technology:broadband

  • Completely Offline #bitcoin Transactions
    https://hackernoon.com/completely-offline-bitcoin-transactions-4e58324637bd?source=rss----3a814

    With the advent of Blockstream Satellite and widely broadcasted, passively-receivable Bitcoin data, a new era of Bitcoin adoption can occur. Areas without access to fast broadband connections can now trustlessly verify Bitcoin blocks and transactions, and receive #btc discreetly with common cheap hardware. With the Satellite API, those same areas can now receive arbitrary data — current market data, private messages, and data from exciting new use cases not thought of yet. All free. The broadcasts are free and the software is free with code available for auditing and improvement by the community.For the first time, most of the planet’s population can receive bitcoin using their own fully validating nodes without expensive data plans. But how do they send bitcoin? There are a few cheap and (...)

    #cryptocurrency #linux #blockchain

  • #ai is Having a Big Impact on Web Design, and it’s Only the Beginning
    https://hackernoon.com/ai-is-having-a-big-impact-on-web-design-and-its-only-the-beginning-89bfa

    Photo: Production Perig / Adobe StockBack in 1993, the introduction of the Mosaic graphical web browser touched off a revolution in the way the public experienced and used the growing internet. Ever since, web designers the world over have worked continuously to establish and refine what solid #ux design means online. Some of the evolutions have been the result of advancing technology, such as the rise of broadband internet enabling multimedia content, or the development of the HTML5 standard. Others have come from data-driven studies of what works and what doesn’t and an iterative process to reach perfection.Any way you look at it, however, the field of web design has spent the last 25 years growing and changing our collective vision of what the internet can and should look like. Now, (...)

    #ux-design #artificial-intelligence #web-design

  • India Proposes Chinese-Style Internet Censorship - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/technology/india-internet-censorship.html

    NEW DELHI — India’s government has proposed giving itself vast new powers to suppress internet content, igniting a heated battle with global technology giants and prompting comparisons to censorship in China.

    Under the proposed rules, Indian officials could demand that Facebook, Google, Twitter, TikTok and others remove posts or videos that they deem libelous, invasive of privacy, hateful or deceptive. Internet companies would also have to build automated screening tools to block Indians from seeing “unlawful information or content.” Another provision would weaken the privacy protections of messaging services like WhatsApp so that the authorities could trace messages back to their original senders.

    Hum, pas forcément très différent de l’Article 13... quand les Le Pen (équivalent français de Narandra Modi) seront au pouvoir... Pas simple tout ça. Et puis si la Chine n’est plus la seule a devenir le repoussoir universel, où va-t-on ?

    Working independently as well as through trade groups, Microsoft, Facebook and dozens of other tech companies are fighting back against the proposals. They criticized the rules as technically impractical and said they were a sharp departure from how the rest of the world regulates “data intermediaries,” a term for companies that host data provided by their customers and users.

    In most countries, including under India’s existing laws, such intermediaries are given a “safe harbor.” That means they are exempted from responsibility for illegal or inappropriate content posted on their services, as long as they remove it once notified by a court or another designated authority.

    In a filing with the ministry last week, Microsoft said that complying with India’s new standards would be “impossible from the process, legal and technology point of view.”

    Officials have offered little public explanation for the proposals, beyond a desire to curb the kind of false rumors about child kidnappers that spread on WhatsApp a year ago and that incited angry mobs to kill two dozen innocent people. That wave of violence has since subsided.

    The coming national election has added urgency to the proposals. India’s Election Commission, which administers national and state elections, is considering a ban on all social media content and ads aimed at influencing voters for the 48 hours before voting begins, according to an internal report obtained by the news media. To buttress its legal authority to order such a ban, the commission wrote to the I.T. ministry last week asking it to amend the new rules to specifically prohibit online content that violates election laws or commission orders.

    C’est comme si ça me rappelait quelque chose...

    Et puis, le Alibaba local est dans la boucle. Y’a que les européens qui n’ont pas champion local à opposer aux GAFAM.

    One of the biggest cheerleaders for the new rules was Reliance Jio, a fast-growing mobile phone company controlled by Mukesh Ambani, India’s richest industrialist. Mr. Ambani, an ally of Mr. Modi, has made no secret of his plans to turn Reliance Jio into an all-purpose information service that offers streaming video and music, messaging, money transfer, online shopping, and home broadband services.

    In a filing last week, Reliance Jio said the new rules were necessary to combat “miscreants” and urged the government to ignore free-speech protests. The company also said that encrypted messaging services like WhatsApp, “although perceivably beneficial to users, are detrimental to national interest and hence should not be allowed.”

    Entre les architectures toxiques des plateformes et la toxicité des lois liberticides, on est malbarre.

    #Inde #Censure #Médias_sociaux #Article_13

  • Addressing the Challenges of Satellite Communication
    https://hackernoon.com/addressing-the-challenges-of-satellite-communication-40ded030d9b1?source

    Addressing the Big Picture Challenges of Satellite CommunicationReference Image : Space ExplorationIt is the era of the global information society, which is primarily centered on strong global information infrastructure. Nations across the world are encouraging the development of info-communications technologies. In fact, a strong online presence backed by uninterrupted communication channel can be significant for global development and economy. A 10% increase in broadband penetration can increase the GDP growth rate by 1.21% in the developed countries and 1.38 in the developing countries.Satellite Communication — A Revolutionizing Communication MethodSatellites communication has certainly transformed the way people interacted with each other globally. By providing a strong voice and (...)

    #space-exploration #satellite-technology #cryptocurrency #satellite-communication #bitcoin

  • Want a Career in Fiber Optics? Here’s Where to Start!
    https://hackernoon.com/want-a-career-in-fiber-optics-heres-where-to-start-d6a12d7f9834?source=r

    Source: https://www.pexels.com/photo/close-up-of-telephone-booth-257736/Fiber optics play a big part in the infrastructure that runs a lot of the world’s connectivity. We all need the #internet, and fiber optics is one of the fastest modes of transport for information and telecommunications. Therefore, fiber optic technicians and engineers are in high demand right now and #careers in all kinds of industries are just waiting for you.If you have been dreaming of a career in fiber optics, now is the time to get your foot in the door. Right now, fiber optics offers many rewarding opportunities with different types of companies from internet providers serving broadband communications, to medical device manufacturers and military operations. Fiber optic cable is used in hundreds of industries (...)

    #technology-trends #fiber-optics #technology

  • The Bullshit Web
    https://pxlnv.com/blog/bullshit-web

    My home computer in 1998 had a 56K modem connected to our telephone line; we were allowed a maximum of thirty minutes of computer usage a day, because my parents — quite reasonably — did not want to have their telephone shut off for an evening at a time. I remember webpages loading slowly: ten to twenty seconds for a basic news article.

    At the time, a few of my friends were getting cable internet. It was remarkable seeing the same pages load in just a few seconds, and I remember thinking about the kinds of the possibilities that would open up as the web kept getting faster.

    And faster it got, of course. When I moved into my own apartment several years ago, I got to pick my plan and chose a massive fifty megabit per second broadband connection, which I have since upgraded.

    So, with an internet connection faster than I could have thought possible in the late 1990s, what’s the score now? A story at the Hill took over nine seconds to load; at Politico, seventeen seconds; at CNN, over thirty seconds. This is the bullshit web.

    #Internet #Web #bullshit #économie_de_l'attention #bande_passante

    • Je blackliste quelques fermes à scripts ou à pub sur le routeur. Cela accélère sensiblement, ou alors ça casse... Mais je le sais immédiatement...

  • Net Neutrality: What It is, Why It Matters and How It Affects the U.S.
    https://hackernoon.com/net-neutrality-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-how-it-affects-the-u-s-97ad

    Over the past year, much of the news has been filled with articles about net neutrality. With the Federal Communications Commission’s recent repeal of net neutrality, many Americans have been scratching their heads trying to understand what net neutrality really is, why it matters and how it affects them.Well we’ve got you covered. Though net neutrality rules are not currently in effect the United States, there is still continued debate over its impact on society, the regulatory future and more. The following guide will help you navigate those persistent conversations with ease.What is Net Neutrality?The term was first coined in Tim Wu’s 2003 paper titled, “Network Neutrality, #broadband Discrimination.” It was his argument that a level playing field among #internet applications was needed to (...)

    #net-neutrality #whats-net-neutrality #fcc

  • Interface Changes Drive the Future
    https://hackernoon.com/interface-changes-drive-the-future-fd7c4bd1f2c0?source=rss----3a8144eabf

    Nir’s Note: In this guest post from 2013, Ryan Hoover takes a look at how interface changes drive innovation. Ryan blogs at ryanhoover.me and you can follow him on Twitter at rrhoover.What do motorized vehicles, broadband internet, and smartphones have in common? These technologies all introduced new forms of user interface, transforming its user’s daily lives and behaviors.I’ve been studying Nir Eyal’s work and recently read his article on the power of interface changes. As stated in his post, interface changes have the potential to radically change user behavior, disrupt incumbents, and enable new opportunities only imagined in film and sci-fi novels.If you’re building a new #startup or operating an existing business, look out for interface changes. Interface changes have the power to (...)

    #drive-the-future #wearables #interface-changes #ryan-hoover

  • Net neutrality will be repealed Monday unless Congress takes action | Ars Technica
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/net-neutrality-will-be-repealed-monday-unless-congress-takes-action

    With net neutrality rules scheduled to be repealed on Monday, Senate Democrats are calling on House Speaker Paul Ryan to schedule a vote that could preserve the broadband regulations.

    The US Senate voted on May 16 to reverse the Federal Communications Commission’s repeal of net neutrality rules, but a House vote—and President Trump’s signature—is still needed. Today, the entire Senate Democratic Caucus wrote a letter to Ryan urging him to allow a vote on the House floor.
    Further Reading
    Senate votes to overturn Ajit Pai’s net neutrality repeal

    “The rules that this resolution would restore were enacted by the FCC in 2015 to prevent broadband providers from blocking, slowing down, prioritizing, or otherwise unfairly discriminating against Internet traffic that flows across their networks,” the letter said. “Without these protections, broadband providers can decide what content gets through to consumers at what speeds and could use this power to discriminate against their competitors or other content.” The letter was spearheaded by Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii).

    FCC Chairman Ajit Pai led a commission vote to repeal the rules in December 2017, but the rules remain on the books because the repeal was contingent on US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of modified information-collection requirements. The OMB approval came last month, allowing Pai to schedule the repeal for Monday, June 11.

    #Neutralité_Internet

  • The Internet Is Designed for Corporations — Not People | Alternet
    https://www.alternet.org/internet-designed-corporations-not-people

    Of course, these sites present privacy policies to users to notify them how their information will be used. They ask users to “click here to accept” them. The problem is that these policies are nearly impossible to understand. As a result, no one knows what they have consented to.

    But that’s not all. The problem runs deeper than that. Legal scholar Katherine Strandburg has pointed out that the entire metaphor of a market where consumers trade privacy for services is deeply flawed. It is advertisers, not users, who are Facebook’s real customers. Users have no idea what they are “paying” and have no possible way of knowing the value of their information. Users are also unable to protect themselves, as opting out of sites like Facebook and Google isn’t viable for most.

    As I have argued in an academic journal, the main thing notice and consent does is subtly communicate to users the idea that their privacy is a commodity that they trade for services. It certainly does not protect their privacy. It also hurts innocent people.

    The internet’s hostile architecture

    Lawrence Lessig, one of the leading legal scholars of the internet, wrote a pioneering book that discussed the similarities between architecture in physical space and things like interfaces online. Both can regulate what you do in a place, as anyone who has tried to access content behind a “paywall” immediately understands.

    In the present context, the idea that the internet is at least somewhat of a public space where one can meet friends, listen to music, go shopping, and get news is a complete myth.

    Unless you make money by trafficking in user data, internet architecture is hostile from top to bottom. That the business model of companies like Facebook is based on targeted advertising is only part of the story. Here are some other examples of how the internet is designed by and for companies, not the public.

    Consider first that the internet in the U.S. isn’t actually, in any legal sense, a public space. The hardware is all owned by telecom companies, and they have successfully lobbied 20 state legislatures to ban efforts by cities to build out public broadband.

    The Federal Trade Commission has recently declared its intention to undo Obama-era net neutrality rules. The rollback, which treats the internet as a vehicle for delivering paid content, would allow ISPs like the telecom companies to deliver their own content, or paid content, faster than (or instead of) everyone else’s. So advertising could come faster, and your blog about free speech could take a very long time to load.

    Copyright law gives sites like YouTube very strong legal incentives to unilaterally and automatically, without user consent, take down material that someone says is infringing, and very few incentives to restore it, even if it is legitimate. These takedown provisions include content that would be protected free speech in other contexts; both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain campaigns had material removed from their YouTube channels in the weeks prior to the 2008 elections.

    Federal requirements that content-filtering software is installed in public libraries that receive federal funding regulate the only internet the poor can access. These privately produced programs are designed to block access to pornography, but they tend to sweep up other material, particularly if it is about LGBTQ+ issues. Worse, the companies that make these programs are under no obligation to disclose how or what their software blocks.

    In short, the internet has enough seat dividers and decorative leaves to be a hostile architecture. This time, though, it’s a hostile information architecture.

    #Internet #Facebook #Economie_numérique

  • North Korea’s nuclear test site has collapsed ... and that may be why Kim Jong-un suspended tests | South China Morning Post
    http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2143171/north-koreas-nuclear-test-site-has-collapsed-and-may-be-why-kim-jong-un
    https://cdn4.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/620x356/public/images/methode/2018/04/25/7ed3c416-47d3-11e8-85b3-af25d27017e0_image_hires_191717.JPG

    North Korea’s mountain nuclear test site has collapsed, putting China and other nearby nations at unprecedented risk of radioactive exposure, two separate groups of Chinese scientists studying the issue have confirmed. 

    The collapse after five nuclear blasts may be why North Korean leader Kim Jong-un declared last Friday that he would freeze the hermit state’s nuclear and missile tests and shut down the site, one researcher said. 

    The last five of Pyongyang’s six nuclear tests have all been carried out under Mount Mantap at the Punggye-ri nuclear test site in North Korea’s northwest.

    A research team led by Wen Lianxing, a geologist with the University of Science and Technology of China in Hefei, concluded the collapse occurred following the detonation last autumn of North Korea’s most powerful thermal nuclear warhead in a tunnel about 700 metres (2,296 feet) below the mountain’s peak. 

    The test turned the mountain into fragile fragments, the researchers found.

    Ah ! souvenirs de Beryl…

    • La page web de l’Université de science et technologie de Chine vue dans la vidéo est celle-ci

      温联星研究组
      http://seis.ustc.edu.cn/research/north-korea-nuclear-test-mountain-has-collapsed


      (a)朝鲜2017年9月3日核爆、核爆8分半钟后的塌陷(标记为20170903CL)以及2017年9月23日之后的天然地震群(9月23日双事件标记为20170923EQ1、20170923EQ2,10月12日事件标记为20171012EQ)的位置(红色圆圈)及误差范围(绿色椭圆);(b)天然地震群中三个地震的震源深度及震源机制;(c)塌陷事件过程:塌陷自核爆所致的岩体破碎区(浅蓝色区域)沿黑色箭头方向近垂直塌陷至核爆产生的中心空腔(浅红色区域)

      中国科学技术大学地震与地球内部物理实验室温联星研究组通过分析地震记录,确认朝鲜自2009年以来一直用于核试验的丰溪里万塔山已塌陷。该研究成果于2018年4月23日被国际地球物理权威学术期刊《地球物理研究快报》(Geophysical Research Letters) 接收。该研究组博士生田冬冬、姚家园为共同第一作者。研究还确认,2017年9月23日和10月12日在丰溪里试验场发生的三个小事件为核试验触发的、发生在万塔山之外的一个天然地震群。

      2017年9月3日,朝鲜在其丰溪里核试验场实施了一次地下核试验,其当量为108.3±48.1千吨,为朝鲜历次核试验中最大的一次。朝鲜2017年的核爆与其自2009年以来的历次核爆均在核试验场的万塔山下进行。与历次核爆不同,丰溪里核试验场在2017年核试验后发生了几次小事件,其中包括一个发生于核爆8分半钟后震级为4.1级的事件,两个发生于9月23日和一个发生于10月12日的小事件。虽然这些小事件引起了国际社会的极度关注,但是科学界一直不清楚这些事件的性质特征。中国科大研究利用1972个地震台数据,确定了核试验后四个小事件的震源属性特征以及它们与2017年核爆中心的相对位置。研究结果表明,核爆后8分半钟的事件为万塔山自核爆中心西北方向440米处近垂直塌陷至核爆产生的中心空腔所致;而9月23日以后发生的3个小事件则是一个位于核爆中心北侧8.4千米处的另一座山体下方的天然地震群,其震源深度至少为2.4千米。

      https://doi.org/10.1002/2018GL077095

    • La page web mentionne un article publié dans le numéro du 16 avril 2018 de Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 45, Issue 7

      Article publié en ligne le 14 mars 2018

      North Korea’s 2017 Test and its Nontectonic Aftershock - Liu - 2018 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library
      https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2018GL077095

      Abstract
      Seismology illuminates physical processes occurring during underground explosions, not all yet fully understood. The thus‐far strongest North Korean test of 3 September 2017 was followed by a moderate seismic event (mL 4.1) after 8.5 min. Here we provide evidence that this aftershock was a nontectonic event which radiated seismic waves as a buried horizontal closing crack. This vigorous crack closure, occurring shortly after the blast, is studied in the North Korea test site for the first time. The event can be qualitatively explained as rapid destruction of an explosion‐generated cracked rock chimney due to cavity collapse, although other compaction processes cannot be ruled out.

      Plain Language Summary
      North Korea detonated its strongest underground nuclear test in September 2017. It attracted the public interest worldwide not only due to its significant magnitude (6.3 mb) but also because it was followed 8.5 min later by a weaker event. Was the delayed shock a secondary explosion, an earthquake provoked by the shot, or something else? We answer these questions, thanks to unique data from near‐regional broadband stations. We basically solve a simple problem—fitting observed seismograms by synthetics. The good fit means that we understand why and how the seismic waves are radiated. According to our model, the explosion created a cavity and a damaged “chimney” of rocks above it. The aftershock was neither a secondary explosion nor a triggered tectonic earthquake. It occurred due to a process comparable to a “mirror image” of the explosion, that is, a rock collapse, or compaction, for the first time documented in North Korea’s test site. Interestingly, shear fault motions, typical for natural earthquakes, were extremely small both in the explosion and in the aftershock. Small natural earthquakes also occur at the test site, and geotechnical works might trigger them. Thus, all studies related to rock stability of the site, and prevention of radioactive leakage, are important.


    • Figure 4
      Inferred interpretation of (a–c) mainshock and (d–f) nontectonic aftershock. Dominant body forces equivalent to seismic radiation are shown for an assumed depth of 1.5 km. The force couples are annotated with their relative size. Scaling factors for mainshock and aftershock are 5.33e17 and 3.40e16 Nm, respectively. The events radiated as an opening and closing horizontal crack, with a significant compensated linear vector dipole contribution. Schematic sketch (g) shows the structural elements and processes, discussed in the text. (h) Vertical components of normalized full‐band raw data of Event 1 (red) and Event 2 (black). Traces of Event 2 are plotted with opposite sign; thus, the surface waves match with Event 1. It illustrates the “mirror‐image” character of the two sources. Note also the absence of high‐frequency body phases in the records of Event 2, similar to “collapse” events (Engdahl, 1972; Ryall & Savage, 1969; Willis, 1963). Origin time is at t = 0.

    • La fermeture du site et l’effondrement de la cheminée ne convainquent pas tout le monde…

      Optimism About Korea Will Kill Us All – Foreign Policy
      http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/04/30/optimism-about-korea-will-kill-us-all

      Last week’s inter-Korean summit, and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s declaration that he would “close” his nuclear test site by May, were greeted widely with celebration. But contrary to the hoopla, we have now arrived at an especially dangerous moment in Washington’s relationship with Pyongyang. We are on the verge of letting our hopes get in the way of our survival.

      Consider the now widespread view that North Korea’s test site is unusable or that the mountain that contains it has collapsed. This was always garbage reporting. You can download the two academic papers that are said to have originally made these claims — they say nothing of the kind. What the papers do is prove that, after North Korea’s big nuclear test in September 2017, the cavity created by the explosion collapsed in on itself. We already knew that probably happened (although it is cool to see it demonstrated through seismology).

      But the collapsing of the cavity and shrinking of the mountain do not mean the tunnels leading to it collapsed, let alone that the mountain itself had done so. And, of course, there are two other nuclear test complexes underneath entirely different mountains at the site. Kim was quoted as making this point himself: “Some said we will dismantle unusable facilities, but there are two more larger tunnels [in addition to] the original one and these are very in good condition as you will get to know that when coming and seeing them.” But commentators in the West, hoping for a diplomatic breakthrough (whether for political or more idealistic reasons), still heard what they wanted to hear about the condition of North Korea’s program.

      Les articles signalés sont d’une part celui pointé ci-dessus et aussi celui-ci (27/04/2018)

      Collapse and Earthquake Swarm after North Korea’s 3 September 2017 Nuclear Test - Tian - - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library
      https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018GL077649

      Abstract
      North Korea’s 3 September 2017 nuclear test was followed by several small seismic events, with one eight‐and‐a‐half minutes after the test and three on and after 23 September 2017. Seismic analysis reveals that the first event is a near vertical on‐site collapse toward the nuclear test center from 440±260 m northwest of the test site, with its seismic source best represented by a single force with a dip angle of 70°‐75° and an azimuth of ~150°, and the later events are an earthquake swarm located 8.4±1.7 km north of the test site within a region of 520 m, with a focal depth of at least 2.4 km and a focal mechanism of nearly pure strike‐slip along the north‐south direction with a high dip angle of 50°‐90°. The occurrence of the on‐site collapse calls for continued monitoring of any leaks of radioactive materials from the test site.

      (pdf téléchargeable : que de la technique…)

  • Should Trump Nationalize a 5G Network? - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/opinion/nationalize-5g-network.html

    par Tim Wu

    The White House proposal, which at the moment is just an idea, appears driven by concerns about security threats related to China’s development of 5G networks. But the strongest case for building a national network is different. Done right, a national 5G network could save a lot of Americans a lot of money and revive competition in what has become an entrenched oligopoly. Done wrong, on the other hand, it could look like something out of Hugo Chávez’s disastrous economic playbook.

    Americans spend an extraordinary amount of money on bandwidth. The cable industry is the worst offender: Since cable providers have little effective competition, cable bills have grown at many times the rate of inflation and can easily reach thousands of dollars per year. Mobile phone service is not exactly a bargain, either. And with plans to connect cars, toasters and pets to the internet, broadband bills may continue to soar.

    These bills, collectively, function like a private tax on the whole economy. Could a public 5G network cut that tax?

    A national 5G network would be a kind of 21st-century Tennessee Valley Authority. The government would build or lease towers across the country, prioritizing underserved areas, and set up a public utility that sold bandwidth at cost. This cheap bandwidth would be made available for resale by anyone who wanted to provide home broadband or wireless, thus creating a new business model for small local resellers.

    But the case for a national 5G network comes with two major caveats. First, it has to be done right: A strongman approach — nationalizing AT&T’s and Verizon’s nascent networks instead of building new ones — is too Chávez-esque. Seizing private assets in peacetime without good reason sets a dangerous precedent. And you don’t need to be paranoid to fear the combination of the world’s largest government and largest telecommunication companies. Any federally owned 5G network would need to have privacy protections and be as separate from the political branches as possible.

    The second caveat is that while the government can be good at building things, its management record is less inspiring. Any national network it builds should be government-owned for its first decade or so, and then sold off to the highest bidder.

    #5G #Infrastructure #Economie_numérique

  • 15-Year-Old Schoolboy Posed as CIA Chief to Hack Highly Sensitive Information

    https://thehackernews.com/2018/01/crackas-with-attitude-hacker.html

    A notorious pro-Palestinian hacking group behind a series of embarrassing hacks against United States intelligence officials and leaked the personal details of 20,000 FBI agents, 9,000 Department of Homeland Security officers, and some number of DoJ staffers in 2015.

    Believe or not, the leader of this hacking group was just 15-years-old when he used “social engineering” to impersonate CIA director and unauthorisedly access highly sensitive information from his Leicestershire home, revealed during a court hearing on Tuesday.

    Kane Gamble, now 18-year-old, the British teenager hacker targeted then CIA director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson, FBI deputy director Mark Giuliano, as well as other senior FBI figures.

    Between June 2015 and February 2016, Gamble posed as Brennan and tricked call centre and helpline staff into giving away broadband and cable passwords, using which the team also gained access to plans for intelligence operations in Afghanistan and Iran.

    Gamble said he targeted the US government because he was “getting more and more annoyed about how corrupt and cold-blooded the US Government” was and “decided to do something about it.”

  • Killing Net Neutrality Has Brought On a New Call for Public Broadband
    https://theintercept.com/2017/12/15/fcc-net-neutrality-public-broadband-seattle

    The Federal Communications Commission’s 3-2 vote to repeal net neutrality rules has many worried that internet service providers will now build the same sort of tiered internet that some other countries have — where individual providers can collude to throttle traffic to certain websites and services in order to shake money from consumers or the companies themselves — or both. For instance, in Morocco last year, multiple internet service providers worked together to briefly block voice chat (...)

    #Comcast #neutralité #WhatsApp #Skype #FCC

    ##neutralité

  • FCC votes to repeal net neutrality rules, a milestone for Republican deregulation push - LA Times
    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-net-neutrality-fcc-20171214-story.html#nws=mcnewsletter
    http://www.trbimg.com/img-5a33280f/turbine/la-fi-net-neutrality-fcc-20171214

    “As a result of today’s misguided action, our broadband providers will get extraordinary new powers,” said Jessica Rosenworcel, one of two Democrats on the five-member FCC who voted against the repeal.

    “They will have the power to block websites, the power to throttle services and the power to censor online content,” she said. “They will have the right to discriminate and favor the internet traffic of those companies with whom they have a pay-for-play arrangement and the right to consign all others to a slow and bumpy road.”
    Protestors Rally At FCC Against Repeal Of Net Neutrality Rules
    Demonstrators rally outside the Federal Communication Commission building Thursday to protest the repeal of net nutrality rules. (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

    The FCC’s net neutrality rules prohibited AT&T Inc., Charter Communications Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and other broadband and wireless internet service providers from selling faster delivery of certain data, slowing speeds for specific video streams and other content, and blocking or otherwise discriminating against any legal online material.

    To enforce the rules, the FCC classified broadband as a more highly regulated utility-like service under Title 2 of federal telecommunications law.

    Telecom companies praised the repeal, while saying they are committed to the principles of net neutrality and have no plans to change their practices.

    The FCC vote “does not mark the ‘end of the Internet as we know it;’ rather it heralds in a new era of light regulation that will benefit consumers,” said David L. Cohen, Comcast’s senior executive vice president.

    But the companies have hedged on whether they would start charging additional fees to transport video streams or other content at a higher speed through their network in a practice known as paid prioritization.

    Pai has said paid prioritization could accelerate the development of autonomous vehicles and home health monitoring, which would need reliably fast service.

    But net neutrality supporters worry telecom companies will set up toll lanes on the internet, cutting deals with some websites to deliver their content faster and squeezing out start-ups and small companies that lack the money to pay for faster service.

    #Neutralité_internet

  • What Will Really Happen if the FCC Abandons Net Neutrality ?
    http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/net-neutrality-debate

    Article intéressant parce qu’il donne la parole aux opposants à la neutralité. Mais à trop vouloir jouer au centre, on finit par prendre le point de vue des dominants.

    Supporters often link net neutrality to free speech and unfettered, equal access to the internet. They also want stricter rules to curb the conduct of ISPs. “Removal of the net neutrality rules could entirely take down the internet as a free and open source of information,” said Jennifer Golbeck, a professor at the University of Maryland, on the Knowledge@Wharton show on SiriusXM channel 111. “It’s going to be more corporate control over the content we see … potentially not just favoring things that benefit [ISPs] financially but favoring them politically.”

    But critics say that too much regulation dampens innovation and investments in the internet, which has thrived for decades without formal net neutrality rules. For example, net neutrality would tamp down on innovations such as T-Mobile’s “Binge On” service, which lets customers stream video from Netflix, YouTube, Hulu and other sites without counting it against their data buckets, said Christopher Yoo, professor of law, communication and computer and information science at the University of Pennsylvania, on the radio show. Moreover, the order brings back the FTC as the antitrust enforcer of ISP behavior, protecting consumer interests and banning deceptive business practices. (Listen to a podcast of the radio show featuring Yoo and Golbeck using the player above.)

    As providers of information services, ISPs were much more lightly regulated than telecommunications services — such as the old Ma Bell. However, the FCC did adopt policies to preserve free internet access and usage and curb abuses. In 2004, FCC Chairman Michael Powell under President George W. Bush set out four principles of internet freedom: the freedom to access lawful content, use applications, attach personal devices to the network and obtain service plan information.

    In 2010, under Obama’s first FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski, the agency’s Open Internet Order adopted anti-blocking and anti-discrimination rules after finding out that Comcast throttled BitTorrent, a bandwidth-intensive, peer-to-peer site where users shared files of TV shows, movies or other content. Faulhaber says Comcast made the mistake of “targeting a particular upstream company. That you can’t do. If you want to control traffic, you have to do it in a much less discriminatory way.”

    But the 2010 order, which also required ISPs to disclose their network management practices, performance and commercial terms, was vacated by a federal court in 2014 after Verizon sued the FCC. The court said the FCC did not have the authority to act because ISPs are not regulated like common telephone carriers.

    This ruling led to the 2015 order by Wheeler that reclassified ISPs like landline phone companies, giving the agency the power to regulate many things, including prices set by broadband providers, although this was set aside. The order also specified the no-blocking and no-discrimination of traffic, and banned paid prioritization, which would give faster internet lanes to companies that pay for it. And it crafted internet conduct standards that ISPs must follow. Last year, an appellate court upheld this order.

    The current proposal by Pai rolls back Wheeler’s order, and more. It classifies ISPs back under information services. It allows paid prioritization. It also punts the policing of any ISP blocking and discriminatory behavior to the FTC to be investigated on a case-by-case basis. It dismantles Wheeler’s internet conduct standards because they are “vague and expansive.” But the proposed order does adopt transparency rules, requiring ISPs to disclose information about their practices to the FCC and the public.

    For ISPs, the issue is not so much net neutrality as it is about Title II. “All of the major ISPs like Comcast and AT&T are on the record saying that they support the idea of net neutrality, but they just oppose the legal classification of broadband as a regulated telecommunications service,” Werbach says. “I wouldn’t expect to see any dramatic changes in the companies’ practices near term. They’re going to wait and see how this all plays out, and they’re also not going to do something that will provoke significant backlash and pressure for more regulation.”

    During her radio show appearance, Golbeck noted that the danger of fast lanes is that smaller websites that cannot afford to pay the ISP could be left behind. Research shows that “even delays of less than a second in serving up content [will make people] bail from your site and go someplace else.” Conversely, she said, if ISPs speed up access to popular sites like Amazon and Netflix because they pay, “it inhibits the ability for other new startup sites to compete.”

    #Neutralité_internet

  • The Internet Is Dying. Repealing Net Neutrality Hastens That Death. - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/technology/internet-dying-repeal-net-neutrality.html

    Because net neutrality shelters start-ups — which can’t easily pay for fast-line access — from internet giants that can pay, the rules are just about the last bulwark against the complete corporate takeover of much of online life. When the rules go, the internet will still work, but it will look like and feel like something else altogether — a network in which business development deals, rather than innovation, determine what you experience, a network that feels much more like cable TV than the technological Wild West that gave you Napster and Netflix.

    If this sounds alarmist, consider that the state of digital competition is already pretty sorry. As I’ve argued regularly, much of the tech industry is at risk of getting swallowed by giants. Today’s internet is lousy with gatekeepers, tollbooths and monopolists.

    The five most valuable American companies — Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft — control much of the online infrastructure, from app stores to operating systems to cloud storage to nearly all of the online ad business. A handful of broadband companies — AT&T, Charter, Comcast and Verizon, many of which are also aiming to become content companies, because why not — provide virtually all the internet connections to American homes and smartphones.

    Together these giants have carved the internet into a historically profitable system of fiefs. They have turned a network whose very promise was endless innovation into one stuck in mud, where every start-up is at the tender mercy of some of the largest corporations on the planet.

    This was not the way the internet was supposed to go. At its deepest technical level, the internet was designed to avoid the central points of control that now command it. The technical scheme arose from an even deeper philosophy. The designers of the internet understood that communications networks gain new powers through their end nodes — that is, through the new devices and services that plug into the network, rather than the computers that manage traffic on the network. This is known as the “end-to-end” principle of network design, and it basically explains why the internet led to so many more innovations than the centralized networks that came before it, such as the old telephone network.

    But if flexibility was the early internet’s promise, it was soon imperiled. In 2003, Tim Wu, a law professor now at Columbia Law School (he’s also a contributor to The New York Times), saw signs of impending corporate control over the growing internet. Broadband companies that were investing great sums to roll out faster and faster internet service to Americans were becoming wary of running an anything-goes network.

    To Mr. Wu, the broadband monopolies looked like a threat to the end-to-end idea that had powered the internet. In a legal journal, he outlined an idea for regulation to preserve the internet’s equal-opportunity design — and hence was born “net neutrality.”

    Though it has been through a barrage of legal challenges and resurrections, some form of net neutrality has been the governing regime on the internet since 2005. The new F.C.C. order would undo the idea completely; companies would be allowed to block or demand payment for certain traffic as they liked, as long as they disclosed the arrangements.

    But look, you might say: Despite the hand-wringing, the internet has kept on trucking. Start-ups are still getting funded and going public. Crazy new things still sometimes get invented and defy all expectations; Bitcoin, which is as Wild West as they come, just hit $10,000 on some exchanges.

    Well, O.K. But a vibrant network doesn’t die all at once. It takes time and neglect; it grows weaker by the day, but imperceptibly, so that one day we are living in a digital world controlled by giants and we come to regard the whole thing as normal.

    It’s not normal. It wasn’t always this way. The internet doesn’t have to be a corporate playground. That’s just the path we’ve chosen.

    #Neutralité_internet #Vectorialisme

  • The Geopolitical Economy of the Global Internet Infrastructure on JSTOR
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/jinfopoli.7.2017.0228

    Article très intéressant qui repositionne les Etats dans la gestion de l’infrastructure globale de l’internet. En fait, une infrastructure globale pour le déploiement du capital (une autre approche de la géopolitique, issue de David Harvey).

    According to many observers, economic globalization and the liberalization of telecoms/internet policy have remade the world in the image of the United States. The dominant roles of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google have also led to charges of US internet imperialism. This article, however, argues that while these internet giants dominate some of the most popular internet services, the ownership and control of core elements of the internet infrastructure—submarine cables, internet exchange points, autonomous system numbers, datacenters, and so on—are tilting increasingly toward the EU and BRICS (i.e., Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) countries and the rest of the world, complicating views of hegemonic US control of the internet and what Susan Strange calls the knowledge structure.

    This article takes a different tack. It argues that while US-based internet giants do dominate some of the middle and top layers of the internet—for example, operating systems (iOS, Windows, Android), search engines (Google), social networks (Facebook), online retailing (Amazon), over-the-top TV (Netflix), browsers (Google Chrome, Apple Safari, Microsoft Explorer), and domain names (ICANN)—they do not rule the hardware, or material infrastructure, upon which the internet and daily life, business, governments, society, and war increasingly depend. In fact, as the article shows, ownership and control of many core elements of the global internet infrastructure—for example, fiber optic submarine cables, content delivery networks (CDNs), autonomous system numbers (ASN), and internet exchange points (IXPs)—are tilting toward the rest of the world, especially Europe and the BRICS (i.e., Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). This reflects the fact that the United States’ standing in the world is slipping while an ever more multipolar world is arising.

    International internet backbone providers, internet content companies, and CDNs interconnect with local ISPs and at one or more of the nearly 2000 IXPs around the world. The largest IXPs are in New York, London, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Seattle, Chicago, Moscow, Sao Paulo, Tokyo, and Hong Kong. They are core elements of the internet that switch traffic between all the various networks that comprise the internet system, and help to establish accessible, affordable, fast, and secure internet service.

    In developed markets, internet companies such as Google, Baidu, Facebook, Netflix, Youku, and Yandex use IXPs to interconnect with local ISPs such as Deutsche Telecoms in Germany, BT or Virgin Media in Britain, or Comcast in the United States to gain last-mile access to their customers—and vice versa, back up the chain. Indeed, 99 percent of internet traffic handled by peering arrangements among such parties occurs without any money changing hands or a formal contract.50 Where IXPs do not exist or are rare, as in Africa, or run poorly, as in India, the cost of bandwidth is far more expensive. This is a key factor that helps to explain why internet service is so expensive in areas of the world that can least afford it. It is also why the OECD and EU encourage developing countries to make IXPs a cornerstone of economic development and telecoms policy work.

    The network of networks that make up the internet constitute a sprawling, general purpose platform upon which financial markets, business, and trade, as well as diplomacy, spying, national security, and war depend. The world’s largest electronic payments system operator, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications’ (SWIFT) secure messaging network carries over 25 million messages a day involving payments that are believed to be worth over $7 trillion USD.59 Likewise, the world’s biggest foreign currency settlement system, the CLS Bank, executes upward of a million trades a day worth between $1.5 and $2.5 trillion over the global cable systems—although that is down by half from its high point in 2008.60 As Stephen Malphrus, former chief of staff to the US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, observed, when “communications networks go down, the financial services sector does not grind to a halt, rather it snaps to a halt.”61

    Governments and militaries also account for a significant portion of internet traffic. Indeed, 90 to 95 percent of US government traffic, including sensitive diplomatic and military orders, travels over privately owned cables to reach officials in the field.62 “A major portion of DoD data traveling on undersea cables is unmanned aerial vehicle video,” notes a study done for the Department of Homeland Security by MIT scholar Michael Sechrist.63 Indeed, the Department of Defense’s entire Global Information Grid shares space in these cables with the general public internet.64

    The 3.6 billion people as of early 2016 who use the internet to communicate, share music, ideas and knowledge, browse, upload videos, tweet, blog, organize social events and political protests, watch pornography, read sacred texts, and sell stuff are having the greatest influence on the current phase of internet infrastructure development. Video currently makes up an estimated two-thirds of all internet traffic, and is expected to grow to 80 percent in the next five years,69 with US firms leading the way. Netflix single-handedly accounts for a third of all internet traffic. YouTube is the second largest source of internet traffic on fixed and mobile networks alike the world over. Altogether, the big five internet giants account for roughly half of all “prime-time” internet traffic, a phrasing that deliberately reflects the fact that internet usage swells and peaks at the same time as the classic prime-time television period, that is, 7 p.m. to 11 p.m.

    Importance des investissements des compagnies de l’internet dans les projets de câbles.

    Several things stand out from this analysis. First, in less than a decade, Google has carved out a very large place for itself through its ownership role in four of the six projects (the SJC, Faster, Unity, and Pacific Cable Light initiatives), while Facebook has stakes in two of them (APG and PLCN) and Microsoft in the PLCN project. This is a relatively new trend and one that should be watched in the years ahead.

    A preliminary view based on the publicly available information is that the US internet companies are important but subordinate players in consortia dominated by state-owned national carriers and a few relatively new competitors. Keen to wrest control of core elements of the internet infrastructure that they perceive to have been excessively dominated by United States interests in the past, Asian governments and private investors have joined forces to change things in their favor. In terms of the geopolitical economy of the internet, there is both a shift toward the Asia-Pacific region and an increased role for national governments.

    Return of the State as Regulator of Concentrated Markets

    In addition to the expanded role of the state as market builder, regulator, and information infrastructure policy maker, many regulators have also rediscovered the reality of significant market concentration in the telecom-internet and media industries. Indeed, the US government has rejected several high-profile telecoms mergers in recent years, such as AT&T’s proposal to take over T-Mobile in 2011, T-Mobile’s bid for Sprint in 2014, and Comcast’s attempt to acquire Time Warner Cable last year. Even the approval of Comcast’s blockbuster takeover of NBC Universal in 2011, and Charter Communications acquisition of Time Warner Cable last year, respectively, came with important strings attached and ongoing conduct regulation designed to constrain the companies’ ability to abuse their dominant market power.87 The FCC’s landmark 2016 ruling to reclassify broadband internet access as a common carrier further indicated that US regulators have been alert to the realities of market concentration and telecoms-internet access providers’ capacity to abuse that power, and the need to maintain a vigilant eye to ensure that their practices do not swamp people’s rights to freely express themselves, maintain control over the collection, retention, use, and disclosure of their personal information, and to access a diverse range of services over the internet.88 The 28 members of the European Union, along with Norway, India, and Chile, have adopted similar “common carriage/network neutrality/open network”89 rules to offset the reality that concentration in core elements of these industries is “astonishingly high”90 on the basis of commonly used indicators (e.g., concentration ratios and the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index).

    These developments indicate a new phase in internet governance and control. In the first phase, circa the 1990s, technical experts and organizations such as the Internet Engineers Task Force played a large role, while the state sat relatively passively on the sidelines. In the second phase, circa the early to mid-2000s, commercial forces surged to the fore, while internet governance revolved around the ICANN and the multi-stakeholder model. Finally, the revelations of mass internet surveillance by many states and ongoing disputes over the multi-stakeholder, “internet freedom” agenda on the one side, versus the national sovereignty, multilateral model where the ITU and UN system would play a larger role in internet governance all indicate that significant moves are afoot where the relationship between states and markets is now in a heightened state of flux.

    Such claims, however, are overdrawn. They rely too heavily on the same old “realist,” “struggle for control” model where conflict between nation-states has loomed large and business interests and communication technologies served mainly as “weapons of politics” and the handmaidens of national interests from the telegraph in the nineteenth century to the internet today. Yet, nation-states and private business interests, then and now, not only compete with one another but also cooperate extensively to cultivate a common global space of economic accumulation. Communication technologies and business interests, moreover, often act independent of the nation-state and via “private structures of cooperation,” that is, cartels and consortia, as the history and contemporary state of the undersea cable networks illustrate. In fact, the internet infrastructure of the twenty-first century, much like that of the industrial information infrastructure of the past 150 years, is still primarily financed, owned, and operated by many multinational consortia, although more than a few submarine communications cables are now owned by a relatively new roster of competitive players, such as Tata, Level 3, Global Cloud Xchange, and so forth. They have arisen mostly in the last 20 years and from new quarters, such as India in the case of Tata, for example.

    #Economie_numérique #Géopolitique #Câbles_sous_marins

  • Spotify, Google, Tons of Other Companies Will Protest to Save Net Neutrality - Motherboard
    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8xa84k/spotify-google-tons-of-other-companies-will-protest-to-save-new-ne

    The protest is organized by Fight for the Future, freepress, and Demand Progress. It’s set to happen five days before the first deadline for comments on the FCC’s proposal to remove the classification of broadband as a telecommunications service. It’s part of FCC chief and former Verizon executive Ajit Pai’s attempt to destroy what protects the internet from fast lanes and discrimination by monolithic internet service providers like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon.

    #neutralité_internet

  • Common sense: An examination of three Los Angeles community WiFi projects that privileged public funding over commons-based infrastructure management » The Journal of Peer Production
    http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-10-peer-production-and-work/varia/common-sense-an-examination-of-three-los-angeles-community-wifi-proj

    Several high-profile incidents involving entire communities cut off from broadband access—the result of natural disasters such as Superstorm Sandy in the Northeastern United States in 2012, to totalitarian governments in Egypt and Tunisia shutting down infrastructure in 2011—have raised awareness of the vulnerabilities inherent in a centralized internet. Policymakers are increasingly interested in the potential of community mesh networks (Harvard University, 2012), which use a decentralized architecture. Still, government agencies rarely fund community WiFi initiatives in U.S. cities. Three grassroots mesh networks in Los Angeles are distinct, however, as both local and state agencies subsidized their efforts. By comparing a public goods framework with theory of the commons, this study examines how government support impacted L.A.-based community wireless projects.

    By examining public investments in peer-to-peer networking initiatives, this study aims to better understand how substantial cash infusions influenced network design and implementation. Stronger community ties, self-reliance and opportunities for democratic deliberation potentially emerge when neighbors share bandwidth. In this sense, WiFi signal sharing is more than a promising “last mile” technology able to reach every home for a fraction of the cost required to lay fiber, DSL and cable (Martin, 2005). In fact, grassroots mesh projects aim to create “a radically different public sphere” (Burnett, 1999) by situating themselves outside of commercial interests. Typically, one joins, as opposed to subscribes to, the services. As Lippman and Reed (2003, p. 1) observed, “Communications can become something you do rather than something you buy.” For this reason, the economic theories of both public goods and the commons provide an ideal analytical framework for examining three community WiFi project in Los Angeles.

    The value of this commons is derived from the fact that no one owns or controls it—not people, not corporations, not the government (Benkler 2001; Lessig, 2001). The peer-to-peer architecture comprising community wireless networks provides ideal conditions for fostering civic engagement and eliminating the need to rely on telecommunications companies for connectivity. Instead of information passing from “one to many,” it travels from “many to many.” The primary internet relies on centralized access points and internet service providers (ISPs) for connectivity. By contrast, in a peer-to-peer architecture, components are both independent and scalable. Wireless mesh network design includes at least one access point with a direct connection to the internet—via fiber, cable or satellite link—and nodes that hop from one device to the next

    As the network’s popularity mounted, however, so did its challenges. The increasing prevalence of smartphones meant more mobile devices accessing Little Tokyo Unplugged. This required the LTSC to deploy additional access points, leading to signal interference. Network users overwhelmed LTSC staff with complaints about everything from lost connections to computer viruses. “We ended up being IT support for the entire community,” the informant said.

    Money, yes. Meaningful participation, no.

    Despite its popularity, the center shut down the WiFi network in 2010. “The decision was made that we couldn’t sustain it,” the informant said. While the LTSC (2010) invested nearly $3 million in broadband-related initiatives, the center neglected to seek meaningful participation from the wider Little Tokyo community. The LTSC basically functioned according to a traditional ISP model. In a commons, it is imperative that a fair relationship exists between contributions made and benefits received (Commons Sommerschule, 2012). However, the LTSC neither expected nor asked network users to contribute to Little Tokyo Unplugged in exchange for free broadband access. As a result, individual network users did not feel they had a stake in ensuring the stability of the network.

    HSDNC board members believed free WiFi would facilitate more efficient communication with their constituents, coupled with “the main issue” of digital inclusion, according to an informant. “The reality is that poor, working class Latino members of our district have limited access to the internet. A lot of people have cell phones, but we see gaps,” this informant said. These comments exemplify how the pursuit of public funding began to usurp social-production principles associated with a networked commons. While closing the digital divide and informing the public about community issues are laudable goals, they are clearly institutional ones.

    Rather than design Open Mar Vista/Open Neighborhoods according to commons-based peer production principles, the network co-founders sought ways to align the project with public good goals articulated by local and federal agencies. For instance, an informant stressed that community WiFi would enable neighborhood councils to send email blasts and post information online. This argument is a direct response to the city’s push for neighborhood councils to reduce paper correspondence with constituents (City of Los Angeles, 2010). Similarly, the grant application Open Neighborhoods submitted to the federal Broadband Technologies Opportunities Program—which exclusively funded broadband infrastructure and computer adoption initiatives—focused on the potential for community WiFi networks to supply Los Angeles’ low-income neighborhoods with affordable internet (National Telecommunications & Information Administration, 2010). The proposal is void of references to concepts associated with the commons, even though this ideological space can transform broadband infrastructure from a conduit to the internet into a technology for empowering participants. It seems that, ultimately, the pursuit of public funding supplanted initial goals of creating a WiFi network that fostered inclusivity and collaboration.

    There’s little doubt that Manchester Community Technologies accepted a $453,000 state grant in exchange for a “mesh cloud” it never deployed. These findings suggest an inherent conflict exists between the quest to fulfill the state’s public good goals, and the commons-based community building necessary to sustain a grassroots WiFi network. One could argue that this reality should have prevented California officials from funding Manchester Community Technologies’ proposal in the first place. Specifically, a successful community WiFi initiative cannot be predicated on a state mandate to strengthen digital literacy skills and increase broadband adoption. Local businesses and residents typically share bandwidth as part of a broader effort to create an alternative communications infrastructure, beyond the reach of government—not dictated by government. Grassroots broadband initiatives run smoothly when participants are committed to the success of a common enterprise and share a common purpose. The approach taken by Manchester Community Technologies does not reflect these principles.

    #Communs #wifi #mesh_networks #relations_communs_public

  • SpaceX Rocket Launches #Inmarsat High-Speed Communications Satellite into Orbit – gCaptain
    http://gcaptain.com/spacex-rocket-launches-inmarsat-high-speed-communications-satellite-orbit

    Satellite communications company Inmarsat (LON: ISAT) has confirmed the successful launch of the fourth and final high-speed broadband communications satellite making up its Global Xpress (GX) constellation.

    Inmarsat GX is the world’s first service offering worldwide high-speed broadband connectivity for land, sea, and air uses.

    The fourth Inmarsat-5 satellite, known as I-5 F4, was launched by SpaceX aboard a Falcon 9 rocket at 19:21 ET Monday evening from the historic launch pad 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Inmarsat said it picked up the first data from satellite about a half hour later.

  • Connected at Sea: Inmarsat’s New High-Speed Broadband Service Hits 10,000-Ship Milestone – gCaptain
    http://gcaptain.com/fleet-xpress-exceeds-10000-ship-milestone-first-anniversary

    Global satellite provider Inmarsat has announces its new Fleet Xpress service has commitments to connect more than 10,000 ships at sea with high-speed broadband service within its first year of service.

    The Fleet Xpress service launched in March 2016 promising a “new era” in maritime satellite communications and guaranteed high-speed connectivity from anywhere on the world’s oceans. The service is the first globally available, high-speed broadband service for maritime and offshore operators available from a single communications provider.

  • F.C.C. Chairman Pushes Sweeping Changes to Net Neutrality Rules - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/technology/net-neutrality.html

    The chairman, Ajit Pai, said high-speed internet service should no longer be treated like a public utility with strict rules, as it is now. The move would, in effect, largely leave the industry to police itself.

    The plan is Mr. Pai’s most forceful action in his race to roll back rules that govern telecommunications, cable and broadcasting companies, which he says are harmful to business. But he is certain to face a contentious battle with the consumers and tech companies that rallied around the existing rules, which are meant to prevent broadband providers like AT&T and Comcast from giving special treatment to any streaming videos, news sites and other content.

    The policy was the signature telecom regulation of the Obama era. It classified broadband as a common carrier service akin to phones, which are subject to strong government oversight. President Obama made an unusual public push for the reclassification in a video message that was widely shared and appeared to embolden the last F.C.C. chairman, Tom Wheeler, to make the change.

    The classification also led to the creation of broadband privacy rules in 2016 that made it harder to collect and sell browsing information and other user data. Last month, President Trump signed a bill overturning the broadband privacy regulations, which would have gone into effect at the end of the year.

    Last week, Mr. Pai went to Silicon Valley to meet with executives of tech companies like Facebook, Oracle, Cisco and Intel to solicit their support for revisions to the broadband rules. The Silicon Valley companies are divided on their views about the existing policy, with internet companies like Facebook supporting strong rules and hardware and chip makers open to Mr. Pai’s changes.

    The F.C.C.’s policing of broadband companies has drawn greater interest with recent proposals for big mergers, such as AT&T’s $85 billion bid for Time Warner, that create huge media conglomerates that distribute and own video content. Already, AT&T is giving mobile subscribers free streaming access to television content by DirecTV, which it owns. Consumer groups have complained that such practices, known as sponsored data, put rivals at a disadvantage and could help determine what news and information is most likely to reach consumers.

    About 800 tech start-ups and investors, organized by the Silicon Valley incubator Y Combinator and the San Francisco policy advocacy group Engine, protested the unwinding of net neutrality in a letter sent to Mr. Pai on Wednesday.

    “Without net neutrality, the incumbents who provide access to the internet would be able to pick winners or losers in the market,” they wrote in the letter.

    So far, Google and Netflix, the most vocal proponents of net neutrality in previous years, have not spoken individually about Mr. Pai’s proposal. Speaking through their trade group, the Internet Association, they said the broadband and net neutrality rules should stay intact.
    “Rolling back these rules or reducing the legal sustainability of the order will result in a worse internet for consumers and less innovation online,” Michael Beckerman, chief executive of the Internet Association, said in a statement.

    #neutralité_internet

  • Internet Privacy 2017 | What You Need to Know - Shelly Palmer
    http://www.shellypalmer.com/2017/04/internet-privacy-2017-what-you-need-to-know

    There has never been a reasonable expectation of online privacy, and there never will be. Regardless of what you may have recently heard about joint resolutions or nullifications, nothing has changed. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have always had the right to use your data as they see fit, within a few Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) parameters. This has not changed. And you have given FANG (Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, and Google) the right to use your data as they see fit (with a few privacy policy exceptions and within the few aforementioned FTC and FCC parameters). So regarding online privacy, for all practical purposes, absolutely nothing has changed.
    What About S.J.Res.34?

    Update: On April 3, 2017, the president signed S.J.Res.34, a joint resolution that nullified the FCC’s “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services” rule. But the FCC rule never went into effect. So net/net, nothing has changed.

    #USA #vie_privée #vie_privee #privacy