Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Is Over Monday, But Experts Say ISPs Will Wait To Screw Us (inverse.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Inverse: Parts of the Federal Communication Commission's repeal of net neutrality is slated to take effect on April 23, causing worry among internet users who fear the worst from their internet service providers. However, many experts believe there won't be immediate changes come Monday, but that ISPs will wait until users aren't paying attention to make their move. "Don't expect any changes right out of the gate," Dary Merckens, CTO of Gunner Technology, tells Inverse. Merckens specializes in JavaScript development for government and business, and sees why ISPs would want to lay low for a while before enacting real changes. "It would be a PR nightmare for ISPs if they introduced sweeping changes immediately after the repeal of net neutrality," he says.
While parts of the FCC's new plan will go into effect on Monday, the majority of the order still doesn't have a date for when it will be official. Specific rules that modify data collection requirements still have to be approved by the Office of Management and Budget, and the earliest that can happen is on April 27. Tech experts and consumer policy advocates don't expect changes to happen right away, as ISPs will likely avoid any large-scale changes in order to convince policymakers that the net neutrality repeal was no big deal after all.
While parts of the FCC's new plan will go into effect on Monday, the majority of the order still doesn't have a date for when it will be official. Specific rules that modify data collection requirements still have to be approved by the Office of Management and Budget, and the earliest that can happen is on April 27. Tech experts and consumer policy advocates don't expect changes to happen right away, as ISPs will likely avoid any large-scale changes in order to convince policymakers that the net neutrality repeal was no big deal after all.
This is the TrumpVerse in action. November is the last chance to act! Run these bastards back to hell!!
Next Monday NN would be history in the US
Would it be history in other places as well?
So long as ISPs are allowed to discriminate by usage/content/device type in their terms of service, net neutrality is (has always been) a complete joke/bogus. Not being allowed to run an httpd server with *zero* fear that the ISP could legitimately choose to cease accepting you as a customer because of it, *entirely* defeats the intended level playing field net neutrality was touted as providing. The legaleze word games and fragile language that kept getting shot down in courts is an indication of what a waste the current and past laws have always been (except for Google and the NSA enjoying their advertising tracking and surveillance traffic flying under the 'unlimited' radar.)
As this headline reads, the only thing that has ever really been holding back the ISPs is public perception. And the issue is truly too complex and nuanced (especially with the wickedly slick subtle word games being used) that the population at large won't be able to muster a better sense of disgust at ISP practices until the tech leaders start admitting that Server Prohibition Matters A Lot.
$0.02...
Home Email Server packets *deserve to be treated on equal terms with gmail's packets*. Google knows the game.
It should have been if I was not artificially slowed down due to being "comment only" traffic.
Explains why my downloads have been slow as well.
"...Will Wait To Screw Us"
I love the headline.
But why not just make it "Comcast Sucks!"
Remember: always cook frogs slowly.
Don't you think the joker laughs at you?
"Net Neutrality Is Over Monday, But Experts Say ISPs Will Wait To Screw Us"
We need experts to tell us this? Are we all blithering idiots who need to be told common-sense business tactics? Hey, we've discovered that there's an apartment shortage in my area. I wish I could find an expert to tell me whether rents will go up in the near future.
...omphaloskepsis often...
My neighborhood is served by Spectrum (Charter Communications). They have a whole one-and-a-half stars on Yelp. Their prices suck, and they send lots of junk mail, even if you're already a customer. Oh, they also frequently call you on your cell phone and attempt to up-sell you, too (even when you're on the do-not-call list, and have told them repeatedly you do not want marketing calls). Their broadband service is also prone to many random brief outages. Short of starting a cable channel where their executives murder kittens on live TV, I can't imagine their reputation sinking much lower.
We have no other choice of land-based high speed provider. AT&T no longer offers DSL, and they have no plans to ever offer U-Verse. The only other competing providers are cellular networks, which don't offer the kind of data allowance you'd need for a home internet connection. Spectrum literally has a monopoly over the markets they serve. If they decided tomorrow that Netflix is now an extra $5/mo, or online gaming is an extra $15/mo, the choices are "cough it up", or "do without."
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
Enough is enough.
They're already priming the pump. I saw a Comcast commercial just two days ago that was claiming how great their new, faster service was going to be and it "included Netflix". I nearly dropped my plate. It's coming. ISPs will treat websites like channels soon enough and you're going to need to buy packaged bundles to get the websites you want.
I got screwed already by the ISPs.
I can only choose one, and they suck.
I'm pretty sure much like net neutrality laws in the first place, the ISP's lobbied for this situation, too.
Time for a new internet then!
"If the hyperbole we spouted doesn't come to pass, that's actually part of the conspiracy."
Five years from now, none of the major fears like blocking sites they don't like will have materialized, but Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. will be more one sided than ever. NN advocates will continue issuing dire warnings about imminent discrimination by the ISPs as all of the platform and service providers continue on discriminating because "it's their company" and "if you don't like YouTube's policies, just start a multi-billion dollar video platform that can compete against a subsidized one whose parent should be prosecuted for product dumping under antitrust law at this point."
Remember, they're not going to make it worse for you. They will offer you fast lane access. All you love about the internet, now better and faster! Why would they wait to offer you that?
We have a moral obligation to exploit companies and governments the same way they try to exploit us.
Anything less would leave our children and our children's children less well off.
So the next time you have a chance, cheat companies the same way they try to cheat us and abuse governments the same way they try to abuse us.
We have no obligation to be victims to amoral exploiters.
There are a bunch of lawsuits in the pipeline over net neutrality. I imagine the ISPs will at least wait until they start to see how they will be resolved before they do anything serious to change the current situation.
It will be the perfect excuse for me to disconnect and going back to doing things in real life, the way we were intended to. I am spending entirely too much time on the internet these days and missing out on what life has to offer. The fact that the ISP is now going to screw us just makes it that much easier for me to kick Verizon fios to the curb.
Even when we had net neutrality did it really help? These people thinking government will solve all our issues is dreaming. After all these ISP's have to answer to a more powerful group of people it's customers.
Hello everyone. I would like to apologize for begin the raging asshole that I am. You see I am now undergoing a treatment program in an attempt to resolve my many issues. In going through this self discovery process I have discovered that a lot of my problems, especially with my inadequacy, centers around the fact that I was repressing my homosexuality. I now know that homosexuality isn't bad it is just the repression of it and the problems that causes are bad. Most notably his repression caused me to act out at anyone who rightfully pointed out my failings. I realize now that so much of what I said was just wrong. I also realize that I have developed serious problems such as stalking, harassment, poor physical health, and feelings of inadequacy. To this end I would like to apologize to the entire slashdot community.
APK
P.S. => As part of my treatment I have been forced to read what I wrote and realize now that all the mockery and insults I received were fully justified... apk
More like late stage ultra-corrupt capitalism like "insert shitty african country".
If service providers can be selective of the content they provide, then they must lose all common carrier provisions and can be sued if they allow criminal content.
After the Obama NN law to offer zero rated service for their music/video service and a few weeks later Comcast, AT&T and TWC announced their merging with a bunch of smaller players the FCC had blocked but the FTC allowed eventually culminating in the TWC/Comcast merger.
That's luckily going away so the companies will be broken and the playing field will be leveled, right?
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Treating sites like channels has happened in the past already, but I expect alternative services to pop up once the douchebags take over the web. ... Ok, they alreay have, but I mean once they prevent normal people from doing their thing with the web. As soon as that happens there will be a move away from the web. And it will happen fast. That's what I expect anyway.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
No one said you had to vote for a Democrat. There are *some* decent Republicans out there, but most won't ever be nominated because conservitards only care about "muh bortions" and their right to oppress gay rights and freedom of *other* religions. Vote 3rd party every time if you find both parties to be unpalatable.
this just makes some of their methods (that some are already using) 'legal' and endorsed by the government.
Because all the others suck too.
Will screw us 'in 15-20 years'.
Agreed, but sadly in the last election even the 3rd parties sucked. I ended up writing-in, but even that list or counted write-ins was limited to douchbags, idiots, and people I couldn't find info about. I ended up picking the guy who said the least on his campaign website as he was the only one that didn't raise any red flags.
This way, all the fearmongering, paranoid-psychothic and fraudulent claims about doom and gloom ("STEALING OUR INTERNET") won't be proven to be outrageous attacks on truth and democracy once it's shown that NONE OF THEM HAPPEN AS CLAIMED --
-- because we now have the helpful excuse "IT WILL HAPPEN ONE DAY, THEY ARE JUST BIDING THEIR TIME"
Five years from now, none of the major fears like blocking sites they don't like will have materialized, but Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. will be more one sided than ever.
That's adorable you actually seem to believe that. If there is money to be made in blocking content then it will be blocked. The precise nature of the block is yet to be determined but it will happen in some form or fashion. Do you seriously think Comcast isn't going to prioritize their own content over everyone else's who doesn't pay them an arm and a leg? They've effectively gotten a government endorsed protection racket. "Nice website. Would be a shame if no one could see it..."
Merckens specializes in JavaScript development for government and business
That is the only person quoted in the article, and that quote is the only thing establishing his "expert" status. Unclear how that translates to "expert in what ISPs will or will not do".
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Compared to the rest of the world, the poor US consumer is already well and truly ass-raped by the cable / ISP cartel.
Having taken bazillions in subsidies and done precisely fuck-all in return, (with fiber a distant dream for most USians), they're effective mono/duopolies in most areas, with high prices, low speeds and terrible customer service.
Now that their bought-and-paid-for politicians/lobbyists have finally managed to kill NN, they'll be opening the dusty box marketed "cable TV 101"...soon you'll only get your Netflix access with a "premium" bundle for an extra 50 bucks a month...
I blame the lack of decent candidates on the media coverage of the elections early-on. It happens so early-on most people aren't paying any attention. They get their pool of primary candidates from "polls", so already their results will be skewed because the only people who are poll-able are old people with landline telephones and cable-tv or people with agendas who visit political websites and take surveys. That's not even the worst part though: the poll numbers are affected by people seeing the ongoing results (a feedback loop) ie: First poll comes out and nobody knows who anybody is, but they see 5 names on the poll. Now another poll gets conducted two weeks later and those same 5 names are there, but now they have more support because that's all anybody knows about. The early polling process is the critical decider of what the pool of candidates will be like.
I don't think commies actually have it.
Actually on any kind of monopoly of internet service, you won't have net neutrality naturally.
What the US had was literally the government pointing their guns at the monopolies and saying "you NN or we nuke you", and now there's no such thing anymore.
The real fix of course would be to break the monopolies, but as that's not possible, nukes it is.
Republican or democrat or independent dosent matter. Only vote for candidates that take refuse all large donations, all corporate money, and use none of thier own money. I guarentee the bullshit will end almost immediately. Then force them to make big money in politics illegal. 96% of the population believes money is causing problems, so it's clearly a bipartisan issue.
With the demise of Net Neutrality, I kind of expect the big ISPs to try wringing money out of major internet sites. For example, threaten to throttle Netflix unless Netflix agrees to pay some sky-high peering fees, or inject high latency and dropped packets to Facebook and Google unless these companies also pay the insane peering fees. Don't be surprised if the cost of Netflix goes up as a result, even if your ISP isn't one of the big ISPs doing this. Everyone seems to expect ISPs to create fast lanes for specific sites and sell these fast lanes to their customers, but because everyone will be watching for this, I think it's less likely to happen.
Much like the article suggests, they probably won't do this right away, and when they do, expect them to do it slowly and incrementally. Start by charging just a small increase in peering fees, then gradually increase those fees over time to "boil the frog".
For every post, there is an equal and opposite re-post.
While I'm sure the monopoly ISPs enjoy let's them give no fks, I'm confident they will do a slow boil on us frogs. Without rioting in the streets, it will be much easier on them if suddenly the senate and/or congress flips blue later this year.
We are just being lightly screwed, we had some protection at least. I'm pretty sure without neutrality, given the near complete monopoly/duopoly structure in nearly all areas, it's going to be a full on kidnapping, bloody wrists and feet manacled to a poorly lit, moist, and dirty industrial basement, where the only release will be the fond memories of just occasional light sodomy.
But I have large doubts that there will be much of a wait. I wouldn't put it past any of them to make changes and then in court argue that going back would cost too much money or be too hard since they've now grown used to having those profits.
That's the sort of scum we're dealing with here.
We have a two party system. Srsly. Voting for third parties is a complete waste of time.
Until we fix that nothing is going to change.
I think in this most recent presidential election on the Republican side there were about six "traditional" candidates - successful government and business leaders who basically did what candidates do, and then there was Donald Trump. The votes for "some reasonable choice of a person with a good track record" got spread amongst several primary candidates, leaving Trump to pick up all of the "somebody different" vote. Plus Trump is just good at getting attention.
Also, we're living in a world where most voters have an attention span of 140 characters. People aren't reading in-depth analysis in the editorial pages, they are reading tweets.
I literally can't even believe we're going to return to the dark days of 2014, when no one had internet access because all the greedy corporations charged us extra fees to visit certain websites. The time before streaming video, which didn't exist because it was metered to hell and gone. The horror. The horror.
The largest hacking collective is about to begin..
Here's hoping a "pro-net-neutrality" ISP "screws its customers" for an hour by, say, randomly inserting pro-NN ads or slowing NetFlix to a crawl for 10 seconds every 5 minutes "because they can."
Of course, to work well they will need to alert their customers ahead of time and get buy-in from them.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Why is it not possible to break the monopolies? Just stop treating ISPs as utilities, lower the artificial barriers to entry, and we'll have an explosion of local ISPs just like we had back in the old days, before we erected a regulatory wall to stop mom-and-pop internet providers and force us into these monopolies.
http://xkcd.com/386/
Because it isn't as catchy as "Will wait to implement site level throttling."
and Comcast Sucks ins't news is is just matter of fact.
The thing is people get emotional because Net Neutrality is touted as killing off your netflix and your youtube. But the real damage is all the stuff that your ISP handle that isn't consumer level.
I have 100mbs internet connection at home. I will VPN into work to do my work. If my ISP decides to throttle VPN Connections (because it is what bad people do too) And my work doesn't have the money or the willingness to pay the ISP ransom amount. I am stuck using a product Advertised as 100mbs but only getting 10mbs because they decide to throttle it.
I could care less if Netflix takes an extra 5 seconds to load, or I don't get 4k resolution. But If I am transferring hundreds of megs of information back and forth of work data, then having to wait is wasting my time, and costing my company money. And I am getting ripped off, because I chose that ISP because of the bandwidth promised me.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
A bunch of experts are saying NN's repeal will STILL get you, but the emergency "We are all going to die tomorrow!" hype of the last 6 months was, well, over played? Say it isn't so....
I think somebody is trying to move the political goal posts now, so the people who advocated for the repeal of NN cannot just up and claim "See? Nothing bad happened and it's been 6 months! You where wrong.." Could it be that the truth is someplace between the two extremes? That NN's repeal isn't going to be that big of a deal and that it was trying to solve a pile of problems that don't really exist yet? Could it be that everything will turn out just fine? I think so.
I suspect that we will get parts of NN back over time, but I also think that it is a better regulatory approach to have the FCC work on specific problems as they crop up and not try to fix everything you can imagine at once.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
For the first time in my life, an ISP wanted to do a credit check as part of the enrollment.
I was a customer of theirs, and I have not missed a payment in years. (decade/s?)
They are "staging" right now. The "roll-out" of their screw-topia may come in time, but staging for effective execution is already in motion before the roll-out.
-EngrStudent
Probably because AT&T and Verizon are just as eager to come up with new add-on charges for their service contracts as well.
Reminds me of that scene in little big man when the hero's homely sister keeps babbling about the prospect of being ravaged by indian braves, but then walks off when she becomes disappointed.
Your post is accurate except for one minor point: When Comcast throttles your internet connection it'll be to 128kbps not 10mbps. This will even slow down small file transfers and basic terminal use.
Those of you that like to just blame Trump are not taking an objective look.
We all want net neutrality, but that's NOT what we had under Obama's FCC decision. That was a government agency attempting to seize control over our internet for less than honorable reasons.
Yeah, ok, let us know how that manifesto is coming along.
My ISP is getting ready to block GOP web sites.
Funny story about that. It turns out we don't actually have a two-party system, we just have a system where the biggest current two parties have been getting away with saying that while illegally strangling additional parties in crib for over a century.
Why is it not possible to break the monopolies? Just stop treating ISPs as utilities, lower the artificial barriers to entry, and we'll have an explosion of local ISPs just like we had back in the old days, before we erected a regulatory wall to stop mom-and-pop internet providers and force us into these monopolies.
It's too complicated and expensive for government to perform mass data collection & tracking if they have to deal with thousands of small mom-&-pop ISPs.
Once the US internet is in the hands of just a very small handful of mega-ISPs then they can collude and/or be pressured to limit whose speech they will allow on their networks just as a small handful of major banks/CC corporations have decided they will no longer provide any financial/CC/loan services of any kind to those businesses involved in providing the means to exercise a Civil Right guaranteed to We The People in the Bill of Rights.
If the 2nd Amendment can fall to such strategies, methods, and practices, then so can the 1st Amendment.
It's much better to weather the stormy and unpredictable seas of liberty than to drown under the placid waters of tyranny and authoritarianism.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
but most won't ever be nominated because conservitards only care about "muh bortions"
To be fair, if you consider abortion murder (especially late-term abortions), then it's extremely rational to make that your top priority.
Net neutrality was a fix in search of a non-existent problem, and eliminating it won't magically make that problem poof into existence. When (IF) the problem actually arrives, then is the time to go after it legislatively. "Correcting" things ex ante is just stupid. As for this article, it's clearly setting up to explain away what will soon to be obvious: the end of net neutrality doesn't bring about the apocalypse that the more sweaty purveyors of doom were predicting.
... Sorry, working from home is only available with our special Business plans!
This is an old story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Nope, no sig
but I expect alternative services to pop up once the douchebags take over the web
The problem is that in many cities, by law, there can only be one ISP (at least for cable, for DSL you can usually get more than one, and dialup is still an option if you really want to be pedantic). This is basically cities screwing themselves, but it happens a lot.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Everyone KNOWS you're impersonating me but do they know WHY? They do now here https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12017031&cid=56488195/
* You have SERIOUS issues - don't try PROJECT them onto me.
APK
P.S.=> You're a mental whacko - no questions asked - as those links show UNDENIABLE facts about you FROM You directly no less... apk
And all the idiots who voted for him and the Republican party. The big difference between these ass clowns and the other ones is that these don't care. At least the Democrats would budge with enough protest. The Trumpkins not only don't budge but their propaganda network gets their culties riled up to defend any idiotic thing this regime does. They get riled up to defend it because they are convinced this will lead to getting rid of all minorities and making a White ethnostate. Bunch of nut jobs.
Looks like we will have to pool together and make some kind of, I don't know, "Information Super Highway" or something built upon the internet to get around all these ISP toll booths. It could sit on top of all these little networks with all their expensive fiber, which we all pay for.
Maybe neighborhoods could network together their little networks over a new protocol and get things going!
See subject & ÃPK Hosts File Engine 10++ SR-1 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=ZYrPWpW_H-ykggel7JLwBg&btnG=Search&q=APK+site%3Astart64.com/
Ads/script/malware rob speed/security/privacy/bandwidth.
Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).
Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivir + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. av/addons/routers/remote dns!
Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirect (99++% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + DNS tracking & lighten DNS load & resolve faster via local RAM!
* Viâ what u NATIVELY have in a FASTER kernelmode IP stack (does more w/ less).
APK
P.S. - Accept NO substitute for more speed, security, reliablity & anonymity that natively does more for less vs. ANY other single "so-called 'solution'"... apk
I'd also worry about blocking sites. Here in Canada, they're trying to get permission to block sites because of piracy. Thing is their site blocking is usually to broad and once they're blocking sites, they can block them for political reasons. Block the other parties site or even worse, target certain neighbourhoods and block (or really slow down) the voters registration sites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
It looks like the greed corruption that has been afflicting the US will spread to the rest of the world now.
Gotta go, need to find myself a XIX century hobby for the next few years. Bye!
The same thing that happened last time; local municipalities still have the rights to change their own laws to spite "mom-and-pop" internet providers, and they absolutely will when the town mayor is personally paid in a large solid gold statue of a bear. Then you're right back to square one of needing big bad evil government to step in with their jackbooted thugs and forcibly throat-stomp a free market onto these bought-and-paid for capitalists.
"It's too complicated and expensive for government to perform mass data collection & tracking if they have to deal with thousands of small mom-&-pop ISPs."
Yes, that's why the push for regulatory barriers happened in the first place. I'm not saying it *will* be undone, just that it *could* be.
http://xkcd.com/386/
You may just be playing devil's advocate, but here's my thoughts:
Over 9 billion (with a b) livestock get bred into existence, forced to wallow in their own shit in a dark cage for their short miserable lives, then are killed and mechanically separated in factory farm assembly lines each year. Hundreds of millions of male chicks are tossed into a grinding machine alive as they're considered a "waste product".
As much as I'd like to see a candidate standing up for animal rights, I'm not going to vote for someone solely based on that one issue and ignore all the bad things about them, especially if they are taking bribes from powerful industries.
It's a simple matter of integrity.
See subject: "Centralization" = ez data collection (blackmail control & coercion) - but MOST JUSTIFIABLE imo = DNS (has problems, but works).
Cardinal Richelieu "Give me 6 words written by the most honest of men and I will find something to hang them with"!
(Especially via purely arbitrary opinion from PAID FOR TROLLS via George Soros OpenSociety Foundation - look who they PAY - junkies & freaks there JUST FOR THE MONEY for their heroin habits & a junkie would sell his own mother for a fix unwilling to logically debate (they can't due to ignorance of facts) + TOLD NOT TO + to use scripted talking points & if they do they are destroyed instantly).
APK
P.S. => Too many downsides (DNS = buggy/redirect poisonable/tracking - CDN = tracking - & a handful of ISPs a "moneyman controller" or crooked gov't. can buy up to use against you for the same too (EACH = a CENTRAL POINT OF CONTROL/EXPLOITATION potentially))... apk
Here's an inaccuracy: the "experts" cited in the article consist of a JavaScript developer and a lobbyist. Hmm, neither of these people seem to be economists who know anything about the positive market ramifications of repealing Net Neutrality.
Look, another conspiracy nut job lmao
Or they disable VPN entirely unless you're paying the extra $150/month for a "VPN capable" connection. I mean it's not *that* much more, not after paying the $10/month for access to Slashdot, the $20/month for Netflix access, the $7.95 for email service access, etc,etc,etc. (fine print: access charge does NOT cover any applicable fees for the various sites/services, just your ISP allowing you to access them)
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I am a soyboy with mincy little balls.
I just discovered the word soyboy the other day while listening to Alex Jones so I need to use it as much as possible.
APK
P.S. - I love it when strangers cum in my ass at the gang bang and when tiny women beat me to a pulp... apk
See subject & What "CLOUD" is REALLY about (wake up) https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12009169&cid=56474007/ from 3 days ago by "yours truly" that mirrors your sentiments & extends it to OTHER "centralization" methods.
APK
P.S.=> In addition to my utter agreement w/ you reply to your post now too Agreed BlueStrat: CDN/Cloud/DNS too https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12017993&cid=56488987/ ... apk
OMG OMG OMG!!!! Remember that thing that never happened before so they made a regulation to make sure that it didn't stop not happening and then those evil men killed the regulation to stop it from not happening...remember?
OMG, well TOMORROW, it's going to keep not happening some more!!!!! OOoooh won't someone save us!!!
See subject & You can't attack the message (defeating it) https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... attack a messenger (me) & illogic-logic fail.
APK
P.S.=> You & "your kind" (serious "ne'er-do-well" do-nothings that ARE soyboys) do yourselves in every single time for me - thanks! apk
So just to clarify, the FCC rules for the Internet going back to what they were a few years ago isn't going to be the end of the Internet and won't cause the economy to tank and won't make it so that no one can communicate ever again?
Wow, who would have predicted that!
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Funny how what is supposed to be a disaster has harmed no-one to date, and promised harm keeps slipping into the future...
The only idiots I see are the ones promising harm that never comes.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If an ISP detects a spambot, perhaps after being notified by a victimized spamee, the ISP ought to interrupt the service and notify the infected subscriber until the malicious device is no longer polluting their network. The cop-out that that business protocol is too much work for the ISP and/or the infected victim, and/or the spamee victim doesn't make logical sense.
That would be how things would operate if there weren't corrupt big $$ competition stifling motives at play. Seriously, take a slow look at how things are. There are reasons beyond stupidity (clue - $$$$$) why the current status quo is as it is.
And, for the record, the rules you are talking about started with cable internet, were then shoehorned into DSL, and in that relatively short time, they fucked with Netflix, leading to the creation of these rules.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
force them to make big money in politics illegal.
But paid advertising == free speech. Pass a constitutional amendment along the lines of "free speech does not include paid political advertising by a candidate, political party, or any third party person or organization". Oh, and repeal the second amendment while you're at it....
Not if you are realistic. Banning abortion or cutting access to abortion services doesn't result in a decrease of abortions, just an increase in complications. And the accompanying lack of birth control causes MORE abortions.
Plus, there are far more natural "abortions" than medical ones. Finally, regarding late term abortions, there are roughly 100 a year, and they are pretty much all health complications that will kill the mother and/or fetus. You'll save far more children improving vehicle safety standards than any late-term abortion bill.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Such a fool, only thinking of gaining control via brute force. if I wanted to seize control of the internet, I'd suck up to ISPs like the Trump administration is doing.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Indeed, there were a lot of "Never Trump" people. They didn't all rally around one candidate, though.
The caucus system, used in 14 states, is more like a run-off, but it has its own problems.
Even the Roberts Supreme Court didn't say free speech included anonymous campaign speech. It's the Republican congress, who thinks they will always win in a money race, that refused to require more disclosure. And nobody thought free speech included Russian trolls pulling for Trump, but pretending to be Black Lives Matter activists explaining why targeted BLM fans on Facebook should stay home instead of voting for Hillary Clinton. The same Hillary Clinton who, along with Bernie Sanders, campaigned on overturning Citizens United to tamp down on that stupid money == speech, corporations == people nonsense.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
mostly because there's a raft of companies they'd like to buy out and/or merge with and the last time they tried even our staggeringly corrupt legislature didn't let them. ISPs would like very much for you to forget how awful they are so they can get back to the work of being awful.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
either by voting in their Primary, voting for different general election candidates or just plain voting? Because if not, this is all just pissin' in the wind...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
See here. Your narrative is incorrect.
People voted Trump because they're hurting economically and being ignored. Trump won the General because Hilary kept ignoring those people and campaigned in Red States instead of Swing States. There's other factors (Russia, Hillary's poor health, the 30 years of bad press she got) but that's the big one.
What's funny is if you look at Trump's policy he's pretty much Hilary Clinton but with a tinge of Racism and bigger tax cuts for the rich. He supports DACA, TPP, backed down on health care & H1-Bs and didn't get us out of the 7 wars we're in and just started #8 and he filled the swamp with the same Goldman Sachs people who are always in charge (America's Royalty).
I don't think any of this matters. The Dems are on track to run another right of center insider and Trump will do his shtick and the Dems will lose again. Because why vote for some milktoast Dem who'll do nothing for you when Trump at least gives lipserves. False hope is better than no hope.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Just keep a close eye on your internet bill and notice it when you have to pay more to properly access certain sites.
Um.... if you're going to accuse someone of liking Comcast, then you probably need to have them having said something in favor of Comcast, which I haven't. Ever.
So for the record, I've never had service from Comcast, nor worked for them, but I don't like them on general principles because 1. I don't like cable companies in general (and) 2. People I know who have had Comcast didn't like them.
I'll even go ahead and stipulate that I don't like the vast majority of cable internet and DSL providers in the U.S. I prefer services which don't rely on government-granted monopoly access to infrastructure.
Now that that's out of the way, the FCC repeal of Net Neutrality rules is still good, limiting the FCC's ability to manipulate and control Internet access in the U.S., it's not going to cause any major issues for Internet users (because they aren't stupid and companies make more money giving people what they want), it will result in more flexibility and lower costs (a little) between users and their ISPs (because the FCC won't be telling them how to organize their business based on outdated and lobbyist views of the ISP industry and they won't be requiring as much regulatory compliance paperwork), and if your ISP decides to defraud you, you can still enforce your contract against them or else leave them for another one, or even start your own.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Since this has literally never happened either in the U.S. before the FCC's NN rules, nor anywhere else in the world which doesn't have NN rules, I'm pretty sure we're safe, but if it does, I'll just, you know, stop contracting with that company if they aren't providing the service I want at the price I'm willing to pay.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
I'd also worry about blocking sites. Here in Canada, they're trying to get permission to block sites because of piracy. Thing is their site blocking is usually to broad and once they're blocking sites, they can block them for political reasons. Block the other parties site or even worse, target certain neighbourhoods and block (or really slow down) the voters registration sites.
Your basic point is correct, but in most other countries with this kind of censorship, the ISPs only implement DNS blocking which can be avoided by choosing a DNS other than the one provided by your ISP. However Russia and China are more hard core in their censorship activities.
Please go. You don't type anything worthwhile anyway. Just one republitard bullshit talking point after another. No wonder you're ready to go, this gives you a perfect excuse to bow out blaming someone else instead of admitting that you're tired of getting put in your deplorable place day after day. Go be a trumptard somewhere else.
yea haha
(laughs nervously)
i generally agree with that analysis, though it's arbitrary whether you choose the label that the root cause is the money motive or the masses lacking sufficient understanding of the tech. In the apparent status-quo scenario, the ISPs apparently don't feel the need to notify these countless infected spambots, and instead just literally ignore the problem (AFAICT). It then seems particularly understandable that the infected victims go on about their existing security practices obliviously. I.e. under my regime, those clueless users get clued in when their reasonable ISP notifies them of their infection, and penalizes them until they clean up the infection. This is an upstream thing. If the devices and software of the users is so insecure that in such a situation the user *still* remains indefinitely vulnerable, then at some point they decide to throw-out the device that they didn't have the skillset to operate non-pollutingly, or switch to a different piece of software. This is the kind of market force that will drive devices and software to being more generally secure when used by ordinary people. Instead, as you seem to agree, the situation is used expertly by the money-grabbers to maintain the non-level-playing-field status quo, while they simultaneously hypocritically claim to be virtuous defenders of the level playing field advertised feature of so called 'network neutrality'.
And it's all extra bogus because it would be dirt simple to make it opt-in to allow incoming tcp connection requests, or toggling a capability bit in the subscribers account suggesting that they expect similar uninitiated udp packet streams. By default the server capability bit in their account can be set to off. There is no real technical issue. It's a dynamic that those who make money operating servers want to keep in place, to raise the bar quite high to competing services. The bar should be low/non-existent. That was the touted empowerment net neutrality was alleged to be providing. It was basically a lie.
That's only true to a certain extent, and certainly less true for monopolists, especially when they have conflicts of interest.
Quite the joker, I see.
Hilarious.
Good one.
I'm dead from laughter now.
Let's face the facts, if we crushed the efforts to crush municipal and community broadband, it would do orders of magnitude more for users than any NN repeal would. That's why I called you a shill. You are delusional to the facts in front of your face.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
No, pretty sure you call me a shill because you can't muster any actual arguments. Traditionally on the left, that leads to name calling.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
See here. It's a full 180 on his previous position. A big part of this is the evangelical leaders stick with him no matter what. They in turn bring their followers with them.
The "normal" candidates (who would have done all the same policies as Trump but been nice about it) would have stayed in and fought if they thought they had a chance. They dropped out because Trump was destroying them. And the reason why is because those economic reasons I mentioned.
The #nevertrump crowd didn't stay home, so much for #nevertrump. At the end of the day the Republican party fell in line with Trump and Trump fell in line with Goldman Sachs. The party's been had. If you voted Trump or supported him you've been had. He's not the populist you wanted him to be. The sooner you acknowledge that the sooner we can start voting these bums out.
Or not. They're the American Royalty. Easier said than done getting rid of your kings and queens.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Your argument is just a bunch of unsubstantiated right-wing talking points, which don't apply at all to such a non-free market like ISPs. The paperwork will be a rounding error compared to power of holding users/sites hostage, the contracts are worthless due to things like mandatory arbitration clauses and terms being subject to change, the choice in ISPs is pathetic, and states have banned many of the most effective means of starting competing ISPs. I made an argument with actual evidence: municipal broadband and its better service. States have effectively banned municipal broadband at the request of the same entities the FCC is deregulating. Our arguments are legislating away competition versus theoretically less paperwork.
I'm honestly probably more conservative than you, I just have the capacity to think at greater complexity than regulations = bad and business = good. Consolidation of power is problematic in both governments and businesses, and that opinion puts me in with nutjob commies like Adam Smith. So no, I'm not more concerned about cutting down paperwork as much as I am concerned about unchecked monopolists who happen to often conspire with the government and own many other things that conflict with the interests of their customers.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
What other conspiracy are you going to push? Those who REALLY know the truth know how long Net nuttering has been around and the fact that even though it existed it did NOTHING other than get gits like this author's rocks off while jumping up and down screaming for his mother.
Well you claim it does, but have provided no evidence to back your claim except a link you are hoping no one will follow.
Hint: it doesn't back up your claim at all.
I haven't even read the comments, but just going off of 'bundling a netflix subscription' I would say that the connection with NN is roughly as follows-
If there were enough competition in the internet access subscription business net neutrality wouldn't be a thing. (i'm stretching things, but lets continue). Net Neutrality is perceived as needed at least in part because such a bundling tactic leaves the ISP with a conflict of interest. They have a very substantial business relationship with company A (netflix here). But CompanyA has (or ought to have, just like the ISP) many competitors such that internet users may choose amongst those competitors based on which product/service they feel best meets their needs. If CompanyB(C,D...ZZZ) are competitors to CompanyA, then the internet subscriber has a view of their ISP with a deep conflict of interest when it comes to whether the internet service should be tailored as a general purpose service where CompanyB(C,D...Z) can equally use the internet connection with the subscriber to do business.
The 'paranoid' example theory would be if your mobile phone service struck a big deal with Pizza Hut, and for some reason you only ever started hearing busy signals when calling competing pizza services. Unfortunately not as great an example, because the busy signal thing is a bit more obvious than the kinds of sneaky low down dirty ways an ISP can subtly interfere with different sorts of traffic. Watch The Sopranos. Use your imagination. Big companies employ plenty of slimeballs and outright criminals, some of them organized.
Many Net Neutrality advocates like myself feel that certain things, lets call them 'utilities' need to be regulated/limited in such a way that certain classes of Conflict-Of-Interest are prevented from arising. Others, like the deceased Ayn Rand, probably have a different view of what corporate liberty should entail, (and the concept of 'common carrier')
Why not both. I'm a different AC who has putsome thought into this.
Sneakernets are phenomenally viable in a world where half the people are walking around with something that has a cheap 32GB disk slot and can talk to nearby peers.
There will be some cool wicked tech shit in our future, count on it :)
I'm expecting that you're right that it'll be at the DNS level. Still while you and I might know enough to change our DNS servers, most people aren't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
1. If the problem is government regulation, then the solution isn't more government regulation. Having the FCC regulate things just leads over time to regulatory capture of the FCC by the entrenched ISPs at the expense of newer or more innovative ones. See as an example every Federal regulatory body ever which existed for more than a year or two and the well-documented phenomenon of regulatory capture.
2. If the real issue is State and local level monopolies given to companies (and that is a major issue in some locations), then the proper solution is to work at the State level and local levels to remove monopolies which have been granted and instead allow competition. I'm all for that.
I'm against government regulators at any level screwing up the Internet, including via #1 and via #2 above. The FCC bringing Internet access under Title II is an example of "Consolidation of power is problematic in both governments and businesses".
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Okay, so you are basically going to throw out any kind of possibility for rational discussion, since you can't handle more complexity than a bumper sticker. The actual problem is that ISPs are primarily infrastructure projects, and for-profit, unregulated entities work poorly for managing infrastructure.
The problem is in the very nature of an infrastructure based market. The legal monopolies have been banned for 30 years, but it's a moot point because it's a natural monopoly.
Except that the internet thrived under Title II, and had considerably MORE competition. Back in the dial-up days, the phone company had to allow anyone to lease out the lines, and a similar model exists today in most countries that have competitive ISP markets.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
You're empirically and factually wrong.
ISPs aren't a natural monopoly. If they actually were, there would have been be no need for exclusive and monopoly franchise agreements with local governments, the first mover would just win automatically. There are places where there is _actually_ competition, so obviously not a "natural" monopoly, just a legally created one.
Internet access was never under Title II until a couple of years ago, so if anything it thrived because of no NN/FCC Title II rules. I was there. I used dial-up BBSs at 300 baud. I started a dial-up ISP (A business I sold during the transition to digital). There were no Title II FCC regulations specific to us. You don't know what you're talking about. Sure, anyone could buy phone lines. Anyone today can buy fiber optic cable and _except where the government prevents them_, can run it to houses.
P.S. Your personal insults aren't convincing anyone, they just get tiresome and expose your lack of ability to argue "complex" issues.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Yeah, and they did pretty much all the time. You are arguing that BECAUSE monopoly agreements existed, that they weren't natural monopolies, which is not evidence.
No, there aren't. Name a place in the US that has access to 10 wired ISPs. You can't, because most places are lucky if they have 2.
Yeah, because it was Ma Bell that was under Title II, and you were the leasee. Unless your name Alexander Graham Bell, of goddamn course Title II regulations didn't apply to the company you founded.
I don't need to convince everyone. EVERYONE ON SLASHDOT IS ALREADY ON MY SIDE.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Did you happen to notice that Verizon hack Ajit Pai, in his arrogant rush to repeal NN (for which the FCC is being sued because he ignored millions of public comments opposed to repeal, a gross violation of the rule-making process) reclassified ISPs as common carriers, freeing states to make their own NN rules, which is proceeding apace, much to Pai's consternation. WTF did he think would happen? Answer: He didn't think. A lawsuit to overturn this "oversight" has been threatened or is in the works. Good luck with that. For Republicans (especially) and other free-marketeers, states' rights are Good until they're Bad, deregulation is Good until unintended market-skewing consequences in favor of consumers make it Bad.
Pai is a Trump appointee.
Hardly "minor" -- it's policy. In order to "destroy the administrative state," Steve Bannon's wettest dream, all the cabinet henhouses have been stuffed with rapacious, corrupt foxes intent on freeing the US of chickens (not the frightened kind) who would contribute to the commonweal rather than trashing it.
No, he was appointed under Obama, but made head of the FCC under Trump. Obama shouldn't have let him, but he loves appeasing the GOP.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Last I checked, the Republican leadership in Congress is a willing accomplice to Trump's relentless sabotage of democracy, replacing it step but step with an authoritarian state. Those steps, BTW, are predictably common in the rise authoritarianism, as if there were a playbook. Most but not all of the rank and file gauleiters in Congress who carry water for Trump are Republicans. The party has long had authoritarian instincts and caters to the perennial subset of Americans who yearn for authoritatian rule, for the daddy state. Most of us are frogs in the proverbial pot, either unaware of, indifferent to, or silently complicit in the slowmotion coup underway. Historically, the rise of fascism or totalitarianism goes unchecked until the water in the pot gets unbearably hot. By then it's too late.
If you can define what "screw" means in that prediction, and pick a date by which you say it will happen, I'd be interested in hearing about it.
And perhaps a modest wager. How's fifty bucks sound?
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
I like how king neckbeard says
, I just have the capacity to think at greater complexity than regulations = bad and business = good.
and then you open right up with braindead bullshit
f the problem is government regulation, then the solution isn't more government regulation
Fucking hilarious man you're a moron.
I like how you "complex" issues too
This is absolutely a complex issue and if wasn't it'd be trivial to regulate or require no regulation at all.