Major yet underreported net neutrality happenings

No one even knows what net neutrality means anymore. You included. It's now a game between two factions of Jews and you don't even know which side you're rooting for.

Try following the money. Who the fuck is "battleforthenet" and where did this suddenly come from? It says they're primarily run by "fightforthefuture". Who the fuck are they? The earliest they showed up on archive.org (archive.is/MLQIl) was the SEIU union running it as a shill site for Dean in 2004:

This website is paid for by SEIU COPE with voluntary contributions from SEIU members and their families and is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.SEIU Committee on Political Education1313 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20005202.898.3200 [email protected]

So you're listening to paid shills trying to raise a personal army. Does this site even give a fuck about what they're shilling or are they just getting grant money from groups like Open Society Foundations? Who knows. They've been almost completely silent since 2004 and just started up again in the 2011-2012 cycle to switch to shilling NN. So they're likely just some rabble-rousing organization for elections to get you to become a hillshill, like a white version of black lives matter.

pretty good examples, I'm learning.
why does net neutrality become the evil it seeks to destroy?

I'll try to enlighten you on the subject; Originally the idea was to take the power over the resource (bandwidth) away from the ISPs and put it under direct control of the Government. It would have worked similar to the power grid where the people have ownership of the resource and if not enough of it was available in one location some would be diverted from another plant that had a surplus of it. It's would have been a nation wide co-op.

Now the problem with this is the Government as it stands can not be trusted. So, like they've done with power they've allowed certain companies to exist with an open monopoly because if the Government takes over completely people cry about socialism/communism. These are valid fears because again, the Government can't be trusted. However, the large media companies/ISPs can not be trusted either. So neither is good for this because both want to profit off of it beyond what is required to run the network. This is why they data mine in addition to just wanting to watch where you go, what you do, and who you interact with.

The only solution is a fresh start, open revolution, guns and blood. But people are content, have food, and are sedated on various drugs. So don't count on that in your life time.

shit, now why is something so vague and poorly understood by even the very people who are running the whole thing, even the concept of what it means being shown or shilled as a good thing on startpage.com? startpage has good intentions but not their strong suite? or are they in on it too? how would they even know?

the world has revolved, flat as it may be. the impossible happened. trump was elected. I wouldn't and couldn't count on many things in my life time until I realized that time itself was fake and nothing through God was impossible.

The President isn't a king and doesn't have the power of one. You won't get anywhere if you continue to have hope in a system that is broken. We're so far from what the founding fathers intended that it isn't even the same system of Government anymore.

I don't disagree with anything you said. I'm still happy that it drives everyone who is evil crazy.

Because in order to change society for the better, you need

People with 1 and 3 won't know what the fuck they're doing and their plan will fail (Scandinavia, Germany)
People with 2 and 3 cannot be trusted to work for the common good and their plans might end up with nightmarish consequences (Big Brother, Stalin)
People with 1 and 2 but not 3 will just sit in their basement and let their ideas get corrupted by the other two people (Marx, me)
Until we get another Hitler we're doomed to suffer under whatever ungodly forces rule us at the given moment.

hey, that's literally just like the tri-force from zelda. courage, wisdom, power.

No, but he can command troops and force any interpretation he wants regarding an existing law using executive orders.

Which are just ignored or put on hold until the next compliant puppet enters the position.

What the fuck are you talking about? Trump has already signed 51 executive orders. Obama signed 276 executive orders and George W. signed 291.

shit thread

Diet Coke is a bad example, you can drink it all day and never get fat, as it has almost no calories. It's your overall diet and caloric intake, along with energy expenditure that matters. It's not the drink's fault some people gorge themselves but hypocritically order a diet coke to try and make up for it. The drink isn't forcing them to do that, and neither do all who drink it get fat.
Better example: PATRIOT act. It sounds like something you want to vote for, based on the name alone (just like "net neutrality"), and any politician who goes against it may end up looking bad, if the MSM can spin it to his detriment. Maybe the names are a way to force some weak-willed politicians to vote the way they want.
The way they (intentionally?) muddy the waters is interesting too. This creates great confusion and hampers discussion amongst the people. Maybe this is one of their alternative methods, because they don't always want to use the same method and become too obvious. Another of their methods is to keep everything super-secret like they did with TPP. How can you discuss and potentially protest something that you don't have any details about? In the case of TPP it was leaked by someone, else we wouldn't know anything until it was in effect.

Net Neutrality' is an oxymoron. As network engineer knows, networks crash if every packet of data is treated equally. Net neutrality is nothing but a government power grab.

all the innovation of the last 40+ years happen precisely because government wasn't calling the shots in the computer industry our telecommunications. The reason you can call cross country from pennies instead of dollars per minute is precisely because we got government out of the business of "keeping protections" for our telecommunications.

Net neutrality seems like 'common sense' to most of the population who have no idea how a digital network operates. Digital networks work precisely because data packets are treated with different priorities. A mission critical app cannot be treated the same was a static webpage, which cannot be prioritized over a stored video, which cannot be prioritized over a streaming video, if you want it all of it to work.

All the innovation in network technology and distributed computing from we have benefited over the last several decades, needed not one iota of input for the government, thank you very much.
It's a government power grab

Government power grab to do what? The government is run by the very same corporations who are opposing net neutrality. The government is run by the very same corporations who are opposing net neutrality. I appreciate that you're arguing for traffic shaping, which I'm aware is a very real thing, but there is a huge gap between maintaining a neutral Quality of Service, and allowing an ISP to prioritize their partner's content. I believe the basis of why traffic shaping currently exists is because certain content needs to get there in time or else the experience isn't acceptable. Removing the regulations basically just makes that a weapon that ISPs can use to decide who can run a successful site and who cannot.

Pai and the cable companies want a more flexible system and lighter regulation, where

internet service providers volunteer to protect net neutrality.

They argue that the rules are hampering investment.

Pai said he hoped to “return to the light-touch regulatory framework that served our nation so well during the Clinton administration, Bush administration, and the first six years of the Obama administration.”

The light touch of the Clinton administration,(they think this is still the net of the 90's)

Pai and the cable companies want a more flexible system and lighter regulation, where internet service providers volunteer to protect net neutrality.

The greatest trick the jew ever pulled in modern times was making people think voting in Trump actually mattered. Look at who he surrounds himself with. Are thing better than they would have been under Hillary? Yes. Did much change? No. Every president submits to the way of things as soon as he's taken into the meeting shortly after begin elected. They all promise you the world and then turn around and work against your interests.
Works just as well at keeping you IN
I still see shit skins flooding the country
Enjoy paying your fine because once laws are in place they're never taken out of the book, just modified to make them more bearable
We knew most of it already and the release was heavily redacted

The fact that he signs orders at all shows he's fine coasting for 8 years. If he'd been what he said he was we'd have major change in progress by now instead of the trend of saying a lot and doing little to nothing. The only benefit is watching idiots foam at the mouth because they think he's Hitler. Now call me a shill from Holla Forums and continue to blindly trust him like an idiot. If he were really looking out for your interests he'd been making changes to the political process so people didn't need billions to have a shot at winning.

Fuck off retard.

There could be many reasons, but I don't trust them to begin with. They aren't honest about risks to their service. I work in networking and I'm well aware from having had to add 'lawful intercept' to VoIP applications that the government isn't sent away with its dick in its hands these days because you didn't write a fucking apache log. It's the same bullshit pitch you get from VPN providers.

Net Neutrality is a giant red herring.
Everyone discusses it so it's a very effective distraction from the real issue: monopolies by ISPs.
Both sides of the argument focus on one point or the other e.g. some focus on the technical (no QoS is dumb), some focus on consumer rights (degrading competing services not part of Media/ISP conglomerate), some focus on weird shit (hurr durr government has to make websites give all sides equal time hurr).

If there was true competition between lots of ISPs, the net neutrality 'issue' would disappear.
If we all had choice, real choice of various ISPs immediately within our areas, the issue disappears because no single ISP
would dare touch basic networking principles
because clients would flock to competitors.
Similarly, all those jewish scams about 'free' downloads not counting to your 20GB limit when using your companies media shit (contour, go90, etc.) would be moot. Again, if there was
real & numerous choice of ISPs
no one would even give a limiting ISP the time of day. Just switch to another.

There should be some legislation, but not legislation on this bullshit called 'net neutrality'. There should be some regular ol-fashioned trust busting, with prohibitions on ISPs owning media companies and owning infrastructure.

Net neutrality is bullshit and a red herring.

(uses archive)
Ignore this ignorant bigot

It's the private company's road,let the market set the toll(we need more than 1 road though)
Private companies laid down all the coaxial, fiber optic, and twisted pair, the routers and DNS servers. The government's internet was strictly between military contractors and the DoD. That was its original purpose, to provide email, Telnet, etc., between the gov and contractors.
All the innovation of the last 40+ years happen precisely because government wasn't calling the shots in the computer industry our telecommunications.

all encrypted VoIP will be verboten

I agree.
However, unregulated markets tend to drift toward oligopolies/cartels/other non-capitalistic markets.
Right now my company needs to find a 2ndary ISP for one of our call centers because Level3 decided to suck Century Link dick and now we don't really have redundant connections.
Defacto ISP monopolies in an area are a negative for many businesses looking to expand

net neutrality is irrelevant in a world where nearly everybody will be using cellullar networks to access the internet

Oh yeah, that reminds me of an ATT tech who visited. He was an old cabler back in the day.
Essentially ATTs magnificent vision for the future is to stick cell boxes in every pole and ignoring fiber and cabling forever.
Hope you like lag

How many Different ISPs can use these pathways in one area?

I don't like cellular internet but it's already reality that normalfags do the bulk of their internet use over heavily shaped and prioritized cellular networks.

The problem again remains the larger ISP monopolies.
At least with cell networks, the larger companies must sell to smaller ones, which helps keep some competition.
Watch, as the legacy ISPs magically declare themselves immune to such rules when they start relying more on wireless.

If there were enough ISPs, you'd see a race to increase data limits, to increase speed, to advertise how they don't track, etc.
In cellular world, it's sort of happening I guess, but again, that's due to regulation that keeps competition alive.

Related question:
How to best get rid of cuck politicians who outlawed municipal/co-op ISPs?
Shoot, hang, or Scaphism?

Why not just intern them and watch them melt when denied access to the aborted fetuses that were keeping them alive?

It would be cringy if it was true. Too bad it isn't. Take a look at what they actually say on the site instead of taking the words of at face value:
It looks to me like they're on the same page.

[[citation needed]]

Isn't it obvious that CEOs have an incentive in making a profit however they can? If they can afford to pay off politicians to do their bidding, then they can have things cheaper than they would be otherwise. Who cares about "free markets" and "rights" when you have a legal obligation to fill up shareholder pockets? Plus, there's plenty of evidence for it - look at how much money is spent on elections in the USA, corporate-funded lobbying groups like ALEC, etc. It's a simple, uncomplicated hypothesis with evidence to back it up. What more do you want?
Now compare this to the practice of selecting random people, enclosing their names in (((echoes))), and making baseless speculations about conspiracies based on collective racial resentment (even though most Jews, especially those in high up positions, are secular).
Which seems more reasonable?

Agreed, but we have to be realistic and consider our options. Teddy Roosevelt-style trustbusting isn't going to happen - too much corporate money for a candidate like that to be even get close to a podium with a large audience. Net neutrality could happen, but it's a bandaid on a flesh wound and will fester in no time (see: FDR and LBJ social services dismantled in no time by Carter and Reagan and Clinton, but huge overhead remains).
Let the worst come and use that as a springboard to shill meshnets.
1. one corporate sector grabs a bigger piece of the pie, angering the others
2. populists (us) argue for meshnets in presentations in public areas (give speeches at libraries, town halls, etc - just make as much noise as possible), talk about prices going up
3. corporations pour down money to enlarge grassroots by adding astroturf (see: Tea Party) because they have common interests with better PR
4. corporate money pours into projects like Netsukuku, making them a reality
5. ???
6. Free software has temporarily advanced and will take decades at least to recommercialize (Linux, Wikipedia, etc) if we're careful
Do this enough times in enough sectors (at a rate faster than libre hardware and software can be sanitized and reintegrated into the system), and everything will be based on free association and free access in due time.
Alternatively, this could (likely) backfire because Google and Facebook will partner up with ISPs to get faster connections to their sites at the expense of smaller ones which can't pay the prices for the fast lane. If there's a conflict between them, they'll have their lawyers talk it out and the chokehold will self-reinforce. If this happens, people won't care because they won't realize the changes until they look for something outside the walled garden. The way to avoid this is to form contacts beforehand so that your solution is proposed first. Once an initiative has bureaucratic momentum, it can be hard to stop.
What we really need is a good way to break echo chambers and expose people to links outside of the machine-learning-curated links from the big sites, because the biggest boon to FLOSS is having lots of people tell each other about it and enlarge the community. Everything costs a lot of money now, though, and FLOSS doesn't make money.

Do you think it's worth learning lisp if solely to write a bot that spits out responses to this bot-written drivel?

...

welcome to FUD

...

mass marketing says hello

...

fry yor 2yr old's neurons

Fuck fiber. PTP laser comms is where it's at.

FYI
Marsha Blackburn (R) TN was the one pushing Net Neutrality - Now she is running for Bob Corker's seat in the senate

...

This and checked.
Former NN = cool
Today's NN = lame

Former NN = hackers unite, developers unite, there's even a cool logo, the rules were simple, open ports/services, treat data equally, improve infrastructure

No one knows what it is anymore yet they're all passionate about it. It's essentially part of a new progressive religion.

I can't wait for NN to die in the US so you come back crying about how mean your ISP is being about not letting you visit Holla Forums and the only website with non sub-dial up modem speeds is Facebook.

Old networking guy here. Original NN was to address the power of last-mile ISPs to use DPI to pick winners and losers on the internet. E.g., they could detect AIM vs MSN traffic and charge one company to fuck the other. The opposition plan was to ban DPI (ironically, the first such plan came from the people who had designed that aspect of PRISM, although I know no one is going to believe that).
ISPs realized they were on shaky ground and came up with a few backup plans. One was to try and defend some pocket of DPI as 'reasonable network management' which while being total bullshit would still give them enough control to be kingmakers (e.g., obliterating your bittorrent traffic at the behe$t of the MPAA was called 'reasonable network management'). This is what they got with the Obama plan which was why it was an absolutely worthless do-nothing plan. However, by that time they didn't need that loophole as they had already put plan B into action.
Plan B was to put caps on bandwidth high enough you'd not squeal at the time ('reasonable network management' again, networking's 'common sense'), not increase them, and as you started to feel the pinch offer you certain sites that would not count against your cap. Of course, they were having these sites pay them for this increased access to you. Aaand they're kingmakers again. But this time, without using sketchy DPI that has a lot of legal risks, only using traditional peering and metering, and so being out of legal danger. If you start thinking how you could make things like this pay-your-way scheme illegal you'll realize how it's almost hopeless as there are plenty of similar legal structures you could cast it to. BT was the first to put this into practice (so brazenly I have no idea how they got nearly no pushback) at which point NN was obsolete.
So with NN obsolete, what is NN even about today? Nothing. But a nothing people are passionate about either way which is a politician's favorite kind of nothing as it can influence you without pissing off the people who sign their (real) paychecks.

In the mid 90's, there were at least half a dozen dialup ISPs in my area that I could subscribe to. Granted they used the existing copper from the phone company. But yeah, mom & pop ISPs were a thing, whereas now it's all huge conglomerates like Time Warner. I would gladly go back to dialup and old Internet (pre-Web 2.0) and simpler hardware tbh.

No.
Net neutrality is and has always been large telephony providers being required by the FCC to allow smaller companies to use their lines without hindrance or deference. That's all it is.

I was working with the group dealing with this at the time and I've given you the inside view of what it was. The FCC didn't come into the picture until many years later. But it doesn't matter anymore, it's whatever you want it to be.

FUD all around with your post.
Net neutrality was a deal by the FCC to force major telephony companies to carry long distance services from other carriers. It then was extended to data services once computer networking became an important commercial deal in the 70's.
Telling me you're a fucking 70 year old man, and that you worked on it in the backrooms and shit.
FUD.

DPI is just as worse as capping.
capping is reasonable the fact that more people who bingewatch netflix or marathon youtube exist today. It's the premium users that are btfo'd by this NN crap. Back then it was easy to acquire ports to set up own mail server and even torrent anything. In some places torrents are good as dead and poisoned. Most routers that come today are just consoles that wouldn't even show the supposedly local CPE when the main router fucks up. It's just insane. Fuck the internet.

hownew.ru?

Ok.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission#Wireline_policy

This isn't wikipedia faggot. I'm not arguing for no traffic shaping because it's needed for the network to even function but if you're denying the leddit crowd didn't jump on the NN bandwagon because it was something pushed by Obama you're simply deluded. Normalfags didn't even know what NN was until that moment in time where the pre-web 2.0 community had been talking about it since the early 90s and probably before then (but I wasn't around for that).

I'm not going to spend an hour searching the web for sources to prove them because I don't have advanced autism. If you were there you'd know.

Still serving that FUD?

It's a bit of a clusterfuck really as we do actually require DPI at some level and will continue to do so because of mistakes made with IPv6. The same group was dealing with ratification of the IPv6 standard so I got a little insight on that although I wasn't very involved.
For flow-based QoS we need some sort of flow identifier. You might be familiar with Linux's conntrack tuple which is basically a flow identifier. E.g., src/dst/proto/sport/dport. See that sport/dport? Requires knowledge of the transport protocol - it's 'deep'. People are most familiar with this re NAT but it's necessary for lots of advanced things. The problem with this is it's something that has to be derived via DPI from the packet and only works with protocols everyone knows how to do it to. In practice, this completely fucked anything that wasn't UDP or TCP and guaranteed we'd never see publicly deployed alternative protocols on IPv4 (for various reasons, UDP encapsulation isn't viable).
So, for IPv6 the idea was to add a flow label to the packet which could be a hash of such a tuple, removing the need for DPI, the impossible task of having to upgrade the whole internet to deploy a new protocol, and also allowing for (optional) flow QoS with IPSEC traffic. But then things went haywire. At the time, people involved in the process were envisioning a very different internet than you have today, one shaped by multicast. The MBONE was a big research focus and folks wanted to be able to deploy it globally (I got to do video conferencing over Internet2 over multicast with global advertisement and it was fucking amazing, by the way) although it was nowhere near ready come time of IPv6 ratification. So that was a big factor in people's minds that led to the 128 bit addressing space, to ensure space for multicast. But that put the squeeze on everything else and the flow label took a big hit. So big that it couldn't scale to the number of connections we now deal with - the hash isn't unique enough. Today it's a practically useless 20 bits in the IPv6 header that people debate what to do with and we're still doing DPI on IPv6 traffic to get a tuple and we've thus probably fucked the next 100 years with only supporting UDP or TCP. Sorry.
Btw, eventually what I hope (pray?) will happen is we'll agree to use some of the ridiculous waste in the addressing space now that multicast is hopelessly dead as a pseudo flow label. E.g., route a /48 to a single machine and create new connections with the conntrack tuple hash used to fill those bits and just ignore the flow label.

...

>(((shitpage)))

Impressive display of autism, user.

I'd also like to add that the pushing of NN hype of leddit is highly suspect considering they are one of the companies that would benefit the most by not having to pay for their bandwidth. They are the same as youtube and netflix in this regard. But if you're for the normalfag web 3.0 I suppose you'd call someone simply pointing it out to be spreading FUD. If you're so interested why don't you go over to jewgle and search for posts about the subject on reddit by date and see when discussion of it exploded over there. Those faggots had it plastered on the front page for weeks and the drones latched on it to and spread it from there. There are so many ELI5 threads on the subject that a megathread was made about it.

Are you sure you weren't one of those that heard about it at that time? You argue just like one. Which basically boils down to no argument because all you're going to do is tell me I'm for big media because I don't support a bill that supports big media with a fancy name that tricks you into thinking Obama was looking out for the common man.

If it looks like shit and smells like shit, I am going to call it shit.

Reflecting is a powerful tool; is it not?
The FCC doesn't see any difference between voice and data transmissions because they are right: there is no difference between voice and data transmissions. They go over the same lines. What is different now is that we are using huge cables of fiberoptics instead of huge cables of twisted-pair.
Net neutrality is nothing about bandwidth. It's only about the telecom companies having no power to restrict service of or defer service for a third-party provider. That's it. It doesn't apply to consumers of telephony services.
Why doesn't net neutrality apply to wireless providers? Why is roaming a thing and why does it still exist? Why do you pay thousands of Dollars a year for your shitty mobile phone service and on top of that pay thousands of Dollars per year for your shitty cable and satellite television, telephone, and internet when it's all the same dumb 0's and 1's being sent to your device and rendered as floppy titties on your screen?

Netflix, Facebook, Google: Those are all customers of the telecom's. They aren't telecom's. They are fucking internet consumers like you are or I am. They are trying to trick the pedant, pissant consumer like you and I into believing they are telecom's and not pedant, pissant consumers themselves.
No. Fuck them. They need to split into a new company if they think they are providing internet connectivity as a backbone service instead of serving content as a targeted service.

All you faggots can take your ad hominems, ad populums, appeals to emotion, and other pathetic arguments and shove them straight up your bloody gaping assholes because you are being fucked hard by whoever pays you for this shilling.

...

...

What a colossal load of horseshit. Better idea:
Eliminate monthly fees, "minutes", charging for text messages, and other nonsense, charge strictly on data (per kilobyte or whatever) instead, legally cap profits at 200% of actual costs. Such a billing structure would also encourage timeshifting activity such as Netflix and Youtube preloading videos throughout the day, rather than streaming in realtime.

Incidentally, the actual price of data? Barely pennies per gigabyte:
dslreports.com/shownews/25-Of-Your-Bill-Actually-Goes-To-Bandwidth-113131

Fucking kike.

archive.is/7Kq9T
Good goy!

Still no argument and the second reply missed the entire point of the post. Congrats, you're even more retarded that I once suspected.

I explained why it is still necessary and what went wrong. Good luck ever finding anyone else on any site that can give you a perspective like that.
It is absolutely necessary. Proper QoS (or, nearly any QoS) is not possible without shaping and you can't effectively shape an over-provisioned line. The huge boom in the MPLS space was almost entirely due to people using it for IPSEC + VoIP rather than out of a need for VLANs.

Satan's posting disinfo again. If you believe anything this tool said, please check yourself out of Holla Forums and never return. Anyone who believes that net neutrality is a barrier to entry for new ISPs in the market is some right-wing retard who is too busy listening and believing some Republican idiot who bitched about regulations being evil anti-free market shit to actually ask the basic question of "which specific regulations are we talking about and what exactly would they do". The basic point of net neutrality is to continue regulating the internet as a public utility and deny ISPs the ability to filter content or demand sites to pay them money for faster internet access. If anything net neutrality preserves the free market by denying ISPs the ability to tax and block whatever digital content they don't like, like maybe internet streaming services if they decide that they'd rather force people to use their own cable TV.

Go be a hipster elsewhere you stupid shit. This is politics and we care about the actual fucking policies, not your bullshit whining that congressmen aren't big enough tech geeks in their speeches to make you happy. The basic issue with net neutrality is that if ISPs aren't regulated as utilities they can basically tell websites "sorry we downgraded your website to the low traffic lane, now pay us cash if you want anyone to ever stream a video or whatever the fuck on your site." To a point it also permits internet censorship

This. Read this fucking post if you haven't already.

And this is where uninformed overly opinionated political nutters come from. Go back to >>>/cuckchan/ where you belong with the rest of the smug low IQ shitters. I liked Holla Forums better before it took in you retards.

You didn't proofread your work.

I didn't imply anything. You inferred it, asshat. Net Neutrality isn't about the provider-consumer relationship; it's only about the provider-competitor relationship. Read a book or something and pull that dick out of your bloody gaping asshole, you've been fucked enough shill.

You're not even a not, you're just stupid.

Nope. Either provide some facts or fuck off.

Polite sage.

...

>(((internet.org)))
>"network neutrality", pic related turned into: "gov't protecc old ISP from alphabet service providers' ability to overthrow old ISPs anytime" + "protecc alphabet service providers from potential (((market))) / disruptive innovators by throttling everything" + "protecc (((national security))) by collecting metadata from the alphabet and the ISP around the (((globe)))"
>binge-watching normies consume lots of bandwith although everything is (((cached))) on local servers from (((ISPs))) around the (((globe)))
>QoS and DPI and (((DPI)))
>"""" (((INTERNET IS FREE? WHY NOT COMMODIFY IT!)))"""" -t. noseknows

Let me guess, the internet will forever stay at speeds less 1Gigabit for normal consumer with: intel ME-tier botnet spynet(c) and overcrowded low QoS Network Normietrality (NN)
What is lost:
>exponential computational power of cloud computing thanks to evolving technology
>capabilities to re-implement internet thanks to the (((global))) (((FCC))) massively banhammering independent mesh network because the government needs approval of those wireless radio spec
Fuck this shit. Did the eastern cabals lost against the western cabals already?

Why don't you just start a petition for a national internet provider? The government builds your roads, and it should also build your digital roads (or buy up existing ones). Stop blaming companies for behaving like companies.

Maybe check out how Finland does it and relay it to your congressmen. Every person has a fundamental right for a 1Mbit/s internet connection in Finland.

No one even knows what net neutrality means anymore. An example is your pic which seems to believe that net neutrality is to prevent losing some sort of network communism where we get more than we pay for. We don't have network communism.

Kikes hate free markets. Kikes operate by lobbying governments to create legal monopolies

Talking out of your ass: the post, NN hasn't been revised.

Shut the fuck up with these lies.
Net Neutrality only applies between telecommunications companies and their competition. It has nothing to do with the consumers of Internet services. Get the fuck off here. Go read a book.

We've already discussed this so much that the old guard simply does not want to discuss it.
To put it simply, Pajeet Pai is a Verizon lawyer and lobbyist. It doesn't get any more clear cut than that.
But if you don't understand what that means, it means that he's just a puppet. Net neutrality under Wheeler was pretty good, and none of the shit retards on Holla Forums were talking about, such as prosecuting people for obscenity, were not possible under Wheeler's rules.
That's because only core provisions of Title II were invoked.
Also the bullshit about the FCC overstepping its authority is also false. This is what the FCC was created to do. The internet is literally a telecommunications network.
So, what did net neutrality do. It means that service providers could not throttle servicesjust because they hadn't paid a toll.
It also regulated agressive depeering. Which means a provider could not agressively de-peer and, in effect, blackmail someone into their terms. The FCC would remediate these peering disputes if they simply could not come to terms.

It had been revised. But only because Verizon took the FCC to court. Since Verizon wanted to cry and shit their pants about it, the FCC invoked the nuclear option: Title II.
The reason Verizon and Comcast and others don't want Title II is because they want to throttle services and promote others (their own.)
It's that simple. So now they've cried and shit their pants so much that they just put a Verizon lobbyist at the wheel to tear it apart.
Hopefully Pajeet Pai gets investigated and has to step down for repealing monopoly protections on TV network ownership. Wouldn't count on it though, and some other lobbyist fuck would just take the position.
Wheeler was a lobbyist, but at least he was a lobbyist from the time that the cable companies were the underdog and actually innovated.

>(((net neutrality))) shills are spamming Holla Forums again
Fuck off. Net Jewtrality was completely co-opted and is full government control of the internet. None of you redditniggers has any sense and keep shilling the same fucking lies for years.
Same shit, same shills, different words. Fucking kill yourselves.

Hello shlomo

>>>Holla Forums10922319
>>>Holla Forums10922220
>>>Holla Forums10921698
>>>Holla Forums10921582

Obamacare = forces one to pay companies for shit health care, subsidizes niggers and jacks up prices

Net Neutrality = forces ISPs not to mingle in data usage or Jack up prices ( niggers don't receive free internet )

Not the same at all retard, NN doesn't go far enough to protect consumers from tech giants but it's good enough for now.

No.
See

First of all the US has the fastest mobile speeds of any country ( albeit capped ) and companies are trying to roll out 5G. Secondly AT&T, Verizon etc are the companies charging thousands per year for their cellular service. By coincidence these same companies paid Pajeet Pai to strip Net Neutrality as it would expose their shitty cable infrastructure in the US.

I know exactly who you are you slithering shill, fuckoff from Holla Forums.

Once again retards itt don't know what they're talking about. This "network neutrality" didn't even apply to mobile broadband. Mobile broadband was not under Title II. Only residential ISPs were.
Yet another reason that Holla Forums has turned to shit thanks to Holla Forums. Smelly, dumb, newfag scum.

And (you) didn't jump on the anti-NN hatewagon just because Obama supported it, right?

So if you haven't already, there's a bot you can text, that helps you write an email or a fax, free of charge, to your senator, or governor. Text "resist" to "504-09" and it'll ask you some questions, then you're onto writing. From another thread a few weeks ago, someone posted this message, and it think it's a great one to send.

"Net Neutrality is the cornerstone of innovation, free speech and democracy on the Internet.

Control over the Internet should remain in the hands of the people who use it every day. The ability to share information without impediment is critical to the progression of technology, science, small business, and culture.

Please stand with the public by protecting Net Neutrality once and for all."

I'd love to credit the user, but have lost the comment, but please, go send some faxes, show your politicians you want net neutrality to stay.

Nice try you leftypol kike, I'm not giving my location.

/neotech/ would actually defend this

Pajeet Pai would actually defend this.

Be like water tbh fam.

This. If you want to know what the current year's (((net neutrality))) will look like just read the rule. It's full of SJWisms, that's enough to know what you need to know.

The fact that we have CIA niggers in here posting in support of it, in their typical know it all, haughty, shilly manner, should be enough to warn you that it's not actually in your interest to support it.

Can you point out in the "rule" or "rules" where there's "SJWism"?
Or are you just going to shitpost like an idiot who thinks he's a comedic genius when in reality he's just a useful idiot who repeats dumb in-jokes all day that stopped being funny months ago?

Most people's idea of NN is some sort of Social Justice / Communist mix. Pics attached from GIS, like NN is to equalize the rich and the poor.

That's not an argument though, concerning the actual rules. And yeah, the illustrations are possible under a system without regulated net neutrality.

...

You see the picture that says net neutrality is a racial justice issue? Racial justice is not a rule of net neutrality. Racial justice is the purpose of net neutrality. Racial justice is a non sequitur to net neutrality. If I connect racial justice to socks just because I say so, that doesn't make it so, that is a non sequitur argument. This is why it's not an argument

The first two pics are completely different from the third. Your attempt to equivocate in circles around the fact that net neutrality is simply the name for "no throttling, please" will not work.

This is some absolutely shameful shilling. How big a cuck do you have to be to pretend that NN is complex or scary, when the only people who stand to gain from killing NN are giant corporations that are in the process of fundamentally harming the current structure of the internet?

This is from like 20 years ago, but whatever.
stuartcheshire.org/rants/InfoHighway.html

...

It's not "no throttling". That's exactly what I'm trying to show you, that people like you want it to be Network Communism when it isn't. If you pay more you go faster and that's the way it always has been and the way it always should be. NN was never intended to eliminate throttling but no one knows what it is anymore. That's why any discussion of it is pointless.

I agree with you.
Net Neutrality only affects Internet Service Providers and their competitors. It has no relevancy to consumers of those Internet services.
But imagine if Big ISP wasn't required to carry over their pipes the data from Medium ISP? It would in effect split the network between Big ISP and Medium ISP.

They aren't. Peering isn't mandatory, and dick wars at the AS level do occur.

Wow. pcworld.com/article/153123/sprint_cogent_dispute.html
Net Neutrality never existed anyways. Where is the argument then?

Nice conflation you got there. Let me lay it out so even a bootlicker like you that gulps down poz from corporate shills can understand how ridiculous this false comparison you're regurgitating is.

Shocking.

So, are you going to admit every "argument" against NN is nebulous FUD by greedy megacorps that want to wall off the net, or are you going to flail your arms and sperg about gay nigger space commies coming to government your intertubes?

What if I told you, my country downgraded all of its modems with terrible "new" ones that doesn't even have QoS management and even NAT, IPSEC, all the good stuff.
What's worse? My previously unlimited data plan now became (50GiB * (n

POO ON THE TUBES AJIT

I hope you enjoy paying an extra $200 for a non-segregated Internet Power User Plus plan or browsing Holla Forums and other sites outside of the Facebook/Google/Twitter normonopoly at 56k modem speeds and only up to 512MB per month for not paying the ISP jew tax.

If net neutrality succeeds, internet pricing shall slowly skyrocket and inflate.
Complete monopoly for the alphabet family namely:
facebook(twitter instagram whatsapp) google(youtube) verizon(yahoo tumblr) most cdn (microsoft google) snapchat tl;dr apps.
It's like the big pharma and big petrol where anyone can literally raise the price however they want because the demand for internet is just the same as the big pharma/petrol. There is always a demand.
Everything will be an app service, even your operating system. There will be no other method to resist against the jew piscean age downfall.
The internet we know today will become obsolete by the time http/3 is implemented.
Everything will be an app service.
Never forget this

Kill your leaders.
No it isn't.

I hope you enjoy never understanding the legislation you're passionate about. Neither side of this battle is on your side.

this is only about turning competitors into customers. instead of providing a quid-pro-quo relationship with competitors, ISP's want to charge competitors costs accrued for routing data. those ISP's will then mitigate additional costs by charging more to their original customers, and these costs will drain down to Joe and Diana Blow and their awesome mobile internet and DSL.

Net neutrality doesn't abolish peering costs or force ISPs to unconditionally lease infrastructure to anyone. This is addressing a different set of anti-consumer practices, like zero rating certain websites and services that an ISP has a monetary interest in while forcing their customers away from competition with low data caps and throttling, as comcast already does with xfinity.

if you are talking about end-consumer Internet, who cares? it's about the big money, and the real ISP's that actually run the Internet are wanting their cake and eating it too.

Fucking kike.

*16GiB daily

I live in PH. the new president is based and sends corrupt leaders to hell or jail left and right and I'm not hotwheels or josh, sorry
It's the previous leader's fault for licking Obama's nigger balls.
Pic related. AKA "the slow and bandwidth cap" list.

You realize the biggest imposer of data caps in your country are the anti-NN "free" ISPs operated directly by sites like Facebook to get 3rd-worlders addicted, by capping access to everyone other than their own sites?

What these net neutrality protections do, beyond residential ISPs, is regulate against agressive depeering, though. Basically, one cannot just pull the plug in an attempt to blackmail another into their demands. The FCC would remediate peering disputes. Which is a good thing.
I agree that the retards itt that don't know people already pay for their transit costs once, and shouldn't have to pay for it again. That's classic rent seeking on part of ISPs.

???:
Shills,zombies:
What actually happens:
Magic? hitting two birds with one stone?
???:
Gee, I wonder.

You also have to pay for a water license. If you want a well of your own you need a well license which costs more than the average worker's salary per year. Sharing water requires another license, that cost a hundred times of the average worker's yearly salary to sign up, and ten time the average salary per year in recurring costs.

Just capture the rainwater that falls on your property into holding tanks.

A water license, a well license, a barrel license, and a water storage license. Rain water licenses are already a thing in some US states.

If, worst case scenario, Holla Forums and all our other favorite websites become throttled, would we be able to get around that by using a VPN? In theory, the ISP won't know what data to throttle if it's encrypted right?

How long before you need an air license so you can breathe?

Rainwater is a limited and shared resource that's comparable to the resource of radio signals. Your breathing of the air does not take away another's breathing of their air.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that the supply of air on earth isn't limited. If you can breathe air for free, you should also be able to collect and drink rain water for free at home. When this is done on an personal scale, it doesn't much affect the greater system. It's only when a business comes into play and does stuff on massive scale that it has significant effects. The real reason the state taxes you is because that's their purpose: to impose themselves on you and destroy personal freedoms. They don't get in the way of big business though, because that's their friends and easy money supply.

Net neutrality has nothing to do with the structure of data plans. With or without net neutrality ISPs are completely free to advertise plans that are throttled to 1/1000th of the available bandwidth, impose 10GB data caps with 2GB increments that cost more than the original plan, charge $1/MB... This is about preventing a ghettoized internet where a handful of big corporations pay to get zero rated for unlimited use but everyone else, Holla Forums included, has to share a slice of the average user's tiny monthly data allowance. It's a world where EA pays your ISP to add an extra 150ms of ping to your Quake III traffic in the hopes you'll play the latest p2w cowadoody lootbox fest instead, or where video streams higher than 360p are blocked so that you'll go watch AT&T Video On Demand instead.

This is a strawman, I've never implied this idea.

Collecting rainwater on a personal scale still affects the greater system. The key lies in the definition of how much is sensible for each individual. Your personal freedom in collecting rainwater has a real effect upon everybody who lives in your general area. Big businesses should be subject to pay for their share of consumption of shared resources. If it has be judged that their rate of consumption is negatively affecting the residents of the area, then their activity should be curtailed to match the needs of the area.

I'll wait for the official release of the proposal tomorrow, but the statement summary seems like it'll be a good thing.

“For almost twenty years, the Internet thrived under the light-touch regulatory approach established by President Clinton and a Republican Congress. This bipartisan framework led the private sector to invest $1.5 trillion building communications networks throughout the United States. And it gave us an Internet economy that became the envy of the world.
“But in 2015, the prior FCC bowed to pressure from President Obama. On a party-line vote, it imposed heavy-handed, utility-style regulations upon the Internet. That decision was a mistake. It’s depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks and deterred innovation.
“Today, I have shared with my colleagues a draft order that would abandon this failed approach and return to the longstanding consensus that served consumers well for decades. Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the Internet. Instead, the FCC would simply require Internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that’s best for them and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can have the technical information they need to innovate.
“Additionally, as a result of my proposal, the Federal Trade Commission will once again be able to police ISPs, protect consumers, and promote competition, just as it did before 2015. Notably, my proposal will put the federal government’s most experienced privacy cop, the FTC, back on the beat to protect consumers’ online privacy.
“Speaking of transparency, when the prior FCC adopted President Obama’s heavy-handed Internet regulations, it refused to let the American people see that plan until weeks after the FCC’s vote. This time, it’ll be different. Specifically, I will publicly release my proposal to restore Internet freedom tomorrow—more than three weeks before the Commission’s December 14 vote.
“Working with my colleagues, I look forward to returning to the light-touch, market-based framework that unleashed the digital revolution and benefited consumers here and around the world.”

Source: fcc.gov/document/chairman-pai-proposes-restore-internet-freedom

I was able to convince a huge Net Neutrality supporter that zero rating is a good approach and that it should not be affected by Net Neutrality rules. I'm not sure if they know what they are fighting for. The vast majority have not read the FCC regulations. They do not know when provisions were to be implemented, how they were delayed, and votes that have occurred since.

I've already seen people say that privacy policies are worthless in response. Yet, this is also a core provision in the previous FCC regulations.

It's not a good thing, you fucking retard. This means that ISPs are now going to be back to regulated under "information services" instead of "common carrier" telecoms.
Notice how the pajeet always says "heavy handed internet regulations" when it's not "internet regulations" it's regulations for internet service providers and peering. It has nothing to do with how people use the internet, and everything to do with regulating ISPs from not being able to fuck you in the ass.
Anyone who's not a retard knew exactly what Pai was going to do. Reclassify ISPs as information service providers with no remediation of peering disputes.

No one except retards like yourself needed to read the bullshit press release. Because you fucking retards fundamentally don't know what you're talking about.

Those are different regulations from the network neutrality stuff, but I wouldn't be surprise if it's just taking a wrecking ball to everything Wheeler accomplished.
Zero rating was never off the table in the network neutrality provisions, you fucking moron. It was not forbidden, at all. All the network neutrality regulations were, were select provisions of Title II applied to ISPs, after reclassifying them as Title II common carriers, and then there was regulating/re-mediating peering disputes.

Further, how could you even come to the conclusion that "zero rating" was forbidden under Title II regulations? POTS has "zero rating", yet it's Title II common carriers.
God damn fucking retards make my blood boil.

I made no such assertion. The only retard here is you.

Then why would it follow that
Zero rating has literally nothing to do with Network Neutrality. It's a separate issue entirely. Who in this thread claimed it did? Why bring it up?
NN only encompasses:
* Title II regulations "common carrier"
* Exceptions to the rules (abuse prevention, E911 priority, etc.)
* Peering dispute remediation

What happened to the hundreds of billions provided to the telecoms by that taxpayer for building a fiber optic infrastructure?
>huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5839394.html

I was responding to an user who mentioned it. Not only do you have poor reading comprehension, you cannot even use this forum or make use of the text search on your browser.

Also note that "abuse prevention" has nothing to do with obscenity or whatever. It has to do with technical abuse of the network and ensuring quality of service, essentially, giving ISPs some leniency but not allowing them to start packaging shit up and throttling any and all traffic they do not want.

Into shareholder's pockets, of course.
Also, there's no actual evidence of "depressed investment." In fact, I've seen a graph that suggested otherwise.
The whole press release is Orwellian bullshit. Only a fool would take it at face value.

Provide your source. You are doing the same thing you are accusing him of doing by omitting it.

I didn't read the second half of the retard's post, he and didn't realize he changed course halfway through.
The first half in does not follow the second half. I agree.
Zero rating is something completely different than throttling from upstream or remediating peering disputes.
I actually just checked the wikipedia entry and people have redefined it. Tim Wu's paper said nothing specifically about "zero rating." It's very true that zero rating could, in theory, violate the spirit, but not the letter of what network neutrality actually is.

2014 onward CapEx
haljsinger.wordpress.com/2017/03/01/2016-broadband-capex-survey-tracking-investment-in-the-title-ii-era/
Note, variability, not depression.
ustelecom.org/sites/default/files/Broadband Investment Down in 2015.pdf
Chart 1: note, not a depression.

In fact, I could make the argument that capex/investment after 2001 was the depression after being regulated as information service providers, in that second link.
Hell, that's probably the case. Why invest when you can just have the government give you billions of dollars to build nothing?

Put up or shut up.

first source
second source
from approximately $77 billion in 2014 according to a new USTelecom analysis of company capital expenditures data (see Chart 1)
A decline in spending, but not a depression. Seems like infrastructure investment is is mostly dependent on the market. If FCC regulations had an impact, then you should see a increase once they are repealed. You will probably see that regardless. Most of those companies are doing far better today than 3 years ago.

Sources were provided. There is a decrease in spending, but not a depression. The balance sheet of those companies show they have more cash and assets today than three years ago. They probably will increase infrastructure spending if the FCC regulations are repealed. Otherwise, it can be pointed out that they had no real impact. Seems like a win either way.

...

It seems most of that infrastructure investment is backbone. Not much of it runs to consumers.

Well no shit, sherlock.
lmao

There is plenty of mobile investment. I can understand the issues of the cable companies and similar ISPs. Eventually, mobile will provide broadband speeds across the nation. Cable companies will remain fragmented across regions. The government might block some mergers now, but they will relent at some point. Combined, broadband providers have good nationwide coverage. Alone, not so much.

Mobile broadband isn't a viable alternative. Too much energy in those radio waves to reach far enough for any reasonable service. Something like distributed public WiFi would be more attractive.

This will only speed up development of master race encrypted peer to peer network

Depending on usage and pricing, it could be a viable alternative for a large segment of the population. There are people who only have Internet access through their phone. For rural areas, it can be better than satellite.

(((Net Neutrality)))

You could call a bill that requires people to ask for preferred pronouns the "Speech Freedom From Discrimination Law" and liberals would support it just because of how it sounds.

...

can tech illiterates please leave this board

This

Private industry would have no internet to invest in if the government had not funded the r&d in the first place.

If the US DOD didn't do arpanet, global Internet would have just turned out differently. But networking in some form was inevitable.

this is one of those beautiful posts where Poe's Law really shines.

As someone right wing, all these youngfag Holla Forums LARPers who dislike NN just because the left/SJWs support it is really embarassing.

...

...

*laughs in europe*

Those FFXIV players are going to lose their shit when NN gets repealed.

Where did you come from and why are you here? Nice job not reading shit I wrote and going on to argue needlessly about things we've rehashed 1,000 times.
Keep pretending you've been here for longer than a week and maybe some newfag will believe you. I'm not citing sources when you have the entire web at your finger tips. If you cared you'd inform yourself instead of relying on random anons. I was there so I know, you obviously weren't.
Have some Trump smug faggot.

...

How can you repeal something that doesn't exist in the first place?

Sites already pay their share of bandwidth costs, you cocksucking faggot. They want to double dip for traffic that their customers requested.

Or, correction: ISPs want to double dip for traffic that their customers requested.

Technically ISPs were regulated as common carriers for only for about a year or two but by the time that Pajeet got in office was around the time where you'd need teeth in the regulations.

Why are you posting then?

I still have the opinion that municipal or county public WiFi is a better option than using cellular bands.

...

All this video needs is toll booths every mile with computer controlled automatic rifles that shoot if you fail to pay the toll. And sometimes even if you do. Truly a paradise.

(((net jewtrality)))

net neutered reality

Really jogs the nog

You have to loose a battle to win a war user

That's not the way bandwidth works, especially at those scales.
Certainly if you're a small business or whatever you pay the going rate. But real companies always negotiate. For example, no big company on Amazon services or Google Cloud pays the public rates.
They already pay for their bandwidth and their peering agreements. It's cable companies fault that they oversubscribe and didn't invest in infrastructure. In the case of Netflix, they even offer a local CDN so it doesn't cross the boundary of the ISP's network.
Youtube and Netflix aren't sending packets that aren't requested. It's quite simple. Ironic shitposting is funny but there's a point where you have to stop. Quit being a fucking retard or leave the board.

Something came to mind that I too go against Net-Neutrality. The force behind the current hubbub is the ISP will block sites if Net-Neutrality doesn't happen. But the flaw with such an argument is to have an actual case of that happening in the USA. For all intents and purposes, if Obama didn't give away our fucking internet to the UN, the US citizens would easily be able to use 1st Amendment cases against ISP if they start blocking sites. More than likely win those cases too. Most importantly, other than shit hold europe, there have been no cases of ISP themselves ever blocking sites in the 1st place.

youtube.com/watch?v=B03eByZia5I

techcrunch.com/2009/07/26/att-blocks-4chan-this-is-going-to-get-ugly/
There are also dozens of reports of certain ISPs blocking torrent sites and throttling SSH connections.

You know, making the corporate Jews at Google pay a higher rate isn’t going to bankrupt them. It might even loosen their monopoly on the search market. Making them renegotiate or finding new providers is something that all companies do...unless they can lobby the government to make it so they don’t have to

I see that, but I also see that if there was to be a court case about the issue, AT&T would lose. My point wasn't just that ISP don't block, but if they do they can be sued under the 1st Amendment in the USA.

So has anybody here actually read the proposed changes? Has anybody here actually read the 2015 order?

2015 Order (400 pages): apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

2015 Order Statements (for and dissenting) at the bottom: fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-order

2017 Proposal (200+ pages, Being voted on December 14, along with other issues): apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347927A1.pdf

2017 Statements/Misc:

fcc.gov/document/fcc-announces-tentative-agenda-december-open-meeting-3

fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom

fcc.gov/document/commissioner-clyburn-fact-sheet-net-neutrality

fcc.gov/document/commissioner-orielly-statement-extensive-december-agenda

fcc.gov/document/rosenworcel-statement-fcc-plan-roll-back-internet-rights

fcc.gov/document/statement-commissioner-carr-restoring-internet-freedom

fcc.gov/document/chairman-pai-proposes-restore-internet-freedom

I hope you at least read the actual proposal then.

We are just here to shitpost, lad.

If you ever find yourself on the same side as google, facebook, reddit, twitter and george soros you're doing something wrong.

If you are ever promoting something that acts in the interests of those groups you just stop.

This tbh.

T-terry?

Can you actually read the proposals and regulations rather than relying on regurgitating FUD?

anyone who actually thinks what reddit, comcast, google, apple, and netflix want you to think is an idiot. They just want it so they save some money on bandwith. It has nothing to do with censorship or anything.

Yeah, look at the reddit front page and admire the levels of mind control that Reddit has over its users.

ITT: Retards who think Google and Facebook just want a “fair, neutral” internet to give an advantage to their competitors.
:^)

I hate reddit so much.

From the 2017 Proposal Page 151-152

Dude, the 2015 order is only 8 pages of regulations. The rest are just writing a short novel on the history of network neutrality, stuff like the Comcast blocking bittorrent, verizon taking them to court, Tim Wu et al, etc.

The big guys don't need to save any money on bandwidth, you fucking retard. If companies like Comcast start throttling them, all they need to do is put a notice in the corner of the screen: Your cable company is slowing down your cat videos/Stranger Things stream.
That's all they need to fucking do, and the problem solves itself.
This is about ISPs being allowed to squash upcoming competition before it takes hold, or protocols they don't like, such as BitTorrent.

No, it's not how it works. They've paid for their bandwidth. Cable companies oversubscribe and don't invest. That is entirely their failure in a business model. It's not anyone else's problem.

Comcast has invested heavily in infrastructure according to links posted in this thread. They were at the top actually.

Also ironically by trying to implying that the order is actually 400 pages and not 8 pages of regulations and 300ish pages of background, you reveal that you haven't actually read the "common carrier" regulations.
I have. I've argued with retards like you before when Wheeler put them in place. I don't need to read the current regulations because I don't need to lose any more brain cells reading Pajeet Pai's shit. Everyone knew that he was going to put ISPs back to Title I and hand wave some bullshit about the FTC being responsible for regulating them.
Yeah, except they're not. Telecoms are FCC's purview. ISPs are telecoms. You cannot argue otherwise.

The 2015 FCC Regulations allow ISPs to create deregulated, curated services. You could see increased rates for standard plans that must conform to Title II provisions while providing a more limited form of Internet at a lower cost.

I was replying to some retard who thinks that YouTube gets their bandwidth for free or some shit. It's some retard who thinks that ISPs are being oppressed by having to put some capex into upgrading their dogshit.
They pay for their bandwidth. By this, I mean that they pay their CDNs. They get a better deal than others. Everyone does at that scale, but they certainly are paying for it. At Google's scale, they're probably connected to IXPs. It's cheaper, certainly, but they're at the scale where they heavily invest into their own infrastructure as well.

Such things are likely to allow cable companies to continue their own VOD offerings. Of course, it could be abused in other ways. Provide a couple thousand white listed sites a user may access for some cheap low-tier plan. Sell it on security, safety, etc. Avoid Title II regulations being a curated service. Consumers see all the typical websites they visit so they purchase that service, cutting themselves off from the greater Internet. You may be promoting something people have been afraid of for 20+ years.

...

That implies that the regulations are actually prohibitively burdensome.
Also, no one said that they couldn't. That sort of "deregulated" service is obviously protected under the First Amendment.
I'd rather choose more expensive plans and not having my ISP touch my fucking packets and let retards buy the filtered plans that are potentially put into place, if they so wish.

Netflix doesn't support regulation anymore because they have the money to burn and offer ISPs CDN boxes if they really want to cry and shit their pants about the boundary. As soon as they became big, they supported deregulation, see Australia.
As for Google and Facebook, I don't see how it's to their benefit either way, and is good for PR. They're so fucking big that they could indundate companies with bad PR for fucking with any of their shit.

Look gentlemen! A cuckchanner thinks he's blending in!

Take your simpsons memetexts back to reddit, "user".

Network guy from here. ISPs block a MASSIVE amount of traffic today, and were explicitly granted the permission to under the Obama "neutrality" plan as 'reasonable network management'. The bill actually made it legally safe to /not/ be neutral - what a shocker that a bill would do something different than its title!
However, Net Neutrality is a zombie - you might think it's alive today but it died about 15 years ago so the bill didn't really make it much worse, just appeased risk-averse Jews.
For a real-world example, AT&T has consumer DSL and business DSL which is often the same modems, same lines, and the same average rate. Where they differ (other than SLA): VPN/IPSEC/switching protocols are usually blocked on consumer DSL but not on business DSL. Business DSL is 10x the cost, by the way. Try it out - send something like GRE or IPIP or SCTP or DCCP over your line and watch it vanish without a trace on the majority of consumer-tier connections in the US/UK. Encapsulation is not competitive and network people at this level know this and buy the business-class service. AT&T justifies the protocol blocking as reasonable network management (they claim alternative protocols are security risks, but apparently not so for businesses) and you have no hope of suing them over it now.

Nigger you couldn't get more retarded if you tried.

You can fool me mr reddit man

Really jogs the nog

I'm reading evidence conscerning otherwise. Mainly people having trouble with shitty ADSL models that have bugs in "DMZ-Plus" mode or MTU values. And I've even found a thread where AT&T reps are helping some retard set up PPTP on a home connection.
Nah, you've lost the argument and aren't citing sources. Unless you can provide a source, none of what you said is true. Listen and habeeb is not a source.

MAYBE IF WE PEOPLE TALKED ABOUT WHAT WAS ACTUALLY IN THE LEGISLATION WHEN THIS SHIT CAME UP INSTEAD OF JUST INVOKING "MUH NET NEUTRALITY" WE COULD ALL HAVE A CLEARER UNDERSTANDING AND MORE PRODUCTIVE DISCOURSE

We've already talked about what was in the "legislation". Also, it's not legislation. It's application of existing legislation. Legislation is congress' job, moron.
Network neutrality is just 8 pages of regulations. It's applying some, not all, Title II regulations towards ISPs, and setting up a process to remediate peering disputes.
That's it. None of this is complicated.

Because talking buzzwords is easier than actually explaining things. Besides, how else would you get good goy points on leddit.

Does this line of shilling remind anybody else of flat taxers, who leap from "We should abolish income tax brackets" to the total nonsequitur of "and this would magically eliminate the thousands of pages of income tax code (99% of which is about itemizing for deductions) to vanish"?

AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon are interesting in money. Google, Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter are interested in suppressing speech. The ISPs are the clear winner here.

Wow, yeah, one set of giant evil megacorps is totally ideologically different from the other, and this dispute between the two groups of megacorps definitely isn't based on the fact that opposing stances by megacorps align 100% with their bottom lines.

That's fine. Your brainwashing medium is going to burn and zero fucks will be given.

Do you want Holla Forums throttled into oblivion, or not?

Unless you're some faggy cyberpunk LARPer who seriously thinks we can completely replace the Internet with a patchwork of pirate meshnets, this isn't about "your brainwashing medium".

Verses being blackballed by social justice warriors for wrong think? I honestly don't care. The Internet going down would be one of the best things to happen to society.

Just stop, it's OK to admit you literally have no argument whatsoever. This is all I've seen from you shills, vagaries about how some site will be throttled.

They aren't throttling chans, they'll be offering a 4k 60fps tier for the people who watch 10 hours of Netflix per day and use 95% of the bandwidth, if anything.

Also if you don't have ham radio by now you don't deserve to be on the chans anyway, you total fucking newb. Even if the Internet went away tomorrow amateur radio will allow us to shitpost freely.

No, wrong, try again. Net neutrality is about the other side, connections between ISPs, not the last-mile connection from an ISP to you.

discord.gg/TCTbUJhttps://discord.gg/TCTbUJ discord.gg/TCTbUJ

Well then it's wrong.
Those are separate issues. AT&T like many other carriers has a poorly designed/tested network that will blackhole packets between size 1492 and 1500. The reason for this is they use LLC encapsulation which is 8 bytes of overhead but they don't properly generate the ICMP response. In addition, they do not properly set MTU to 1492 in their DHCP response and it is usually either missing or set to 1500. They don't notice the problem because they hack the MSS of your TCP handshakes and effectively clamp the MTU at 1492, although they have ruined their network for anything other than TCP that tries to do PMTUD. This is a completely different problem than blocking traffic by protocol on lines where you aren't using NAT. I've talked with them back when we were trying to deploy a DCCP-based system around 2007ish when they started this blocking so I'm aware they're doing it intentionally and what their excuses are.
I am the source. Like I said earlier, I doubt you'll ever run into a better source on any other site as I got to see a lot of the process of all this coming to be and there are a lot of fielded networking devices that can be traced back to me. And there is no argument, I am telling you things.

You can have your amateur license yanked for shit talking. Use a fake callsign and move around a lot unless you want the FCC to tear you a new asshole.

How is it wrong when someone with consumer U-Verse can easily set up a VPN unless they're a drooling retard?

Only a drooling retard would consider PPTP/TLS to be the kind of VPN people would consider a business-tier plan for.
How about some copypaste you can use to see how protocol filtering often differs depending on service tier. Run this on a server:

I seriously hope your argument does not boil down to "you cannot run servers on ports below whatever arbitrary shit on consumer connections."
I run high ports all the time. I run OpenVPN, encrypted bittorrent (not worth much) and a bunch of other shit on high ports.
It's not "protocol filtering", or rather not "protocol-level filtering via DPI" in this case.

Somehow I doubt that they're actually blocking on non-standard ports.

There's an argument to be made that their network abuse list is bullshit, but this is something that could've been fixed within the network neutrality framework. Obviously, if they're blocking non-abusive traffic, it becomes the FCC's issue.

How does getting rid of common carrier regulations solve this?

It seems to have boiled down to you being unable to even copypaste when spoonfed commands.. I hope they find a cure, user.

>(((net jewtrality)))

So you're basically admitting that the AT&T fags can run a VPN, just not a on a standard port, and that your argument about giving companies an excuse (when they did this way before the Title II regulations) was bullshit when you can now complain to the FCC that they're not blocking traffic that's abusive?
Good to know, retard.

I really can't simplify this for you further than giving you commands to copypaste to see filtering yourself. I recall I've done this for you before in another thread too where you couldn't seem to understand what anyone was talking about. Went the same way - you'd refuse to even try it.

I'm familiar with the filtering, you fucking moron, and I don't need to run anything to understand it. I'm saying that the "filtering" doesn't actually prevent you from setting up a VPN. Run it on high ports.
Also, what the fuck does this have to do with the ability to fight filtering of traffic that's obviously not abusing, considering that this "abuse filtering" was done far before Title II regulations took hold?
You're freaking out probably because you made a fool of yourself. 1) there's no real restrictions to running VPNs or servers on non-standard ports and 2) Title II regulations does not give them an "excuse." They did this before, and with the regulations you could take them to task for filtering or blocking non-abusive services.

Until you can admit either of these, just stop posting. I understand you perfectly, but unfortunately you're just wrong, I understand that autists like you get upset when you're wrong, but no one really cares that you're upset after being called out for making stupid insinuations.

What part of the network are you talking about? Any line on your backbone should have 30% max usage anyway. There's no need for QoS there if there's plenty of room left. As for the last mile, if a customer requests QoS, then connect him on some fancy expensive QoS hardware?

So let me get this straight: Before title II regulations were added during Obongo's era there was no "net neutrality", but somehow getting rid of a few specific provisions means the internet is over as we know it? Those website service package images that get posted everywhere are laughable. I'd love to hear how that's supposed to work in practice, are they going to curate and make you pay for every individual website, or just the big ones normalfags care about? In the case of the former, to me they're arguing more that the web is going to become entirely unusable, not 'unfree'. I doubt it's good for business when nobody actually wants the service you're providing, and I'm actually a little eager to see what a world without the web would look like in 2017.

And yet I've never seen anyone speak against NN other than on imageboards, unless you're implying every one of those are paid shills. When I see a bunch of silicone valley faggots getting in a tizzy over this I'm not exactly inclined to rally to their cause. I'd love to see a world where normalfags had to pay 50 bucks extra to access facebook and google.

Yep, it's definitely you. Out of curiosity, what disorder do you have? It doesn't seem the same as autism.

Branch office scenarios like with DMVPN over MPLS. Often mixing in residential and/or cellular as failovers or for creative cost saving.
That'd be us.

Nice ad hominem moron. Do you ever get tired of being stupid?

...

Total disaster. You'll end up with millions of social rejects either turning into hermits or committing suicide.

When the hardware of the network is owned by (((them))), it is pointless to talk about nn.

Wait until a wireless globan p2p network is created... (or probably die first)

No, net neutrality is the historical norm. But prior to the now ISPs were not engaged in such abusive traffic shaping on such a large scale. This is for a number of reasons, such as monopoly-prone broadband only obtaining majority marketshare over dialup by 2004, the related sabotage through neglect of less monopoly-prone DSL in favor of monopoly-prone cable and fiber in the late 2000s (not to mention cellular), decreasing use of TV in favor of online video, and the domination of the web by titans like Facebook and Google over broader traffic across smaller websites.

These changing conditions have gradually created an environment in which ISPs are more and more strongly incentivized to abuse traffic shaping, and in which such abuses are increasingly difficult for others to counter. As such, stronger regulation is now required to maintain the normal state of the Internet.
They already exist right now in many (mostly 3rd-world) countries. Traffic for things inside paid packages are unlimited or have very high caps, traffic for things outside paid packages are harshly throttled or capped.
They're trying to turn the entire Internet into a nightmarish mishmash of iTunes & AOL.
Maybe because anti-NN is such a blatantly obvious corporate powergrab, so completely lacking in any specific supporting "arguments" beyond nebulous FUD, that only kneejerk contrarians could regurgitate it?

Facebook, google, reddit, and the rest of silicon valley wants government control (NN) because they own most of the government.

The ISPs have less control in the government at this point in time so they are anti-NN.

Pro vs Anti NN is just arguing over which corporations will fuck you. Your getting fucked no matter which side wins.

Better the devil you know than the one you don't?

But youtube gets most of their bandwidth for free. They are their own CDN. What they do need to pay for is transit to ISPs who refuse to peer for political reasons, and to access the most remote locations.
they are at alomst all of them.

That's highly customer-specific, though. There's no need to enforce shaping on all customers.

Post pics of your p2p wifi rig, faggot.

It isn't, though. Practically every large business has to deal with this and they go looking for ways to reduce cost. It's why "WAN Optimization" became a big field. I had all this shit implemented before Riverbed but our company has incompetent management and pissed away our lead.

Good luck. You don't own the land your signals go over and they're easy to jam. And with distributed authority, you can't respond to jamming. A simple iperf UDP packetflood would fuck you.

So it's bad because corps will be in control and not corps?

What a low test rebuttal.

A lot of loyalty for a hired bot:
hackernoon.com/more-than-a-million-pro-repeal-net-neutrality-comments-were-likely-faked-e9f0e3ed36a6?gi=63f27d2ac446

Dumb question, does letting ISPs moderate content mean they're responsible for the illegal content that'll undoubtedly go through their systems? I'm mostly thinking about those cesspools of CP that exist on every major site.

NN doesn't matter you fucking niggers. It's just a designated subject for peasants to talk about. The internet was already dead about 10 years ago. I literally can't post anywhere on the internet except this stupid chan because every faggot and his mom is buying into retard ideas like having 10 layers of bloat, IP blacklisting and recaptcha (which just IP blocks you now unless you're a big enough fag to use clearnet, which means it's not even a real captcha). The new Firefux Quantum whatever is complete garbage, my 8 core 3GHz machine can't handle it. I can't talk on any forum because they're infested with retards who deserve the reply "kill yourself" and then some faggot mod bans me because the world is ending since I wrote 2 words. They are making laws against cheating in video games because the peasants are running out of things to be angry at. Next minute it will be illegal to write "kys". The internet is fucking cancer. Tech is fucking cancer. The faggots who meme about NN 24/7 are the faggots who caused this shit.

There are no good forums for talking about real shit because they're full of circlejerking LARPing neckbeards who aren't capable of actual real technical discussion. If I talk about a subject I'm familiar with, such as concurrency, security, networking, PL, OS, or action game networking (FPS, platformer, etc), the only one who engages in the discussion is some LARPing faggot who speaks in terms of memes ("it is caused by le lag or le tickrate", "le problem is unsolvable. not a bug", "muh responsible disclosure", "memory safety is intractable, C is secure", "X is _hard_", "muh password hashing", "muh 2fa") and says I don't know what I'm talking about because they can't match what I'm saying to one of their memes. They _deserve_ a shittier internet.

We need more people on real mediums like Freenet (the idea, not the implementation) that allow you to choose who you want to block via WoT instead of some homosexual moderator who has no purpose. I don't even have internet anymore, it's a fucking waste of money and I don't stand for this fucking post modern consumerist capatalist garbage. I go on at a cafe once a week to download some articles and do some information control. I don't have a car because they're full of consumerist "smart" garbage like ECU, this crap that follows this terrible modern empiricalist "philisophy" like anti lock braking and soon autonomy. You should have trashed your car the moment the car industry officially replied to their remote control vulns with "cars are like smartphones now, they need software updates to be secure". I don't even use computers unironically anymore.

Every fucking program is written by morons tought by morons supervised by morons on stacks of software where each component and the dev tools were designed by such morons. Capitalism is not a good way to design software. Before and after the Eastern Bloc socialism created shit software as well. This is because they're all just writing their component in a way that fills all the check boxes. These check boxes of course were designed by more morons. Nobody programs for the sake of creating a product that fullfills its goal; they program for satisfying the constraints of their company/government/employer, and now, for getting upvotes on the internet. Competence is the exception, not the rule. This is captured in the false "everything has bugs" slogan, which allows freshmen (and freshmen with 15 years of experience) to program the same bullshit with the same XSS, injection and memory safety, concurrency 101, etc bugs time after time. After OpenSSL (a joke protocol and infrastructure in the first place) got the 978471th critical vuln I stopped using the internet for anything serious. I'll come back when either me or someone else redesigns the entire OS and PL from the ground up. Right now as a warmup I'm designing a game in C which if it proves to be feasible, will shake the game industry, and after that I'll finish my redesign of the OS and PL because even then these faggots still wont catch up.

Games are some of the worst offenders of the last wave of internet cancer. Look at Fortnite BR, it's a 100 person free for all. But they ban you for teaming up with people who you can't even talk to (you have to kill each other in the end anyway). So the game is dulled down because this act somehow violates their morals. Then on reddit there are thousands of frothing from the mouth idiots complaining about TKing and saying it should be an automatic ban etc (despite that there are several ways to use TKing to make your team win). I went there to trade strats and instead found a bunch of morons circlejerking and when not, whining about all kinds of issues except the major bugs in the game. They basically have an autistic sense of morals. This is one of the main cancers of the internet I think. People see something happen and then "wait a minute according to my calculations that's against my morals BAN". Another good example is when people say game cheating should be illegal in games where people can buy items because it is "fraud". That is a bit of moral autisim combined with capitalism (comerce is held in the highest regard and it's basically equivalent to blasphemy in a non-secular medieval state if you disrupt it in any way). Then of course in pretty much every game ever you get banned for saying "nigger" because the mod needs something to do.

And yes I know what I'm talking about. You can read my shit at longpoke.github.io, which will probably soon be shut down too by these fucking pampered faggots the internet is infested with. Hosting static content is _hard_.

oh and another thing about Fortnite BR, they have a code of conduct, which I think was the empty string initially but lately they made an announcement that it is against their CoC to by AFK in a squad match, resulting in temp/perm ban. such is the way of the rulecucks

the point of the Internet is that it is experimental, and will always be experimental.
That is Liberty.
That is Internet.

>>dslreports.com/shownews/Reddit-Tumblr-Others-Urge-FCC-to-Keep-Net-Neutrality-Intact-140768

OK I am officially anti-Net neutrality now.

.>>827807

How do you abuse what you own?

You're literally less self-aware than a spam bot buddy.

No, as long as they make a good faith effort.
But don't worry, Holla Forums's favorite reality TV show host has not only wrecked network neutrality, but is in the process of getting rid of the law that doesn't make them responsible for this.
eff.org/deeplinks/2017/11/sesta-approved-senate-commerce-committee-still-awful-bill

But they already have?

We customers "own" the traffic, use of traffic shaping in ways designed to thwart our interests in favor of the ISP's cashflow are abusive.