Obama's Net Neutrality Statement: What it Really Means

[TheIrishman]

Obama's Net Neutrality Statement: What it Really Means

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/obama-net-neutrality-statement-meaning,news-19895.html

<< After years of general statements encouraging net neutrality - the idea that Internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all Internet traffic equally - President Barack Obama today (Nov. 10) came out definitively in favor of the cause, in both written and video statements. Is this a toothless pronunciation by a second-term president whose party just lost control of the Senate? Or does he have solid legal rationale and authority to back up what he said? It may be a little of both. >>

[1714984758]

1714984758

[1714984758]

1714984758

[1714984758]

1714984758

[TheIrishman]

Obama calls on FCC to make "strongest possible rules" to protect net neutrality

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/10/obama-strongest-rules-protect-net-neutrality

<< President says "open internet is essential to way of life" and comes out against so-called "fast lanes" for higher-paying web users. >>

Cable companies "stunned" by Obama's "extreme" net neutrality proposals

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/10/cable-companies-obama-net-neutrality-proposals-fcc-fight

<< Major telecoms, lobbyist groups and politicians sharply respond to president's call for greater regulation of internet as utility. >>

[freedomno1]

Senses a trap from Obama

If it's anything like Harpers China position the second they get full control they will do a 360 on the issue although its possible that Obama does have good intentions and would do it, we can't guarantee his successor would share the same mindset.

The prime minister acknowledged the Canada-China relationship has been tense at times. In 2006, Harper vowed not to sell out to what he called the "almighty dollar" in China.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-raises-human-rights-concerns-with-chinese-president-xi-jinping-1.2829146

“Once ratified, the Canada-China Investment Agreement will bind Canada, including future governments, for a minimum of 31 years. Unlike NAFTA, with an exit clause of 6 months’ notice, this agreement, also called a FIPA (Foreign Investor Protection Agreement) cannot be exited for the first 15 years. After 15 years, either country can exit on one year’s notice, but any existing investments are further protected for another 15 years. Despite some claims by other politicians that the treaty could be voided by a future government, that is not the case.”

“The only way to exit the treaty would be through negotiations with China in which the government in Beijing agrees. Unilateral withdrawal would trigger a multi-billion dollar claim by the Peoples Republic of China against Canada, with damages open to collection in one hundred countries around the world.

http://elizabethmaymp.ca/news/publications/press-releases/2014/09/12/harper-sell-out-to-china-will-be-locked-in-elizabeth-may/

___
That said the threat of a specter for privacy and protection of the internet is a weapon that can be used against Obama if he wins
Since he will be held accountable by the people on these type of issues and to keep the Republicans in check currently
So its good news in my opinion that he made it a policy mandate.

On the other hand Irish

At least it's not a Ted Cruz XDDDD

(Kind of Afraid that if one party in the USA has full control of all the houses net neutrality is doomed)
When its in conflict they can't push a position through.
http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/10/hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah-ted-cruz-you-silly-senator/
___

https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz

A quote from Senator Ted Cruz

"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.

[2dogs]

"We're from the government and we're here to help."

[Fabrizio89]

It means that he is just trying to get public on his side, as he has always done in the past by saying one thing and doing the exact opposite. Americans lost many privileges in this decade and never objected, I hope they will stand up at least for the Internet.

[Chef Ramsay]

It means that he is just trying to get public on his side, as he has always done in the past by saying one thing and doing the exact opposite. Americans lost many privileges in this decade and never objected, I hope they will stand up at least for the Internet.

It seems like every other time they've tried to put a leash on the internet the people have always stood up to a certain extent and stopped them in their tracks. However, that was going through Congress but considering this guy thinks he's a king and can do whatever he wants, there's really no telling how much he'll get his way considering he's probably offended by how bad some Americans think of him and his ideology via the latest ballot box contests.

[Spendulus]

It means that he is just trying to get public on his side, as he has always done in the past by saying one thing and doing the exact opposite. Americans lost many privileges in this decade and never objected, I hope they will stand up at least for the Internet.

It seems like every other time they've tried to put a leash on the internet the people have always stood up to a certain extent and stopped them in their tracks. However, that was going through Congress but considering this guy thinks he's a king and can do whatever he wants, there's really no telling how much he'll get his way considering he's probably offended by how bad some Americans think of him and his ideology via the latest ballot box contests.

We can trust him with our Internet when he trusts us with our Guns, lol...

[RodeoX]

If he fails on this the internet as you know it is dead. This is the freedom fight of our lives and hardly anyone understands why.

[sidhujag]

LOL its simple ppl will just setup servers outside of US... US will slowly decapitate itself.. real growth is linked to the internet.. next tech wave is probably blockchain related.

[Spendulus]

If he fails on this the internet as you know it is dead. This is the freedom fight of our lives and hardly anyone understands why.

Showing today...

Obamacare for the Internet!

And next showing...

Obamacare for Bitcoin!

[stevegreer]

If he fails on this the internet as you know it is dead. This is the freedom fight of our lives and hardly anyone understands why.

Wait, so are you saying that if he does not get his way that the internet as we know it will die and our freedoms will be gone? You think that having the government regulate (control) the internet is going to save us? Kinda like how the Chinese, Iranian and North Korean governments are ensuring a protected internet for its citizens by controlling their access? All this will do is open the door for the government to be able to collect private data on citizens without having to get a search warrant first. Of course Obama is talking this up like he is doing us all a favor and that it's a good thing. And all the blind sheep are eating this deception up like Halloween candy.
Obama: "All of your internets are belong to us!"

[username18333]

If he fails on this the internet as you know it is dead. This is the freedom fight of our lives and hardly anyone understands why.

Wait, so are you saying that if he does not get his way that the internet as we know it will die and our freedoms will be gone? You think that having the government regulate (control) the internet is going to save us? Kinda like how the Chinese, Iranian and North Korean governments are ensuring a protected internet for its citizens by controlling their access? All this will do is open the door for the government to be able to collect private data on citizens without having to get a search warrant first. Of course Obama is talking this up like he is doing us all a favor and that it's a good thing. And all the blind sheep are eating this deception up like Halloween candy.
Obama: "All of your internets are belong to us!"

“Controlling their access” is contrary to “net neutrality” (i.e., refraining from imposing content‐specific constraints upon internet navigation).

[username18333]

"We're from the government and we're here to help."

“We’re from the [plutocracy/oligarchy/aristocracy], and we’re here to help.”

[RodeoX]

If he fails on this the internet as you know it is dead. This is the freedom fight of our lives and hardly anyone understands why.

Wait, so are you saying that if he does not get his way that the internet as we know it will die and our freedoms will be gone? You think that having the government regulate (control) the internet is going to save us? Kinda like how the Chinese, Iranian and North Korean governments are ensuring a protected internet for its citizens by controlling their access? All this will do is open the door for the government to be able to collect private data on citizens without having to get a search warrant first. Of course Obama is talking this up like he is doing us all a favor and that it's a good thing. And all the blind sheep are eating this deception up like Halloween candy.
Obama: "All of your internets are belong to us!"

It's not the gov controlling the internet, it's keeping business from controlling it.
It would mean the loss of net neutrality. What you see on the internet could be whatever your ISP decides. Let's say your ISP is Charter.com. They have a service called charter on demand. Well, they won't want you watching free videos or using some other service so they could throttle back your bandwith except for their movie service. They could also make it very hard to visit a site that does not make them money. Search for how to fix your car and you are directed to a car dealership that has paid charter to get you.

Loss of net neutrality is probably the greatest threat to bitcoin as well. It really would be possible and maybe even profitable to block access to bitcoin. The days of going where you want on the net would be over you will see what is most profitable for your ISP. And the dark web? Why would your ISP let you see that? In fact if your ISP was religiously oriented why would they allow you to see anything that is not Godly? It is really up to them not you.  

[stevegreer]

"Controlling their access" is contrary to "net neutrality" (i.e., not imposing content specific constraints upon internet navigation).

One thing leads to another. This is just a foot in the door for the ultimate goal of the government controlling access to the internet. Here are two quotes from the following article:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/10/cable-companies-obama-net-neutrality-proposals-fcc-fight

The cable and telcoms giants are particularly concerned by Obama’s call for FCC to reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. Such a move would reclassify consumer internet as a “common carrier” service – like the telephone – and give the regulator greater power to control prices and services.

Obama’s endorsement “of 1930s era Title II classification would lead to unprecedented government interference in the internet, and would hurt consumers and innovation,” said lobby group Broadband for America.

[stevegreer]

It's not the gov controlling the internet, it's keeping business from controlling it.
It would mean the loss of net neutrality. What you see on the internet could be whatever your ISP decides. Let's say your ISP is Charter.com. They have a service called charter on demand. Well, they won't want you watching free videos or using some other service so they could throttle back your bandwith except for their movie service. They could also make it very hard to visit a site that does not make them money. Search for how to fix your car and you are directed to a car dealership that has paid charter to get you.

Loss of net neutrality is probably the greatest threat to bitcoin as well. It really would be possible and maybe even profitable to block access to bitcoin. The days of going where you want on the net would be over you will see what is most profitable for your ISP. And the dark web? Why would your ISP let you see that? In fact if your ISP was religiously oriented why would they allow you to see anything that is not Godly? It is really up to them not you.  

Ok, I see where you are coming from. But what I don't see is where in the U.S. this is currently taking place or when any of the ISPs have ever stated that they want to control what its users have access to. The only real issue I have with ISPs here in the U.S. is the fact that they are charging so much for for a fraction of the bandwidth that many other countries are getting. I think if the conversations between the government and the ISPs were to focus more on that issue, then it would have my support. I still feel though that the ulterior motive here is for the government to have an open door, warrantless access to our private data.

[username18333]

“Controlling their access” is contrary to “net neutrality” (i.e., refraining from imposing content‐specific constraints upon internet navigation).

One thing leads to another. This is just a foot in the door for the ultimate goal of the government controlling access to the internet. Here are two quotes from the following article:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/10/cable-companies-obama-net-neutrality-proposals-fcc-fight

The cable and telcoms giants are particularly concerned by Obama’s call for FCC to reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. Such a move would reclassify consumer internet as a “common carrier” service – like the telephone – and give the regulator greater power to control prices and services.

Obama’s endorsement “of 1930s era Title II classification would lead to unprecedented government interference in the internet, and would hurt consumers and innovation,” said lobby group Broadband for America.

Government is, itself, a proverbial “foot in the door.”

[BitMos]

This is the freedom fight of our lives and hardly anyone understands why.

You seem so passionate, I don't understand why? Could you please explain me more? A lose attempts to fight deflation in the tech industry by the cartels? I mean scam us ISP, so others methods will be found, and then you will die off, like Kodak. For me it's just an attempt by the ISP to extort more money by colluding and not wanting to invest in the infrastructure to compete in the marketplace by for example guaranteeing low latency or full continuous capacity. I don't want to block an ISP to provide a cheap absolutely QoSed (multitiers), high latency, 0 guaranteed capacity or what ever service... but I find it soo stupid to use such an ISP. I hate QoS (who the f are you to tell me that what I transmit is of low priority), then again I hate non stable band weight (what the fuck I paid for X up and down, I don't care if you can't make it continuous, what ever your excuse, bye), furthermore I think Deep packet inspection always leads to packet sniffers and stupidly increase latency, and finally I find that latency sucks, but physics is, and that only the speed of light (or what ever quantic method) shall limit my latency, and not a stupid isp or backbone provider or what ever that didn't upgrade his lines or machines and uses queuing during spikes to cheat everyone he contracted with. But more than that I prefer this vision :
"Open Internet
The idea of an open Internet is the idea that the full resources of the Internet and means to operate on it are easily accessible to all individuals and companies. This often includes ideas such as net neutrality, open standards, transparency, lack of Internet censorship, and low barriers to entry. The concept of the open Internet is sometimes expressed as an expectation of decentralized technological power, and is seen by some as closely related to open-source software."
than this:
"A "closed Internet" refers to the opposite situation, in which established corporations or governments favor certain uses. A closed Internet may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content."

And I think that net-neutrality simply mean that each packet is born equal to all others packets, and that only FIFO shall rules in all gateway and that the wideness of the gateway is continuously provided. I understand the financial gain that could be made in killing net neutrality, but they seems in my view very short sighted. As such I don't understand those that want to kill the idea that each packet is born equal, or those that want to change the status quo on this complex subject. I like the idea of peers on the internet each equal to have depending on the bw the same right as I do, and I think Net neutrality is necessary for peer to peer. And I don't like to have to read for each thing I do or contract 300 pages or more just to know that I need to read 3000 more to have a chance to understand anything... Open Law next goal?

[username18333]

This is the freedom fight of our lives and hardly anyone understands why.

You seem so passionate, I don't understand why? Could you please explain me more? A lose attempts to fight deflation in the tech industry by the cartels? I mean scam us ISP, so others methods will be found, and then you will die off, like Kodak. For me it's just an attempt by the ISP to extort more money by colluding and not wanting to invest in the infrastructure to compete in the marketplace by for example guaranteeing low latency or full continuous capacity. I don't want to block an ISP to provide a cheap absolutely QoSed (multitiers), high latency, 0 guaranteed capacity or what ever service... but I find it soo stupid to use such an ISP. I hate QoS (who the f are you to tell me that what I transmit is of low priority), then again I hate non stable band weight (what the fuck I paid for X up and down, I don't care if you can't make it continuous, what ever your excuse, bye), furthermore I think Deep packet inspection always leads to packet sniffers and stupidly increase latency, and finally I find that latency sucks, but physics is, and that only the speed of light (or what ever quantic method) shall limit my latency, and not a stupid isp or backbone provider or what ever that didn't upgrade his lines or machines and use queuing during spikes to cheat everyone he contracted with. But more than that I prefer this vision :
"Open Internet
The idea of an open Internet is the idea that the full resources of the Internet and means to operate on it are easily accessible to all individuals and companies. This often includes ideas such as net neutrality, open standards, transparency, lack of Internet censorship, and low barriers to entry. The concept of the open Internet is sometimes expressed as an expectation of decentralized technological power, and is seen by some as closely related to open-source software."
than this:
"A "closed Internet" refers to the opposite situation, in which established corporations or governments favor certain uses. A closed Internet may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content."

And I think that net-neutrality simply mean that each packet is born equal to all others packets, and that only FIFO shall rules in all gateway and that the wideness of the gateway is continuously provided. I understand the financial gain that could be made in killing net neutrality, but they seems in my view very short sighted. As such I don't understand those that want to kill the idea that each packet is born equal, or those that want to change the status quo on this complex subject. I like the idea of peers on the internet each equal to have depending on the bw the same right as I do, and I think Net neutrality is necessary for peer to peer. And I don't like to have to read for each thing I do or contract 300 pages or more just to know that I need to read 3000 more to have a chance to understand anything... Open Law next goal?

Leviathan is “responsible” to his subjects. Pluto is not.

[BitMos]

Leviathan being the gov ? and what is Pluto? What does it mean "responsible"? And what is a subject of Leviathan?

I am so lost 

[RodeoX]

I don't think that the current attempt by ISPs and big media are "evil" they do not want to oppress you. They want your money.
The problem for them with the internet is that you have control over it. They would much prefer a system where the ISP controls what you see. That way they maximize their profits by directing you to businesses that have already bought you from the ISP. Nothing has to be free under this system. If you want to visit certain sites then you will pay more. Want the full internet, it's $200 per month. Want a walled garden your ISP made. $50. etc. Maybe pay by the webpage? Whatever your media overlords decide.
Remember how shitty America online was? That is the model that ISPs and places like Time-Warner want to see. You have net-neutrality now. What Obama is proposing is to secure that status legally. I really don't see how anyone but a media giant would want anything else. The internet was not built by ISPs, it was built from the ground up by users and now the ISPs want to take it for themselves. F-that.

https://sendto.mozilla.org/page/s/protect-net-neutrality

 

[username18333]

. . .

Leviathan is “responsible” to his subjects. Pluto is not.

Leviathan being the gov ? and what is Pluto? What does it mean "responsible"? And what is a subject of Leviathan?

I am so lost  

1. Republican Democracy.

2. Plutocracy.

3. Expected to uphold the popular will, but does so to a minimum.

4. Citizenry.

[BitMos]

1. State.

2. Plutocracy.

3. Expected to uphold the popular will.

4. The People.

all is clear, thx.  .

very nice post RodeoX. However I have to disagree on a specific point, something wanting my money is already oppressive to me .

[stevegreer]

I don't think that the current attempt by ISPs and big media are "evil" they do not want to oppress you. They want your money.
The problem for them with the internet is that you have control over it. They would much prefer a system where the ISP controls what you see. That way they maximize their profits by directing you to businesses that have already bought you from the ISP. Nothing has to be free under this system. If you want to visit certain sites then you will pay more. Want the full internet, it's $200 per month. Want a walled garden your ISP made. $50. etc. Maybe pay by the webpage? Whatever your media overlords decide.
Remember how shitty America online was? That is the model that ISPs and places like Time-Warner want to see. You have net-neutrality now. What Obama is proposing is to secure that status legally. I really don't see how anyone but a media giant would want anything else. The internet was not built by ISPs, it was built from the ground up by users and now the ISPs want to take it for themselves. F-that.

https://sendto.mozilla.org/page/s/protect-net-neutrality

 

Finally! Someone with a well-thought out and informative post on BCT! Great post!

[RodeoX]

very nice post RodeoX. However I have to disagree, something wanting my money is already oppressive to me .

Thanks. I don't like their greed either.  
At least for the moment we have some choice of competitors. These are many of the same people from cable TV. Look at how good they were at milking that system. If your old like me you might remember that cable TV was originally marketed as "Never watch a commercial again!". Now it's just commercials with a few short breaks for programs.

Oh and thanks stevegreer.

[username18333]

. . .

Leviathan is “responsible” to his subjects. Pluto is not.

Leviathan being the gov ? and what is Pluto? What does it mean "responsible"? And what is a subject of Leviathan?

I am so lost 

1. Republican Democracy.

2. Plutocracy.

3. Expected to uphold the popular will, but does so to a minimum.

4. Citizenry.

all is clear, thx.  .

very nice post RodeoX. However I have to disagree on a specific point, something wanting my money is already oppressive to me .

You are welcome.

[freedomno1]

This is the freedom fight of our lives and hardly anyone understands why.

You seem so passionate, I don't understand why? Could you please explain me more?

A loss of net neutrality means that their will be priority routes on the information highway.
It also insinuates that any organization has the ability to control and throttle all types of traffic
It would have massive impacts on incumbents who can prioritize traffic, slow down new competitors because they couldn't pay for the priority channels and damage open source projects like Bitcoin and Bitorrent by restricting their traffic.

Any limitation on the ability to acquire information freely, on restricting content that is contrarian to the mainstream media, or on accessing information leads down a route of totalitarian control, similar to the governments having strong controls on newspaper television and radio stations, regulation on the internet will result in information control and restrictions that we do not have now and it begins with net neutrality.

https://time.com/3578255/conservatives-net-neutrality-poll/

Some 83% of voters who self-identified as “very conservative” were concerned about the possibility of ISPs having the power to “influence content” online. Only 17% reported being unconcerned. Similarly, 83% of self-identified conservatives thought that Congress should take action to ensure that cable companies do not “monopolize the Internet” or “reduce the inherent equality of the Internet” by charging some content companies for speedier access.

Other people argue though that if you can't pay for it then screw you.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/10/7-reasons-net-neutrality

Perhaps taxing the internet...
__

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/upshot/a-super-simple-way-to-understand-the-net-neutrality-debate.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

Simply put the internet is the electricity of the 21st century

The Internet is like electricity. It is fundamental to the 21st century economy, as essential to functioning in modern society as electricity. It is a public utility. “We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas,” the president said in his written statement.

In the president’s logic, and that of the Internet content companies that are the most aggressive supporters of net neutrality, just as your electric utility has no say in how you use the electricity they sell you, the Internet should be a reliable way to access content produced by anyone, regardless of whether they have any special business arrangement with the utility.

Those arguing against net neutrality, most significantly the cable companies, say the Internet will be a richer experience if the profit motive applies, if they can negotiate deals with major content providers (the equivalent of cable channels) so that Netflix or Hulu or other streaming services that use huge bandwidth have to pay for the privilege.

(The argument though is that under the pay model, there is an incentive to build new infrastructure in order to get more profit hence a faster internet)

Hope that helped a bit.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Net Neutrality means paying users subsidize free loaders with government enforcement under the idealistic guise (lie) of "making all packets free(dom) or equal". Since everyone then is motivated to be a free loader, then the internet goes bankrupt and is backstopped by government subsidies. This is just socialism (not trusting the fine grained annealing of the free market), handing control to the largest multi-nationals which have regulatory capture of the government, and thus abject failure end game.

It is not surprising to me that most people these days fall for this bullshit. People are so socialist and collectivist minded these days. They believe the problem is the solution, i.e. the problem of multinational regulatory capture of the government is solved by more government regulation. Sigh.

Any way, I've been thinking about how we can get improved IP obfuscation anonymity on the low-latency internet without relying solely on low-latency Chaum mix-nets such as I2P and Tor. The solution can also work around Net Neutrality socialism.

Once we have a micro-payments decentralized crypto-currency (Bitcoin doesn't have the correct design), we can design turnkey software so that any one can turn their home WiFi router into a money making ISP. Drive-by clients can anonymously pay per packet to connect over the WiFi.

As these WiFi nodes become ubiquitous (due to their independent setup and profitability), they can begin to connect to each other in a mesh topology network, thus by passing (routing around) the internet backbone in case where the government has put in a packet filter.

Fuck the socialism! We hackers are in the process of radically changing this world. Stay tuned...

[DhaniBoy]

for each country should no restrictions internet speed, because the speed of the connection is very important, especially when such networks are used together that will affect the speed of the internet, when the network and internet connection is fast and stable course much we can do in the world the Internet, we can mine bitcoin quickly and easily ... 

[Kluge]

Net Neutrality means paying users subsidize free loaders with government enforcement under the idealistic guise (lie) of "making all packets free(dom) or equal". Since everyone then is motivated to be a free loader, then the internet goes bankrupt and is backstopped by government subsidies. This is just socialism (not trusting the fine grained annealing of the free market), handing control to the largest multi-nationals which have regulatory capture of the government, and thus abject failure end game.

It is not surprising to me that most people these days fall for this bullshit. People are so socialist and collectivist minded these days. They believe the problem is the solution, i.e. the problem of multinational regulatory capture of the government is solved by more government regulation. Sigh.

Any way, I've been thinking about how we can get improved IP obfuscation anonymity on the low-latency internet without relying solely on low-latency Chaum mix-nets such as I2P and Tor. The solution can also work around Net Neutrality socialism.

Once we have a micro-payments decentralized crypto-currency (Bitcoin doesn't have the correct design), we can design turnkey software so that any one can turn their home WiFi router into a money making ISP. Drive-by clients can anonymously pay per packet to connect over the WiFi.

As these WiFi nodes become ubiquitous (due to their independent setup and profitability), they can begin to connect to each other in a mesh topology network, thus by passing (routing around) the internet backbone in case where the government has put in a packet filter.

Fuck the socialism! We hackers are in the process of radically changing this world. Stay tuned...

I think Net Neutrality is a necessary evil in a terrible, centralized market created by government. While the idea of a mesh-net is great for dense areas, I still don't even have a broadband ISP option. There's not even DSL here and current 2.4GHz routers aren't going to bring it. I bought a fancy Ubiquiti antenna and router to see how far it can penetrate, and except PtP with LoS, it's only a marginal improvement over a $20 wireless Linksys router - because it's using the 2.4GHz bands. I'd be overjoyed to see a Meshernet, but I doubt that's going to happen for me within the next couple of years, whereas net neutrality can protect me from ISP blacklisting or even (God forbid) whitelisting, as well as fast lanes (and I see no reason to trust ISPs are going to throttle based on consumption vs. arbitrary "we don't like p2p tech like BitTorrent or Bitcoin") - because many ISPs ALREADY throttle based on consumption, right? When they don't throttle, they might simply cancel a user's contract based on vague "excessive use" policies, even though they've promised they can deliver an unlimited volume of data at, say 5mbps up, because they've over-sold their service. -And then we have the problem of "up to 5mbps" because they're not just over-selling, but over-selling to an extent where the advertised speed rate is outright misleading and, I'd argue, fraudulent in some cases (esp. with regional DSL services).

What I think'll really open this meshnet (meshernet?) market up is going to be 802.11ah. Idunno if you've looked into it, but what it's promising is going to have a massive impact on WISPs (whether dedicated-business WISPs or these theoretical new home mesh-WISPs). If 11ah can be pushed as the standard almost exclusively for this new kind of mesh-net (to help minimize interference from other uses), I think this could absolutely take off. Everything about it looks exactly right for a mesh-net. Up to 20mbps on high-penetration 900MHz bands, up to 8000 connections. If we start seeing home routers operating on both 2.4GHz g/n + this new 900MHz 11ah standard, I'm confident we'll be entering the new era where TWC can take over as many ISPs as it likes without seriously threatening the integrity of the Internet.

[freedomno1]

Extending on Kluges point Net Neutrality might make all packets equal and reduce the incentive to improve instead corporations will throttle more and filter the types of data to reduce bandwidth consumption and maximize bottom lines one can also see it as a corporate agenda to maximize profits funded by big cable companies to build a monopoly over one thing we all value greatly the internet.

There have been some cases of local municipalities fed up with the internet service they were provided creating their own lines to the angst of Comcast and similar companies.

There is still an incentive to improve and it doesn't always have to be based on the bottom line of some big companies to do so.
Simply put we need more Longmounts who are willing to do the work on their own and not more corporate controls and restrictions on these type of free market innovations on the internet. If net neutrality was removed corporations would just funnel more money into killing any independent projects like they are already doing, or just update a system when enough people complain and think about making their own piecemeal instead of improving the whole communications network.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/05/16/internet-sharing-how-to-get-revenge-on-the-cable-company/

Earlier this spring, reports started coming in from some nearby friends that their internet access prices had been jacked way up. It seems that the local internet near-monopoly (Comcast) had just arbitrarily decided to increase their prices by $10 per month. Offended by this attack on their frugality, these friends naturally turned to Mr. Money Mustache for advice.

Normally, I’d just advise them to use the magic of the free market and vote with their feet. Call Comcast, cancel the internet service while explaining it is because of the price increase, and select one of several other options we have here in my town (including a city-wide wi-fi network).

But in this case, hearing of this the 20% price increase pushed me over the edge. You see, I’ve had a bone to pick with Comcast ever since 2009, when they secretly funded a voter disinformation program called “No Blank Check Longmont”. It was designed to get the citizens of this city to vote against allowing our town council to use the fiber-optic network that the people paid for and own, to offer services for the benefit of the people.

The cable company was afraid of having to compete with a potentially low-cost internet access program from the city, but since that wouldn’t make a very good sales pitch, they did it by lying instead: saying that the city would be spending taxpayer money on the project. It was completely false, and the town council tried their best to fight the lies with editorials in the town newspaper. But in the end, Comcast just out-spent the council by a huge margin and stupidity won the day. In 2011, the fiber optic vote came back on the ballot, and Comcast funded yet another disinformation campaign with the catchy name “Look before we Leap“. Again, they pretended to be “a group of concerned citizens” despite the fact that their entire $300,000 budget came from the cable companies. Luckily, there were enough informed voters the second time around to kick its ass. The citizens got their fiber optic network back, and Comcast gained a few new lifetime enemies, including me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/11/06/big-cable-helped-defeat-seattles-mayor-mcginn-but-they-couldnt-stop-this-colorado-project/

The same was done in Canada in Olds Alberta
Fed up with their crap lines they built their own to the surprise of the incumbents.

Rural internet typically slow, expensive

The Olds project is a rarity. Most rural communities across Canada have to make do with internet service — often delivered by dial-up or satellite — that is slow or expensive, or both.

Not too long ago, Olds was in that boat. Some businesses were even threatening to leave town because of the challenges posed by the sluggish internet.

"We had engineering companies here who were sending memory chips by courier because there wasn't enough bandwidth to deal with their stuff," recalls Joe Gustafson, who spearheaded the project to bring a fibre network to Olds.

There were some speed bumps along the way. The town had trouble finding skilled labour to install the fibre cables between people's property lines and their homes, putting the project behind schedule.
But eventually installation progressed and the Olds Institute began inviting large, commercial internet providers to offer their services via the new network. All of them refused to use a network they had not installed themselves, Gustafson said.

The community was undeterred. It came up with a new plan.

"We said, 'Well I guess if we're going to do this, we have to do our own services,'" Gustafson recalled.

The Olds Institute spent $3.5 million to buy the necessary electronic equipment to run internet and other services on the network and to build a central office to house it all. Last July, it launched O-Net.

The community-owned service offers not just internet, but also phone and IPTV services — TV signals carried on the network that includes dozens of SD and HD channels, and movies on demand that can be paused and later resumed.

All told, the project will probably have cost $13 million to $14 million when it's complete, Gustafson said.

"It's a very gutsy thing on behalf of council here in Olds to approve something like that," he added.

Net neutrality is about more than the bottom line but fast efficient communications, that can be built without the need of cable companies.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

The solution as always will not be government regulation (which always makes it worse), rather competition via improved technology that enables finer grained actions. Part of the problem is the regulatory capture that already exists to prevent competition juxtaposed against capital requirements due to current granularity of technological solutions.

Mesh-nets are one potential technological solution on the horizon. Also I've heard about solar powered planes or balloons beaming service at lower capital costs than satellites.

[Kluge]

The solution as always will not be government regulation (which always makes it worse), rather competition via improved technology that enables finer grained actions. Part of the problem is the regulatory capture that already exists to prevent competition juxtaposed against capital requirements due to current granularity of technological solutions.

Mesh-nets are one potential technological solution on the horizon. Also I've heard about solar powered planes or balloons beaming service at lower capital costs than satellites.

Solar balloons are a REALLY cool idea, and completely compatible with both centralized WISPs and the theoretical mesh-WISP talked about here. Google is actually experimenting with this, but wants to do things like include active propulsion, which seems a bit crazy to me. Instead, I'd rather want to tether the balloons to the ground and only use the solar to power the amp/router (and the relatively little LiPo battery). The big issue a lot of rural WISPs have is with penetration through trees and hills - and this, of course, also hampers cell coverage (so there's a market with solar balloons here, too). Balloons are fantastically cheaper than giant radio towers and allow many more trees and hills to be bypassed so they aren't impeding signal -- radio towers become more expensive the higher you build, generally, so cell companies generally skimp here, giving the unfortunate residents shit service (actually, I ended up plopping down >$100 on a special amplifier for cell signals just so my connection wasn't frequently dropping with ~10kb/s speeds).

I mean - you're not going to be looking at 50+mbps speeds like with a land-line venture, but like freedom's articles mention - that option's bloody expensive and particularly difficult unless there's a fast connection nearby you can run into town (while you can use wireless ptp for tens, possibly soon - hundreds, of miles to get into a fast connection a couple towns over without running underground lines using solar balloons or even conventional towers). -But I think we'll want to wait for 11ah, still. It's what I'm waiting for, anyway. -And if there are home routers coming out which support simultaneous 2.4GHz g/n and 900MHz ah broadcasting, shit's going to get really, really cheap to implement.

[ScreamnShout]

There was an editorial in the WSJ today that said what obama is proposing would essentially cause ISPs to become utilities and would stifle competition.

I think a good solution would be for ISPs to abandon the concept of essentially unlimited amounts of data while limiting the download/upload speeds to what the consumers pay for. I think they should move to a model when consumers pay for the total speed as well as the amount of data transmitted; a similar way that cell phone customers pay for their data plans

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

There was an editorial in the WSJ today that said what obama is proposing would essentially cause ISPs to become utilities and would stifle competition.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/11/12/obama-wants-to-now-fully-regulate-the-internet-as-a-public-utility/

Believe it or not, Obama wants to fully regulate the internet – EVERYTHING right down to content!. Yes you read it correctly. He wants to create the effective Department of the Internet under the FCC.

...

Good sources state clearly that this will be a very dangerous step toward both taxation and censorship. The FCC function is to REGULATE radio and TV. They have to apply to the FCC for licenses. Why anyone would imagine that the FCC will regulate with no attached costs is beyond belief. Obama is one nasty communist and he has supported the NSA 150%.

...

The ONLY way for the FCC can ensure traffic is “neutral” is to officially monitor the flow of traffic. That means they will have to be monitoring stations everywhere. This is a back-door to the NSA for starters. ALL emails will have to flow through the government fingers. Send money to someone by Western Union online and they will hand that info to the IRS. If the receiver did not declare it, here they come. The government will have 100% access to absolutely everything from your emails and photos to your credit cards and bank accounts.

This is just the beginning. The FCC will monitor CONTENT as well to ensure neutrality. What they do on radio and TV will be applied to the internet. The Supreme Court struck down a law and created the right to privacy when Connecticut saw fit to outlaw condoms for married people. The Supreme Court realized how does one enforce such a regulation without entering the bedroom to inspect before insertion that you are complying with the law. (GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT, 381 US 479 (1965)). How will the FCC regulate without inspecting what you write? Under the pretense of protecting “neutrality” they will be able to shut down political speech.

The public at large are totally ignorant of how law is made. It is not crafted by Congress but judges and prosecutors after agencies write it not Congress. Agencies write their own laws. Insider trading etc. are SEC regulations. But then a clause states it is a crime to violate a SEC regulation. Therefore, this is a dictatorial power that is NOT enacted by Congress. Agencies simply write regulations that become crimes.

...

However, sites outside the USA will be beyond the jurisdiction of the FCC. So how will they “monitor” such foreign sites to ensure neutrality? They will block sites from access. This is the very same policy imposed in both China and Russia. Say goodbye to the freedom of access and freedom of speech. Obama is en route to destroy the internet. Censorship is what they are worried about with the Sovereign Debt Crisis. They KNOW what is coming. This is a power-play to seize control of the internet to protect their ass – not yours!

...

This means under FCC Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, Obama unilaterally wants to regulate what you now say. He will not allow a public vote any more than the EU will allow free elections on the Euro. Obama is acting simply as an unconstitutional dictator. Anyone publishing on the internet would need a license and if they do not approve what you write – goodbye. It may be jail time for walking on someone’s grass or other law. Perhaps throwing fish overboard - that’s good for 20 years in prison.

Forget free speech. Obama naturally claims he wants “to protect net neutrality.” That is the code word for regulating free speech just like we have free speech in the media. Oh lets see, I do not believe what you wrote was neutral or fair – that’s a fine and imprisonment. Every law has fine and imprisonment as a penalty. You will be sitting in a cell with a serial killer. He will ask you “what’s u in for”, and you will say publicly saying taxes are not fair. Politicians always hide their real motives. Obama was looking to disarm America to cut off the possibility of revolution so he pretends gun control is for children. Hitler used the same tactics. Politicians always disguise their real motives. It has historically always been them against us.

[stevegreer]

^^^ Thanks for posting that. That is exactly what I have been saying about it all along. This net neutrality is not and never has been about protecting the average user's rights. It is simply about the government gaining control so that it can monitor and censor (and prosecute) what we say and do on what used to be a free internet.

[RodeoX]

^^^ Thanks for posting that. That is exactly what I have been saying about it all along. This net neutrality is not and never has been about protecting the average user's rights. It is simply about the government gaining control so that it can monitor and censor (and prosecute) what we say and do on what used to be a free internet.

I don't know where you are getting your information. Net-neutrality is exactly the opposite of what you are saying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

[darkmule]

Like anything Obama says at this point (and arguably since before he was elected), his statement is meaningless noise.

For one thing, he can't do anything more than regulate at this point, and that only for two years. 

For another, while spouting net neutrality on one side of his mouth, he's cutting international trade "deals" that will gut it out of the other.

I'm not impressed.  He had his chance to do something on the issue, and like every other issue, fucking blew it.

[darkmule]

Net neutrality is how the Internet functioned long before you ever even heard of it, and probably while you were still shitting your diapers.  It was essentially built into the protocols at the base level.  You really have no clue what you're talking about.

[Aterna]

Do you really need that many emotiocons to get your point across? No offence but that's the most obnoxious paragraph I've ever seen in my life.

[Aterna]

This Chinese bot just blew my god damn mind. Obama hasn't taken our guns and lots of people are still smoking weed in their state without going to prison. Of course there is an outlier here and there. But for the most part I don't think Obama specifically is out to fuck us.

[stevegreer]

This Chinese bot just blew my god damn mind. Obama hasn't taken our guns and lots of people are still smoking weed in their state without going to prison. Of course there is an outlier here and there. But for the most part I don't think Obama specifically is out to fuck us.

Maybe not, but he is the tool being used to fuck us.

[BitMos]

Maybe not, but he is the tool being used to fuck us.

your compression rate is excellent.  in fear of throttling  ? or for speedier encryption  .

[stevegreer]

Maybe not, but he is the tool being used to fuck us.

your compression rate is excellent.  in fear of throttling  ? or for speedier encryption  .

Nope. In fear of getting a headache from reading your annoying, pointless posts.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Those who want Obama's 'net neutrality' bullshit, will end up with this:

http://www.coindesk.com/day-reckoning-dark-markets-hundreds-illicit-domains/

^^^ Thanks for posting that. That is exactly what I have been saying about it all along. This net neutrality is not and never has been about protecting the average user's rights. It is simply about the government gaining control so that it can monitor and censor (and prosecute) what we say and do on what used to be a free internet.

I don't know where you are getting your information. Net-neutrality is exactly the opposite of what you are saying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Bullshit! You don't have a fucking clue.

... probably while you were still shitting your diapers.  It was essentially built into the protocols at the base level.  You really have no clue what you're talking about.

Get off my lawn kiddie. I was coding the world's first WYSIWYG full featured, commercial graphical word processor (Neocept's Word Up) in the mid-1980s.

There was never an overlord requiring net neutrality. The interoperability of the net exists because it is in every providers incentive to join the larger scale of the homogeneous internet. The internet killed America Online's proprietary walled garden model without any fucking regulation you clueless wannabe. The internet continues to power past walled garden promulgators such as Apple Computer.

What this political bullshit "Net Neutrality" means is telling you that we need regulation to accomplish what the free market has already done. And this is a political lie used to sucker you into getting exactly opposite of what the free market has been providing you.

You fucking Communists and Socialists are God Damn fucking plague on this earth.

Be Gone!

Net neutrality is how the Internet functioned [for] long...

Correct.

[darkmule]

[Farrago of non sequiturs and gibberish]

If you think Obama somehow invented the concept, you're literally too fucking retarded to talk to.  If you think he gives a shit about it, you're even more retarded.

[RodeoX]

You fucking Communists and Socialists are God Damn fucking plague on this earth.

Don't be so mad comrade. You need us commies, apparently we are the last defenders of your digital rights. Come now, ve drink some wadka.  

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

[Farrago of non sequiturs and gibberish]

If you think Obama somehow invented the concept, you're literally too fucking retarded to talk to.  If you think he gives a shit about it, you're even more retarded.

You are apparently too retarded to understand that "net neutrality" existed as a natural result of the free market and Obama is preaching that we need government to sustain or implement (regulate) the concept, which is a fucking lie and how they will actually destroy the concept.

Those who are bitching about not having net access in their communities are either wanting some subsidy from the government to drive service to their uneconomic rural location or their community is already suffering from lack of competition due to over regulation and regulatory capture by the vested interests. The free market did not fail to provide "net neutrality". Adding more government regulation only makes it worse!

You pontificate about shit which you don't know about, because ... well let the progenitor of the term "open source" explain it to you:

Those who can’t build, talk

Those who can’t build, talk
Posted on 2011-07-28 by Eric Raymond   

One of the side-effects of using Google+ is that I’m getting exposed to a kind of writing I usually avoid – ponderous divagations on how the Internet should be and the meaning of it all written by people who’ve never gotten their hands dirty actually making it work. No, I’m not talking about users – I don’t mind listening to those. I’m talking about punditry about the Internet, especially the kind full of grand prescriptive visions. The more I see of this, the more it irritates the crap out of me. But I’m not in the habit of writing in public about merely personal complaints; there’s a broader cultural problem here that needs to be aired.

Eric like myself was actually active in building the internet:

• Eminent Domains: The First Time I Changed History
• World Without Web
• A world without “ESR”
• Eric's GIF code in nearly every open source software in the world. He reminisced about it.
• He also did work on libpng that nearly every open source software uses
• Android development pulls hot chicks. Who knew?
• Emacs git conversion is done at one month from his 57th birthday.
• An Open Letter to Chris Dodd
  
  

  I’m talking about the actual engineers who built the Internet and keep it running, who write the software you rely on every day of your life in the 21st century.
  
  I’m one of those engineers – you rely on my code every time you use a browser or a smartphone or a game console. I’m not exactly a leader among them as you would understand the term, because we don’t have those and don’t want them. But I am a well-known philosopher/elder of the tribe (I’ll name two others later in this letter), and also one of our few public spokespersons. In the late 1990s I helped found the open-source software movement.

Btw, Eric apparently idols Donald Knuth (I also owned and skimmed some of his books):

Shameless name-dropping
Double Vision

You fucking Communists and Socialists are God Damn fucking plague on this earth.

Don't be so mad comrade. You need us commies, apparently we are the last defenders of your digital rights. Come now, ve drink some wadka.  

I am an expert and highly accomplished programmer, so I don't need you to protect my digital rights, because I protect them with my own code. The protections have never come from the government—they (and you complicit socialists) only steal and destroy. The protections have always come from technological innovations, of which I am working now on making the government intervention impotent.

Get off my fucking lawn.

[stevegreer]

^^^ Thanks for posting that. That is exactly what I have been saying about it all along. This net neutrality is not and never has been about protecting the average user's rights. It is simply about the government gaining control so that it can monitor and censor (and prosecute) what we say and do on what used to be a free internet.

I don't know where you are getting your information. Net-neutrality is exactly the opposite of what you are saying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

That's great that you posted a link to the most unreliable source of information on the internet to try to argue your point. However, even with that nice long page about what net-neutrality is SUPPOSED to be, I am referring to the fact that our dear leader Obama wants to use the term "net-neutrality" to justify, in his own words, treating the internet as a "utility." That to me simply screams regulation. And any time the government regulates something, it is for the best interest of the government, not the people.

[jaysabi]

If he fails on this the internet as you know it is dead. This is the freedom fight of our lives and hardly anyone understands why.

Wait, so are you saying that if he does not get his way that the internet as we know it will die and our freedoms will be gone? You think that having the government regulate (control) the internet is going to save us? Kinda like how the Chinese, Iranian and North Korean governments are ensuring a protected internet for its citizens by controlling their access? All this will do is open the door for the government to be able to collect private data on citizens without having to get a search warrant first. Of course Obama is talking this up like he is doing us all a favor and that it's a good thing. And all the blind sheep are eating this deception up like Halloween candy.
Obama: "All of your internets are belong to us!"

It's not the gov controlling the internet, it's keeping business from controlling it.
It would mean the loss of net neutrality. What you see on the internet could be whatever your ISP decides. Let's say your ISP is Charter.com. They have a service called charter on demand. Well, they won't want you watching free videos or using some other service so they could throttle back your bandwith except for their movie service. They could also make it very hard to visit a site that does not make them money. Search for how to fix your car and you are directed to a car dealership that has paid charter to get you.

Loss of net neutrality is probably the greatest threat to bitcoin as well. It really would be possible and maybe even profitable to block access to bitcoin. The days of going where you want on the net would be over you will see what is most profitable for your ISP. And the dark web? Why would your ISP let you see that? In fact if your ISP was religiously oriented why would they allow you to see anything that is not Godly? It is really up to them not you.  

Good on you for keying in on the most important point, which I bolded in your comment. Everyone who is against it is spinning this as government regulating the internet. It's more accurate to say that it's government regulating the companies that give you internet access. The government will not be regulating the internet for users any more that it's regulating your phone calls. The regulations apply to the companies that supply your phone calls. The reclassification for ISPs would essentially do to them what the government already does to phone companies. Curiously enough, you don't hear people complaining about how unfree and terrible the phone system is, but they make those arguments for the internet because they don't actually understand how it works now, how it will work if nothing is done, and how it will work if the FCC reclassifies ISPs. Anyone claiming the government is going to ruin the internet by regulating it is spreading FUD, either intentionally because they hate Obama or unintentionally because they just don't understand what is actually happening. I'd say that education is key, but reading some of these posts, it's becoming more and more clear people don't care about the situation, they're just looking for a reason to hate Obama. Not that he doesn't deserve it, just not for this.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

My Lord, #1 cause of collapse is the people are dumb socialists!

It befuddles me how at least 40% of the people think the problem is the solution.

Read several my posts upthread from that one as well... Sigh...

I see no solution except to crash and burn the global economy. Megadeath is always the end game of snowballing Socialism.

If he fails on this the internet as you know it is dead. This is the freedom fight of our lives and hardly anyone understands why.

Wait, so are you saying that if he does not get his way that the internet as we know it will die and our freedoms will be gone? You think that having the government regulate (control) the internet is going to save us? Kinda like how the Chinese, Iranian and North Korean governments are ensuring a protected internet for its citizens by controlling their access?...

It's not the gov controlling the internet, it's keeping business from controlling it.
It would mean the loss of net neutrality. What you see on the internet could be whatever your ISP decides. Let's say your ISP is Charter.com...

Good on you for keying in on the most important point, which I bolded in your comment. Everyone who is against it is spinning this as government regulating the internet. It's more accurate to say that it's government regulating the companies that give you internet access.

Hey you fucking dumbass dolt,

Why do you think Charter has a monopoly in some jurisdictions?

Hint: regulatory capture (where the corporations are in cahoots with the government and the regulation is used to enforce profits for both the corrupt politicians and the oligarchs). Note this corruption is the normal mode of government and can never be prevented, c.f. Some Iron Laws of Political Economics (which will surely exceed your intelligence quotient).

All you are doing is handing the hen house to the fox, you retarded socialist pig.

The internet is actually fostering and pushing competition along quite well because the government hasn't been able to regulate all of it yet.

Here is an example for you of competition in the USA (Red Pocket Mobile with $20 unlimited monthly plan) in an email I just sent one of my family members in the USA. I live in the Philippines (thank God!) with its tiny 10% government share of the GDP (growing rapidly though!) compared to 50 - 75% government share of the GDP in the USA.

Here is the dual-simm Samsung I bought (for P9800 = $220) and it is
available in the USA for $240 (big screen, long-life big battery, etc):

http://www.samsung.com/in/consumer/mobile-phone/mobile-phone/smartphone/SM-G530HZADINU?subsubtype=android-mobiles

http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/301388591917 (also on Amazon.com)

http://www.cmkcellphones.com/Samsung/Samsung%20Galaxy%20Grand%20Prime.html


The USA is really backward since we had dual-simm and UNLOCK all phones in
the Philippines for the past 3 - 4 years, but finally the USA is starting
to catch up with the Philippines:

http://www.cnet.com/news/why-you-want-a-dual-sim-phone/

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2474428/mobile-wireless/dual-sim-phones-not-coming-to-the-u-s---sims-are-too-tiny-for-one-thing--.html


Here is a prepaid plan for $20 monthly with unlimited talk and texting and
1GB per month in 3G speed data usage[1]:

http://goredpocket.com/plans#cdmav


The coverage map indicates nearly ubiquitous coverage all over the USA:

http://goredpocket.com/skin/frontend/gorp_interface/default/images/plans/coverage-cdmav.png


It allows you to use any UNLOCKED phone and they charge you $10 for the
simm to get started:

http://goredpocket.com/sim/cdmas-micro-sim.html



[1] Remember to set your Android to use WiFi when you are near a free WiFi
connection such as at home, so you don't access data over the paid network
unnecessarily so you can stay under the 1GB monthly limit. There is a
Settings in Android and I think the Network settings has an option to use
only WiFi for data. Remember WiFi is much faster any way.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

If you are young and idealistic little socialist fuck, you need to wakeup!

Obama’s Regulation of the Internet – Got a License to Say That? (listen to the audio interview and learn something)

Do you have any clue how sneaky the fox (Obama et al) is?

Obamacare Deliberately Written with 33,000 Pages of Regulations To Hide the Truth

[darkmule]

Not that he doesn't deserve it, just not for this.

Obama attaching his name to net neutrality was guaranteed to have this result.  First, I seriously doubt his commitment to the issue, or even understanding of it, and second, it just brings the nutjobs out of the woodwork.

Net neutrality is at its fundamental level simply about treating similar traffic similarly.  The idea of metered access with fees for various types of services and degradation of quality of services based on type of traffic is the problem.  Sort of like if you got charged more for electricity based on some arbitrary criterion, or if you only were ALLOWED to have rationed electricity, unless you were a business partner with the electric company.

Now, you might say there's no real problem with metered access and charging differently and making deals, but remember, if you look at this on the protocol level, to have this kind of differentiation, you need to be able to identify both the source of data and its destination, as well as what kind of data it is, in order to differentiate between types of traffic.

By definition, any kind of anonymous traffic is going to obscure this data, and any non-neutral scheme of access is going to assign that kind of traffic the lowest possible priority.

In other words, either kiss your anonymity goodbye or get used to it being slow as fuck, because ISPs if allowed to do so will either simply drop such traffic on the floor or shunt it off the highway onto an ungraded dirt road.  Only packets that can "show their papers" will get enough bandwidth to be functional, and you can expect service to be deliberately degraded even when the infrastructure is entirely sufficient to carry it, simply to extort more fees out of you.

Needless to say, the protocol-level changes that would make it easy to meter traffic like this would also substantially help the government spy on us even more than it is already doing.

I almost wish Obama had denounced net neutrality as a right-wing scheme of some sort, then the same gibbering wackos currently attacking it would love it.

[jaysabi]

My Lord, #1 cause of collapse is the people are dumb socialists!

It befuddles me how at least 40% of the people think the problem is the solution.

Read several my posts upthread from that one as well... Sigh...

I see no solution except to crash and burn the global economy. Megadeath is always the end game of snowballing Socialism.

If he fails on this the internet as you know it is dead. This is the freedom fight of our lives and hardly anyone understands why.

Wait, so are you saying that if he does not get his way that the internet as we know it will die and our freedoms will be gone? You think that having the government regulate (control) the internet is going to save us? Kinda like how the Chinese, Iranian and North Korean governments are ensuring a protected internet for its citizens by controlling their access?...

It's not the gov controlling the internet, it's keeping business from controlling it.
It would mean the loss of net neutrality. What you see on the internet could be whatever your ISP decides. Let's say your ISP is Charter.com...

Good on you for keying in on the most important point, which I bolded in your comment. Everyone who is against it is spinning this as government regulating the internet. It's more accurate to say that it's government regulating the companies that give you internet access.

Hey you fucking dumbass dolt,

Here's a free tip on how to get someone to read your post: Don't start it with "Hey you fucking dumbass dolt."

When you learn how to make a point without being a douche nozzle, come back and have a debate with the adults. As it is, I can't stomach to read past a few words you type because you're the type of person who can't read a response without getting so pissed off everyone isn't bowing down to your 'superior' internet debate skills that you immediately begin with attacks. Welcome to my ignore list. Not a single word you write is worth reading. You're so typical, I sure hope you'll be able to afford the fast lanes when net neutrality fails so you can keep up your crusade, Oh Mighty Keyboard Warrior.  

[jaysabi]

Not that he doesn't deserve it, just not for this.

Obama attaching his name to net neutrality was guaranteed to have this result.  First, I seriously doubt his commitment to the issue, or even understanding of it, and second, it just brings the nutjobs out of the woodwork.

Net neutrality is at its fundamental level simply about treating similar traffic similarly.  The idea of metered access with fees for various types of services and degradation of quality of services based on type of traffic is the problem.  Sort of like if you got charged more for electricity based on some arbitrary criterion, or if you only were ALLOWED to have rationed electricity, unless you were a business partner with the electric company.

Now, you might say there's no real problem with metered access and charging differently and making deals, but remember, if you look at this on the protocol level, to have this kind of differentiation, you need to be able to identify both the source of data and its destination, as well as what kind of data it is, in order to differentiate between types of traffic.

By definition, any kind of anonymous traffic is going to obscure this data, and any non-neutral scheme of access is going to assign that kind of traffic the lowest possible priority.

In other words, either kiss your anonymity goodbye or get used to it being slow as fuck, because ISPs if allowed to do so will either simply drop such traffic on the floor or shunt it off the highway onto an ungraded dirt road.  Only packets that can "show their papers" will get enough bandwidth to be functional, and you can expect service to be deliberately degraded even when the infrastructure is entirely sufficient to carry it, simply to extort more fees out of you.

Needless to say, the protocol-level changes that would make it easy to meter traffic like this would also substantially help the government spy on us even more than it is already doing.

I almost wish Obama had denounced net neutrality as a right-wing scheme of some sort, then the same gibbering wackos currently attacking it would love it.

Exactly, and I think you pick up an interesting point. I don't think Obama is embracing net neutrality out of principal or because it's the right thing to do, but out of political considerations. Kind of the same way he did with gay marriage: even though it was clear what is right and what his liberal leanings would dictate would be obvious, he waited several years before he started to really talk about it, once it began gaining critical mass with the people. Both times, his actions are cowardly. He's afraid of the political ramifications if he embraces something that might be unpopular, even if they're the right course of actions, so he waits until the widespread public support is apparent, then comes in like a hero.     If you want credit for embracing things because they're the right thing to do, do it before it's obvious the public is with you. Do it because it's right.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

...Net neutrality is at its fundamental level simply about treating similar traffic similarly.  The idea of metered access with fees for various types of services and degradation of quality of services based on type of traffic is the problem.  Sort of like if you got charged more for electricity based on some arbitrary criterion, or if you only were ALLOWED to have rationed electricity, unless you were a business partner with the electric company.

Now, you might say there's no real problem with metered access and charging differently and making deals, but remember, if you look at this on the protocol level, to have this kind of differentiation, you need to be able to identify both the source of data and its destination, as well as what kind of data it is, in order to differentiate between types of traffic.

By definition, any kind of anonymous traffic is going to obscure this data, and any non-neutral scheme of access is going to assign that kind of traffic the lowest possible priority...

There is no such whitelisting nor blacklisting at the BGP routing protocol level (which is decentralized) taking place at this time.

The free market has worked.

Do you even have a point? (of course you don't)

My point stands that as soon as the government gets into regulating the internet, that is when you will see the free market fail and the loss of net neutrality begin. If this point is "nutjob" to you, then you provide evidence that sanity appears insane to the insane or too-retarded-to-be-rational.

I understand your delusional fantasy that "you think" you are an intelligent person.

My Lord, #1 cause of collapse is the people are dumb socialists!

It befuddles me how at least 40% of the people think the problem is the solution.

...

Hey you fucking dumbass dolt,

Here's a free tip on how to get someone to read your post: Don't start it with "Hey you fucking dumbass dolt."

When you learn how to make a point without being a douche nozzle...

When you learn to not be so retarded to claim that megadeath is "right", then I can speak factually that you are not a dolt.

That you still don't understand how embracing the problem as the solution in socialism leads to megadeath, just reinforces my factual statement, "Hey you fucking dumbass dolt".

Do you know what happens (throughout the recorded history of man) to retarded sheep like you as the police state horrifies? Answer: slaughtered by the government or war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...#The_text

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

I know you won't listen. Remember I told you, when you face the outcome. But of course you won't, you will blame your horrible fate on some other fabrication to avoid having to discern the generative essence that I have laid out.

There is one lesson I have learned today. Never argue with an idiot. Nothing good can come from it, because an idiot can not learn. At best, it just wastes my time. At worst, I get dragged into the fabricated blame game psychosis.

[MelodyRowell]

Those who want Obama's 'net neutrality' bullshit, will end up with this:

http://www.coindesk.com/day-reckoning-dark-markets-hundreds-illicit-domains/

You are probably right. Or at least it will be much easier for the government to seize domains in the future. From what I have read in news reports, the legal justification that the onion sites were seized were dubious at best

[darkmule]

You are probably right. Or at least it will be much easier for the government to seize domains in the future. From what I have read in news reports, the legal justification that the onion sites were seized were dubious at best

It is already trivial for them to seize domains.  It requires little more than them simply ordering the registrar to hand it over.  Clearly, this is legally wrong and unconstitutional, since domains are a form of intangible property, but in actual practice, they're doing it on an almost daily basis.

(Seizing .onion pseudo-domains requires actually compromising the system, though.)

This has literally next to nothing to do with net neutrality, though.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

You are probably right. Or at least it will be much easier for the government to seize domains in the future. From what I have read in news reports, the legal justification that the onion sites were seized were dubious at best

It is already trivial for them to seize domains.  It requires little more than them simply ordering the registrar to hand it over.  Clearly, this is legally wrong and unconstitutional, since domains are a form of intangible property, but in actual practice, they're doing it on an almost daily basis.

(Seizing .onion pseudo-domains requires actually compromising the system, though.)

This has literally next to nothing to do with net neutrality, though.

Blocking a domain does not block a P2P application such as Bitcoin.

It has everything to do with this proposed plan to regulate the internet as a utility, because as you admitted that in order to actually enforce it they need to be able to identify at the protocol layer, which means they can then technically block stuff like Bitcoin and more specifically they can technically put actual content filters on the internet to block certain speech.

The reason they are attempting to implement this now, is because they want to be able to control what the public can see as they ramp up the GLOBAL POLICE STATE to Orwellian ideals (think Obama's czars).

Ministry of Peace

The Ministry of Peace supports Oceania's perpetual war.

Ministry of Plenty

The Ministry of Plenty rations and controls food, goods, and domestic production; every fiscal quarter, the Miniplenty publishes false claims of having raised the standard of living, when it has, in fact, reduced rations, availability, and production. The Minitrue substantiates the Miniplenty claims by revising historical records to report numbers supporting the current, "increased rations".

Ministry of Truth

The Ministry of Truth controls information: news, entertainment, education, and the arts. Winston Smith works in the Minitrue RecDep (Records Department), "rectifying" historical records to concord with Big Brother's current pronouncements, thus everything the Party says is true.

Ministry of Love

The Ministry of Love identifies, monitors, arrests, and converts real and imagined dissidents. In Winston's experience, the dissident is beaten and tortured, then, when near-broken, is sent to Room 101 to face "the worst thing in the world" — until love for Big Brother and the Party replaces dissension.

You aren't the sharpest tool in the shed.

[oprahwindfury]

The idea of net neutrality has been adopted positively by a good number of EU countries already. The EU parliament have already come out in support of it. Hell, even Brazil has taken a good stance on it (not saying Brazil is a bad country or anything, they are just corrupt as hell). If this is JUST making news then it's really a sad day.

[RodeoX]

Hi guys, fucking communist dumbass here. 

It looks like it's working. Vast numbers of people have been signing petitions and they are making their way into the hands of lawmakers.

http://www.change.org/p/tom-wheeler-save-net-neutrality
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/restore-net-neutrality-directing-fcc-classify-internet-providers-common-carriers/5CWS1M4P
http://cms.fightforthefuture.org/tellfcc/
https://www.aclu.org/secure/FCC_preserve_net_neutrality
http://www.savetheinternet.com/sti-home

Cheers.

[jaysabi]

Hi guys, fucking communist dumbass here. 

It looks like it's working. Vast numbers of people have been signing petitions and they are making their way into the hands of lawmakers.

http://www.change.org/p/tom-wheeler-save-net-neutrality
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/restore-net-neutrality-directing-fcc-classify-internet-providers-common-carriers/5CWS1M4P
http://cms.fightforthefuture.org/tellfcc/
https://www.aclu.org/secure/FCC_preserve_net_neutrality
http://www.savetheinternet.com/sti-home

Cheers.

Hisssss! You evil socialist pigs who insist on having a free and open internet will bring about the destruction of America! You sure will be sorry when Uncle Sam has his big ole thug jackboots on the neck of your precious little internet and the only internet speed you can afford is a 28k dial up modem! Net neutrality is a conspiracy by Obama to seize control of the world!

(Someone was going to say it, so it might as well have been me, as a joke.   )

[Lethn]

lmao sad thing is there are people who will actually genuinely believe in that sort of thing cause 'MERICA!

[jaysabi]

I like Senator Franken calling out Senator Cruz on his fundamental misunderstanding of how net neutrality works. I'd like to see them have a debate on it. It would probably last about 5 minutes, and Ted Cruz would leave in tears. Looking at the two of them and their statements on this issue, you'd probably misidentify Cruz as the former comedian. What really irks me about Cruz is that he may not even believe the garbage he says. He just wanted a soundbite and an excuse to slam Obama and use the word "Obamacare" again. Cruz will be running for president in 2016, so he needs to establish how anti-Obama he is to get through what will be a crowded field of anti-Obama candidates. It doesn't matter if he has to sell lies to do it, and I mean, what harm can enacting policy based on a little lie cause anyway?  

[RodeoX]

It shows how far we have sunk. Now people just react based on politics without a clue as to what they are talking about. "oh, he's for it? Them I'm against it!".

[jaysabi]

It shows how far we have sunk. Now people just react based on politics without a clue as to what they are talking about. "oh, he's for it? Them I'm against it!".

Oh god, you just perfectly summed up the two-party system. Why do you see so many negative attack ads? Because in a two-party system, it's easier to convince you not to vote for someone than it is to vote for someone. So you convince them to vote against your opponent, and you're the only other choice. That's how all the democrats and republicans operate. All democrats are evil, or all republicans are evil, and all their ideas are bad, so instead of having constructive dialogue about problems, they just focus on telling you what is wrong with the other side. That exact set of circumstances is what leads a Ted Cruz to say 'Net Neutrality is Obamacare for the internet' without regard to what Net Neutrality is, how it works, or what is best for the internet and the country. Obama is for it? I better do my best to convince everyone how bad it is.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

The idea of net neutrality has been adopted positively by a good number of EU countries already. The EU parliament have already come out in support of it. Hell, even Brazil has taken a good stance on it (not saying Brazil is a bad country or anything, they are just corrupt as hell). If this is JUST making news then it's really a sad day.

Armstrong commented on that today.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/11/17/governments-are-conspiring-against-people-worldwide/

Governments Are Conspiring Against People – Worldwide
Posted on November 17, 2014 by Martin Armstrong

A good example of government all ganging up against the people to cling to power is how they all follow each other. These G20 meetings are now serious events because they are all about how to control the people and sustain their power. This is demonstrated by coordination efforts from taxes to now controlling the internet. I warned that Obama calling the FCC will result in licensing to censor the internet. That’s right, they may even shut this site down in the near future unless I write what they tell me. Sorry, it will be beach-time for me then as far away as I can get. Illustrating that what Obama has just done is a worldwide conspiracy, we have to look always around the globe to see these movements and shenanigans. The Swiss initiative to start regulating the internet has been unveiled. This is a worldwide effort and those government who have not said anything yet are just hiding behind the curtain. The Swiss will begin with “quality ranking” from TV to internet news sites! Yep – the news on the internet cannot conflict with the newspapers – hello Pravda (means truth). This is a pretend private initiative but their first president is the former member of the state government of Zürich.. It is always government officials who end up in such positions for they are there to rig the game.

Here is a Google translation of the link above:

Stifter Association Media Quality Switzerland

The Donors' Association Media Quality Switzerland "wants to build a foundation that rated neutral and fair by building and operating an independent evaluation of the quality of the media institution and created a rating of media Switzerland. Information pertaining to around 50 most far-reaching national press titles, news sites and information formats of electronic media (radio / TV), with respect scientifically analyzed according to a predefined grid on relevant aspects of quality, compared and evaluated.

The rating is therefore an overview of the major titles and sending vessels in the country as well as its quality. There should be a guide and an outside reference for all individuals and institutions that have to do with media. And it is particularly aimed at the media professionals themselves.

Personalities from the media, politics and business as the founder of the Donors' Association

The founding members are four personalities from the media, politics and business. There are Sylvia Egli von Matt, previously Director of the Swiss School of Journalism maz, Andreas Durisch, Managing Partner Dynamics Group AG, Bruno Gehrig, President of the Swiss International Airlines and former Zurich Government Markus Notter. This was recently elected to the Constituent Assembly as the first president. "The quality of the media in our democracy is of fundamental importance. The media quality is reflected directly in the quality of public discourse. Our goal is to bring in 2015 for the first time the necessary data and to present the results of this novel in this form quality ratings of the Swiss information media in the spring of 2016.

Scientific approach

The quality of the media is collected through scientific methods. The analysis and assessment will be at three levels:

    The quality of the organizational structures and quality assurance of the media houses.
    The reporting quality of the editorial content of the media
    The quality perception among key stakeholders and the general population.

Three university institutes involved:

The rating is following institutions created (scientists)

Institute of Applied Media Studies at the ZHAW Winterthur, fög - public research institute and Society / University of Zurich, Department of Communication and Media Research at the University of Fribourg.

First Media Rating in spring 2016

In a next step, the founder club wants to achieve bis50 30 members by the end of the year. In parallel, the Foundation established in Switzerland media quality and the necessary endowment of around 2 million francs to be boosted by paying to fund the project for the time being three years.

The aim is to raise in 2015 for the first time the necessary data and to present the results in the first and only full quality rating by the Swiss information media in spring 2016.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Hi guys, fucking communist dumbass here.

It is going to be hilarious to watch you and your fellow comrades here become skeletons of your former selves in the coming Gulags.

You are actually wishing and fighting for that outcome for yourself.

[ScreamnShout]

It shows how far we have sunk. Now people just react based on politics without a clue as to what they are talking about. "oh, he's for it? Them I'm against it!".

I don't think very many people really understand what net neutrality means nor the potential consequences of imposing net neutrality rules on ISPs.

IMO this is one example as to when it is good to have lobbyists that can educate the public as to what the effect of net neutrality are from both points of view

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

It shows how far we have sunk. Now people just react based on politics without a clue as to what they are talking about. "oh, he's for it? Them I'm against it!".

I don't think very many people really understand what net neutrality means nor the potential consequences of imposing net neutrality rules on ISPs.

IMO this is one example as to when it is good to have lobbyists that can educate the public as to what the effect of net neutrality are from both points of view

You statist, socialist fools need some education.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6529&cpage=1#comment-1290942

Eric, sorry for the off-topic comment, but I don't know if I can reach you by email. I've been anticipating and wondering if you are going to dip your toe into the debate about the rising trend (ah, the serendipity of that link ending in "911") to regulate the internet using for example "net neutrality" as the justification. I don't comment often on your blog any more, but I do read. I am interested to read your logic as always. I suppose I [am] thinking the forces of decentralization will win in the end, but what hell do we have to go through first to get there?

I see my recent writings on this subject made all the same points that Eric made in 2008 as follows.

Eric S. Raymond's (the progenitor of the term "open source" in the infamous essay "The Cathedral and the Bazaar") past writings about "net neutrality":

Net neutrality: what’s a libertarian to do?
Posted on 2008-11-13 by Eric Raymond   

One of my commenters asked, rather plaintively:

You mentioned net neutrality. I’ve read about this, and the opposition to it. I’ve read about this, and the opposition to it. As far as I can tell, net neutrality is more supported by liberals/democrats, while the opposition is made up more of conservatives/republicans. But for the life of me I can’t figure out which is the the more libertarian position.

Your confusion is entirely reasonable. I’ve hung out with network-neutrality activists and tried to give them what I thought was useful advice. Their political fixations didn’t permit them to hear me. Here’s a summary of the issues and one libertarian’s take on them.

Here’s where it starts: the wire-line telcos want to use their control of the copper and fiber that runs to your house to double-dip, not only charging consumers for bandwidth but also hitting up large content providers (Google, Amazon, etc.) for quality-of-service fees. There’s another question that gets folded into the debate, too: under what circumstances the telcos can legitimately traffic-shape, e.g. by blocking or slowing the protocols used for p2p filesharing.

It is not clear that the regulatory regime under which the telcos operate allows them to do either thing. They haven’t tried to implement double-dipping yet, and they’re traffic-shaping by stealth and lying about it when they get caught. What they want is a political green light to do both.

Let it be clear from the outset that the telcos are putting their case for being allowed to do these things with breathtaking hypocrisy. They honk about how awful it is that regulation keeps them from setting their own terms, blithely ignoring the fact that their last-mile monopoly is entirely a creature of regulation. In effect, Theodore Vail and the old Bell System bribed the Feds to steal the last mile out from under the public’s nose between 1878 and 1920; the wireline telcos have been squatting on that unnatural monopoly ever since as if they actually had some legitimate property right to it.

But the telcos’ crimes aren’t merely historical. They have repeatedly bargained for the right to exclude competitors from their networks on the grounds that if the regulators would let them do that, they’d be able to generate enough capital to deploy broadband everywhere. That promise has been repeatedly, egregiously broken. Instead, they’ve creamed off that monopoly rent as profit or used it to cross-subsidize competition in businesses with higher rates of return. (Oh, and of course, to bribe legislators and buy regulators.)

Mistake #1 for libertarians to avoid is falling for the telcos’ “we’re pro-free market” bullshit. They’re anything but; what they really want is a politically sheltered monopoly in which they have captured the regulators and created business conditions that fetter everyone but them.

OK, so if the telcos are such villainous scum, the pro-network-neutrality activists must be the heroes of this story, right?

Unfortunately, no.

Your typical network-neutrality activist is a good-government left-liberal who is instinctively hostile to market-based approaches. These people think, rather, that if they can somehow come up with the right regulatory formula, they can jawbone the government into making the telcos play nice. They’re ideologically incapable of questioning the assumption that bandwidth is a scarce “public good” that has to be regulated. They don’t get it that complicated regulations favor the incumbent who can afford to darken the sky with lawyers, and they really don’t get it about outright regulatory capture, a game at which the telcos are past masters.

I’ve spent endless hours trying to point out to these people that their assumptions are fundamentally wrong, and that the only way to break the telco monopoly is to break the scarcity assumptions it’s based on. That the telecoms regulatorium, far from being what holds the telcos in check, is actually their instrument of control. And that the only battle that actually matters is the one to carve out enough unlicensed spectrum so we can use technologies like ad-hoc networking with UWB to end-run the whole mess until it collapses under its own weight.

They don’t get it. They refuse to get it. I’ve been on a mailing list for something called the “Open Infrastructure Alliance” that consisted of three network engineers and a couple dozen “organizers”; the engineers (even the non-libertarian engineers) all patiently trying to explain why the political attack is a non-starter, and the organizers endlessly rehashing political strategies anyway. Because, well, that’s all they know how to do.

In short, the “network neutrality” crowd is mainly composed of well-meaning fools blinded by their own statism, and consequently serving mainly as useful idiots for the telcos’ program of ever-more labyrinthine and manipulable regulation. If I were a telco executive, I’d be on my knees every night thanking my god(s) for this “opposition”. Mistake #2 for any libertarian to avoid is backing these clowns.

So, what are libertarians to do?

We can start by remembering a simple truth: The only substantive threat to the telco monopoly is bandwidth that has been removed from the reach of both the telcos and their political catspaws in the regulatorium. Keep your eye on that ball; the telcos know it’s the important one and will try to distract you from it, while the “network neutrality” crowd doesn’t know it and wastes most of its energy self-defeatingly wrestling with the telcos over how to re-slice the existing pie.

Go active whenever there’s a political debate about “unlicensed spectrum”. More of it is good. Oppose any efforts to make UWB (or any other technology that doesn’t cause destructive interference) require a license anywhere on the spectrum. If you are capable, contribute to the development of mesh networking, especially wireless mesh networking.

Oh, and buy an Android phone. As I noted in my immediately previous post, Google is our ally in this.

UPDATE: I’ve summarized the history of the Bell System’s theft of the last mile here.

Why Android matters
Posted on 2008-11-12 by Eric Raymond

...   

I’m going to start with the relatively far future, like five or even possibly ten years out, because I’m pretty sure my projections for it are very similar to Sergei and Larry’s and that they are what is actually driving Google’s corporate strategy.

Cellphone descendants are going to eat the PC...

...

Now. You are Google. You make your money by selling ads on the most successful search engine in the world. One of your strategic imperatives is therefore this: you cannot allow anyone to operate a technological or regulatory chokepoint between you and people doing searches, otherwise they’ll stunt your earnings growth and siphon off your revenues. That’s why you ran a politico-financial hack on the Federal auction of radio spectrum to ensure a certain minimum level of openness. And that’s why you are [Google is], very quietly, the single most determined and effective advocate of network neutrality. [note Eric is referring to free market driven "net neutrality" not the political lie "net neutrality" which is actually the way to end "net neutrality"]

Now, combine these two visions and you’ll understand why Google is doing Android. Their goal is to create the business conditions that will maximize their ad revenue not just two years out but ten years out. Those business conditions are, basically, an Internet that is as friction-free, cheap, and difficult to lock down as the underlying technology can make it.

Under this strategy, Android wins in multiple ways. In the longer term, it gives Google a strong shot at defining the next generation of dominant computing platforms in such a way that nothing but customer demand will be able to control those platforms.

In the shorter term, it outflanks the Baby Bells. As web traffic shifts to Googlephones (and things like them), telco efforts to double-dip carriage charges by extracting quality-of-service fees from Google and other content providers will become both technologically more difficult and politically impossible. By depriving them of the ability to lock in customers to gated and proprietary services, Android will hammer both the wire-line and wireless telcos into being nothing but low-margin bit-haulage providers, exactly where Google wants them. (A leading indicator will be the collapse of the blatant absurdity that is the ring-tones market, doomed when anyone can hook MP3s of their choosing to phone events.)

As bad as this sounds for the telcos, Microsoft gets outflanked and screwed far worse...

...

One of the coolest things about this chain of dominoes is that Google itself doesn’t have to win or end up with control of anything for the future to play out as described. It’s not even necessary that Android itself be the eventual dominant cellphone platform. All they have to do is force the competitive conditions so that whatever does end up dominating is as open as Android is. Given that one of the largest handset makers is already being forced to open source their stack for other reasons (Nokia figured out that they can’t afford to hire enough developers to do all their device ports in-house) this outcome seems certain.

For the open-source community, it’s all good. The things Google needs to do with Android for selfish business-strategic reasons are exactly what we want, too. This isn’t an accident, because we’re both pulling in the direction of reducing the effects of market friction, transaction costs, and asymmetries of power and information. If Google didn’t exist, the open-source community would need to invent it.

Oh. Wait. We did invent them. Where do you suppose Sergei and Larry came from? Why do you suppose they’ve been running Summer of Code and hiring a noticeable fraction of the most capable open-source developers on the planet? Well, here’s a flare-lit clue: before those two guys [Sergei and Larry Page] were famous, they sent me fan mail once.

That’s why I think those two know exactly what they’re doing. And that, if it’s true that their business strategy requires them to be open source’s ally, I think I can be allowed a guess that they chose their business strategy so that would be true. “Don’t be evil”; they’re not angels, but they’re trying.

And, from where I sit? All I can say is this: Bwahahaha. The sinister master plan for world domination – it is working!

Telecoms regulation considered harmful
Posted on 2006-02-27 by Eric Raymond   

Doc Searls asked me to put the argument for total telecoms deregulation into a nutshell, then blog it so he could point at it. Here it is.

Telecoms regulation, to the extent it was ever justified, was justified on the basis of preventing or remedying market failures — such as, in particular, lack of market incentives to provide universal coverage.

The market failures in telecoms all derive from the high fixed-capital costs of conventional wirelines. These have two major effects: (1) incentives to provide service in rural areas are weak, because the amount of time required to amortize large fixed costs makes for poor discounted ROI; and (2) in higher-density areas, the last mile of wire is a natural monopoly/oligopoly.

New technologies are directly attacking this problem. Wi-Fi, wireless mesh networks, IP over powerlines, and cheap fenceline cable dramatically lower the fixed capital costs of last-mile service. The main things holding these technologies back are regulatory barriers (including, notably, not enough spectrum allocated to WiFi and UWB).

The right answer: deregulate everything, free the new technologies to go head-to-head against the wired last mile, and let the market sort it all out.

Un-ending the Internet
Posted on 2006-02-07 by Eric Raymond   

Recently, The Nation ran an article,
The End of the
Internet, that viewed with alarm some efforts
by telephone companies to hack their governing regulations so they can
price-discriminate. Their plans include tiered pricing so a consumer’s
monthly rate could be tied to the amount of bandwidth actually used. They
also want to be able to offer preferred fast access to on-line services
that pay for the privilege — and the flip side of that could
be shutting down services like peer-to-peer networking that big media
companies dislike.

One of my regular visitors. David McCabe, asked me what a libertarian
would do about this. A fair question, representative of a large class
of problems about what you do to constrain monopolies already in place
without resorting to more regulation.

Here’s the answer I gave him:

    Deregulate and let the telcos have their tiered pricing — as long as
    we also deregulate enough radio spectrum that the telcos
    (evil monopolist scum that they are) will promptly be hammered flat by
    wireless mesh networks.

David replied “Beautiful. Blog it.” Hence this screed…

The fundamental problem with the telecoms regime we have is that
the Baby Bells inherited from Mama Bell a monopoly lock on the last
mile (the cables running to end-users’ homes and businesses). More
backbone capacity would be easy and is in no way a natural monopoly,
especially given the huge overbuild of optical-fiber trunk lines
during the Internet boom of the 1990s. But the ‘last mile’, as long
as it’s wire lines, truly is a natural monopoly or oligopoly —
nobody wants more than one set of telephone poles per street, and
their capacity to carry wires is limited. That system doesn’t scale
up.

To a left-wing rag like The Nation, the answer is to
huff and puff about more regulation. But more regulation would do
nothing to attack the telcos’ real power position, which is the
physical constraints on the last mile. The truly pro-freedom anwer is
to enable the free market to take that power position away from
them.

Wireless mesh networking — flocks of cheap WiFi nodes that
automatically discover neighboring nodes and act as routers — is
the technology that can do that. With the right software, networks of
these can be self-configuring and self-repairing. It’s pure
libertarianism cast in silicon, a perfectly decentralist bottom-up
solution that could replace wirelines and the politico-economic
choke-point they imply.

The main thing holding wireless mesh networking back is the small
size of the bandwidth now allotted to it for spread-spectrum frequency
hopping. With enough volume, competition would drive the price of
these creatures to $20 or less per unit — low enough for
individuals and community organizations to spot them everywhere
there’s an electrical grid. Increments of capacity would be cheap,
too; with the right software, your WiFi card could aggregate the
bandwidth for as many nodes as there happen to be in radio range.

(And that software? Open source, of course. Mesh networking relies
on open source and open standards. Some of the node designs out there
are open hardware, too. The mesh network would be transparent, top
to bottom.)

Today, many people already leave their WiFi access points open for
their neighbors to use, even though DSL or cable costs real money,
because the incremental cost of being nice is negligible. At the
equilibrium price level of mesh networking, wireless free Internet
access would be ubiquitous everywhere except deep wilderness areas.

But the wireline backbone wouldn’t vanish, because mesh networking solves
the bandwidth problem at the expense of piling on latency (cumulative
routing and retransmission delays). Large communications users
would still find it useful to be hooked up to long-haul fiber networks
in order to hold down the amount of latency added by multiple hops over the
mesh. The whole system would self-equilibrate, seeking the most
efficient mix of free and pay networking.

As usual, the best solution to the problems of regulation and
imperfect markets is not more politics and regulation, but less of it
— letting the free market work. Not that I expect The
Nation to figure this out soon, or ever; like all leftists,
they will almost certainly remain useful idiots for anyone, tyrant or
telco monopolist, who knows that political ‘solutions’ to market
problems always favor the powerful and politically connected over the
little people they are ostensibly designed to help.

Why I won’t be signing the “Declaration of Internet Freedom” as it is
Posted on 2012-07-03 by Eric Raymond   

There’s been some buzz in the last few days about the Declaration of Internet Freedom penned by some prominent libertarians.

I wish I could sign on to this document. Actually, considering who appears on the list of signatories, I consider the fact that the composers didn’t involve me in drafting it to be a surprising mistake that I can only ascribe to a collective fit of absent-mindedness.

But, because neither I nor anyone else from the hacker tribe was involved, it has one very serious flaw.

Humility, yes, Rule of Law yes, Free Expression, yes, Innovation, Competition, Privacy…most of this document is good stuff, with exactly the sort of lucidity and bedrock concern for individual freedom that I expect from libertarians.

But it all goes pear-shaped on one sentence: “Open systems and networks aren’t always better for consumers.” This is a dreadful failure of vision and reasoning, one that is less forgivable here because libertarians – who understand why asymmetries of power and information are in general bad things – have very particular reasons to know better than this.

In the long run, open systems and networks are always better for consumers. Because, whatever other flaws they may have, they have one overriding virtue – they don’t create an asymmetrical power relationship in which the consumer is ever more controlled by the network provider. Statists, who accept and even love asymmetrical power relationships as long as the right sort of people are doing the oppressing, have some excuse within their terms of reference for failing to grasp the nasty second, third, and nth-order consequences of closed-system lock-in. Libertarians have no such excuse.

In the context of this Declaration, this defect is particularly sad because the composers could have avoided it without damage to any one of the other pro-market positions they wanted set forth. I actually agree that, as proposed in their next sentence, closed systems such as iOS should be free to compete against open systems such as Android; as the Declaration says, “let technologies evolve and intervene, if at all, only when an abuse of market power clearly harms consumers”. The proper libertarian stance in these contests is to tell government to butt out and then vote with your dollars for openness.

I am disappointed in the Declaration’s failure to get this crucial issue right. I hope there is still the option to amend it; and if not, that my objection and correction will reach as many people as the Declaration itself, and the two together will convey important lessons about what we must do to preserve and extend liberty.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

The government wouldn't use regulatory powers to stifle Bitcoin or would they?

[stevegreer]

Come on man, don't go confusing people with facts now. You know blind supporters don't like facts. Let them mock us all they want with their useless quasi-political debates while our rights get stripped away more and more each day. They mocked Ted Cruz when he compared net neutrality to Obamacare. They said he didn't understand net neutrality. I say he understands it perfectly well. He especially understands the implications of allowing the FCC to call the shots and make the rules (regulate). Hell, even some at the FCC are seeing through the ruse:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/17/fcc-official-warns-obama-backed-net-neutrality-plan-will-bring-backdoor-tax-on/

Oh but wait, that article was posted on Fox News. So all the lefties will mock it too. And of course, the left leaning news outlets will never give that information the light of day on their sites.

[cutesakura]

I hope the Obama statement not only for imaging, without any evidence in the field, or even just play media alone, so in fact the American people do not feel anything from the Obama administration today, hopefully, all things said by Obama can be proved in middle- society ... 

[username18333]

Come on man, don't go confusing people with facts now. You know blind supporters don't like facts. Let them mock us all they want with their useless quasi-political debates while our rights get stripped away more and more each day. They mocked Ted Cruz when he compared net neutrality to Obamacare. They said he didn't understand net neutrality. I say he understands it perfectly well. He especially understands the implications of allowing the FCC to call the shots and make the rules (regulate). Hell, even some at the FCC are seeing through the ruse:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/17/fcc-official-warns-obama-backed-net-neutrality-plan-will-bring-backdoor-tax-on/

Oh but wait, that article was posted on Fox News. So all the lefties will mock it too. And of course, the left leaning news outlets will never give that information the light of day on their sites.

FCC is responsible to its government’s public, telecommunications companies are not—they’re responsible to governments.

Who do you trust more to keep collective agents responsible, “the people” or their “more perfect union?”

[BootstrapCoinDev]

It's pretty easy to explain. The US media does a piss poor job of covering international news that doesn't involve the United States. Due to cable television and the for-profit television industry, news broadcasts are centered around more domestic and local issues in order to gain ratings/viewers. It's not about the actual spreading of important information. The news companies here run the same top story until a better one comes along. Recently, that story was ebola. Now, since there's nobody in the US with it, the story is dead and people don't give a shit. There is rarely international news. The few news programs that cover international topics are usually BBC and PBS (public broadcasting). It's a real tragedy, yeah.

[freedomno1]

It shows how far we have sunk. Now people just react based on politics without a clue as to what they are talking about. "oh, he's for it? Them I'm against it!".

Oh god, you just perfectly summed up the two-party system. Why do you see so many negative attack ads? Because in a two-party system, it's easier to convince you not to vote for someone than it is to vote for someone. So you convince them to vote against your opponent, and you're the only other choice.

It's sort of amusing to me when people say Democracy when its really communism with one other party ^^
Essentially its either A or B so fundamentally it doesn't seem like much of a democracy to me just who you pay more money to in order to get the outcome you want.

[username18333]

It shows how far we have sunk. Now people just react based on politics without a clue as to what they are talking about. "oh, he's for it? Them I'm against it!".

Oh god, you just perfectly summed up the two-party system. Why do you see so many negative attack ads? Because in a two-party system, it's easier to convince you not to vote for someone than it is to vote for someone. So you convince them to vote against your opponent, and you're the only other choice.

It's sort of amusing to me when people say Democracy when its really communism with one other party ^^
Essentially its either A or B so fundamentally it doesn't seem like much of a democracy to me just who you pay more money to in order to get the outcome you want.

democracy
1  b :  a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

plutocracy
1  :  government by the wealthy

You write as if plutocracy were republican democracy.

You write as if lobbyists paid very well for influencing politicians' votes do not exist...

Comcast loves 0bama's plan. Does that mean the people voted for Comcast?

More control from government will not make things easier for creatives minds now, especially the ones with ideas but no money. This has been proven over and over again.

. . .

You write as if plutocracy were republican democracy.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

The real plot is to maintain control with rationing when the $227 trillion global total debt comes crashing down. This is precisely what happened to Nazi Germany with their Universal Health Care system which they could no longer afford so they reduced costs and generated revenue put the population in work camps (financed by President Bush Sr's father Prescott Bush's Union Bank) and killed them when they got too skeleton-ized from not being fed (no need to spend money on food on this dispensable human resource).

Final Goal of the Surveillance State

...

What happens when all nations are blanketed from stem to stern with surveillance?

Public utilities, acting on government orders, will be able to allot electricity in amounts and at times it wishes to. This is leading to an overarching plan for energy distribution to the entire population.

Claiming shortages and limited options, governments will essentially be redistributing wealth, in the form of energy, under a collectivist model.

National health insurance plans (such as Obamacare) offer another clue. Such plans have no logistical chance of operating unless every citizen is assigned a medical ID package, which is a de facto identity card. In the medical arena, this means cradle-to-grave tracking.

Surveillance inevitably leads to: placing every individual under systems of control. It isn’t just “we’re watching you” or “we’re stamping out dissent.” It’s “we’re directing your participation in life.”

As a security analyst in the private sector once told me, “When you can see what every employee is doing, when you have it all at your fingertips, you naturally move on to thinking about how you can control those patterns and flows of movement and activity. It’s irresistible. You look at your employees as pieces on a board. The only question is, what game do you want to play with them?”

Every such apparatus is ruled, from the top, by Central Planners. When it’s an entire nation, upper-echelon technocrats revel in the idea of blueprinting, mapping, charting, and regulating the flows of all goods and services and people, “for the common good.”

Water, food, medicine, land use, transportation—they all become items of a networked system that chooses who gets what and when, and who can travel where, and under what conditions.

This is the wet dream of technocrats. They believe they are saving the world, while playing a fascinating game of multidimensional chess.

As new technologies are discovered and come on line, the planners decide how they will be utilized and for whose benefit.

In order to implement such a far-reaching objective, with minimal resistance from the global population, manufactured crises are unleashed which persuade the masses that the planet is under threat and needs “the wise ones” to rescue it and us.

We watch (and fight in) wars and more wars, each one exacerbated and even invented. We are presented with phony epidemics that are falsely promoted as scourges.

The only response, we are led to believe, is more humane control over the population.

On top of that, we are fed an unending stream of propaganda aimed at convincing us that “the great good for the greatest number” is the only humane and acceptable principle of existence. All prior systems of belief are outmoded. We know better now. We must be good and kind and generous to everyone at all times.

Under this quasi-religious banner, which has great emotional appeal, appears The Plan. Our leaders allocate and withhold on the basis of their greater knowledge. We comply. We willingly comply, because we are enlisted in a universal army of altruistic concern.

This is a classic bait and switch. We are taught to believe that service for the greater good is an unchallengeable goal and credo. And then, later, we find out it has been hijacked to institute more power over us, in every way.

The coordinated and networked surveillance of Earth and its people is fed into algorithms that spit out solutions. This much food will go here; that much water will go there; here there will be medical care; there medical care will be severely rationed. These people will be permitted to travel. Those people will be confined to their cities and towns.

Every essential of life—managed with on-off switches, and the consequences will play out.

An incredibly complex system of interlocking decisions will be hailed as messianic.

Surveillance; planning; control.

...

[username18333]

The real plot is to maintain control with rationing when the $227 trillion global total debt comes crashing down. This is precisely what happened to Nazi Germany with their Universal Health Care system which they could no longer afford so they just started killing the population to reduce costs.

Final Goal of the Surveillance State

. . .

What happens when all nations are blanketed from stem to stern with surveillance?

Public utilities, acting on government orders, will be able to allot electricity in amounts and at times it wishes to. This is leading to an overarching plan for energy distribution to the entire population.

Claiming shortages and limited options, governments will essentially be redistributing wealth, in the form of energy, under a collectivist model.

National health insurance plans (such as Obamacare) offer another clue. Such plans have no logistical chance of operating unless every citizen is assigned a medical ID package, which is a de facto identity card. In the medical arena, this means cradle-to-grave tracking.

Surveillance inevitably leads to: placing every individual under systems of control. It isn’t just “we’re watching you” or “we’re stamping out dissent.” It’s “we’re directing your participation in life.”

As a security analyst in the private sector once told me, “When you can see what every employee is doing, when you have it all at your fingertips, you naturally move on to thinking about how you can control those patterns and flows of movement and activity. It’s irresistible. You look at your employees as pieces on a board. The only question is, what game do you want to play with them?”

Every such apparatus is ruled, from the top, by Central Planners. When it’s an entire nation, upper-echelon technocrats revel in the idea of blueprinting, mapping, charting, and regulating the flows of all goods and services and people, “for the common good.”

Water, food, medicine, land use, transportation—they all become items of a networked system that chooses who gets what and when, and who can travel where, and under what conditions.

This is the wet dream of technocrats. They believe they are saving the world, while playing a fascinating game of multidimensional chess.

As new technologies are discovered and come on line, the planners decide how they will be utilized and for whose benefit.

In order to implement such a far-reaching objective, with minimal resistance from the global population, manufactured crises are unleashed which persuade the masses that the planet is under threat and needs “the wise ones” to rescue it and us.

We watch (and fight in) wars and more wars, each one exacerbated and even invented. We are presented with phony epidemics that are falsely promoted as scourges.

The only response, we are led to believe, is more humane control over the population.

On top of that, we are fed an unending stream of propaganda aimed at convincing us that “the great good for the greatest number” is the only humane and acceptable principle of existence. All prior systems of belief are outmoded. We know better now. We must be good and kind and generous to everyone at all times.

Under this quasi-religious banner, which has great emotional appeal, appears The Plan. Our leaders allocate and withhold on the basis of their greater knowledge. We comply. We willingly comply, because we are enlisted in a universal army of altruistic concern.

This is a classic bait and switch. We are taught to believe that service for the greater good is an unchallengeable goal and credo. And then, later, we find out it has been hijacked to institute more power over us, in every way.

The coordinated and networked surveillance of Earth and its people is fed into algorithms that spit out solutions. This much food will go here; that much water will go there; here there will be medical care; there medical care will be severely rationed. These people will be permitted to travel. Those people will be confined to their cities and towns.

Every essential of life—managed with on-off switches, and the consequences will play out.

An incredibly complex system of interlocking decisions will be hailed as messianic.

Surveillance; planning; control.

. . .

Readers should read the logic in the prior two threads on this "net neutrality" debate:

Obama says FCC should reclassify internet as a utility

Obama's Net Neutrality Statement: What it Really Means

Logic does not matter. Some here are willing to fight for their belief that a more powerful centralized power is good for humans, on a forum dedicated to an amazing fully working decentralized creation...

I will never get that.

Regarding this, it should be noted that I presently hold to anarchist communism and am merely pursuing your own logical consistency.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Logic:

http://blog.erratasec.com/2014/11/this-vox-netneutrality-article-is-wrong.html

http://blog.erratasec.com/2014/11/dont-mistake-masturbation-for-insight.html

From a networking expert:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73XNtI0w7jA

http://blog.erratasec.com/2013/09/masscan-entire-internet-in-3-minutes.html

http://www.darknet.org.uk/2014/09/masscan-fastest-tcp-port-scanner/

[darkmule]

foxnews.com

What's it like to be retarded?

[darkmule]

Has anyone else noticed this moron is claiming his testicles are radioactive and have a half-life of .89 milliseconds?

At least he won't reproduce.

[stevegreer]

foxnews.com

What's it like to be retarded?

I don't know. I'll ask your mom for you though, douchebag.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Cross-posting from other thread...

I trust my government a million times more than I trust my ISP. That is the bottom line for me.  

The point you are missing is that in a free market, you don’t need to trust your ISP as competition will provide you with options.

What you don’t believe or fail to understand is that regulatory capture of your government is precisely what stifles competition. This is what the quote from Eric S. Raymond about “asymmetric power” means.

So yes the monopolistic telcos are on their knees praying that you will trust the government more than the free market, because the more power you give to the government to regulate, the stronger their monopolies will become.

This has been proven over and over to always be the outcome in all of recorded human history. The mathematical reason was explained by Mancur Olson’s book, The Logic of Collective Action.

I don’t expect you to be able to wrap your mind around this, because the reason socialists are socialists is because they don’t have the IQ to reason rationally at this high level.

And evolution is at work (over and over throughout recorded human history since Mesopotamia) to cull the population of the low IQ fools (via the war, eugenics, genocide, rationing, and totalitarian megadeath that results from peaking socialism when it runs out of other people's resources to steal, ahem redistribute) so the human race can get smarter and advance knowledge. So sorry for you, you haven’t been able to grasp how to survive.

[patt0]

^ it's the second thread I see where you posted this. Wasn't once enough? xD
Also calling every socialist retarded without knowing what socialism is, is probably not a good idea lol.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

^ it's the second thread I see where you posted this. Wasn't once enough? xD

I guess it didn't register in the pea you call your brain that some lazyfart created a duplicate thread on the same issue, and I want my point to be seen by any one who reads only one of the two duplicate threads.

...without knowing what socialism is, is probably not a good idea lol.

You are too retarded to explain your position so I can rip your illogic to shreds. Are you sure you want to get into an abstract semantic debate with me given I am programmer who makes my living programming in higher level semantics?

[Lethn]

^ it's the second thread I see where you posted this. Wasn't once enough? xD
Also calling every socialist retarded without knowing what socialism is, is probably not a good idea lol.

That's one thing which Americans do all the time which particularly irritates me, they clearly don't know what socialism is.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

^ it's the second thread I see where you posted this. Wasn't once enough? xD
Also calling every socialist retarded without knowing what socialism is, is probably not a good idea lol.

That's one thing which Americans do all the time which particularly irritates me, they clearly don't know what socialism is.

Europeans apparently don't have a clue since they will repeat their megadeath from the 1940s again in the next decade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism in its generative essence is any system where the government is a very large percentage of the GDP, because implicitly it is in control of the economy and directing the redistribution of resources not for free market profit but for the "benefit of the society".

Europe precisely falls into this most generalized essence of socialism. As well you can factor in the Universal Health Care (not for profit but for social benefit), the strong political power of the debilitating unions, the government bailouts for example for Peugot, banks, etc..

Please stop wasting my time. I am busy programming for profit and don't have time for your ignorant bliss.

[My Name Was Taken]

Are you sure you want to get into an abstract semantic debate with me given I am programmer who makes my living programming in higher level semantics?

Please stop wasting my time. I am busy programming for profit and don't have time for your ignorant bliss.

Bahahaha! Don't argue with ME, I'm a super important programmer so I can't be wrong about anything ever.

Fucking hilarious!

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Are you sure you want to get into an abstract semantic debate with me given I am programmer who makes my living programming in higher level semantics?

Please stop wasting my time. I am busy programming for profit and don't have time for your ignorant bliss.

Bahahaha! Don't argue with ME, I'm a super important programmer so I can't be wrong about anything ever.

Fucking hilarious!

Yes that is the way it works. I am correct, you are incorrect.

My favorite Mozilla kafkaesque, security theatre fuck-up for the ages. I warned there and exactly what I warned happened. And so he eventually closed the bug to further comments after receiving 100 complaints over the next two years as I warned him.

Remember I was telling everyone in 2013 that Tor was not anonymous because of timing analysis due to being a low latency network and Sybil attacks on the relay nodes by national security agencies. And everyone thought I was crazy. And now we see new research that says 81% of the users can be identified. Sigh.

You fuckers lost the logic debate so now you predictably resort to ad hominem trolling. And you can't even do that convincingly. I doubt you could even find your way out of a wet brown paper bag. Typical socialist idiots with 10 thumbs.

Cull fuckers! Cull yourselves!

[My Name Was Taken]

Are you sure you want to get into an abstract semantic debate with me given I am programmer who makes my living programming in higher level semantics?

Please stop wasting my time. I am busy programming for profit and don't have time for your ignorant bliss.

Bahahaha! Don't argue with ME, I'm a super important programmer so I can't be wrong about anything ever.

Fucking hilarious!

Yes that is the way it works. I am correct, you are incorrect.

My favorite Mozilla kafkaesque, security theatre fuck-up for the ages. I warned there and exactly what I warned happened. And so he eventually closed the bug to further comments after receiving 100 complaints over the next two years as I warned him.

Remember I was telling everyone in 2013 that Tor was not anonymous because of timing analysis due to being a low latency network and Sybil attacks on the relay nodes by national security agencies. And everyone thought I was crazy. And now we see new research that says 81% of the users can be identified. Sigh.

You fuckers lost the logic debate so now you predictably resort to ad hominem trolling. And you can't even do that convincingly. I doubt you could even find your way out of a wet brown paper bag. Typical socialist idiots with 10 thumbs.

Cull fuckers! Cull yourselves!

Hahaha, you're so pathetic. You were the one that started with all the name calling because your arguments are so weak you have to make up for it by posturing so hard with your big postin internet dick. In typical fashion for people like you, your posts are light on substance but heavy on attacks. Maybe if you say "fucking socialists" enough, it might distract people from how wrong your "facts" are and your complete ignorance of how Net Neutrality works. Go shill for Big Media somewhere else. You're so obvious. Make sure in your next response, you use more bluster and name calling and try to claim victory a little more; I think there might still be some people who don't know how far up your ass your head is. Oh, and then post the identical thing in all three of the threads on this topic now so you can prove to everyone how important you think your opinion is that you need to spam other threads in an attempt to make a point. Or maybe you just really need the attention because your life is so sad, I don't know. But in any event, make sure you mention what a great programmer you are too. People need to know. It gives your opinions super credibility.  

[jaysabi]

My Name Was Taken: stop feeding the troll. Try to find something more productive to do with your time. You've made your point, do you really think you can convince anyone on the internet that their opinion is wrong? Be smarter than that.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

do you really think you can convince anyone on the internet that their opinion is wrong?

Now you speak truth.

You childish fools are bickering about whose dick is a millimeter. You will have bigger problems than that to deal with as the outcome of your socialist politics and illogic starts to take effect in the coming global economic collapse.

Nothing you can say now will change the fact that this debate doesn't end until we see what predicament you fools are in about 3 - 4 years from now (we may get some early indication 2 years from now if you are in Europe or Japan).

[TheIrishman]

Have We Already Lost The Battle For Net Neutrality? (Op Ed)

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/tom-wheeler-fcc-net-neutrality,28111.html

<< We've been hopeful for a long time, but that time may be coming to an end. >>

[contagion]

What the "hall of shame" net neutrality socialist pigs don't understand is that the sparse USA geography is the insurmountable problem and FASCISM is not a solution.

[jaysabi]

What the "hall of shame" net neutrality socialist pigs don't understand is that the sparse USA geography is the insurmountable problem and FASCISM is not a solution.

Don't mind Contagion. He's delusional and claims to be a Big Deal hacker who built the internet, and now he spends his time sniveling about as a shill for big telecoms. See the first thread he referenced above for details on both.