[Chicago] Thanks for having me!

Sat Aug 12 23:42:28 EDT 2017

I believe that Netflix and or Google have edge servers inside of ISPs now.
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 10:39 PM Michael Tamillow <
mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think it's a wash. Is Netflix bound by some code of ethics not to take
> advantage of rules in their favor? Weren't they putting an excessive burden
> on ISPs by their service at on point? Netflix is also another gigantic
> company. Is there really any way the average person won't get screwed?
>
> Either way, I'll probably just go with the flow. I wouldn't be wholly
> dissatisfied if all smartphones imploded or the internet ceased to exist
> and people suddenly had to look at each other on the train. Although, I'd
> probably be out of a living... kind of a Catch-22.
>
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Nick Timkovich <prometheus235 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Because everything's in the future, it's basically the land of
>> hypotheticals and who you trust more. Do you trust that telecom companies
>> like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast will spend the money it takes to comply
>> with Title II (how much has this cost in the past couple years) into
>> providing better service? If it's to the people that aren't getting
>> internet service right now, those are likely the most expensive per
>> subscriber, as it hasn't made sense to until now.
>>
>> Do you believe that telecom companies will not throttle competitor
>> services? Comcast's parent organization owns part of Hulu, so why not limit
>> connection speed to Netflix so you're unable to stream at 1080p, but
>> unfetter access to Hulu? Or, "Only $5 more month to get quick access to
>> Facebook so you can see and share photos and videos from your family!"
>> Title II, Section 202, paragraph (a) states that common carriers can’t
>> “make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices,
>> classifications, regulations, facilities, or services.”
>>
>> Right now telcos can just say "we won't do anything you don't like, and
>> we'll only do things you do like" and they can't be disproven.
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Michael Tamillow <
>> mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So, staying on the topic of net neutrality, and the specific issues
>>> relating to its possible upheaval, what would be the argument in favor of
>>> reclassifying ISPs as only subject to Title I?
>>>
>>> John Oliver has been having a pretty poor record lately. And some of the
>>> issues he latches onto are too little, too late, and too much bias. Though
>>> I do think he's funny, I don't think he's honest.
>>>
>>> Ajit Pai says the people it would help are those not getting internet
>>> service now. If he's right, then you wouldn't expect these people to
>>> comment on the FCC website anyways...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On Aug 12, 2017, at 10:37 AM, Nick Timkovich<prometheus235 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> It sounds like you're conflating this with a third, unrelated title. The
>>> argument wasn't to change "Title II", which in the context of net
>>> neutrality refers to "Title II of the Communications Act of 1934", but to
>>> stop the FCC from reclassifying ISPs as only subject to Title I (of the
>>> Communications Act) laws. The FCC cannot change law, and that law only had
>>> seven titles.
>>>
>>> Your initial email seems to be in reference to titles I and II of the
>>> "Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005", which I'm not
>>> sure how is connected.
>>>
>>> Then, title 47 with respect to the FCC usually means "Title 47 of the
>>> Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)" which I'm only familiar with from the
>>> rules it sets out regarding radio transmissions, both for ham radio and ISM
>>> bands. It looks a great deal larger though; could you help us out and point
>>> to the specific section you're referring to:
>>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Michael Tamillow <
>>> mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You know, I don't know that much about it. I think it may be related to
>>>> Title 47. Maybe Title 2 should stay the way it is.
>>>>
>>>> I don't want to live in a world where the internet belongs to those who
>>>> can afford it either, when there is more than enough to go around for
>>>> everybody's true interests.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Chris Foresman <foresmac at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I’ve read extensively about the various lawsuits, etc, involving
>>>>> Backpage, I have I yet to see anywhere they claim Title II “protects” them.
>>>>> I believe they have appealed more to First Amendment rights and DMCA safe
>>>>> harbor provisions. What about Title II ISP net neutrality regulations can
>>>>> “protect” them from abetting human trafficking? I’m not asking to watch a
>>>>> movie on the subject, and I don’t think it’s unfair to explain the
>>>>> reasoning behind such an incredible claim.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris Foresman
>>>>> foresmac at gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:41 AM, Michael Tamillow <
>>>>> mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It is explained in the movie, I Am Jane Doe, which is generally a
>>>>> legal movie.
>>>>>
>>>>> Backpages has been sued many times, and continues to win every lawsuit
>>>>> on the defense that Title 2 protects them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Title 2 is not causing the Human Trafficking. It is just not
>>>>> preventing it adequately.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Chris Foresman <foresmac at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You have failed to establish any causal link between the implications
>>>>>> of Title II and human trafficking. Please explain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris Foresman
>>>>>> foresmac at gmail.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Michael Tamillow <
>>>>>> mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would take everything John Oliver says with a grain of salt. Looks
>>>>>> like your analysis is most likely correct but I don't see any code, and the
>>>>>> level of fraud seems very amatuer - including the FCC's filtering of
>>>>>> comments. Do we live in 1960?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of the strongest outcries against title 2 is human trafficking,
>>>>>> which is being perpetrated on and by Backpages.com
>>>>>> <http://backpages.com/>, but they repeatedly deny it because they
>>>>>> hide behind vague terminology. Likewise, there are some sites that have
>>>>>> sprung up as a chance to extort people based on lewd photos. You've got to
>>>>>> crack a few eggs to make an omelette, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.iamjanedoefilm.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/parents-found-missing-daughter-backpage-fight-justice-part-44753036
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Google's corporate policy used to be "Don't be evil
>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil>" but it seems they
>>>>>> have succumbed to the hypocrisy of the world. Can't everyone get behind
>>>>>> what's right? It's not changing title 2 that matters. It is how is it
>>>>>> changed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Chris Sinchok <chris at sinchok.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hey All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for having me last night to talk about my FCC project.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If anyone is interested, you can view the slides here:
>>>>>>> https://gitpitch.com/csinchok/chipy-fcc-presentation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My original blog post is here:
>>>>>>> https://medium.com/@csinchok/an-analysis-of-the-anti-title-ii-bots-463f184829bc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For further reading on this issue:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://jeffreyfossett.com/2017/05/13/fcc-filings.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://medium.com/@nhf/whats-up-with-all-of-those-identical-comments-on-the-fcc-net-neutrality-docket-105835f59c3e
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://gizmodo.com/can-john-oliver-s-pro-net-neutrality-commenters-compete-1795095982
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For anyone with questions, etc, feel free to reach out, this is a
>>>>>>> topic I am pretty obsessed with.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chris Sinchok
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Chicago mailing list
>>>>>>> Chicago at python.org
>>>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Chicago mailing list
>>>>>> Chicago at python.org
>>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Chicago mailing list
>>>>>> Chicago at python.org
>>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Chicago mailing list
>>>>> Chicago at python.org
>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Chicago mailing list
>>>>> Chicago at python.org
>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Chicago mailing list
>>>> Chicago at python.org
>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Chicago mailing list
>>> Chicago at python.org
>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Chicago mailing list
>>> Chicago at python.org
>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chicago mailing list
>> Chicago at python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Chicago mailing list
> Chicago at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/chicago/attachments/20170813/f20e2398/attachment.html>