Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > The US Broadband Thread of "I can't believe these effers"

The US Broadband Thread of "I can't believe these effers" (Page 4)
Thread Tools
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2015, 01:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
They nailed him because the idiot posted under his real name once and then used his main email address subsequently. Ars covers this in depth.
That wasn't the only evidence they had.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2015, 01:23 PM
 
That's how they connected the dots, though.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2015, 01:32 PM
 
It was a very complex investigation, a buddy in security said the Feds spent more money to bring him down than any other single person in history (sans Bin Laden, which was a military operation).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2015, 01:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Tor is being tracked by the NSA by running 1000s of their own nodes, and has been for a couple years, and has even compromised the browser source itself. That's how they nailed Dread Pirate Roberts. With an end-to-end encrypted VPN (like in the link I posted above) they only know you're doing something by snooping from the ISP or a network junction, not exactly what it is, unless they happen to be sitting on either end of the tunnel.
I don't think you correctly understand the security implications of these nodes, they make Tor less secure because it makes it more feasible to track users using brute force and statistical methods. But it doesn't mean Tor has been cracked, it's a constant cat and mouse game: the Tor project has to be vigilant to identify malevolent nodes and remove them.

A VPN has nothing to do with safe and secure internet, it lets you safely join another network via a different, public network. For instance, my NAS runs a VPN server, and I can safely access my network shares this way. So from the outside all you see is that I connect to my NAS, and that's it. A VPN is not a solution for anonymizing internet traffic, although it can be part of one. Needless to say, also common VPN servers have security issues. Against a state, your VPN solution isn't secure either, and it is potentially easier to attack: the anonymization happens at a single point, and cracking this single point would lift the veil on their internet traffic. I think the service you linked to will protect you against snooping by the ISP, though. But state actors? Forget about it. If you want to have any chance, you need to find a decentralized solution.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2015, 03:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I don't think you correctly understand the security implications of these nodes, they make Tor less secure because it makes it more feasible to track users using brute force and statistical methods. But it doesn't mean Tor has been cracked, it's a constant cat and mouse game: the Tor project has to be vigilant to identify malevolent nodes and remove them.
The Tor network is compromised, no person who relies on security for their online communications should use it, period. The developers still don't know the extent of the infiltration, and that's very bad news for their users.

A VPN has nothing to do with safe and secure internet, it lets you safely join another network via a different, public network. For instance, my NAS runs a VPN server, and I can safely access my network shares this way. So from the outside all you see is that I connect to my NAS, and that's it. A VPN is not a solution for anonymizing internet traffic, although it can be part of one. Needless to say, also common VPN servers have security issues. Against a state, your VPN solution isn't secure either, and it is potentially easier to attack: the anonymization happens at a single point, and cracking this single point would lift the veil on their internet traffic. I think the service you linked to will protect you against snooping by the ISP, though. But state actors? Forget about it. If you want to have any chance, you need to find a decentralized solution.
I don't think you understand how much brute force is needed to break authenticated 256-bit encryption. While the feds can break it the average time with the most powerful clusters of computers is still in the 6-12 month range, doing nothing else but working on those keys. That's a tremendous amount of resources, they'd be much more likely to simply break into your house and try to take your system in a fake burglary. A VPN for all online traffic, like the one I linked, is strong and reliable enough to dissuade snooping by all but the most determined groups, and they check and reset all of their connections every 8 hours.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2015, 07:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
The Tor network is compromised, no person who relies on security for their online communications should use it, period. The developers still don't know the extent of the infiltration, and that's very bad news for their users.
There is no better alternative for privacy-minded people than Tor.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I don't think you understand how much brute force is needed to break authenticated 256-bit encryption.
I'm not talking about the encryption (and I'm ignoring weaknesses in some of the VPN protocols) which protects the connection between you and the VPN server, I'm saying that the NSA can compromise the network of the company which offers you the VPN service. Once they're inside this network, your traffic is unencrypted and clearly visible. You get an internal IP address and internally all the traffic is unprotected. The NSA can listen to what you're doing online from there. The anonymization stage of the service you mentioned has 0 to do with the VPN connection being encrypted and all. Judging from their pictures and explanation, all the service does is distribute requests from all customers randomly over a number of IP addresses. This way it becomes impossible to associate your true IP address with the request you've made. But this relies on the safety of the service.

Given that the NSA is able to put malware in the firmware of hard drives and gotten the encryption keys to a boat load of SIM cards, I wouldn't put it past them that they already have infiltrated the company which offers secure internet services. The advantage of Tor is that it is distributed, so any infection of single (or even many) Tor relays cannot completely kill the network or allow tracking. You'd have to control a significant number of nodes. With provider's such as the one you've linked to, you need to control the internal network of this single entity and then it's game over.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Feb 21, 2015 at 12:50 AM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2015, 01:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
There is no better alternative for privacy-minded people than Tor.
Yes there is, a good authenticated, encrypted VPN. No one has shown that 256-bit AES has ever been compromised. Tor is quite literally a security joke now.

I'm not talking about the encryption (and I'm ignoring weaknesses in some of the VPN protocols) which protects the connection between you and the VPN server, I'm saying that the NSA can compromise the network of the company which offers you the VPN service. Once they're inside this network, your traffic is unencrypted and clearly visible. You get an internal IP address and internally all the traffic is unprotected. The NSA can listen to what you're doing online from there. The anonymization stage of the service you mentioned has 0 to do with the VPN connection being encrypted and all. Judging from their pictures and explanation, all the service does is distribute requests from all customers randomly over a number of IP addresses. This way it becomes impossible to associate your true IP address with the request you've made. But this relies on the safety of the service.

Given that the NSA is able to put malware in the firmware of hard drives and gotten the encryption keys to a boat load of SIM cards, I wouldn't put it past them that they already have infiltrated the company which offers secure internet services. The advantage of Tor is that it is distributed, so any infection of single (or even many) Tor relays cannot completely kill the network or allow tracking. You'd have to control a significant number of nodes. With provider's such as the one you've linked to, you need to control the internal network of this single entity and then it's game over.
Then you aren't safe with Tor for that very reason, if they're sitting on the ISP end watching what you're doing, with your SIM or HDD key in hand, so to speak (don't source your hardware or mobile devices from American vendors). At least with 256-bit encryption they'll only know that you're doing something, unlike Tor, there they have 1000s of nodes sniffing the network all over the world.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2015, 12:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Yes there is, a good authenticated, encrypted VPN. No one has shown that 256-bit AES has ever been compromised. Tor is quite literally a security joke now.
I think you misunderstand what a VPN is or how it works: a VPN allows you to join an internal network via an external, insecure connection. For instance, big companies can connect different locations together this way. When you open a VPN connection, you get an »internal« IP address, e. g. 10.0.0.10 and you can access the 10.0.0.x subnet in the remote location. For instance, you can access network shares or access even the internet by using the remote location's router. To the internet it seems as if you are accessing the internet from within the remote location's network.

That's why VPN's have found uses, e. g. to fool certain sites that your IP address comes from the desired location (to, say, watch the official stream of a soccer game in Brazil's first league), or also the anonymization service you have linked to. Your service basically works because the connections is many-to-many (many users of the services connect to the VPN and use one of the IP addresses of the service randomly, different ones for different requests). That means it is impossible to figure out which request originated from which client -- unless you access the internal network. And I wouldn't put it past the NSA to do such a thing if this service reaches any level of prominence.

To insist your anonymization solution is safe because it uses 256 bit AES encryption fundamentally misses the point of how your service works and what actually is encrypted. The Tor network is protected by the same type of encryption algorithms that other products feature (AES among others). The encryption of Tor is not what the NSA is after, they want to figure out who accessed what even if they are unable to figure out what has been transmitted. With Tor this requires a massive effort and it is not clear whether it is successful. The more decentralized and popular Tor becomes, the safer it is. With the service you use there is a single point of failure: once, say, the NSA gains access to the internal network of the service provider, it's game over. If all you are interested in is being anonymous in the eyes of your ISP, the service works as advertised. If you think you are safe from spying by the NSA, you're wrong.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2015, 01:56 PM
 
Not really, no. On the ISP end they have to break the encryption first (all they know is that someone accessed specific information from somewhere), and they have to do it from one word length segment to the next. It's a very lengthy and involved process unless they have your specific keys (which are acquired via 1024 or 2048 bit authentication at varying word length intervals). It's only on the VPN side that you're really vulnerable. On my desktop machines my particular service even goes so far as to swap regional VPN servers (that in reality aren't even within US legal jurisdiction) every 30-180 seconds using different unique, authenticated keys that are changed on the fly (they think the VPN is somewhere like New Jersey or Michigan, which is a 100% spoof). While that can introduce some latency, I really don't notice it with day-to-day use (my NICs do the heavy lifting processing it, not my CPU). Without too much trouble and expense you can make it a nightmare for a government agency (or anyone else) to intrude on your privacy remotely, to the point to where it becomes too resource and time restrictive, even if they're tapped into your regional backbone.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2015, 12:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
On the ISP end they have to break the encryption first (all they know is that someone accessed specific information from somewhere), and they have to do it from one word length segment to the next.
Nope, all they'd have to do is compromise the internal network of a single company, the provider of your service. They won't have to decrypt anything the, the encryption only protects the connection from and to the VPN server. In the internal network, your data is not encrypted. It's a centralized system and once the links are captured by some outside entity, the whole system is tainted. With a decentralized system such as Tor, you can get rid of suspicious or malicious nodes. In fact, the system is built on the assumption that some nodes may not be trustworthy.

BTW, regarding Tor, thanks to the Snowden we know what the NSA thinks about it:
Originally Posted by The Guardian
But the documents suggest that the fundamental security of the Tor service remains intact. One top-secret presentation, titled 'Tor Stinks', states: "We will never be able to de-anonymize all Tor users all the time." It continues: "With manual analysis we can de-anonymize a very small fraction of Tor users," and says the agency has had "no success de-anonymizing a user in response" to a specific request.

Another top-secret presentation calls Tor "the king of high-secure, low-latency internet anonymity".
The full presentation these quotes are taken from is available on one of the websites you've linked to. One slide reads: “Can we exploit nodes? Probably not. Legal and technical challenges.”
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2015, 12:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Nope, all they'd have to do is compromise the internal network of a single company, the provider of your service. They won't have to decrypt anything the, the encryption only protects the connection from and to the VPN server. In the internal network, your data is not encrypted. It's a centralized system and once the links are captured by some outside entity, the whole system is tainted. With a decentralized system such as Tor, you can get rid of suspicious or malicious nodes. In fact, the system is built on the assumption that some nodes may not be trustworthy.
Absolutely wrong, terribly wrong. It's all encrypted VPN data streaming through the ISP to the VPN, who then adds it all to their swarm, authenticates anonymously, decrypts the data with your uniquely generated keys (that they aren't supposed to be tracking), gets the information (at that point even they aren't supposed to know who it's for), encrypts the data again, sets the authentication, filters it back through their swarm, then sends it back to you through your ISP. The ISP can't tell what it is, coming or going, the ISP only sees streams of junk characters to and from the VPN, and they'd have to break the authentication and encryption to find out, which will take years if there's enough of it.

Buy this and read it, it's an amazing primer on the subject of cryptography, in theory and practice.

BTW, regarding Tor, thanks to the Snowden we know what the NSA thinks about it:

The full presentation these quotes are taken from is available on one of the websites you've linked to. One slide reads: “Can we exploit nodes? Probably not. Legal and technical challenges.”
That's a complete smokescreen. Tor is already compromised, and they (those who develop Tor) don't even know the extent of the node infiltration. It should not be used, or only used in conjunction with a reliable VPN service.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2015, 03:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Absolutely wrong, terribly wrong. It's all encrypted VPN data streaming through the ISP to the VPN, who then adds it all to their swarm, authenticates anonymously, decrypts the data with your uniquely generated keys (that they aren't supposed to be tracking), gets the information (at that point even they aren't supposed to know who it's for), encrypts the data again, sets the authentication, filters it back through their swarm, then sends it back to you through your ISP. The ISP can't tell what it is, coming or going, the ISP only sees streams of junk characters to and from the VPN, and they'd have to break the authentication and encryption to find out, which will take years if there's enough of it.
I have to agree with Oreo, Captain. Though you are arguing at cross angles. Note that when you use a VPN for general internet access, you have two ISPs.

Tightpants Secret Lair <---> comcast suckers local co-op ISP <---> VPN service ISP <---> The Internet, Baby!

Oreo is saying your VPN ISP can and does decrypt your data stream before sending it on (correct), while you are arguing your local ISP (before you reach the VPN) cannot decrypt the stream (also correct). Oreo argues that if the NSA compromises your VPN provider, they will see your decrypted stream and the true IP it comes from (correct). Your local ISP would see nothing of the contents.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2015, 11:46 AM
 
It comes down to who do you trust more, your common carrier, who will sell you out for what amount to spare change, or a secure VPN, which has to uphold a reputation for security or they're dead. The latter will do everything in their power to anonymize your data, because they don't want some US federal bureau coming around trying to collect it. Mine in particular uses authentication servers that aren't even located within US or Canadian jurisdiction (as does Private Internet Access, the service I linked earlier), so that makes it even tougher for those agencies to reach. Tor, OTOH, is fundamentally broken, because the feds have compromised the source code for the network and browser, and even run 1000s of nodes within the network itself, including a large number of the all-important exit nodes.

Tek Syndicate series on security, the second explains the broken state of Tor:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3IbBzujtDc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1NYRskDt-Q
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2015, 04:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Absolutely wrong, terribly wrong.
If you don't accept reader's and my explanation of what a VPN is and how it works, that's fine.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Buy this and read it, it's an amazing primer on the subject of cryptography, in theory and practice.
I understand the concept of encryption, the encryption algorithm is not the problem here, because once you can pair a request from the initial IP to the final destination (which is usually unencrypted http, but even if it is https there are attacks) none of that matters. That's why the attacks against Tor aren't focused on decrypting the data (Tor uses the same or better encryption algorithms as many VPNs, it even encrypts it several times, each node pealing away a layer of encryption so that none of them with the exception of the exit node have access to the plain text).
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
That's a complete smokescreen. Tor is already compromised, and they (those who develop Tor) don't even know the extent of the node infiltration. It should not be used, or only used in conjunction with a reliable VPN service.
This article just contains a lot of speculation but doesn't actually say whether it was Tor or something unrelated to it:
Originally Posted by readwrite.com
The volunteers wonder if the webmasters who had their sites taken down were using “adequate operational security,” given that some of the Europol tactics were pretty generic.
Operational security refers to you not revealing details about yourself so that I can reconstruct who you are: if you post an e-mail address via a secure connection, the e-mail address will be a hook that can be used to figure out who you are. The Tor project's blog post mentions that at least one e-mail address of the server providers was public, and they speculate that this is what got them access.

I'd take the word of an internal NSA document over an article with no concrete evidence of a vulnerability. Also the other document you've linked to does not discuss a vulnerability of Tor itself, but rather of the version of Firefox which came with it (which has since been fixed). That kind of attack only works if you attack a particular system, starting from a known endpoint.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Feb 22, 2015 at 04:14 PM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2015, 04:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
The latter will do everything in their power to anonymize your data, because they don't want some US federal bureau coming around trying to collect it. Mine in particular uses authentication servers that aren't even located within US or Canadian jurisdiction (as does Private Internet Access, the service I linked earlier), so that makes it even tougher for those agencies to reach.
Borders mean nothing to the NSA and their friends, your servers are not safer because they are located in some third country. I don't think it's particularly hard for the NSA to crack that network if they put their mind to it. (Those are the guys who made stuxnet, a piece of malware which makes anything before it look like a toy.)

Again, if your worries are a snoopy ISP, your problem is solved with either your VPN-based service or Tor. Against a government agency, the service is much less secure.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Tor, OTOH, is fundamentally broken, because the feds have compromised the source code for the network and browser, and even run 1000s of nodes within the network itself, including a large number of the all-important exit nodes.
You misunderstand how Tor works and the nature of the attack: the Firefox weakness was not due to a planted piece of code, it was an ordinary exploit which exists in all browsers. It was fixed and updated versions of Firefox were no longer susceptible to it. And controlling access nodes does not allow you to back track who the communication was meant for, because one node only knows only where something came from and where the data stream needs to be sent to next. A large number of malevolent exit nodes does open the possibility for a statistical analysis, but so far the success seems limited (as evidenced by the NSA presentation). You can make that harder by adding more hops, but on the other hand, you also want to offer a service with low latency -- and that is really the limiting factor.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2015, 01:15 PM
 
Verizon will fix your landline in a month—or give you wireless right now | Ars Technica
The outage in the Upper West Side began on February 3, resident George Malko told Ars. "Countless calls produce conflicting and flimsy explanations," he wrote in an e-mail Saturday. "A scheduled service call to us in particular was canceled by Verizon. Return to service was first promised for February 17th. Then February 23rd. Now it's February 28th."

Malko lives in a building in the West 80s, where about 200 customers lost all copper service, including voice and Internet. Malko said the outage has affected his whole building and others in the neighborhood.

Verizon confirmed the outage, saying it will take another two weeks to fix. Verizon spokesperson John Bonomo gave Ars an explanation yesterday:
Malko, who subscribes to Verizon for phone service only, declined the Voice Link offer. "Someone called me yesterday, and offered me Voice Link. I asked when service would be restored," he told Ars today. "The gentleman didn't know and said he would have the supervisor call me. Then he again offered me Voice Link. I declined, and explained why: I no longer trusted Verizon, and didn't want to accept Voice Link which Verizon could use an as excuse to prolong the outage. I said that I hoped he understood that my confidence in Verizon had been damaged."
"It's not just the wires that are going bad, it's the switches," said Sherry Lichtenberg, the principal researcher for telecommunications at the Washington-based National Regulatory Research Institute. "It's really hard to find parts."

AT&T officials have said the company sometimes has to scrounge on eBay for parts.
Should they offer free replacement service until they fix the cables. I'm sure these customers will be given this past month free no hassle...
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2015, 03:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Should they offer free replacement service until they fix the cables. I'm sure these customers will be given this past month free no hassle...
Yeah, I wonder how many of those b*tches, a**holes and c*nts don't have to pay for their service next month. (At this point, the jokes is getting old.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2015, 12:34 PM
 
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2015, 01:02 PM
 
It's done. Net neutrality and Title II has passed the FCC vote.

FCC approves Net Neutrality, Title II proposal in 3-2 vote | Electronista
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2015, 01:05 PM
 
It approved regulation of ISPs under certain provisions of Title II as a utility, whether that will bring about Net Neutrality is yet to be seen.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2015, 01:12 PM
 
It's the next big step (the first: actually getting Wheeler to propose it). Now, to the courts!
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2015, 01:18 PM
 
Yeah, to be clear, there's more to go, but the FCC vote is the first step.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2015, 01:20 PM
 
Oh, looking forward to the salty press releases from broadband providers. Pai put on quite a show after the vote.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2015, 04:21 PM
 
FCC’s ‘Throwback Thursday’ Move Imposes 1930s Rules on the Internet | Verizon Public Policy

Verizon is a little pissy. I'd give them credit if we didn't have teletype by 1930.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2015, 12:55 PM
 
Comcast Customers Are Getting Screwed on HBO Go Again
Right now Comcast customers can't get past the activation process. In order to watch HBO Go through your Playstation 4, you'll need to authenticate that you're a subscriber by using your cable login credentials. It's basically the same procedure as logging into HBO Go on your computer.

When you go to pick your HBO provider, however, Comcast isn't on the list.

This isn't the first time that Comcast subscribers haven't gotten the same Home Box Office goodies as everyone else. Back in December, HBO Go launched on Amazon Fire TV for everyone except Comcast customers. At the time, we were told that Comcast was still negotiating the deal to get their customers access over Fire TV. Those negotiations are ongoing.
I don't understand what needs to be negotiated. You pay for internet. You pay for HBO. You bought a PS4. What's missing?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2015, 02:05 PM
 
Are the rates that cable companies pay HBO affected by HBO GO access? If a cable company wants their subscribers to have HBO GO access, would they expect to pay a little more to HBO? Is Comcast refusing to pay more, or is HBO holding out for more?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2015, 02:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
If a cable company wants their subscribers to have HBO GO access, would they expect to pay a little more to HBO?
The other way around, I imagine.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2015, 03:06 PM
 
HBO pays the cable companies/negotiates lower rates? Comcast would rather their subscribers only see HBO via live TV?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2015, 03:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
HBO pays the cable companies/negotiates lower rates? Comcast would rather their subscribers only see HBO via live TV?
That'd be my guess, yes.

1. Comcast has a vested interest in promoting live tv.
2. Comcast has an interest in downplaying streaming
3. Comcast has an interest in not using its bandwidth
4. HBO Go is a benefit advertised by HBO – therefore they should front any costs associated with it (See: Netflix)

It's possible HBO Go breaks some previously held contract, too.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2015, 11:07 PM
 
Comcast wants a kickback? Shocking.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2015, 10:23 AM
 
This strikes me as a prime opportunity for FCC to flex its NN muscles.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2015, 10:31 AM
 
Comcast is not saying when it will make HBO Go available on the PS4 | Ars Technica
Comcast's explanations for this have been vague, as TechDirt points out. HBO Go hit the PS3 in March 2014 yet still isn't available to Comcast customers on that device. With subscribers complaining on a Comcast official forum, a Comcast employee wrote two weeks ago that "HBO Go availability on PS3 (and some other devices) are business decisions and deal with business terms that have not yet been agreed to between the parties. Thanks for your continued patience."

The same apparently holds true for the PS4. When contacted by Ars, a Comcast spokesperson could not provide a time frame for availability. Comcast pointed out that its subscribers can use the HBO Go streaming service on other devices. "Xfinity customers who subscribe to HBO currently have access to the full HBO library via their set to box, or via Xfinity TV Go platforms across devices," Comcast said. "We also currently authenticate more than 90 networks across 18 devices (and we began authenticating HBO and Showtime on Roku last December) so there is no shortage in the number of ways for our customers to access their content across the devices and platforms of their choice."
What. The. ****.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2015, 10:34 AM
 
Hearsay but...
They support the Xbox 360 and the Xbox One, but not the PlayStation 3 or 4. Figures.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2015, 09:39 AM
 
Comcast has tons of objections to California’s “approval” of TWC merger | Ars Technica
Comcast also objects to a requirement that it "offer all of its California customers the ability to use Roku or other independent video programming platforms, on the same basis that Time Warner did prior to the merger." Comcast did not allow HBO and Showtime to stream on Roku devices until months after Roku complained to the FCC, and it has not allowed HBO Go to work on the PS3 and PS4 despite other Internet providers including Time Warner Cable allowing such access. "The Commission has no authority to regulate video programming," Comcast said.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2015, 11:32 AM
 
Trade groups, not Verizon, will reportedly sue FCC over net neutrality | Ars Technica
Suing through trade groups "would allow companies to streamline their litigation efforts and could help firms avoid drawing any fire individually, as Verizon did after it challenged the previous version of net neutrality rules on its own in 2010," the report said.
They can't hate us if we form a Voltron of litigation!
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2015, 04:39 PM
 
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2015, 01:27 AM
 
I have comcast internet and pay for HBO GO. I just tried to put HBO GO on my PS4, only it turns out you can't log in on a PS4 with a comcast account.

WTF?!?!?! I'm paying for HBO GO, why would you not let me use it on a PS4? I'm sorry if I'm late to the party but where do I sign up and who do I talk to about getting me a pitchfork?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2015, 01:28 AM
 
I'd guess that's not a small part of why they've stayed relatively quiet over the last few months.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2015, 01:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Trade groups, not Verizon, will reportedly sue FCC over net neutrality | Ars Technica

They can't hate us if we form a Voltron of litigation!
It's all about marketing. Sadly, they are quite good at it....or rather, they're terrible about it and way too many people still fall for it or neglect the issue altogether. I'm happy with title II, but I'm still skeptical there's some kind of catch somewhere...

I do really like the stricter regulations on honest pricing though, that's decidedly a step in the right direction.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2015, 10:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I have comcast internet and pay for HBO GO. I just tried to put HBO GO on my PS4, only it turns out you can't log in on a PS4 with a comcast account.

WTF?!?!?! I'm paying for HBO GO, why would you not let me use it on a PS4? I'm sorry if I'm late to the party but where do I sign up and who do I talk to about getting me a pitchfork?
I was reading an article about that the other day. Sorry I don't recall offhand or I would provide a link. I think it might have been on theverge.com. In any event it was saying HBO Go was available on a bunch of set top devices but the PS 4 was a notable exception. The speculation is that Comcast wants some sort of payment and Sony refused to play ball. IMO this is downright anti-competitive behavior that should be prohibited. The "free market" is clearly failing in this particular instance.

OAW
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2015, 11:02 AM
 
The "free market" isn't what's causing this, in fact this has nothing to do with the concept. Comcast and other ISPs are hiding behind and abusing existing laws to push other companies around, using the law as a stick to punish and abuse those who disagree with them, or won't cut them in on a piece of the action.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2015, 05:55 PM
 
I think most of us around here have sense enough to realize that I put "free market" in air quotes for a reason. But apparently someone still feels the need to "correct" that which needs no correction. I suppose we should expect no less from our Resident Forum Internet Expert.

OAW
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2015, 08:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I think most of us around here have sense enough to realize that I put "free market" in air quotes for a reason. But apparently someone still feels the need to "correct" that which needs no correction. I suppose we should expect no less from our Resident Forum Internet Expert.
Seek therapy.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2015, 10:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I have comcast internet and pay for HBO GO. I just tried to put HBO GO on my PS4, only it turns out you can't log in on a PS4 with a comcast account.

WTF?!?!?! I'm paying for HBO GO, why would you not let me use it on a PS4? I'm sorry if I'm late to the party but where do I sign up and who do I talk to about getting me a pitchfork?
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I was reading an article about that the other day. Sorry I don't recall offhand or I would provide a link.
It's literally four posts up.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2015, 12:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
It's literally four posts up.
But your post didn't tell me where to get my pitchfork and torch from.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2015, 12:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
But your post didn't tell me where to get my pitchfork and torch from.
You forge your own out of the hate and fury in your heart.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2015, 03:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
You forge your own out of the hate and fury in your heart.
"To the last, I will grapple with thee... from Hell's heart, I stab at thee! For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at Comcast!"
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2015, 12:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I was reading an article about that the other day. Sorry I don't recall offhand or I would provide a link. I think it might have been on theverge.com. In any event it was saying HBO Go was available on a bunch of set top devices but the PS 4 was a notable exception. The speculation is that Comcast wants some sort of payment and Sony refused to play ball. IMO this is downright anti-competitive behavior that should be prohibited. The "free market" is clearly failing in this particular instance.

OAW
Comcast isn't the free market. It's a government sponsored monopoly.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2015, 09:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Comcast isn't the free market. It's a government sponsored monopoly.
Right, but our representatives keep telling us its a healthy free market. I think that's what he was speaking to.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2015, 06:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Right, but our representatives keep telling us its a healthy free market. I think that's what he was speaking to.
Ah, I gotcha.

Just for the record, I firmly believe any free market solution to this problem would involve government regulation to set an even playing field and to enforce antitrust doctrine before it gets out of hand. Just what that legislation looks like is a far more difficult question, but I believe Title II is a step in the right direction. It's just a question of how the FCC manages that new classification (jury will be out on it for a long time to come, so long as comcast et al exist in their current fashion).
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:54 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,