Choose Format - Font Size
I'm not sure how or when comcast/verizon/att/whoever managed to get this squashed.
it should be legally obvious that you can't be arrested *only* for "resisting arrest"
"Resisting arrest" should probably be renamed "Contempt of Cop"
Not every ISP is comcast.
No, they are not. Do you think it's any different with Verizon, CenturyLink, or any other regional or national ISP? Every one of them has received the tax breaks that started with the Telecom Act of 1996, and instead of using that additional money to build infrastructure as mandated in the law, have generally used it to line the pockets of they executives with cash.
I'm not really convinced that the internet will end without net neutrality. It could potentially make a few things inconvenient, but I'm not convinced that we need to get out our pitchforks and torches over it.
This is the beginning of turning the internet into Cable TV 2.0. In a few years you will be buying an internet plan based on whether you get high speed access to Netflix, Hulu, Facebook, or whatever hot new web service shows up. You want to use "old school" internet tools that run on ports other than 80, 443, 25, 465/587? That'll be extra, or maybe you'll have to get the "Business" package.
it only ever takes actions towards ending it
I'm no Obama fan, nor did I vote for him, but for the first few years of his presidency, he seemed to be trying to get the FCC to enforce net neutrality. This was met with resistance from every major national ISP. Some examples include Verizon arguing that "it had a first amendment right to block content on its network." and "like a newspaper, it provides you with news but has a right to cover whatever it wants and say whatever it wants." Another would be Comcast suing the FCC to overturn the FCC order censuring Comcast from interfering with subscribers' use of peer-to-peer software
The part of the 1996 Telecom Act that excludes ISPs from being covered under common carrier rules would seem to support this. I think amending the law to remove this restriction would then give the FCC more legal ability to actually implement some form of net neutrality, and keep us from having to "get out our pitchforks and torches over it."
It could possibly happen that ISPs might actually upgrade their networks for once if they're getting paid more.
In the years 2010-2013, Comcast has seen net income, after taxes and expenses, of between $3.6B and $6.8B. Part of this was earned by operating a service that is delivered over physical infrastructure that they didn't build and have effective monopoly control over. Tell me again how they haven't had enough cash to do any upgrades.
What I see happening is more extortion of the content providers like we saw with Netflix.
- Comcast: "That's a nice data stream you're sending to our customer. It'd be a shame if something were to throttle it. You should buy some of our data transmission insurance. Then we'll make sure nothing like that happens"
All the while, they'll be complaining about how their customers are trying to actually use the bandwidth they purchased and how streaming services (other than those sold by comcast) continue to put stress on the comcast network.
Via txt message you can disable the phone, wipe the phone and/or SD card, trigger the camera, turn on/off mobile data, and more.
I paid more than $21 for my motorola modem. But 9 months later I've recouped that cost and don't have to worry about what shenanegins Comcast might be playing with the firmware. I know that doesn't do any thing to stop their traffic shaping/throttling and deep packet inspection, but that what pointing the internal routers at a VPN is for.
how far the Cartels will push the government before they just decide to cut the military loose
Using some of their giant stream of incoming cash to bribe top govt and military officials means the cartel leaders don't have to worry about this. I expect they just consider bribes as one of the costs of doing business.
using some algorithm I'm currently unfamiliar with so will not bother to explain in detail but the point is it exists, take a share of the transaction they facilitated as a "transaction fee"
The sender in the transaction specifies the transaction fee. The wiki has more info.
"the person attempting to make a transaction can include any fee or none at all in the transaction. On the other hand, nobody mining new bitcoins necessarily needs to accept the transactions and include them in the new block being created. The transaction fee is therefore an incentive on the part of the bitcoin user to make sure that a particular transaction will get included into the next block which is generated. It is envisioned that over time the cumulative effect of collecting transaction fees will allow somebody creating new blocks to "earn" more bitcoins than will be mined from new bitcoins created by the new block itself. This is also an incentive to keep trying to create new blocks even if the value of the newly created block from the mining activity is zero in the far future. "
you see that more oppression almost inevitably follows this type of surveillance.
Does that make it a little more clear for you?