?

Log in

No account? Create an account
log f-list backlog .nfo weev.net back back forward forward
Net neutrality - Andrew Auernheimer
Oðinnsson. Market abuser. Internationally notorious computer criminal.
weev
weev
Net neutrality
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/05/11/leaked-telcos-secret.html

Businesses should be allowed to run their business how they please, and the Jewish-run FCC should not have the right to muscle them out of business with tyrannical policies. If you don't want to do business with comcast you should go elsewhere, not go crying to the government for free shit you fucking welfare niggers. The essential issue is that you don't like the options that the market presents to you, and you aren't an effective enough person to create your own alternative to the market options, so you cry to the government for help. Kill yourself.

Imagine you are a restaraunt owner. You own a greasy spoon place. you serve chili and hash browns and hamburgers. Suddenly there's a law that says you have to serve foie gras and pheasant a la ronge for the same price as your hamburgers. Are you going to be pissed? Yes, and you're likely going to raise the price of your hamburgers.

The vast (55-95% in less populous areas, 100% in competitive urban areas) expenditure of laying cable has always been laid upon the ISP. There is no state-sanctioned monopoly, there are only localities where the margins are so small it makes starting local competition not lucrative. There are countless similar circumstances. You don't whine that there isn't a local competitor to your gas company.

Despite how the Boingboing types like to portray it, net neutrality is not a censorship issue at all. The issue is whether Comcast has a right to shape Bittorrent traffic. Do I think Comcast should be able to block access to say, Encyclopedia Dramatica if it does not pay them or fit some absurd content standard? No. Absolutely not, and I would like to see that ratified in national law if Comcast ever began doing it.

That isn't the issue at hand. Certain protocols (filesharing) will occupy every single bit of excess capacity your network has. I, as a past and likely future network operator feel that it is reasonable to implement QoS upon or prohibit a protocol that launches excessive sockets, consumes 80% of my bandwidth, causes 95% of my legal department's expenditures and is only used by 20% or less of my users.

I am not a copyright zealot. I fully support people's piracy, as it takes money right out of the pockets of the Jews. Personally, I get my entertainment from books and IRC which cost next to nothing, but I support your right to get free shit. Just not on my network. And now these goddamned hippies are crying that businesses dare pay for clever marketing. Hilarious.
8 comments / leave comment
Comments
(Deleted comment)
weev From: weev Date: May 13th, 2010 02:23 am (UTC) (link)
bittorrent ssl'd on port 443 is pretty hard to separate from https traffic, but i certainly respect peoples right to try

:D
gigant0r From: gigant0r Date: May 15th, 2010 07:08 pm (UTC) (link)
apparently bittorrent traffic looks a lot like lotus notes traffic (http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/10/comcast_is_bloc.html;jsessionid=43002FNS0UVS3QE1GHRSKH4ATMY32JVN ) which some businesses apparently have a legitimate use for?? so i set my torrent client to work on the lotus notes port and BAM! free money! an old fashioned "phreak" job
also what a weird quasi-libertarian defense of what is, in fact, a state-sanctioned monopoly, by flat-out calling it "not a state-sanctioned monopoly"
From: (Anonymous) Date: May 16th, 2010 10:58 am (UTC) (link)
Sounds like comcast is developing the technology for authoritarian nations (like China) to do their censorship... given that it's apparently based on the exact same semi-effective methods of interference.

Maybe they need to be investigated for anti-American activities?
weev From: weev Date: May 16th, 2010 11:00 am (UTC) (link)
I have yet to hear anybody cry about the state sanctioned monopoly that is their local gas company.

Utilities do not lend well to oligopolization. The experiment called the CLEC was a failure, and they were all reintegrated into ma bell for a reason.
gigant0r From: gigant0r Date: May 16th, 2010 06:59 pm (UTC) (link)
is pg&e spending millions to fight a non-existent threat?
http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_16_(June_2010)
(Deleted comment)
weev From: weev Date: May 14th, 2010 01:59 am (UTC) (link)
Yes, in urban areas, it takes a large amount of cooperation with a municipality to lay cable. This is typical, and typically the municipality has effective KPIs when deciding who to allow to lay new infrastructure. Unless you want to be stuck with EVDO as your sole option this is a good thing. AT&T demands exclusivity because why pay for the fucking gigantic expense of laying fiber if a mere 3 years from now someone can lay faster fiber and fuck you out of your gigantic investment? It isn't an unreasonable demand.

And it is still possible to profile bittorrent traffic that's encrypted. I'd love to have the telcos have to fund a cottage industry of people attempting to stop it! I'm going to keep using USENET. It is fantastic.
labrynthos From: labrynthos Date: May 14th, 2010 01:32 am (UTC) (link)
I <3 your posts.
weev From: weev Date: May 16th, 2010 12:43 pm (UTC) (link)
I'm glad you dig them. I do them for you, darlin'.
8 comments / leave comment