I see you're afraid to post abusive comments under your own name. Fact: Yes, I am an ISP. A damned good one who cares about his customers. The regulations are bad for them and for the Net and must be repealed.
As for Ajit Pai: I have no "vested interest" in him, but do respect him as a very capable and knowledgeable lawyer and a man of principle.
As for Arse Technica: They're merely a clone of Techdirt, or maybe vice versa. They also get money from Google to lie about, and libel, ISPs.
Cerf knows it very well. He gets paid handsomely by Google and is complicit. Likewise Berners-Lee, who gets paid by Google for heading the lobbying group A4AI.
The regulations, which go against the very nature of the Internet, are the result of corruption; they were bought by Google campaign contributions and written by Google lobbyists. Their purpose: to harm ISPs and Internet users while fattening the wallet of Google, the world's richest corporation. They SHOULD be repealed -- not replaced, simply repealed. There was no problem for them to solve, and they have created problems: They've slowed broadband investment and deployment, discouraged innovation, raised bills, slowed speeds, and threatened Internet users' privacy (by exempting the Internet's worst spies -- including Google). So, why does this publication say otherwise? And why does it libel ISPs (who, unlike the one person it attacked directly, have been nice enough not to sue it but would have a good case)? Because it gets money from Google. Unethical journalism at its worst.
How about showing a bit of respect for Commissioner Pai, who is not only a very smart man but is leading the charge for something that everyone should want: transparency at the FCC? You may not agree with him, but don't insult his intelligence.
Besides, he happens to be correct. Title II regulation would be horrible for the Net and would harm Net users worldwide by paving the way for nations to block, throttle, censor, and overcharge.
That behavior does not look like the ISP's equipment is altering messages from the remote server, but rather as if it is redirecting the session to a proxy server -- most likely for the purpose of stopping outbound spam.
Such a proxy can send the mail onward in encrypted form once it's checked for spam. If this is the case, and there is encryption or even just physical security on the inbound connection, the privacy of the message isn't compromised.
It's sad that such measures are necessary, but they are -- not only in public hotspots but in situations where a new user might sign up for new service from an ISP and then send boatloads of spam until the account is turned off. (This is happening a great deal nowadays.)
It is easy to imagine that someone could pass around an expired (and hence useless for other fraud) credit card number to enable infinite, free digital downloads of a book that ought to be paid for. So, if Barnes and Noble is to have a feature that allows you to re-download books, you can understand why it would have to be tied to a valid credit card.
This entire discussion forgets what the Internet is. It's a loose federation of independently owned and operated local networks that agree to exchange data with one another. From the beginning, the owner or operator each network that participates in this exchange has had the right to choose what traffic it exchanged, what kind of traffic it exchanged, and the policies that governed its own internal network.
Now, large corporations such as Google -- which have benefited from the Internet -- are seeking to wrest control of those independent networks (which are the operators' property) from them, out of sheer corporate greed. Yes, they really DO want to use the pipes for free... and to take control of the private property of the network owners who built the Net. They're masking this agenda with a claim of "civil rights" with regard to the Net, which is specious; it's private property. Consumers will benefit if they stop supporting this corporate crusade by large, unethical companies and instead support the people who are building out the Net.
The reason why so many people have been deceived into believing that this is a free speech or censorship issue (it is neither) is that Google has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into misleading lobbying and PR. The truth is that it's a piracy issue, and Google -- being perhaps the largest and most flagrant copyright infringer in the world -- doesn't want to see copyright violators punished. (Google has copied millions of books without the authors' permission, and its YouTube site thrives on unauthorized delivery of copyrighted material.) Wake up, sheeple! Yes, there's something outrageous going on, but it's not what you believe. SOPA isn't evil, but the corporations that are attempting to manipulate you into believing it is -- and the corporate lobbyists who are trying to quash the law so that their bosses can continue to commit wholesale theft -- are quite evil.
If AT&T were going to take it as a loss leader, they might as well not have protested the existence of WiscNet, because competitors would have been locked out and they wouldn't have had to lose money to achieve that.
The demise of WiscNet will open opportunities for local entrepreneurs and ISPs. AT&T might get some of the business, but local firms will get a lot of it. And that means new jobs and more money staying in the local economy.
Funny: the press is so busy bashing AT&T that it forgets how many local businesses - especially Wisconsin ISPs - will benefit from filling in for WiscNet. And, yes, in-state businesses get a bidding preference under state law.
However, we will reveal it in that case, not only because the law compels us to do so but because it's important to fight crime. Copyright infringement is theft.
Google actually wrote the proposed FCC rules and has multiple lobbying groups in DC (most of them "astroturf" groups that pretend to be "public interest" organizations but get big bucks from Google) gunning for it. The telcos aren't the ones you have to worry about in this debate; they have to compete and so they won't dare do anything that consumers don't like. But Google has multiple Internet monopolies. It's the one that you should be concerned about. And it's the one that's lobbying for "network neutrality" regulations that would give it virtually complete control of the future of the Net, while raising your prices and degrading your service.
For accurate information on the ways in which P2P really does shift huge costs to ISPs in ways that streaming video does not, see my testimony before the FCC at
http://www.brettglass.com/FCC/remarks.html
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Brett Glass.
Re: Re: Re: Good riddance!
I see you're afraid to post abusive comments under your own name. Fact: Yes, I am an ISP. A damned good one who cares about his customers. The regulations are bad for them and for the Net and must be repealed.
As for Ajit Pai: I have no "vested interest" in him, but do respect him as a very capable and knowledgeable lawyer and a man of principle.
As for Arse Technica: They're merely a clone of Techdirt, or maybe vice versa. They also get money from Google to lie about, and libel, ISPs.
Re: Re: Good riddance!
Cerf knows it very well. He gets paid handsomely by Google and is complicit. Likewise Berners-Lee, who gets paid by Google for heading the lobbying group A4AI.
Good riddance!
The regulations, which go against the very nature of the Internet, are the result of corruption; they were bought by Google campaign contributions and written by Google lobbyists. Their purpose: to harm ISPs and Internet users while fattening the wallet of Google, the world's richest corporation. They SHOULD be repealed -- not replaced, simply repealed. There was no problem for them to solve, and they have created problems: They've slowed broadband investment and deployment, discouraged innovation, raised bills, slowed speeds, and threatened Internet users' privacy (by exempting the Internet's worst spies -- including Google). So, why does this publication say otherwise? And why does it libel ISPs (who, unlike the one person it attacked directly, have been nice enough not to sue it but would have a good case)? Because it gets money from Google. Unethical journalism at its worst.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Spect (just a little bit)
See, for example,
www.wsj.com/articles/robert-m-mcdowell-and-gordon-goldstein-dictators-love-the-fccs-plan-to-regulate-the-internet-1424219652
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Spect (just a little bit)
How about showing a bit of respect for Commissioner Pai, who is not only a very smart man but is leading the charge for something that everyone should want: transparency at the FCC? You may not agree with him, but don't insult his intelligence.
Besides, he happens to be correct. Title II regulation would be horrible for the Net and would harm Net users worldwide by paving the way for nations to block, throttle, censor, and overcharge.
That looks like an anti-spam proxy.
That behavior does not look like the ISP's equipment is altering messages from the remote server, but rather as if it is redirecting the session to a proxy server -- most likely for the purpose of stopping outbound spam.
Such a proxy can send the mail onward in encrypted form once it's checked for spam. If this is the case, and there is encryption or even just physical security on the inbound connection, the privacy of the message isn't compromised.
It's sad that such measures are necessary, but they are -- not only in public hotspots but in situations where a new user might sign up for new service from an ISP and then send boatloads of spam until the account is turned off. (This is happening a great deal nowadays.)
If people did not steal, this would not be an issue.
It is easy to imagine that someone could pass around an expired (and hence useless for other fraud) credit card number to enable infinite, free digital downloads of a book that ought to be paid for. So, if Barnes and Noble is to have a feature that allows you to re-download books, you can understand why it would have to be tied to a valid credit card.
How about actual freedom for the Internet, rather than entitlements for freeloaders?
This entire discussion forgets what the Internet is. It's a loose federation of independently owned and operated local networks that agree to exchange data with one another. From the beginning, the owner or operator each network that participates in this exchange has had the right to choose what traffic it exchanged, what kind of traffic it exchanged, and the policies that governed its own internal network.
Now, large corporations such as Google -- which have benefited from the Internet -- are seeking to wrest control of those independent networks (which are the operators' property) from them, out of sheer corporate greed. Yes, they really DO want to use the pipes for free... and to take control of the private property of the network owners who built the Net. They're masking this agenda with a claim of "civil rights" with regard to the Net, which is specious; it's private property. Consumers will benefit if they stop supporting this corporate crusade by large, unethical companies and instead support the people who are building out the Net.
Not a helicopter
The tech industry isn't offering content creators a helicopter; it's offering them a noose.
Actually, it IS a Google issue.
The reason why so many people have been deceived into believing that this is a free speech or censorship issue (it is neither) is that Google has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into misleading lobbying and PR. The truth is that it's a piracy issue, and Google -- being perhaps the largest and most flagrant copyright infringer in the world -- doesn't want to see copyright violators punished. (Google has copied millions of books without the authors' permission, and its YouTube site thrives on unauthorized delivery of copyrighted material.) Wake up, sheeple! Yes, there's something outrageous going on, but it's not what you believe. SOPA isn't evil, but the corporations that are attempting to manipulate you into believing it is -- and the corporate lobbyists who are trying to quash the law so that their bosses can continue to commit wholesale theft -- are quite evil.
Self-supplied data
This "study" simply isn't credible. It trusts pirates to be honest about how much media they buy! Common sense says you simply can't do that.
Re: Re: Beneficial to local businesses
If AT&T were going to take it as a loss leader, they might as well not have protested the existence of WiscNet, because competitors would have been locked out and they wouldn't have had to lose money to achieve that.
The demise of WiscNet will open opportunities for local entrepreneurs and ISPs. AT&T might get some of the business, but local firms will get a lot of it. And that means new jobs and more money staying in the local economy.
Beneficial to local businesses
Funny: the press is so busy bashing AT&T that it forgets how many local businesses - especially Wisconsin ISPs - will benefit from filling in for WiscNet. And, yes, in-state businesses get a bidding preference under state law.
Gee, I can't possibly fathom...
...who could possibly be against theft.
Our ISP requires a lawful order before revealing personal info.
However, we will reveal it in that case, not only because the law compels us to do so but because it's important to fight crime. Copyright infringement is theft.
It's Google that spent the big bucks on lobbying.
Google actually wrote the proposed FCC rules and has multiple lobbying groups in DC (most of them "astroturf" groups that pretend to be "public interest" organizations but get big bucks from Google) gunning for it. The telcos aren't the ones you have to worry about in this debate; they have to compete and so they won't dare do anything that consumers don't like. But Google has multiple Internet monopolies. It's the one that you should be concerned about. And it's the one that's lobbying for "network neutrality" regulations that would give it virtually complete control of the future of the Net, while raising your prices and degrading your service.
P2P bandwidth hoogging and cost shifting
For accurate information on the ways in which P2P really does shift huge costs to ISPs in ways that streaming video does not, see my testimony before the FCC at http://www.brettglass.com/FCC/remarks.html