171–180 of 205 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I supported them until the adware incident.
Please rethink your position. There are many people who genuinely care about freedom and privacy working at Mozilla, while at Facebook, Google, and Apple, developers are selling us out every day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google not only has monopoly-level market shares in Search, Ads, and Android, they also have a massively dominant market share with Chrome. The magic, and where Google runs afoul, is how they leverage those to assist each other in ways you clearly ignore. - Chrome will soon start directly blocking Google Ads' competitors based on standards Google invented through an organization it runs. - Chrome pushes Google Search…
Net neutrality and ISP monopolies are important to observe here because only ISP monopolies can control packet level what goes through every single internet connection you make, that is why ISPs and local monopolies are important to the impact of net neutrality going away. ISPs inspecting packets to slow some down also leads to encroaching packet inspection that leads to more surveillance. Talking about Google here i…
I'm well aware of Microsoft's twenty-year-ago history, but it pales in comparison to Google's present. Your suggestion that Google earned it's place is horribly incorrect: It got it's power through buying off legislators (About half of all Congressmembers have received money from Google), working directly in the White House (During Obama's term, no company visited the executive more), and using secret agreements with other companies to pack in default apps, adware, and browser toolbars.
People make the misleading belief that everyone switched to Google because of how great it was (or used to be). I did. You probably did. Most people did not. Either a program they installed like Adobe Reader had Google Toolbar packed in which forced their default browser to switch, or they ended up on a device that comes preloaded with Chrome. Sundar Pichai's rise to stardom was the Google Toolbar, which gained penetration buy being one of those sleezy addons that came with nearly everything a Windows user wanted to install.
Now with Android, Google has every phone manufacturer doing their job for them: In order to get access to the Play Store, phone manufacturers have to ship Chrome as the default browser, Google Search as the default search engine, and include about twenty other Google apps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Their authority over the internet is based on a law adopted in 1996 whose major motivations included updating the 1934 Act to cover modern communications including the internet. The 96 update specifically lays out another class, information carriers, meant for things like broadband, that aren't regulated as common carriers. It did not see internet access essentially replacing cable and phone access, and did not expl…
> The 96 update specifically lays out another class, information carriers “information services”. > meant for things like broadband Both “information services” and “telecommunication services” (the provision of the latter of which , other than in aggregated form, makes one a “telecommunication carrier”; there is no “information carrier”) have defined criteria in the Act. [0] The core of the dispute will be, really, y…
The classification of broadband as an "information service" and not a "telecommunications service" has been shown to be valid in a 2005 Supreme Court case. The law should have been updated to make it clear that ISP's are common carriers after that ruling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're talking about the Mr. Robot controversy, that wasn't spyware.
We don't fully know that. We know it was forced onto browsers in a manner which reeks of spyware.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What part of net neutrality proposals would prevent ISPs from offering lower speed plans at lower prices? Also, where has anybody argued that net neutrality would prevent the customer from choosing to block all but a specific host? You've come down against net neutrality in every thread I've seen about it lately. Have you come across any arguments in favor that are persuasive to you?
Net neutrality outlaws any conduct by the ISP to regulate or throttle off destinations by which site it is. Customers aren't doing it, the ISP is. Even Ajit Pai's proposal demands transparency so customers can make their own decisions, but net neutrality would indeed prohibit specific use Internet offerings. Nobody could offer one because net neutrality would prohibit an ISP from intervening if you popped the SIM int…
No, the primary thing limited plans would all definitely restrict would be the quantity of data transferred. That's what all the cellular providers already have the infrastructure to monitor and control. And once you've created an IoT-oriented tier of service that is limited to eg. 100MB/month, there's no reason to expend further effort trying to identify and block video streaming services.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Satellite can never offer acceptable latency. Satellite internet can offer very competitive latency, even though nobody is doing it so far. Small cubesats make lower orbits viable than what's currently used for satellite internet. At a low earth orbit of 400km (about the height of the ISS) you have a round trip time of just 3ms.
A theoretical alternative no-one is deploying is not an alternative .
I don't disagree with you though, we need solid fiber internet options available at reasonable prices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Make money", perhaps?
gEvil Corp. Being a publically traded company, they have a duty to make money for their shareholders (I think but am not sure that duty might even be legal). If they were a Social Benefit Corp, then they wouldn't have such a duty, and so could choose to not make money when doing so would cause evil.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Net neutrality and ISP monopolies are important to observe here because only ISP monopolies can control packet level what goes through every single internet connection you make, that is why ISPs and local monopolies are important to the impact of net neutrality going away. ISPs inspecting packets to slow some down also leads to encroaching packet inspection that leads to more surveillance. Talking about Google here i…
"Packet level" is a technical distinction, not an important one. Google controls whether or not websites effectively exist on the Internet, for all intents and purposes. Google controls how those websites operate, what they must look like, and what security protocols they must use. If in any way, a website doesn't obey Google, it ends up delisted from Google Seaarch, and then it loses all it's profitability and cease…
It is a very important discussion, it should never happen and ISPs want to do it to have the ability to slow you down and throttle you. NN prevents packet level bias.
Even if you still want to beat the Google is a monopoly drum, I don't totally disagree that some of their tactics are that level, this is just a distraction from NN and local ISP monopolies using Google is a false equivalency to ISPs that are your entry to the internet, before Google can even get to you.
You are literally off topic at this point, this isn't a thread on Google monopoly level tactics, this is about NN which Google would be market leader with or without. Google issues for another day, today is ISP local monopolies which you continually distract from almost as if you are purposefully doing it. If you aren't being paid by the ISPs you should at this point.
If you had 0 or 1, 25Mbps-100Mbps option in your area is that sufficient? Google obsession aside, do you think there is ANY local monopoly issue regarding ISPs?
Current ISP talking points on ISP monopolies are to distract to Google, Facebook, Amazon etc just as the WSJ has been doing. You've joined the club in distracting from the real issue, NN, unrelated to whether Google is a monopoly.
You go and call out Google for lobbying, they have to the way ISPs and Comcast/AT&T etc buy off legislature. You seem to like the companies that buy off legislature and provide NO innovative benefits to them running the web today, at least with Google/Amazon/etc there are benefits not degradation of service like the ISPs of today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Satellite can never offer acceptable latency. Satellite internet can offer very competitive latency, even though nobody is doing it so far. Small cubesats make lower orbits viable than what's currently used for satellite internet. At a low earth orbit of 400km (about the height of the ISS) you have a round trip time of just 3ms.
A theoretical alternative no-one is deploying is not an alternative .