Posted by Internet Freedom on January Tue 21st 7:51 PM - Never Expires
download | new post

    
*** THE INTERNET IS A TOOL FOR SURVIVAL ***
    
*** ALL INTERNET USERS ARE UNDER ATTACK ***
    
 I RECOMMEND PEOPLE BACKUP EVERYTHING THEY HAVE -
EVERYTHING THEY CAN GET - TO HARDCOPY - RIGHT NOW.
SOFTWARE, MEDIA, INFORMATION, WEBSITE ARCHIVES,
TOOLKITS, PHOTOS, MUSIC, MOVIES, ROMS, FONTS,
TORRENT CLIENTS, TOR & OTHER WEB BROWSERS, ETC.
    
*** BACKUP EVERYTHING, WHILE YOU STILL CAN ***
    
 MEANWHILE, START LOOKING FOR ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF
ENERGY, TO PROVIDE ELECTRICITY. THE NEXT VECTOR OF
ATTACK BY CORPORATE FASCIST POWERS WILL LIKELY BE
THE ENERGY GRID ITSELF! YOU WERE WARNED! THEIR TRUE
AGENDA IS TO SHUT OUR SURVIVAL COMMUNICATIONS DOWN!
    
    
 A federal appeals court nullified key provisions of
the FCC�s net neutrality rules, opening the door to a
curated approach to internet delivery that allows
broadband providers to block content or applications
as they see fit.
  
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2014/01/court-kills-net-neutrality/
    
         ??????????????????????????????????????
    
 If you don�t know what �Net Neutrality� means, then
now is the time learn it. It�s a good thing, but it�s
under direct threat. It�s very simple:
  
 �Net Neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet
neutrality) is the principle that Internet service
providers and governments should treat all data on
the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging
differentially by user, content, site, platform,
application, type of attached equipment, and modes
of communication (Wiki)�
  
 Today, The Register reports that a US appeals court
has ruled that net neutrality measures put in place
by America�s Federal Communications Commission �
are �invalid�.
  
 �The FCC�s latest attempt to compel ISPs to treat
all traffic on an equal basis suffered a significant
blow, after the US Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit said (PDF)�.
  
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf
  
 This digression on the part of the US courts reared
its ugly head on Tuesday, when a three-panel appeals
court essentially rolled over for corporate giant
Verizon, claiming that �the FCC had classified
broadband service providers in a manner that excludes
ISPs from the anti-blocking and anti-discrimination
requirements instilled through the Open Internet
Order.�
  
 This is potentially a serious blow to Americans �
as well as internet users in Europe, freedom to
access information and enjoy the choice they�ve
become used to over the last decade and a half,
should understand where this counter-revolutionary
push is coming from. It�s not so much a government
agenda, although the government is making the legal
move. It is a corporate drive to extract more profit
and exert more control over users.
  
 Wiki continues, �There has been extensive debate
about whether net neutrality should be required by
law. Since the early 2000s, advocates of net
neutrality and associated rules have raised concerns
about the ability of broadband providers to use
their last mile infrastructure to block Internet
applications and content (e.g. websites, services,
and protocols), and even block out competitors.�
  
 The corporations along with their legions of lawyers,
are planning to throttle the internet in order to
bake the pie again, this time securing a bigger
monopoly of control. There will be a fast lane
and a slow lane, and corporate raiders will make
very difficult for anyone in the slow lane, including
cutting down bandwidth and access.
  
 That monopoly will be divided up by the cartel
comprised of media moguls like Verizon, Google,
Microsoft and Apple. Content will plentiful, but
predictably bland, unintelligent and politically
vacuous. The real power will be in controlling
content along that last mile, which means that
telecoms and cable providers like AT&T, Comcast
and Verizon (and soon Google) will be pivotal in
making this corporate counter-revolution a reality.
  
 Another problem is that corporate cartels would
like to implement a bigger pay-per-view internet
experience. Basic access could be metered by time
or by data usage, or degrees of access could be
dependent on how much you pay your ISPs. Basic
access would probably be a lot of junk like basic
cable TV, followed by an �extended basic�, or you
pay for the gold package and then you get to view
all content online. Either scenario will be a major
shift away from what you have now.
  
 A return to the good old day when 3 networks and
a handful of newspapers had a stranglehold over
information and reality. Because of stringent
regulation � which is the collusion of state and
corporate interests, only large well-funded economies
of scale will be able to broadcast from the top
tier content portals online, which means that many
mid-major independent media outlets will be forced
to opt for a private subscription-based model to
finance their operations. For non-profit and small
independents, they will be relegated to the internet
junk yard of random restricted access, slow speeds,
disappearing pages, and a jungle of malware.
  
 The disappearance of any meaningful anti-trust
regulation (which about the only really useful
function of a federal government) is what has
enabled ridiculously large monopolies across
broadcast media, content distribution and publishing
in the US. This happened because media lobbyists
in Washington DC were able to bribe and browbeat
spineless politicians into line with the great
corporate agenda. In the Net Neutrality story,
the same players are replicating exactly the same
model.
  
 Not only can they take all of your metadata � now
they can shut down your access. That might cut into
the NSA�s data stocks, but the next faze of the
corporate internet will feature much more about
keeping dissenting voices from gaining any kind
of large, crossover audience.
  
 Congress still has the option to mandate neutrality
in some form, but net lovers should rally behind
this issue now, or all will be lost - forever.
  
http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/01/16/corporate-raiders-use-govt-to-attack-net-neutrality-and-what-it-means-to-freedom/
    
         ??????????????????????????????????????
    
 The worst fears of all free speech proponents are
upon us. The Verizon suit against the Federal Communications
Commission, appellate decision sets the stage for a Supreme
Court review. The Wall Street Journal portrays the ruling
in financial terms: �A federal court has tossed out the
FCC�s �open internet� rules, and now internet service
providers are free to charge companies like Google and
Netflix higher fees to deliver content faster.�
  
 In essence, this is the corporate spin that the decision
is about the future cost for being connected.
  
 �The ruling was a blow to the Obama administration, which
has pushed the idea of �net neutrality.� And it sharpened
the struggle by the nation�s big entertainment and
telecommunications companies to shape the regulation of
broadband, now a vital pipeline for tens of millions of
Americans to view video and other media.
  
 For consumers, the ruling could usher in an era of tiered
Internet service, in which they get some content at full
speed while other websites appear slower because their
owners chose not to pay up.
  
 �It takes the Internet into completely uncharted territory,�
said Tim Wu, a Columbia University law professor who coined
the term net neutrality.
  
 What the Journal is not telling you is that this uncharted
territory is easy to project. If ISP�s will be able to
charge varied rates or decide to vary internet speed, it
is a very short step towards selectively discriminate
against sites based upon content. Do not get lulled into
thinking that constitutional protective political speech
is guaranteed.
  
 Once again, the world according to the communication giants
paint a very different interpretation as the article, Verizon
called hypocritical for equating net neutrality to censorship
illustrates.
  
 �Verizon�s argument that network neutrality regulations
violated the firm�s First Amendment rights. In Verizon�s
view, slowing or blocking packets on a broadband network
is little different from a newspaper editor choosing which
articles to publish, and should enjoy the same constitutional
protection.�
  
 The response from advocates of the Net Neutrality standard,
that is about to vanish, sums up correctly.
  
 �The First Amendment does not apply, however, when Verizon
is merely transmitting the content of third parties. Moreover,
these groups point out, Verizon itself has disclaimed
responsibility for its users� content when it was convenient
to do so, making its free speech arguments ring hollow.�
  
 Prepare for the worst. The video, Prepare To Be Robbed.
Net Neutrality Is Dead!, which includes frank language and
expletives, provides details that place the use of internet
access into question coming out of this appellate decision.
  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usB-FDET3ds
    
         ??????????????????????????????????????
    
Verizon users might want to switch services.
  
 The United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit has ruled in the
case of Verizon et al. v. Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), and it�s bad, bad news for net
neutrality. The court struck down the FCC�s Open
Internet regulations.
  
 These rules, as the FCC describes them, are
there to preserve the Internet as we know it.
Today�s Internet is �open because it uses free,
publicly available standards that anyone can access
and build to, and it treats all traffic that flows
across the network in roughly the same way. The
principle of the Open Internet is sometimes referred
to as �net neutrality.� Under this principle,
consumers can make their own choices about what
applications and services to use and are free to
decide what lawful content they want to access,
create, or share with others. This openness promotes
competition and enables investment and innovation."
  
So much for those noble ideas.
  
 If this decision is upheld after a potential
appeal to the US Supreme Court, Verizon and buddies
will be free to make content providers pay extra to
increase the speed to their content. Or, worse still,
Verizon, et al. would be free to charge media
companies, such as CBS, or Internet content providers,
such as Hulu Plus, Netflix, and Amazon, more money
to get the same level of Internet broadband they do
now.
  
 And, who at the end of the day will really get
charged more? I�ll give you three guesses, and the
first don�t count. Yes, that�s right, we the Internet
users will end up paying more. The media companies
and content providers will pass on the additional
costs to you and me. ... ...
  
 Across the pond, the European Union is dead set
in favor of net neutrality, so some companies might
decide to host their Websites in Europe to avoid
the US� regulations. I could see Google/YouTube or
Netflix doing that.
    
         ??????????????????????????????????????
    
Verizon Inc. Attacks Net Neutrality
  
 CNBC's Jon Fortt explains how the Federal appeals
court ruling on net neutrality directly affects
content providers like Netflix.
  
 The US Federal Communications Commission may appeal
the ruling by a US appeals court on Tuesday that struck
down the agency's so-called net neutrality rules,
according to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.
  
 "I am committed to maintaining our networks as engines
for economic growth, test beds for innovative services
and products, and channels for all forms of speech
protected by the First Amendment," Wheeler said in
a statement.
  
 "We will consider all available options, including
those for appeal, to ensure that these networks on
which the Internet depends continue to provide a free
and open platform for innovation and expression, and
operate in the interest of all Americans."
  
 The FCC's 2011 open Internet rules require Internet
providers to treat all Web traffic equally and give
consumers equal access to all lawful content but were
challenged by Verizon Communications as excessive.
  
 The FCC did not have the legal authority to enact
the regulations, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit said in its ruling.
  
 "Even though the commission has general authority
to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements
that contravene express statutory mandates," Judge
David Tatel said.
  
 Although the three judge panel were unanimous about
the outcome, one wrote separately that he would have
gone even further in restricting the FCC's authority.
  
 The FCC could appeal the ruling to the full appeals
court or to the US Supreme Court, or it could attempt
to rewrite the regulations to satisfy the appeals court.
  
 During the oral argument in September, Verizon's
lawyer said the regulations violated the company's
right to free speech and stripped control of what its
networks transmit and how.
  
 The eventual outcome of the dispute may determine
whether internet providers can restrict some content
by, for instance, blocking or slowing down access to
particular sites or charging websites to deliver their
content faster.
    
         ??????????????????????????????????????
    
Court Strikes Down Net Neutrality
  
 A federal court on Tuesday overturned the Federal
Communications Commission's network-neutrality
regulations.
  
 The FCC's net-neutrality rules, formally called the
Open Internet Order and adopted in late 2010, bar
Internet service providers from blocking websites or
from discriminating against any Internet traffic,
except for reasonable network management.
  
 Supporters of the rules argue they are critical for
maintaining a free Internet. They argue that the Internet
should be an open platform where all websites receive
equal treatment, whether they are large corporate
services or small start-ups.
  
 But Republicans and other critics argue the rules
unnecessarily restrict the business decisions of
Internet providers.
  
 After the oral argument in September, many observers
anticipated that the DC Circuit would strike down at
least part of the net neutrality order. But the court
went even farther than many expected, throwing out
both the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking provisions.
  
 The judges concluded that the FCC was inappropriately
treating broadband Internet as a "common carrier" service.
Traditional phone lines, railroads, airlines and other
services are considered common carriers and must offer
service to everyone.
  
 But because the FCC chose to classify broadband Internet
as an "information service," it lacks the authority to
impose common carrier obligations on it, the court ruled.
  
 It will now be up to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler to decide
how to respond to the ruling. In addition to appealing
the decision to either the full DC Circuit or the
Supreme Court, Wheeler could also decide to reclassify
broadband as a "telecommunications service."
  
 Although the FCC has limited authority over "information
services," it has wide authority over "telecommunications
services," including the power to regulate them as common
carriers.
    
         ??????????????????????????????????????
    
Court Throws Net Neutrality Overboard
  
 In 2008 Comcast was ordered to stop interfering with
BitTorrent traffic generated by its customers. In addition,
the company had to disclose all of its network management
practices.
  
 The Comcast case was the first to ignite a broad discussion
about Net Neutrality and the setup for FCCs Open Internet Order
which was released two years later.
  
 The Open Internet Order prescribes that all traffic on the
Internet should be treated equally, but allows ISPs to slow
down or block traffic if its considered to be reasonable
network management.� For many Net Neutrality activists the
rules didn�t go far enough, but it was something.
  
 Today the Open Internet Order was decimated by the DC
Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against the commission.
The Court states that the FCC does not have the power to
regulate how ISPs manage traffic on their networks.
  
 �Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband
providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as
common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits
the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such.
Because the Commission has failed to establish that the
anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose
per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions
of the Open Internet Order.�
  
 The Court didn�t throw out the entire Open Internet Order,
and clarified that ISPs still have to disclose what kind of
actions they take when �managing� traffic on their networks.
  
 The ruling leaves the FCC with two options. It could appeal
at the Supreme Court or it could ask Congress to give it the
powers it wants and/or needs. For now, however, ISPs are free
to discriminate between different traffic types, and block
certain sites or content.
  
 This could mean, for example, that certain types of traffic
get priority over others, or that certain sites or services
could be downgraded or blocked.
  
 The reasoning of the D.C. Court of Appeals is similar to
an order it issued in 2010. At the time it overruled the
FCCs decision to sanction Comcast for unfair treatment of
BitTorrent users, arguing that the commission doesnt have
the authority to enforce net neutrality.
  
 In a response to the bad news FCC Chairman Thomas Wheeler
said that his organization is considering an appeal.
  
 �We will consider all available options, including those
for appeal, to ensure that these networks on which the
Internet depends continue to provide a free and open
platform for innovation and expression, and operate in
the interest of all Americans, Wheeler noted.
  
 Many Open Internet advocates are unhappy with today�s
decision as well.
  
 Were disappointed that the court came to this conclusion.
Its ruling means that Internet users will be pitted against
the biggest phone and cable companies and in the absence
of any oversight, these companies can now block and
discriminate against their customers communications at
will,� Free Press President and CEO Craig Aaron notes.
  
 The compromised Open Internet Order struck down today
left much to be desired, but it was a step toward maintaining
Internet users freedom to go where they wanted, when they
wanted, and communicate freely online,� he adds.
  
 For BitTorrent users specifically not much is expected
to change in the short-term, not even for Comcast
subscribers. The Internet provider told TorrentFreak
that it will continue to comply with the FCC�s Open
Internet Order for at least six more years.
  
 Comcast has consistently supported the Commissions Open
Internet Order as an appropriate balance of protection of
consumer interests while not interfering with companies
network management and engineering decisions,� a Comcast
spokesperson said.
  
 This promise to keep the Internet �neutral� was part
of the NBC Universal Transaction Order, which is valid
until 2020.
  
 �We remain comfortable with that commitment because we
have not and will not block our customers ability to
access lawful Internet content, applications, or services.
Comcasts customers want an open and vibrant Internet,
and we are absolutely committed to deliver that experience,�
the company added.
  
 So no BitTorrent blocking for now from Comcast, although
we have to note that throttling would still be an option
as long as it�s part of standard network management
procedure, or targeted at unauthorized transfers.
Submit a correction or amendment below. (click here to make a fresh posting)
After submitting an amendment, you'll be able to view the differences between the old and new posts easily.
Syntax Highlighting:
To highlight particular lines, prefix each line with @@
Pressing TAB inserts 3 spaces
Paste Name
How long should your post be retained?
a day a month forever
Password (Optional)
pastebin - collaborative debugging

Recent Posts

Posted by Internet Freedom on January Tue 21st 7:51 PM - Never Expires
download | new post

pastebin - collaborative debugging

Recent Posts

Posted by Internet Freedom on January Tue 21st 7:51 PM - Never Expiresdownload | new post

Posted by Internet Freedom on January Tue 21st 7:51 PM - Never Expires
download | new post
