Login [Register]
Don't have an account? Register now to chat, post, use our tools, and much more.
I don't think it would become "The new DNS root" as DNS servers are shockingly easy to set up. Get a powerful enough server and you're all set. It's not exactly extreme bandwidth. 1 string in, 4 bytes out.

I bet, given the right motivation, we'd see clusters of DNS servers that vie for support from classic browsers like Firefox and Chrome.
willrandship wrote:
I don't think it would become "The new DNS root" as DNS servers are shockingly easy to set up. Get a powerful enough server and you're all set. It's not exactly extreme bandwidth. 1 string in, 4 bytes out.

I bet, given the right motivation, we'd see clusters of DNS servers that vie for support from classic browsers like Firefox and Chrome.


Well you know what they'll do then, they'll just amend the legislation so that it's illegal to start or use a DNS that doesn't comply with their rules.
I don't think they're tech-savvy enough to understand what a DNS root is, and that would infringe on citizens' rights extremely heavily. (Oh, wait....)

They'd probably accidentally illegalize all servers. That would be fun.

"Atlas Shrugged" is looking better and better.
willrandship wrote:
"Atlas Shrugged" is looking better and better.

Ayn Rand only ever looks good if you squint really hard and ignore the social Darwinism. Forget about net neutrality Wink
CISPA passed in the house Sad
elfprince13 wrote:
CISPA passed in the house Sad


And Obama has promised to veto it. Unlike the NDAA, which had really bad things tacked onto what was otherwise an essential bill, there's no necessity behind CISPA so the man can safely veto it without hurting anything.
Is there enough support in the house for a two-thirds vote?
willrandship wrote:
Is there enough support in the house for a two-thirds vote?


I doubt it. Even if there were, the Supreme Court would still b!tch-slap the sh*t out of it. It won't even get that far though because there are certainly enough decent democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans to keep it from passing in the Senate, especially if 2/3rds are needed to to overturn the President's veto.
DShiznit wrote:
willrandship wrote:
Is there enough support in the house for a two-thirds vote?


I doubt it. Even if there were, the Supreme Court would still b!tch-slap the sh*t out of it. It won't even get that far though because there are certainly enough decent democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans to keep it from passing in the Senate, especially if 2/3rds are needed to to overturn the President's veto.


0x5.
A) There has to actually be a court case before the Supreme Court can look at it. And it has to make it through the lower courts. And the Justices actually have to want the case.
B) Hollywood wants this bill hard. Therefore the majority of the Democrats will vote for it (nor will Obama veto it).
elfprince13 wrote:
DShiznit wrote:
willrandship wrote:
Is there enough support in the house for a two-thirds vote?


I doubt it. Even if there were, the Supreme Court would still b!tch-slap the sh*t out of it. It won't even get that far though because there are certainly enough decent democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans to keep it from passing in the Senate, especially if 2/3rds are needed to to overturn the President's veto.


0x5.
A) There has to actually be a court case before the Supreme Court can look at it. And it has to make it through the lower courts. And the Justices actually have to want the case.
B) Hollywood wants this bill hard. Therefore the majority of the Democrats will vote for it (nor will Obama veto it).


A) You don't think they're are already lawyers working on just this? Just about every other censorship bill that's passed the congress was later shot down by the courts before they could be implemented. Encyclopedia Dramatica is actually a decent source for this if you'd like to look it up. I cannot provide a link for obvious reasons.

B) That could very likely be true, unfortunately, but one thing my cynical political views have taught me is that anything a majority of democrats vote for, virtually all Republicans will vote against, even if they initially proposed or supported the idea. Democrats have like 54 seats give or take a Lieberman, so even if there were no filibuster(and there always is), it would only take 4 or 5 good democrats to keep the bill from passing. This is completely ignoring the house which is full of Republicans who will vote with their senate counterparts anyway. Even if somehow it did leave congress, it would still have to get past Obama's promised veto. While he certainly has a lot of friends in Hollywood, I wouldn't count new media out. He gets plenty of input from facebook and twitter, and will take notice of the numerous online petitions that are sure to spring up as this vote draws closer. Given that a lot of his voting base are young people who use the internet, it may be more prudent for him to side with them on this. It's not like Hollywood is gonna throw their support behind Romney.
I got this in an email and found it interesting:

http://www.holyconflictofinterest.com/

I just wonder how long that site will last until its taken down on copyright infringement grounds...
This is a cross-post from slashdot:

Quote:
colinneagle wrote:
RT had a very interesting interview with former NSA official turned whistleblower Thomas A. Drake, who said, 'Security has effectively become the State religion; you don't question it. And if you question it, then your loyalty is questioned.' 'Speaking truth of power is very dangerous in today's world,' he added. The interviewer pointed out that investigative journalists are labeled as 'terrorist helpers' for trying to reveal the truth, to which Drake said the government's take is 'you go after the messenger because the last thing you want to do is deal with the message.'


Network World also has a pretty good article on William Binney's keynote at HOPE 9, wherein he revealed some technical details and a bit more background on the NSA's domestic surveillance program. Unfortunately, neither audio or video of the talk are available yet.



This is really scary, that the NSA is doing all this (especially w/o a warrant). The interview is also very interesting to watch.
DShiznit wrote:
I got this in an email and found it interesting:

http://www.holyconflictofinterest.com/

I just wonder how long that site will last until its taken down on copyright infringement grounds...


Yep, that's our (VT's) Leahy alright. Also a St Mike's alum.



seana11: have you seen this interview? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AgtPE_X_GhQ
Another interesting thing I came across:

http://www.political-prostitution.com/

The video has very high production value, I recommend you watch it for that alone.

EDIT- I saw something on Thomas Drake on the Daily Show recently, it made me laugh and cry:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-6-2012/a-leak-of-their-own---license-to-spill?xrs=share_copy
Hey guys! Here's a Necropost worth reading. Today, the FCC voted to kill Title II regulations under the Communications Act of 1934 for ISPs. More widely known as Net Neutrality. (But don't worry, there's time to save it!) Back in June 2015, the FCC classified ISPs as Title II Utilities and even successfully defended the classification in court several times. Wait. What?

The FCC Classified then Unclassified ISPs as Title II?

Yes. In December 2016, then FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler announced he'll step down on January 20th. According to the article, it's normal for the FCC Chairman to step down when a new President is elected. This left President Trump another spot to fill just days into his presidency. Three days later, on January 23rd, Trump put Ajit Pay in charge. Where did he come from? Ajit was already on the board at the FCC and was critical of Net Neutrality during the planning stages. Since he was promoted to the top spot, he made it his goal - and thus the FCC's - to undue these protections.

What is "Title II"?

On bottom of Page 35 of the "Communications Act of 1934" PDF is this text:

Title II wrote:
It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.


What does that mean?

This means services cannot prioritize traffic above others. In other words, all traffic is equal. The traffic from Netflix, YouTube, Amazon Prime, Hulu, Vudu and, any other video/audio streaming site is treated equally. Not just streaming sites, but e-commerce, social networks, etc. If you have a 40mbps download then you can retrieve any and all internet data up to 40mbps. The ISP can't prioritize any service over another.

Now that Net Neutrality has been struck down by the FCC ISPs can prioritize traffic. This doesn't mean they'll throttle existing connections as there's no telling what they will do. Instead, the common theory is they'll likely use it to promote specific services. If ISP A wants to compete with Netflix all ISP A has to do is prioritize themselves. Instead of watching 4K HDR content at 40Mbps on a 1TB monthly data cap, you can steam ISP A's VOD service at 400Mbps and those videos won't count towards your data cap. That 1TB isn't pulled out of my rear, Comcast has a 1TB cap for all it's customers now. That number is very real.

"Now, Alex..." you're thinking, "who watches 4K HDR content?" Well, I don't know. I do, but I certainly do not stream it. Those are huge files and I don't trust that the quality over the bandwidth of my internet. On average, 1080p video eats through about 5GB of data an hour, while 4K content can eat through as much as 20GB, remember that 4K content is twice the width and twice the height as 1080p thus the amount of pixels are quadrupled. The source goes on to say that the estimate is for a video streamed with the x264 codec. On x265 (or HEVC) the size could be 7GB an hour for 4K but HEVC is an incredibly resource intensive codec and may not be implemented across all shows on a service or even every streaming service.

So, if you're binge watching one of Marvels' Netflix shows on your brand new 4K TV, just imagine it's 20GB an episode. And 13 episodes a season makes for about 260GB of data. So four seasons. Luke Cage, Iron Fist and, the two seasons of Daredevil puts you over that 1TB data cap. That's completely ignoring other services such as: YouTube, your video game downloads, streaming music, OS and app updates, etc.

ISPs can devastate streaming video with inferior experiences. We all already hate our ISPs and we have to put up with their awful customer service to boot. They have awful customer service because, honestly, who else are we going to switch to? I'm lucky where I live in a market with 2 ISP companies but unfortunately both their customer service departments suck. Imagine this mentality with their ideas of VOD. I hate the DVR experience on my cable box, and it's the same company that gives me my internet. Knowing how cheap these companies can be, they'll likely just repurpose the DVR interface into a VOD service. It'll be slow, it'll be confusing and, any web and streaming box would be severely behind or non existent. But, at least you can stream media faster than Netflix AND it doesn't count towards your data cap for the month.

Now. Netflix and services could theoretically pay for access to this fast lane. We have no idea what it would cost but those services would have to increase their monthly subscription to cover that cost. And just like internet rates, I'm sure ISPs would demand more money year over year from these companies thus forcing those companies to increase their prices. Eventually, those services can't keep subscribers as more people move to the ISPs' service because it's faster and cheaper.

This doesn't affect big companies. If big companies like Netflix can pay, that puts smaller companies at a disadvantage. Perhaps it's a startup trying to compete with Netflix. Netflix can afford to pay for a fast lane, this smaller company can't. There's no innovation to be had if companies can pay their way to your door faster that other companies. Like I said, ISP A may have an inferior VOD service but they'll simply include their service as a "fast lane" in the bundle of their services. If Netflix doesn't play ball they'll start to lose subscribers. This affects everyone.

Who is already classified as a Title II?

Utility companies who transport goods, also known as Common Carriers. Such as the water company and the natural gas companies. Most importantly, Telecommunications carriers are classified as Title II; telecommunications is transmission of signs, signals, messages, words, writings, images and sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, optical or other electromagnetic systems. This means AT&T/Verizon cell towers are under Title II but AT&T/Verizon ISP lines are not. The key argument by the FCC back in June 2016 was that ISPs are telecommunication carriers and thus common carriers. They won.

What can I do to ensure the continuation of Net Neutrality?

Contact your state rep! We cannot let the FCC take this back. We have until August 16th before the final verdict. FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, remember Ajit was once a commissioner, said that Net Neutrality is doomed if we're silent, just two days before the FCC voted to dismantle Net Neutrality today and after weeks of public comments.

Click the images to go to the true source, the links below the images provide context, also where I got the images from.


https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/2cskdc/number_of_comments_the_fcc_has_received_daily/


https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/6akxrh/john_olivers_impact_on_fcc_net_neutrality_filings/

I'm taking these links directly from a Reddit post on /r/Technology:

Quote:
If you want to help protect NN you can support groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU and Free Press who are fighting to keep Net Neutrality.

Major tech companies are for Net Neutrality (open in incognito mode to skip wall), And Senate Democrats are for Net Neutrality.


Seriously, if you shop on Amazon for anything. Please consider using http://smile.amazon.com It doesn't work on the App but you can put items in your cart then jump onto a PC to finish the transaction from http://smile.amazon.com If it's your first time on http://smile.amazon.com you'll need to set up a charity to donate to. It's only 0.5% of your transaction total but it's 0.5% more than a charity would get if you didn't use http://smile.amazon.com

We defeated everything the old politicians have created, crafted and, reworded in their attempts to make the internet profitable. Let's win this battle too. We've defeated:
  • SOPA
  • PIPA
  • CISPA
  • ACTA
  • TPP
  • ITU
  • CISPA again
  • TAFTA


Let's be strong and be heard.
It's good ol' big business trying to do good ol' big business things again. There's definitely a market gap to fill for "freedom of internet" - I wouldn't be surprised if an entrepreneur gathers money to lay down fiber in rural places, or enters in some sort of joint venture with Google Fiber to accelerate its growth. The telecom oligopoly will come to an end, sooner or later.
So let me get this straight:

Net Neutrality has little or nothing to do with political viewpoints on the internet, and everything to do with server prioritization? That is kind of how I took it. I realize you just discussed Title II, but you made it sound like that was all Net Neutrality was. Stuff like this bothers me. People against NN don't discuss Title II, but people for it only discuss Title II. I would like to see someone be fair about the issue. I think Title II, based on this article, is worth keeping, but the rest of the bill could probably go.
Besides the obvious, nefarious, counter-productive attack on access to information and on freedom of speech, repealing Net neutrality is dealing another blow to poorer people, and as such, dealing another blow to minorities: women, non-white people, non-heterosexual people, and several other minorities...
The infamous proposed bathroom bill in Texas, among others, goes in the same direction.
Lionel Debroux wrote:
Besides the obvious, nefarious, counter-productive attack on access to information and on freedom of speech, repealing Net neutrality is dealing another blow to poorer people, and as such, dealing another blow to minorities: women, non-white people, non-heterosexual people, and several other minorities...
The infamous proposed bathroom bill in Texas, among others, goes in the same direction.


I'm not understanding how a technical policy favoring specific businesses is causing a further unilateral segregation of minorities.
Among the first page of results returned by a single search engine query, I can find
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/333581-rolling-back-net-neutrality-would-hurt-minorities-and-low . And I'm not sure that's the article I saw a mention of, since the other one (or at least, the commentary thereof) mentioned women and non-heterosexuals.

Without Net Neutrality, the current open Internet is going to become (even) more expensive - and therefore more of a luxury for marginalized people, all the more the GOP is hell bent on attacking healthcare access - and/or the cheap Internet will become restricted. Restricted, as in effectively censored, preferably in the way of political / religious / moral / technical content that the rulers don't like, as always occurs when there's a technical ability to censor. Experiences such as Facebook's awful zero-rating tiny subset of Internet in India were especially eye-opening...

Making poorer / marginalized people third-rate citizens is an interesting way to make America great again. But like Trump's ilk, Ajit Pai's statements are well into the realm of alternative facts too: https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/04/the-worst-lies-from-the-fcc-chairmans-anti-net-neutrality-speech/
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
Page 7 of 8
» All times are GMT - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement