Maddening Blather on Hold with AT&T

We lost our Roku internet connection this evening. Also the laptop connection, and the main computer. Basically, my internet was down. So I went through all the usual things to find the problem. Computer was talking to the router that was in turn talking to the modem. So far so good. I managed to tell the router to tell the modem to change my IP address. Everything was working. But I could not reach any web sites, email, or ftp servers. I finally figured out that the DNS must be down. Domain Name Service is the internet utility that converts name addresses (like DangerousIntersection.org) to numerical route addresses (like 206.225.8.91) so your packets (requests, pages, images, etc) can find their way through the web. So I called AT&T and answered a series of questions, like "Can you get online?" (No) and "Did you try rebooting and turning the modem off and back on?" (Yes). Finally, I landed in the service hold queue. What to my wondering ear did appear in the cannot-get-online and did-reboot queue? An annoying loop of messages telling me all the wonderful support I can get online! This, plus the repeated suggestion that I try rebooting.

ga-ah!GAA-AH!ga-ah!

I sat on hold for 35 minutes before I decided to vent on this forum. Well, at least to write about it. I have to wait till either they fix the problem, or I get through and can ask for a numerical address for the address server to bypass the broken automatic one. After 73 minutes (1:13) of this, I reached an actual person. I started with asking if she knew how long the DNS would be down, largely to jump past all the AnyKey suggestions. No, but similar problems typically are resolved in 4 hours. Then I asked if she had a bypass DNS address that I could use until theirs was working. No she didn’t have this information. I suggested that she pass upstream my frustration with the “just go online” message piped in to people who were calling because they cannot get online. She had no mechanism for this. Oh, well. I stayed polite. Tech support folks are in a miserable position when they have no way to fix anything, and the problem is real.

Continue ReadingMaddening Blather on Hold with AT&T

Will Netflix Destroy the Internet?

I lifted this question from John Carroll at ZDNet: Net Neutrality: Will Netflix destroy the Internet? But the basic discussion is, how can internet carriers afford to pipe unlimited video at the same price that they charge to support slow and relatively sparse packet data like email and pictures? Back…

Continue ReadingWill Netflix Destroy the Internet?

Can Future Censorship Be Regulated?

The question at hand is, who decides what you find on the web? I recently read Regulating the Information Gatekeepers about search engines. This article focused mainly on commercial implications of search engines changing their rules, and the ongoing arms race between companies that sell the service of tweaking web pages and links and click farms to optimize search engine ranking positions, and the search engines trying to filter out such bare toadying in favor of actual useful pages. On my MrTitanium.com site, I ignore all those search engine games and just provide solid content and current items for sale. In 2002, MrTitanium was usually in the first dozen results when Googling for "titanium jewelry". In 2003, Google decided that the number of links to a page was the primary sign of its usefulness. Within days, link farms popped up, and my site dropped from view. I waited it out, and in 2004, Google changed the rules again, and MrTitanium reappeared in the top 30. Top five for "titanium earrings". But the real question is, should someone be regulating these gatekeepers of information? Who decides whether a search for "antidepressants" should feature vendors, medical texts, or Scientology anti-psychiatry essays? There are two ways to censor information: Try to block and suppress it, or try to bury it. The forces of disinformation and counterknowledge are prolific and tireless. A search engine could (intentionally or inadvertently) favor certain well represented but misleading positions (such as Truthers or anti-vaxxers) over proven science, and give all comers the impression of validity and authority to "bad" ideas. But the question of regulation is a dangerous one. The best access to information is open. But if a well meaning legislature decides that there needs to be an oversight board, this board could evolve into information police and be taken over by populist electors who choose to suppress good information. On the other hand, the unregulated and essentially monopolistic search industry began with great ideals, and so far has been doing a good job at a hard task. But it, too, could become malignant if there is no oversight. Another facet is, whose jurisdiction would this fall under? If the U.S. congress passes laws that Google doesn't like, they simply move offshore. There are designs for, and even prototypes of, data centers that float beyond any countries jurisdiction, powered by waves and sun, and connected via fibers and satellites. If the U.N. starts regulating, then whose rules apply? North Korea? Iran? China? And who could enforce it? The information revolution is just beginning: We do live in interesting times.

Continue ReadingCan Future Censorship Be Regulated?

Comcast is trying to destroy the Internet

Today I received the following email from Free Press on the issue of net neutrality:

In the past 24 hours, Comcast has been caught abusing its massive media power, stomping on competitors and violating Net Neutrality. The New York Times reported last night that Comcast threatened to cut off Netflix streaming video unless the company that carries the traffic paid huge tolls.1 Earlier in the day, Comcast was exposed for trying to bar cheaper cable modems from its network — a clear violation of Net Neutrality. This is what a media monopoly looks like in the Internet age — one company, consolidating its media power to squash competitors, stifle innovation and price-gouge consumers. Such outrageous abuse comes just days before FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is expected to finally propose new Net Neutrality rules to come up for a vote in December. It's never been more crucial that he hear from you. If the FCC stays on the sidelines, Comcast will turn the Internet into cable TV, where it gets to pick the channels, overcharge you for them, and decide what downloads quickly and whose voices are heard. Comcast is the same company that wants to take over NBC Universal in one of the biggest media mergers in a generation. It's not just the Internet at stake here. It's the future of all media: television, radio, social networks... and our democracy itself.
If you find this information disturbing, you can do something about it. Sign this message to the FCC: "Don't Let Comcast Kill the Internet." Oh, and the malicious actions of Comcast go far beyond what Karr outlined above. See the article of Timothy Karr of Free Press in the Huffington Post. In that article you can read the Eight Count Indictment Karr levels against Comcast. It includes counts for anti-competitive activity regarding modems, the inexcusable request to merge with NBC Universal, censoring the speech of Vinh Pham, who dared to criticize Comcast on his blog (Comcast contacted the company that hosts Pham's blog and demanded the entire blog be censored) and blocking public access at a public hearing regarding public access to the Internet. Comcast needs to be slapped down big time, and the FCC needs you to ferociously pressure them to do what is obviously needed. For more information: 1. New York Times, "Netflix Partner Says Comcast 'Toll' Threatens Online Video Delivery." 2. Free Press, "Zoom Complaint Against Comcast a Reason for FCC to Act."

Continue ReadingComcast is trying to destroy the Internet

Mind your expressions of dissent

Popular social news site Reddit provides a dramatic example of how innocent and ordinary conversations are enough to trigger terrorism investigations in our modern America. Reddit allows anyone with a free account to post items of interest, and the discussion generated by postings provides much of the site's appeal. About three months ago, a user named JayClay posted the following query in regards to the TSA's security screening procedures at airports:

"So if my deodorant could be a bomb, why are you just chucking it in the bin?
And if it's just harmless deodorant, why are you taking it from me?! But no. I did not say this aloud. Like everyone else, I didnt want to say or do anything that would jeopardize making my flight. So I just turned around and walked towards the room after security.
Where they just happened to sell deodorant.
The thread on Reddit has generated 1,563 comments as of now, mostly critical of the security theater that is the TSA. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingMind your expressions of dissent