*** 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. n3tBin

pastebin - collaborative debugging

pastebin is a collaborative debugging tool allowing you to share and modify code snippets while chatting on IRC, IM or a message board.

This site is developed to XHTML and CSS2 W3C standards. If you see this paragraph, your browser does not support those standards and you need to upgrade. Visit WaSP for a variety of options.

n3tBin / Home / Archive

Copyright © 2007-2011, n3t-t3z Team

Syntax Highlighting:
To highlight particular lines, prefix each line with @@
Pressing TAB inserts 3 spaces