@Obsolesce said in Why big ISPs aren’t happy about Google’s plans for encrypted DNS:

That all said, even though I don't care, I'd still prefer the ISP is totally out of the loop and am for encrypted DNS.

Glad to see you come back with this.

The old adage, if ya got nothing to hide/done nothing wrong, then what do you have to worry about, Sadly, this is so not true.

@scottalanmiller said in Ajit Pai orders phone companies to adopt new anti-robocall tech in 2019:

Pai threatens "regulatory" action if carriers don't use Caller ID authentication.

The Federal Communications Commission will consider "regulatory intervention" if major phone companies fail to adopt a new anti-robocall technology this year.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has been pressuring phone companies to implement the "SHAKEN" and "STIR" robocall-blocking protocols, which perform Caller ID authentication. Most major providers have committed to doing so, but Pai issued a warning to laggards yesterday.

"I applaud those companies that have committed to deploy the SHAKEN/STIR framework in 2019," Pai said in his statement yesterday. "This goal should be achievable for every major wireless provider, interconnected VoIP operator, and telephone company—and I expect those lagging behind to make every effort to catch up. If it appears major carriers won't meet the deadline to get this done this year, the FCC will have to consider regulatory intervention."

I’ll need to reread the standard for this. I vaguely recall something in that not being all that helpful.

Exciting stuff.

Honestly this guy isn't photogenic. Why do they keep taking pictures of his face-for-radio.

FFS

Also I hope they bring him up on corruption charges.

@coliver said in FCC Has Approved SpaceX Satellite Launch Plan:

@nerdydad said in FCC Has Approved SpaceX Satellite Launch Plan:

Of course, this directly affects all ISPs, but I'm also curious to see if this will also affect cell phone carriers worldwide. Will they also go bankrupt in time or will they have to adapt to stay relevant? Would cell phines even be able to communicate? Currently no, but in the near future?

It looks like it's being pitched as a competitor to cellular devices.

That'll take a lot of work to get mobile devices able to talk to it. If they can get that cheap and reliable, it'll be the killer thing.

It is, it's good for the US but for the world, too. This could completely change Internet access across the globe.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/04/fcc-helps-att-and-verizon-charge-more-by-ending-broadband-price-caps/

A committee that advises the Federal Communications Commission on consumer-related matters now includes a representative of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which lobbies against municipal broadband, net neutrality, and other consumer protection measures.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/05/john-oliver-tackles-net-neutrality-again-crashes-fcc-comments-site-again

What's sad is that every vendor making "home" (IE junk) routers has the same "problems". The hardware itself isn't limited in what it can do, just by the software used on the hardware platform. Of course this basic concept couldn't be grasped by a government agency.

I was wondering if something like this was ever going to happen.

@PSX_Defector said:

I used to use an ISP that charged by the bit. People bitched and moaned about it because they thought bandwidth was free. Yeah, it cost a tiny bit more to use them, but I had one hop to the InterNAP backbone. 10ms lag to games, always available bandwidth, always good. This is where ISPs are gonna have to go to limit dumbasses leaving Netflix on all day long and not watching it.

@JaredBusch said:

It was pretty obvious. ISPs should charge for usage, then people would see how it really works all the way to their pocketbook.

I'll admit that I skipped his last paragraph - the rant bored me before I got to the real meat of his post :).

But to the point that I quoted above, why do they need to go to a pay per bit method? If they are not making enough money selling you the 50 meg unlimited they claim they are currently selling you... uhhhh.. guess what.. they need to raise their rates.. this seems pretty cut and dry. Sure if you want to really make people use less bandwidth start charging by the bit and showing people real usage and cost, but if bandwidth really isn't an issue (I certainly don't know if it is or not) but they aren't making enough to cover the 50 meg they are selling me.. then raise the damned rates. Considering today's lack of competition setup there isn't anywhere for someone to go.. so they are pretty safe...

I was going for this.
02emperor350.jpg