The Agonist - Net Neutrality Forum

Today, AT&T Officially Began Censoring the Internet.

Mon, 27 Jul 2009 06:24:00 -0700

AT&T blocks access to 4chan, then restores it

The Net Neutrality war has begun

Today, another unfortunate sighting took place on the open subject of Net Neutrality. A now rather infamous telecommunications provider in the United States has taken its first slash in a battle that will wage on for months against consumer democracy and against and the digital natives of Generation Y until the FCC can intercede. Grab your coats Americans, and get ready for war. Today is the day that AT&T officially began censoring the internet.

In a rather vicarious attempt to fire a first shot in the Net Neutrality war, the Telco provider blocked rights to view certain sections of the highly popular imageboard 4chan.org throughout the night. In particular, the /r9k/ and the infamous /b/ sections were inaccessible and the site’s owner has confirmed that AT&T was in fact filtering access for many of its subscribed customers. Several social news blogs and websites have been circulating the information for several hours while many users nationwide are confirming that the site had indeed been blocked in a number of geographic US locations.

Recently as of 8am EST, AT&T has restored access to the site and has confirmed that the censorship issued was “following the practices of their policy department.” In particular, AT&T contacted the owners of 4chan and requested that specific undisclosed changes be made, of which 4chan’s owners have failed to comply. Meanwhile, several concerned activists have contacted AT&T support and have received very general statements regarding the status of the situation, including a few unique responses.

The global internets are already swirling in a storm of exasperated rage and fury at the company’s past statements regarding Net Neutrality and it’s current decision to blacklist 4chan for the time being. At this point, all we can say is that the newly appointed FCC Chairman Genachowski had better be diligently prepared to lead the internet generation of 2010 and beyond if the National Broadband Plan receives enough public interest.

Source

The main reason net neutrality is under attack

Thu, 29 May 2008 15:00:35 -0700

The main reason "Net Neutrality" is under attack is because of the rising case of identity theft. This problem is caused by dim-witted individuals, YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE, using their credit cards to buy bogus products on illedgtimit websites. Because of these shit for brains, dumbasses our freedom to use the internet, which is possibly our last form of freedom in a so-called democratic world, is now at the mercy of men who think with their wallets. Now if you want to help, here's what you do:
Step 1: Ask around and try to find a person who is a victim of I.D Theft.
Step 2: Invite them into your house for a cup of tea and a few biscuits.
Step 3: When they're not expecting it START KNOCKING THE SHIT OUT THEM FOR BEING A COMPLETE DUMBASS FOR DESTROYING OUR FREEDOM.

I would like to thank you for the time you spent in reading this article.

Séamie Q :{

One pissed off fan of the internet.

Ten things that finally killed Net neutrality

Thu, 06 Sep 2007 20:33:23 -0700

Is Net Neutrality really dead?
Revisit the original Agonist Net Neutrality Project ~qB

Declan McCullagh | September 6

CNN - If you haven't heard much about Net neutrality this year, you're not alone. It went from being the political equivalent of a first-run Broadway show, with accompanying street protests and high profile votes in Congress, to a third-rate performance with no budget and slumping attendance.

So what killed Net neutrality? Here's a list, in no particular order:

(see article at site for in-article links)

1. The Bush administration. Democrats may control Congress, but the White House and federal agencies matter. And the administration made it perfectly clear on Thursday that no new Net neutrality regulations are necessary. That gives the Republicans in Congress their marching orders, and a unified GOP front means the Democrats are more likely to expend ammunition elsewhere.

2. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The California Democrat claimed to adore Net neutrality last year, saying: "Without Net neutrality the current experience that Internet users enjoy today is in jeopardy. Without the Markey Amendment, telecommunications and cable companies will be able to create toll lanes on the information superhighway. This strikes at the heart of the free and equal nature of the Internet." The Markey Amendment was defeated in a Republican Congress last year.

But even though Pelosi's now in charge, she's done precisely nothing (at least nothing that's been publicly visible) to live up to last year's rhetoric.

3. The AT&T merger. Net neutrality rules were part of the Federal Communications Commission's approval of the AT&T and BellSouth merger in December 2006. The company pledged not to privilege, degrade, or prioritize "any packet transmitted over AT&T/BellSouth's wireline broadband Internet access service based on its source, ownership or destination" for two years. That defused concerns for a while, which had grown after AT&T CEO Edward Whitacre was quoted as talking about giving Google and other Internet companies a "free ride" on his network, whatever that means.

4. A fragmenting coalition. The major pro-Net neutrality coalition last year was called "It's Our Net" and boasted 148 members. Now, says coalition spokesman Eric London, it's been "reconstituted in a different form" with a broader focus and is called the Open Internet Coalition. (The old domain name redirects to the new one.)

But the list of members today is far smaller, at just 74 members. Missing are previous members including Adobe, Amazon.com, the Business Software Alliance, Expedia, Intel, Microsoft, Sony, and Yahoo. Companies that stayed in the coalition include eBay, Earthlink, Google, NetCoalition (which includes CNET Networks), and TiVo.

5. Mixed messages. Most proposals for extensive Net neutrality regulations have given the FCC broad authority, not least because the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission said in August 2006 that she was skeptical of aggressive regulation.

Then Google's head of public policy said a few months later that "cutting the FCC out of the picture would be a smart move" in favor of Justice Department or FTC enforcement. Now, maybe he was misquoted, and Google subsequently said there's "no change" in the company's position. And it's true that the company has continued to be a part of pro-Net neutrality coalitions. Still, the legislation that Google officially supported in mid-2006 would have put the FCC--not the FTC--in charge.

There's also Google CEO Eric Schmidt's speech last month in Aspen, Colorado that I covered. By Google's standards, it was remarkably conciliatory: it mentioned Net neutrality only once and did not call for new federal laws. Schmidt even acknowledged "the billions of dollars that have been spent to do both wireless and wireline data deployment networks"--by the broadband providers that have been his political enemies for the last two years.

6. The Bush administration. Yes, it's on the list twice. It's on here again because of how much President Bush's and the Justice Department's arguably illegal wiretapping program and related policies have consumed Congress. The four most recent headlines on the House Judiciary Committee's Web site are about FISA or the Justice Department. In the Senate, the Judiciary Committee has held no fewer than seven hearings on the dismissal of U.S. Attorneys. It's true that the two Commerce committees haven't been tied up with those topics, but the Iraq War and global warming have been higher priorities than less pressing concerns about broadband regulation.

7. The Federal Trade Commission. The lifelong bureaucrats at the FTC are hardly a bunch of Hayek-quoting, Ron Paul-voting libertarians. Which is why, as I wrote in June, it's notable that they came out with a report saying no new laws are necessary. In part it's something of a turf battle, of course, and a way to warn the FCC that it doesn't have a monopoly on this issue. But it could have been far more enthusiastic about new laws, and is sure to make otherwise pro-regulation Democrats think twice about supporting them again.

CONTINUED...

Net Neutrality

Thu, 19 Jul 2007 07:11:17 -0700

For those who are complaining about net neutrality consider this; because the internet is an open space of information I found someone’s tax returns in London England along with Social Security numbers, birthdates and addresses which could easily be have been found and used by the wrong person. I found this info on a general search engine that has millions of users per day.

Having no restrictions is leaving anyone to invade your computer and take your private information without you even knowing. I guess there are some people who think it is more important to download a movie for free than to feel secured that someone across the globe doesn’t have your personal info!!!

Quick Link to All Net Neutrality Posts in Agonist Net Neutrality Section

Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:42:30 -0800

Here is the link to all posts at The Agonist about Net Neutrality:

Agonist Net Neutrality Section

Net Neutrality has a good chance to survive due to fairly recent advances coming from the open source movement..

Sun, 20 Aug 2006 23:00:42 -0700

Like everyone else here I freaked out a bit when I started reading about this whole issue of internet neutrality, I am dependent on the internet for running my internet based businesses so I have a bit more at stake than the average internet user. Within the last year I have become an avid Linux user and have fairly recently begun making use of remote access technology so that I can access my servers using my laptop as I have the Verizon Wireless Network (which allows me to access the internet from just about anywhere as long as I am fairly close to an urban area). I will go into more detail about why this is important and could affect this issue in a positive way:

My average Verizon Wireless network speed is about 150K kb per second download rate. I have a Cox Cable internet plan for my servers and the download rate for this service maxes out at 9 MB per second, so there is obviously a huge difference in the connecion speeds.

The program that I use which allows me to access my servers from my laptop is called FreeNX (http://freenx.berlios.de/ ), this software is amazing as it allows me to use my slow Verizon connection to remotely access my servers. Unlike other remote acces technologies (such as VNC and ones for Windows), FreeNX actually provides near local speeds even over a slow connection.. what this means is that when I access my servers, with a download speed of 9 MB per servers, from my laptop over the Verizon connection I can browse the internet at the 9MB speed despite the fact that I am using only a 150K KB connection.

I don't fully understand exactly how the FreeNX technology works so well but it truly is amazing how it is able to put the screen of the remote machine (with very good image quality) through slow connections.

It is not far-fetched to think that this could be applied to dial-up connections (the FreeNX technology is still in a fairly early stage and has potential to be better perfected to provide optimal perforance over a dial-up connection), if the cable companies want to stop providing true internet access to customers then for those customers who want to still be able to access the real internet will simply need a dial-up connection, they would then buy an account with a company who would be based in a location (either in the US or abroad), where high speed true internet access is available (there's no way that net neutrality will end in every country.. some developing countries could use that as a selling point to get US businesses to move there if this mess actually does start here). Companies in these remote locations would be similar to current web hosting companies... they buy up huge amounts of bandwith and server space and they start selling accounts to customers in the US. All the customer would need is the fastest dial-up connection they can get and the client for FreeNX (which is available for both Windows and Linux machines) to be able to access this high speed account.

Sure this wouldn't be a perfect solution but it would certainly beat out the option of simply just going back to dial-up and I for one would be very interested to get in on this type of business but of course I am hoping that it won't ever come to this. Anyways, I encourage everyone who hasn't heard of FreeNX before or who doesn't yet use Linux to check it out as it seems at least to me that the incredible brain power behind this open source movement can beat out anything that these monopolists who are clinging to a long ago era can throw at us.

Bookmark the New Agonist Net Neutrality Section (combines news, diary, and forum posts)

Mon, 10 Apr 2006 06:38:22 -0700

Bookmark the new Agonist Net Neutrality Section (combines news, diary, and forum posts)

Net Neutrality Legislation (Bills, Draft Bills, Amendments, etc.)

Sat, 08 Apr 2006 20:30:00 -0700

Sen. Wyden bill S.2360 Title: A bill to ensure and promote a free and open Internet for all Americans.

Kaputska on Sens, Snowe & Dorgan Draft Bill: Internet Neutrality Act

Working Draft bill of Sens. Snowe-Dorgan Internet Neutrality Act

Sen. Snowe's web site

Rep. Ed Markey's Agonist article on Barton anti-net-neutrality bill

Draft of Rep. Barton Bill (against net neutrality)

Rep. Markey's proposed Net Neutrality Amendment to Rep. Barton bill

Rep. Markey's Net Neutrality Web Site

Agonist Guide to Activism Against the Barton Bill

Agonist Net Neutrality Section (combines news, diary, and forum posts)

Fri, 07 Apr 2006 21:44:31 -0700

Background: FAQ on net neutrality. Media giants are starting to control: where you go on the net, how fast you get there, and what you'll pay. See Rep. Ed Markey's site, his Agonist article, and Agonist Background thread.
Latest News: From Save The Internet Coalition and Public Knowledge.
What You Can Do: Act Now (Save the Net), and additional information on E-Mailing your Senator(s) and House Representative(s).
Bookmark the Agonist Net Neutrality Section.
The Agonist is a charter member of the Save The Internet Coalition

Some background:

The Internet as consumer surplus engine (1/06)

The Coming Tug of War Over the Internet (1/22/06)

'Broadband Scandal': How the Phone Companies Screwed Us All (2/2/06)

The End of the Internet? (2/2/06)

Do You Know What Net Neutrality is? (2/8/06)

Yesterday I pointed readers . . .

Building the Internet Toll Road (2/26/06)

Senator wants to ban 'fast lane' for Web (3/2/06)

Net Neutrality Primer

Whitacre Fires Again (3/5/06)
(It's already starting: see Nick's 3/7/06 post in the Whitacre thread)

Media Giants are Starting to Privatize Our Internet (3/7/06)

Net Neutrality vs. Net Neutering (3/7/06)

Is it too late to save net neutrality? (3/8/06)

What You Can Do Now: Contacting Key Members of Congress

Tue, 04 Apr 2006 21:24:09 -0700

Here's what Team Agonist has found out so far about how to go about contacting Members of Congress in support of Network Neutrality, and against the Barton bill:

The markup on the Barton bill (the bill threatens to eliminate Network Neutrality) taking place right now (April 4) is in the
Telecommunications and Finance Sucommittee. Here is a list of its
membership.

The main Capitol switchboard is 202-224-3121. If you call that number,
you can ask to be connected to any Congressman's office and register
your views on the issue.

If the Barton bill is approved by the Subcommittee, it then goes to
the Energy and Commerce Committee, of which the Subcommittee is part.
Here's a link to the names of the Members of the full Committee.

If the Barton bill gets out of Committee, it then goes to the House
Rules Committee, who vote on what amendments get made in order to be
offered on the House floor (such as an amendment to ensure net
neutrality). Here's the link to the names of the members of the Rules Committee

The bill would next go to the House floor, where it gets amended and
voted on by all 435 House members.

To figure out who your member of Congress is, and then send them an
email, you can go to this site.

Or, you can just call 202-224-3121, asked to be transferred to them,
and weigh in in the issue.

(There is also the Congress E-Mailing Link from Common Cause about Net Neutrality, which has a sample e-mail you can edit.)

Open Thread

Tue, 07 Mar 2006 19:03:43 -0800

Agonist Net Neutrality Project: Open Thread