|
|
|
| | |
Johnathan Vail Seems legit and not defensive at all. He only used the phrase "President Obama’s 2015 heavy-handed Internet regulations" about a dozen times.
Well, that's standard in this kid of stuff. When Dick Perl repatriated the US phone number system to the US*[1] the announcement he gave in DC referred to "THE ITU" with a sneer, about 17 times in 5 minutes causing Bob Shaw to glow scarlett. SOP.
The say that to make sure Obama heard. It wasn't his idea it was Hillary's but he put his name on it. They're calling hm out for doing that.
Now, does anybody have a reason we need to make new laws that only affect the net"
No?
Ok good, then you're down with what just happened then. If you have issues with a Telco or Cable co, the FCC would love to hear from you about that.
No new net laws though. "This is not negotiable.' - alice!dmr
*[1]You may wonder why a system invented in the US would have it's numbers swiped by a bunch of Euros that took the state department five years to get back. They were trying to "help" too.
Now you have number portability - but didn't until state spent five years picking at the ITU who at the time had a friendly american as chief legal counsel.
The regulatory framework the internet is build on is a house of cards. It is not robust or mature.
May I also remind you of this:
"You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these problems don't exist. Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we will identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own Social Contract. This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different."
https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence
https://www.facebook.com/rs79.vrx.net/posts/10156883730304148
12/14/17
The Canadian system works so well in Canada that by 1990 after every US state had an internet connection, the University of Waterloo finally for a DS0 56K connection to use for the entire university.
The reason more computers in Los Angeles had internet in 1990 than in all of Canada was because there are no regulations involved in doing this in the United States.
Those of us who had the first ISP's in this country remember well the onerous provisions of the early days. Canada still pays more for data than any country in the world so we're not the ones to look at. Korea and Japan are, they had ISDN video+data at phones booths a decade before we owuld even(finally) buy isdn here and prior to the invention of dsl and cable, that was it unless you went T1. Then you got to the border. Skype was not legal then and if it wasn't for one of our guys finessing the ITU to blindly do the right thing, would not be legal today.
The net doesn't need any laws to fix problems. Quite the opposite is true.
12/18/17
It's a clinton initiative. I know because I was there to watch her do it. Her husbands white house called me and I had to go to new york to meet her people with that we're meeting everyone.
So what why I giggle when you tell me years later what's actually going on. A lot of the background is covered in Mueller's "Ruling the Root" book. I've never read it but they tell me I'm in there. MIT Press, Amazon has it. Why don't you buy one, read it then send it to me then I can read it too and see what funny thing I said Milton stuck in there.
Pro:
Vint wrote the last 3/4 of TCP.
Con:
Somebody else wrote the first 1/4 and NCP and IP
Somebody else put it into Unix.
Tried to make all email pay-for while at MCI/Enron. Bob "Ethernet" Metcalk dubbed him "Darth Cerf" for this.
Single handedly made domain names pay for while on the FNCAC that advised the NSF to direct its client NSI to begin charging. Isoc had had it's eyes on a domain tax since the 1976 Montreal IETF meeting where they "threw the bums out".
Sir Timbit took Einar Stefferud MIME that he had Nat Borenstein implement, One of Stef's students work, HTML, and somebody else's Hyperlink and by 1989 had something half a dozen other poeple had already had running by the mid 80s. It's just color runoff. With menus.
Neither of these two built the net when the do best is promote themselves and if you've ever sen them at work they're slick.
I saw a president once honor some of these guys, Vint and Sir Timbit were there and Bob Kahn (DOI/Handle guy) who wrote most of tcp/ip and the president walked toward timbit and darth whose faces lit up and he went straight for Kahn and shook his hand.
Vint cerf is the reason you pay a domain tax. I like Vint a lot but we disagree on a few things.
I wrote the software Timbit used to make printouts. That's why I know he had access to a postscript printer so there's no excuse for using htlm. That needs to be undone to roll back some of the damage he's done. And there's enough of that to go around and with any luck the administration is on a roll.
net neutrality thread:
False. We don't need laws that only target the net to fix problems with telcos.
Do we want to go into the details of how a california corporation already takes 80 cents tax form each domain name and you can't vote on it because there's no members to an organization the UDG saud must have members who can vote.
No taxation without representation.
Why is this not ok in the real world but ok for the Internet?
Also keep in mind there is no "public" internet. Each and every piece is 100% privately owned.
How do you get off telling people what to do with THEIR network?
Everyone's' free to do their own business model, even free, which I notice nobody worried about. You don't get to tell somebody else how to run their network, if you think you're that important try telling their dog what to do.
net neutrality thread:
I'n not. He's saying the correct thing here. What's your knowledge of this stuff since 96? Quick, what year did Tony T make the net legal in via the ITU?
If you don't know these things off the top if your head the legal framework that makes all this work is going to seem a bit odd. But you can't talk about this stuff without knowing it, it's subtle and nuanced.
Either I'm doing this because I know how the net works and love it or I'm Just evil and stupid and wrong. You know the things I"ve done, what's your guess?
Now, the best way I can explain this is there were some ideas proposed that meant new laws would apply to the internet.
The justification given was "cable and telcos are bad bad poeple".
So then why not change the way telcos and cablecos are regulated?
I don't think fixing that problem by making new laws about the Internet which might have a deleterious effects down the line is the proper way to do that. Do you?
If the Title II regs passed they're be the third law made about the net so far. How well do you think the first two went?
If you don;t know what they are you just disqualified yourself from the conversation.
What's under discussion is a very specific legal framework and how best to adjust it. 99.99% of the world is clueless about the this, lacking the expertise, xperience and legal training.
But, I'm sure we agree no new laws need to be made about the net so whether you know it or not, you agree.
Bill Coderre
25 November 2017
Removal of Net Neutrality goes BOTH ways. If you don't want DEMOCRAT LIB TARDS deciding what you get to see, call the FCC and protest. Now is your last chance! Again!
i.imgur.com
21
7 comments
Jess Reyes
Genius! This should do it!
1
Matt Ackeret
But the protests were ignored/thrown in the garbage.
Alex Rosenberg
You need to get Alex Jones spouting this for it to stick.
2
Joel S Kollin replied
·
2 replies
Richard Sexton
I can see from your earlier policy work in cd you're well informed and on top of this. Oh wait, neither are true.
Um, that's not what it is at all. The ISP's are all democrat controlled and I promise you the things they want to enact are antithetical to their stated goals there.
These are the same guys that did the five star flying clusterfuck known as icann that stopped all innovation on the net. Notice how there's been nothing new on the net since they reared their ugly head?
Do you remember email and ftp and irc and the web and javascript and java and css then icann and WHOOMP it stopped. No new names means no new variables in netwide languages and when a society inhibits the named calculus it created it dies, strangled to death.
You're hearing from politicians here not the people that build the net that say "make new laws again and we'll shut it down and use out other net we never bothered to tell the gubmint about". For obvious reasons: look what they did to this one.
The only innovations have been away from this: pirate bay, blockchain - notice these were all done outside the I* regulatory framework?
You know there's a reason the founder of ISOC quit in disgust. He was an American. who during his tenure as general counsel at the ITU made the Internet legal under international telecommunications laws. It was now ok with the telcos, who make no mistake about it, were in charge. At about the same time the US repatriated the US telephone numbers and that's why you have number portability now, your telephone number is no longer owned by a cartel of European families and administered through the ITU.
The I* goons have been trying to control the net that unix invented (and we still own it so fuck you) and tried once in 1976 and were all fired and the great IESG rebellion in Montreal (Read Sean Doran's great screed "It Seeks Overall Control" at fine archive sites everywhere), they tried again by getting the government to ban the internet for government use in 1991 and that sort of went away as the net became ubiquitous by 1996 then they tried again in 1998 with icann and succeeded. Now 80 cents of every domain you buy goes to them and you don't have a vote. Besides the fact it was a cartel negotiated behind the scenes in bad faith by some three lettered organizations in government and industry.
No taxation without representation. And they know if the users are allowed to vote they will vote these twats out of existence. So they'll be scrapped sometime in the next few years I expect. Like the climate hoax you can only fool the people for so long when things aren't going as they said it would.
Some obvious aspects of what they call net neutrality are obvious: cable companies need to be regulated. And telcos.
But new laws that apply only to the internet are not a way to do that!
That should be setting off red flags eight ways from sunday. Instead people are being lied to so they acquiesce to legislation that haven't read and would not understand if they did. It's a problem.
Hillary Clinton proved politicians don't understand how the net works, that's why she claimed she had proof of something that can't possibly exist and at the very least, computer literate people avoided her for just that.
Don't think for a moment media info about the net is true. That's not how it works, that's the deep state/corporate PR channel, and it's not in any way any friend to the net.
I refer you to this document:
A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace
by John Perry Barlow
Which you can find anywhere and specifically this part:
"You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these problems don't exist. Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we will identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own Social Contract. This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different."
This document is from 1996.
I can't believe people that lived through the period when Steven Wolff liberated the NSF net from government policy and let it fly with no rules. It took off like a banshee.
It's only the US doing this btw. Nobody else will. We all watch the US as we can't afford to fuck up so we wait to see what works. You don't want any new laws about the net. Just Keep that in mind and let the old world fix it's own problem while we continue to route arond them.
I'm more concerned the 7 11 doesn't take paypal. I'm sure you have bigger problems and didn't wake up one day and go "IT IS INDEED A FINE MORNING BUT WE NEED NEW LAWS TO MAKE THE NET BETTER".
Like
· Reply · 2 y
Matt Ackeret
Huh what? What does ICANN have to do with email, ftp? Aren’t they just the one that control the IP #s and namespace? (They did expand the namespace which I think was extreme since everyone wants a .com)
https://www.facebook.com/bill.coderre/posts/10155103711492335