Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shinra]

The plan is “a government takeover of the Internet,” said House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio. “Under this job- killing big government scheme, the Obama administration is seeking to expand the power of the federal government.”

lol, what the fuck is he talking about?

I know Jonny Boner is just another republican shill running the party line, but he can't seriously think anyone believes that crock of horseshit?

[Royal☭]

The phrases "government takeover" and "job-killing" are now a shot each.

[Friend]

The plan is “a government takeover of the Internet,” said House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio. “Under this job- killing big government scheme, the Obama administration is seeking to expand the power of the federal government.”

lol, what the fuck is he talking about?

I know Jonny Boner is just another republican shill running the party line, but he can't seriously think anyone believes that crock of horseshit?

But... Michele Bachmann told me

"They're advocating net neutrality, which is essentially censorship of the Internet!"

I guess statistically someone out there has to be clever enough to fall for this crap

[Catloaf]

[Thad]

But... Michele Bachmann told me

"They're advocating net neutrality, which is essentially censorship of the Internet!"

I guess statistically someone out there has to be clever enough to fall for this crap

They reelected Michelle Bachmann, didn't they?

...anyway.  PC Mag has a rundown of the Third Way the FCC is proposing, the tl;dr of which is "We don't know what the fuck any of this actually means."

EFF objects to the FCC's latest attempt for the same reason they objected to the last one: because it's the FCC asserting additional power over the Internet, autonomously, without a bill passing Congress.  Even if the "third way" is airtight and the FCC does not grant itself any additional powers beyond upholding net neutrality, it has still granted itself the power to grant itself additional powers.  And even assuming the Obama FCC never abuses that power, a future FCC sure as hell could.

So, I'm pretty much where I've been throughout this debate: I strongly support net neutrality, but fuck the FCC.

[Büge]

Internet Kill Switch in the works

[Brentai]

[TA]

Not "in the works".  Just "proposed by a total crank".  It'll never pass, Lieberman's just retarded.

[Mongrel]

It's like the Leto Atreides II school of governance.

[McDohl]

Has this bill gotten any coverage in the mainstream media?  The only thing I can seem to find is an Escapist article and ZDNet.

[Royal☭]

Probably has something to do with the entire story being a crock of shit

[Thad]

Hm.  Will have to see corroboration elsewhere.  On the one hand, Declan McCullough's not a very good journalist; on the other, Joe Lieberman is not a very good human being.

[Catloaf]

At first I thought the Google & Verizon deal thing was just an exaggerated spin from the New York Times.  But after seeing the godawful, loophole-ridden proposal they've come up with........ Fuck.  I can't even fully comprehend why Google would want to do it!  Verizon, sure.  But Google wanting to effectively end net neutrality!?!

To summarize, it's one of those thing that is supposed to 'protect' something, but is worded in such a way as to deregulate and/or destroy it.  Like a pollution bill from 'dubya.

PS: Sorry for the lack of a link to an article. Here ya go.

Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal

Google and Verizon have been working together to find ways to preserve the open Internet and the vibrant and innovative markets it supports, to protect consumers, and to promote continued investment in broadband access. With these goals in mind, together we offer a proposed open Internet framework for the consideration of policymakers and the public.
We believe such a framework should include the following key elements:

Consumer Protections: A broadband Internet access service provider would be prohibited from
preventing users of its broadband Internet access service from--
(1) sending and receiving lawful content of their choice;
(2) running lawful applications and using lawful services of their choice; and
(3) connecting their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network or
service, facilitate theft of service, or harm other users of the service.

Non-Discrimination Requirement: In providing broadband Internet access service, a provider
would be prohibited from engaging in undue discrimination against any lawful Internet content,
application, or service in a manner that causes meaningful harm to competition or to users.
Prioritization of Internet traffic would be presumed inconsistent with the non-discrimination
standard, but the presumption could be rebutted.

Transparency: Providers of broadband Internet access service would be required todisclose
accurate and relevant information in plain language about the characteristics and capabilities of
their offerings, their broadband network management, and other practices necessary for
consumers and other users to make informed choices.

Network Management: Broadband Internet access service providers are permitted to engage in
reasonable network management. Reasonable network management includes any technically
sound practice: to reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network; to ensure network
security or integrity; to address traffic that is unwanted by or harmful to users, the provider’s
network, or the Internet; to ensure service quality to a subscriber; to provide services or
capabilities consistent with a consumer’s choices; that is consistent with the technical
requirements, standards, or best practices adopted by an independent, widely-recognized Internet
community governance initiative or standard-setting organization; to prioritize general classes or
types of Internet traffic, based on latency; or otherwise to manage the daily operation of its
network.
Additional Online Services: A provider that offers a broadband Internet access service
complying with the above principles could offer any other additional or differentiated services.
Such other services would have to be distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband
Internet access service, but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services
and could include traffic prioritization. The FCC would publish an annual report on the effect of these additional services, and immediately report if it finds at any time that these services
threaten the meaningful availability of broadband Internet access services or have been devised
or promoted in a manner designed to evade these consumer protections.

Wireless Broadband: Because of the unique technical and operational characteristics of
wireless networks, and the competitive and still-developing nature of wireless broadband
services, only the transparency principle would apply to wireless broadband at this time. The
U.S. Government Accountability Office would report to Congress annually on the continued
development and robustness of wireless broadband Internet access services.

Case-By-Case Enforcement: The FCC would enforce the consumer protection and
nondiscrimination requirements through case-by-case adjudication, but would have no
rulemaking authority with respect to those provisions. Parties would be encouraged to use non-
governmental dispute resolution processes established by independent, widely-recognized
Internet community governance initiatives, and the FCC would be directed to give appropriate
deference to decisions or advisory opinions of such groups. The FCC could grant injunctive
relief for violations of the consumer protection and non-discrimination provisions. The FCC
could impose a forfeiture of up to $2,000,000 for knowing violations of the consumer-protection
or non-discrimination provisions. The proposed framework would not affect rights or
obligations under existing Federal or State laws that generally apply to businesses, and would not
create any new private right of action.

Regulatory Authority: The FCC would have exclusive authority to oversee broadband Internet
access service, but would not have any authority over Internet software applications, content or services. Regulatory authorities would not be permitted to regulate broadband Internet access service.

Broadband Access for Americans: Broadband Internet access would be eligible for Federal
universal service fund support to spur deployment in unserved areas and to support programs to
encourage broadband adoption by low-income populations. In addition, the FCC would be
required to complete intercarrier compensation reform within 12 months. Broadband Internet
access service and traffic or services using Internet protocol would be considered exclusively
interstate in nature. In general, broadband Internet access service providers would ensure that
the service is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.

Yep, no net neutrality on wireless networks.
Worded so I think Comcast can go back to throttling down BitTorrent
 

[Saturn]

for fucks sake catloaf, include ACTUAL LINKS TO SHIT

Wired article

[Mongrel]

Uh, is this bullshit about Congress trying to pass an "internet blacklist" law for real?

[Thad]

It's an exaggeration but there's a kernel of truth to it.  Basically Congress is pushing for the ability to deactivate domains that are used predominately for piracy.

On the plus side, the act involves some safeguards, requires court orders and so forth.  And more to the point, it wouldn't actually stop any infringing sites from getting shut down -- you could still punch up 194.71.107.15 even if thepiratebay.org stopped resolving.

Quick question: are all TLD's controlled by American companies?  Because I was under the impression that some were operated under foreign jurisdictions.

[Mongrel]

Not sure about that either, but that is a pretty relevant concern. I mean some enterprising pirate could just get a .ru or .cn site or whatever and continue to go nuts.

Further thoughts:

If national TLDs are controlled by US corporations and even a single site in another country is cut off by a US order, that can only renew the call to break the US dominance over control of the Internet. And this time the international community might even genuinely force change of some kind.

If national (or any other) TLDs are not controlled by US corporations, the law is essentially circumvented without any problems (by using a domain not under US control) and may cause a migration to non-US-controlled TLDs.

The latter scenario is less bad for the US than the former, since the latter would just increase the slow erosion of US influence, whereas the former has the capacity to possibly blow up right in the US's face. But they're still both bad for you guys. 

[Mongrel]

Say Thad, I was talking about what you said and my own thoughts with a rather excitable fellow I know who also does tech work:

That's not even slightly true. They could easily require not only a DNS blacklist but also for the IP to be blacklisted amongst the ISP backbones.

The master DNSs are hosted in the US. We have, essentially, the "final say" in DNS listings.

My initial thought is "That's true, but that's not what this legislation describes"... but I don't in fact know if that's correct. What do you think?

[Shinra]

This is the problem with allowing a bunch of old men who have secretaries type their letters for them run the country. They don't really have much of a clue about how these things work and why they're bad ideas.

[McDohl]

Also:

Corporations who gave the old men the money to get their jobs are calling in those favors.