Question about net neutrality:
Can't a VPN service render the whole topic obsolete? If going through a VPN, the cable provider doesn't know what site or info you have moving to/from that site, do they?
Maybe there is a silver lining in this: we all get going on VPNs to make the internet more secure.
Other urls found in this thread:
transition.fcc.gov
twitter.com
Theoretically yes, but using a VPN you would have to bounce through a network outside of the country and unless you live right on the Canadian border speeds and latency would be terrible.
there have been stories of ISP's blocking access to download VPNs or the access to the nodes themselves. I'm sure once there are 0 laws in place for them, they will just block VPNs entirely, or sell you a VPN package with a free trial to Hulu or some shit
why not a VPN based in US?
Are you.. trolling?
wow this is the only thread on Sup Forums about net nuetrality
I figured you shitlords would care a bit more about the internet dying and all
especially DIY traps, they might block access to pill sites holy shit
Probably true though, for real..
Companies will find anything to sell u out
They'll probably block VPN traffic but you can easily
>dnscrypt-proxy
>host own VPN
>change ports
>experiment with different protocols, e.g. VPN over SSH
You can't be serious...
I can't wait for them to try this.
Shit will be pushed in on a national level. Every single political canidate will run on a ballot of "Fixing the internet". It will be amazing. We might have a year of shitty internet tops, But at the end of the day we will all be responsible once again for the shit that happens in our world.
If we cared from the start, none of this would have ever happen. We need this to happen so that we can care.
Vote from the rooftops my friends. If you can't beat a broken system shoot out it's legs.
>Vpn now cost money
Ooooppps
Retard alert
>Vpn now cost money
Ooooppps
Retard alert
federal government involvement wont happen in a case where you are bypassing Comcast's network rules. And some VPN providers do not keep logs, so even if the feds went after them, what would they get?
What do you call a retard who made the same post twice?
.....
a retard
Net neutrality is dumb, all this is talk about business's ruining the internet is speculation and conjecture.
ISPs aren't going to block VPNs. They very likely will throttle them though - but they won't call it that. They'll be "normal" traffic, while premium services like Netflix (if they pay to be a premium service) will be "boosted" traffic that gets higher data transmission speeds.
Unthrottled VPN service will probably be available as part of some business plan or a "remote worker" package, for a much higher price.
If you're using a VPN on Comcast's network you're still on their network. The point of a VPN in this instance is to daisy chain to another network outside of your own, not hop to another area of the same network getting throttled all the same.
I perhaps am being stupidly optomistic if the end happens:
Necessity is the mother of all invention
within 9 months we'll all be running a VPN based encrypted traffic for everything on the internet. Or some other new solution that is TBD. The nerd brain will figure it out pretty easily. Traffic throttling becomes meaningless if you dont know what the traffic is.
sounds like you work for Comcast..
"We wont put any caps or throttles on, we'll only offer extra speeeeeeeeedddd"
Net Neutrality was a response to actual things that ISPs were actively doing. It's not conjecture.
Also, none of this might happen. Anyone on that FCC board who votes yes would be committing career suicide.
That's the party line. It's marketing bullshit designed to make it sound like they're not making the internet a biased shitpile for the sake of their own profits.
I'd never work for Comcast.
Comcast was a strong supporter of the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, a piece of legislation that was all about letting content owners force ISPs and websites to block content.
Comcast and other major ISPs have a record of taking steps that amount to throttling--reserving their best-quality interconnection points for those online services that pay a toll to reach their subscribers.
In 2007, Comcast was caught interfering with peer-to-peer traffic. Specifically, it falsified packets of data that fooled users and their peer-to-peer programs into thinking they were transferring files.[20] Comcast initially denied that it interfered with its subscribers' uploads, but later admitted it.
not true. Ajit Pai has many companies that he can get a job making $300K at: Comcats, Att, Cox, Spectrum, etc.
Its the revolving door that sucks here. Pols becomes lobbyists; pols get hired for their influence and access. All of these fed gvt fuckers with a salary of $145K make over $1M with their board seats
That'd be awesome, but I don't have high hopes. One could argue that Ajit Pai is committing career suicide by pushing this. One could also conjecture that his next job is going to be very very cushy.
Comcast: Literally the worst company in America for 15 years straight. Lucky enough to have stayed off of their turf.
so lets say I have a 100MB/s connection
The normal traffic, is it going to be 100MB/s and the fast lanes will be faster than that? If not, they are not fast lanes.
CEO's of these ISP's as well as Ashit Pie should be shot in the dick and then posted on ComcastTube
You are lucky. I find it frustrating when people insist that somehow the idea of all the subscribers they'll lose will keep them in line once Net Neutrality is gone. Because that's the same effective market pressure that's making them so very devoted to excellent customer service right now.
I know but making it a title 2 and classifying it as a utility is dumb, these are businesses that need to make money whether you like it or not, they are providing you a service but are being restricted by government, on the case that they throttle your speeds or disable access to certain websites or services, the FCC will step in, or you as a consumer can leave.
Let me reiterate, political career suicide.
Leave to what? These companies work together to monopolize territories so they can rape everyone unhindered.
Google needs to spread nation wide and fuck all of them out of business.
>on the case that they throttle your speeds or disable access to certain websites or services, the FCC will step in
That's literally what the Net Nuetrality law does you dolt
>or you as a consumer can leave
HOW? I only have 2 options for internet where I live, AT&T and Spectrum. Are you saying I should go without a basic modern utility? Because the internet has become the only way to do certain things in American society friendo
do more research
Wow. Okay, one thing at a time...
They're not going to be a title 2 public utility, which is good since utilities are actually allowed to be monopolies and that's one of the real problems with the broadband industry.
They do need to make money, agreed, but not at the cost of severely damaging the way the internet works. We have laws against dumping toxic waste for the same reason. Make a profit, but don't fuck up the world doing it.
If they throttle certain services next year, the FCC will not step in, they're relinquishing regulatory oversight of ISPs and hoping the Federal Trade Commission will be able to keep things in check. Not that the FTC has been doing that. They're hoping promises from companies like Comcast will be kept, even though they haven't been, generally.
As for leaving, most places in the US have exactly one option for high speed internet. Some parts of some cities have both Cable and DSL as an option. A few lucky people have multiple broadband providers to choose from. And a lot of folks still can't get broadband even if they want it.
I think that about covers it.
Yes i know the FCC stepped in to stop that, but in my opinion it was an overstep, and making it a title 2 IS the fucking reason you have no options in your area, do you even know what a title 2 does to businesses, have you even questioned why you only have 1 power/water company in your area?
yes I understand what it does you ungregarious, condescending nigger
For one, it tells the ISPs they can't tell you what you can and can't do with your bandwidth. Just like how the water company can't charge you extra for using your shower vs watering your lawn. see for proof they will do this once they get the chance
Secondly, how the actual fuck does it impede business? Please give a thorough explanation rather than run around in circles like Ajit Pai and his butt buddies over at Fox """""""""news"""""""""" without ever actually explaining why the ISPs don't reinvest etc.
>inb4 omg I have to explain this
If I see this it just signifies you have know idea how it actually affects the market.
AND BTW
the monopolies existed before "heavy-handed" title 2 regulation. They became monopolies because there was no regulation up until a couple years ago.
I SWEAR ON MY LIFE IF YOU DON'T EXPLAIN HOW TITLE 2 AFFECTS THE MARKET IN DETAIL I'LL FUCKING CONVULSE AND DIE RIGHT HERE.
Like now, you'll pay for a certain speed of service and you'll get some speed that's less than or equal to what you're paying for. It seems very likely that you'll also be getting a data cap on your service and the option to pay for more data if you exceed your cap, automatically added to your bill, no doubt. Some services may not count toward your data cap (assuming those services work out a deal with your ISP and pay for the privilege, presumably passing that cost on to you as a subscription fee).
Your 100MB/s connection will probably be rebranded. You'll buy packages that "enhance your netflix experience" or "fast-track your social media" or some bullshit. I'd expect promises about throughput and speed to stop. Customers have to be trained to think of websites as channels. Nobody ever considers what speed Showtime streams at across their digital cable service. You'll get the Netflix package and it'll work. You'll get the Facebook/Twitter/Instagram package and it'll work. When Netflix is unwatchable because it streams too slowly, your customer support representative will explain to you that you need to buy that package if you want to use that service. VPN packages will probably be available, but I doubt something like Netflix or Youtube will be watchable on them.
Anyway, that's all conjecture and I don't work in the broadband industry. I've just given it a lot of thought and extrapolated from what I've seen cable companies do in the past, what they're doing now, and what other people think they might do going forward.
still dont think so. suicide from the perspective of one side is a hero to the other. Thats how these Pols seem to have suck thick skin - they ignore the naysayers cus they know their peeps got their back. They know if you go into battle for them, you will be rewarded with cushy jobs. Maybe not in public service, but cushy private jobs.
What did you not understand about political career suicide? Private sector is not political, these people will end their political careers and be unable to dictate laws and regulations in the future, no one will endorse or associate with them.
OP here.
Get back on track people.
I got laughed at for my VPN idea, but no real explanation as to why it wouldn't work around an ISP's business rules.
... for as long as their party is not in power. once theirs is back, they are back.
Ajit Pai may be looking for a golden umbrella from Verizon or someone when he leaves the FCC; he might be getting a nice new boat at a good price for his efforts. I don't know, I'm not hearing any facts about that.
My hunch is that he thinks he's doing the right thing. The FCC really isn't chartered for this kind of thing, they're more about keeping tits off of your TV and making sure nobody says the f-word on your radio while you drive to work. Shutting down pirate radio stations and licensing HAM radio operators is still a big part of their day, I imagine. Pai probably thinks its good to get the FCC out of the ISP regulation business. I think he expects the FTC to step up and protect the interests of, well, everyone who's not a big broadband provider. I think he feels he's reducing government interference in the private sector.
If that's so, he's a well-intentioned idiot. Anyway, that's my hunch about the guy. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
I do work for Comcast,
they don't want to throttle VPNS because that shit would bite into our Business sales which is the companies main focus right now.
>If that's so, he's a well-intentioned idiot.
man he's must be really friggen dumb, making all those fake comments on the FCC website and lying about what title 2 does on live air, effectively making it a bi-partisan issue rather than a regulation issue. Pfft how'd he even tie his shoes this morning?
It's easily detectable traffic. They don't know what you're doing with your VPN, but they know you're using one and they know what IP address your VPN is connected to. Traffic from that endpoint out onto the internet they can't detect.
So they're not going to boost your VPN traffic - why would they? It'll be just slightly slower than all your other traffic because of the additional overhead involved. You won't be able to stream YouTube or something faster over the VPN than you would by accessing it directly. For it to be fast, you'd have to pay for the "Streaming Video" package.
They can still throttle the traffic to your VPN.
Can someone explain why working for Verizon. From 01 to 03 means Ajit's working for them now as chairman in 2017
it doesn't
Sup Forums wants to think because he did at one point, he is loyal to them. Verizon is a huge fucking company in the Telacomm biz and it pretty much means he actually knows something about the shit he is regulating. It's a good thing.
So I find myself in the weird position of... actually wanting gvt regulation. In this regard I see the benefit as a consumer and how the ISPs will fuck with us. One of the things he's said is that he wants to roll back gvt regulation. As to your point that he believes he's doing the right thing, well there you go. Cutting gvt regulation is an easy thing to get behind. But in this case I want a very light regulation, as ISPs are monopolies and should be regulated as such, just like power and water companies.
These are the strangest days I've ever known.
.
I'm sure actual business accounts will be entirely different, but you're talking about home accounts, right? Just making sure.
I don't imagine that an inability to stream Netflix would really bite into their business sales much, would it?
Aren't business sales mainly about hooking offices and shops up to the internet anyway? Doesn't really matter what ISP a work-at-home employee might be using - that office still has only the providers in that area to choose from.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like business sales would be fine no matter what Comcast does to its home subscribers.
Shill
I know, right? Ideally, competition would keep things in check - I don't like the regulation either. I'd like it to go away, but not until something just as effective is in place to keep the internet neutral. We won't have that by mid December.
ok. thanks. got it.
so back to my innovation comment much earlier. perhaps this spawns a new protocol or something to get around this bullshit. It will happen. If Morpheus were on this thread he would say it is inevitable. In the end we all win.
Fuck maybe it sTor that wins I dunno
When a govt is given power it's very rare they will give it back to you, i'd rather corporations have it.
I am. And don't call me Shirley
...
Comcast want to kill their home video competition and probably some third party phone traffic.
Right now their focus is on making their competition pay them for use of their network. Since we got into the cell phone biz I can see them charging google FI traffic for use of their network too.
comcast is doing a lot of scummy shit, but this retarded 25 dollars for gamer package meme needs to die because it isn't it
because they sponsored him to be in politics, and they have a nice fat job waiting for him when he gets back.
t. Cox did exactly this with my college buddy who ran for political office. He had zero non-gvt experience and they gave him a general manager job in LA (yes LA), and helped fund his political campaigns, gave him extra time off, etc.. Clearly they wanted something in return.
If I worked for Level 3, or Telia or whoever, I'd start charging Comcast additional fees to use my backbone come January.
Backbone providers are basically a monopoly. You have to connect your ISP to one if you want to serve a particular area....
All the things Net Neutrality does to protect consumers from Comcast, it also does those things to protect Comcast from Level 3. Don't they see that?
No competition in ISPs. You have 1 chouce in most places. ATT hardly qualifies when they really cant compare technically.
So no marketplace --> gotta use gvt to make it ok to consumers.
>Anyone on that FCC board who votes yes would be committing career suicide.
He'd just go right back to Verizon, where he came from, but at double the salary he was making before because he now has tons of connections inside the FCC.
also a lot of our businesses are home business and require the use of things like firewalls and VPN's to connect to a large office.
Here is what comcast will likely fucking with
>home security systems that use the internet
>video streaming services that don't pay us
>third party land line services
>ad-hoc cellphones that use wifi (google fi etc.)
VPN's are unlikely because thats something our customers are using to subvert throttling, we don't care about that, we want to go for the company that creates that service, they have a lot more money and market share.
interesting comment. I will ponder this.
I don't think you understand,
Comcast owns the largest fiber ring in the country, most tier 3 companies fucking lease from us because it would violate anti trust laws if we didn't let them. Comcast is literally like the railroads of old, We have to lease our fiber network.
>video streaming services that don't pay us
Netflix is the popular example, and YouTube, but wouldn't that also mean a potential revenue stream from PornHub and the other big sites?
I wasn't aware of that... thanks user. You don't work in Customer Service, do you?
Possibly?
Comcast isn't geared the way you might think, it's more towards the >THIS GUY IS COMPETING FOR MY MARKET SHARE AND USING MY PRODUCT TO DO IT it's not likely they are going to charge companies that don't directly compete with us, and it's unlikely pornhub cares if they are fast or not.
I'm a field technician,
I actually know how our network is structured and a lot of the rules are regulations governing it. A huge reason comcast is so big is because it made a deal with the FCC to not have to lease out coax networks in exchange for not using them for data because otherwise it would create an internet monoply. comcast pretty much told the FCC cable couldnt carry the internet only TWP could and then went out and created docsys.
>If going through a VPN, the cable provider doesn't know what site or info you have moving to/from that site, do they?
They dont have to 'see' which sites you are visiting if they just block the VPN at the endpoint. A sure and very easy way to achieve this is to use a whitelist approach: all sites are blocked except for those you are paying a subscription for, think like the Comcast walled garden. No need to implement costly DPI solutions as the SSL protocol can be used for bank access if you are subscribed to tyhe package meaning that its IP will be whitelisted for your network, a relative simple firewall or CGNAT appliance will do.
Of course, NN prevents this but who cares? It is going down in flames anyways.
I thought part of Ajit Pai's shitpile is to prevent that sort of anti-competitive behavior.
transition.fcc.gov
Comcast data caps literally exist to hurt video streaming customers
Exactly OP, at this point if your true goal is anonymity, you have been using a vpn for everything for a long time. Internet freedom in the US has not existed in many years. We saw this when Moot nixed Sup Forums and the fappening to get a job at google, and now we are seeing this in twitter and facebook's biased bans and shadow bans. This lack of freedom has lead to a devided country and the ultimate "fuck you" to these corperations...Trump's presidancy. At this point the people shilling for net nutrality are sadly mistaken that we have a free flow of information, that internet freedom exists, is a shill for google (they will pay dearly) or is a paint chip eating retard. Next you should dig into wh6 they killed Shwarts and how his movement was coolted. Go down this rabbit hole. See you at Sup Forums
I haven't noticed - they don't enforce the cap in my area. It's always bothered me that it's there, though, lurking in my contract.
my brain actusally hurts trying to figure out how this is a possible thought process even to a troller
maybe it's someone new to VPN, you ever thought of that?
Save it for tumblr faggot
you are mixing federal law (well, regulation not law) up with corporate rules. They are not the same. ISP=ISP. Federal Regulation = US. The 2 are not the same
Go back to reddlt.
A tinfoil hat wearing retard in Arkansas puts up a blog. A senator from New York puts up a website. A little girl in California posts pictures of her cat on Facebook. I get all that content across the connection I pay for as fast as the underlying network will serve it, limited by the bandwidth cap on my plan and whatever other traffic is going on in my house at the time.
That senator can't pay Comcast to deliver his site to me faster. Comcast can't keep me from reading tinfoil hat tard's site. Comcast can't make those cat pictures download super slowly.
If I want to start a business that competes with facebook, my site can be just as fast and responsive as theirs if I build it right. I don't have to pay Comcast a fee to deliver my content to you at the same speed as Facebook's when I can't afford what they can.
The internet is neutral. Its not biased toward those with the deepest pockets, or those with the right political view. That's what a free internet means. This isn't about whether or not Google is doing insidious things with your browser history or Facebook is suppressing posts about .
While I agree chrony capatolisim is wrong and did not need this shiill fucking story to come to this conclusion, why not look at who controlls advertisement, narrative, political biase, who is creating devices to spy on us for directive advertisement. Who is leading the forfront to destroy the free flow of information, create self learning AI, who is pushing culteral marxisim, political correctness, wrong think...it is google , apple , and amazon. Why are we protecting them from tax? You realize that the end of nuetrality would negatively effect tgem more? Fast lane bs is propafanda created by these companies. Remember the 90s user? I do...
Nah nigger, I already have tor installed. Time to start putting Tor browser on USB flash drives to sell when shit hits the fan.
>when shit hits the fan.
DONT GIVE UP DONT LET IT GET TO THAT (((THEY))) WANT YOU TO TIRE OUT
This can be done with or without net nutrality. What is your point?
nice, I live in buffalo. I guess I'm good, I'll be able to use that canadian internet, because we all know they have net neutrality rules (they dont).
>be Comcast
>net neutrality repealed
>charge for website packages
>user uses VPN
>going to some IP not on his paid package
>block traffic
Good work.
>controlls advertisement, narrative, political biase
Koch brothers and Murdoch? Or Soros in this case? Because they're all a fucking bad as each other; left or right.
>be comcast
>net neutrality repealed
>charge for website packages
>people get pissed
>net neutrality reinstated
that's how it will go, and they know it.
I live in the UK
have fun with your crippled internet amerifats
lol
Crippled internet? Your police force is ran by shitskins who rape your wives and daughters. Your country is ran by a female. You are the ultimate cucks. Also your life is a Truman show CCTV clusterfuck.
Kek
>implying this type of shit isnt infectious.
>implying only companies in the states have the "make money" mentality
>implying you wont be paying a packaged fee to watch your muslim porn
Kek
"Zero laws"
Come on man dont break the fourth wall
"Dying"
That's assuming things will need to be fixed. We have no idea what's going to happen, and several ISPs have vowed not to throttle any damn thing. It would be suicidal for any ISP to do so anyways. Instead of being so alarmist, why don't we just wait and see what the fuck actually happens. Hell, things might even get better.
Why would it be suicidal when they have what sums up to a monopoly in many states? Not to mention they tend to play nice with each other if its mutual fucking of their customers
your sarcasm actually explained it better and more concisely than anyone else so far. Dick points are cancelled out by effective points I guess.
>be comcast
>net neutrality repealed
>charge for website packages
>techonerds get pissed
> develop a way to avoid their filters and rules engines
> deploy to nerds
> great success
> moves on to rest of world
> everyone has a better and safer web experience because of this
> Internet 1.1
> just in time for blockchain to rewrite evrything