Re: Legitimate question: are forced-in DNS wildcards worth reporting?
Yeah this is an extremely unpopular practice that started about a decade ago and is generally seen as acceptable, even if it breaks the core functionality of the Internet. I highly doubt the FCC would get involved here, as in most instances users can now switch DNS providers or opt out.
I've seen a few ISPs with opt-out systems that don't work, but regulators rarely seem to find it worth fighting over.
Yes, I'm not naive enough to think these crackpots will be voted out of office, but the wheel will turn one way or another, especially if neutrality rules are killed by ISP lawsuit and the public gets annoyed in a SOPA-esque fashion.
"I have no trouble with them making ISPs treat Netflix, et al., the same as any other traffic, but when I go into surgery and need to have an uninterrupted stream sent to the top brain doctor in NYC, while I lay on the operating table in California, it seems like a really bad idea."
Contrary to ISP scare mongering, no sensible regulator or net neutrality supporter opposes network management that allows high-end business-class services to function properly on the Internet. That's never been a serious threat, it's one used by ISP lobbyists to scare people away from the real idea of net neutrality.
Why is this even a point (being made repeatedly)? The article acknowledges the United States lies and engages in propaganda. Many of the articles exploring Putin's trolling are from the global press and not the U.S. government.
So precisely what is the point in declaring that "hey guys, the U.S. also does really awful things and lies a lot" pertinent to the conversation specifically about Russian Internet troll farms?
" I would add that tarring everyone who objects to the US sponsoring coups worldwide (eg, to take recent and salient examples, in Venezuela, Libya, Syria, Ukraine...) with the label of "Russian sympathisers" is a disgusting tactic."
Great point outside of the fact that NOBODY IS DOING THAT.
Knowing AT&T really really well, they're trying to sell the FCC on a flimsy condition saying that they'll agree to PART of the neutrality rules, most notably the ones they had no intent of violating (direct blocking of content). My guess is the Post heard this and misinterpreted it to be a broader offer than it actually is.
FCC could deny the deal, but I really do think this is one deal they'll let go through because acquiring a satellite TV company just as Internet video arrives is kind of idiotic long view...Wall Street has no idea what AT&T's really thinking here (outside of getting the NFL deal and reducing short term competition)>