SOPA, PIPA, the Feds, Anonymous, and You
- Thread starter Ryuugi
- Start date
An online petition to get Obama to keep his promise to fight for Net Neutrality: FightForTheFuture.org
And that's why my mediaserver is not allowed internet access, and everything is backed up with offline drives. If they suddenly decide that my legal Rips of Weird Al aren't up to their snuff, they ain't going to be able to be fishing in this pond.
I see bad things coming for the us and the internet in the next 10 years. Too many governments trying to get powers that don't belong to them is going to lead to national network isolationism and global free speech is likely to die a whimpering death. The net extends across all borders, but the laws don't. Since people can barely agree on meeting places let alone terms or ideals (*cough*UN*cough*), it's unlikely that some global government is going to arise to watch it all.
I see bad things coming for the us and the internet in the next 10 years. Too many governments trying to get powers that don't belong to them is going to lead to national network isolationism and global free speech is likely to die a whimpering death. The net extends across all borders, but the laws don't. Since people can barely agree on meeting places let alone terms or ideals (*cough*UN*cough*), it's unlikely that some global government is going to arise to watch it all.
Despite what he says, the government is not really against encryption per se, it is against it being made available to anyone but them..
This seems partial bull anyway... I'm of the general opinion that government, if they want something off a phone, they can get at that info...
Most of these security measures really IMHO would not work near as well as are perceived by the general public.
Take the kill switch or 'bricking' (really a kill signal or code message, but people call it a kill switch). If a person whom stole the phone really wanted the data on it, all they need do is make it so cannot receive outside signals. they make special bags that can do that and they are available relatively cheap, there are also boxes that can be made signal proof. And rooms can be set up for hacking the phone easily enough.
As for encryption, sure it can slow them down, but I really doubt encryption is going to outright stop the Government.
The single best defense, is to *not* have compromising info on a phone or gadget level device. be it numbers, accounts, pictures, or otherwise illegal or criminal nature.
And it has been proved, that the cloud can be hacked, keeping anything other than bare minimum info on it is foolhardy.
I do dislike how that whole image scandal is being handled and perceived... everyone is acting so shocked... but data and image scandals from hacked accounts of various types have been cropping up for years. The only thing unusual was it was a big batch at once, and most all this time was cloud based.
This seems partial bull anyway... I'm of the general opinion that government, if they want something off a phone, they can get at that info...
Most of these security measures really IMHO would not work near as well as are perceived by the general public.
Take the kill switch or 'bricking' (really a kill signal or code message, but people call it a kill switch). If a person whom stole the phone really wanted the data on it, all they need do is make it so cannot receive outside signals. they make special bags that can do that and they are available relatively cheap, there are also boxes that can be made signal proof. And rooms can be set up for hacking the phone easily enough.
As for encryption, sure it can slow them down, but I really doubt encryption is going to outright stop the Government.
The single best defense, is to *not* have compromising info on a phone or gadget level device. be it numbers, accounts, pictures, or otherwise illegal or criminal nature.
And it has been proved, that the cloud can be hacked, keeping anything other than bare minimum info on it is foolhardy.
I do dislike how that whole image scandal is being handled and perceived... everyone is acting so shocked... but data and image scandals from hacked accounts of various types have been cropping up for years. The only thing unusual was it was a big batch at once, and most all this time was cloud based.
I'm of a mixed mind about this. Part of me wants to scream "YES! Finally!" and the other part is sulking saying, "Doesn't being classified as a utility in the U.S. pretty much allow for a legalized monopoly for the service?" Certainly works like that for all the other utilities... I can't imagine a legalized monopoly will be in any way good for keeping the cost of net access down.
I actually do not put much stock in anything coming of this. Obama can pretty much state anything he wants, that does not mean it is going to happen because he is not in direct charge of the FCC or the ISPs.
Classing Internet as a Utility potentially can be both of good and bad.
It in theory should put a stop to throttling, while paying for a specific speed I've no problem with, throttling is to me deceptive business practices.
I doubt a monopoly would occur in this case, and it does allow for differing contactors. very worst case, which I doubt, is it could end up like how Ohio Gas is worked. Not sure how it is in other states, but natural gas if you have it is always provided by the same company with the same lines and the same source and same maintenance. But you have the option of what contract and service administrator. it is confusing in that you have multiple options for the same service, but nice in that realistically all things being equal, just pick the cheapest.
I'm a bit concerned on the front that it may make it easier for government to get at and monitor the lines (aka NSA) and to pass bills on regulating the service (aka SOPA/PIPA). The first I actually personally care little about not because I do not think it an issue, but because I'm of the general opinion if the government wants at the connection so bad, they will get it.
In regards to rising rates, I'm on the lower end of the spectrum and I still have seen at least three rate hikes this year, and one late last year. The one late last year was because I want off the one year intro period (I'm about to hit 2 years, which is good, as I'll own the equipment). The three hikes this year were each just minor increases.
However, I've talked with my brothers and a cousin and aunt... what some people are paying for internet I consider highway robbery now.... My one aunt and uncle are paying some 250mo with TV... Another aunt last I checked was paying near 100mo for internet TV and phone (not internet) my one cousin is on a plan charging near 400mo.
I'd like to see more speed delivered to outskirt areas, like where I live. I get by on what I do have, but it is only 3mbps unlimited a month (I like that unlimited bit, as it is getting rare). It is the slowest of only 3 providers that will service my area, but by far the cheapest, and I get the advantage of a straight internet and phone (tempted to drop the phone part), not multiple bundles of junk I have no use for that the other two want to give.
Classing Internet as a Utility potentially can be both of good and bad.
It in theory should put a stop to throttling, while paying for a specific speed I've no problem with, throttling is to me deceptive business practices.
I doubt a monopoly would occur in this case, and it does allow for differing contactors. very worst case, which I doubt, is it could end up like how Ohio Gas is worked. Not sure how it is in other states, but natural gas if you have it is always provided by the same company with the same lines and the same source and same maintenance. But you have the option of what contract and service administrator. it is confusing in that you have multiple options for the same service, but nice in that realistically all things being equal, just pick the cheapest.
I'm a bit concerned on the front that it may make it easier for government to get at and monitor the lines (aka NSA) and to pass bills on regulating the service (aka SOPA/PIPA). The first I actually personally care little about not because I do not think it an issue, but because I'm of the general opinion if the government wants at the connection so bad, they will get it.
In regards to rising rates, I'm on the lower end of the spectrum and I still have seen at least three rate hikes this year, and one late last year. The one late last year was because I want off the one year intro period (I'm about to hit 2 years, which is good, as I'll own the equipment). The three hikes this year were each just minor increases.
However, I've talked with my brothers and a cousin and aunt... what some people are paying for internet I consider highway robbery now.... My one aunt and uncle are paying some 250mo with TV... Another aunt last I checked was paying near 100mo for internet TV and phone (not internet) my one cousin is on a plan charging near 400mo.
I'd like to see more speed delivered to outskirt areas, like where I live. I get by on what I do have, but it is only 3mbps unlimited a month (I like that unlimited bit, as it is getting rare). It is the slowest of only 3 providers that will service my area, but by far the cheapest, and I get the advantage of a straight internet and phone (tempted to drop the phone part), not multiple bundles of junk I have no use for that the other two want to give.
It's pure PR-stunt at this point as Obama and Dems don't have means to make any actual changes due to Republican majority. Make nice gesture that's essentially worthless and you can trick some of the more gullible people into forgetting just who has been pushing hard for censorship and NSA-activities.
That's not how gas works here in MN. One company owns the pipes in the neighborhood, and they are the only ones that provide service. Of course another company could lay additional pipes, but no other company is willing to make the investment.
It's the same with Phone, Cable and Power. The only other option to bending over for Comcast here is to bend over slightly less far for DirecTV satellite.
DirecTV, landline phone and 15Mbps internet lumped together costs us about $190 a month. Half of that is DirecTV. Just can't get the wife to cut the cord though.
It's the same with Phone, Cable and Power. The only other option to bending over for Comcast here is to bend over slightly less far for DirecTV satellite.
DirecTV, landline phone and 15Mbps internet lumped together costs us about $190 a month. Half of that is DirecTV. Just can't get the wife to cut the cord though.
A number of years ago Ohio Gas got their asses hauled into court over the monopoly and pricing on services, and how badly they were managing it and how customers were being treated. The courts found against them and ordered that the administrative and billing be split off into other entities, and the servicing can be maintained by them.
Customers got the option of multiple billing options, billing administrators, but only one provider. But all maintenance and actual services have the same provider. You *can* get your billing to be the supplier, but the beauty of the setup is you can go through whomever gives either the best price for you or the best customer service. And can have billing based on actual use with varying contract details, or based on budget, which averages a houses use over a year to give you a consistent billing. Some allow locking of rates, which may or may not be in your favor.
My Electric, Water, Sewer, StormDrainRunoff billing all work like that. I'm pretty much locked to whom supplies or services it. Sometimes a community can negotiate a slightly cheaper rate though.
For TV I've two options, even if I get advertisements for three...
- Time Warner
- DirecTV
- AT&T is more than happy to *advertise* U-Verse TV, phone, and internet and other services to me... but they refuse to actually provide and *offer* it. A bit annoyed on that point, as while I've never had U-Verse, I had their high speed internet DSL offering for 12 mostly happy years.
For phone technically no one offers a straight landline only phone option to me, Time Warner will give one for $10.00, but requires internet. Windstream is the same in requiring internet. I can get a 3rd party VIOP phone, which also requires internet. I *might* be able to get a pure Alltell line but doubt it. I can get a cell phone option form a number of places, but that is not a true landline phone option.
For Internet I've three options (not counting AT&T, see above). All three have a TV option as well.
- Time Warner
- DirecTV
- Windstream - TV option called Merge and requires internet.
Windstream is the only one that will offer pure DSL without the other options though. Windstream is by far the cheapest, even after the promo period, though slowest of the three.
Also, Windstream TV option would have added only $12 to the bill. They were willing to sell it, though with reservations. But I did not want it anyway, partially because the fastest speed they could give me at my fairly remote house is 3mbps, which while actually quite reasonable for my needs, is dumb for housewide TV fed off of the internet.
I got my package with just phone, I was not going to do that, but the package options at the time actually would have had me paying $3 *more* a month to *not* have phone, which was counterintuitive.
I set myself up with free over the air Digital TV (DTV) house wide, so I pay nothing for it, though get comparatively few channels. I do have to replace my antenna, I have the replacement, but have not had the time to do the installation. Something happened to it, as I was getting some 28 channels clear, and a few more with issues, now get about half that. The new antenna is more powerful.
I am also on Hulu Free, Crackle, CrunchyRoll, and Rabbit TV, so use the internet connection for those services. Rabbit TV is interesting, since it uses a USB dongle, but only costs about $10 a year for the service, but $20 with the first year with the purchase of the device.
All in all combined for house unlimited Internet, unlimited Phone, and free TV, I pay under $75 even with me getting off the promo period and the rate increases.
Customers got the option of multiple billing options, billing administrators, but only one provider. But all maintenance and actual services have the same provider. You *can* get your billing to be the supplier, but the beauty of the setup is you can go through whomever gives either the best price for you or the best customer service. And can have billing based on actual use with varying contract details, or based on budget, which averages a houses use over a year to give you a consistent billing. Some allow locking of rates, which may or may not be in your favor.
My Electric, Water, Sewer, StormDrainRunoff billing all work like that. I'm pretty much locked to whom supplies or services it. Sometimes a community can negotiate a slightly cheaper rate though.
For TV I've two options, even if I get advertisements for three...
- Time Warner
- DirecTV
- AT&T is more than happy to *advertise* U-Verse TV, phone, and internet and other services to me... but they refuse to actually provide and *offer* it. A bit annoyed on that point, as while I've never had U-Verse, I had their high speed internet DSL offering for 12 mostly happy years.
For phone technically no one offers a straight landline only phone option to me, Time Warner will give one for $10.00, but requires internet. Windstream is the same in requiring internet. I can get a 3rd party VIOP phone, which also requires internet. I *might* be able to get a pure Alltell line but doubt it. I can get a cell phone option form a number of places, but that is not a true landline phone option.
For Internet I've three options (not counting AT&T, see above). All three have a TV option as well.
- Time Warner
- DirecTV
- Windstream - TV option called Merge and requires internet.
Windstream is the only one that will offer pure DSL without the other options though. Windstream is by far the cheapest, even after the promo period, though slowest of the three.
Also, Windstream TV option would have added only $12 to the bill. They were willing to sell it, though with reservations. But I did not want it anyway, partially because the fastest speed they could give me at my fairly remote house is 3mbps, which while actually quite reasonable for my needs, is dumb for housewide TV fed off of the internet.
I got my package with just phone, I was not going to do that, but the package options at the time actually would have had me paying $3 *more* a month to *not* have phone, which was counterintuitive.
I set myself up with free over the air Digital TV (DTV) house wide, so I pay nothing for it, though get comparatively few channels. I do have to replace my antenna, I have the replacement, but have not had the time to do the installation. Something happened to it, as I was getting some 28 channels clear, and a few more with issues, now get about half that. The new antenna is more powerful.
I am also on Hulu Free, Crackle, CrunchyRoll, and Rabbit TV, so use the internet connection for those services. Rabbit TV is interesting, since it uses a USB dongle, but only costs about $10 a year for the service, but $20 with the first year with the purchase of the device.
All in all combined for house unlimited Internet, unlimited Phone, and free TV, I pay under $75 even with me getting off the promo period and the rate increases.
US Internet service...
I think the biggest source of trouble - in a business sense, not necessarily an information ethics sense - is that nowadays the biggest ISPs are mostly cable and phone companies that expanded into internet.
So high-speed internet is cannibalizing their existing cable-TV customerbase. That's the biggest reason the ISPs are pushing for throttling; so they can extort Netflix into covering their losses as they bleed customers from cable-TV to internet-TV.
In terms of government regulation, I think I would prefer the general approach of electric utilities; you either sell content (electricity) or you sell bandwidth (distribution) but no company can do both.
I mean, there would still be a strong business case for throttling internet speeds, but it would be about market fundamentals re: allocation, not about the ISPs trying to screw Netflix for being somehow better than them.
So I think Obama might be on to something, but I don't have any faith in his (or his people's) ability to turn his good ideas into a good institution, nevermind keeping the morally bankrupt spies on their leash; and I really question his judgement in coming out and making a strong, clear policy pronouncement on something divisive literally the first week the new Republican majority was looking for an excuse to shout at him instead of actually working.
I kind of wonder if Obama is just sticking a helmet on a pole and running it up over the wall for the Republicans to cheerfully shoot at, so he can sneak some other activity in somewhere else while they're distracted, you know?
I think the biggest source of trouble - in a business sense, not necessarily an information ethics sense - is that nowadays the biggest ISPs are mostly cable and phone companies that expanded into internet.
So high-speed internet is cannibalizing their existing cable-TV customerbase. That's the biggest reason the ISPs are pushing for throttling; so they can extort Netflix into covering their losses as they bleed customers from cable-TV to internet-TV.
In terms of government regulation, I think I would prefer the general approach of electric utilities; you either sell content (electricity) or you sell bandwidth (distribution) but no company can do both.
I mean, there would still be a strong business case for throttling internet speeds, but it would be about market fundamentals re: allocation, not about the ISPs trying to screw Netflix for being somehow better than them.
So I think Obama might be on to something, but I don't have any faith in his (or his people's) ability to turn his good ideas into a good institution, nevermind keeping the morally bankrupt spies on their leash; and I really question his judgement in coming out and making a strong, clear policy pronouncement on something divisive literally the first week the new Republican majority was looking for an excuse to shout at him instead of actually working.
I kind of wonder if Obama is just sticking a helmet on a pole and running it up over the wall for the Republicans to cheerfully shoot at, so he can sneak some other activity in somewhere else while they're distracted, you know?
Well they're certainly taking the shots. Ted Cruz on Net Neutrality. Git.
Groans... a guy getting in office on the backs of some of the companies that would be most against net neutrality... my worry when Republicans took congresss.. while there may be some improvements, we will also have some problems since I'm not entirely convinced they are all stable.
One item to worry me is the potential for someone forcing through a SOPA or PIPA clone law. Whomever is making those bills up really does not understand just how the internet works... as some of the very people whom set the internet and old arpanet and web up have proclaimed it cannot really work as they envision it would.
One item to worry me is the potential for someone forcing through a SOPA or PIPA clone law. Whomever is making those bills up really does not understand just how the internet works... as some of the very people whom set the internet and old arpanet and web up have proclaimed it cannot really work as they envision it would.
Caught on the Ziff Davis PC magazine Feed:
It is great to have a monitoring system, I suppose, but only using it to warn a customer that a limit has been reached seems incredibly unhelpful. I would have thought it would be better to send out daily notifications on usage remaining and/or used. that way a user can know in advance they might go over, or curb themselves to pace out their usage or something.
I know they said it also notifies at 50% and 85%, but that is ridiculus, as a person might not pass that to 100% for a week or two...
Even my dumb pay as go phone allows for something like that... it does not message me when I'm out of minutes, it messages me when I get below a certain point, allowing me to complete my business and call in more minutes.
It is great to have a monitoring system, I suppose, but only using it to warn a customer that a limit has been reached seems incredibly unhelpful. I would have thought it would be better to send out daily notifications on usage remaining and/or used. that way a user can know in advance they might go over, or curb themselves to pace out their usage or something.
I know they said it also notifies at 50% and 85%, but that is ridiculus, as a person might not pass that to 100% for a week or two...
Even my dumb pay as go phone allows for something like that... it does not message me when I'm out of minutes, it messages me when I get below a certain point, allowing me to complete my business and call in more minutes.