth to moron.
Do you even know what net neutrality IS? Silly question. It is clear you do not or choose to appear that way (troll). Net neutrality is the principle that ISPs can't discriminate between content providers among other things with the same impact. In other words...
NO net neutrality...ISP can throttle site without FCC intervention.
WITH net neutrality...ISP throttles site, FCC takes measures to end that action.
Get it?
Now I don't want to cause the train tracks of your mind to collapse under the weight of more than a stripped down caboose but please consider the following. If an ISP can throttle without sanction then they can make money by shaking down NON competitors. Net neutrality does not just address the threat of unfair competition. It addresses the threat of complete control of what a customer can access.That anybody can be oblivious to this fact and its implications is truly stunning.
Speed lanes are a good idea and what people want
Even if people want them, it doesn't mean that they exist. All there can be is as fast the network can handle and traffic that gets needlessly throttled because they didn't pay an extortion fee. We just want to network to pass all traffic as fast as it can handle it. Is that so bad?
Sorry retard APK
Your complaints sound like the following because you can't actually reason:
APK: "Why is it that roads have to treat all traffic equally and grant access to everyone but a news paper's editorial board can decide what to print. I APK am such a fucking retard that I actually want government to decide what a newspaper can and can't print in fairness."
This is really what your argument sounds like you dumb sack of shit.
Nothing you say can actually be backed up, ever.
People tear you arguments to shreds but you are too dumb to realize you lost.
Just because you don't understand simple math or simple logic and lack the ability to reason doesn't mean that they are untrue.
So now why don't you go off on one of your rants about how George Soros, Hillary, and Mark Zuckerberg are trying to turn you into a gay antifa member.
Or better yet go jerk off to the latest Trump tweet or InfoWars article.
of private enterprise. At least in theory. If people already had good working government service (like the VA for example) you might have a shot. But you'll have no luck with muni broadband until you can convince people that the government doesn't screw up everything it tries. Yeah, yeah, there's lots of evidence of that, but when has evidence ever worked against a multi-million dollar ad blitz?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Too bad all you have ever managed are the inflatable kind.
You worship Trump because his tiny hands make your tiny dick look huge.
No go choke down another bottle of Super Male Vitality and tell the world how you stopped the terminator.
See subject - Nice part of my heritage IS that (only "the brothers" got that on MY tribe) & I've had more women between 18/19-35 in this life than you will in your ENTIRE existence (never was a problem for me - grace of God I thank him for (then again, women are a 'double-edge sword' & they think of us thus too, can't blame 'em)).
* The rest of your WHACKO constantly stalking me (& failing vs. me, lol) bs? Not worth a response from "the likes of me" YOUR SUPERIOR, beta snowflake that you are!
(I have to thank you though - why? You make ME look GOOD albeit @ YOUR expense (not that 'your kind' in UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous stalkers & trolls care - you know you're HUMAN FAILS, lol, hence your many fake name sockpuppets or pure unidentifiable ac posts (which prove I have DUSTED YOU MANY TIMES before so you 'hide', lol))).
APK
P.S.=> Bottom-line FACT: You WISH you were me (The "Lord of hosts" so-to-speak & per a Polish inspiration in my life (my tribe)? Dan Marino + this quote @ 23:46 in this video describes ME "Man, that guy had the UTMOST CONFIDENCE in his ability & with THAT KIND OF ABILITY? You SHOULD have that confidence" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gclzxyhi_DE/ & I've been surrounded by great examples in friends/teachers/coworkers & FAMILY of that calibre & it made me who I am (your opposite, a loser))... apk
Comcast throttled Netflix and Netflix made the problem go away by paying an extortion fee.
Sad to see the day when people on Slashdot have no idea how the internet works, or what interconnection fees are.
I live in fucking downtown San Francisco and my ONLY choice of high-speed cable Internet is Comcast.
Hi, I said exactly the same thing. I'm in a different city, in exactly the same situation. Do you even read?
I mean you go so far as to ejaculate all over the screen that "my own gigabit internet service fee probably keeps a nice shine on some executives yacht."
And you interpreted that to mean I was *happy* about the situation? Like I said, do you even read??
Haters like you are SUCH retards. I am trying super-hard not to roll my eyes that you also come from San Francisco, which I would have put money on before... the elitism literally boils out of your words.
Someday you will be adult and be properly ashamed of what you are now. But I guess today is not that day.
I'll let you have the last response since Haters and Retards will chatter on and on about themselves and misreading things until the end of time. Ain't nobody got time for that, I have other people to help while you try to bring them down.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
See subject: Your weak "jedi mind tricks"? Give 'em up - they don't WORK on me (maybe the weak minded, but not I).
Your forums "ILLOGIC logic" fails, lol, every single time vs. me especially! TO wit:
* CLUE IMBECILE: I SAID I WAS ALL FOR FOLKS TRAVELLING THE SAME SPEED & THAT BLOCKING IS BAD & that this state level change = GOOD!
(I am a HUGE fan of state level control vs. BIG central gov't. but there are EXCEPTIONS to every rule (math outliers show you this on linear optimization curves)).
APK
P.S.=> BOTTOM-LINE FACT: WEAK attempts that fail of using "apples to oranges comparisons" (which I never said I was for what YOU spew) = weak & fails + YOU TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH I NEVER SAID too? Please - do yourself a favor & STOP MAKING ME LOOK GOOD @ your expense, lol... apk
Individual companies running each stateâ(TM)s internet connection. California = say, the Comcast zone, or whoever pays the most for a stateâ(TM)s âoenet neutralityâ
Sorry retard APK your hand doesn't count.
Just because you rubbed one out daily with Rosy Palm and her five sisters multiple times a day doesn't mean you made it with a woman.
Also I'm not the one making all sorts of retarded claim and then not backing them up.
How about your claim that hosts stops inbound connections?
How about your claim that if your shit pile software has to enumerate all hosts in a domain to block it a script would also have to have a full list?
How about your claim the real security experts recommend your work?
How about your claim that the Chinese copied you?
You can't back up anything you say with actual facts or proof.
What evidence you do offer is wild speculation at best.
You deny facts that are perfectly clear to anyone else.
Also if you want to get into a pissing match over security credentials I hope you can claim multiple advanced degrees, several recognized certificates (It keeps the idiots in HR and various governments happy), working with governments, regulators, and auditors to develop requirements, criteria, and testing and having close to 2 billion people actually depending on my work.
I've been securing systems and developing real security tools that provide provable (both in completeness and correctness) security for 21 years now.
If someone ever claimed your software offered security I would say prove it and they, like you, would fail because you can't prove your software offers any real security.
Thankfully I don't have to depend on your shit work but I know you rely on mine.
You should also learn how to write a cogent statement so you don't look like a retard Alexander Peter Kowalski.
See subject: you can't, lol! China copied PART of what I do in hardcodes & LONG AFTER I did (fact) - IMITATION = SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY!
Security pros DO say hosts = good security (see subject - you TWIST things & it doesn't work) https://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11549257&cid=55839269/ (you lose).
When hosts block C&C client end NO COMMUNICATION in/out to C&C for orders.
WILDCARDING creates FALSE POSITIVES (like antivirus heuristics does) - HUGE FAIL (I do specifics avoiding that)
App whitelisting's ez to blow by via DLL injection OR loading explorer.exe or services w/ a malicious lib! YOU BLEW THAT VS. ME "Mr. 21 yrs. of securing systems" my ass PROVE IT
NoScript doesn't do a FRACTION of what hosts do https://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11549257&cid=55843151/ & YOU BLEW THAT TOO vs. me
APK
P.S.=> You = UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous bs artist
Nope APK you are just a retard that fails to understand the difference between infrastructure and content.
Let it be known that Alexander Peter Kowalski wants government to force websites to publish some content.
I never put words in your mouth.
You bitch that websites (content providers like newspapers) don't publish some things and you think that is unfair.
You are the retard because you can't even understand your own piss poor arguments.
Sorry retard, wild speculation that they copied a simple obvious feature without any evidence isn't proof.
Also you seem to have dramatically scaled back your claim here so it appears that you can't backup up your other claims.
None of them endorse your work and all of those are ancient how many still do.
Considering that nothing recommends setting up hosts file today for security your statement there isn't worth the electrons used to display it.
You seem to have a real hard time understanding networking concepts as you still can't tell me how it blocks inbound connections that you claim it does.
You really don't understand wildcarding as it wouldn't block other domains but then you also likely suck at regular expressions too.
Besides you seem to have changed your tune as you still haven't justified your statement about that you don't need to block all hosts from a domain because a script can't list all of them.
Just beacuse your favorite shit toy OS sucks at doing whitelisting doesn't mean that others don't do it right.
Maybe you should try using something that isn't a bug ridden pile of adware.
Also unlike your shit NoScript actually does stop an entire category (hit it is scripts from web pages) of attacks and does decrease the attack surface by an actual measurable amount.
Now why don't you offer up some actual proof Alexander Peter Kowalski to back up your claims instead of posting links to your retarded previous statements that have been debunked, misquoting other slashdot users, making more retarded claims, or saying people endorse your work with no evidence.
Maybe you should realize your file aggregator is an overly complex, bloated, poorly designed steaming pile.
You can't even make changes to TLDs without changing code which seems a sure sign of piss poor design done by a retard who shouldn't be trusted with designing anything more complex than a hello world program.
This also ignores that for some reason your file aggregator needs to have database functionality built into it because you felt like really bloating things up and made it worse by writing your own.
Then for some other fucking retarded reason you made it multithreaded because you felt it wasn't complex enough.
So now why don't you either provide actual proof or go fuck yourself.
See subject (lol): You can't prove YOU write "real securityware"! FACT: China implemented hosts' DNS features after me (IMITATION = sincerest form of flattery). Security pros say hosts = good security & NOT 'ancient' (Malwarebytes, Bleeping Computer, ZDNet & NOD32/ESET)! /. peers recommend MY PROGRAM (not your non-existent "real securityware") https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11595279&cid=55903895/ . Wildcards creates false positives & ANY user can easily edit & understand hosts vs. regex. NoScript does less vs. hosts BY FAR & is slower in usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode not parsing HTML tags https://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11549257&cid=55843151/ & Program Whitelists = ez to blow by via DLL injection OR loading explorer.exe or services w/ a malicious lib!
APK
P.S.=> You can't prove you write "real security ware" you say you do hiding behind UNIDENTIFIABLE ac posts.
See subject & you brought it on yourself saying you write 'real securtyware for 21 yrs. & can't back it https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11606243&cid=55924893/ & you had to "Run, Forrest: RUN!!! PLUS be ANNIHILATED by "yours truly" on ALL your "so-called 'points'" POINT by POINT https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11606243&cid=55925695/ !
* Like I said before? THANK-YOU for making ME look GOOD (& yourself @ your own expense "not so good" you blowhard liar, lol).
Lastly - /. PROVEN DELETING POSTS (not just mine) != not publishing some things - it's HIDING what adversely affects THEIR bogus agenda.
APK
P.S.=> Per tradition YOU are making me say THIS (& you know this was coming, lmao) - THIS? This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'" & always IS vs. do-nothing "ne'er-do-well" liar trolls behind UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous posts like you... apk
Why people want more government amazes me. Government never gets it right and it just dumbs it down for everyone. Think Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, .....
Bumma's net neutrality was never about neutral, only more government control. Net neutrality == doublespeak.
So your business has to comply with one not 50 laws.
This state by state thing is perfect! We'll get to see if it works. If it does, spread it out. If it doesn't give it up. What could be better?
As to TFS/TFA, this is just State politicians grand-standing and posturing like posers do. State law does not override Federal laws and Federal regulations with the force of Federal law. They know this. It's theater.
Actually, under long standing constitutional law, the state governments may act when the federal government chooses not to do so - exactly the situation we have here. By choosing not to act, the federal bureaucracy has opened the door to the state governments. It's perfectly legal for them to act.
The federal government could supersede this with an act of congress, which the states could supersede in turn with a constitutional convention. It won't go that far, however, the willingness of the states to act will force federal action in the correct direction.