PDA

View Full Version : FCC thinks law enforcement can decide what software YOU run



BoyOfDestiny
October 2nd, 2005, 11:29 PM
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-151A1.pdf
A quotation:
"To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their
choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement."
Man, I really dislike the FCC... Might be time to change my signature to "I thought this was America"...

benplaut
October 3rd, 2005, 12:28 AM
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-151A1.pdf
A quotation:
"To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their
choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement."
Man, I really dislike the FCC... Might be time to change my signature to "I thought this was America"...

i think that means that they can make a program illegal... which would never happen

poofyhairguy
October 3rd, 2005, 12:36 AM
Man. That really really sucks.

TCPA, the FCC, and whatever do not scare me in theory. They scare me when they use force to control the gateways of knowledge.

It doesn't help me one bit if I avoid Vista because of trusted computing, only for the FCC to demand that anyone getting on the internet needs a trusted OS!

(at that point, I'll start rooting for XP again- the largest non trusted computing OS to exist in the near future!)

Ubunted
October 3rd, 2005, 12:56 AM
(at that point, I'll start rooting for XP again- the largest non trusted computing OS to exist in the near future!)

Untill SP3 anyway...

BoyOfDestiny
October 3rd, 2005, 01:00 AM
i think that means that they can make a program illegal... which would never happen
Hopefully you just mean in terms of the FCC and FBI... According to the DMCA (U.S and Australia I think) decss and playfair (crack for itunes drm), are illegal.

Stormy Eyes
October 3rd, 2005, 01:21 AM
Man, I really dislike the FCC... Might be time to change my signature to "I thought this was America"...

It's a bit late for that. If you want to make a difference, vote Libertarian (http://www.lp.org) in every election, at every level of government. This tyrannical crap -- the FCC, the war on drugs, the welfare/warfare state -- none of this crap will end until the Democrats and the Republicans are driven out of office.

Either that, or get yourself a gun and start training. If matters can't be settled with ballots, they'll be settled with bullets.

Stormy Eyes
October 3rd, 2005, 01:23 AM
It doesn't help me one bit if I avoid Vista because of trusted computing, only for the FCC to demand that anyone getting on the internet needs a trusted OS!

Assuming that the FCC closed the Internet to anybody not using a trusted OS, what's to stop us from boycotting it and starting our own network? Before the government released the Arpanet (which was built with money stolen from the people of the US), the free market had already come up with online services and the BBS scene.

blastus
October 3rd, 2005, 01:34 AM
I guess that means Window's Vista touted full volume encryption with the Fritz cryptoprocessor chip that blocks out other operating systems (which includes most of all forensics software because they are Linux-based) would be illegal. Now we can say our computers have "gone on the fritz" :cool:

poofyhairguy
October 3rd, 2005, 01:35 AM
Assuming that the FCC closed the Internet to anybody not using a trusted OS, what's to stop us from boycotting it and starting our own network?

The billions of dollars needed to build a super network.

A bunch of wifi points hooked together might be nice and all, but really if this decision came down the pipe the internet as it is would die. The "darknet" would die.

BoyOfDestiny
October 3rd, 2005, 01:58 AM
It's a bit late for that. If you want to make a difference, vote Libertarian (http://www.lp.org) in every election, at every level of government. This tyrannical crap -- the FCC, the war on drugs, the welfare/warfare state -- none of this crap will end until the Democrats and the Republicans are driven out of office.
Either that, or get yourself a gun and start training. If matters can't be settled with ballots, they'll be settled with bullets.
LOL, just recently I made an analogy regarding republicans and democrats. Basically it's the same as Syclla and Charbdys, and why Odysseus sailed in between.
As for voting, I really would like special interest lobbying to go away... In my opinion, it breaks democracy... Since someone else's vote can be given more weight than another.
In terms of bullets or violence, I prefer to rely on my own wit and strength... Anyway if it's the large corps and super rich at fault... they are clearly outnumbered.
About the internet being doomed, I have faith in the geeks. The government isn't exactly bright. People will find a way to spoof, hack, or even go running from door to door with a bunch of dvds... all is doable.

az
October 3rd, 2005, 02:01 AM
Assuming that the FCC closed the Internet to anybody not using a trusted OS,

There is much more to the internet than the US.

There is much more to the world, actually....

BoyOfDestiny
October 3rd, 2005, 02:05 AM
There is much more to the internet than the US.
There is much more to the world, actually....

Amen.

poofyhairguy
October 3rd, 2005, 02:21 AM
There is much more to the internet than the US.
There is much more to the world, actually....


Thank goodness.

blastus
October 3rd, 2005, 02:57 AM
The U.S. still controls the Internet's 13 root servers, so for now, the U.S. can do whatever it wants because they run it.

EU and U.S. clash over control of Net (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/29/business/net.php) - Sep 30, 2005

U.S. insists on keeping control of Web (http://www.businessweek.com/ap/tech/D8CTVNH00.htm?campaign_id=apn_tech_down&chan=tc) - Sep 29, 2005

Stormy Eyes
October 3rd, 2005, 03:09 AM
As for voting, I really would like special interest lobbying to go away... In my opinion, it breaks democracy... Since someone else's vote can be given more weight than another.

Democracy is broken by design, as it is nothing more than a means for the many to rule and rob the few without having to bother with the inconvenience of actually having to bleed for their booty. Show me a republic that allows people to vote for the leaders and I will show you a state that bribes the people with their own money.

Stormy Eyes
October 3rd, 2005, 03:10 AM
There is much more to the internet than the US.
There is much more to the world, actually....

You're preaching to the choir here; I've actually left the US a couple of times.

darkmatter
October 3rd, 2005, 03:34 AM
Democracy is broken by design, as it is nothing more than a means for the many to rule and rob the few without having to bother with the inconvenience of actually having to bleed for their booty.

Amen. With your permission, I think I'll quote that in my sig.:)

Stormy Eyes
October 3rd, 2005, 03:41 AM
Amen. With your permission, I think I'll quote that in my sig.:)

I can offer you something more concise, which isn't mine: Democracy is a sheep and two wolves arguing over what to have for dinner.

NeoSNightmarE
October 3rd, 2005, 03:49 AM
The only thing that I can to something like that, dammit. I think that it's unbelievable that the FCC would take such an approach. Then again, in the end it was going to be a complete movement to get the Trusted Computing concept to work in the fashion they hope for. Hope that it doesn't go down this route...still.

mstlyevil
October 3rd, 2005, 04:54 AM
Thank goodness the FCC does not have the final say on this issue. It should be thrown out by the courts or overturned by congress. Either way I do not think it will stand for very long at all.

vayu
October 3rd, 2005, 07:15 AM
Democracy is broken by design, as it is nothing more than a means for the many to rule and rob the few


I think of it the other way around. The means for the few to rob the many. I can't remember where I heard these numbers but they have stuck with me. Eightyfive percent of the wealth is owned by one percent of the population, and ninetyfive percent of the wealth is owned by five percent of the population. To me the biggest and root of all crimes is not capitalism per say but the disparity in the distribution of wealth.

vayu
October 3rd, 2005, 07:24 AM
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves arguing over what to have for dinner.

I believe that is from Ben Franklin.

ygarl
October 3rd, 2005, 09:46 AM
250 Million people in the US vs. 5.975+ BILLION people in the rest of the world.
And the internet is MUCH more entrenched in daily life in Europe and the Far East than the USA.
I mean MUCH.
I am an expatriate American living in London. My mom in Indiana is considering whether to get broadband or not. In west London, NOBODY uses anything but at LEAST 500k+ ADSL. Most people use 1 to 2mbs broadband, or even up to 8mbs! All of these are DSL so accessable to everybody in London just through thier phone lines.

Typical 'FCC' thinking.

I remember why I moved to the UK now...

Land of the Free indeed.

aysiu
October 3rd, 2005, 09:57 AM
I don't know. According to this website, which cites the Nielsen net ratings, (http://www.clickz.com/stats/sectors/geographics/article.php/3468391) only 37% of the UK population are "active home users" of the internet, whereas 83% of the US fit into that "active" category.

My wife and I both have friends in the UK (only one living in West London), and they all have either dial-up or no internet connection at all.


And the internet is MUCH more entrenched in daily life in Europe and the Far East than the USA.
I mean MUCH. Granted, we haven't been back to the UK since summer of 2003, but when we visited last, none of our friends felt the need to check email on even a semi-regular basis. Meanwhile, my wife and I were checking in to internet cafes just about every day. When our American friends stay over at our apartment for only one or two days, they inevitably ask, "Mind if I check my email?"

We certainly do miss Boots, chips and cheese, real Cadbury's chocolate, and all that (not Marmite), but if there's one thing we don't feel is lacking in the US, it's internet connectivity!

Kvark
October 3rd, 2005, 11:49 AM
It's impossible to take control over the whole internet. It would result in a split into one US controlled part for US's allies and colonies. One free part for random democracies that don't want to be dependant on the US. And a separate local government controlled net for each dictatorship that doesn't want to be dependant on the US. It would be possible to connect to the free part from anywhere in the world through the phone line or satellite.


I think of it the other way around. The means for the few to rob the many. I can't remember where I heard these numbers but they have stuck with me. Eightyfive percent of the wealth is owned by one percent of the population, and ninetyfive percent of the wealth is owned by five percent of the population. To me the biggest and root of all crimes is not capitalism per say but the disparity in the distribution of wealth.
It is not democracy that caused that distribution of wealth. It is the fact that you can get the profit from work others do. Those 5% you mention owns most of the stocks and gets most of the profit from the work the other 95% of the population does. The profit from a McDonalds goes to the same stock owners that gets the profit from all other McDonalds around the world. And I bet those stock owners aren't even working with flipping burgers at a McDonalds.

The profit from an independant burger bar goes to the local entrepreneur who runs it. A move to small bussiness would solve most of the wealth distribution problems. Add that small bussinesses are more streamlined and effective anyway and the competition in the capitalistic free market works better with many small competitors then with a few big ones.

kleeman
October 3rd, 2005, 01:55 PM
I can offer you something more concise, which isn't mine: Democracy is a sheep and two wolves arguing over what to have for dinner.
And Fascism, the only tested alternative to Democracy, consists of the wolves eating the sheep for dinner and then killing each other.

qiezi!
October 3rd, 2005, 02:14 PM
It is not democracy that caused that distribution of wealth. It is the fact that you can get the profit from work others do. Those 5% you mention owns most of the stocks and gets most of the profit from the work the other 95% of the population does. The profit from a McDonalds goes to the same stock owners that gets the profit from all other McDonalds around the world. And I bet those stock owners aren't even working with flipping burgers at a McDonalds.

The profit from an independant burger bar goes to the local entrepreneur who runs it. A move to small bussiness would solve most of the wealth distribution problems. Add that small bussinesses are more streamlined and effective anyway and the competition in the capitalistic free market works better with many small competitors then with a few big ones.
Bang!! That's the sound of Kvark hitting the nail on the head!! :) That's the problem with capitalism not democracy. It provides the freamwork where the rich get richer, through private ownership of capital (land, infrastructure, etc). And the profits that big companies generate through the use of capital and labour are not fairly distributed... those who control the capital get the profits, those who do not, work for a pittance to provide the profits. I would even take the small business point further, to where businesses are owned/managed by the employees not share-holders. The success of a business then rewards the people who make it so, not those who control the capital. Mmm, oh how I can ramble...

Stormy Eyes
October 3rd, 2005, 02:23 PM
If you want to know why it's difficult to start a small business, blame the government. It, not the corporations, controls the tax structure in a way that benefits the corporations who finance the politicians' campaigns. It all comes back to the government, whether you're willing to believe it or not. Bad government sets the stage for megacorps and "unfair" distribution of wealth. If you want 'economic justice', you have to work for a truly free market, where the state is kept out of the boardroom, just as it is kept out of the church.

Stormy Eyes
October 3rd, 2005, 02:30 PM
qiezi!, you're contradicting yourself by complaining about capitalism while extolling the virtues of small business. Do you know what capitalism is supposed to be? It's supposed to be free trade between mutually consenting individuals to mutual benefit. Force is not supposed to be involved, whether that force is supplied by a robber, or by a government.

qiezi!
October 4th, 2005, 12:52 AM
I don't believe I am contradicting myself. Capitalism isn't the only system where free enterprise can exist. I certainly agree that the government should be left out of business/economy affairs... Russia showed how a planned economy can fail miserably. I was only addressing the unequal distribution in wealth, and I believe that capitalism provides that opportunity. I think a more democratic system is needed in business that's all.

Stormy Eyes
October 4th, 2005, 02:13 AM
If you think that wealth isn't distributed fairly, then go to the root of the problem: taxes. Income taxes freeze wealth; those who old money can find ways around it, but it is difficult (if not impossible) for those who aren't wealthy to become wealthy under a system that taxes income instead of spending. If you care about making it easier for more people to become wealthy, fight the income tax and demand a switch to a system based solely on consumption taxes that do not punish people for saving and investing. "Democracy" in business isn't going to solve your problem.

occy8
October 4th, 2005, 06:36 AM
"Democracy" in business isn't going to solve your problem.

Democracy in business means every share one vote, be rich have a lot of shares and you have a lot of votes. Then you are in control.
Need more votes? buy more shares!

At one stage the UN tried to get control over the internet root servers.
Thats where the operational control should be. It belongs to everyone.



--why do you need to have millions of dollars to become president in the US?--

qiezi!
October 4th, 2005, 06:38 AM
But how will changing taxes make any difference?? Don't get me wrong a consumption tax is a good thing, the GST in Australia is probably the best thing John Howard will ever do for this country, and many excessively rich people now pay more tax than they did previously. But at the end of the day, the proportion they pay is still far less than even the average income earners. A tougher progressive income tax law may work, but as you say people always find a way around, so much the easier when you have the money to find it. The only reason I criticise capitalism is because the ultimate goal is to make profit (which must come at the expense of something) and accumulate personal wealth/property which I believe to be an ignoble goal.

qiezi!
October 4th, 2005, 06:47 AM
Democracy in business means every share one vote, be rich have a lot of shares and you have a lot of votes. Then you are in control.
Need more votes? buy more shares!

At one stage the UN tried to get control over the internet root servers.
Thats where the operational control should be. It belongs to everyone.



--why do you need to have millions of dollars to become president in the US?--

I think democracy in business should mean that the business is owned, managed and run equally by the employees. No shareholders to reap the benefits of your labour.

BoyOfDestiny
October 4th, 2005, 07:48 AM
Democracy in business means every share one vote, be rich have a lot of shares and you have a lot of votes. Then you are in control.
Need more votes? buy more shares!
At one stage the UN tried to get control over the internet root servers.
Thats where the operational control should be. It belongs to everyone.
--why do you need to have millions of dollars to become president in the US?--
All I can say is yikes about the UN. China is in there... I do not want China having any say whatsoever in regards to Internet usage.
Watch this, let's get my post banned in China, and if I were there, I'd be taken into custody. Free elections, democracy, and human rights... Don't believe me, microsoft even abides by this:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1136045,00.html
intro: "Technology sold by Microsoft to the Chinese government has been used by Beijing to censor the internet, and resulted in the jailing of its political opponents."
The internet should be free, and that means of the UN too...

qiezi!
October 4th, 2005, 07:53 AM
All I can say is yikes about the UN. China is in there... I do not want China having any say whatsoever in regards to Internet usage.
Watch this, let's get my post banned in China, and if I were there, I'd be taken into custody. Free elections, democracy, and human rights... Don't believe me, microsoft even abides by this:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1136045,00.html
intro: "Technology sold by Microsoft to the Chinese government has been used by Beijing to censor the internet, and resulted in the jailing of its political opponents."
The internet should be free, and that means of the UN too...

Yahoo and Google have also been contracted to censor their search engines inside China too... but like this thing with the FCC, it's like trying to stop the tides...

Kvark
October 4th, 2005, 10:08 AM
Democracy in business would be to have an election to decide on if strawberry, chocolate or vanilla icecream is best. Then everyone must buy the flavor that got the most votes and nobody can buy any other flavor.

The current system that you can buy whatever flavor you want is anarchy.

darkmatter
October 4th, 2005, 10:19 AM
Democracy is a failure. It is at the root of nearly as many human rights vioations as communism.

And that's not a random comment, Iive (along with my family) experience it personally.

alred
October 4th, 2005, 10:44 AM
QUOTE :: "Democracy is a failure. It is at the root of nearly as many human rights vioations as communism.

And that's not a random comment, Iive (along with my family) experience it personally."


inshallah , amen , om___ or whatever !! :D

rdw200169
October 4th, 2005, 10:48 AM
I think the closest step we can make to resolving the problem(s) associated w/ the distribution of wealth in the united states is abolishing the 16th Amendment (federal govt. can tax income) and implementing a federal sales tax to take care of federal funding needs. No more income tax, soc. sec. tax, fica, capital gains tax, etc... go to this website to learn more: http://www.fairtax.org/ The most important aspect of Democracy is Participation, think about it....

Stormy Eyes
October 4th, 2005, 02:14 PM
Democracy in business means every share one vote, be rich have a lot of shares and you have a lot of votes. Then you are in control.
Need more votes? buy more shares!

That assumes that shares in a business are for sale. If I ran a business, I would not be selling shares. I will not tolerate democracy in my home or in my business. On my own property, I am king and my word is law.


At one stage the UN tried to get control over the internet root servers.

Thank Lucifer that they failed. They do a lousy job of peacekeeping, as millions of dead in Serbia, Bosnia, Rwanda, and the Sudan can testify. Why trust them to manage the internet when they can't even pour **** out of a boot that has a HOWTO printed on the heel?


Thats where the operational control should be. It belongs to everyone.

If it belongs to everyone, then it belongs to no one. If anybody should run the internet, it ought to be geeks who understand how the internet should work. Not politicians, not bureaucrats, not lawyers -- geeks.


--why do you need to have millions of dollars to become president in the US?--

You need a shitload of money to run any sort of political campaign in the US. It costs a lot to do a proper smear job on your opponents.

Stormy Eyes
October 4th, 2005, 02:17 PM
But how will changing taxes make any difference?? Don't get me wrong a consumption tax is a good thing, the GST in Australia is probably the best thing John Howard will ever do for this country, and many excessively rich people now pay more tax than they did previously. But at the end of the day, the proportion they pay is still far less than even the average income earners. A tougher progressive income tax law may work, but as you say people always find a way around, so much the easier when you have the money to find it. The only reason I criticise capitalism is because the ultimate goal is to make profit (which must come at the expense of something) and accumulate personal wealth/property which I believe to be an ignoble goal.

Excessively rich? Ignoble goal? A belief that working to earn a profit must come at the expense of an unspecified something? You don't sound like the sort of person I'd befriend. Are you a socialist of some kind?

skoal
October 4th, 2005, 07:18 PM
Dang, looks like I missed out on a brisk socio-economic discussion going on here...

Anyways, did anybody actually read that policy statement in it's entirety? The FCC is not the big bad boogeyman some here think are lurking in their closet...

"To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of theirchoice, subject to the needs of law enforcement."
Man, I really dislike the FCC... Might be time to change my signature to "I thought this was America"...
That's very reactionary, IMO. That particular FCC statement needs to be read in context with the others, or the entire document as a whole. That particular one (in conjuction with the other three) merely states that us consumers should not be allowed to _abuse_ those providers with illegal P2P access, child pornography, hardware taps to snif private info, et cetera. What I miss here? Outside of those (and others) illegal attempts at "abusing the hand that feeds you" (aka, your ISP), us consumers have carte blanche over their network infrastructure. Read the policy statement from top to bottom. I think your perspective might broaden a bit.

The Internet and access to it is a fairly deregulated market. You probably won't see it as such unless you understand the FCC must also balance existing company ownership of access to it, while encouraging competition at the same time.

\\//_

poofyhairguy
October 5th, 2005, 12:05 AM
That particular one (in conjuction with the other three) merely states that us consumers should not be allowed to _abuse_ those providers with illegal P2P access, child pornography, hardware taps to snif private info, et cetera. What I miss here?

A: How they plan to stop such activity is worse than the activity in a nerds eyes.

B: If I pay for my internet access, why should teh FCC police what I do with it? If I have drugs in my car, its the cops problem and job to fix that not toyotas or the Texas Transportation Department.

C: If you didn't get the memo- nerds are kings on the internet as it is. Because of that, we buy fat pipe service that keeps the ISPs afloat. If napster would have never come, I know most of my friends who not have a cable modem right now. Allowing me to do what I want is good for there business.

qiezi!
October 5th, 2005, 12:32 AM
Excessively rich? Ignoble goal? A belief that working to earn a profit must come at the expense of an unspecified something? You don't sound like the sort of person I'd befriend. Are you a socialist of some kind?

You say it like it's a bad thing ;-) In any case I am no socialist because, as we've both said it exerts control over market forces, which is a road to failure, that's why Soviet Russia and their "Five Year Plans" failed, they tried to run the economy and couldn't deliver. It's also why China backed off on market restrictions.
I don't want to be poor, I want a house, food, education for my kids, who doesn't. I don't want to mass riduculous amounts of money I will never really need, what billionare really needs all that money??

John.Michael.Kane
October 5th, 2005, 12:57 AM
If the U.S Govt pull's this off along with anything else, how many other countries will follow suit.... not that all countries follow in the foot steps of the U.S..

qiezi!
October 5th, 2005, 01:21 AM
If the U.S Govt pull's this off along with anything else, how many other countries will follow suit.... not that all countries follow in the foot steps of the U.S..

Australia will, John Howard is in love with President Bush. After the US, Aus had the most internet users/capita, and already have tough laws on copyright/sharing... I wouldn't be surprised to find they take a similar stance

mstlyevil
October 5th, 2005, 01:38 AM
If the US didn't do it first, some other country was bound to some time or another.

skoal
October 5th, 2005, 03:17 AM
A: How they plan to stop such activity is worse than the activity in a nerds eyes.
Hey, I'm a nerd too. I play tetris on my Ti-85 and fall asleep each nite on a stack of vintage 80 EGA boards made for a pillow. I just don't see the iron fist that some are claiming here. But maybe if I add a few more wraps of duct tape around the nose bridge of my glasses I will begin to see things a bit clearer. I just don't.

B: If I pay for my internet access, why should teh FCC police what I do with it? If I have drugs in my car, its the cops problem and job to fix that not toyotas or the Texas Transportation Department.
But in this case, you _own_ the car, not rent it from Hertz or on lease from a Toyota dealership. We rent from SBC, Verizon, or others' copper and fiber. Do you know what Hertz does to your credit card or a Toyota dealership to you in court when they lose _their_ car from a drug seizure? Why do you think SBC et al are all too happy to release your private user records to an RIAA inquiry of your IP? I don't think RCA, in return for such efforts, promises a lucrative record contract to a budding Verizon CEO practicing on karaoke machines at home. No, sir. Liability...

C: If you didn't get the memo- nerds are kings on the internet as it is. Because of that, we buy fat pipe service that keeps the ISPs afloat. If napster would have never come, I know most of my friends who not have a cable modem right now. Allowing me to do what I want is good for there business.
Yes, I agree there (in part). But I think mom and dad's fascination with recycling email viruses to their friends and family is where most ISPs get their revenue.

\\//_

YourSurrogateGod
October 5th, 2005, 04:26 AM
You need a shitload of money to run any sort of political campaign in the US. It costs a lot to do a proper smear job on your opponents.
It's like that in almost every western country that has a democracy. Look at Ukraine, **** poor and yet you need tens of millions in order to even stand a chance at victory (and somehow people find those fortunes.)

mstlyevil
October 5th, 2005, 04:28 AM
The US is not the only ones with messy contested elections. Just look at Germany right now.

benplaut
October 5th, 2005, 04:44 AM
Dang, looks like I missed out on a brisk socio-economic discussion going on here...
Anyways, did anybody actually read that policy statement in it's entirety? The FCC is not the big bad boogeyman some here think are lurking in their closet...

"To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of theirchoice, subject to the needs of law enforcement."
Man, I really dislike the FCC... Might be time to change my signature to "I thought this was America"...
That's very reactionary, IMO. That particular FCC statement needs to be read in context with the others, or the entire document as a whole. That particular one (in conjuction with the other three) merely states that us consumers should not be allowed to _abuse_ those providers with illegal P2P access, child pornography, hardware taps to snif private info, et cetera. What I miss here? Outside of those (and others) illegal attempts at "abusing the hand that feeds you" (aka, your ISP), us consumers have carte blanche over their network infrastructure. Read the policy statement from top to bottom. I think your perspective might broaden a bit.
The Internet and access to it is a fairly deregulated market. You probably won't see it as such unless you understand the FCC must also balance existing company ownership of access to it, while encouraging competition at the same time.
\\//_

i'm not very good with words, but that's pretty much exactly what i meant 3 pages ago...

in terms of legalities, the only way i'm illegal is a bootleg copy of Office XP (i still have a real, unused copy of Office 2003 :rolleyes: ) and, of course, Windows XP Pro - who doesn't have a copy of it laying around?! :eek:

YourSurrogateGod
October 5th, 2005, 04:57 AM
i'm not very good with words, but that's pretty much exactly what i meant 3 pages ago...
in terms of legalities, the only way i'm illegal is a bootleg copy of Office XP (i still have a real, unused copy of Office 2003 :rolleyes: ) and, of course, Windows XP Pro - who doesn't have a copy of it laying around?! :eek:
I don't.

poofyhairguy
October 5th, 2005, 05:04 AM
Hey, I'm a nerd too. I play tetris on my Ti-85 and fall asleep each nite on a stack of vintage 80 EGA boards made for a pillow. I just don't see the iron fist that some are claiming here. But maybe if I add a few more wraps of duct tape around the nose bridge of my glasses I will begin to see things a bit clearer. I just don't.

Just the fact the FCC has an opinion about it. In its history, that leads to regulating such things at some point. The internet is what it is because it moved faster then regulation



But in this case, you _own_ the car, not rent it from Hertz or on lease from a Toyota dealership. We rent from SBC, Verizon, or others' copper and fiber. Do you know what Hertz does to your credit card or a Toyota dealership to you in court when they lose _their_ car from a drug seizure? Why do you think SBC et al are all too happy to release your private user records to an RIAA inquiry of your IP? I don't think RCA, in return for such efforts, promises a lucrative record contract to a budding Verizon CEO practicing on karaoke machines at home. No, sir. Liability...

Hey. In the end its a market. If the providers want to prevent what I do, I'll switch providers till one doesn't. If that is never the case, then I'll deal with it. I just don't want the FCC involved.



Yes, I agree there (in part). But I think mom and dad's fascination with recycling email viruses to their friends and family is where most ISPs get their revenue.
\\//_

Thats where the hackers get there zombie army to sell on ebay. The cable companies got needed initial capital because of a boom in file sharing.

Stormy Eyes
October 5th, 2005, 01:43 PM
and, of course, Windows XP Pro - who doesn't have a copy of it laying around?! :eek:

I don't. My home has been a Windows-free shop since 1999.