"Restoring Internet Freedom"

[DrEvil]

..snip..

I stopped subscribing to TV via my local cable company a year ago. There is very little value in it except for some sports I enjoy watching, which I can do at my girlfriends or a local pub. It's my choice to spend money on that...or not. It's my choice to listen to old CDs or stream music via my phone or home Internet connection. It's ridiculous to think I should have unlimited bandwidth for either. Should we also expect to have unlimited food, water and electricity without paying for it? Should we expect that just because you can find all sorts of free music online that you should never have to pay for it? How about any content produced by artists, writers, photographers or film makers? Do they deserve to be compensated for their work? Or is it okay to rip them off and steal their works?

You keep equating paying a fixed rate with not paying for something at all. It's stupid, please stop doing it.
Why is it ridiculous that you should be able to use the bandwidth you pay for any way you see fit?

Mixing piracy in there is also kinda shitty. You're insinuating that net neutrality proponents are thieves, although a lot more people will probably turn to piracy in the future, since the ISPs are now free to throttle or block services that compete with their own (as they have done in the past). Would you be OK with your toll roads only allowing cars from Ford on them? Or having a special high-speed lane only for Fords?

The only thing piracy has to do with this is that the ISPs now can throttle or block peer-to-peer networks entirely, like they've already done in the past (until all the World of Warcraft players went into a frenzy because that game uses P2P to distribute updates).

The public can decide if a corporation deserves to be run out of business. You get enough people to stop using the product or service and eventually things work out. If enough customers get pissed off at Comcast and stop using their service likely Comcast will make some changes. Nobody is forcing you to use the Internet, there are plenty of other means of communication and old fashioned methods to commerce. I have no sympathy for someone who is screaming their ability to watch Netflix might be impinged. Don't like fast food? Don't eat it. If product or service is crappy don't buy it. Since when do we expect businesses to not make a profit? I mean come on people, that is why businesses are created, to make money. Making a profit is not evil.

This is all horseshit. You're not free to not use the internet. It's an essential part of life today. Not having access to the internet today is the equivalent of living without power or running water. It's doable, but it puts you at a huge disadvantage.

Not using Comcast just isn't an option for a lot of people, because they are the only option for getting internet in the first place. Comcast isn't going to change. They've been one of the most hated companies in the US for years, and they couldn't care less, because they're too busy rolling in money, soon to be even more money now that they can charge websites extra for using their network, and not having to disclose all the hidden fees to you up front anymore (keep an eye on your bill).

Making a profit isn't evil. Being greedy, monopolistic bastards is.

[Elvis]

people always have a choice to buy a product or service, or not.

Not everything should be regarded a product to be bought and sold.


And Dr. Evil is right—his entire reply, but essentially this:

You're not free to not use the internet. It's an essential part of life today. Not having access to the internet today is the equivalent of living without power or running water. It's doable, but it puts you at a huge disadvantage.

Just as we can collectively buy or boycott a product or service, we can, collectively, as a society, decide that the Internet is an essential function that should be a public commons.

And speaking of people acting collectively, since a big majority of Americans want net neutrality, this ruling is decidedly undemocratic.

[DrEvil]

^^Amen. Even republicans are in favor of net neutrality when it's explained to them in actual English and not Pai-speak (aka "lies").

[chump]

From a propaganda perspective, that pizza-gate picture is probably important, right?

Or left?

https://boingboing.net/2017/12/15/ajit-lie.html

Documenting the laughable lies the FCC told at the hearing where it killed Net Neutrality

/ Cory Doctorow / 11:54 am Fri Dec 15, 2017

The FCC is only allowed to change existing policies if they can show evidence of some change in facts, so at yesterday's bomb-threat haunted hearing to destroy Net Neutrality, Trump FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and his Republican colleagues made a pro-forma recitation of the reasons justifying his extreme actions.

These reasons were lies.

The FCC said that ISPs weren't subjected to Net Neutrality rules until 2015 and nevertheless didn't violate Net Neutrality. This is a lie. ISPs did have to follow Net Neutrality on their dialup lines, and then when DSL came along, the FCC made them stick to neutrality rules, beefing them up as necessary.

The FCC said that businesses wouldn't abuse their positions to gouge their customers because of the ensuing PR nightmare. This is a lie. Ever heard of Uber surge pricing? TSA Pre-Check?

The FCC said that unless they killed Net Neutrality, ISPs wouldn't be able to prioritize self-driving cars and telemedicine. This is a lie. The 2015 rules explicitly allow ISPs to do this.

The FCC said that since Net Neutrality rules were enshrined in 2015, investment in broadband infrastructure had stagnated. This is a lie. Broadband investment increased since 2015, and the CEOs of telcoms companies told their shareholders that the 2015 rules had no bearing on their investment plans.

The FCC said that the FTC would fight anti-competitive moves by the ISPs, so Net Neutrality isn't needed. This is a lie. The FTC has no authority to act in these cases.

The FCC said that it would be OK for Comcast to censor your internet connection because Twitter and Facebook already do this when they filter your social media based on an algorithm. This is a lie. It's also really stupid.

2: "I sincerely doubt that legitimate businesses are willing to subject themselves to a PR nightmare for attempting to engage in blocking, throttling, or improper discrimination. It is simply not worth the reputational cost and potential loss of business."—Commissioner O’Rielly

Perhaps O’Rielly has never paid a surge price to hail an Uber in New York City at rush hour or stood in a hellish airport security line, while TSA Pre fliers, who paid extra for the luxury, speed blissfully through the metal detectors. We’re here to tell him: Businesses try to maximize profits whenever they sniff demand. It’s true that sometimes it ends in embarrassment, as when Uber instituted surge pricing following an explosion in New York City in 2016. 1 But often, the “PR nightmare” is temporary, and consumers either adjust to the new pricing arrangement or defer the service altogether. That creates a two-tiered system with some commuters speeding down Broadway in an overly expensive Uber and others stuck taking the bus. O’Rielly doubts internet service providers would take advantage of those same market forces. Ah, innocence.

Consumers can only resist when they have choices. But the FCC itself says that only slightly more than one-third of Americans have access to more than one internet provider offering service that it considers broadband. In rural areas, only 39 percent of people have access to even one broadband provider.

The Biggest Whoppers From the FCC's Net Neutrality Meeting Issie Lapowsky, Klint Finley/Wired]

============

https://boingboing.net/2017/12/15/back- ... ck-up.html

A deep dive into the race to preserve our digital heritage

/ Cory Doctorow / 12:31 pm Fri Dec 15, 2017

Science Friday's beautiful "File Not Found" series looks at the thorny questions of digital preservation: finding surviving copies of data, preserving the media it is recorded upon, finding working equipment to read that media, finding working software to decode the information once it's read, clearing the rights to archive it, and maintaining safe, long term archives -- all while being mindful of privacy and other equities.


I'm quoted in the piece, but regret that I wasn't clearer. I think that modern data is actually a lot simpler to preserve than older data, because of the growth in both cloud and local, online storage. The data I had to store on floppies (before I had a hard drive, and then after I got one but before I could afford a drive that was capacious enough to maintain all my data) is vulnerable because it's on media that is slowly decaying and whose reading equipment is getting harder and harder to source.


But once the floppies and cards and tapes and cartridges are read into the primary storage for computers in constant use, it gets a lot more robust. Backing up that data gets easier and easier (I maintain two encrypted hard drives with backups, only one of which is onsite, and which are rotated; as well as an encrypted cloud backup of key data), and running programs that can interpret the data has effectively ceased to be a problem because I can use virtual machines running obsolete operating systems and the original programs to see, copy and manipulate the data.


As fast as my personal data is growing, the cost of the main drive I use in my daily-use computer is dropping faster. Every year, I have much more long-term data, and every year I have much more headroom on the drive in my laptop.


In a future world of obsolescence, digital objects of the past could be lost due to the disappearance of the original programs and machines that read them—the data gobbled up by the informational black hole. For example, files once readable on floppy disks become increasingly harder to retrieve as readers become more of a vintage item.


“We’re like nautiluses,” says Cory Doctorow, science fiction writer and author of books like Walkaway and Little Brother. “We go from one device to the next and the next one because storage keeps getting so cheap, [and] has twice as much storage [as] the last ones we had.”


The result: a trail of vulnerable data, which can become unsalvageable if not maintained properly. Not all data may need to be preserved, but the potential loss and disappearance of certain information could pose a risk to maintaining a coherent picture of the digital age. And with our current fixation on upgrading hardware every few years, the problem is getting worse.


In order to prevent us from spiraling further into the informational black hole, researchers are on the hunt for ways to immortalize history—a system to eternalize data forever.

[Karmamatterz]

Why is it ridiculous that you should be able to use the bandwidth you pay for any way you see fit?

My service policy for the Internet service via cable informed me prior to activation there were data limits. There is no such thing as unlimited bandwidth in such a business contract. If I go over the limit I have to pay extra. Thankfully I rarely do any longer since my daughter got her own apartment.

I didn't intentionally insinuate those of favor of net neutrality are thieves. I also mentioned food, water etc...I extended it to piracy because it is more top of mind when thinking about the Internets as it happens so much. I have personal and professional work I've done in photography that I see get used by people who have no qualms about using my work without compensation. I have colleagues who experience the same.

This is all horseshit. You're not free to not use the internet. It's an essential part of life today. Not having access to the internet today is the equivalent of living without power or running water. It's doable, but it puts you at a huge disadvantage.

Horseshit? Have you ever shoveled it in real life? I have, my dad used to have us spread all over our vast gardens. I disagree 100% that the Internet is essential. My mother lives a perfectly happy life (aside from old age ailments) without the Internet. She has never ever been on it and doesn't care to use it. Its a choice. Your comparison to the Internet and water holds no water. No water and you die. No Internet and you don't die. Your life may even be better off! You are right about being at a disadvantage in some areas. Depends on the situation though.

Making a profit isn't evil. Being greedy, monopolistic bastards is.

Define greedy. That word is open to interpretation. Who are you to tell someone in business how much they should make? Unless you're the business owner or investor you have no say, nor should you. What gives you the right? We all know what greed is, but its a slippery slope to call out greed in vague terms. There are some antitrust laws, but it doesn't always mean some nefarious businesses will go to great lengths to corner the market and squeeze people. Look at Microsoft. It wasn't long ago that they had a monopoly on personal computer operating systems. That thankfully is no longer the case. Did they lose their monopoly because of government intervention? Hell no. It was open source (Linux), Apple and Google (Android) that broke it.

Just as we can collectively buy or boycott a product or service, we can, collectively, as a society, decide that the Internet is an essential function that should be a public commons.

Yes to that. It is what democracy is about. But we know democracy is often paid lip service. Most Americans don't want war, but our country is constantly invading others. I wish more taxes were spent on cancer research or education and not nuclear bombs....wishful thinking.

When I travel i notice people in first class. They get on and off the airplane first. They pay for that. It is a choice to fly just like it is a choice to use the Internet. Neither are forced on you.

[DrEvil]

Why is it ridiculous that you should be able to use the bandwidth you pay for any way you see fit?

My service policy for the Internet service via cable informed me prior to activation there were data limits. There is no such thing as unlimited bandwidth in such a business contract. If I go over the limit I have to pay extra. Thankfully I rarely do any longer since my daughter got her own apartment.

The bolded part is what I have serious issues with. Why is it that most countries manage just fine without those caps?
It either means that your networks are so shitty that they're necessary, or that your ISP is screwing you. My guess is your ISP is screwing you.

I didn't intentionally insinuate those of favor of net neutrality are thieves. I also mentioned food, water etc...I extended it to piracy because it is more top of mind when thinking about the Internets as it happens so much. I have personal and professional work I've done in photography that I see get used by people who have no qualms about using my work without compensation. I have colleagues who experience the same.

This is absolutely an issue, and it happens all the time, but that's not something the ISPs are responsible for any more than the hardware store is responsible for the burglaries done with crowbars they sold. You have the DMCA to take care of that (although that's a whole other rabbit hole of abuse and censorship).

This is all horseshit. You're not free to not use the internet. It's an essential part of life today. Not having access to the internet today is the equivalent of living without power or running water. It's doable, but it puts you at a huge disadvantage.

Horseshit? Have you ever shoveled it in real life? I have, my dad used to have us spread all over our vast gardens. I disagree 100% that the Internet is essential. My mother lives a perfectly happy life (aside from old age ailments) without the Internet. She has never ever been on it and doesn't care to use it. Its a choice. Your comparison to the Internet and water holds no water. No water and you die. No Internet and you don't die. Your life may even be better off! You are right about being at a disadvantage in some areas. Depends on the situation though.

Your mother is in her eighties if I remember correctly? I'm going to take a wild guess and say that she's not looking for a job, meeting lots of new people or generally trying to keep up with what's happening outside of her established social group.

Making a profit isn't evil. Being greedy, monopolistic bastards is.

Define greedy. That word is open to interpretation. Who are you to tell someone in business how much they should make? Unless you're the business owner or investor you have no say, nor should you. What gives you the right? We all know what greed is, but its a slippery slope to call out greed in vague terms. There are some antitrust laws, but it doesn't always mean some nefarious businesses will go to great lengths to corner the market and squeeze people. Look at Microsoft. It wasn't long ago that they had a monopoly on personal computer operating systems. That thankfully is no longer the case. Did they lose their monopoly because of government intervention? Hell no. It was open source (Linux), Apple and Google (Android) that broke it.

So by your logic Martin Shkreli was justified in his price gouging? Or to take a less extreme example, would you be OK with someone adding 50% to the price of bottled water in a disaster area?

Microsoft rose to dominance mainly because they had the most popular product. They weren't actively preventing people from installing other operating systems on their computers, and in the instances they were being monopolistic, like with Internet Explorer, they got smacked down hard and forced to give people other options.

Pretty much the opposite is true for the major ISPs today. Comcast, Verizon and AT&T are fighting tooth and nail to prevent any serious competition, up to and including buying politicians. Just look at their donations and how the recipients vote.

Just as we can collectively buy or boycott a product or service, we can, collectively, as a society, decide that the Internet is an essential function that should be a public commons.

Yes to that. It is what democracy is about. But we know democracy is often paid lip service. Most Americans don't want war, but our country is constantly invading others. I wish more taxes were spent on cancer research or education and not nuclear bombs....wishful thinking.

When I travel i notice people in first class. They get on and off the airplane first. They pay for that. It is a choice to fly just like it is a choice to use the Internet. Neither are forced on you.

Damn, that's pretty fatalistic. You don't want to fight for a better world because it's just wishful thinking? Net neutrality is one of the things were people can actually make a difference. It worked before with SOPA, and the Internet is something everyone uses, so the consequences become personal (unlike dead people over there).

And finally, here's a picture, just because:

(It's a bit out of date. Qwest was bought by CenturyLink in 2011)

[82_28]

Yeah dude (Karmamatterz), while I do hear you, you kind of have a really destroyable argument about the Internet. I'll just go into a few of the arguments about how well meaning you are but with little cognizance of reality. To get that first class ticket, let alone coach, I want you to absolutely do it with no utilization of an ip address. That goes for your luggage too. No ip addresses may be used up and down the line by any link in the chain. This also includes a secure LAN the airline uses for inter-corporate communication. Including the LAN is unfair because how does Delta find out what Alaska is selling shit at? Right, no more calls to find out why ticket prices were so capricious long ago.

How many people, besides yourself, probably use maps on the Internet on not that trusty Rand McNally in the magazine rack these days?

How many RI users handwrite letters to whoever runs this place to be posted?

When was the last time you balanced your checkbook? I was taught to do that in the waning days of the late 90s, now it is done for me and everyone else by logging in.

When was the last time you checked the phone book for a quick number to get in touch. Ah, shit. They aren't listed. Should I call directory assistance?

In other words, to not use the Internet, or moreover actively choose to not use it is to be at a severe disadvantage.

Nobody is asking you to use the shit you don't want to use and nobody, especially me is super happy about it either, but the Internet used to be exciting and would have never been attacked like it is today were it not so NECESSARY.

I tried to use the Internet when I was a kid when The Planetary Society was sending out floppy disks with the magazine so I could see more pictures and discoveries. I do not know what the fuck they used. It was some number you would have your 386 computer unnaturally call on its 28k baud modem and would hook up with just it. But I didn't "get it" until I got that free AMERICA ONLINE (it wasn't AOL back then) CD in the mail and was amazed at how much knowledge I could find. The hyperlink was something of a miracle. I remember explaining it to friends as you can go to a WEBPAGE and just keep clicking on the HYPERLINKS and never stop! The Internet has always been an amazing tool and the tool that I am is one who really believed it would lead to a utopia of sorts. But, it has been denatured by capitalism (this money you speak of). It literally was just a research tool to begin with that was offered free.

So, I have to ask, Karmamatterz, say you do come into a new device that networks in the near future are you going to leave it offline? If so, I would love to hear how you did so.

This is why the Internet must be free of any sort of control other than by those who venerate the freedom the Internet is in its natural state.

[82_28]

Shit, fuck that. It wasn't no AOL CD it was a floppy. Sorry.

[Karmamatterz]

Zing...yeah you make great points. i am being devils advocate. I love the Internetz. 28k modem? Damn that was fast. I must be a few years older as I was geeked when the 14k was available.

How many people, besides yourself, probably use maps on the Internet on not that trusty Rand McNally in the magazine rack these days?

How many RI users handwrite letters to whoever runs this place to be posted?

Perhaps I run with some Luddites, but my best friend travels the U.S. in his beater car (over 600k miles) using nothing BUT an old-fashioned paper map you referred to. My girlfriend and I absolutely love using paper letters. Our best stuff is on paper. My mom sends out a family phone/address list a couple of times a year on....paper. Those examples are of course, minorities. There is something sublime with driving on a road trip without using Internet based maps. Hell, even chuck aside the paper and use the sun and stars. I've arrived at destinations with just following road signs, not always on time though.

It is obvious that the Internet gives us advantages, there are hundreds of examples. BUT, IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR LIFE. Food, shelter from the elements and water are necessary or we die quite easily.

The Internet is not being attacked. I know what you mean by that, but its merely being taken advantage of by those that seek to use it for their own gain. It is like just about everything in life and it will always be that way as we are human. I just don't see myself as a victim of being taken advantage of by big communications companies. I use their networks they provide and I pay for it.

[stickdog99]

[stickdog99]

[Karmamatterz]

Clean oxygen is already bottled, sold and used by millions of people daily. Your local hospital could simply pump in air from the outside for their patients and those at home could ditch their oxygen tanks they carry around with them.

So is water, but nobody is forcing you to buy bottled water.

[DrEvil]

Clean oxygen is already bottled, sold and used by millions of people daily. Your local hospital could simply pump in air from the outside for their patients and those at home could ditch their oxygen tanks they carry around with them.

So is water, but nobody is forcing you to buy bottled water.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, trolling or serious (green text is sarcasm btw. I usually don't use it, but I really didn't want anyone misunderstanding my previous green comment in the Hillary thread), but ditching the oxygen tank isn't an option for lots of people. They use it exactly because regular air isn't enough for their damaged lungs.

As for bottled water, in a disaster area (or Flint) like Houston earlier this year your tap water is probably gone and you seriously don't want to drink the water outside. That leaves bottled water, which reminds me: would you be OK with someone jacking up the price in that situation?

[seemslikeadream]

Senator Chuck Schumer says there will be a Senate Vote to overturn the FCC's ruling on NetNeutrality -- Only a simple majority will be required to overturn the ruling.

[Karmamatterz]

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, trolling or serious (green text is sarcasm btw. I usually don't use it, but I really didn't want anyone misunderstanding my previous green comment in the Hillary thread), but ditching the oxygen tank isn't an option for lots of people. They use it exactly because regular air isn't enough for their damaged lungs.

As for bottled water, in a disaster area (or Flint) like Houston earlier this year your tap water is probably gone and you seriously don't want to drink the water outside. That leaves bottled water, which reminds me: would you be OK with someone jacking up the price in that situation?

Appreciate the clarification on the green text. I really wasn't sure.

About oxygen tanks...People could learn how to purify the outside air and just do it themselves. Might cost them a bit to buy some equipment but it is doable. Or, they could just buy it from someone else. Not sure where you're going with that.

I could go dip a bucket of water into Lake Erie a few times a week for drinking water and then purify it myself, super simple. Or, I can buy water from the county or bottles off the shelf. Options...

Not a fan of price gouging during a crisis, it's a pretty shitty thing to do. I would expect that if a water distributor (bottled) jacked prices way up then the public backlash would be severe enough that the company would lose business big time from the negative feedback.