How would you fix the internet?

[LittleFuzzy]

The internet is everywhere and influences pretty much everything we do. With so much of our money and hopes and dreams invested in the internet, it seems reasonable that we should want the internet to be as perfect as it possibly can be.

I disagree with your premise. "Better is the enemy of good enough." The internet isn't broken. Yeah, sure, I'm certain people can make improvements, or come up with entirely new systems which will slowly creep in, which will make using it a better experience, same as people, for their own purposes, are constantly coming up with new things which we think makes using it a worse experience, but that's just really flux, change. Time passes, change happens, basic truisms for the universe as we experience it.

[LittleFuzzy]

This is your mindset, and all it shows is your unwillingness to openly talk about whats happening. Do you see a reason to continue this back and forth?

There you have it, folks. The new definition of activism. It's not about creating change anymore, it's about trying to get your jollies by upsetting/disturbing/harassing someone you think would make a good target, in the safety of anonymous anarchy. The Greater Internet Fuckwad isn't being a jackass, he's the modern activist.

[Nessus]

There you have it, folks. The new definition of activism. It's not about creating change anymore, it's about trying to get your jollies by upsetting/disturbing/harassing someone you think would make a good target, in the safety of anonymous anarchy. The Greater Internet Fuckwad isn't being a jackass, he's the modern activist.

Not that I necessarily agree with his idea, but I think there's a difference between some frat boy getting drunk and calling everyone in his Xbox Live session faggots, and people DOSing corporations for (quasi-)political reasons.

[LittleFuzzy]

Not that I necessarily agree with his idea, but I think there's a difference between some frat boy getting drunk and calling everyone in his Xbox Live session faggots, and people DOSing corporations for (quasi-)political reasons.

And setting up blogs purporting to be by a girl who committed suicide writing notes to her bereaved parents. And widely distributing the addresses and home phones of anyone who gets sufficient attention in the news. And all sorts of other related shenanigans which are all about terrorizing people they've decided they don't like or otherwise trying to make their lives hell.

[agamemnus]

First:

Similar to net neutrality, I would make it illegal to offer different pricing based on what you intend to do with your internet connection. Comcast forces you to pay for a more expensive service, even if you are using exactly the same resources, if your intent is to run a business with your internet connection.

Second:
I'll make sure that the best & brightest, instead of idiots, run and work at the FCC. This is a formatted version of an email correspondence with the FCC I had in late 2008-2009:

(edit: removed extraneous line breaks)

-------- (Dec 28, 2008) --------

Received: 12/28/2008 8:24:14 PM
Subject: question on internet policy statement, Comcast's refusal to change its ToS, and my rights as a consumer

To Whom it May Concern;

I have a question.

According to the FCC's Internet Policy Statement, "To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement."

Yet, Comcast's Terms of Service for "residential customers" (http://www.comcast.net/terms/use/) state, under "technical restrictions" and "network and usage restrictions" that "these prohibited uses and activities include, but are not limited to, using the Service, Customer Equipment, or the Comcast Equipment, either individually or in combination with one another, to:"

* "use or run dedicated, stand-alone equipment or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises local area network ("Premises LAN"), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited equipment and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;"
* "use or run programs from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN, except for personal and non-commercial residential use;"
* "resell the Service or otherwise make available to anyone outside the Premises the ability to use the Service (for example, through wi-fi or other methods of networking), in whole or in part, directly or indirectly. The Service is for personal and non-commercial residential use only and you agree not to use the Service for operation as an Internet service provider or for any business enterprise or purpose (whether or not for profit)"

I would like some guidance on whether I, as a paying customer living in the US, can ignore any or all of these restrictions (even before Comcast changes its Terms of Service), because:
(a) It goes against the FCC's internet policy statement in terms of being able to run an application or service of my choice (eg: a web-server that hosts my website(s))
(b) ...because of the FCC's recent ruling against Comcast (File No. EB-08-IH-1518) prohibiting unreasonable network management.
(c) It arbitrarily and unreasonably restrains trade as it relates to some of the same things in (b)-- eg: prohibiting running web-servers, such as those that host a website. (which is functionally equivalent to using P2P servers, or even "regular" uploading and downloading), just so Comcast can force customers into its twice-as-expensive "business plan" without these restrictions.
In terms of this point and (d), I have submitted a complaint on the Federal Trade Commission website, reference number: #21239843.
(d) by restraint of trade trade as it relates to use of the service for a business, profit or non-profit-- under the current Terms of Service, a customer cannot even use his Comcast email service in order to send business emails or any other type of communication! Surely that is ridiculous?


Can you please, in addition to emailing me a response, fax a response to ensure delivery? The fax number is: xxxxx.

Thank you for your time,
xxxxx



-------- (December 28, 2008) --------

Email AcknowledgementDear Consumer,
Thank you for contacting the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This is an automated message to confirm that we have received your correspondence. We will review your information to determine how we can best serve you. If you need to send additional information, you may reply back with this email, leaving the case number (example: CIMS0123456789) in the subject line, or contact us at our toll free phone number 1-888-Call-FCC (1-888-225-5322) and reference the case number.
The Federal Communications Commission

At midnight on February 17, 2009, federal law requires that all full power television stations will stop broadcasting in analog format and will broadcast only in digital. Go to dtv.gov or call us at 1-888-CALL-FCC to learn more about how this may affect you.

Visit us at our Web Site located at www.fcc.gov, where you will find a wealth of information on a wide variety of communications-related topics.



-------- (February 6, 2009) --------

Is the FCC going to respond? Ever?



-------- (February 9, 2009) --------

You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC.

Dear xxxxx,

Thank you for contacting the FCC.

You may view the remedy that Comcast sent to the FCC to comply with EB-08-IH-1518 at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...ent=6520169715. If you feel the company is in violation, you may file a complaint at https://esupport.fcc.gov/sform2000/f...orm_page=2000B.

Regards,
TSR36



-------- (February 9, 2009) --------

Hello,

That form isn't going to help me. It is for "Billing, Privacy, or Service Quality Complaint"s, which does not fit what I am asking for.

Comcast's network management policy is not protocol agnostic (because it prohibits the running of "servers" as of right now. They use some different protocols versus regular online usage, such as ftp [upload]) and furthermore its "content management policy" is also not agnostic. The content management policy is the most troubling.

Here is my original message. I would appreciate an answer to my question as to "whether I, as a paying customer living in the US, can ignore any or all of these restrictions", which I believe are unlawful. Thank you.

<original message follows>



-------- (February 11, 2009) --------

You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC.

Dear xxxxx,

Thank you for contacting the FCC.

Again, to file a complaint against Comcast, you may do so at https://esupport.fcc.gov/sform2000/f...orm_page=2000B.

Regards,
TSR36


Representative Number : TSR36



-------- (February 11, 2009) --------

I don't want to file a complaint.




-------- (February 12, 2009) --------

You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC.

Dear Consumer,

Thank you for contacting the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau. I have enclosed a consumer fact sheet that should address your concerns.

Representative Number : PCC12




-------- (February 12, 2009) --------

Hello,

There was nothing attached to your email.

I asked a very specific question, and I would like a specific response.
Thank you.

xxxxx



-------- (February 12, 2009) --------

You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC.


You may view the remedy that Comcast sent to the FCC to comply with EB-08-IH-1518 at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...ent=6520169715. If you feel the company is in violation, you may file a complaint at https://esupport.fcc.gov/sform2000/f...orm_page=2000B.


Thank you

Representative Number : TSR09



-------- (February 12, 2009) --------

Please re-read my question.




-------- (February 12, 2009) --------


You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC.

Dear xxxxx,

Thank you for your correspondence. The fact that Comcast offers a "Business Plan" without the restrictions negates the premise that Comcast is unreasonably restricting trade. The Terms of Service (ToS) of the "Residential" plan stipulates that it is to be used for personal and non-commercial residential use only. It does not preclude making making purchases or transactions of a personal nature.

Regards,
TSR36

Representative Number : TSR36



-------- (February 12, 2009) --------


Thank you for the partial and cursory answer. I suppose this is the best you guys at fccinfo@fcc.gov can do, so I'll just leave it at that.

-xxxxx

[LittleFuzzy]

First:

Similar to net neutrality, I would make it illegal to offer different pricing based on what you intend to do with your internet connection. Comcast forces you to pay for a more expensive service, even if you are using exactly the same resources, if your intent is to run a business with your internet connection.

Second:
I'll make sure that the best & brightest, instead of idiots, run and work at the FCC. This is a formatted version of an email correspondence with the FCC I had in late 2008-2009:

(edit: removed extraneous line breaks)

I don't see signs that they're idiots in that. I see a sign that they have no interest or intention to let someone try and cite e-mail correspondence with their agency in an independent lawsuit regarding non-payment, breach of contract, and/or termination of service. Nor are they in the habit of providing free legal advice. They made it quite clear that if you wanted anything out of them, you should follow their protocol, i.e. file a complaint. The fact that they did not help you in the way you wanted does not make them idiots, nor does their evident preference to ignore you entirely.

[agamemnus]

...

They are in the habit of making policy, and they should be in the habit of reading what people write to them. No one is asking them for "free legal advice", and federal agencies are not supposed to insinuate anything, or be unable to read. I asked them if Comcast's policy violates the FCC's regulations. Their last communication indicated that the people responding simply do not understand the question.

[Nessus]

And setting up blogs purporting to be by a girl who committed suicide writing notes to her bereaved parents. And widely distributing the addresses and home phones of anyone who gets sufficient attention in the news. And all sorts of other related shenanigans which are all about terrorizing people they've decided they don't like or otherwise trying to make their lives hell.

Well, sure. The 'group' barely is one, the only unifying cause is a vaguely defined desire for anarchy, and I doubt the same 'members' are involved in all aspects of their actions. One could thus argue that it's sheer coincidence that the same umbrella catches the ones eliciting teen suicide and the ones assaulting international mega-corporations. Either way, if we're going by OG's interpretation of (a part of) this 'group' being the new form of social activism, well...Past, physical social activism has been violent, not only damaging property but also physically harming and killing people. The Black Panthers were vaguely on the same side as MLK.

This isn't to say fractions of Anon are anything like MLK (they're not, communist revolutionaries would be a better comparison), but I find it a bizarre idea that one'd so blithely dismiss everything done by people purporting to fall under a 'cause' (it really isn't one) because of other, less likeable people under the same flag. We don't universally hate America just because half of 'em vote for the Pubbies!

[GGT]

This is kind of amusing. What would you guys have said when telephones were new? Hard to believe, but there used to be operators. In small towns they'd just pick up the device and say, "Dial Mrs. Rogers, please." Companies used to hire tons of operators, mostly women. It was a new-fangled thing, balancing "customer service" with plugging the male part into just the right female part. If you've ever watched old movies you'd know this. Lily Tomlin became famous with a skit based on operator humor.....maybe you don't know who she is.

My first memorized phone number started with Niagra Eight. NI 8. On a rotary dial phone. (There are old songs on this theme...much catchier and lyrical than strings of numbers....)

Long story short, the new "technology" came with a monopoly from the Bell Company. They 'owned' the technology, installed all the telephone polls, strung all the wiring, employed all the line workers, made all the phones, and sold everything to everyone. There were no others to compete, they held a monopoly. Eventually their monopoly was busted and the Baby Bells and ATT had to compete with any other company that could make phones, but then it got complicated about who 'owned' the lines and polls....was it a public service? And households had to switch from a 3 prong connector to a universal connector. By then many communities had other phone companies to choose from, workers would change phone receptacles at no charge, if you chose their line service. But for a long while only ATT or other Baby Bells had the manpower to take care of lines (snow storms, lines down, cherry pickers with trained engineers)

Who decided what was a universal connector? Isn't that like saying europe and the US should have a universal electric outlet? For a long time the hardware was subservient to the labor. Operators were vital, especially over seas operators. The hardware was designed around the labor, phone booths had free operator assistance, and she would tell you if the call was free or you had to insert coins.

Who owned the lines, the poles? Are they shared? Should all phones come with a universal clip, and what happens when one company finds a better cord or phone or outlet? Shouldn't it all be coordinated, so every home can have a phone, and all phones can talk to other phones?

[Lewkowski]

Not that I necessarily agree with his idea, but I think there's a difference between some frat boy getting drunk and calling everyone in his Xbox Live session faggots, and people DOSing corporations for (quasi-)political reasons.

Yeah there is a difference. One activity is illegal and the other is not.

[Illusions]

Yeah there is a difference. One activity is illegal and the other is not.

Well this is circular reasoning.

Aside from the DDoS topic, you seem to espouse the idea that you're only for freedom when those freedoms or their outcomes agree with your personal ideology, or at least don't directly interfere with it. For instance, while we've seen that you would like to legalize prostitution and drugs, you would likely complain loudly and try to get a law passed regulating these industries if someone opened a brothel next to your house, or started selling drugs next door (yet also complain when "Liberals" attempt to pass legislation regulating industries). This mirrors how you're for free speech, up until that speech is something you disagree with and is happening in a place you don't want it to. Also your continual bending over to appease corporations is showing through again as you'd want or support laws to regulate protests, but complain about laws regulating how companies deal with the potentially harmful byproducts of their operation, because somehow a group of people blocking a street is more inconvenient or harmful than a factory pumping out industrial waste...

[Lewkowski]

Well this is circular reasoning.

Aside from the DDoS topic, you seem to espouse the idea that you're only for freedom when those freedoms or their outcomes agree with your personal ideology, or at least don't directly interfere with it. For instance, while we've seen that you would like to legalize prostitution and drugs, you would likely complain loudly and try to get a law passed regulating these industries if someone opened a brothel next to your house, or started selling drugs next door (yet also complain when "Liberals" attempt to pass legislation regulating industries). This mirrors how you're for free speech, up until that speech is something you disagree with and is happening in a place you don't want it to. Also your continual bending over to appease corporations is showing through again as you'd want or support laws to regulate protests, but complain about laws regulating how companies deal with the potentially harmful byproducts of their operation, because somehow a group of people blocking a street is more inconvenient or harmful than a factory pumping out industrial waste...

I wouldn't care if a brothel or drug dealer moved in next door once those activities were legal.

[LittleFuzzy]

...

They are in the habit of making policy, and they should be in the habit of reading what people write to them. No one is asking them for "free legal advice", and federal agencies are not supposed to insinuate anything, or be unable to read. I asked them if Comcast's policy violates the FCC's regulations. Their last communication indicated that the people responding simply do not understand the question.

Your question, functionally, is either asking for free legal advice, or trying to establish elicit an official statement which can be submitted as evidence in a lawsuit against Comcast, or in your defense when Comcast launches a suit at you. From the perspective of a federal bureaucracy, those are the only two uses any answer they give could actually be useful for. And they don't want to be used in that fashion. If Comcast's policy does violate FCC regulations, they want you to make a complaint against Comcast, and leave any investigation or response in their hands. That way everything is under their control. All their responses *and periods where no response came at all* were attempts to brush you off, but you kept that squeaky wheel going so they finally gave you a partial answer which didn't really address what you wanted, and that apparently worked at shutting you up *from their perspective*

The FCC is not a service-oriented federal agency, the way say, the National Park Service is. It is oriented toward regulation and managing businesses. Dealing with you is not really part of their remit. You might as well have sent a letter to the SEC asking whether you have to honor some resale restriction because per some rules subsection, it looks like price-fixing.

Well, sure. The 'group' barely is one, the only unifying cause is a vaguely defined desire for anarchy, and I doubt the same 'members' are involved in all aspects of their actions. One could thus argue that it's sheer coincidence that the same umbrella catches the ones eliciting teen suicide and the ones assaulting international mega-corporations. Either way, if we're going by OG's interpretation of (a part of) this 'group' being the new form of social activism, well...Past, physical social activism has been violent, not only damaging property but also physically harming and killing people. The Black Panthers were vaguely on the same side as MLK.

This isn't to say fractions of Anon are anything like MLK (they're not, communist revolutionaries would be a better comparison), but I find it a bizarre idea that one'd so blithely dismiss everything done by people purporting to fall under a 'cause' (it really isn't one) because of other, less likeable people under the same flag. We don't universally hate America just because half of 'em vote for the Pubbies!

OG wasn't talking about just part of them, he was talking about the entire concept/group. B) as I alluded to in my first dismissive post, activism is about promoting change. Anything else is simply a means to an end. If all you're doing is lashing out, you're not being much of an activist. And everything I've seen and heard, from people like OG as well as sources which may well be biased against genuine activism directed at them, is that this is about lashing out, getting off on destructive activities. A race-riot may see constructive change in its wake, but I can't think of anyone who would call it activism.

[Aimless]

*admires*

[Ominous Gamer]

OG wasn't talking about just part of them, he was talking about the entire concept/group. B) as I alluded to in my first dismissive post, activism is about promoting change. Anything else is simply a means to an end. If all you're doing is lashing out, you're not being much of an activist. And everything I've seen and heard, from people like OG as well as sources which may well be biased against genuine activism directed at them, is that this is about lashing out, getting off on destructive activities. A race-riot may see constructive change in its wake, but I can't think of anyone who would call it activism.

Close, but no. If fact when I mentioned the revolving door concept within Anon I was trying to focus on just the aspect of Anon thats supporting the DDoS attacks, and I mentioned again how there isn't a group mindset when I brought up Gene Simmons.
Take for instance your example of publicly outing individuals, an early trait of Anon, but something that discouraged in the anon community of Reddit.

Trying to fit them into the concept you've expressed here, Anon supports change through public humiliation. Much like the craziness that was thrown at Park51 (that oddly enough completely dissappeared after the election) or that is popular around Christmas time for not putting a tree in the front lobby.


Not that I'm in anyway comparing the Black Panthers to Anon, but the Black Panthers were a nasty group to cross and I've seen plenty of historical accounts that record them as activists (since you mentioned race), even wikipedia mentions their activism.

[Nessus]

OG wasn't talking about just part of them, he was talking about the entire concept/group. B) as I alluded to in my first dismissive post, activism is about promoting change. Anything else is simply a means to an end. If all you're doing is lashing out, you're not being much of an activist. And everything I've seen and heard, from people like OG as well as sources which may well be biased against genuine activism directed at them, is that this is about lashing out, getting off on destructive activities. A race-riot may see constructive change in its wake, but I can't think of anyone who would call it activism.

Welp

[LittleFuzzy]

Hard to believe, but there used to be operators. In small towns they'd just pick up the device and say, "Dial Mrs. Rogers, please." Companies used to hire tons of operators, mostly women. It was a new-fangled thing, balancing "customer service" with plugging the male part into just the right female part. If you've ever watched old movies you'd know this. Lily Tomlin became famous with a skit based on operator humor.....maybe you don't know who she is.

One ringy-dingy. . . two ringy-dingy. . . is this cattiness going to stay in your system for long?

[Steely Glint]

What're the most urgent problems that need fixing?

Users.

[Veldan Rath]

Users.

As an App Support guy...I found this funny. (cause it's true)

[agamemnus]

The FCC is not a service-oriented federal agency, the way say, the National Park Service is. (...)

I love how you are trying to absolve them of having to have any competency in corresponding with residents of the United States. Just because they form policy, does not mean they are absolved of doing anything else.

If they cannot definitively state whether the terms of service of the nation's largest internet service provider violates the law, then they are not fulfilling their mission statement. Their correspondence with citizens in order to form policy and to enforce policy is part of their job description. If they can't respond to an inquiry of a resident of the United States properly, then they fail. Simple as that.

The way they respond to inquiries is telling of how poorly they function in general. It's a "miracle" that the net neutrality policy ruling passed. (along party lines, yay!)

[Khendraja'aro]

And protesters are given spots along presidential routes like the "free speech zones" are not as bad.

Those spots are usually 2 miles away from the route behind high walls... Free speech, my ass.

[Aimless]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation:_Bot_Roast

that's what i'm talkin bout

[GGT]

One ringy-dingy. . . two ringy-dingy. . . is this cattiness going to stay in your system for long?

Huh, what's catty about what I said? Things didn't used to be so user-friendly when the telephone was new. Everyone just put up with whatever Bell put out there....including party lines and areas without phone service. Same thing applies to all new technology like cell phones and computers, hardware and software, connections and access and affordability.

Users.

Then they should design things around benefiting and protecting the users. Yes, the stupid masses matter.

[Aimless]

I'm pretty sure that's heresy in many comp-savvy circles

[GGT]

I'm pretty sure that's heresy in many comp-savvy circles

Why?

[Aimless]

Because they hate regular people and deep down inside secretly hate themselves as well

[Ominous Gamer]

Why?

because what you get is the current Apple OS. Where someone else gets to decide how much power, creativity, and general useablilty the user is allowed to have with their own hardware and software. All under the guise of protection.
Companies have spent years and millions trying to educate the average computer consumer, so far ignorance seems to be winning.

[GGT]

No one said there can't be tiers of users. But if developers want their stuff used by the most number of people, that includes the "unwashed masses" who want easy-to-use things with built-in features. What's wrong with that?

[Ominous Gamer]

No one said there can't be tiers of users. But if developers want their stuff used by the most number of people, that includes the "unwashed masses" who want easy-to-use things with built-in features. What's wrong with that?

We already have tiers

Linux
Windows
Apple

You don't get to have multiple tiers on the same platform. You know how that turned out? Complete failure, and that was because to get the most use out of their product, everyone wanted to be a super user. To protect the masses from themselves you have to lock down the platform from the beginning, meaning that as it becomes more popular, more and more users are forced into it, because thats where the business goes. I'd go into comparing gaming between linux, windows, and apple, but thats over your head for now.

The definition of "easy to use" isn't written in stone either. Another slope that these "don't trust the user to make good decisions" OSes all to commonly slide down.

[Aimless]

An example of much more egregious fuckery would be pretty much every single android device in existence today.