McCain's Bill on Net Nutrality: A study in obfusication - Page 11

Ronin Tetsuro · #**101** (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackdog

Where exactly are those links where the internet providers are denying service to people you posted Robin

I just went through and reviewed all your posts Robin and I counted 2 links. One where a town in Minn instaled a 50MPS line to compete with a commercial ISP and one where COX has announced a tiered pricing plan sop that people could have a choice on how much they wanted to pay and how much service they wanted. Feel free to post anything I might have missed in case I missed something where ISP's are censoring websites like you claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin Tetsuro

*sigh* Really? Try post #72. I can't understand why that post is so hard for you to read. And jackdong was a typo, much like I suspect Robin was.

My god, man.

Also, you seem to be incorrectly reading the MN story. The town asked for fiber. Their ISP ignored them. So then they started a municipal project to create a fiber network. The ISP then used legal actions to halt the muni project while they laid out their own fiber network. I haven't posted ANY links about COX. Your ability to read this thread is amazingly bad.

Ronin Tetsuro · #**102** (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 03:26 PM

Jackdog? Comments? Thoughts? Anything?

jackdog · #**103** (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 03:41 PM

first thought is neither of those links have anything to do with web site censorship, but both are about tiered pricing. As i have maintained throughout this thread, IP service is just like anything else, electricity, cell phones or whatever. be prepared to pay for what you use, and don't expect me to pay for your bandwidth usage. Bandwidth is not a all you can download restaurant.

from the CNET link

Quote:

The problem ISPs in general are facing with the $19.95 standard is at least twofold: With everyone charging the same price, services are having to find ways to differentiate themselves with service, reliability and content. In fact, just about every ISP claims to be the most reliable and accessible. AT&T is no different. But Evslin said the 750,000-member service would try to quantify its success by posting its daily call completion rates compared with other leading national ISPs. He issued a challenge for other ISPs to do the same.

But the problem of arriving at the pricing formula is complex. A lot of ISPs--especially those that don't own their networks--say they simply can't turn a profit at $19.95. Some, such as Netcom, have said they would abandon their $19.95 rate, and instead focus on the business market.

Netcom was among the first to offer the $19.95 price three years ago; two months ago, just after $19.95 had become the standard, Netcom announced it would abandon the flat-rate scheme and pursue the business customer willing to pay more.

That opened the door for others, said David Locke, an analyst with Volpe, Welty & Company. "Netcom lifted the umbrella back up and now everyone's diving back underneath because they can. It's not clear you can make money off of $19.95."

Even for Sprint, the costs of servicing "power users" can be more than the $19.95 pricing model can profitably support, Dodd said.

http://news.cnet.com/ISPs-consider-t..._3-274290.html

Ronin Tetsuro · #**104** (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackdog

first thought is neither of those links have anything to do with web site censorship, but both are about tiered pricing. As i have maintained throughout this thread, IP service is just like anything else, electricity, cell phones or whatever. be prepared to pay for what you use, and don't expect me to pay for your bandwidth usage. Bandwidth is not a all you can download restaurant.

from the CNET link

http://news.cnet.com/ISPs-consider-t..._3-274290.html

NO ONE is arguing this point, sir. No one but you. By the way, if you've been paying for my bandwidth usage, you need to find out who you've been sending money to. You've been scammed, sir.

jackdog · #**105** (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin Tetsuro

NO ONE is arguing this point, sir. No one but you. By the way, if you've been paying for my bandwidth usage, you need to find out who you've been sending money to. You've been scammed, sir.

I was just pointing out that the two links you were so proud of in post 72 were about nothing except tiered pricing. Did you even read the links you posted ? Now what links have you posted showing how those dastardly ISPs are out to get us all. Or just let this thread die a leisurely death since nothing you have posted so far justifies the net neutrality act

Ronin Tetsuro · #**106** (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackdog

I was just pointing out that the two links you were so proud of in post 72 were about nothing except tiered pricing. Did you even read the links you posted ? Now what links have you posted showing how those dastardly ISPs are out to get us all. Or just let this thread die a leisurely death since nothing you have posted so far justifies the net neutrality act

Quote:

The year-old Internet Freedom site was shut down yesterday a week after it posted the Euskal Herria Journal, a Basque-separatist site that has become a flash point for controversy on the Internet, Ellison said. Many people believe that it supports terrorists and should be removed, while others, including the Global Internet Liberty Campaign, maintain it has a right to exist.

Protests over the site led one ISP to cut off the Journal for fear that the outcry would cripple the service along with the Basque site. Since then, cyberlibertarians have rallied around the Journal, basically saying that its right to exist is more important than its actual content.

http://news.cnet.com/ISP-censorship-..._3-203398.html

Quote:

The acceptance of a wide variety of social and political viewpoints is one of our country’s defining features. Nevertheless, very often extremist groups will push the limits of protected speech, and in doing so, offend a large portion of our population. Courts traditionally have allowed such speech, but as the Nuremberg Files demonstrates, ISPs are not always as forgiving. Christiangallery.com, the site that housed the Nuremberg Files, originally was hosted on the servers of MindSpring Enterprises. Nevertheless, once the Nuremberg case had been decided, MindSpring shut down the site on February 5, 1999 and issued a press release stating that “The site was in violation of our appropriate use policy, and we have no plans to restore it.”1 Although the judge had ruled against the defendants in the case, no court order to shut down the site had been issued, and thus MindSpring had no legal obligation to do so. The only part of MindSpring’s appropriate use policy which relates to the Nuremberg Files states simply that “Threats of bodily harm or destruction of property are always prohibited.”2

The Nuremberg Files quickly reappeared, however, under the domain of Plebeian Systems, a small Cincinnati ISP. Nevertheless, a few weeks later, the site was shut down again, but not because Plebeian Systems took issue with the site. Instead, the T-1 provider to Plebeian systems, OneNet Communications, threatened to cut off Internet access to the smaller company if it did not remove the site. An employee of Plebeian was quoted as saying, “Our upstream provider forced us to take it down. They were getting too much heat and email. It kind of sounds like they were blackmailed into it.”3 Interestingly enough, however, OneNet’s usage policy doesn’t state anything about threats specifically, and contains an indemnification policy which frees it from liability for content placed on its system.4 Nevertheless, OneNet asserts that “the language is part of OneNet’s agreement with its T-1 clients.”5 In an ominous follow-up report, OneNet systems wrote the following message to Plebeian systems explaining its decision:

“It is only a matter of time until we get pressure from above regarding you--they have done it many times in the past with spammers and pornographers that were downstream from us...None of those businesses are around today. These people will go after each link of the chain until one of the links break.”6

The identity of those “from above” is unclear, but makes it appear that OneNet can pick and choose to whom it resells Internet access based on the content they host. This situation seems to be a chilling and possibly unprecedented case of a large or top-tier ISP filtering content not directly controlled or even related to its operation. Without any sort of regulation or recourse, it seems that cases like this could only increase with time.

Great article, contains abbreviated history of ISP censorship.
http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/...ensorship.html

Ronin Tetsuro · #**107** (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 04:14 PM

AT&T had to rework it's terms and conditions, specifically because of censorship complaints:

Quote:

"AT&T will clarify the language in its Internet Terms of Service agreements to reiterate the company's commitment to freedom of speech and open dialogue...whether that be via the Internet or elsewhere on the AT&T network.

AT&T's Terms of Service follow the company's longstanding respect for our customers' freedom of speech, and clarifies that we will not terminate or suspend a customers' Internet access service based upon their political views or criticism of AT&T. Our Terms of Service and Acceptable Use Policy are designed to protect our customers, the public, and our network and the facilities used to provide service. As a responsible corporate citizen, we will review any complaints surrounding material that's in violation of the law, compromises our network, or is abusive or otherwise threatening to the safety of any individual or group.

http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/20460

Also, AT&T talks dirty to investors at January's CES:

Quote:

At a panel discussion at the CES conference Tuesday, Senior Vice President of external & legal affairs for AT&T James Cicconi said that “what we are already doing to address piracy hasn’t been working” and further AT&T has been talking to technology companies, the MPAA and RIAA and “we are very interested in a technology based solution and we think a network-based solution is the optimal way to approach this.”

But just in case you think this might be a per-download basis, the target could be much larger than that. General Counsel for NBC Universal Rick Cotton has P2P downloading as his first target, saying “The volume of peer-to-peer traffic online, dominated by copyrighted materials, is overwhelming. That clearly should not be an acceptable, continuing status…the question is how we collectively collaborate to address this.”

http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/01/09...the-isp-level/

Ronin Tetsuro · #**108** (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 04:17 PM

Further backing of the CES vibe from AT&T:

Quote:

Rather, AT&T said at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) last week that it may begin monitoring content on its networks to block downloads that violate copyright. According to ISP-Planet, as of Q3 2007, AT&T was the biggest ISP in the U.S., with just over 18% market share. So what AT&T does would have a significant impact on many Internet users in this country and would likely cause AT&T’s competitors to take note and possibly buckle to pressure from groups that are fighting tooth-and-nail to enforce copyright law. The music industry, which gave up on DRM just last week, is now toying with the idea of “digital watermarks,” which will track the movement of a file across P2P sites and ostensibly be used to make ISPs filter such content.

And perhaps the most (*)(*)(*)(*)ing content from that article:

Quote:

Also strange is that just prior to Ciccone’s comments, the FCC had announced that it will investigate America’s second-biggest ISP, Comcast, in follow-up to November 2007 claims from users that say it limited their access to P2P sharing sites. Comcast may face fines up to $1.77 trillion if found guilty, but denies any wrongdoing.

Note that while ISPs are poising themselves to become Internet cops, in which direct benefit to them is unclear, their monitoring isn’t just wrapped up in altruism for the RIAA. They are also looking for ways into the online ad revenue game: Less than two weeks ago, ClickZ reported that ISPs have begun to collect user data for behavioral ad targeting purposes, which seems now like it will be rife with privacy issues.

Associated links are in article:
http://www.searchviews.com/index.php...neutrality.php

Ronin Tetsuro · #**109** (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 04:21 PM

So, riddle me this: WE are leftist loons for being afraid of the censorship ISP's are clearly gunning for, but then you turn around and tell us the government is going to be taking over the internet?

jackdog · #**110** (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 04:34 PM

Now you are citing overseas censorship where the government is shutting down sites which is exactly why I don't want our government to get involved in the net. Right now in the United States have almost unlimnited freedom on the net. As easily as the Obama Administreation is offended I am quite sure they would love to have the ability to meddle with the net.

http://news.cnet.com/ISP-censorship-..._3-203398.html

Quote:

Chris Ellison, a founder of a U.K.-based cyberliberties group, is upset that a British Internet service provider took down his organization's Web site.

now the question is was this a terrorist website?

check out EFF's list of government internet filtering which is exactly why I do not support our government meddling with the net in any way. it not the ISPs you need to fear but the governments.

from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interne...United_Kingdom

The United Kingdom is in ONI's watchlist and is not on RSF's internet enemy list. British Telecommunications ISP passes internet traffic through a service called Cleanfeed which uses data provided by the Internet Watch Foundation to identify pages believed to contain indecent photographs of children.[82][83] When such a page is found, the system creates a 'URL not found page' error rather than deliver the actual page or a warning page. Other ISPs use different systems such as WebMinder

heres the US entry

The United States of America is in ONI's nominal category and is not on RSF's internet enemy list.

Although some content is illegal and can be taken down, e.g. child pornography, there is no nationwide filtering of (foreign) content. This would be considered a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, especially since no filter is perfect and some overblocking would occur.

In 1996 the United States enacted the Communications Decency Act, which severely restricted online speech that could potentially be seen by a minor – which, it was argued, was most of online speech. Free speech advocates, however, managed to have most of the act overturned by the courts. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act criminalizes the discussion and dissemination of technology that could be used to circumvent copyright protection mechanisms, and makes it easier to act against alleged copyright infringement on the Internet. Many school districts in the United States frequently censor material deemed inappropriate for the school setting. In 2000, the U.S. Congress passed the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) which requires schools and public libraries receiving federal funding to install internet filters or blocking software.[84] Congress is also considering legislation to require schools, some businesses and libraries to block access to social networking websites, The Deleting Online Predators Act. Opponents of Internet censorship argue that the free speech provisions of the First Amendment bars the government from any law or regulation that censors the Internet.[85]

A 4 January 2007 restraining order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Jack B. Weinstein forbade a large number of activists in the psychiatric survivors movement from posting links on their websites to ostensibly leaked documents which purportedly show that Eli Lilly and Company intentionally withheld information as to the lethal side-effects of Zyprexa. The Electronic Frontier Foundation appealed this as prior restraint on the right to link to and post documents, saying that citizen-journalists should have the same First Amendment rights as major media outlets.[86] It was later held that the judgement was unenforcable, though First Amendment claims were rejected.[87]

The Department of Defense filters certain IP addresses. The US military's filtering policy is laid out in a report to congress entitled Department of Defense Personnel Access to the Internet.
[edit] Portal censorship

Major portals occasionally exclude web sites that they would ordinarily include. This renders a site invisible to people who do not know where to find it. When a major portal does this, it has a similar effect as censorship. Sometimes this exclusion is done to satisfy a legal or other requirement, other times it is purely at the discretion of the portal.
[edit] Examples

* Google.de and Google.fr remove Neo-Nazi and other listings in compliance with German and French law.[88]

[edit] Major web portal official statements on site removal
Wiki letter w.svg This section requires expansion.

* Google:[89] "Google may temporarily or permanently remove sites from its index and search results if it believes it is obligated to do so by law, if the sites do not meet Google's quality guidelines, or for other reasons, such as if the sites detract from users' ability to locate relevant information."
* Yahoo!:[90] Yahoo!’s terms of service state that they reserve the right to “pre-screen, refuse or remove” any content that they feel violates the terms of service or deem distasteful, however removing information is never obligatory. Yahoo! also does not reserve the right to pre-screen any information.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Study: Global warming bill could cost 2.4 million jobs, $1,250 per household	imperial	Political Opinions & Beliefs	6	09-26-2009 10:44 AM
Lee-Wexler Bill Would Study Torture-Wiretap Policies	DemocratsBlog	Political Blogs	0	05-01-2009 06:40 AM
McCain's Kendergarten Sex Education Ad Debunked! See The Bill And the Curriculum	kaspy	Elections & Campaigns	6	09-14-2008 02:44 PM
Cindy McCain's $750,000.00 credit card bill	Tedminator	Elections & Campaigns	62	07-21-2008 01:13 AM
McCain's Risky Bill	JP5	Current Events	25	12-08-2005 02:05 PM