Major yet underreported net neutrality happenings

Austin Peterson
Austin Peterson

apparently there is a major incomming shitstorm that has flown completely under the radar related to net neutrality. I'm not sure if we are for or against this, if it is good or bad, but startpage.com seems to want to bring it to attention. if you don't know what startpage is, it's a more private search engine for those that don't trust fuckfuckblow

battleforthenet.com/ (this is the website that is linked on the startpage website)

I really thought you should all know. Yes, I did control-f the catalog and hit Zero results on this specific piece of news, so don't become angry with me.

I sincerely hope this helps to raise awareness of important happenings, where previously there was a complete lack of information.

All urls found in this thread:

battleforthenet.com/
archive.fo/MLQIl)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission#Wireline_policy
dslreports.com/shownews/25-Of-Your-Bill-Actually-Goes-To-Bandwidth-113131
archive.is/7Kq9T
stuartcheshire.org/rants/InfoHighway.html
pcworld.com/article/153123/sprint_cogent_dispute.html
fcc.gov/document/chairman-pai-proposes-restore-internet-freedom
huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5839394.html
haljsinger.wordpress.com/2017/03/01/2016-broadband-capex-survey-tracking-investment-in-the-title-ii-era/
ustelecom.org/sites/default/files/Broadband Investment Down in 2015.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=B03eByZia5I
techcrunch.com/2009/07/26/att-blocks-4chan-this-is-going-to-get-ugly/
apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-order
apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347927A1.pdf
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
discord.gg/TCTbUJhttps://discord.gg/TCTbUJ
discord.gg/TCTbUJ
hackernoon.com/more-than-a-million-pro-repeal-net-neutrality-comments-were-likely-faked-e9f0e3ed36a6?gi=63f27d2ac446
longpoke.github.io,
dslreports.com/shownews/Reddit-Tumblr-Others-Urge-FCC-to-Keep-Net-Neutrality-Intact-140768
eff.org/deeplinks/2017/11/sesta-approved-senate-commerce-committee-still-awful-bill

Aiden Adams
Aiden Adams

Net neutrality is the biggest scam since global warming. Enjoy your net monopoly and enjoy paying Obamacare prices for it.

Thomas Hernandez
Thomas Hernandez

from your perspective, what do you understand net neutrality to be? considering that you dislike it, what is the alternative? what is the opposite? why is startpage telling people that the opposite way, that internet monopoly's will have MORE power and do more evil shit to their customers?

Noah Phillips
Noah Phillips

Like the first poster said, though not with the same meaning, it's similar to environmentalism. The leftists back it, so the right has to condemn it, even though it used to be something they supported too.

Cameron Clark
Cameron Clark

that doesn't make any sense. being a trump supporter, I want to know- Is net neutrality good for the internet if you love freedom?

yes or no?

Ryder Carter
Ryder Carter

Is net neutrality good for the internet if you love freedom?
The original idea of it was good. The version that was forced in a bill and baked by the "I fucking love science" crowd was not. They don't even understand what it is but they love to "stick it to the man" even while they're begin fucked over. You can not argue with them because they do not listen to reason. To them net neutrality is begin able to access facekike and jewgle services. They do not care about independent websites, p2p traffic, or anything of a technical nature. They will however go on long winded rants about technical things in an attempt to look like an expert to prove they were "always down" even though they hadn't heard to the concept before 2 CYE.

Juan Torres
Juan Torres

holy shit, your description of them made me cringe really really hard. Is it still worth passing it? is it at the very least harmless, or should i say... Neutral?

Julian Diaz
Julian Diaz

Net neutrality is the movement to have internet service be treated as a utility, i.e. a ploy by certain tech giant companies for the government to officially recognize their monopoly over the industry and be allowed to do what the fuck ever with their service without fear of competition. I don't know what you think it is but I can assure you it's a lie.

Wyatt Garcia
Wyatt Garcia

but I thought that the entire point of net neutrality was to stop the monopolies. it even says this in the link.

Alexander Ross
Alexander Ross

The entire point of communism is to stop tyranny, and of Diet Coke to not make you fat, but look what happens.

David Lopez
David Lopez

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.fo/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 Education
1313 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20005
202.898.3200 [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.

Jace Harris
Jace Harris

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

Evan Moore
Evan Moore

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.

Nolan Smith
Nolan Smith

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?

Dominic Rivera
Dominic Rivera

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.

Camden Foster
Camden Foster

trump was elected
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.

Juan Martin
Juan Martin

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.

Juan Sullivan
Juan Sullivan

Because in order to change society for the better, you need
the will to do good for those around you
the skill to put together a plan that will carry out your goal
the charisma to convince the people around you to enact your plan

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.

Wyatt Young
Wyatt Young

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

Nolan Perry
Nolan Perry

doesn't have the power of one
No, but he can command troops and force any interpretation he wants regarding an existing law using executive orders.

Jacob Myers
Jacob Myers

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.

Easton Gutierrez
Easton Gutierrez

Which are just ignored or put on hold
What the fuck are you talking about? Trump has already signed 51 executive orders. Obama signed 276 executive orders and George W. signed 291.

Levi Smith
Levi Smith

shit thread

Carson Diaz
Carson Diaz

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.

Nathaniel Bailey
Nathaniel Bailey

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

Levi Wood
Levi Wood

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.

Samuel Allen
Samuel Allen

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)

Julian Roberts
Julian Roberts

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

Jacob Gray
Jacob Gray

executive orders matter
in a cuck system where a faggot judge in some far away state can simply block them
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.
but muh wall
Works just as well at keeping you IN
but muh travel bans
I still see shit skins flooding the country
but muh health insurance
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
but muh JFK files
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 /leftypol/ 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.

James Harris
James Harris

The government is run by... corporations
Fuck off retard.

Lucas Rivera
Lucas Rivera

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.
Of course, StartPage would be obligated to comply with legal demands for information from proper government authorities, but because we have no personal information on file, there would be no data to deliver.

Mason Clark
Mason Clark

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.

Gabriel Perry
Gabriel Perry

It's now a game between two factions of Jews
(uses archive)
Ignore this ignorant bigot

Ayden Scott
Ayden Scott

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.

Jordan Turner
Jordan Turner

'lawful intercept' to VoIP applications

all encrypted VoIP will be verboten

Eli Nguyen
Eli Nguyen

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

Daniel Anderson
Daniel Anderson

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

Alexander Hernandez
Alexander Hernandez

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

Thomas Wilson
Thomas Wilson

Private companies laid down all the coaxial, fiber optic, and twisted pair, the routers and DNS servers

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

Robert Garcia
Robert Garcia

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.

Aaron Allen
Aaron Allen

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.

Chase Carter
Chase Carter

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?

Ryder Kelly
Ryder Kelly

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

Colton Miller
Colton Miller

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:
Cable companies are famous for high prices and poor service. Several rank as the most hated companies in America. Now, they're lobbying the FCC and Congress to end net neutrality. Why? It's simple: if they win the power to slow sites down, they can bully any site into paying millions to escape the "slow lane." This would amount to a tax on every sector of the American economy. Every site would cost more, since they'd all have to pay big cable. Worse, it would extinguish the startups and independent voices who can't afford to pay. If we lose net neutrality, the Internet will never be the same.
It looks to me like they're on the same page.
everyone who disagrees with me is uninformed and says what I say they say
[[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.

Angel Long
Angel Long

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

Easton Stewart
Easton Stewart

I disagree with anon, therefore he's a bot

Caleb Smith
Caleb Smith

welcome to FUD

William Rogers
William Rogers

<lobbying is not real
<revolving door isn't real

Parker Russell
Parker Russell

because clients would flock to competitors
mass marketing says hello

Brayden Powell
Brayden Powell

he thinks global warming AND net neutrality are scams

Christopher Allen
Christopher Allen

ATTs magnificent vision for the future is to stick cell boxes in every pole

fry yor 2yr old's neurons

Camden Harris
Camden Harris

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

Parker Walker
Parker Walker

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

Carter Ward
Carter Ward

Rebel Forces occupy Hoth
Gubbimint gets hold of internet
Shuts down Internet
No comms between Hoth and Fleet parked in space
Rebel Forces Stranded on Hoth alone

Jaxon Bell
Jaxon Bell

The original idea of it was good. The version that was forced in a bill and baked by the "I fucking love science" crowd was not. They don't even understand what it is but they love to "stick it to the man" even while they're begin fucked over.
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
<They cannot provide us cheaper high quality internet. improve the entire infrastructure so anyone will enjoy premium services and that way "premium services" will be reasonable to pay. It's fucking 21st century c'mon, we know how "it" werks.
Today's NN = alphabet unite + big transnational ISP connive + guberment officials who don't even know any technicality with network stuff? approve that shit! the rules were complicated. panders to normies who like alphabet services, massive logs, closed ports/services, (((cheaper))) internet for millenials, (((premium lane))) with closed ports no one could even fucking afford aside from alphabet-tards who are reeling in money, and yeah fucking shit consumer-grade routers - bad for the entrepreneurs, the developers (threat to alphabet) good for the existing (((market))) (also win-win the fact that entrepreneurs can't even compete despite the fact that anyone can make facebook clone or youtube clone anyday).
<ISP: we can't provide higher quality internet so at least have these retarded and heavily firewalled addon plans* which are cheap and limiting because the (((majority))) only uses (((facebook))) and (((snapchat))) on their smartphones anyway. We can't improve the entire infrastructure so screw those who consume premium (the hacker/tech/dev societies and the former NN groups) are "(((le))) bad boogieman" who's stealing all your data (((although it's just electricity and load balancing in a nutshell))). Fucc da premium users! Agreed (reddit)

Nolan Diaz
Nolan Diaz

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

Jack Clark
Jack Clark

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 8chan and the only website with non sub-dial up modem speeds is Facebook.

Evan Murphy
Evan Murphy

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.

Ayden Long
Ayden Long

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.

John Johnson
John Johnson

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.

Nathaniel Ward
Nathaniel Ward

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.

Isaac Rivera
Isaac Rivera

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.

Jordan Bennett
Jordan Bennett

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.

NN is obamanet-fcc reddit
hownew.ru?

Logan Kelly
Logan Kelly

Net neutrality was a deal made 30 years before the term net neutrality
Ok.

John Cook
John Cook

In the 1960s, the FCC began allowing other long-distance companies, namely MCI, to offer specialized services. In the 1970s, the FCC allowed other companies to expand offerings to the public.[41] A lawsuit in 1982 led by the Justice Department after AT&T underpriced other companies, resulted in the Breakup of the Bell System from AT&T. Beginning in 1984, the FCC implemented a new goal that all long-distance companies had equal access to the local phone companies' customers.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission#Wireline_policy

Jason Jenkins
Jason Jenkins

[[citation needed]]
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.

Kevin Bailey
Kevin Bailey

Still serving that FUD?

Blake Sanders
Blake Sanders

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.

Nathaniel Flores
Nathaniel Flores

if I call something FUD it'll go away

Matthew Howard
Matthew Howard

(((shitpage)))

Ryan Cox
Ryan Cox

I've decided this thing is the same as that other thing 30 years later
respect my headcannon, shitlord
Impressive display of autism, anon.

Anthony King
Anthony King

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.

Josiah Powell
Josiah Powell

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.

Nathan Long
Nathan Long

The leftists back it, so the right has to condemn it
being this simple minded

Jack Bailey
Jack Bailey

Netflix, Facebook, Google: Those are all customers of the telecom's. They aren't telecom's
im-fucking-plying Google has no pull over telecommunications

Elijah Walker
Elijah Walker

DPI is necessary
shaping is necessary
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

implying telecoms aren't trying to screw them over as hard as possible anyway

Wyatt Stewart
Wyatt Stewart

legally capping profits
Fucking kike.

Isaac Richardson
Isaac Richardson

allowing 97% profit margins on ISPs
archive.is/7Kq9T
Good goy!

Isaiah Cook
Isaiah Cook

If it looks like shit and smells like shit, I am going to call it shit.
Still no argument and the second reply missed the entire point of the post. Congrats, you're even more retarded that I once suspected.

Tyler Reyes
Tyler Reyes

DPI isn't necessary
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.
shaping is necessary
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.

Luis Sanders
Luis Sanders

Satan's posting disinfo again. If you believe anything this tool said, please check yourself out of 8chan 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.

I liked net neutrality better before it was cool
now it sucks bro
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.

I don't need sources faggot.
Obama democrats like it.
That means you should hate it.
And this is where uninformed overly opinionated political nutters come from. Go back to /cuckchan/index.html where you belong with the rest of the smug low IQ shitters. I liked /pol/ better before it took in you retards.

Brayden Lewis
Brayden Lewis

you're even more retarded that I once suspected.
more retarded that I once
retarded that I
You didn't proofread your work.

Angel Mitchell
Angel Mitchell

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.

Henry Jenkins
Henry Jenkins

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

Angel Hill
Angel Hill

shit I just got called out for being an idiot
comebacks are an acceptable response, right?
Nope. Either provide some facts or fuck off.

Polite sage.

Jacob Williams
Jacob Williams

I hate kikes
b-but muh free market

Lincoln Morris
Lincoln Morris

(((internet.org)))
IPv6 botnetized
http/3 botnet
alphabet inc. launching their respective ISPs
"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)))
TPP
"""" (((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
growth potential of blockchain and network computing
crypto anything
Fuck this shit. Did the eastern cabals lost against the western cabals already?

Dominic Edwards
Dominic Edwards

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.

Isaiah Gutierrez
Isaiah Gutierrez

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.

Nicholas Smith
Nicholas Smith

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

Connor Wright
Connor Wright

The version that was forced in a bill and baked by the "I fucking love science" crowd was not.

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

Xavier Morales
Xavier Morales

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.

Parker Thomas
Parker Thomas

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 /pol/ 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.

Michael Cruz
Michael Cruz

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.

Blake Torres
Blake Torres

(((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.
i-if you don't pass this the ISPs will do this crazy multi package piecemeal internet pricing thing that they aren't doing right now without net neutrality passed because uh uh uh uh uh UH UH UH FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR BE AFRAID JUST FUCKING SUPPORT IT REEEEEEEEEEEEE
i-if you don't pass this the health insurers will drop everyone and literally millions of people will die even though that didn't happen before obamacare was passed because uh uh uh uh uh UH UH UH FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR BE AFRAID JUST FUCKING SUPPORT IT REEEEEEEEEEEEE
Same shit, same shills, different words. Fucking kill yourselves.

Robert Carter
Robert Carter

Hello shlomo

/pol/res/10918325.html#10922319
/pol/res/10918325.html#10922220
/pol/res/10918325.html#10921698
/pol/res/10918325.html#10921582

Lucas Turner
Lucas Turner

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.

Sebastian Cruz
Sebastian Cruz

Net Neutrality = forces ISPs not to mingle in data usage or Jack up prices

No.
See

Jacob Hughes
Jacob Hughes

it doesn't cover mobile, thus it's evil

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.

John Wilson
John Wilson

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 /pol/. Smelly, dumb, newfag scum.

Henry Brown
Henry Brown

you're denying the leddit crowd didn't jump on the NN bandwagon because it was something pushed by Obama you're simply deluded

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

Caleb Powell
Caleb Powell

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.

Leo Bailey
Leo Bailey

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

Juan Cook
Juan Cook

some mcfucker tries to push all his traffic through ICMP tunnel
ISP should allow him to do that on full contract speed
/neotech/ would actually defend this

Juan Phillips
Juan Phillips

DPIing someone's ICMP tunnel because you are a joyless, autistic automaton and know how to Cisco(tm) NetFilter(tm)(c) when it's literally hurting nobody, nor degrading the network
Pajeet Pai would actually defend this.

Justin Morris
Justin Morris

using pleb icmp
not making self-modifying custom protocol
Be like water tbh fam.

Samuel Harris
Samuel Harris

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.

Cooper Cooper
Cooper Cooper

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?

Lincoln Rodriguez
Lincoln Rodriguez

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.

Ryder Barnes
Ryder Barnes

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

Leo Allen
Leo Allen

government pitches it as #blacklivesmatter
that's not an argument

Jose Johnson
Jose Johnson

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

Cooper Morgan
Cooper Morgan

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?

Easton Reyes
Easton Reyes

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

Grayson King
Grayson King

when you start basing your views on computers around cyberpunk fiction
alt.normalfags

Cooper Sanchez
Cooper Sanchez

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.

Nicholas Cruz
Nicholas Cruz

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.

Bentley Campbell
Bentley Campbell

But imagine if Big ISP wasn't required to carry over their pipes the data from Medium ISP?
They aren't. Peering isn't mandatory, and dick wars at the AS level do occur.

Ian Wright
Ian Wright

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

Jaxson Brooks
Jaxson Brooks

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.

Connor Thomas
Connor Thomas

Applefag is a dizzy faggot
Shocking.

Elijah Wilson
Elijah Wilson

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?

Aiden Garcia
Aiden Garcia

If you pay more you go faster and that's the way it always has been and the way it always should be.
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<=10)). I used to consume an average of 6GiB daily and It just fucking sucks your internet shits itself in less than a week now. That's net neutrality folks! My ISP won't even issue me unlimited data plan UNLESS I own a company with certain (((documents))).
Net neutrality killed the internet and turned it into a per-consumption subscription for normies. (((Net neutrality))) needs to die.

Parker Foster
Parker Foster

POO ON THE TUBES AJIT

Levi Cruz
Levi Cruz

I hope you enjoy paying an extra $200 for a non-segregated Internet Power User Plus plan or browsing 8chan 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.

Josiah Campbell
Josiah Campbell

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

Cameron Myers
Cameron Myers

my country downgraded all of its modems with terrible "new" ones
Kill your leaders.
That's net neutrality folks!
No it isn't.

Samuel Harris
Samuel Harris

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

John Taylor
John Taylor

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.

Angel Jones
Angel Jones

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.

Owen Murphy
Owen Murphy

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.

Levi Lewis
Levi Lewis

manipulating markets for personal gain
Fucking kike.

Brandon Sanchez
Brandon Sanchez

*16GiB daily
Kill your leaders.
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.
No it isn't.
Pic related. AKA "the slow and bandwidth cap" list.

Matthew Ramirez
Matthew Ramirez

stuff that has nothing to do with the internet and everything to do with the web

pukes out random FUD
berates others about the contents of legislation he doesn't cite any specific objections to

muh caps
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?

Oliver Howard
Oliver Howard

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.

Camden Foster
Camden Foster

???:
charge the data! not the subscription! this will save more of consumer's money copared to our previous internet plans!
Shills,zombies:
NN is good, praise the FCC!
What actually happens:
annual/monthly internet subscriptions are charged while you're also on metered bandwidth at the same time.
Magic? hitting two birds with one stone?
tfw 10K video streaming in 2024
😂 yfw gotta pay them 1.4GB/s bitrate but on top of that you also gotta pay that terabit fiber
internet is now a necessity that both idle and consumed bandwidth are both chargeable
have to separately pay for the size of the tube, the quality of tube, the quality of water, the quantity and speed of water, the provider of water, the provider of tube when all you asked for is fucking water.
???:
kikeaku dori
Gee, I wonder.

Luke Allen
Luke Allen

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.

Cooper Watson
Cooper Watson

Just capture the rainwater that falls on your property into holding tanks.
inb4 u need bucket license

Jason Adams
Jason Adams

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.

Christian Lewis
Christian Lewis

If, worst case scenario, 8chan 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?

Jason Turner
Jason Turner

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

Cooper Robinson
Cooper Robinson

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.

Carter Thompson
Carter Thompson

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.

Justin Edwards
Justin Edwards

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, 8chan 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.

Ayden Jackson
Ayden Jackson

I don't know where you're getting the idea that the supply of air on earth isn't limited.
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.

Daniel Ramirez
Daniel Ramirez

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

Jaxon Reyes
Jaxon Reyes

zero rating
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.

Jaxon Jackson
Jaxon Jackson

but the statement summary seems like it'll be a good thing.
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.
The vast majority have not read the FCC regulations
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.

Liam Wilson
Liam Wilson

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.

Nolan Rodriguez
Nolan Rodriguez

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.

Noah Martinez
Noah Martinez

Then why would it follow that
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.
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

Isaac Smith
Isaac Smith

“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.
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

Gabriel Morgan
Gabriel Morgan

Who in this thread claimed it did? Why bring it up?
I was responding to an anon 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.

Ryder Hernandez
Ryder Hernandez

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.

Chase Hernandez
Chase Hernandez

In fact, I've seen a graph that suggested otherwise.
The whole press release is Orwellian bullshit.
Provide your source. You are doing the same thing you are accusing him of doing by omitting it.

Austin Davis
Austin Davis

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.

Benjamin Butler
Benjamin Butler

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.

Joshua Richardson
Joshua Richardson

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?

Dylan Kelly
Dylan Kelly

I've seen a graph
Put up or shut up.

Noah Morgan
Noah Morgan

first source
Across all twelve firms, domestic broadband capex declined by $3.6 billion, a 5.6 percent decline relative to 2014 levels.
second source
U.S. broadband providers invested approximately $76 billion in network infrastructure in 2015 down
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.

Jose Taylor
Jose Taylor

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.

Julian Rogers
Julian Rogers

he's triggered by the word "equal"

Matthew Lewis
Matthew Lewis

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

Nathaniel Mitchell
Nathaniel Mitchell

You will probably see that regardless.
Well no shit, sherlock.
one year with regulations
IT HAS DEPRESSED INVESTMENT
barely, a single billion down in capex
OH MY GOODNESS WHY WOULD WE EVER INVEST WITH THESE "DRACONIAN" TITLE II REGULATIONS PLZ REPEAL WE DONT WANNA INVEST OUR MONEY EVEN THOUGH WE BLEW BILLIONS FROM THE TAXPAYERS
lmao

Noah Wright
Noah Wright

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.

Jose Collins
Jose Collins

mobile will provide broadband speeds across the nation
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.

Landon King
Landon King

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

Kayden Rodriguez
Kayden Rodriguez

Mobile broadband isn't a viable alternative.
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.

Bentley Williams
Bentley Williams

(((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.

Blake Perez
Blake Perez

he doesn't know that peak internet bandwidth use occurs between 4pm and 10pm and is almost entirely netflix and youtube
he thinks these companies shouldn't have to pay more for hogging the bandwidth

Evan Young
Evan Young

can tech illiterates please leave this board

trump hates net neutrality, /pol/ says net neutrality was made by the jews, so I hate it too!

Nathan Williams
Nathan Williams

This

Lincoln Davis
Lincoln Davis

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

Sebastian Scott
Sebastian Scott

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

Charles Phillips
Charles Phillips

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

Henry Green
Henry Green

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

Joshua Reyes
Joshua Reyes

Anyone with half a brain knows what it is, also I see this exact same reply over and over again. Can the BO perhaps permaban that whole AS?

Brayden Martin
Brayden Martin

*laughs in europe*

Ryder Morales
Ryder Morales

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

Matthew Perez
Matthew Perez

We care
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.
I liked /pol/ better before it took in you retards.
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.
implying /pol/ was ever good
implying you'd even visit a board that allowed debate once upon a time
implying you aren't the exact type of person I was talking about that found out about NN during the so-called "internet blackout" which is basically just big websites complaining about having to pay their share of bandwidth costs
Have some Trump smug faggot.

Oliver Perez
Oliver Perez

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

James Long
James Long

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

Bentley Martinez
Bentley Martinez

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.

Jeremiah Green
Jeremiah Green

I'm not citing sources
Why are you posting then?

Jackson Russell
Jackson Russell

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

Jason Garcia
Jason Garcia

this is the future ancaps want.png

Matthew Long
Matthew Long

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.

Joshua Wright
Joshua Wright

(((net jewtrality)))

Isaac Martin
Isaac Martin

net neutered reality

Charles Baker
Charles Baker

use more bandwidth
pay more
Really jogs the nog

Oliver Rodriguez
Oliver Rodriguez

keep asking my mom to knock when she gets in my room
she never does, have to hide myself jerking off
get an idea
"I will just wait one day for her full on naked"
she walks in on me naked
now she knocks every time before coming in

You have to loose a battle to win a war anon

Jackson Rodriguez
Jackson Rodriguez

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.

Jason Turner
Jason Turner

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.

Matthew Smith
Matthew Smith

youtube.com/watch?v=B03eByZia5I

Nathaniel Ward
Nathaniel Ward

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.

Wyatt Cox
Wyatt Cox

That’s not the way it works
Proceeds to explain in detail that actually that is exactly how it works
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

Julian Clark
Julian Clark

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.

Christian Walker
Christian Walker

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

No one except retards like yourself needed to read the bullshit press release

I hope you at least read the actual proposal then.

Xavier James
Xavier James

he reads relevant material to develop an informed opinion
he doesn’t believe speculation and hyperbole from people for or against
We are just here to shitpost, lad.

Evan Flores
Evan Flores

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.

Joshua Cook
Joshua Cook

This tbh.

Cooper Johnson
Cooper Johnson

T-terry?

Jordan Smith
Jordan Smith

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

Jeremiah Flores
Jeremiah Flores

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.

Dylan Howard
Dylan Howard

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

Alexander Taylor
Alexander Taylor

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

Josiah Young
Josiah Young

pic related has over 18 thousand upboats
I hate reddit so much.

Christian Gray
Christian Gray

From the 2017 Proposal Page 151-152
If anything, recent evidence suggests that hosting services, social media platforms, edge providers, and other providers of virtual Internet infrastructure are more likely to block content on viewpoint grounds.
Cites incidents with Stormfront, Gab.ai, and senators being blocked on Twitter

Mason Miller
Mason Miller

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.

David Ramirez
David Ramirez

to save some money on bandwidth
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.

Jose Davis
Jose Davis

Proceeds to explain in detail that actually that is exactly how it works
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.

Kevin Lewis
Kevin Lewis

Cable companies oversubscribe and don't invest.
Comcast has invested heavily in infrastructure according to links posted in this thread. They were at the top actually.

Matthew Hill
Matthew Hill

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.

Nathaniel Smith
Nathaniel Smith

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.

Alexander Wright
Alexander Wright

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.

Ryder Rogers
Ryder Rogers

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.

Caleb White
Caleb White

Le good corporations like Google and Facebook support NN because they are altruistic and just want a fair internet for their competitors. :^)

Carter Ward
Carter Ward

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.

David Jones
David Jones

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.

Joseph Reed
Joseph Reed

I'm not citing sources
Look gentlemen! A cuckchanner thinks he's blending in!

Xavier Torres
Xavier Torres

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

Jordan Bennett
Jordan Bennett

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.

Xavier Cooper
Xavier Cooper

implying simpsons memes aren't used on imageboards
Nigger you couldn't get more retarded if you tried.

Evan Parker
Evan Parker

You can fool me mr reddit man

Sebastian Kelly
Sebastian Kelly

One set of giant evil megacorps I hate (and overwhelming popular opinion) supports NN, so it must be bad.
Another set of giant evil megacorps I also hate (AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, etc.) are opposed to NN, and have spent way more money on shills.
Really jogs the nog

Jayden Russell
Jayden Russell

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.
anecdotes
security issue
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.

Owen Hall
Owen Hall

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

Zachary Taylor
Zachary Taylor

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.

Austin Gutierrez
Austin Gutierrez

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

Nathan Lee
Nathan Lee

muh hundreds of pages of completely irrelevant commentary
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"?

Carter Green
Carter Green

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.

Zachary Watson
Zachary Watson

ISPs haven't been repeatedly caught censoring speech
ISPs haven't repeatedly been the strongest force for censorship today with their acquiescence to takedown complaints and overreaching ToSs
we haven't had repeated threads about network censorship clear to the CDN level
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.

Nathan Torres
Nathan Torres

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

Carter Cooper
Carter Cooper

Do you want 8chan 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".

Alexander Johnson
Alexander Johnson

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.

Brody Campbell
Brody Campbell

hurr your no name image board is going to be throttled
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.

Jace Jenkins
Jace Jenkins

different bandwidth options for an ISP's subscribers is what net neutrality is about
No, wrong, try again. Net neutrality is about the other side, connections between ISPs, not the last-mile connection from an ISP to you.

Kevin Adams
Kevin Adams

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

Jonathan Gutierrez
Jonathan Gutierrez

I'm reading evidence conscerning otherwise
Well then it's wrong.
Mainly people having trouble with shitty ADSL models that have bugs in "DMZ-Plus" mode or MTU values.
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.
Nah, you've lost the argument and aren't citing sources.
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.

Justin Cox
Justin Cox

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.

Wyatt Collins
Wyatt Collins

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

Zachary White
Zachary White

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:
<socat SCTP-LISTEN:22,fork TCP:localhost:22
and this on a client behind an end-mile ISP with a static IP range and either no NAT or symmetric but consumer-tier service, and then on similar but business-tier service:
<socat SCTP:whateveraddress:22 -
There is frequently a difference in filtering despite there being no difference in capability.

Eli James
Eli James

do this
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.
protocol filtering
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?

Connor Butler
Connor Butler

I seriously hope your argument does not boil down to
It seems to have boiled down to you being unable to even copypaste when spoonfed commands.. I hope they find a cure, anon.

Logan Hernandez
Logan Hernandez

(((net jewtrality)))

Christopher Lopez
Christopher Lopez

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.

Jaxon Jenkins
Jaxon Jenkins

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.

Connor Rogers
Connor Rogers

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.

Gavin Garcia
Gavin Garcia

Proper QoS (or, nearly any QoS) is not possible without shaping and you can't effectively shape an over-provisioned line.
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?

Nathaniel Myers
Nathaniel Myers

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.

Leo Turner
Leo Turner

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

Benjamin Green
Benjamin Green

Branch office scenarios like with DMVPN over MPLS. Often mixing in residential and/or cellular as failovers or for creative cost saving.
then connect him on some fancy expensive QoS hardware
That'd be us.

Nathaniel Jones
Nathaniel Jones

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

John Anderson
John Anderson

I'm actually a little eager to see what a world without the web would look like in 2017
Total disaster. You'll end up with millions of social rejects either turning into hermits or committing suicide.

Bentley Reed
Bentley Reed

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)

David Ward
David Ward

So let me get this straight: Before title II regulations were added during Obongo's era there was no "net neutrality"
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.
Those website service package images that get posted everywhere are laughable. I'd love to hear how that's supposed to work in practice
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.
In the case of the former, to me they're arguing more that the web is going to become entirely unusable, not 'unfree'.
They're trying to turn the entire Internet into a nightmarish mishmash of iTunes & AOL.
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.
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?

nn is bad
<fud btfo
nn won't work
<then why not try it anyway?
le accelerationism blackpill
Nice sour grapes bro
Nice sour grapes bro

Leo Foster
Leo Foster

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.

Daniel Ross
Daniel Ross

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

James Foster
James Foster

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.
probably connected to IXPs
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.

Hunter James
Hunter James

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.

Leo Morgan
Leo Morgan

wireless globan p2p
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.

Easton Taylor
Easton Taylor

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

Cameron Brown
Cameron Brown

What a low test rebuttal.

Nathaniel Anderson
Nathaniel Anderson

old, established, well-connected telecoms like at&t, alcatel, verizon, cingular, time-warner, and comcast don't own the government
telecoms that outspent the other side 2.5-4:1 on lobbying over the issue
upstarts like google, facebook, and (fucking seriously nigger!?) reddit do

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

Levi Brown
Levi Brown

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.

Henry Wilson
Henry Wilson

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.

Easton Russell
Easton Russell

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_.

Evan Wood
Evan Wood

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

Kevin King
Kevin King

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

Bentley Roberts
Bentley Roberts

dslreports.com/shownews/Reddit-Tumblr-Others-Urge-FCC-to-Keep-Net-Neutrality-Intact-140768
Twitter, Reddit, Tumblr, and hundreds of other businesses today wrote a letter to FCC boss Ajit Pai urging him not to dismantle popular net neutrality protections they say protect the nation's small businesses from anti-competitive behavior. Ignoring 22 million mostly oppositional public comments filed to the FCC website, Pai's FCC is scheduled to vote to dismantle the rules on December 14.

OK I am officially anti-Net neutrality now.

Juan Bell
Juan Bell

.>>827807
These changing conditions have gradually created an environment in which ISPs are more and more strongly incentivized to abuse traffic
abuse

How do you abuse what you own?

Samuel Nguyen
Samuel Nguyen

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

Benjamin Reed
Benjamin Reed

No, as long as they make a good faith effort.
But don't worry, /pol/'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

Henry Cox
Henry Cox

online platforms would be forced to take drastic measures to censor their users
But they already have?

Lucas Thompson
Lucas Thompson

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.

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit