There may be some grounds to hold ISPs and cell companies to neutrality, as they often are granted regional monopolies, and use public wavelengths.

Amazon’s capture of so much processing, is a more unique issue.

A few years ago, Microsoft didnt like something James Dobson said so they changed Focus on the Family status from non profit to for profit with no notice. This forced all of their Microsoft contracts to be reviewed. In the end FotF owed millions in licensing fees for Microsoft services.

Franklin Graham saw this and decided to build his own infrastructure from the ground up. He has spent a fortune getting this up and running. He assumed it would not be long before big tech decided they did not want to do business with Samaritans Purse any longer and try to shut them down.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
There may be some grounds to hold ISPs and cell companies to neutrality, ...

Nope. Remember Net Neutrality and how nearly everybody here hated it? They got their wish: Trump nominated an FCC Chairman, Ajit Pai, who agreed with them. He killed it pretty much as soon as he took his chair.

Here's some more "amusing" tidbits: Trump's FCC Chairman also does not object the FB and Twitter blocking Trump, nor will he move forward with Trump's Section 230 Order.

At the risk of being pilloried I cannot help but note this is a classic example of somebody (Trump) being hoist on their own petard and others being incautious of what they wished for.

Those of us who truly understood how the Internet works and just how thoroughly it had become monopolized tried to raise the alarm, but y'all didn't want to hear it. I hate to say we told you so, but, yeah, we did tell you so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

quote:

Franklin Graham saw this and decided to build his own infrastructure from the ground up. He has spent a fortune getting this up and running. He assumed it would not be long before big tech decided they did not want to do business with Samaritans Purse any longer and try to shut them down.

redstone, do you have any links that describe what Franklin Graham has done in this regard?

AFAIK, there's no utility type regulation of hosting companies. They're not monopolies (there are lots of them out there), and they don't need FCC licensing.

Cell companies have spectrum bandwidth licensing. I don't know if there's anything in there that deals with them restricting content in any way.

I don't know about ISPs. It depends if their regulated monopoly telcos, and if their ISP operations are considered part of the regulated monopoly.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
There may be some grounds to hold ISPs and cell companies to neutrality, as they often are granted regional monopolies, and use public wavelengths.

Amazon’s capture of so much processing, is a more unique issue.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:

quote:

Franklin Graham saw this and decided to build his own infrastructure from the ground up. He has spent a fortune getting this up and running. He assumed it would not be long before big tech decided they did not want to do business with Samaritans Purse any longer and try to shut them down.

redstone, do you have any links that describe what Franklin Graham has done in this regard?

No, that is why I have never spoken about it before. His recruiters pluck some of the best Computer science people I have. Most do not see Samaritans Purse as a real option for a career in Computer Science, but after meeting with them they see the world a bit differently.
We have sent some really talented folks down to North Carolina on internships which typically lead to jobs.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
There may be some grounds to hold ISPs and cell companies to neutrality, ...

Nope. Remember Net Neutrality and how nearly everybody here hated it? They got their wish: Trump nominated an FCC Chairman, Ajit Pai, who agreed with them. He killed it pretty much as soon as he took his chair.

Here's some more "amusing" tidbits: Trump's FCC Chairman also does not object the FB and Twitter blocking Trump, nor will he move forward with Trump's Section 230 Order.

At the risk of being pilloried I cannot help but note this is a classic example of somebody (Trump) being hoist on their own petard and others being incautious of what they wished for.

Those of us who truly understood how the Internet works and just how thoroughly it had become monopolized tried to raise the alarm, but y'all didn't want to hear it. I hate to say we told you so, but, yeah, we did tell you so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Can you show me where in the NN proposed legislation/regulations a company like Twitter, FB or YouTube would have be stopped from cancelling the accounts of users who did not pay a dime for the service? How about where Amazon would have not been able to cancel the services they provided Parler?

I'm not saying it was not there, but I read my share about NN, and I do not recall seeing an example of "this is what could happen" if it was not passed/added to the regulations.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
There may be some grounds to hold ISPs and cell companies to neutrality, ...

Nope. Remember Net Neutrality and how nearly everybody here hated it? They got their wish: Trump nominated an FCC Chairman, Ajit Pai, who agreed with them. He killed it pretty much as soon as he took his chair.

Here's some more "amusing" tidbits: Trump's FCC Chairman also does not object the FB and Twitter blocking Trump, nor will he move forward with Trump's Section 230 Order.

At the risk of being pilloried I cannot help but note this is a classic example of somebody (Trump) being hoist on their own petard and others being incautious of what they wished for.

Those of us who truly understood how the Internet works and just how thoroughly it had become monopolized tried to raise the alarm, but y'all didn't want to hear it. I hate to say we told you so, but, yeah, we did tell you so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

^^This

quote:

Originally posted by steve495:
Can you show me where in the NN proposed legislation/regulations a company like Twitter, FB or YouTube would have be stopped from cancelling the accounts of users who did not pay a dime for the service? How about where Amazon would have not been able to cancel the services they provided Parler?

It wouldn't have, but that didn't stop those who were opposed to it insisting it could or someday would. All NN did was ensure Internet traffic carriers could not discriminate for or against traffic based on origination, destination, or content.

quote:

Originally posted by steve495:
I'm not saying it was not there, but I read my share about NN, and I do not recall seeing an example of "this is what could happen" if it was not passed/added to the regulations.

Back on page 1 of this thread I wrote:

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by benny6:
What can they do to stop us and what can we do to circumvent their efforts?

You would be amazed at what "they" could do.

Suffice it to say that whatever y'all come up with: If it uses the Internet and stock, off-the-shelf hardware and software, "they" can thwart it.

So the proponents of free speech say "Fine! We'll put up an uncensored social media site in <country>, that's out of your reach." All it would take to thwart that is a sufficient number of ISPs or backbone carriers to remove routing to that network from their BGP tables and the entire network would disappear off the face of the Internet. Or throttle HTTP/HTTPS traffic to that network in their border gateways like Comcast did to Netflix a few years ago.

That is the kind of thing Network Neutrality was designed to stop.

Once-upon-a-time we had a saying: "The Internet routes around damage." "Damage," in this context, once meant not just accidental damage, but purposeful efforts to block or impede traffic. The Internet was originally designed to do that. And, once-upon-a-time it did do that fairly well. But those days are long gone. Much of the original redundancy isn't there anymore. Part of that is by design on the part of what have effectively become Internet monopolies.

This also means the Internet is no longer capable of meeting its original mission: To provide a robust network for use by the U.S. Government and military in times of natural or man-made disaster (e.g.: War). We all saw what happened with one IED in Nashville, TN. Just imagine what a few strategically-directed attacks, either physical or network-based, could do to the entire Internet.

For a little history lesson: There was once what was probably the most uncensored and uncensorable social network in the world: Usenet News. It was a distributed network that really could route around damage--to a degree that nothing currently existing on the Internet now can. It still kind of exists, but it's a mere shadow of what it once was.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
[QUOTE]
For a little history lesson: There was once what was probably the most uncensored and uncensorable social network in the world: Usenet News. It was a distributed network that really could route around damage--to a degree that nothing currently existing on the Internet now can. It still kind of exists, but it's a mere shadow of what it once was.

LOL, i remember the binaries new groups.
DL the 32 pieces of a mime encoded file, AND, if you got ALL, of ALL the files, you could reconstitute it to a poorly scanned picture somebody pirated out of a Playboy magazine.

InRangeTV just posted a very good video about this very subject....

quote:

Originally posted by bryan11:

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
There may be some grounds to hold ISPs and cell companies to neutrality, ...

Nope. Remember Net Neutrality and how nearly everybody here hated it? They got their wish: Trump nominated an FCC Chairman, Ajit Pai, who agreed with them. He killed it pretty much as soon as he took his chair.

Here's some more "amusing" tidbits: Trump's FCC Chairman also does not object the FB and Twitter blocking Trump, nor will he move forward with Trump's Section 230 Order.

At the risk of being pilloried I cannot help but note this is a classic example of somebody (Trump) being hoist on their own petard and others being incautious of what they wished for.

Those of us who truly understood how the Internet works and just how thoroughly it had become monopolized tried to raise the alarm, but y'all didn't want to hear it. I hate to say we told you so, but, yeah, we did tell you so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

^^This

Yep. I feel similar about the Section 230 stuff. I don't think many that support doing away with it because Trump does fully understand the ramifications. Imagine Parlor not only having issues finding a host but being hit with 100+ civil and or criminal suits. I honestly never understood why Trump was so gung ho on doing away with it. I suspect he doesn't really understand the ramifications either.