Jump to content


Welcome to CyberPhoenix Community

Come as guests, stay as family.


Attention Guests: Please register to view all sections


If you already have an account , please click here to Sign In.


If you have any login related issues you can contact our Support Team at : support@cyberphoenix.org

 

Tech 425

Member Since 04 Feb 2009
Online Last Active Today, 10:16 PM
*****

Topics I've Started

Three Nurses

18 August 2017 - 04:57 PM

Three Nurses

 

 

Three Nurses working in a morgue discover a Dead Man with a hard on, the 1st Nurse says "I can't let that go to waste", & Rides Him.

The 2nd Nurse does the same. The 3rd Nurse hesitates & explains she is on her period, But does him anyway.

 

Then the Man sits up & the 3 Nurses start apologizing saying they thought he was Dead.

 

The Man replies "I was, But after two jump starts & a blood transfusion I feel Freaking Great!!!!" 


CyberPhoenix Staff Position Open

12 August 2017 - 06:41 PM

cp_banner_02.png

 

 

 

 
 
CyberPhoenix is now accepting more hands to help run the website.

If you are interested in becoming a part of our staff then send us your application using the following format:

Username: Your CyberPhoenix Username.
Age: Mature
Experience(s): Follow Instuctions
Position: Downloads Mod and Community Mod


Requirements:

Regular Activity.
A very high level of professionalism.
The ability to work well as part of a team.
Always ready to accept challenge.


Please note : We are looking for members with efficiency and a sense of maturity and professionalism to keep up with the standards of CyberPhoenix
 
 
Position Opens:

ddlmodNEW.pngDownloads Mod
 
smod.pngCommunity Mod
 

Please PM me Tech 425 or Mr Grumpy if you are interested.

Your application(s) will be reviewed by our support team and will be replied to the earliest.


Our Best Wishes,

 
 

Mods_Wanted.jpg

 

4_Header.png


How to Create a System Image Backup in Windows 7, 8, or 10

11 August 2017 - 01:12 PM

How to Create a System Image Backup in Windows 7, 8, or 10
 
 
image.png
 
 
The built-in backup utilities in Windows are pretty solid. Let’s take a look at how to create a full backup image of your PC without the need for a third party utility.
 
Normal backup programs, like CrashPlan or Windows’ built-in File History feature, essentially copy your files to another location. A system image backup, on the other hand, is like a full snapshot of an entire hard drive. The advantage of a system image is that if a hard drive crashes, you can replace it, restore the image, and have your system right back to where it was when the image was captured. No need to reinstall Windows or your apps.
 
The biggest disadvantage with system image backups—other than taking a bit longer—is that you can’t restore the backup to a different PC. You’re creating an image of your full Windows installation and, since Windows is set up specifically for your hardware, it just won’t work as-is in another PC. It would be like trying to plug your hard drive into another PC and expecting everything to load well. With that in mind, though, image backups can still be really handy.
 
Third-party apps like like Macrium Reflect or Acronis True Image—at least, the paid versions—do offer some advanced features you won’t find in the Windows system image backup tool. For example, both support incremental backups, password protected images, and the ability to browse backups for individual files. But free is free, and if you don’t need the extra features, the Windows tool offers a solid way to perform a full backup of your system.
 
 
 
Create a System Image Backup the Easy Way
 
Microsoft might include backup tools in Windows, but they only do the bare minimum and they are confusing. If you want to back up your entire computer the easy way, Acronis True Image 2016 is the way to go.
 
Acronis True Image 2016 can back up your entire computer, including your operating system, applications, and data, and then restore it to the existing computer, or even a completely separate computer.
 
And if you upgrade to Acronis True Image Cloud, you can optionally store a complete backup of your entire computer in the cloud as well as on a local drive.
 
 
Step One: Open System Image Backup
 
The process of finding the System Image Backup tool is different in Windows 7 than in Windows 8 and 10, so we’ll show you to find the tool in all versions, and then explain how to create and use the system image.
 
 
Open System Image Backup in Windows 10
 
In Windows 10, hit Start, type “backup,” and then select the entry.
 
image.png
 
In the “Backup and Restore (Windows 7)” window, click the “Create a system image” link.
 
image.png
 
 
Open System Image Backup in Windows 8
 
In Windows 8, hit Start, type “file history,” and then select the “File History” entry.
 
image.png
 
 
In the “File History” window, click the “System Image Backup” link.
 
image.png
 
 
Open System Image Backup in Windows 7
 
Hit Start, click the arrow to the right of the “Getting Started” item, and then click “Back up your files.”
 
image.png
 
 
In the “Backup and Restore” window, click the “Create a system image” link.
 
image.png
 
 
Step Two: Create a System Image Backup
 
Once you’ve opened the system image tool, the steps for creating a system image are the same in Windows 7, 8, or 10.
 
When you first open the tool, it will scan your system for external drives. You can then decide where you want to save the image. It can be to an external drive, multiple DVD’s, or on a network location. Select where you want to save your backup and then click “Next.”
 
image.png
 
 
By default, the tool only backs up your system drive. You can include other drives if you want, but remember that this will add to the size of the final image. Typically, we like to create separate image backups for each drive.
 
image.png
 
 
At the confirmation screen, notice the amount of space the image may take. If anything doesn’t look right, you can still go back and make adjustments. If everything looks okay, click the “Start Backup” button.
 
image.png
 
 
You’ll see a progress meter as the tool creates the image.
 
image.png
 
 
It can take a while. In this example, we’re backing up a drive with about 319 GB of data. It took about 2.5 hours when backed up to an external hard disk connected to our PC via USB. Your time will vary depending on your PC and the type of storage to which you’re backing up.
 
 
Step Three: Create a System Repair Disc
 
 
When the backup is complete, Windows gives you the option to create a system repair disc. You can use this disc to start your PC and restore from your image backup in the event you ever need to replace your hard drive and can’t start Windows. We highly recommend you go ahead and create the disc, then label and store it in a secure location.
 
image.png
 
 
Select the drive you want to use to create the disc and then click the “Create Disc” button.
 
image.png
 
 
When it comes time to restore the image, you can start your PC from the recovery disc to get access to a number of recovery tools—including “System Image Recovery.”
 
image.png
 
 
Creating an image backup can take some time, so it’s best to do it when you won’t need your computer for a few hours—or even overnight.
 
 
I do the System Image to a External Hard Drive and after it's done I go and rename the backup folder to a name I want as I can make a System Image of another computer to this Drive without it over writing the on I did.

 

 

 
I also upload the Image folder to this Free Backup Host, So I will have a Off Site Backup
http://www.cyberphoenix.org/forum/topic/525226-100gb-free-cloud-storage/?view=getnewpost

Kaspersky Free Antivirus

11 August 2017 - 01:19 AM

Kaspersky Free Antivirus
 
 
image.jpg
 
 
Everybody needs the protection of a powerful, accurate antivirus utility. Is it fair to withhold this protection from those who can't afford it? Eugene Kaspersky, eponymous founder of Kaspersky Lab, thinks not. The brand-new Kaspersky Free offers the full power of the company's malware-fighting technology, minus frills and bonus features. It doesn't cost a thing, and independent testing labs give its protection excellent marks.
 
Like most free antivirus utilities, Kaspersky Free is only free for noncommercial use. During installation, you must create or log into your My Kaspersky account for full activation. The product also installs a toolbar for Chrome, Firefox, and Internet Explorer. Kaspersky Free automatically updates its antivirus database signatures in the background, but it couldn't hurt to manually call for an update right after installation.
 
 
Even though this is a simple, stripped-down product, it's still important for users to understand all its features. To that end, the installation winds up with a simple tour of important aspects of the software. I appreciate that the tour points out Kaspersky's on-screen keyboard, which some users might otherwise miss. More on this tool below.
 
The main window looks just like that of Kaspersky Internet Security, with one significant difference. It displays the same six icons as the suite does: Scan, Database Update, Safe Money, Privacy Protection, Parental Control, and Protection for All Devices. However, only Scan and Database Update are enabled in Kaspersky Free. Grayed-out icons with a royal crown overlay indicate that access to these features requires a premium upgrade.
 
Stellar Lab Results
 
Antivirus testing labs around the world do their best to evaluate security programs and determine which are the most effective. This isn't just a matter of scanning a million static malware samples to see how many the antivirus catches. Most of the labs work to create tests that simulate real-world conditions as closely as possible, and Kaspersky gets outstanding scores from almost all of them.
 
The one exception is Virus Bulletin's RAP (Reactive and Proactive) test. Kaspersky's score in this test is just average. However, I find that results of the RAP test don't necessarily track with the other labs; I give it less weight in my aggregate labs score calculation.
 
image.png
 
The researchers at SE Labs capture real-world malicious websites and use a web traffic playback system to expose all tested products to the exact same web-based attack. Products can earn certification at five levels: AAA, AA, A, B, and C. Like Avast, AVG, and most products in the latest test by this lab, Kaspersky received AAA certification.
 
AV-Comparatives certification works a bit differently. All products that earn the minimum passing score receive Standard certification, while those that do better than the minimum can earn certification at the Advanced or Advanced+ levels. In the four tests from this lab that I follow, Kaspersky received Advanced+ all four times. Bitdefender and Avira also managed to sweep all four tests.
 
Lab Test Results Chart
 
Tests by AV-Test Institute measure antivirus success on three criteria: protection against malware, low impact on performance, and few false positives to impact usability. Software can score up to six points in each of these categories. Kaspersky earned a perfect 18 points from this lab, as did Avira, Norton, and Trend Micro.
 
Most of the labs report their results as certification levels or numeric scores. With MRG-Effitas, products either achieve a near-perfect result or they fail, with no middle ground. In one test, anything but perfect defense is a failure. For the other test, a product that totally prevents all malware attacks earns level 1 certification. If some attacks get through, but the product fully remediates them afterward, that's level 2 certification. Kaspersky passed the first test and earned Level 1 certification in the second; it's the only recent product to do so.
 
Kaspersky's aggregate lab score, based on results from all five labs, is 9.8 of 10 possible points, a result also achieved by Bitdefender Antivirus Free Edition. Avira looks even better, with a perfect 10 points, but its results come from just three of the five labs. Tested by all five labs, both Avast and AVG earned 9.2 points, which is still quite good.
 
Scans and Settings
 
Kaspersky's file antivirus component scans files in real time when any process accesses them. The web antivirus watches for dangerous websites and downloads. And the IM and mail antivirus components check for dangerous attachments and phishing messages. On the Protection tab of the Settings page you can turn these on and off—but you should leave them on. Another 10 components show up as unavailable, meaning you'd have to upgrade to use them.
 
A full system scan of my standard clean test system took 30 minutes, which is quite good, considering that the current average is 45 minutes. Bitdefender and AVG both took over an hour, and Avira Antivirus required more than two hours. Like many antivirus products, Kaspersky performs optimization during the initial scan to speed subsequent scans. A second scan of the same test system finished in a speedy four minutes.
 
In theory, the real-time protection component should handle any malware attacks that occur after your initial full scan. However, you have the option to schedule a full scan or quick scan to run daily, each weekday, each weekend day, weekly, or monthly.
 
Malware Protection Test Results
 
By default, Kaspersky refrains from bothering you when it detects malware, instead dealing with it automatically. Also by default, it doesn't meddle with objects that are probably (but not certainly) infected. For testing purposes, I disabled both of those features, forcing it to check all of its actions with me. Most users should leave those settings checked, allowing Kaspersky to take care of business silently.
 
To start the test, I simply opened the folder containing my current collection of malware samples. The minimal file access caused by Windows Explorer listing the files was sufficient to trigger a scan by Kaspersky's real-time protection. It disinfected virus-infested files and offered to delete non-virus malware. It identified a few samples as "legitimate software that can be used by criminals to damage your computer." I chose to delete those as well, figuring this category is similar to what other products call potentially unwanted applications, or PUAs.
 
When the notifications stopped after a few minutes, I found that Kaspersky had eliminated 57 percent of the samples, the same as Bitdefender. That's on the low side—Emsisoft Anti-Malware and IObit both wiped out 79 percent of the same samples on sight.
 
Continuing the test, I launched the samples that survived real-time protection. The results were disappointing. Matching Bitdefender once again, Kaspersky detected 79 percent of the samples overall. Some of those it detected managed to plant executable traces on the test system, dragging Kaspersky's overall score down to 7.2 of 10 possible points, just a hair above Bitdefender. Tested with the same sample collection, Emsisoft managed 9.4 points. Webroot and Comodo Antivirus achieved a perfect 10 points, but since they came up against my previous sample collection the results aren't directly comparable.
 
Malware Protection Results Chart
 
For another measure of malware protection, I use a feed of very new malware-hosting URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. Typically, these are no more than a day old. I launch each URL and note how the antivirus reacts. Does it divert the browser away from the dangerous URL? Does it halt the download before it finishes? Does it eliminate the malware payload after download? I don't care how it handles the problem as long as it prevents the download.
 
Kaspersky exhibited a wide variety of reactions during this test. In many cases, it displayed a warning message in the browser, plus a pop-up notification that had it blocked a dangerous URL. It offered to block download of legitimate but dangerous software. It advised blocking pages containing adware. Despite this variety of responses, however, it only prevented 67 percent of the malware downloads. Norton holds the top score in this test, with 98 percent protection, and Avira managed 95 percent.
 
When my hands-on results don't sync with the results from the independent labs, especially when all of the labs are involved, I defer to the lab results. Still, I'd be happier with stellar results both in lab tests and in my own tests.
 
Impressive Phishing Protection
 
The same web protection mechanism that keeps your browser from reaching malware-hosting URLs also fends off phishing sites, fraudulent websites that try to steal your login credentials. In fact, you have to look closely to see just which type of protection is active. For malware-hosting sites, the warning page reports "dangerous URL." For phishing pages, it lets you know about a "threat of data loss."
 
i_1.png
 
Phishing websites are transitory things. The fraudsters aim to capture as many passwords as they can before they get backlisted, then they move on to new sites. For testing, I gather the newest phishing URLs I can find from sites that track such things. I launch each URL simultaneously in five browsers and note what happens in each. The product under test protects one browser, naturally, and another has Symantec Norton AntiVirus Basic (which I use as a baseline) at work smacking down frauds. The other three use the phishing protection built into Chrome, Firefox, and Internet Explorer.
 
If any of the browsers throws an error message instead of loading the URL, I toss it. If the page doesn't actively attempt to mimic a secure site and steal login credentials, I toss it. When I've got data on 100 or so valid frauds, I calculate a score.
 
Phishing Protection Results Chart
 
Phishing is more of an art than a science. The clever ploy that gets past detection one week may be a flop the next week. Because of this, I report the difference in each product's detection rate from the other browsers, rather than a hard number. Kaspersky's detection rate came in just one percentage point behind Norton's. Last time I tested Kaspersky, it actually did better than Norton, but coming very close is still quite good—better than about 80 percent of competing products.
 
Kaspersky also did better than the protection built into all three browsers. That may not seem like a feat, but more than half of current products failed to beat at least one of the three, and over 20 percent scored lower than all of them. Bitdefender is the current champion in this test, with a detection rate 12 percentage points better than Norton's.
 
Avast's free edition fared much worse in this test, coming in 57 points behind Norton; the paid Avast did better. AVG AntiVirus Free lagged 70 points behind Norton. Chrome and Internet Explorer beat both Avast and AVG in this test. Kaspersky definitely tops these two as far as phishing protection goes.
 
Few Bonus Features
 
You might think that security companies in general would limit what they give away, reserving the best features for paying customers. In some cases, that's true, but other companies give you a ton of goodies to go along with your free antivirus protection. AVG comes with the Zen remote management tool, a secure deletion shredder, and a web protection component that marks up dangerous search results and actively foils trackers. With Avira, the bonus features come as separate installations, including a free, bandwidth-limited edition of Avira's Phantom VPN, a privacy-centered browser, a vulnerability scanner, and a price comparison tool.
 
Avast Free Antivirus really piles on the bonuses, at no charge. Its Wi-Fi Inspector checks all networks, wired or wireless, for security problems, and recommends fixes. It includes a full-featured (if basic) password manager, a vulnerability scanner, and an ad-stripping browser that switches to hardened Bank Mode for financial transactions. It marks up dangerous links in search results, watches for URL typos, and (like Avira) seeks better prices when you're shopping online.
 
As with Bitdefender Antivirus Free Edition, Kaspersky's bonus feature collection is sparse by comparison. You can activate its previously mentioned on-screen keyboard to type passwords without any chance of capture by a keylogger, even a hardware keylogger. And it installs a free, bandwidth-limited edition of Kaspersky Secure Connection VPN. To be fair, even in Kaspersky's full security suite products, the VPN comes with the same 200MB per day bandwidth limit. Rounding out the free edition's bonus features is a simple search markup system that flags dangerous links and, with a click, identifies the relevant type of danger.
 
 
What's Not Here
 
Eugene Kaspersky referred to Kaspersky Free as "the indispensable basics that no one on the planet should do without." The emphasis here is on basics. While Kaspersky Free does contain all of Kaspersky's basic antivirus technology, some features only appear in the paid edition. For example, at one point during my testing the antivirus suggested running the Microsoft Windows Troubleshooter, but advised that doing so would require an update to a paid edition. Other features present in the paid antivirus but not in the free edition include creation of a bootable Kaspersky Rescue Disk, cleaning traces of browsing activity and computer activity, and scanning the system for vulnerabilities.
 
i_2.png
 
The free edition does offer the same file, web, instant messaging, and mail antivirus components found in the paid edition, but it doesn't include the System Watcher component. Among its other skills, System Watcher can roll back malware activity, including ransomware activity. When I tested Kaspersky Anti-Virus with all protection components except System Watcher turned off, it correctly identified a half-dozen ransomware samples as malware (though it didn't specifically call them out as ransomware).
 
Finally, the free edition doesn't offer the advanced technical support granted to paid users. You can root around in the FAQs and documentation, or post questions in the forums. But you can't get the phone and live chat help that paid users enjoy.
 
A Treat for Kaspersky Fans
 
If you're a Kaspersky enthusiast or a security-conscious person on a tight budget, you'll love the fact that Kaspersky Free gives you all the basics of antivirus protection at no charge. This is the same malware-fighting technology that gets top scores from the independent labs, and it also earned a very good score in our hands-on antiphishing test. It's true that it didn't do so well in our other hands-on tests, but when the labs all praise a product, we listen.
 
This product is completely free, so you can install it and have a look for yourself without spending a penny. 
 
 
Kaspersky Free
https://www.kaspersky.com/free-antivirus?redef=1&reseller=gl_acq-freekasp_leg_ona_oth__onl_b2c__lp-button_kl______
 
More Kaspersky Free Products
http://free.kaspersky.com

As net neutrality dies, one man wants to make Verizon pay for its sins

11 August 2017 - 01:04 AM

As net neutrality dies, one man wants to make Verizon pay for its sins
 
 
image.jpg
 
 
Imagine if you took every single gripe you've had with Verizon over the past five years — the time it blocked Nexus 7 tablets for five months; the time it forced you to pay $20 per month for tethering; the time it tried to make you use a mobile wallet app called "ISIS" — and finally put your foot down. For a year, you spend free moments holed up in library stacks, speaking with experts, and researching and writing a sprawling legal complaint about the company's many, many misdeeds. And then you file it all with the FCC, hoping to get some payback.
 
That's exactly what Alex Nguyen did. And one day very soon, Verizon may have to answer for it.
 
Nguyen is a recent college graduate living in Santa Clara, California. And for much of 2015, he spent his time digging through years of Verizon's public statements and actions, assembling more than 300 citations into a 112-page document that could well have been his master's thesis. (In fact, he studied computer science.) The document catalogs a dozen questionable actions Verizon has taken since 2012, assembling a body of evidence in an attempt to prove that the carrier has violated a number of open internet protections.
 
“Carriers have been doing this forever. Verizon, in particular, has been one of most brazen."

 

 

 
Finally, when he wrapped up in the middle of last year, Nguyen paid a $225 filing fee and handed his complaint over to the FCC. It would end up being the only formal complaint filed under the net neutrality rules.
 
The complaint kicked off a back-and-forth process of objections, evidence discovery, and failed mediation to reach a resolution. Along the way, there have been some hilariously petty digressions, which Nguyen, untrained in the law, has handled patiently. At one point, Verizon objected to his definition of “Verizon” and proposed its own definition. Nguyen then objected to Verizon's objection, saying that Verizon “copied my definition almost verbatim,” which, in fact, it had.
 
Now one year after Nguyen's initial filing date, all the arguing is over, and the case is the in hands of the commission's Enforcement Bureau to either shoot down, deliver a fine, or demand Verizon make some changes.
 
"Verizon and I made our cases," Nguyen said. "It looks as though [the FCC's Enforcement Bureau] staff any day now could make a decision."

 

 

 
Nguyen's complaints are comprehensive and wide-ranging. He points to Verizon temporarily blocking the Nexus 7, third-party iPhone 6s, and third-party Nexus 6s. He brings up Verizon charging people more for bringing their own phones to the network. He argues Verizon compelled phone providers to disable FM radios. He also mentions Verizon blocking PayPal, OneDrive, Samsung Pay, and other built-in apps.
 
Nguyen appears to have used more than two dozen phones and tablets on Verizon
 
Altogether, he alleges, Verizon has violated openness rules in six different ways, ranging from discriminatory pricing, to limiting customer choice, to simply lying about its network.
 
"Carriers have been doing this forever," Nguyen said. "Verizon, in particular, has been one of most brazen."

 

 

 
As an example, Nguyen points to Verizon's handling of the Apple SIM — a SIM card that's designed to let iPad owners change their phone carrier with the press of a button. Sprint and T-Mobile let the SIM card work as intended. But AT&T and Verizon didn't. Asked why, AT&T plainly said it didn't want to. "It's just simply the way we've chosen to do it," a spokesperson told Recode. But Verizon offered a series of explanations that Nguyen doesn't find all that convincing.
 
"With Verizon it's always, 'We're blocking these features as a broad prevention tactic,' or 'It didn't pass our certification requirement that we're not gonna talk about,' or 'It didn't pass these requirements that were never specified,'" he said. "There's always this pattern of deception with Verizon.”
 
i_1.jpg
 
Though Nguyen isn't a lawyer — he currently works in law enforcement — he speaks with the care and precision of one, unwilling to say anything that might be used against him in the proceeding. “I think they're gonna make a case based on the record and the facts,” he said at one point, when asked how he feels about a commission intent on dismantling net neutrality being the one to rule on his complaint.
 
The FCC missed Nguyen's complaint when writing up its proposal to kill net neutrality
 
But Nguyen is freer when talking about why he went through all of this. He loves gadgets, he says, and wants to be able to use them to their fullest extent. In the complaint, Nguyen appears to have used over two dozen phones and tablets on Verizon's network over the past several years. In another one of those petty retorts, however, he refused to confirm exactly which phones he used after being asked by Verizon, saying that the company ought to just look through its own records.
 
“I'm a gadget freak, so I always have lots of stuff, even across multiple carriers besides Verizon,” Nguyen said. Nguyen was originally a Verizon customer through his parents. But eventually he got his own line, despite his problems with the company. “[I'm buying] devices on multiple carriers because I like to tinker.”
 
Though Nguyen has been arguing with Verizon for over a year at this point, his complaint has gone largely unnoticed. Even officials at the FCC may not have known about it. In April, when the commission released the first draft of its proposal to strike down its latest net neutrality rules, the text said that "since these rules were formally codified in 2010, no formal complaints have been filed under them."
 
It turns out, there was one, and only one: Nguyen's. And the commission had to correct for that in the finalized proposal it released a month later. The Verge caught the error and pointed it out in an article the next day. Nguyen, who was still voraciously scanning news about open internet proceedings, took notice.
 
"I've been so busy that, until I read your article, I was unaware that the [FCC's proposal] referenced my complaint," he wrote me in an email the next month. "The error in the draft NPRM released last month raises the question of whether staff forgot to double-check the list of pending formal complaints because they were under pressure to 'focus' on the current chairman's agenda."
 
In the proposal, the FCC questions whether open internet rules are even needed since only a single complaint has been filed under them. "Does the lack of formal complaints indicate that dedicated, formal enforcement procedures are unwarranted?" the proposal asks.
 
Well over 35,000 informal complaints have been filed — but the FCC overlooks them
 
But that phrasing wiggles around something important. The FCC also has an informal complaint system, which doesn't require the months of leg work that can go into a filing like Nguyen's. There's a big difference between the two of them: informal complaints may end with something as simple as an emailed response from the FCC or the ISP, trying to offer help or claiming that nothing's wrong. Formal complaints, on the other hand, are “similar to court proceedings” and are usually argued by lawyers, according to the FCC. And critically, they end with a ruling from the commission's Enforcement Bureau.
 
In addition to requiring far less work, the informal complaint system doesn't require filers to pay a fee, and it's received well over 35,000 complaints so far. In fact, the first informal complaint was filed just a week after the net neutrality rules went into place in June 2015. It was filed by Barry Bahrami, CEO of Commercial Network Services, who said he was being charged unfair rates by Time Warner Cable. But, he says now, it didn't go very well.

"My experience with the whole process was beyond disappointing," Bahrami says. "They really didn't do anything but open a ticket system for us to keep taking stabs at each other."
 
"I would have been fighting an uphill battle."
 

 

 

Bahrami says the problem was never resolved. And though he could have elevated his complaint to the formal level, like Nguyen did, he decided against it — in part because of the money and work that'd be needed. "It wouldn't have been the money, for starters," Bahrami said. "I would have been fighting an uphill battle."
 
Nguyen says his filing, even if it's the only one, is proof that open internet rules and a complaint process are much needed. "I think the record I've shown in the complaint indicates that yes, [carriers will do bad things]," he said.
 
Nguyen's filing was started long before the election and the seemingly imminent repeal of net neutrality, but it's come to feel like a last-ditch effort to get something out of the policy before it's gone — to finally see an internet provider answer for its apparent misdeeds. But the longer the commission goes without ruling on Nguyen's complaint, the bigger the risk that net neutrality will be over before it happens.
 
If that happens, Nguyen has a plan to keep his fight alive. It relies on something called the C Block rules. Verizon is bound to a secondary set of openness rules that it had to accept in order to license a certain slice of wireless spectrum. Because of that, Verizon could still be on the hook for a lot of his complaints, even if the net neutrality order goes down.
 
Verizon is bound to openness rules beyond net neutrality
 
Those rules state that any carrier using that spectrum "shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice." Since the majority of Nguyen's claims involve Verizon blocking access to devices and apps, the FCC should still have to rule on them.
 
Matt Wood, policy director at the communication advocacy group Free Press, said Nguyen's complaint “looked more careful than one might have expected for an average person” and that Nguyen's use of both the net neutrality rules and the C Block rules is “certainly wise [given] where we find ourselves right now.”
 
Verizon has denied all of Nguyen's claims. "Mr. Nugyen (sic) is mistaken,” the company wrote in an email to The Verge. “His complaint misstates the facts and misinterprets the law. Verizon is committed to an open internet and complies with the FCC's transparency and access rules."
 
The commission is now months past its self-imposed deadline for ruling on Nguyen's complaint. Nguyen filed a follow-up note in July urging the enforcement bureau to rule soon, but it still remains unclear when a final decision will come down. The FCC declined to comment.
 
Net neutrality is months away from being reversed
 
It's easy to see why the commission might be dallying on this. The 2015 Open Internet Order is likely to be shot down in the next few months, which would change the facts of this proceeding. And while Verizon may have agreed to these additional openness rules, they're restrictions that current FCC leadership likely isn't a huge fan of. If the commission wants to let Verizon off the hook, waiting ought to make that easier.
 
Nguyen says he's not that worried about his complaint being delayed for political reasons. But he recognizes that it's become even more important now that the net neutrality rules are almost gone. He still hopes for his case to prove "that these things actually do violate the open internet rules." And if he forces Verizon to make some changes, too, then all the better.

Click to return to top of page in style!