I just noticed my phone give me infinite bandwith for Whatsup and apps like that.
So whats stop me from writting a app, that talk with a Whatsapp bot, so the bot would accept commands like GET http://www.site.com/index.php
I could write a app, that wrap a browser, that use Whatsapp (or other like it) and a bot to give me free infinite bandwith.
You technically could.
A similar situation is on GoGo networks, (the garbage wifi on planes).
GoGo tends to allow a lot of google traffic through their system, even if you don’t pay for the network access. The effect is that you can, without paying, usually use Hangouts and read google news stories, and some other stuff, without paying for WiFi.
You often have to do some shennanigans, like connect and then go and visit one of the sites you can access for free, like Hilton… but then, after that, all the google traffic gets through.
I don’t think the irony is very deep. States’ Rights have generally been a core principle of conservative thought. but that doesn’t mean liberals oppose it reflexively. This isn’t a simple mirror situation. Liberals oppose racism, even when cloaked in states’ rights. But it’s not that they regret the Supremacy Clause; they just think the Bill of Rights is more important.
He’s so full of shit. I read the entire interview, and when the interviewer calls him out he just lies. He actually says the public is in favor of his ruling, which is blatantly false.
Yeah, they got so many letters opposing it that their site crashed, and they then lied and claimed that it was brought down by a ddos attack. I seriously have no idea why they lied about that.
Oh, and it’s also been proven that there are a ton of people who were impersonated in the comments supporting net neutrality. I’ve found people that I personally know who had fake submissions made in their name, including my mom.
Trickle-down stupidity.
One makes them a victim; the other gives them responsibilities.
Well there are no consequences for lying. In fact, their approval goes up when they lie, so why would they stop?
It’s interesting how there always seems to be two totally different conversations going on in interviews with Ajit Pai. He’s constantly talking about how rolling back regulations will help get Internet access to under-served areas and improve things for tiny ISPs, while the interviewer tries to steer the conversation toward how the big ISPs will benefit at the expense of their consumers. What Pai is saying isn’t totally without merit, but he focuses on such a small corner of the conversation that he basically says nothing at all that would actually affect the majority of affected consumers. Credit to whomever is in charge of his talking points, I guess, as well as Pai’s own ability to stick to them.
I think it actually is, isn’t it?
Net Neutrality didn’t, in any way, actually slow the deployment of broadband to rural areas. Repealing regulations isn’t going to make that happen.
Hell, the telecoms were specifically paid, what, $200B or something, to provide broadband to those areas? And they basically just took the money and didn’t do anything?
Oh, my bad, the government paid them $400 Billion, and they didn’t do anything.
But hey, it was actually us paying them. That’s what all those taxes and fees on our bills were for… taxes and fees which were collected, given to the government, and then given back to the Telecoms to pay for expanding high speed internet to the entire country, at Gbit speeds… which we never got.
Well, His argument is if we make it so profitable for the ISPs then they’ll go everywhere. That’s theoretically true. Of course, this means greater cost to the consumer which could be passed along in direct billing, quality and access, or (most likely) both.
To add to what you are saying here, Pai is also in favor of classifying the provision of cell service to rural areas as the provision of high-speed internet, so telecoms can escape agreements they made to the states to wire rural areas for broadband.
He has no sincere interest in providing broadband to rural customers; his only interest is padding the balance sheets of the large telecoms that are his once and future employers.
This. It’s not regulations preventin broadband in rural areas, it’s that regulations are the only hung ensuring equal access for rural areas just like with other utilities.
What I meant was that Pai’s argument that regulations were impacting small ISPs does have some merit. I’m basing that on hearing interviews on other episodes of that same Marketplace podcast with some of the folks that run them.
I’m not in any way suggesting that Pai is anything other than a corporate tool lining the pockets of his masters. There just happens to be a side effect that helps a few people, and Pai is very good at turning the conversation to focus on that instead of talking about all the harm being done.
Well, it might have merit if the FCC weren’t also undermining other efforts to get broadband in rural areas. As with the cell service classification antlers mentions.
AT&T just paid off a bunch of Democratic committee members to neuter Cali’s net neutrality bill.
The amended version of the bill still bans broadband providers from blocking or throttling legal content, and from creating “fast lanes.” But critics of the changes worry that they could create loopholes that would allow broadband providers to undermine net neutrality. Perhaps most important is the removal of a prohibition on broadband providers charging access fees to content providers. Depending on how courts interpreted the bill, this could create a loophole that would allow companies like Verizon or Comcast to charge companies like Facebook or Netflix additional fees to make their content available and block access to content from companies that don’t pay.
Gee whiz, AT&T sure is fighting hard for something that the conservatives keep saying they won’t ever do.
From this Medium post: AT&T funded democrats in California just “eviscerated” the best net neutrality bill in the country | by Fight for the Future | Medium
Despite thousands of phone calls from constituents, and letters from Leader Nancy Pelosi and Rep Anna Eshoo, Chairman Santiago’s amendments to SB 822 will leave the bill gutted and:
Allow ISPs to charge websites and small businesses “access fees” just to reach their customers, and block any website or service that doesn’t pay the fee.
Allows ISPs to circumvent net neutrality protections at the point where data enters the network. Thus, instead of blocking a website as it is transported over the ISP’s network, the ISP can just block it as it enters the ISP’s network
Allows ISPs to throttle entire classes of applications, (e.g. all online gaming or all online voice calls). Remember that AT&T was previously busted blocking iMessage
Allows ISPs to Zero-rate their own content, ie AT&T can incentivize you to watch CNN, which they now own, or Comcast can make it free for you to go to NBC’s website while making you use your data to get your news elsewhere.
Allows ISPs to charge services fees in exchange for zero-rating them, giving large corporations a huge unfair advantage over startups and small businesses.
That’s pretty much the opposite of a net neutrality bill.
Look, I’m not gonna say that Chairman Santiago should be immediately removed from public office and then barred from ever holding one again. But I’m not not saying that either.
Remember folks, Washington State is the only state in the union with net neutrality right now. And the weather in Seattle has been fine of late.
Let me know when you do something about the housing prices! :)