The FCC is about to axe-murder net neutrality. Don't get mad – get even

The FCC is about to axe-murder net neutrality. Don't get mad – get even

The former cable and wireless industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler is re-writing rules in favor of the telecom giants – not you, me or the internet. Here's what you can do to stop him

In January, a federal appeals court rejected regulations designed to assure some measure of fairness in the way America's internet service providers (ISPs) handle information traveling through their networks. The problem, according to the court, was not so much that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) couldn't insist on what is called "network neutrality" – the idea that customers, rather than ISPs, should decide priorities for information they get online. No, the issue was that the FCC had tried to impose broadband rules under the wrong regulatory framework. And the court all but invited the FCC to fix its own mistake and rewrite its own updated rules.

The FCC's new chairman, the former cable and wireless industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler, said he would comply, rather than appeal. "Preserving the Internet as an open platform for innovation and expression while providing certainty and predictability in the marketplace is an important responsibility of this agency," he said in a February statement.

Buckle your seat belts, it's going to get ugly before it gets any better if at all.
"My God Jim, they're full of Crap!"

This is starting to get out of hand, anybody else paying attention or are we all simply lemmings ?

a reply to: SLAYER69

This is a tricky issue since people don't really understand completely.

"Net neutrality" is the name we currently give to the presumably unmolested transfer of data across the internet (it isn't but, hey).

The "net neutrality" proposed in the new FCC rules would supposedly assure the continuance of what we already have. Or, at least, that is what many people believe this is about, it isn't.

When was the last time a new regulation helped an industry as a whole? They may help whichever monopolies already exist or can be quickly created but, never encourage startups or enliven competition.

a reply to: SLAYER69

I think the best course of action would be to cut out the middleman. The cable and internet providers.

I remember a few years back, reading about some guys who had developed a sort of internet by committee. Each user had a kind of WiFi hotspot and the more there were in an area the more bandwidth you had. If I remember right, it had been conceived of as a way to get around Govt. internet blockades in Libya, Syria, Egypt etc...

I mentioned something similiar a while ago. The system is mostly already in place, its the wifi component of our routers! With the correct software it could operate similar to the peer networks where everyone becomes part of the system, the more there are the better it would work.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: SLAYER69

I think the best course of action would be to cut out the middleman. The cable and internet providers.

I remember a few years back, reading about some guys who had developed a sort of internet by committee. Each user had a kind of WiFi hotspot and the more there were in an area the more bandwidth you had. If I remember right, it had been conceived of as a way to get around Govt. internet blockades in Libya, Syria, Egypt etc...

Yes, JTTP, the John Titor transfer protocol.

The high altitude solar powered drone solution has a lot of merit, they can stay up for years already.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Other nations are protecting Net Neutrality for the people - the EU, even Brazil - so why can't the USA?

Is it time to demand the Internet be treated like an essential public service?

Ok, he may be way out there (tell me one of us who isn't...most just hide it well), and he may be wanted for murder (and tell me one person who HASN'T accidentally shot their neighbor after a 4 day research chemical binge), but he knows the game and he's got the funds to make it happen.

Source: John McAfee’s plan to build a million tiny darknets

The product is a $100 “D-Central” gadget that will enable its users to create a small local-area wireless network dynamically, which people can use to communicate and share anonymously without the risk of being tapped by the NSA, the FBI, or any other three-letter agency, McAfee said.

His idea is not QUITE like the idea that the posters above (as well as I) believe can and should be done (Internet over wifi device to replace Internet over backbone). If you think about the nightmare of bottlenecks that the home wifi internet would initially cause, until fully developed over a decade...well, I, for one, would prefer to stay away from that initial spider's web algorithm. The initial development would be the worst, trying to correctly route data from point A to Point B, across a continent, by traversing several hundred thousand home wifi routers. I think McAfee's idea is a necessary first step towards that end (he's a pretty brilliant guy, for a madman).

The device does not replace the Internet, but it adds another layer to it — a lower layer.

Every local network created with D-Central would be in constant flux, either privately or publicly, with users joining and leaving as they choose and as their location changes. D-Central will communicate with your Android or iPhone smartphone, tablets, and laptops, and it would have the capability to tell new joiners what files you might want as well as share any files you have — MP3, videos — with friends, acquaintances, and complete strangers. The D-Central website, currently just a teaser ...

With a range of about three blocks, your network will change constantly, and files will be share completely anonymously. D-Central does connect to the Internet, but those uplinks and downlinks are completely anonymized. “It doesn’t ask who you are,” he said.

“It doesn’t even know who you are … there is no way to tell who is doing what, when, and where.”

a reply to: SLAYER69

This is what happens when the proverbial fox is in the hen house.

Unfortunately this fox was let in by the President and Senate. There are a lot of people quick to point to this as yet another instance of the evil of "regulation" and then offer a false dichotomy — FCC regulation is flawed so the only alternative is no regulation at all.

What specifically about the absence of regulation promotes net neutrality?

See this for what it is — a failure of the FCC, headed up by a former industry lobbyist, to regulate in the interests of consumers.

This is the point where our elected representatives should step in, define net neutrality as a new civil liberty and pass legislation to ensure that it's respected as such.

Fighting now thats what I want to hear.

I do by spitting on cookies, using Tor to send cookies and corrupt data back and seeding torrents at the rate of about 1tb a month.

trying to block spyware does not work, it's growing so stop defending and start attacking by corrupting the data and sending it back out and then see how much all this data is worth to them and they might get the message.

A lot of people, myself included helped us to get into this mess we have today but also know that a lot of us have seen the errors of our ways and are dedicated to keeping the net open and free and secure.

don't trust HTTPS/SSL it mostly used to hide spying and by default I block all SSL traffic and get along just fine and heatbeat proved it's far from safe anyway and only one lock is used, not two as they want you to think for regular browsers.

Tor is cool and even if they do watch exit nodes they still don't know who requested the information and it's much faster than it was, i use it all the time, even as I type this.

originally posted by: VoidHawk
I mentioned something similiar a while ago. The system is mostly already in place, its the wifi component of our routers! With the correct software it could operate similar to the peer networks where everyone becomes part of the system, the more there are the better it would work.

A relay of wifi routers ?

This would be very slow and easy to break.

We should all maybe share limited open access to our wifi routers so no one could trace who said what and if the police turn up and says you was downloading kiddy porn then just tell them to prove it.

maybe the price for freedom of speech comes down to the odd pervert getting off on kiddy porn but it's a price worth paying and I am not interested in well X,Y,X might happen because X,Y,Z happens with cars killing people, it something you have to live with.

If this speeds things up for me, without me having to pay anything extra, then good. If this slows things down at all, I'm going to be pissed.

The day that the internet owers that be slow down my website in order to speed up a competitor that can better afford it? Well folks, that will be the day I make the news.

It took me years to figure out how to make my business show up on the web without paying for adwords. My competitors spend an average of 100k a year to place as well in the search engines as I have done organically. I pay nothing besides hosting and my website comes up top three all over the world under 20 different search terms.

Why? I followed the rules and guidelines. Now if some jackass can come out and just outspend me? No further comments or the thought police will be at me doorstep.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: SLAYER69

I think the best course of action would be to cut out the middleman. The cable and internet providers.

I remember a few years back, reading about some guys who had developed a sort of internet by committee. Each user had a kind of WiFi hotspot and the more there were in an area the more bandwidth you had. If I remember right, it had been conceived of as a way to get around Govt. internet blockades in Libya, Syria, Egypt etc...

It's called a meshnet.

The internet has been under attack for quite some time now and I pray that our allies Anonymous will do all they can to stop this tyrranical takeover from happening. What is it going to take? When will people turn off their televisions, get together in a group and start talking face to face again? I cannot go a day without being bombarded by senseless, ignorant, hollow, and il-informed information being regurgitated back at me by people claiming to be my peers. I live amongst people who dont care about the future, or the government or wars that are currently happening across the globe.

I cherish the information I can research, and do not trust a damn word unless I research both sides, and the internet is my tool to increase my knowledge of such things. The internet has become an important necessity in all of our lives, it is an extension of who I am as a person. Once we lose the ability to freely communicate, we lose our digital voice. Then i will be forced to twist the agonizing screwdriver of senseless smalltalk into my ears as I painfully try to give a crap about what the idiot in front of me is regurgitating to me.

a reply to: SLAYER69

a reply to: SLAYER69

So what will they be doing, censoring swear words and certain rude views that can be seen as 'unpolitically correct' like they do on Tv?

Aren't most websites already censoring profanity and unpolitically correct views?

The FCC seems to be just catering to what people are already used to and approve of. For example, certain things on TV had to be changed because the viewers - the majority - the people - found it 'offensive'.

bump

not interested in being charged twice for the same service,
ISP means internet "SERVICE" provider,

time to make the internet a democracy

xploder

a reply to: arpgme
What they will be doing, basically, is leading you into believing in something that does not exist. You will see only what they want you to see, not reality. Don't see a danger here?

Only way i can see to repair the damage done to the system is to get ISP's redesigned as utilities. Then common carrier comes into play. At which point, Comcast and their ilk can't charge variable transmission rates. Data is data, regardless of where it came from. reply to: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: SLAYER69

I think the best course of action would be to cut out the middleman. The cable and internet providers.

I remember a few years back, reading about some guys who had developed a sort of internet by committee. Each user had a kind of WiFi hotspot and the more there were in an area the more bandwidth you had. If I remember right, it had been conceived of as a way to get around Govt. internet blockades in Libya, Syria, Egypt etc...

MLPPP, it allows you to use multiple routers and multiple ISP connections to increase bandwidth. Let say you have a community of 200 users all with their own routers and their own ISP connections. It is unlikely everyone will be using the internet at the same time, so all of the ISP connections are shared, eg. a 6mbps link at each becomes a 1200mbps link shared by all 200 users. Since they would all be on the same Class C, say 10.0.xxx.xxx, they could all also share data on the common network. Distributed networking for local communities increases speed, increases privacy between the community network and external internet and increases control over resources.

DD-WRT and Tomato as firmware replacements for your existing router are a good start at looking how this can be done in your local area.

Another measure to take during a collapsing infrastructure with little to no manageable regulation is to use HAM radio as the communications vehicle attached to these routers. A small "translation" interface can be made that sits between the WAN port on the router and the HAM radio to make the HAM radio act like a very high bandwidth modem (with a few changes to the HAM of course).

Technology can be fun ;-)

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: arpgme
What they will be doing, basically, is leading you into believing in something that does not exist. You will see only what they want you to see, not reality. Don't see a danger here?

The danger is the distortion of reality, and it's already been happening since the beginning of human civilization.

People (the government included) have always been censoring and hiding information - whether it be teachers, scientists, doctors, lawyers, government officials, or one's own friends and family.

Like I said, it's nothing new, it's just happening on a new form of media, one that already has a lot of misinformation and disinformation and difficult to discern through anyway (internet).

a reply to: arpgme

Very, verytrue. The internet does reach a whole lot more people though and reacts and adapts very rapidly, though, and spreads it more quickly.