Net neutrality challange

I have not seen a post on this for a while, but our access is always under attack. I think this article is well written.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/net-neutrality-definition-ruling,news-17901.html

No Verizon for me!

 

Verizon is just pissy because they like to break agreements they make with the FCC (which gets them fined) and is suing because its all they can do.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ver...7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

 

I'm sincerely hoping the courts, FCC and Congress won't back down from Net Neutrality.

Services like Netflix and Hulu are wrecking havoc on cable TV companies. Companies including Comcast, Time-Warner and AT&T U-Verse are seeing a steady stream of customers ditch their TV offerings and opt for Internet service only.

By eliminating Net Neutrality, service providers are simply trying to regain their monopoly on video offerings - something the Justice Department's anti-trust unit should pay close attention to.

The only way ISPs will be able to legally screw customers will be to raise their Internet rates and/or drastically drop the included monthly download allowances from the current average of 250GB and start charging for extra GBs (the same way AT&T and Verizon 4G data plans do).

 

Rezzing an old topic rather than starting a new one.
http://***********.com/tech-policy/...ally-pull-the-trigger-sue-an-isp-over-piracy/ ars tech nica
"Music publishers finally pull the trigger, sue an ISP over piracy"
VERY scary, one opinion is that the ISP's really want this lawsuit to win. If they are responsible for the content they carry the ISP's have complete control over internet traffic. Microsoft and hardware manufacturers like this due to the increase in equipment to inspect every packet. NSA likes this because encrypted traffic will be illegal, the ISP has to inspect every packet and of course hand over any information requested by the NSA.
The only losers are the subscribers that have to pay more so the ISP's can spy on them better.
The better path is 100% net neutrality, the ISP's should not check any packets and if traffic forming is necessary they should slow all traffic equally.
Online banking and purchases require security, we need to know no one can legally inspect our online communications.

 

I don't think they will win anyway. They hinge their requests upon IPs with an ISP that has dynamic IPs. It is a flawed argument, and honestly I don't think ISPs want them to win.

ISPs already have control of punishing you for doing illegal things on their network. The music industry winning this would means they would have to invest thousands if not millions into their own infrastructure for the sole purpose of monitoring. It is not in the ISP's best interest to punish its users, because then it loses them.

I work for an ISP (as an enterprise developer) and nobody wants here wants to see this go through.

 

The amount of money backhanders on this issue must be ridiculous, there's so much up for grabs.

ISP should provide Internet service hardware which should run at the speed paid for, any other control should be illegal, including snooping on our traffic or altering our internet experience.

 

Yes, but remember, it is not the customer's network.

 

quote - Online banking and purchases require security, we need to know no one can legally inspect our online communications.

Don't know about legal or not but the article says the R**corp firm had evidence on a few addy's even the number of violation over a certain period of time , one for about 30000 times over 11 months. So there is ability for corporations to sniff all they want. Luckily maybe , also stated is that R**corp is 6Millon in the hole since 2011 so maybe it's too expensive for most except the gov who has too much money all the time anyhow.
I don't think this is about internet speed or delivery in this article but abuse of legal use of multiple copies of multiple works. They're going after the wrong party. If someone runs over somebody else on a sidewalk with their car it's not Chevy's fault. And it's not the public works department's fault for building sidewalks accessible to vechiles. It's the driver who's guilty. But R**corp had info on 200,000 consumers! How many more did THEY violate to get their bag of goods?

 

Packet monitoring is very easy when someone sets up a torrent for that very purpose. That's how they know. They aren't hacking into people's networks.

 

So they're not hacking my 'home network'? But as sonn as I leave the house they may be?

 

The fact that this is a "grey area" is just wrong.
Setting up a fake torrent for a movie must avoid entrapment.
http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/entrapment-how-far-is-too-far-for-the-police.html
I am in favor of the torrent set up and convictions, but against the ISP having any knowledge of what I do. I want my ISP to be a utility. No added content, no supervision, just deliver advertised speeds and get the hell out of the way.

 

Entrapment is only illegal when law enforcement does it.

 

Really? I hate all types of entrapment, there's enough temptation in the world, the more temptation you add the more good people will become criminals.

If this was widely practiced 90% of the people I know would be in jail or fined to death, including me.

 

Rikky, you do have a valid point. If the person has to go out of their way to make first contact I don't mind entrapment. But there is a possibility of abuse.

 

Pedophiles, terrorists should be set up, i.e a fake crime set up to prove intent, people who wish to physically harm another person such as setting up a fake hitman to stop a pre meditated murder should be used also.

Any crime that involve stealing, saving or making money shouldn't be set up. Anyone on any given day depending on their financial circumstances or how tempting the fake crime is could be a thief, being broke is tough.

All very IMHO.

 

There is still hope for broadband in America!
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/google-fiber-latest-fcc-filing-comcast-nightmare-come-161549827.html
My son's new place, 15 Mi south of Silicon Valley proper in Morgan Hill can only get 4MB. It's a fiber connection but the ISP will not invest in faster backbone until they are sure Comcast cannot sue them out of business. Evidently Comcast can sue to get them off the utility poles as the area is allocated to Comcast even though they don't serve it. His ISP is "allowed to compete" without using utility poles, what is up with that?