Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:"Right To Serve" (Score 1) 84

First, I hope you mis-spoke when you said "difference between business and commercial uses of the internet". I presume you meant, non-commercial vs commercial. Which gets to the point that finally a journalist has on the record agreed with me about. I.e. the way NetNeutrality currently exists, such distinction is not in the legal domain of ways that ISPs may block or throttle "lawful devices connected to the network" (including servers, small like pi or large like an onyx). I.e. suppose I find a way to make $1,000,000 serving less traffic in funny cat videos than my neighbor uses for skype calls with their grandchildren. Are you really suggesting that it is the commercial vs non-commercial nature of that traffic that should allow Google as an ISP to charge me more for it? (Ryan Singel, former editor of's Thread Level blog)

"FCC orders Google to Respond to Net Neutrality Complaint
Once the biggest backer, now a potential violator

For years, Google was the most active corporate supporter of federal Net Neutrality regulations prohibiting broadband providers from controlling what apps or devices Americans use on the internet services they pay for."

Comment Re:Why is it that when I think of advertisers (Score 1) 248

Bill Hicks had a good bit about advertisers you might like-

And for my opinion of the biggest marketer hypocrisy going on lately-

headline: FCC orders Google to Respond to Net Neutrality Complaint; Once the biggest backer, now a potential violator

Comment Re:"Right To Serve" (Score 1) 84

I think you are beginning to see the real mess. As far as the datacenter abuse argument, if I here google try to use that, I'll argue back from the cookie monster angle.

"With advertising claims like these, you need a way to keep commercial users from taking advantage. I assume Google Fiber is similar."

If I'm using the exact same bandwidth as my neighbor, upstream and downstream, but I'm making $1,000,000 per year selling funny cat videos, then yes, I'm taking better advantage of the same resource as my neighbor (if I'm the sort of person that doesn't consider watching funny cat videos to be torturous).

Comment Re:"Right To Serve" (Score 1) 84

"Can I run a server from my home?
Our Terms of Service prohibit running a server. However, use of applications such as multi-player gaming, video-conferencing, home security and others which may include server capabilities but are being used for legal and non-commercial purposes are acceptable and encouraged."

And you don't sense anything fishy going on with language that self-contradictory? Do you really think that Google is not technically smart enough to word things in a less blatantly self-contradictory fashion than that, if their were no hidden agendas being served?

Comment Re:"Right To Serve" (Score 2) 84

There are only two ISPs that I know of that allow servers, SpeakEasy has a "run any server" policy, and Google Fiber has a "non-commercial server" policy. Every other ISP that I can find all have "No Servers At All" policies.

Citations needed. Please find me the "no server at all" policy in TimeWarner Broadband's terms of service (or network management practices, or similar official policy documents. I think you'll find that Google was actually exceptionally stupid in this regard. The existing big players at least knew enough about network neutrality to just make pages and pages of chilling terms of service, but without ever going so far as to say "no server at all". Next, please go ahead and give me the citation/URL for GoogleFiber's "non-commercial server" policy. It may well be something quite recent that I will be informed of one week from today, as it sounds like a possible attempt to address my complaint. Honestly if they did concede that much I'd be at least half-way happy. But then I'd start quoting them paragraph 13 of the Federal Communication Commission's Report and Order Preserving the Open Internet again, and asking where exactly they think they get the right to prevent residential users from engaging in that kind of value trading commerce over the internet, while hypocritcally their non broadband carrier divisions go on trading advanced cloud services like gmail with residential end users in exchange for their eyeball attention (and in some cases, money for enhanced services). Yeah, ok, non-commercial only, sure, spose, cha.... :)

Comment "Right To Serve" (Score 2) 84

But the problem is that residential ISPs don't want to have to actually provide "internet service". What they really want to provide is the much simpler and more profitable "client only internet service". I.e. GoogleFiber's 'evil' terms of service-

ComIntercept (FCC->GoogleFiber)"
"The enclosed informal complaint, dated September 1, 2012, has been filed with the Commission by Douglas McClendon against Google pursuant to section 1.41 of Comissions's Rules, 47 C.F.R. // 1.41. Also attached is Mr. McClendon's October 24, 2012 complaint forwarded to the FCC by the Kansas Office of the Attorney General. Mr. McClendon asserts that Google's policy prohibiting use of its fixed broadband internet service (Google Fiber connection) to host any type of server violates the Open Internet Order, FCC 10-201, and the Commission's rules at 47 C.F.R. // 8.1-11.

Comment Re:Blame ISPs (Score 5, Interesting) 84

Can you imagine the explosion in Internet traffic if ISP customers were allowed to host servers?

Why Yes! Thank you for bringing it up in the first post. Go ahead and follow this rabbit trail if you are more interested in the situation-

I've used the fact that GoogleFiber was my first ISP choice involving IPv6 to press a new novel interpretation of NetworkNeutrality. It seems to be going somewhere. ComIntercept(FCC->Google):

"The enclosed informal complaint, dated September 1, 2012, has been filed with the Commission by Douglas McClendon against Google pursuant to section 1.41 of Comissions's Rules, 47 C.F.R. // 1.41. Also attached is Mr. McClendon's October 24, 2012 complaint forwarded to the FCC by the Kansas Office of the Attorney General. Mr. McClendon asserts that Google's policy prohibiting use of its fixed broadband internet service (Google Fiber connection) to host any type of server violates the Open Internet Order, FCC 10-201, and the Commission's rules at 47 C.F.R. // 8.1-11.

We are forwarding a copy of the informal complaint so that you may satisfy or answer the informal complaint based on a thorough review of all relevant records and other information. You should respond in writing specifically and comprehensively to all material allegations raised in the informal complaint, being sure not to include the specifics of any confidential settlement discussions. ...

Your written response to the informal complaint must be filed with the Commission contact listed below by U.S. mail and e-mail by July 29, 2013. On that same day, you must mail and e-mail your response to Douglas McClendon.

The parties shall retain all records that may be relevant to the informal complaint until final Commission disposition of the informal complaint or of any formal complaint that may arise from this matter. See 47 C.F.R. //1.812-17. (seriously, can't I and Google just depend on the NSA's backups of our records? :)

Failure of any person to answer any lawful Commission inquiry is considered a misdemeanor punishable by a fine... ... ... [] []

This represents Google getting 'served' this week, my form 2000F 'informal' 53 page complaint that suggests that NetNeutrality provides protections against ISP blocking to my home servers as well as to Skype's. Google has been compelled by the government to respond to me on July 29th. GoogleFiber's 'evil' terms of service prohibit hosting any kind of server without prior written permission against your residential connection. And zero transparency for any alternate server-allowed plan rates, or what kinds of reasons they might use to disallow a requested written permission (which is laughable as the FCC 10-201 NetNeutrality document goes out of it's way to laud Tim Berner Lee's invention of the web atop tcp/ip, specifically, without having to have gotten any permission from any government or network provider)

I forwarded the documents to and requested any insight he might have into the matter. I got an email response (theoretically perhaps spoofed) that read "Thanks.\n\nGood Luck."

Comment Re:The truth is (Score 1) 707

'[Processed foods are bad]'? Really?? What the fuck is 'processed food' even?

As a carnivorous junk food lover, this is also my gut response to the 'processed food' is bad allegation. But then, cuz the alleger was cute, I thought about it more with an open mind, and realized that, as laughable pedantically as the allegation is, it is worth understanding. Quite simply what this is about is refined drugs. Before cocaine was refined (I'm guessing), sugar and salt were the refined pleasure giving white crystals of choice. In general, not because of the definition of the word 'processing', but because of human's attraction to refined pleasure giving chemicals, 'processed foods' are (i'd guess if I did the scientific research) *generally* unhealthier. Because the producers are just "increasing shareholder value" by giving us unhealthy addicts what we're willing to spend our money on.

Comment Re:Easy answer (Score 0) 273

Because Facebook can't come after you will full force of arms, put you in jail, and otherwise make your life miserable or unlivable by misusing your information.

But their friends in the Mafia can. Of course the gubernment, including the FBI/CIA/NSA are supposed to protect us from organized criminals. But as history teaches us (camden 28 documentary) the government often seems more inclined to hire the Mafia to commit it's organized criminal activity, than to police them and protect us from them.

Comment Re:Isn't the real problem something else? (Score 1) 139

Thanks for your thanks. It really means a lot. 11 more days till I get my first on the record answer from Google... I so hope they just admit I was right all along. But if they don't, you and the dozen or two others I've had see my point along the way will definitely make me feel a little less insane. It means a lot. Time will tell...

Comment Re:Screw 'em all (Score 1) 139

There is no infrastructure currently to support what you are talking about much less ten years ago.

I call pure B.S. There are many ISPs that allow residential users to run servers. You're B.S. is so exceptionally transparent, I can quote an anonymous leak of Google's CEO and CFO that show precisely that there is no technical lack of supporting infrastructure-

(score 5 unrefuted Anonymous Coward leak post of Larry Page and Patrick Prichett (CEO and CFO of Google))

Most businesses don't have servers and switching and storage. They use ISPs and data centers.

OK, so what, don't care. You are like one of those people for jailing flag burners who don't get that allowing people to burn flags without going to jail doesn't mean *you* will be forced to burn your flag. Businesses that want servers and switching and storage will buy them, businesses that want to outsource that infrastructure will still be more than free to do so. non-issue.

Most individuals certainly don't have this stuff.

That's not really true, but again, wouldn't matter much if it were. Most individuals probably do have a 10 year old PC they aren't using for anything else, and could easily run linux on it, *if they wanted to*. But nobody will be forcing them to. Just an option.

Economies of scale are what makes it all affordable. This means you have to store data offsite and run your apps offsite.

No, it really doesn't. What it means is that in *some* cases it makes business sense to store your data offsite and run your apps offisite. In other cases, the opposite.

If it isn't Google it's Rackspace or Amazon web services or your local collocation hub sitting near a T3 backbone.

Or your servers in your residence- *if you choose* (and if the terms of service or FCC interpretation of network neutrality allow it)

You are deluded to think that it can be different even in a future where servers are cheap and bandwidth is fast.

I hope you are just trolling and aren't so stupid as to actually believe that. A raspberri pi already can do many interesting things as a server (cheap already), and bandwidth is already fast, compared to 10 years ago (when and other websites were already doing very interesting things with many thousands of users, and a rather paltry amount of bandwidth used by today's standards. I just want to be able to do the same at home now that costs for servers and bandwidth have come down.

Centrally managed by dedicated support staff will always win out over anything else in 80% of the use cases.

And even if you are exactly right, you have still made my point. That 20% is where I want to be. I think Network Neutrality entitles me the opportunity to compete in that 20% of the market. Bruce Schneier seems to agree (Thanked me) with me and wishes me Good Luck with my complaint.

Right To Serve --

Comment Re:Isn't the real problem something else? (Score 2) 139

I don't understand.

No, you do understand

isn't this all a bit irrelevant?

relative to whay you suggest is the main concern- yup. it's called propaganda. nothing like the smell of it in the morning.

Isn't the splitter the big worry?

Yup. +1 for listening to the logical parts of your brain.

You might have fun reading about the crusade I've been on for the last 9 or 10 months- (and longer really)

Right To Serve --

Comment Re:Screw 'em all (Score 2) 139

Outfits like the EFF and ACLU, not to mention people like Snowden and Manning who take great personal risk, have the moral high ground; but perhaps less so with the 'army of effective lobbyists and vast financial resources'.

You lost me. But these companies do deserve to be punished for their simple network/security mistakes (that had grand consequence). They simply built the wrong software. In my opinion home serving software that keeps people in control and possession of their "papers", combined with open source pervasive encryption, was and remains the obvious right answer. These companies should be firing the inneffective employees that didn't see this coming long ago, and choose a better strategy than "wait for the day it all blows up in our faces".

Right To Serve. Period.

Comment Never Forget (Score 5, Informative) 58
Shi Tao was sentenced in April 2005 to 10 years’ imprisonment and two years’ subsequent deprivation of his political rights. According to the court verdict, part of the evidence for the case was account holder information supplied by Yahoo!. Spokespersons for Yahoo! claimed the company was simply following local laws.
Yahoo! has asked a US court to dismiss a lawsuit accusing it of "aiding and abetting" acts of torture and other human rights abuses against Chinese dissidents. The company handed over information about its users to the Chinese government, which led to the arrests of the dissidents.
Human Rights in China, a New York-based group, said Thursday that Wang Xiaoning was sentenced to 10 years in prison in Sept 2003 for "incitement to subvert state power" after Yahoo provided authorities with his email address.

and call me a tinfoil hatter all you want, but I do think this and the Snowden-crash issues are related-

Slashdot Top Deals

One possible reason that things aren't going according to plan is that there never was a plan in the first place.