Topic: Isp

An IT service provider in Los Angeles reports that Microsoft Azure experienced significant issues several hours before the official CrowdStrike file was delivered. Speculation arises that Azure may have been under attack, prompting a rushed fix from CrowdStrike. Additionally, reports of the CrowdStrike Chief Security Officer selling 15,000 shares days before the event are noted as suspicious.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is scheduled to vote on the return of net neutrality rules, which would prevent internet service providers from throttling or prioritizing specific web traffic. The hosts argue that while the policy is framed as consumer protection, it may allow ISPs to block "illegal" traffic such as Tor or BitTorrent protocols. They trace the history of the regulation from the Obama era through its repeal during the Trump administration.

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) releases a document outlining aggressive copyright enforcement goals, including automated content filtering and ISP-level blocking of "unlawful" traffic. The hosts argue this reveals the true corporate motive behind supporting Net Neutrality: the power to mandate that ISPs block pirate sites and VPN traffic.

Dane Jasper reflects on the challenges of marketing fiber to non-technical consumers who may not understand the difference between various broadband technologies. He credits early adopters with spreading the word to neighbors about Sonic's superior performance. Jasper also notes that the poor reputation of major cable companies serves as a significant driver for customers looking to switch to independent providers.

The hosts discuss reports that Netflix is testing interstitial ads and that Roku has evolved into a massive advertising and data-tracking platform. A historical look at ReplayTV and its conflict with TiVo highlights the long-standing Silicon Valley practice of "poaching" ad inventory and tracking user behavior.

As net neutrality regulations expire, the hosts argue that the push for government regulation is actually driven by Silicon Valley giants like Google and Facebook. They warn that "neutrality" language often includes provisions allowing ISPs to block "unlawful content," which could be used as a tool for censorship against independent media like the "No Agenda" show.

Congress votes to overturn Obama-era FCC privacy regulations that would have prevented ISPs from selling user data without permission. The discussion suggests the original rules were designed to benefit data-collecting giants like Google and Amazon by hobbling their ISP competitors.

Actor Randy Quaid released a video claiming the U.S. government employs "social media boiler rooms" filled with trolls and sock puppets to manipulate public opinion. The hosts also discuss a recent congressional vote to roll back Obama-era privacy rules for internet service providers. They plan to deconstruct the legal implications of the ISP privacy change in the next episode.

The No Agenda newsletter experienced significant delivery failures despite being sent through MailChimp. Many subscribers, including those running private email servers without filters, reported never receiving the transmission. The hosts investigate whether the issue stems from ISP-level blocking or a failure within the MailChimp platform itself.

A theory is presented that the push for "HTTPS Everywhere" is a psychological and technical trick to circumvent ad blockers and prevent ISPs from inserting their own advertisements. By forcing encryption, Google and its partners can maintain control over tracking and advertising data. The hosts argue that 90% of websites do not require encryption and that the "big red X" warning for HTTP sites is an anti-competitive move to marginalize non-compliant publishers.

Wireless ISP owner Brett Glass appeared on "Security Now" to discuss the impact of Netflix on small internet providers. Glass argues that Netflix's massive bandwidth consumption forces ISPs to upgrade infrastructure, yet Netflix refuses to share the costs with smaller providers while paying larger ones like Comcast for direct peering. This "two-sided market" debate centers on whether content providers should compensate ISPs for the disproportionate resources their traffic consumes.

The hosts explain the technical concepts of peering and transit, arguing that "paid priority" is a fundamental part of how the internet functions. They criticize Commissioner Clyburn for misrepresenting the 2004 Internet Policy Statement and the 2010 rules as enforceable laws. The DC Circuit Court's 2014 rejection of the FCC's legal framework is cited as the catalyst for the current debate.

A listener reports that Suddenlink has implemented a pricing model based on data caps, charging $10 for every 50 gigabytes over the limit. The hosts argue this is a fair way to manage network saturation caused by high-definition streaming. They predict that the transition to 4K streaming will eventually force all users to accept paid priority to maintain service quality.

The hosts debunk common analogies used to explain net neutrality, such as "fast lanes" and "speed bumps." Curry explains that the current debate was actually sparked by Netflix's demand for specific performance guarantees on ISP networks. He argues that the "road" analogy is technically inaccurate and that ISPs have no incentive to slow down the general internet, but rather want a legal framework to charge high-bandwidth users.

The hosts play and critique a "condescending" video explaining Net Neutrality using road and pipe analogies. Adam argues that no ISP is actually asking to "remove" Net Neutrality because it isn't a formal law, and that the "fast lane" debate was actually sparked by Netflix seeking specific peering advantages, not by ISPs wanting to "speed bump" the web.

Comcast's CEO is heard explaining to investors that Title II regulation does not actually forbid different levels of service for different prices. The hosts argue that the push for Title II is a political tool that will ultimately benefit large ISPs by providing a stable regulatory environment for tiered pricing. They criticize tech pundits like Leo Laporte for supporting regulation that they believe will harm the open nature of the internet.

Comcast announced plans to acquire Time Warner Cable, a move that would create a massive gatekeeper for American internet and television services. The merger was triggered after Charter Communications made a competing bid for Time Warner. Concerns are raised regarding the lack of competition in major markets like Austin, where residents are left with few choices beyond AT&T, Google Fiber, and the newly merged cable giant.

The President's Review Group suggests using artificial intelligence software to sort information packets on networks in real-time. This would move the sorting process from NSA storage facilities directly onto the internet backbone, a concept critics believe is a setup for lucrative government contracts for insiders like Richard Clarke.

"Curry's Law" is introduced: "The more technology is centralized, the more it enslaves us." This is contrasted with "Dvorak's Law" regarding hookers in a depression. The centralization of the internet through platforms like Facebook and Google is criticized, specifically noting that Google Fiber prohibits users from running their own servers, further stripping away the original decentralized nature of the internet.

The mechanics of the spam blacklisting industry are described as a "protection racket" where companies must pay to be whitelisted on major email services. The conflict between Cyberbunker and Spamhaus is explained as a dispute over IP blocking that affected legitimate users. Cloudflare's involvement is framed as a failed attempt to gain positive PR that ultimately slowed down service for their other clients.