FCC Chairman's Proposal Will Radically Change The Rules Of The Internet

[CexMashean]

His argument falls a part right here:

"(beyond an isolated 2008 case) that Internet providers have throttled access to certain websites."

[Gasser64]

The current method isn't working. What is your solution?

Well lets see if this post, makes it through to the board and you can read it. Let that be the determining factor of whether or not our internetz is functioning correctly. Mr 75mbps up and down.

Who exactly, are you complaining for? I really want to know. Is your granny that lives out in the country complaining about her DSL speeds? Where exactly, is this problem so apparent? Cause I don't have it. You don't have it. I haven't read any posts in this thread that have it. Even back in my 1.3mbps dsl days I would just set all the stuff I wanted to download, to run overnight. Wake up and its all there. Not the most convenient thing in the world but it worked just fine. You pay through the nose just to get shipping that fast. I still fail to see what exactly you're talking about.

Because it's just that simple folks!
You're so detached from reality that it's scary.

You don't seem to know how many thriving businesses were originally founded because the owner was fed up with the way things were. Its in every other business success story you can read lol

Just the most recent examples I remember reading about right off the top of my head

Fastaco
Glock
Walmart

They saw that it sucked, and got rich off the fact that it sucked. So yeah, its really that simple.

[Forever_frost]

Because it's just that simple folks!
You're so detached from reality that it's scary.

It is that simple. Oh wait, government regulation prevents an easy startup doesn't it?

[CexMashean]

It still makes me laugh that people think only the government is holding back average joe schmoe from starting a new business. Yes, the government is just completely stopping it!!!!!!onejuan1!

[line-em-up]

His argument falls a part right here:

"(beyond an isolated 2008 case) that Internet providers have throttled access to certain websites."

which part?

[Forever_frost]

It still makes me laugh that people think only the government is holding back average joe schmoe from starting a new business. Yes, the government is just completely stopping it!!!!!!onejuan1!

So you're saying people like Bill Gates, Ford and Jobs all were helped by government regulations or did they have to work around the government to start up and grow? Where has government helped a company start and grow? Solyndra right? I mean they did a bang up job there.

[John -- '02 HAWK]

It is that simple. Oh wait, government regulation prevents an easy startup doesn't it?

Who knew that starting an isp is simple? I just hired a bunch of daily laborers and were starting to build trenches to connect with the noc that I have being built. Then were just going to use some wire cutters to cut into the Dallas backbone.

Simple shit, its almost as easy as opening a ecig vapor shop

[mustang_revival]

As a result of outlawing Internet throttling and unjust blocking of websites, greater transparency is deemed mandatory by the FCC to ensure that these new regulations are being followed.

This bullshit is all about controlling alternative media and giving big bro the ability to control content and some other things.

Tinfoil is correct.

Check this thread I made a while back on this - http://www.dfwmustangs.net/forums/sh...ad.php?t=56550

- The red bold part: "The bill would authorize the Department of Homeland Security to serve as the primary federal civilian agency for coordinating information-sharing by creating a “portal” to interface with companies. That would enable the five-year-old DHS National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center to bolster its role as an anti-hacking coordinator between U.S. banks, utilities and other companies operating the networks that millions of Americans use daily."

[CexMashean]

^This can be interpreted in more than one way, depending on what you fear. I fear continued fucking from the isp/corps, you fear the da gubment.

See?

which part?

What do you mean? It's pretty cut and dry there, and the part I quoted.

[Craizie]

I'd love to have " high speed" without taking a fucking from Charter.

[CexMashean]

People are also just neglecting to notice that at&t can offer the same services as google, at the same price, and can't see that as at&t gouging the shit out of consumers.

[John -- '02 HAWK]

People are also just neglecting to notice that at&t can offer the same services as google, at the same price, and can't see that as at&t gouging the shit out of consumers.

AT&T's giggabit service automatically opts the customer into the “Internet Preferences” program, which tracks “the webpages you visit, the time you spend on each, the links or ads you see and follow, and the search terms you enter.” which costs an extra $29 a month if the customer want to opt out of it.

this is some of the bullshit that needs to be stopped

[Forever_frost]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/google-calls-fbi-s-plan-to-expand-hacking-power-a-monumental-constitutional-threat-20150218

Google Calls FBI's Plan to Expand Hacking Power a 'Monumental' Constitutional Threat
Any change in accessing computer data should go through Congress, the search giant said.
By Dustin Volz

Follow on Twitter

(Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

February 18, 2015 Google is warning that the government's quiet plan to expand the FBI's authority to remotely access computer files amounts to a "monumental" constitutional concern.

The search giant submitted public comments earlier this week opposing a Justice Department proposal that would grant judges more leeway in how they can approve search warrants for electronic data.

The push to change an arcane federal rule "raises a number of monumental and highly complex constitutional, legal, and geopolitical concerns that should be left to Congress to decide," wrote Richard Salgado, Google's director for law enforcement and information security.

The provision, known as Rule 41 of the federal rules of criminal procedure, generally permits judges to grant search warrants only within the bounds of their judicial district. Last year, the Justice Department petitioned a judicial advisory committee to amend the rule to allow judges to approve warrants outside their jurisdictions or in cases where authorities are unsure where a computer is located.

Google, in its comments, blasted the desired rule change as overly vague, saying the proposal could authorize remote searches on the data of millions of Americans simultaneously—particularly those who share a network or router—and cautioned it rested on shaky legal footing.

"The serious and complex constitutional concerns implicated by the proposed amendment are numerous and, because of the nature of Fourth Amendment case law development, are unlikely to be addressed by courts in a timely fashion," Salgado wrote.

The Justice Department has countered that the rule change amounts to a small-scale tweak of protocol, one that is necessary to align search-warrant procedures with the realities of modern technology. In its own comments, the Justice Department accused some opponents of the rule change of "misreading the text of the proposal or misunderstanding current law."

"The proposal would not authorize the government to undertake any search or seizure or use any remote search technique not already permitted under current law," Deputy Assistant Attorney General David Bitkower said in a memorandum written late last year and made public Tuesday. He added that investigators are "careful to avoid collateral damage when executing remote searches, just as [they are] careful to avoid injury to persons or damage to property in the far more common scenario of executing physical warrants."

Google is the only major tech firm to weigh in on the little-noticed proposed rule change, for which the public comment period ended on Tuesday. Privacy and civil-liberties groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, and some technology experts have also condemned the plan as a potential threat to the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable government search and seizures.

A change this broad should only be enacted by Congress, they argue.

"I empathize that it is very hard to get a legislative change," Amie Stepanovich, senior policy counsel with Access, a digital-freedom group, told the judicial panel during a meeting called to review the proposal in November. "However, when you have us resorting to Congress to get increased privacy protections, we would also like to see the government turn to Congress to get increased surveillance authority."

Google echoed that concern in its comments, saying the panel should "leave the expansion of the government's investigative and technological tools, if any are necessary or appropriate, to Congress."
Don't Miss Today's Top Stories

“

Love it - first thing I read in the morning."

Amy, VP of Communications
Sign up form for the newsletter

The rules committee is expected to render a decision on Rule 41 in the coming months, though the amendment faces several additional hurdles before it can be adopted. That process includes a review by the Supreme Court and, finally, Congress, which would have seven months to act on the proposal. Failure to enact legislation to "reject, modify, or defer the rules," however, would result in them automatically taking effect, according to policies that govern U.S. courts.

[mustang_revival]

^This can be interpreted in more than one way, depending on what you fear. I fear continued fucking from the isp/corps, you fear the da gubment.

See?

Think bigger and more long term.

City provided internet most likely would be handled like power companies in bigger citys.

One entity running the physical "plumbing" and termination points for a neighborhood, and connected into the larger internet on the back end with some high speed tunnels that are participating in BGP,etc.

You would have a list of companies to get internet from directly, and they would be setup to deal with Customer Service stuff - customer home installs, helping grandma get setup, making payments to, answering the phone when your internet is slow and you want to complain. - I don't see the City taking this part on.

Getting internet from the city, through city infrastructure, you can be charged anything. It will be slow. Then regulation would come. Then tax would come. Like Porn? TAX. Like youtube? TAX.

BTW - Fine print, the city monitors all of your internet traffic under the guise of Security because the electrical grid controls to the city happens to sit on the same network or China is trying to mix in some hacking inside a DDoS attack or any list of 1000 more legitimate "reasons".

Legislation could decide certain Web Sites are a threat to national Security and block them within a second or less across the whole "city-provided" internet. If we had a "disaster" or "threat" every web site could be changed to fema.org in a second.

It is too intrusive, it gives too much power, that is what I fear. You guys should too.

Presumably isp/corps would get their satellite internet game up to par or at 80% capacity of city internet to keep making money and fill the gap of being connected. They would also fill the gap where the city could not provide internet.

[CexMashean]

And that has to do with classifying the internet as a utility how?

I'm hearing "most likely", "suspected", "risk of", etc etc, from people using fear as a reasoning. I want to see bills, legislation, etc of what the government is trying to pass to affect the internet as a utility, not what you "believe" or "suspect" will happen.

Internet as a utility and net neutrality need to happen.