Net Neutrality

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Net Neutrality

Randy B. Singer
The FCC published rules regarding ISPs and
content today:

http://docs.vortex.com/FCC-NN-2011-24259_pi.pdf

___________________________________________
Randy B. Singer
Co-author of The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th, and 6th editions)

Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance
http://www.macattorney.com/ts.html
___________________________________________



____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Net Neutrality

Louise Olson
On 9/22/11, Randy B. Singer wrote:
>The FCC published rules regarding ISPs and
>content today:
>
>http://docs.vortex.com/FCC-NN-2011-24259_pi.pdf
>

I just tried to use this link and got a message from my browser that
this file could hurt my computer so I selected the "discard." Any
idea why that would be?

Louise
____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Net Neutrality

Christopher Kavanaugh
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBwQITAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwebcache.googleusercontent.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dcache%3Az9mKREtYtSkJ%3Awww.ofr.gov%2FOFRUpload%2FOFRData%2F2011-24259_PI.pdf%2BFCC-NN-2011-24259_pi.pdf%26cd%3D1%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ei=TEJ-Tq6qCOblsQLqp8EQ&usg=AFQjCNHoIuQOW_k6MuH-ryoETLefkmdM2Q&sig2=lZvWyoR1TmzUyl8Vrhm-hA

With this link you can view it in html with no download.  Did it say "Harmful" or "May be harmful" ? Might just have not know.  Regards C




____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Net Neutrality

Al Varnell
In reply to this post by Louise Olson
On 9/24/11 1:26 PM, "Louise Olson" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 9/22/11, Randy B. Singer wrote:
>> The FCC published rules regarding ISPs and
>> content today:
>>
>> http://docs.vortex.com/FCC-NN-2011-24259_pi.pdf
>>
>
> I just tried to use this link and got a message from my browser that
> this file could hurt my computer so I selected the "discard." Any
> idea why that would be?
>
Curious as to what browser you is telling you this.  I suppose any PDF
"could" hurt your computer, but only one that I know of will and even it
doesn't work properly yet.  For that matter any download "could".  It's up
to you to decide whether you want to take the chance.

WOT <http://www.mywot.com/> gives both sites a clean bill of health, so I
don't see any danger.


-Al-
 
--
Al Varnell
Mountain View, CA



____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Net Neutrality

Fearghas McKay

On 25 Sep 2011, at 00:02, Al Varnell wrote:

> Curious as to what browser you is telling you this.

Opera certainly gives it as a warning message.

As well as a bunch of other file types.

        f
____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Net Neutrality

Harald Sundt
In reply to this post by Louise Olson
I get it.

Your right click or save as file.  It really isn't a web page address
but a link to a file ...

HTML Browsers sometimes choke when asked to be ftp clients. That is a
different protocol.



On 9/24/11 1:26 PM, Louise Olson wrote:

> On 9/22/11, Randy B. Singer wrote:
>> The FCC published rules regarding ISPs and
>> content today:
>>
>> http://docs.vortex.com/FCC-NN-2011-24259_pi.pdf
>>
> I just tried to use this link and got a message from my browser that
> this file could hurt my computer so I selected the "discard." Any
> idea why that would be?
>
> Louis
____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Net Neutrality

Tom Coradeschi
In reply to this post by Louise Olson
At 1:26 PM -0700 09/24/2011, Louise Olson wrote:

>On 9/22/11, Randy B. Singer wrote:
>>The FCC published rules regarding ISPs and
>>content today:
>>
>  >http://docs.vortex.com/FCC-NN-2011-24259_pi.pdf
>>
>
>I just tried to use this link and got a message from my browser that
>this file could hurt my computer so I selected the "discard." Any
>idea why that would be?

Nope. It's a PDF file. Really. Just click the link above and read the
document. NO idea what web browser is giving you this type of warning
- Safari, Firefox and Chrome all dish it up without complaint on my
Mac...
--

tom coradeschi
[hidden email]
____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Net Neutrality

Rodney

On Sep 25, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Tom Coradeschi wrote:

> Nope. It's a PDF file. Really. Just click the link above and read the
> document. NO idea what web browser is giving you this type of warning
> - Safari, Firefox and Chrome all dish it up without complaint on my
> Mac...

There was a recent mention on a fairly reliable podcast about a PDF-based trojan that targets Macs.  I don’t recall getting a CERT warning about this, however, so I don’t know how seriously to take it.  Perhaps this is why a browser might warn about a PDF.
____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Net Neutrality

Al Varnell
On 9/25/11 5:52 AM, "Rodney" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> There was a recent mention on a fairly reliable podcast about a PDF-based
> trojan that targets Macs.  I don¹t recall getting a CERT warning about this,
> however, so I don¹t know how seriously to take it.  Perhaps this is why a
> browser might warn about a PDF.
>
Details are in many blogs but they seem to have started with this:
<http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/00002241.html>


-Al-
 
--
Al Varnell
Mountain View, CA




____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Net Neutrality

Louise Olson
In reply to this post by Al Varnell
On 9/24/11, Al Varnell wrote:

>On 9/24/11 1:26 PM, "Louise Olson" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>  On 9/22/11, Randy B. Singer wrote:
>>>  The FCC published rules regarding ISPs and
>>>  content today:
>>>
>  >> http://docs.vortex.com/FCC-NN-2011-24259_pi.pdf
>>>
>>
>>  I just tried to use this link and got a message from my browser that
>>  this file could hurt my computer so I selected the "discard." Any
>>  idea why that would be?
>>
>Curious as to what browser you is telling you this.  I suppose any PDF
>"could" hurt your computer, but only one that I know of will and even it
>doesn't work properly yet.  For that matter any download "could".  It's up
>to you to decide whether you want to take the chance.

It must have been some kind of aberration.  When I used the link this
time, the PDF was provided promptly with no message -- and the
browser was/is Chrome.

Louise
____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Dan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Net Neutrality

Dan
In reply to this post by Randy B. Singer
At 6:46 PM -0700 9/22/2011, Randy B. Singer wrote:
>The FCC published rules regarding ISPs and
>content today:
>
>http://docs.vortex.com/FCC-NN-2011-24259_pi.pdf

An interesting read.  Does the FCC actually have jurisdiction to
enforce all this?

- Dan.
--
- Psychoceramic Emeritus; South Jersey, USA, Earth.
____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Net Neutrality

@lbutlr
On 26 Sep 2011, at 12:18 , Dan wrote:
> At 6:46 PM -0700 9/22/2011, Randy B. Singer wrote:
>> The FCC published rules regarding ISPs and
>> content today:
>>
>> http://docs.vortex.com/FCC-NN-2011-24259_pi.pdf
>
> An interesting read.  Does the FCC actually have jurisdiction to
> enforce all this?

Yes, but the document is one long weasel-worded do-nothing.

Basically, this allows an ISP to do anything they want as long as they claim they are trying to limit unlawful sites or traffic.

So throttling your World of Warcraft download because it uses bit torrent for distribution is A-OK because the ISP can just claim that some bit torrent traffic is illegal.

Of course, they can claim this about any traffic, so they basically have a clear hand to do anything they want.

The key weasel-phrase is on page 69:

"Nothing in this part prohibits reasonable efforts by a provider of broadband Internet access service to address copyright infringement or other unlawful activity.”

That’s pretty much Carte Blanche to do anything they want to ‘protect the children'.

For me the first warning sign this document would be worthless for protecting users was it mentioning “child pornography” on 4 separate occasions.

Like all weasel-words, this document is specifically designed to give the impression that it is doing exactly the opposite of what it is really doing.


--
He felt that the darkness was full of unimaginable horrors - and the
trouble with unimaginable horrors was that they were only too easy to
imagine...


____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Net Neutrality

Curtis Wilcox
On Sep 26, 2011, at 4:13 PM, LuKreme wrote:

> So throttling your World of Warcraft download because it uses bit torrent for distribution is A-OK because the ISP can just claim that some bit torrent traffic is illegal.
>
> Of course, they can claim this about any traffic, so they basically have a clear hand to do anything they want.
>
> The key weasel-phrase is on page 69:
>
> "Nothing in this part prohibits reasonable efforts by a provider of broadband Internet access service to address copyright infringement or other unlawful activity.”
>
> That’s pretty much Carte Blanche to do anything they want to ‘protect the children'.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater (baby = WoW download, bathwater = "copyright infringing stuff") isn't "reasonable," regardless of the size of the tub.

> For me the first warning sign this document would be worthless for protecting users was it mentioning “child pornography” on 4 separate occasions.

In a 155 page document, that shows remarkable restraint for works in this genre.

> Like all weasel-words, this document is specifically designed to give the impression that it is doing exactly the opposite of what it is really doing.

Only time will tell. Are there any providers currently doing things that this document says they should not do, like messing with VoIP? Seeking action there should be faster than waiting for some provider to start doing something new that goes against it. Actually the fastest thing to happen should be [providers disclosing] the network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their broadband services" (pg. 3). The rules are effective November 20, 2011.


____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Net Neutrality

Randy B. Singer
In reply to this post by @lbutlr

On Sep 26, 2011, at 1:13 PM, LuKreme wrote:

> The key weasel-phrase is on page 69:
>
> "Nothing in this part prohibits reasonable efforts by a provider of  
> broadband Internet access service to address copyright infringement  
> or other unlawful activity.”
>
> That’s pretty much Carte Blanche to do anything they want to  
> ‘protect the children'.

There is precedent in the law for interpreting what is "reasonable."  
This isn't at all an escape clause.

But, much more important than that, the FCC is an administrative  
agency.  They have to power to do what they feel is right, without  
much more than a perfunctory hearing, if that.  There is no need for  
a long-drawn out courtroom proceeding for violating these  
regulations.  So no ISP is going to get away with going against the  
clear intent of these regulations.   They would be very ill-advised  
to try.

___________________________________________
Randy B. Singer
Co-author of The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th, and 6th editions)

Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance
http://www.macattorney.com/ts.html
___________________________________________




____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Net Neutrality

Mark D. McKean
On Sep 27, 2011, at 2:18 am, Randy B. Singer wrote:
>
> But, much more important than that, the FCC is an administrative  
> agency.  They have to power to do what they feel is right, without  
> much more than a perfunctory hearing, if that.  There is no need for  
> a long-drawn out courtroom proceeding for violating these  
> regulations.

Not to turn this blatantly political, but...

Am I the only one who has a problem with that? An unelected agency, permitted to set regulations without specific legislative approval, able to enforce those regulations without a trial? Whatever happened to "due process of law"?

Mark D. McKean
[hidden email]





____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Net Neutrality

Randy B. Singer

On Sep 26, 2011, at 11:34 PM, Mark D. McKean wrote:

> Not to turn this blatantly political, but...
>
> Am I the only one who has a problem with that? An unelected agency,  
> permitted to set regulations without specific legislative approval,  
> able to enforce those regulations without a trial? Whatever  
> happened to "due process of law"?

This isn't really the place for a course on government, or a debate  
on how the government should and should not be structured.

As briefly as possible...

Administrative procedure is *part* of the "due process of law."

Basically administrative agencies exist to regulate very complex  
situations and to take a huge burden off of the courts.  They also  
help lift the expense and delay associated with going to court.  
Examples: Federal Communication Commission (FCC), Federal Reserve  
Board, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the National  
Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).  
Administrative agencies exist on both the federal and state level.  
There is oversight from some branch of government, on the federal  
level usually the Congress or the Executive Branch.

After exhausting administrative remedies in a matter, generally you  
have the right to appeal to the courts if you feel aggrieved.  But  
since administrative agencies are experts in the fields that they  
regulate, this is rarely necessary.

More info:
http://www.answers.com/topic/administrative-agency

___________________________________________
Randy B. Singer
Co-author of The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th, and 6th editions)

Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance
http://www.macattorney.com/ts.html
___________________________________________



____________TidBITS Talk Participation Guidelines____________
Post only when you have something substantive to contribute.
Be polite and constructive, and comment on posts, not people.
Quote sparingly, if at all. We all read the previous message.
Start threads with a new message to [hidden email].
Read archives at: http://tidbits.com/pipermail/tidbits-talk/
Unsubscribe at: tidbits.com/mailman/options/tidbits-talk
____Mailing List Manners: http://tidbits.com/series/1141 ____
Loading...