We're a bit late to the party, but for those who haven't seen on the Internet, today is a protest day for Net Neutrality, where sites across the internet are disrupting their normal operations to get the word out and get people to send a message. Ars Technica already has a fairly decent summary of who's doing what, and we stand with them and the rest of the Internet.
Due to real life issues, I was late on getting this together, but for the rest of the day, this article will remain on the top of the page and we will be blacking the theme of the site in protest [Technical issues among others precluded our doing so today --martyb].
If you're a US citizen, and want to get the word out, check Battle for the Net, and get the word out. In addition, there are long discussions going on reddit and other sites throughout the internet
Let's get the word out!
~ NCommander
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:19PM (6 children)
What we really need is a determination that advertising internet access is an affirmative statement that needs qualification to the extent that providers don't supply that. Right now we have a huge problem with people advertising ALL THE INTERNET when in actual fact they're doing their best to castrate the features.
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:56PM (5 children)
I love the fact that ISPs have managed to claim "Unlimited Access" means "you can use it at any time", vs "unlimited data". I personally agree with this, but let's fight one battle at a time.
Still always moving
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:03PM
No, the point goes deeper than that.
"Internet Access" means that you get access to the whole, unmoderated, unfiltered thing.
No caps nor exploitative agreements, sure.
But also:
* No preferential boosts for given providers or vendors
* No interference with content
* Full disclosure of all rules, editing policies and so on ahead of time
* No unilateral changes in terms without a new contract
Basically, by adequately defining internet access, we can render the FCC's definition irrelevant to the question of informing people on what they're paying for, which is three quarters of the battle.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday July 13 2017, @12:16AM (3 children)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqxwtEdxOCw [youtube.com]
Today, we have relatively few gatekeepers. Google is one of them. The ISP's (among others) hope to become gatekeepers in their own right. My own ISP serves only a few tens of thousands. Comcast, on the other hand, serves a significan portion of the US population. If Comcast can become that population's gatekeeper, Comcast might sway the next election - among other things.
Alright, so the Matrix is fiction. But, the concept stands. Gatekeepers are powerful entities. An entirely new form of cyber warfare will develop. People like many of us on Soylent will have to learn how to track down information that our ISP's don't want us to have. At best, data that the ISP's will be served up slowly, and data that we don't want or need will be served up quickly. At worst, the data that the ISP does NOT want us to have will just disappear down the rabbit hole.
The question is, who has the right to stand as gatekeepers?
“Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.”
— Pravin Lal from the game Alpha Centauri by Sid Meier.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 13 2017, @12:22AM (2 children)
Disrupt Comcast on all levels?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday July 13 2017, @12:37AM (1 child)
Yeah - except - disrupt them badly enough, and you've effectively DDOS'd millions of people.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 13 2017, @01:01AM
Keeping things like they are will have people experience DDoS by corporate policy down the line. Better to make it clear right now that such corporate behavior will be shunned by most peers and be unworkable financially in the end. It might be the time to make passive financial support of assholes a painful experience.
Maybe internet could benefit from the Athenian Greek democracy procedure in which any citizen could be expelled from the city-state for ten years if they were deemed to be a threat to the state or potential tyrant. So the internet community could exert a Usenet death penalty (UDP) to the entity that it deemed to be the most damaging to a functioning internet in the last year. This could range from legal procedures, public relations, technical disconnect and refusal, campaigns to erode customer base etc all at the same time to make sure it pays to not be the entity deemed the worst and largest asshole. Other assholes entities could watch and know that they might be next should they continue to screw people.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:20PM (15 children)
Gimme Free Shit Now
We Deserve Free Shit
Free Shit For Free Gimme Gimme
Gimme Free Shit For Free
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:22PM
Wow! AJit Pai, posting as AC right here on SolylentNews! We've made it, babies!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:30PM (5 children)
yeah, i'm conflicted. i want the gov to die or at least nearly starve to death but i also don't want corps making it impossible for small operators to stay afloat. turn the internet into tv...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:37PM (4 children)
Your favorite YouTube celebrities have already turned the internet into TV. The time has arrived for you to declare, "I don't have the internet." Go back to ham radio.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:13PM (3 children)
Disagree. If someone wants to start a new "show" then they just turn on their camera and upload the result. That was never possible with tv.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @11:51PM (1 child)
Yes it was possible with TV but the potential audience was smaller. Heard of public-access television? Ironically public-access was the model YouTube used in the early days when it was supposed to be a video blogging platform for individuals, literally a You-Tube. Of course YouTube had to go full commercial when it became obvious people were using YouTube as a pirate platform. YouTube had to become exactly like commericial TV in order to survive lawsuits from copyright holders.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 13 2017, @12:30AM
The YouTube model is wrong. There needs to be a video platform that has no legal point of registration nor any servers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:28PM
If only the world was that simple:
If somebody dislikes what you do they file a bogus DMCA and poof there goes your "show". Also, google does the Content ID bullshit to appease MAFIAA and automagically selects your "show" for removal or splices ads into it, the proceeds of which go to somebody else...
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:26PM
$80/month > Free
(Score: 3, Insightful) by turgid on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:37PM (2 children)
Some of us unpatriotic pinko-commie socialist liberal types create a little bit of content for free to share with our fellow human being that the world might be a better place.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @10:26PM (1 child)
"Socialist" and "Liberal" are on opposite sides of the dividing line.
A Liberal thinks Capitalism is acceptable and simply wants to redistribute income, via the government, from The Capitalist Class to The Working Class.
A Socialist is an Anti-Capitalist.
He knows that Capitalism is the root problem and wants to eliminate The Capitalist Class, leaving -only- The Working Class.
A Socialist knows (that because The Idle Rich are not able to siphon off profits from within his company) his worker-owned company is able out-compete an operation which has the non-productive Capitalist millstone around its neck.
N.B. Mondragon has been eating the lunch of Capitalist operations since 1956.
Where you are currently saying "Liberal", you need to use the broader term "Progressive".
...or stop calling yourself Socialist.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @04:46AM
Please go at least study political science, or political economics, before confusing people with redefinitions.
"Liberal" means inclined to afford others liberties. It contrasts with "authoritarian", and has nothing whatsoever to do with attitudes to capital as such.
"Socialist" isn't strictly speaking anti-capitalist as such, although that's the closest to a reliable form that it has taken. It does contrast with strong forms of private ownership, so ... close enough for jazz, I guess. By solving resource access problems through committee or social planning (whether centralised or not) as opposed to property, it's effectively an authoritarian system but it's far from the only possible authoritarian system.
"Progressive" actually is orthogonal to "Liberal". Progressives are based around the idea of bringing the lessons of science and technology, of thought and the enlightenment to social organisation. This has had big successes, so it's kind of trendy. Everything from planned sewage and clean water, through universal franchise. Sometimes progressives and liberals are on the same side (the civil rights movement, for instance) while sometimes they are at odds with each other (prohibition was a big progressive move, but very illiberal). "Progressive" contrasts with "reactionary".
As for Mondragon "eating the lunch" of "capitalist operations" I wouldn't go quite so far. It's been doing OK, but it's not exactly leading the pack of european business groups - especially allowing for how diversified it is. As for how it got where it is, it's interesting that its non-owner workforce is growing substantially. Their regionalism is frankly hurting them in terms of rates of expansion. They still have to count their profits in terms of local currency.
But if you think they're all that and a bag of chips, you should start up something equivalent in the US. Eat Microsoft's and Walmart's lunch for a while. Lots of people would surely cheer you on.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @11:14PM
Socialist? Sounds more like a conservative or CEO to me. Those fuckers NEVER want to pay for what they use.
"That road was already there. I'm not paying to maintain it so I can drive on it and use it to deliver my goods. Fuck you. Someone else can pay for it."
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday July 13 2017, @12:45AM (1 child)
As already noted, >$80/month isn't "free". I pay for my internet access. That is, I actually pay hard earned cash for my access.
I did the rough math recently on providing genuine broadband (fiber) access to rural America. I was very much surprised to learn that in much of America, the fiber can pay for itself in less than three months. So, where are all the billions of dollars going that we continue to pay the ISP's? What's that you say? It's all profit, and it's going into board members, CEO's and investors pockets?
It's about time that we did the math again, and understand that we are merely cash cows. And, this whole issue is just a matter of our owners trying to figure out how to get 5 gallons of milk per cow, instead of only 3 gallons.
Now, moo, you bovine fucker!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @03:14AM
Maybe time to try different moo tactics. https://ep01.epimg.net/elpais/imagenes/2017/07/11/opinion/1499775253_877792_1499785678_noticia_normal_recorte1.jpg [epimg.net]
(Caption doesn't apply, just the picture)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @03:22PM
Based on this post alone if I had to wager I'm sure you couldn't survive without government subsidies on fuel, corn, and very likely the welfare check you collect.
I have a strong feeling you're a paid shill and there is almost no way you're not on welfare if you're even in the USA. Among professionals... even at our drunken most wasted I don't ever encounter fellows who act like you.
I do however encounter such sentiments from welfare leech grey collar workers.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:26PM (6 children)
Unlimited data means unlimited torrents! Fuck you MAFIAAFCC fuckers! I paid for my last mile when I paid sales tax on weed! Give me the unlimited data I fucking deserve!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:45PM (5 children)
This isn't about unlimited usage. It's about ISPs picking winners and losers on the Internet. And a big ISP, AT&T, is buying CNN. So fake news could win.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:48PM
Slashdot : winner
SoylentNews : loser
HAHAHA fuck you losrs
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:32PM
Like Comcast merged with NBC.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @10:35PM
Yeah. We kicked this around a few days ago.
Over 50,000 Entities Have Signed on to the July 12 2017 Net Neutrality Day of Action [soylentnews.org]
He's the infographic again:
The Internet Without Net Neutrality [imgur.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 13 2017, @12:27AM (1 child)
So big ISP is the problem?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @01:37AM
Yes, although it isn't only about ISPs. In America, people usually have just a few ISPs they can choose from. It's an oligopoly. With the Comcast-NBC and proposed AT&T-Time Warner combinations your cable company may be your ISP, and it also owns a TV production company. If net neutrality isn't enforced, the ISP will obviously be tempted to penalize customers who use third-party Internet video services. There's a conflict of interest.
"In 1983, 90% of US media was controlled by 50 companies; as of 2011, 90% was controlled by just 6 companies," says the Wikipedia article on media consolidation. [wikipedia.org] The Telecommunications Act of 1996 [wikipedia.org] greatly accelerated the concentration of ownership, especially of radio stations. With fewer owners, there's less diversity of ideas. It becomes harder for people to inform themselves. It's anti-democratic.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:29PM (23 children)
(if the location of the typo is not obvious, let me try an emphasis: "In subtraction, our are short discussions stopping off.")
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:40PM (19 children)
I wrote this very quickly because none of the editors were online to check it.
I'm feeling very ill in real life, and actually didn't even realize NN day was going on until I woke up about two hours ago. I'm feeling crummy enough that I don't trust myself to go into the site settings and lock the theme to black.
Still always moving
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:44PM (14 children)
i hope you die
(Score: 3, Touché) by chromas on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:47PM (4 children)
You misspelled "dye", but he said he's too sick to change the color.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:49PM (1 child)
I hope you dyke when she's on the rag.
(Score: 2) by chromas on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:53PM
Me too, sir. Me too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @10:46PM (1 child)
It seems pretty obvious that NCommander is not feeling very smurfy.
Can't be expecting him to get out the bluing and dunk himself.
Per the nasty AC: I don't think NCommander is up to making any stamping tools either.
What could the AC be saying?
...and for what possible reason?
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday July 13 2017, @06:37PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Funny) by NCommander on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:58PM (8 children)
I do believe that is the first death threat I've gotten since we started this site, granted a weak one. Only took three years; took me long enough to do something right.
Still always moving
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:10PM (6 children)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:20PM (5 children)
I was mostly making a (weak) joke about the fact that you've stood up for something when you're threatened about it.
I do think I'm going to go AFK for awhile though, and see if I can sleep this off.
Still always moving
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:31PM (4 children)
Can we start spam-modding shit that's very clearly not only trollish but also content-free?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Wednesday July 12 2017, @11:59PM (3 children)
As far as I know, there are moderating "guidelines" but no rules as such. Anyone can mod anything anyway they choose.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @01:38AM (2 children)
"Without the mod-ban hammer coming down" may have been implied.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday July 13 2017, @03:30AM (1 child)
It was indeed. Personally I think any low-content troll deserves a Spam mod, but I'm also not an admin.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by fleg on Thursday July 13 2017, @06:09AM
there was some discussion on this a while ago, here [soylentnews.org] and here [soylentnews.org] but basically the modfaq [soylentnews.org] gives some examples of what can be modded spam...
>Posts so offtopic and lacking value to even be a troll that they can't be called anything else.
so imo i'd say, yeah it can marked as spam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:25PM
Get well soon. Or else...
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:05PM
Usually, a "typo ahoy" only needs the correction, no excuses are necessary.
Best of health, mate, get well quick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:21PM
You wrote "we stand with them." The other editors agree, right?
(Score: 2) by nobu_the_bard on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:44PM
Hope you feel better soon!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @12:07AM
I love this site, (although I don't have a user account), and appreciate yours (and everyone else's) contributions that make it go. I hope you have a quick recovery and feel better soon! :)
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:10PM
Do you mean to say, that we're theirs smoke they're fired?
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:59PM (1 child)
wtf is that supposed to mean
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @10:37PM
Contrast with the original, word for word.
Next time have you're coffee before using your mouth for sexual matters.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:35PM (20 children)
Sign me up for the side with the FCC Chair. If there was doubt, a look at the supporters of Network "Neutrality" ends it. They have been on the wrong side of pretty much every question, doubt this is the exception.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:40PM
We're just trying to have a good time, narc.
(Score: 2) by chromas on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:44PM (10 children)
Aren't the supporters pretty much everybody but Comcast and a few other double-dippers?
But anyway, people are acting like it's the internet as we know it, but the title 2 reclassification is newer than SN. Was the internet that bad before title 2?
(Score: 5, Informative) by NCommander on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:46PM (4 children)
The FCC had de-facto created NN before Title II classification under an act I can't be bothered to look up in 2011-ish. Verizon sued that it was an overstrech of the FCC's power to do that. They won, but the court said the FCC could reclassify them as Title II and re-instate Net Neutrality. So they did.
Still always moving
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:00PM (3 children)
The FCC had *actual* Title II for ISPs until 2002. When that was changed, things started going south pretty fast.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:03PM (2 children)
Did they?
I normally would look up the answer myself; but as I said elsewhere, I feel very sick, and I'm only here because I can't sleep. I thought pre-2002 that they were basically in a legal gray area because there was a lot of belief on /. that ISPs were essentially common carriers but there was no legal grounds to specifically state that.
Still always moving
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:24PM
See my response to your other request. And I hope you get some rest and feel better soon!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @10:57PM
I've heard that there's a liquid that is not only known to kill pathogens, it also is consumable by humans and has a tranquilizing effect.
Hope you feel better soon.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:58PM (4 children)
Actually, ISPs were covered under Title II until 2002. And since they were reclassified under Title I and despite having tens of billions of dollars thrown at them, ISPs have very significantly *slowed* new infrastructure roll out since 2002.
Why is it that no one seems to have a clue as to what happened more than two years ago? Sigh.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:13PM (3 children)
Could have sworn I replied to this, but can you cite the Title II to TItle I change in 2002?
I know ISPs were under a variant of Title II up until roughly that point, but I don't think they were actually designated it. I'd like to have the link for quick reference.
Still always moving
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:22PM (2 children)
It was actually done in two parts, first cable Internet, then DSL.
Cable Broadband (2002):
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-77A1.pdf [fcc.gov]
DSL Broadband (2005):
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-151A1.pdf [fcc.gov]
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday July 13 2017, @06:48PM (1 child)
Imagine if libel wasn't libel if it was written using a quill and squid's ink on vellum.
Imagine if child pornography wasn't child pornography if it was done using a mosaic of Skittles.
Imagine if pickpocketing wasn't pickpocketing if it was done using magnets on strings on fishing-rods (sorry, too much Beano as a kid).
Imagine if murder wasn't murder if it was performed with a plastic knife.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday July 13 2017, @08:01PM
The issues surrounding this are a little more complex than that. There were historical reasons for the more stringent regulation of "telephone lines" (DSL). Whereas that wasn't the case for "Cable TV"
Because of the interstate nature and monopoly status of the old AT&T, the FCC had much more involvement in the use of "telephone lines" as compared with Cable TV lines, as those were generally governed by local government franchise grants.
History and context matter. What's more, we're talking about lawyers and lobbyists drawing up the regulations, not engineers. Without historical context, it may seem ridiculous to you in hindsight, but looked at in the context of prior regulation, historical events and the boot licking of the Bush II Administration to all and sundry corporations, it makes more sense.
That there was only a three year lag before the rules were normalized between DSL and cable Internet shows that this was recognized (in governance terms) pretty quickly.
The fact that the regulations (reclassifying to Title I) were anti-competitive and encouraged abuse of customers is a different issue.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2, Informative) by jmorris on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:51PM (1 child)
Hmm.... somebody else said that, sure I have seen it somewhere. But I guess something that awesome and true needs to be reposted to the ends of the Earth.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:29PM
Don't worry. The rest of us will protect sites like Soylent for you.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:58PM (3 children)
Don't try to post anonymously jmorris you said exactly the same thing in the last NN thread [soylentnews.org] with your name on it. Troll.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:39PM (2 children)
He didn't repost it anonymously. I did, because I found it amusing, especially in the context of the SoylentNews editors joining the protest. Sorry, I didn't mean to troll or make jmorris look sneaky.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:15PM
Next time cite your references, and maybe use /sarcasm tags. :D
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @10:02PM
You are a high quality person and I applaud your transparency.
(Score: 2, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:35PM (1 child)
Hey jmo, we can see through your "submit anonymously" checkbox.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @07:05AM
[Begin message so cleverly encrypted that no Soylentil will see it!] Trans-National Globalized Anthroponic Social Justice Warrior Strike Force, Special jmorris Unit, 2nd Left-tenet reporting: Major setback. jmorris seems to have found the "submit anonymously" button. This could complicate surveillance immensely. The other possibility is that others are posting jmorris material, cut and pasted, under an anonymous facade. But the second scenario is unlikely, since no one could be that insane. So the two possibilities are, jmorris as AC, or AC going for satirical effect. Like if I were to say, " I cannot even visit London". - satirical quotation of a jmorris. Further developments will be conveyed as they develop, and we sincerely hope that the jmorris can be saved. [End message so cleverly encrypted that no Soylentil will see it!]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:55PM (7 children)
Just net neutrality.
Although attempting to preserve net neutrality would be action in a good direction. Why should ISPs get to "double dip" and charge their customers for access to their pipes and then charge those who are supplying data across those pipes. That's charging twice for the same data.
Since most of the big ISPs are also content providers, ending net neutrality would give them the opportunity to raise barriers to entry for competitive content providers. I would imagine that should piss off the free marketeers, no?
But net neutrality is just the tip of the iceberg. Corruption of and collusion with elected "representatives" at the state and local levels have entrenched these big ISPs and created huge barriers to entry for other ISPs.
Asymmetric download/upload speeds and abusive terms of service by those same ISPs also raise barriers to entry for individuals and small businesses to publish their content and compete with others. It also props up the criminal "social media" industry by keeping people from sharing directly with each other (e.g., with something like diaspora [diasporafoundation.org]) and maintaining the spying and abusive advertising of that industry.
There is much work to be done and every day we lose more freedom and competition on the 'net. The Internet has always had the promise of extreme decentralization and can unleash the innovation and creativity of a world full of people. But the moneyed interests are turning it into a cash cow, while limiting our ability to use it as a platform for liberty and distributed communications.
Snide comments and snarky remarks may make you chuckle and think you're so above it all. I, for one, prefer freedom and choice to smart-ass remarks (and I do love me some smart ass remarks!).
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 4, Insightful) by kaszz on Thursday July 13 2017, @12:38AM (6 children)
Good post! In summary:
* ISPs get to charge content providers and customers for the same data.
* Opportunity to raise barriers to entry for future competitors.
* Corruption of and collusion with elected "representatives".
* Asymmetric download/upload speed.
* Abusive terms of service (no ssh to home?).
Self serving assholes will always turn everything into a cash cow. Internet will not be an exception unless its users fully deter such actors.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @01:28AM (1 child)
They already where defeated once the last time NN won. This time though they've gone the let's-pay-off- the-politicians-to-get-our-way route and are, at least at present, apparently winning this fight this time around. We shall see if this recent attempt to recreate the 'STOP SOPA' size of response that will be needed to sway this administration's cadre of cowardly clowns.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 13 2017, @04:17AM
Sysadmins on strike? :p
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday July 13 2017, @04:14AM (3 children)
Thanks. Not sure why you felt the need to summarize, but you go!
It's more than just blocking stuff like ssh. The asymmetric (and vastly lower) upload speeds and the abusive terms of service restrict you from hosting your own content and, as such, it forces people to use things like facebook and other centralized services. Even if you avoid those traps, you're forced to use hosting providers to get decent throughput for services you wish to host.
This situation works to destroy the best things about what should be a decentralized network with the opportunities for innovation, liberty and the free exchange of ideas. It's disgusting.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 13 2017, @04:23AM (2 children)
Create great software that appeals to the part of the population sheep. Which will complain and nag the hell out of ISP until they bend to their will. Seems the evils tries to control the internet using laws and money. While netizen exercise control by disobedience and technology. And if enforcement and what can be bought are rendered hollow then you got one up on them.
The thing about centralized hosting is a good point. Though upload speeds are quite good these times compared to the past. And what the ISP can't see they can't complain about ;->
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:06AM (1 child)
How exactly do you propose to bypass ISP port filtering/blocking? Most residential ISPs (Verizon/Comcast/Charter/etc.) block incoming connections to their customers.
Apparently, you don't know how the IPv4 [ietf.org] and 6 [ietf.org] protocols as well as the TCP [ietf.org] and UDP [ietf.org] protocols work.
While you can encrypt data, unless you set up (in advance and distribute clients/connection info) VPN tunnels (and even then, incoming connections would likely be blocked anyway), the ISP will always know to which IP address/port combination to which a packet is addressed.
Unless you can get past that in a way that's easy to configure and deploy, you're not making much sense. If you can and can demonstrate it to me, I'll start a company with you and we'll make a mint. Please advise.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 13 2017, @07:15AM
You can create a protocol that can dynamically make use of different ports. If all incoming connections are blocked (ugly!) then one could send non-standard packets to confuse the firewall what is being sent. There's supposedly a technique for NAT bypass but I have not dug into the details. And then there's the VPN thing. And I do know how the protocol works. But the usual thing is that port 137 etc is blocked so the poor schmucks that can't and won't secure their Microsoft thing won't be hurt. And such blocks are usually easy to bypass.
Still another approach is streams over ICMP etc. Or even the internal google approach where every packet is encrypted such that even if someone succeeds with a physical connection they can't communicate with anything.
I think the killer advance is something that eliminates the ISPs out of the communication loop. And part of the answer there is likely radio.
(Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:57PM (9 children)
AT&T is joining a pro net neutrality rally even as it fights to kill current net neutrality rules [recode.net]
AT&T is joining online net neutrality protest. Say what? [cnet.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:01PM (6 children)
Ugh, I feel dirty for writing this, I actually think I get their point. They were OK with the neutrality rules in place before Verizon shat the bed, and forced the FCC to reclassify ISPs under Tier II. What they want is to keep the neutrality rules, but loose the Tier II designation because Tier II introduces things like rate limiting that the FCC could use at a later date.
At the very least, I can at least say that it's less shitty than Comcast.
Still always moving
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:09PM (5 children)
I understand your feelings. However, I will never stand with AT&T. Ever.
They are scum, pure and simple. And it's nothing new. They were scum before the break up [wikipedia.org], and they have continued to be so every since.
After they slammed [wikipedia.org] me back in 1999 or 2000, I swore I'd never give them a dime.
They need to be nuked from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:11PM (4 children)
Nitpicking: Ma Bell itself is dead. What is AT&T now is because Southwestern Bell Corporation (SBC) which was one of the baby bells, bought up most of the other baby bells, the name AT&T. They're not the same company.
And yes, for the most part, I agree with you. I'm just old enough to remember the era when New York still had its baby bells (NYNEX and Bell Atlantic), and those merged to become Verizon.
Still always moving
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:30PM
Fair enough. At the same time, they're clearly cut from the same cloth.
And yes, NYNEX was terrible! I didn't really interact with Bell Atlantic (although, I understand they were somewhat better than NYNEX).
Verizon picked up the ball from NYNEX and has elevated incompetence to high art.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:51PM (2 children)
You forgot GTE [teletruth.org].
(Score: 3, Informative) by NCommander on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:42PM (1 child)
I was speaking from personal experience. I don't remember GTE as a kid, but I primarily grew up in NYC and Westchester where it was NYNEX and BellAtlantic primarily. GTE based on Google had more of the rest of the state.
GTE itself wasn't a baby bell, it was one of the few independent companies in that era that could go head to head with the Bell System in its markets.
Still always moving
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @02:46AM
Right, GTE wasn't a Baby Bell. When Bell Atlantic gobbled up GTE, the two became Verizon. Just picking a nit. :)
(Score: 2) by chromas on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:03PM
Meme [imgur.com].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:53PM
Where are all the tweets? Twitter says "No results for #iStandWithAT&T".
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Lagg on Wednesday July 12 2017, @11:10PM (3 children)
I used to be optimistic about this but in the past year I got the metered shit, intrusive HTML injected into my pages regularly without VPN use (which should not be a VPN usecase), etc. I am highly concerned at these pieces of garbage slowly eating away at the internet's integrity in a frog-in-boiling-water type of way. I wonder just what exactly there is going to be to preserve at a certain point. Because I don't think they're going to stop. Isn't this like version 3 of kill-net-neutrality in the last 5 years or thereabouts?
In any case, it's not getting easier to be active about it. I no longer value phoning my rep because if there was a time they're definitely not going to listen it's now. Online petitions have been murdered by abuse several times over, donation places scam you or spam you (both happened to me with greenpeace and planned parenthood with their outsourced street recruiters, one of many lessons learned in supposedly progressive Denver). I'm pretty sure whatever street march is going to happen is several plane flights away from me.
What do?
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday July 13 2017, @12:18AM
Only sour things, mate. The kind of kimchi, you know?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by kaszz on Thursday July 13 2017, @12:46AM
HTTPS should eat away intrusive HTML injections. And packet radio etc may route around moronic ISPs. The time has come to make ISPs redundant. Maybe hackers need to set the records straight with some miscreants.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday July 13 2017, @03:29AM
What do?
nothing.
(can we have your liver, then?)
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 1) by idetuxs on Thursday July 13 2017, @12:28AM (2 children)
I can't see any difference in the theme. Maybe I'm missing something
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @01:43AM
Perhaps because, going by GMT, we're into the next day. As I write, it's around 01:42 GMT on July 13th. Your comment shows as being posted at 0:28.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @03:30AM
NCommander wrote "I'm feeling crummy enough that I don't trust myself to go into the site settings and lock the theme to black." The story has been changed to say the theme wasn't changed.