MSM No Longer Useful So...

[GG]

Do you even notice the contradiction in your logic? Tell me, was there an existing entrenched cable provider in the areas where Verizon decided to build out Fios? And if there was, why did they suddenly stop all Fios expansion if they weren't afraid of overbuilding the cable companies in the other areas?

[What a Tuel]

Do you even notice the contradiction in your logic? Tell me, was there an existing entrenched cable provider in the areas where Verizon decided to build out Fios? And if there was, why did they suddenly stop all Fios expansion if they weren't afraid of overbuilding the cable companies in the other areas?

 

Yes there was. Time Warner was awful. They opted to make improvements, and increase speeds to compete with the new competition. Once Verizon ran out of the money it had allocated to building the network it stopped. Now they maintain a decent market share.

 

We are conflating issues here though. Net neutrality isn't a take over of the internet. It is doing exactly the below. The only one I can imagine you having a problem with is paid prioritization which in my opinion we will just have to agree to disagree on. You think these network builders should be able to charge a premium for a "fast lane", I think it is a dangerous precedent that would only get worse in conjunction with data caps, and time. We already see it with the "watch our affiliate content with unlimited data" on mobile and Comcast experimenting with data caps in other areas. What is stopping them from saying "Watch our affiliate content, it is faster!" (obviously simplified). It is obvious you think that is fair for them to do that since they built the infrastructure, I don't believe it is fair because their consumers are paying for a distinct service, and not the type of service the ISP's desire to provide based on what is more profitable for them.

• No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
• No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
• No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind—in other words, no "fast lanes." This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.

Edited September 10, 2016 by What a Tuel

[B-Man]

Hearings held today..............not that it is particularly well covered.

 

 

Obama's key internet giveaway advocate can't give a straight answer on free speech concerns

by Nate Madden

 

A key player of the Obama administration’s internet giveaway was unable to offer a straight answer about how the organization that handles the system’s road map would be run, or whether or not it would be moved outside of the United States.

 

At a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing about the proposed internet giveaway at the end of the month, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas confronted Goran Marby, president and CEO of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which is responsible for maintaining the internet’s address systems.

 

In a particularly tense exchange with Marby, the ICANN chief could not seem to find a straight answer on whether or not the organization — which currently operates as a nonprofit under California law — could see its bylaws altered by a multi-stakeholder body, or whether the organization could be moved to countries under oppressive regimes.

 

Under the structure of the proposed giveaway, ICANN would be no longer be tied to the United States government, which opponents of the move argue would remove free speech protections from the government’s overall administration.

 

During the exchange, in which Goran repeatedly dodged the chair’s questions, the nonprofit leader could not even answer the question regarding whether or not he agreed with Reporters Without Borders’ assertion that the People’s Republic of China is an “enemy of the internet” due to its repeated free speech violations.

 

Earlier in the hearing, Sen. Cruz also voiced his concerns about the role that private corporations would play in the governance of the internet under the terms of the transition, given the reputation that many have earned for suppressing free speech on their own platforms.

 

“Under the guardianship of the United States and the First Amendment, the internet has truly become an oasis of freedom,” said Cruz in his opening statement, but warned that severing that role could lead to infringement of free speech due to powerful corporations and oppressive regimes.

 

“Imagine an internet run like one of our large, private universities today, with speech codes and safe zones — an Internet that determines some terms are too scary … microaggressions are too troubling … we will not allow them to be spoken on the Internet.

 

“Imagine an internet run like far too many European countries that punish so-called ‘hate speech’ — a notoriously malleable concept that has often been used to suppress views disfavored by those in power,” Cruz continued. “Or imagine an internet run like many Middle Eastern countries that punish what they deem to be blasphemy. Or imagine an internet run like China or Russia that punish and incarcerate those who engage in political dissent.”

 

Cruz referred to ICANN as a “corporation with a Byzantine governing structure designed to blur lines of accountability that is run by global bureaucrats who are supposedly accountable to the technocrats, to multinational corporations, to governments, including some of the most oppressive regimes in the world like China, Iran, and Russia.”

 

In his opening statement, Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa also voiced concerns about the constitutionality of the proposed handoff, which rests on whether or not America’s “historic role” as steward of the internet also means that the information system counts as U.S. government property.

 

“We’ve continued to engage with the administration about this transition and to date the answers we’ve received have been inadequate,” reads a statement from Grassely. “It’s clear that the administration hasn’t conducted a thorough legal analysis of the many issues outstanding.”

 

 

- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/09/obamas-key-internet-giveaway-advocate-cant-give-a-straight-answer-on-free-speech-concerns#sthash.f6O97uyo.dpuf

Edited September 14, 2016 by B-Man

[Azalin]

Hearings held today..............not that it is particularly well covered.

 

 

Obama's key internet giveaway advocate can't give a straight answer on free speech concerns

by Nate Madden

 

A key player of the Obama administration’s internet giveaway was unable to offer a straight answer about how the organization that handles the system’s road map would be run, or whether or not it would be moved outside of the United States.

 

At a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing about the proposed internet giveaway at the end of the month, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas confronted Goran Marby, president and CEO of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which is responsible for maintaining the internet’s address systems.

 

In a particularly tense exchange with Marby, the ICANN chief could not seem to find a straight answer on whether or not the organization — which currently operates as a nonprofit under California law — could see its bylaws altered by a multi-stakeholder body, or whether the organization could be moved to countries under oppressive regimes.

 

Under the structure of the proposed giveaway, ICANN would be no longer be tied to the United States government, which opponents of the move argue would remove free speech protections from the government’s overall administration.

 

During the exchange, in which Goran repeatedly dodged the chair’s questions, the nonprofit leader could not even answer the question regarding whether or not he agreed with Reporters Without Borders’ assertion that the People’s Republic of China is an “enemy of the internet” due to its repeated free speech violations.

 

Earlier in the hearing, Sen. Cruz also voiced his concerns about the role that private corporations would play in the governance of the internet under the terms of the transition, given the reputation that many have earned for suppressing free speech on their own platforms.

 

“Under the guardianship of the United States and the First Amendment, the internet has truly become an oasis of freedom,” said Cruz in his opening statement, but warned that severing that role could lead to infringement of free speech due to powerful corporations and oppressive regimes.

 

“Imagine an internet run like one of our large, private universities today, with speech codes and safe zones — an Internet that determines some terms are too scary … microaggressions are too troubling … we will not allow them to be spoken on the Internet.

 

“Imagine an internet run like far too many European countries that punish so-called ‘hate speech’ — a notoriously malleable concept that has often been used to suppress views disfavored by those in power,” Cruz continued. “Or imagine an internet run like many Middle Eastern countries that punish what they deem to be blasphemy. Or imagine an internet run like China or Russia that punish and incarcerate those who engage in political dissent.”

 

Cruz referred to ICANN as a “corporation with a Byzantine governing structure designed to blur lines of accountability that is run by global bureaucrats who are supposedly accountable to the technocrats, to multinational corporations, to governments, including some of the most oppressive regimes in the world like China, Iran, and Russia.”

 

In his opening statement, Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa also voiced concerns about the constitutionality of the proposed handoff, which rests on whether or not America’s “historic role” as steward of the internet also means that the information system counts as U.S. government property.

 

“We’ve continued to engage with the administration about this transition and to date the answers we’ve received have been inadequate,” reads a statement from Grassely. “It’s clear that the administration hasn’t conducted a thorough legal analysis of the many issues outstanding.”

 

 

- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/09/obamas-key-internet-giveaway-advocate-cant-give-a-straight-answer-on-free-speech-concerns#sthash.f6O97uyo.dpuf

 

Yet there will remain people who stubbornly maintain that there was no federal takeover of the internet.

 

[Dante]

Incremental steps to shut down all real freedom of speech. Using the hackneyed excuses of racism and security. One more step to consolidate control and power.

[B-Man]

Changing who controls ICANN jeopardizes our presidential election

By Theresa Payton

Changing who controls the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) so close to our presidential election will jeopardize the results of how you vote on Nov. 8 unless Congress stops this changeover. When the calendar hits Sept. 30, a mere 6 weeks before our election, the United States cannot be assured that if any web site is hacked, the responsible party will be held accountable. We cannot be sure if a web site is a valid. We cannot be sure if one country is being favored over another. These are all the things ICANN is responsible for and has worked perfectly since the Internet was created. Why change it now and so close to the election? Why does that matter to you as a voter?

Take a look at recent cyber activity as it relates to the election. The Democratic National Convention was breached comprising the entire party’s strategy, donor base, and indeed, national convention. Everything the DNC had done to prepare for a moment four years in the making (if not longer) was undermined by a hacker who had been in their system for some time but waited for the optimal moment to spring it on the DNC – opening day of the convention. The FBI and other U.S. agencies, as the headlines blare, suspect Russia is responsible for the hack. Recently, Vladimir Putin went so far as to say, "Does it matter who broke in? Surely what's important is the content of what was released to the public.”

ICANN does more than just assign and/or approve your website’s domain. ICANN has its own Security and Stability Advisory Committee, which “engages in ongoing threat assessment and risk analysis of the Internet naming and address allocation services to assess where the principal threats to stability and security lie, and advises the ICANN community accordingly.” They are equivalent to your security guard at the bank. Why change the security guard now when voter data is more vulnerable – and prized - than ever?

If ICANN changes hands, so do the security measures taken to protect the rightful owner of your web site. If a site was hijacked today – not an uncommon crime in the cyber world - to reassert yourself as the rightful owner, you would go through law enforcement channels, your domain provider, and yes, ICANN.

When a significant event happens to a web site, businesses, cyber securities companies, and ICANN all know their roles and act together in tandem to mitigate the threat. They are in lockstep with an emergency call plan that has been mapped out through trial and error over the years.

ICANN’s actions have made the internet safer for you. Will that still hold true after Sept. 30?

At the end of the day, election administrators are not cyber defenders nor should they be. They are trained to run elections. Let them do their job and let ICANN do theirs.

Theresa Payton is the former White House Chief Information Officer and CEO of the leading cyber security company, Fortalice Solutions.

 

[Malazan]

 

No, it's not, because the higher end costs will be passed down to the consumer.

 

or...just allow for competition. Don't let the ISP enjoy the current monopoly that they do on the infrastructure.

 

Also, Let me borrow the words from someone much more knowledgeable on these issues, Mike Masnick:

 

I'd strongly recommend the full article at https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160610/07561834679/yes-getting-us-government-out-managing-internet-domain-governance-is-good-thing.shtml

 

 

 

the US government's "control" over ICANN/IANA has always been a lot more on paper than in reality. From the beginning, while the Commerce Department technically had oversight concerning ICANN, it had always been careful to live up to its promise that ICANN was to be independent of the US government. So, while some are making a big deal over this, it's unclear if it will really matter that much.

 

The big fear over the past few years was that certain foreign interests -- lead by authoritarian regimes in China and Russia (with long track records of censoring the internet and stifling dissent) -- would take control of the internet away from ICANN via the ITU, an organization that's a part of the UN. That was extremely problematic on a number of levels, given in part that the ITU process is entirely controlled by country governments without input from other stakeholders, such as technologists. ICANN is far from perfect (very, very, very, very, very far from perfect), but the ITU would be significantly worse.

 

However, from what's being said, it appears that the Commerce Department's plan is conditional on the UN/ITU not getting control, and for internet governance to remain a multi-stakeholder process, rather than one solely controlled by governments.

Edited September 21, 2016 by jeremy2020

[....lybob]

 

METHYLSULFONYLMETHANE no longer useful ? I beg to differ

 

[What a Tuel]

 

Yet there will remain people who stubbornly maintain that there was no federal takeover of the internet.

 

 

So which is it?

 

Does the federal government have control of the internet or not?

 

Do you want the federal government to have control or not?

[Azalin]

 

So which is it?

 

Does the federal government have control of the internet or not?

 

Do you want the federal government to have control or not?

 

You need to ask?

 

Okay, then - yes, they have control of the internet, at least in the regulatory sense. No, I do not want them to be involved at all.

 

I've bent over backwards to present you facts without political or partisan bias. I've worked in the industry for 23 years, I perform installation, maintenance, and repair on everything from simple DSL and digital television in the first/last mile, as well as deployment and maintenance of major interstate data carriers, and the entire 911 network, both analog and digital, for all of central Texas. I'm not arguing politics, only that the development of the internet and access to customers was developed by telephone companies and ISPs without government regulation. In fact I would remind you that it was government regulation that led to AT&T's original monopoly of all telecom, and it wasn't until MCI sued, causing the breakup of AT&T's monopoly that prices came down and new phone companies emerged.

[What a Tuel]

 

You need to ask?

 

Okay, then - yes, they have control of the internet, at least in the regulatory sense. No, I do not want them to be involved at all.

 

I've bent over backwards to present you facts without political or partisan bias. I've worked in the industry for 23 years, I perform installation, maintenance, and repair on everything from simple DSL and digital television in the first/last mile, as well as deployment and maintenance of major interstate data carriers, and the entire 911 network, both analog and digital, for all of central Texas. I'm not arguing politics, only that the development of the internet and access to customers was developed by telephone companies and ISPs without government regulation. In fact I would remind you that it was government regulation that led to AT&T's original monopoly of all telecom, and it wasn't until MCI sued, causing the breakup of AT&T's monopoly that prices came down and new phone companies emerged.

 

I ask because you replied sarcastically to a post reportedly saying that we are taking away regulatory authority of the internet from the US Government by freeing up ICANN.

 

So you are ok with this then?

 

ICANN has also been the way the internet has been run for many many years, and as Ted Cruz states “Under the guardianship of the United States and the First Amendment, the internet has truly become an oasis of freedom,” Right?

Edited September 22, 2016 by What a Tuel

[Azalin]

ICANN does not, and never has "run the internet".

 

You're obviously going to believe what you want. I'm obviously going to believe you're wrong. I've covered everything that I know without getting into technical specifics, and you're welcome to consider it or ignore it either way.

[DC Tom]

ICANN does not, and never has "run the internet".

 

You're obviously going to believe what you want. I'm obviously going to believe you're wrong. I've covered everything that I know without getting into technical specifics, and you're welcome to consider it or ignore it either way.

 

You're doing it wrong. It should be "You're obviously going to believe what you want. I'm obviously going to know you're wrong."

 

Opinion does not trump knowledge. Ever.

[Greg F]

 

ICANN does more than just assign and/or approve your website’s domain.

 

The above is nonsense and tells me all I need to know about Theresa Payton. ICANN does not assign or approve any "website's domain". ICANN is responsible for delegating the management of the TLD's (Top Level Domains). Some of the more well known TLD's are .com, .net, .org. For example, the .com domain is managed by VeriSign Global Registry Services. VeriSign maintains the registry of all the registered domains for TLD .com and are the ones who "approve your website’s domain", not ICANN. There is a lot of nonsense in that article and I would take what Theresa says with a huge grain of salt.

[Malazan]

So the people who are responsible for the creation of the internet and expert in the field would like to tell people to stop being idiots:

 

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160921/16292135589/donald-trump-doubles-down-ted-cruzs-blatantly-confused-backwards-argument-over-internet-governance.shtml

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/20/ted-cruz-is-wrong-about-a-key-internet-agencys-ability-to-censor-free-speech/

 

http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/5/201609-the-iana-transition/fulltext

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/16/us/politics/ted-cruz-internet-domain-names-funding.html?_r=0

 

http://www.internetgovernance.org/2016/09/08/another-congressional-rock-hurled-at-the-transition-misses-the-mark/

 

http://www.gao.gov/products/B-327398

[What a Tuel]

ICANN does not, and never has "run the internet".

 

You're obviously going to believe what you want. I'm obviously going to believe you're wrong. I've covered everything that I know without getting into technical specifics, and you're welcome to consider it or ignore it either way.

 

I didn't say ICANN runs the internet. I said ICANN is the way it has been run for awhile, meaning ICANN has done what they do for years now. And honestly, if you think I was truly quoting Ted Cruz as someone who knows what's going on, then there needs to be sarcasm font, as I have already called him an idiot in this thread.

 

As I already stated, I am confused by what you believe. You responded to an article saying "Yet there will remain people who stubbornly maintain that there was no federal takeover of the internet."

 

What do you mean by this in the context of that article you responded to?

Edited September 22, 2016 by What a Tuel

[Azalin]

 

I didn't say ICANN runs the internet. I said ICANN is the way it has been run for awhile, meaning ICANN has done what they do for years now. And honestly, if you think I was truly quoting Ted Cruz as someone who knows what's going on, then there needs to be sarcasm font, as I have already called him an idiot in this thread.

 

As I already stated, I am confused by what you believe. You responded to an article saying "Yet there will remain people who stubbornly maintain that there was no federal takeover of the internet."

 

What do you mean by this in the context of that article you responded to?

 

Let me make this very clear, because I am not going to repeat it again: Net Neutrality is a regulatory takeover of the internet by the FCC. Period. You're arguing for the sake of arguing, and I do not need to repeat myself any more than I already have.

 

Also, you said:

 

 

ICANN has also been the way the internet has been run for many many years, and as Ted Cruz states “Under the guardianship of the United States and the First Amendment, the internet has truly become an oasis of freedom,” Right?

 

And to repeat myself, ICANN does not now, nor has it ever run the internet, regardless of what you, or even Ted Cruz chooses to believe. Control and distribution of IP/web addresses and domain registry is strictly end-user oriented, and has nothing to do with the technology, infrastructure, maintenance, or design of the web.

[What a Tuel]

 

Let me make this very clear, because I am not going to repeat it again: Net Neutrality is a regulatory takeover of the internet by the FCC. Period. You're arguing for the sake of arguing, and I do not need to repeat myself any more than I already have.

 

Also, you said:

 

 

And to repeat myself, ICANN does not now, nor has it ever run the internet, regardless of what you, or even Ted Cruz chooses to believe. Control and distribution of IP/web addresses and domain registry is strictly end-user oriented, and has nothing to do with the technology, infrastructure, maintenance, or design of the web.

 

I'm arguing because you make little sense, and most arguments against net neutrality and ICANN are contradictory tin foil hat conspiracies. But I see this is going nowhere when one side believes they are all knowing, and gets frustrated when others don't see things precisely the way their expert minds do.

[GG]

 

Let me make this very clear, because I am not going to repeat it again: Net Neutrality is a regulatory takeover of the internet by the FCC. Period. You're arguing for the sake of arguing, and I do not need to repeat myself any more than I already have.

 

Also, you said:

 

 

And to repeat myself, ICANN does not now, nor has it ever run the internet, regardless of what you, or even Ted Cruz chooses to believe. Control and distribution of IP/web addresses and domain registry is strictly end-user oriented, and has nothing to do with the technology, infrastructure, maintenance, or design of the web.

 

It's a testament to the general cluelessness of people arguing in this thread that they can't even pick the right argument

[What a Tuel]

So the people who are responsible for the creation of the internet and expert in the field would like to tell people to stop being idiots:

 

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160921/16292135589/donald-trump-doubles-down-ted-cruzs-blatantly-confused-backwards-argument-over-internet-governance.shtml

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/20/ted-cruz-is-wrong-about-a-key-internet-agencys-ability-to-censor-free-speech/

 

http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/5/201609-the-iana-transition/fulltext

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/16/us/politics/ted-cruz-internet-domain-names-funding.html?_r=0

 

http://www.internetgovernance.org/2016/09/08/another-congressional-rock-hurled-at-the-transition-misses-the-mark/

 

http://www.gao.gov/products/B-327398

 

You can almost see the political manipulation by Ted Cruz, trying to apply the very popular anti politically correct movement to support his political motivations. He might as well say "The left is trying to take control of the internet because they don't want you to say hateful or bigoted things"