Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed with Verizon. The court also threw out an FCC rule that barred providers from blocking Internet traffic outright."
Link to Original Source
WASHINGTON — A U.S. appeals court has struck down the government's latest effort to require internet providers to treat all web traffic equally, meaning mobile carriers and other broadband providers may reach agreements for faster access to specific content crossing their networks.
The Federal Communications Commission's open Internet rules, passed in late 2010, require internet providers to treat all Web traffic equally and give consumers equal access to all lawful content, a principle known as net neutrality.
But the FCC lacked legal authority to enact the regulations, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled on Tuesday, siding with Verizon Communications Inc that challenged the rules.
Verizon has argued the rules violated the company's right to free speech and stripped control of what its networks transmit and how.
"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.
The FCC has classified broadband providers as information service providers as opposed to telecommunications service providers and that distinction created a legal hurdle for the FCC to impose the net neutrality rules.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler on Tuesday said the agency was considering "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 could appeal the ruling to the full appeals court or to the U.S. Supreme Court. Or it could attempt to rewrite the regulations to clear up its authority over broadband providers — a move urged by consumer advocacy groups.
Supporters of the rules worry that without FCC's rules, internet providers such as Verizon or Comcast Corp would be free to charge websites for faster access to their content or slow down or even block access to particular sites.
"That's just not the way the internet has worked until now," Matt Wood, policy director at public interest group Free Press, told Reuters.
But opponents say the rules inhibit investments, represent government meddling in free Internet and are not necessary to ensure open access to the Internet.
"Today's decision will not change consumers' ability to access and use the Internet as they do now," Randal Milch, Verizon's general counsel and executive vice president for public policy, said in a statement.
"Verizon has been and remains committed to the open Internet which provides consumers with competitive choices and unblocked access to lawful websites and content when, where, and how they want. This will not change in light of the court's decision," Milch said.
Similarly, the Broadband for America coalition representing various internet service providers and CTIA, the wireless industry association, pledged commitments to an open Internet.
Major content providers Netflix Inc and Google Inc who may face new hurdle referred inquiries to the Internet Association representing them.
"The Internet Association supports enforceable rules that ensure an open Internet, free from government control or discriminatory, anticompetitive actions by gatekeepers," the group's President and CEO Michael Beckerman said.
Facing strong resistance from Republicans, Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday pledged to help FCC redraft its rules to regain authority over broadband providers."
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
I wanted to drop a line about the Open Source GPU Kickstarter that I launched today. Our goal is to release an LGPLv3 licensed Verilog IP core. We currently have the 2D/ 3D fixed function pipeline running on an FPGA with the ultimate goal of releasing a Unified Shader Model. There is some coverage on Phoronix or Vi
Just thought I'd post that our kickstarter goes live on 10/9 for an LGPL graphics core. It is a complete 2D/3D Verilog implementation. The current version is PCI based and runs on Altera/ Xilinx or ASIC. 100% clean and synthesizable Verilog. We have a number of stretch goals that bring new features, generic interfaces so you could run on a PCIe FPGA board or an SOC part. The ultimate stretch goal would be a Unified Shader design.
We have pictures and will have video from the FPGA board on the kickstarter site (live on 10/9),
Our Facebook page (pictures and live now): Silicon Spectrum FB Page
Our Home page (out of date): Silicon Spectrum Home
GPLGPU.com (not live yet): GPL GPU site (not currently live)
It won't beat an Nvidia or AMD part in price/ performance (unless someone wants to do an ASIC based on it), but the source is open and no risk of ever not knowing what is inside in the future.
Million to one chances occur 9/10 times. (Terry Pratchet (paraphrased))
I did read the article.
I'm surprised part of the rankings didn't address this.
I have Sprint and I have used upwards of 8GB in a month, something prohibitive with another carrier.
How well can the NSA determine the calls source?
I get telemarketer calls daily: "Pack your bags..."
Always spoofed caller ID from a VOIP indian call center.
The phone company can't seem to block these crap calls.
What's to stop someone from framing someone if they got a hold of a suspicious #.
Hate your spouse, spoof their # calling it. Hate your political opponent, do it to them.
The government should be all over this since they are going to the "give me all your data" model.
Google should soon safely be able to say: We got one FISA request last year.
I think the bigger thing is that security starts before you even enter the airport. They have less flights, so it's easier, but they check the lists.
Entering the airport you go through security where they check the car. My father in law is a native, they checked his car.
The Janitors are all ex-military or at least look it. They also carry radios and have bulges in the back of their uniform. I'm sure they are packing.
I'm also sure they listen to everyone talking in the airport. They take security seriously.
In fact. Leaving the US we weren't allowed to bring bottles for our daughter. We also got hand sanitizer taken away (it was about 1/2 of an 8oz bottle but since the bottle was big it was denied even though the contents fell below the amount allowed. When we left amsterdam, we walked right through w/ the bottles and anything else.