Re. net neutrality, from a client of mine who runs a secure network: There was recently a TV broadcast or two, interviewing various people who are involved in the policy debate and responses to it. One was the person who wrote the brief to the FCC, that opposed net neutrality in the form that existed until just recently. You would be tempted to think of him as The Badguy, but that would be mistaken. He said that his underlying reasoning was that the existing regulatory regime was a patchwork of nonsense, and what's needed is to regulate these companies as "telecommunications services" rather than as "information services." That is, AT&T and Comcast aren't just the equivalent of movie studios and publishers, they own the infrastructure and wires over which the information is delivered, and the ownership of the wires should be legally determinative. This position, to re-classify AT&T and Comcast as "telecommunications services," has become known as "the nuclear option" because it would impose absolute net neutrality without need of a regulatory Rube Goldberg contraption that could be subverted. The other was a high-up at Google. I've made no secret of my dislike of Google ("a surveillance-monster on a scale that makes NSA look like a pussycat"), but this time it appears they might do some good. The Google legal guy was asked if he would be seeking FCC to restore the previous regulations. In reply he said something that my client interpreted as implying that Google was going to go for the nuclear option. So if Google and a few other biggies do indeed go for the nuclear option, we may see the return of iron-clad net neutrality that leaves no wiggle-room for AT&T and Comcast to interfere with others' services and content on their network. Though, we should still be pushing a hardcore grassroots agenda here, so we don't just end up with another set of biggies carving up the pie and leaving us with crumbs. Ultimately the solution is to separate "carriers" from "content." Comcast and AT&T should be treated as common carriers that can have no role in producing content for their networks. Each would be divested of its content-related elements in much the same way as the Bell System regulated telephone monopoly was broken up decades ago. Ironically, the breakup of Bell is what led directly to the present state of affairs where carriers can call themselves "information services" and censor their networks. But perhaps, as with Pandora's Box, there's "Hope" at the bottom of that chest full of plagues. -G. ======= On 14-01-17-Fri 8:59 PM, Romy Ilano wrote: