[Newsbot]

Title: FCC Emails Show Agency Spread Lies to Bolster Dubious DDoS Attack Claims
Category: Uncle Sam
Posted By: DrCaleb
Date: 2018-06-06 06:21:24

[DrCaleb]

See, now here is another example of a government department that actually lied about it's role in changing law to favour big corporations by falsely using the private information of US citizens to make it look like a popular change to policy! And no one goes to jail!

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

See, now here is another example of a government department that actually lied about it's role in changing law to favour big corporations by falsely using the private information of US citizens to make it look like a popular change to policy! And no one goes to jail!

I have to say I find this confusing. Was the FCC trying to defend net neutrality or overturn it?

On an aside I find the net neutrality regulation to be superfluous.

Why?

Remember how the internet worked just fine before the regulation came along in 2015?

That's why I see this regulation (it's not a law) as a solution searching for a problem.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

See, now here is another example of a government department that actually lied about it's role in changing law to favour big corporations by falsely using the private information of US citizens to make it look like a popular change to policy! And no one goes to jail!

I have to say I find this confusing. Was the FCC trying to defend net neutrality or overturn it?

Overturn. TL;DR - they put up a 'comment' section that millions of Americans voiced their support for removing Net Neutraility. However, it turns out that millons of those Americans did not actually do that. Their names and addresses were used without their knowledge. Some of them were previously deceased. Clearly fraud, or an amazing look at the afterlife.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... overnment/

Then the FCC website got 'DDoS'd' so the comments section couldn't be scrutinized, and wouldnt't provide proof of the attack. After the attack, they let the comments stand as the comment period had elapsed. {Church Lady Voice:} How convenient.

https://arstechnica.com/information-tec ... -comments/

Leading to these emails.

So, the only conclusion is that the Net Neutrality that everyone wants to keep is being railroaded into non-existence to benefit ISPs.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

On an aside I find the net neutrality regulation to be superfluous.

Why?

Remember how the internet worked just fine before the regulation came along in 2015?

That's why I see this regulation (it's not a law) as a solution searching for a problem.

I don't know which country you are writing about, because internet access in your country (and mine) is broken.

Remember when you had to have multiple phone lines in your house, because not every phone company served every person, so some people could only be on one companies service and not another? So you had to have each companies line in your home in order to call some people.

Well, that is how Internet access works, in reverse. Many people have only one choice of ISP (like me) and that's the way it's going to be. And without the rules that were put into place (data is data) then ISPs are going to start offering 'tiered' internet, where you pay to access the sites you want. Like Cable TV's rousing success with 'packages'.

https://computer.howstuffworks.com/10-r ... rality.htm

We have some of the slowest speeds, highest prices, worst access and no choice of Internet provider in the world, and if companies aren't forced to treat the Internet homogeneously, it will only get worse.

Plus, you get government department openly lying to you. I notice you skipped over that fact.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

We have some of the slowest speeds, highest prices, worst access and no choice of Internet provider in the world, and if companies aren't forced to treat the Internet homogeneously, it will only get worse.

Your government forces a lot of people to do a lot of things. Did it occur to you that your current dilemma arose because of your government awarding monopolies and then forcing competitors to never even try to compete?

My own choices at home for internet access are myriad:

I currently use AT&T fiber-optic (1GB up/1GB down) for internet and VoIP.

Surewest is installing lines in my neighborhood and will be competing with AT&T sometime this summer.

But I can also get internet through: DISH Network, Hughes Satellite, Century Link, Xfinity, Viasat, Consolidate Communications, Integra Telecom, Sonic.net, Frontier Communications, & New Edge Networks.

If one of them tries to screw me over then I can easily switch.

I suspect you don't have these choices. That's something you need to speak to your MP about.

Edit: I also have a boatload of choices for TV and eight Canadians currently use my PO box as their billing address in order to secure HD DISH satellite service to their homes in Canada...something that your country considers a bigger crime than peddling pot.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

We have some of the slowest speeds, highest prices, worst access and no choice of Internet provider in the world, and if companies aren't forced to treat the Internet homogeneously, it will only get worse.

Your government forces a lot of people to do a lot of things. Did it occur to you that your current dilemma arose because of your government awarding monopolies and then forcing competitors to never even try to compete?

Our government was the monopoly, until the 90s. Still was until recently, if you lived in Manitoba, and still is in parts of the North.

But US ISPs are invested as much as the law allows them to be, in Canadian ISPs. Telus for example is 20% owned by Verizon. The maximum allowed.

The problem here is lack of competition. Not because the government doesn't allow it, but because the government doesn't subsidize it. No company will invest what is needed to enter a market, because they need a substantial equipment outlay, and they don't feel like it without a handout.

But we aren't discussing my government, which has strict Net Neutrality rules.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

My own choices at home for internet access are myriad:

I currently use AT&T fiber-optic (1GB up/1GB down) for internet and VoIP.

Surewest is installing lines in my neighborhood and will be competing with AT&T sometime this summer.

But I can also get internet through: DISH Network, Hughes Satellite, Century Link, Xfinity, Viasat, Consolidate Communications, Integra Telecom, Sonic.net, Frontier Communications, & New Edge Networks.

If one of them tries to screw me over then I can easily switch.

I suspect you don't have these choices. That's something you need to speak to your MP about.

Edit: I also have a boatload of choices for TV and eight Canadians currently use my PO box as their billing address in order to secure HD DISH satellite service to their homes in Canada...something that your country considers a bigger crime than peddling pot.

See, I have no choice. There is 1 cable provider, and 2 ISPs. One ISP has oversubscribed cable internet (which I have) that has an incredibly bad Quality of Service, the other is extremely expensive DSL with half the bandwidth and only 75% as bad QoS. My internet bill climbs a little more each quarter, as the company Cable profits slide from all the cord cutters. I could switch, but then I'd be in the same situation as Telus loses landline subscribers.

I cannot have Fiber. I will never have it, without paying hundreds of thousands of $$ to get it run to my house. And my MP was until recently, Rona Ambrose, who couldn't give two shits about the situation as her party advocated for it.

What I don't get is how the FCC basically committed fraud, then lied about it, and you seem to put your fingers in your ears and go LALALALALA when it comes up.

[BartSimpson]

If the FCC committed fraud then I'm sure they will be investigated and Congress will do fuckall about it just like they do fuckall about anything else so forgive me for not getting too excited about it. I'm just that cynical.

Their criminality aside, I still don't see the value in more government control of the internet.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Their criminality aside, I still don't see the value in more government control of the internet.

Most people didn't see value in control of the phone system, until it was wielded like a pry bar to open people's wallets.

If you reconsider that most of people's lives now occur on the Internet, you'll see the need for uninhibited access to it.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Most people didn't see value in control of the phone system, until it was wielded like a pry bar to open people's wallets.

If you reconsider that most of people's lives now occur on the Internet, you'll see the need for uninhibited access to it.

I want uninhibited access on the net. That's why I oppose the Patriot Act and pretty much any other kind of government intervention on the net.

These fucking bureaucrats always follow the same patterns.

First they say they're trying to help.

Then they say they need to take control.

Then they start to tell you what you can and can't have.

And then you're no longer free.

Fuck that. I'll take a laissez-faire net over the option of government control and censorship any day of the week.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Most people didn't see value in control of the phone system, until it was wielded like a pry bar to open people's wallets.

If you reconsider that most of people's lives now occur on the Internet, you'll see the need for uninhibited access to it.

I want uninhibited access on the net. That's why I oppose the Patriot Act and pretty much any other kind of government intervention on the net.

These fucking bureaucrats always follow the same patterns.

First they say they're trying to help.

Then they say they need to take control.

Then they start to tell you what you can and can't have.

And then you're no longer free.

Fuck that. I'll take a laissez-faire net over the option of government control and censorship any day of the week.

You also described Facebook and Google.

Look how well lack of controls or ethics has served us so far. The only way to have uninhibited access is to legislate it, as Europe seems to be doing.

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Most people didn't see value in control of the phone system, until it was wielded like a pry bar to open people's wallets.

If you reconsider that most of people's lives now occur on the Internet, you'll see the need for uninhibited access to it.

I want uninhibited access on the net. That's why I oppose the Patriot Act and pretty much any other kind of government intervention on the net.

These fucking bureaucrats always follow the same patterns.

First they say they're trying to help.

Then they say they need to take control.

Then they start to tell you what you can and can't have.

And then you're no longer free.

Fuck that. I'll take a laissez-faire net over the option of government control and censorship any day of the week.

Can't have laissez-faire net when 3 or 4 of the most corrupt institutions to currently exist on this planet have complete control over it.

Decentralize the fucking thing already.

Also, uninhibited is exactly what net neutrality was trying to protect.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

You also described Facebook and Google.

Look how well lack of controls or ethics has served us so far. The only way to have uninhibited access is to legislate it, as Europe seems to be doing.

Yup. And no one has to use those services. I use Startpage or DuckDuckGo for search and I quit Facebook two or three months ago.

I've actually managed quite well without it but I do regret that I was chatting with Karra via the Messenger and I hope he gets the pm I have in his CKA mailbox someday.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

You also described Facebook and Google.

Look how well lack of controls or ethics has served us so far. The only way to have uninhibited access is to legislate it, as Europe seems to be doing.

Yup. And no one has to use those services.

You don't have to use those services in order to be used by them. CKA runs scripts from Facebook.net. How many people use Android phones?

[BartSimpson]

Look, I just don't want the regulators on the net because the next thing you know the fucking c*nts will be restricting free speech like the fucking cUKnts in the UK did this last week censoring any mention of Tommy Robinson.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Look, I just don't want the regulators on the net because the next thing you know the fucking c*nts will be restricting free speech like the fucking cUKnts in the UK did this last week censoring any mention of Tommy Robinson.

I get that. But is it any better if it's the government restricting speech, or big faceless companies? The government has rules regarding that, companies do not. Or rather, don't any more.

And the rules the FCC nixed because 'public opinion' ( ) had everythign to do with an unrestricted internet. Removing those rules opens the internet up to the whims of any company powerful enough to control their users. It also restricts the ability of any small startup ever becoming the next Google or Facebook.