[Chicago] Thanks for having me!

Sun Aug 13 18:28:32 EDT 2017

If you have $$$ and users that want a fast experience and those users use a
bunch of bandwidth sure .

Small growing companies would use someone’s other CDN. Also it’s only a
narrow set of companies that would even require this .

https://peering.google.com/#/

http://www.networkworld.com/article/2222558/smb/netflix-goes-to-the-edge-of-the-internet.html
On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 12:38 PM Michael Tamillow <
mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Josh, can you speak more to that? Do they only have to provide edge
> servers for some (major) ISPs, or is it an equal representation to all ISPs?
>
> What about smaller, growing companies? Is there some provision about when
> and how to provide edge servers, or is it a vague requirement?
>
>
> On Aug 12, 2017, at 10:42 PM, Joshua Herman <zitterbewegung at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/f9ab8ca2/attachment.html>