Well Sup Forums, you did it...

Well Sup Forums, you did it. You just made it easier for Jews to censor and control the internet just so you could be contrarian to Reddit. Was it worth it? Are your mom's gonna pay the extra "security fees" so you can talk on nationalist boards now?

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.is/XaBQA
archive.is/gEGwj
archive.is/taCED
archive.is/cM8df
archive.is/T51O9
archive.is/4aW3
archive.is/AKdkK
archive.is/7GaOX
archive.is/KLl8h
archive.is/Tul38
archive.is/CiGw0
archive.is/WpYOx
archive.is/tlWiK
archive.is/6Y4I6
archive.is/nvpDt
archive.is/EuISV
archive.is/gvvCY
archive.is/Hbu21
archive.is/TxbUC
c-span.org/video/?314904-1/verizon-v-federal-communications-commission-oral-argument
web.archive.org/web/20171126115922/https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD079A89E13852581130053C3F8/$file/15-1063-1673357.pdf
cnet.com/news/fcc-formally-rules-comcasts-throttling-of-bittorrent-was-illegal/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

^This. This website single handed fucked itself into being a payed for site. Nice job you nazi larping faggots. Enjoy your shinternet.

Doesn't matter at least we le triggered the libtards xDDDDdD

LMAO PRAISE KEK
WE DID IT MAGAPEDES
IM UNEMPLOYED AND CONTRIBUTE NOTHING TO SOCIETY AND CALL OTHERS DEGENERATE

>we caused this
okay retard

hell yea, twitter will finally go out of business.

The greatest act of Sup Forums. Destroying the internet as a giant fuck you god bless you you glorius bastards

>okay retard
get fucking rekt. hope your parents don't pay for the social media add on your ISP will demand.

But, on the other hand, this is Sup Forums and nobody gives a fuck about anyone here. So, maybe this will stop the spread of cancer. praise Pai!

>lopping off the government tentacle wrapped around the internet gave the jews more control.

lmao at redditors, go make more shitty shoops of right-wing boogeymen.

Only NEETs would be mad about this happening. You're shilling.

>look ma i'm retarded

yeah because with net neutrality, no websites ever got censored. except the Daily Stormer, but its okay, because they had the wrong opinions, right?

Shills lost today is a good day

Hehe
Look up the Countering Information Warfare act of 2016 (S.2692)

This is what Trump was after N.N is dead and anything good it did was covered in the Open-internet rules

proof?
does anyone have proof of anything?

mesh networking is free if everyone used it. Smart meters get free internet by forcing themselves on people. Mesh networking internet is a gentleman internet though that would never smart meter themselves on people.

We're sorry. Comcast no longer carries
Sup Forums.org

Would you like to visit a similar website?
reddit.com
tumbler.com

Yep. Sup Forums was almost unanimously for getting rid of it. This is what they chose.

All NN threads regardless of for or against are slide threads. Just a bunch of NEET's bitching for the sake of bitching. no bump for one post faggots

Ebin troll, burgertards! Truly Kek's chosen people.

...

>You just made it easier for Jews to censor and control the internet just so you could be contrarian to Reddit

Why would they do that? The government was having a grand old time pushing all social media to censor conservative opinions this last 2 years as it was! That was the beauty of NN, it was the perfect backdoor to eventually destroy all dissenting opinion so long as it's deemed "fake news" by the powers that be!

TRUST YOUR GOVERNMENT, GOYIM, IT WOULD NEVER EVER DO ANYTHING BAD TO YOU!!!!

so you think itll 180 instead of just getting worse?
youre in for a surpise

> "he cucked, cuckily"

It's funny to see that there are americucks that are trying to argue that getting rid of NN is a good thing. Remember that now your internet provider have the power to control what you see. Before they don't have that. Or need to go through a lot of hoops. But now it's easy. Before the people that censor your internet is not the person that provide you internet. Now they can be the same person. Do you fucks really think that big business is going to be gentler fucking you in the ass than the daddy government? What you think those big businesses will allow small companies to be a threat to them? Well, you're wrong you know. You are absolutely wrong. See the recent lootbox controversy with gaming. EA don't care what you think about them. They only care for their wallet. And unfortunate for them consumers can hurt them fast because it's gaming and it isn't that important. Now can't say the same for the internet. Just good luck americucks.

Uh what about before nn existed you dumb yurotard.

You know NN has only been a thang since 2015, right bruh???

This obvious shill thread is starting to make me think that the right thing happened

The only thing that pisses me off is that the corporate dick suckers and Comcast shills will deny ever having supported this within the next couple years. It'll be like when Sup Forums used to support lootboxes cause "muh freemarket" now it's all "fucking game industry kikes".

I expect Sup Forums's mental gymnastics to go full blast and have a board of >Sup Forums is one person
post streching across every page once these dumb r/The_Donald dumbshits realize ISPs will be able to target the very websites that got Trump elected in the first place.

Pai is literally fucking a white woman and making mongrel kids. He is publically engaging in white genocide. Nu/pol/ is just so cucked it defends him.

Yeah, it's not like Sup Forums was blocked by AT&T or Verizon a decade ago or anything amirite fellow r/The_Donald poster?

Cool, I'll bump for you

>Well Sup Forums, you did it. You just made it easier for Jews to censor and control the internet just so you could be contrarian to Reddit.
How exactly did an imageboard repeal NN?

THE WEBSITE WONT BE HERE NEXT YEAR

wtf now i cant post hitlers anywhere on the internet but Sup Forums
oh shit wait it was already like that under "nn"?

Yea i remember paying all those premiums back in 2014 before NN.... OH WAIT no i didnt, Fucking sheeps

More like browse / / and / / on 4chan2 and Sup Forums Premium.
and
>Smaller sites don't load as rapidly because they don't compete, proof information on smaller sites doesn't work.

this is what im wondering. NN is what 3 years old? what about the 20+ years before that, did ISP block sites? (they didnt, and dont in canada)

>a website that predate NN will be gone now because there's no NN anymore

Thanks to this NN shit, it has become apparent that libtards truly believe bandwidth is somehow limited like it was 15 years ago, as if there is only a small amount to go around and that everyone should be given the same level of access to it because if the big guys can buy a fastlane it will automatically push out "poor" traffic. Holy shit are you people stupid. I really had no idea how badly the divide between real and poseur engineers had grown until this public outpouring of retard from the left. Thanks, it motivates me.

bad meme, actually read it instead of shitposting without an actual argument

2005 – North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked VoIP service Vonage.

2005 – Comcast blocked or severely delayed traffic using the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol. (The company even had the guts to deny this for months until evidence was presented by the Associated Press.)

2007 – AT&T censored Pearl Jam because lead singer criticized President Bush.

2007 to 2009 – AT&T forced Apple to block Skype because it didn’t like the competition. At the time, the carrier had exclusive rights to sell the iPhone and even then the net neutrality advocates were pushing the government to protect online consumers, over 5 years before these rules were actually passed.

2009 – Google Voice app faced similar issues from ISPs, including AT&T on iPhone.

2010 – Windstream Communications, a DSL provider, started hijacking search results made using Google toolbar. It consistently redirected users to Windstream’s own search engine and results.

2011 – MetroPCS, one of the top-five wireless carriers at the time, announced plans to block streaming services over its 4G network from everyone except YouTube.

2011 to 2013 – AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon blocked Google Wallet in favor of Isis, a mobile payment system in which all three had shares. Verizon even asked Google to not include its payment app in its Nexus devices.

2012 – AT&T blocked FaceTime; again because the company didn’t like the competition.

2012 – Verizon started blocking people from using tethering apps on their phones that enabled consumers to avoid the company’s $20 tethering fee.

2014 – AT&T announced a new “sponsored data” scheme, offering content creators a way to buy their way around the data caps that AT&T imposes on its subscribers.

2014 – Netflix started paying Verizon and Comcast to “improve streaming service for consumers.”

2014 – T-Mobile was accused of using data caps to manipulate online competition.

You're welcome. Anything that kills reddit is good.

PART 1

Here’s a fact checked version of that list from FreedomPress about all the supposed “Net Neutrality violations”. Thanks to HighTechForum.org for all the fact checking with citations for everything. As you go through the list, you will notice that even though many of FP’s claims aren’t false, you will see that a lot of their claims are either misleading, biased, out-of-context, out of the FCC’s jurisdiction, or doesn’t account for the technological limitations of the time. But most importantly, many of these “violations” were resolved without even needing action from the FCC!!!

>Original hightechforum blog post that fact check’s everything. I didn’t include everything to save space so make sure to still read the original post!

archive.is/XaBQA

MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage.

>The facts: Madison River was a small, rural telco with 40K DSL customers (1)and a massive debt load of some $500 million(2). Following an upgrade of its infrastructure to support DSL, it did in fact block access to Vonage and other competing telephone services in order to ensure the cash flow to pay for the upgrade. So yes, this happened.

>The resolution: The FCC forced Madison River to sign a consent decree(3) pay a $15K fine, and permit Vonage to operate on its network. This result took place before the US had any formal net neutrality regulations, but it could have been achieved under either of the two Open Internet Orders or under conditions for USF subsidy payments. The FCC had Madison River over a barrel because the company lacked the funds to mount a meaningful legal defense. The company is now owned by CenturyLink, a carrier that complies with net neutrality as a matter of policy.

(1)archive.is/gEGwj
(2)archive.is/taCED
(3)archive.is/cM8df

PART 2

COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network.

>The facts: In 2007, net neutrality advocates learned that some users of the BitTorrent P2P “file sharing” program experienced slow uploads when BitTorrent was not also downloading files. This was visible to users of monitor programs such as Wireshark because Comcast used a peculiar technique – TCP Reset spoofing – to disconnect downloaders from Comcast customers.

>The resolution: By the time the FCC issued its order in October, 2008, Comcast had discontinued the practice, which was a stopgap meant to prevent BitTorrent users from interfering with Vonage users. Following the FCC controversy, BitTorrent designed and implemented LEDBAT, a means of self-limiting its bandwidth(1) when other applications are active. And for a time, Comcast implemented a “Fair Share” system(2) that enabled it to limit heavy usage during periods of congestion in a protocol-agnostic way. The details of LEDBAT and Fair Share were published in Internet RFCs.

>So the problem was congestion caused by BitTorrent on a DOCSIS 1.1 network. It was resolved by DOCSIS 3.0 and dialog between BitTorrent and the ISPs in the Internet Engineering Task Force forum. The FCC’s action didn’t survive court review but the issue had been resolved before the FCC investigation concluded.

(1)archive.is/T51O9
(2)archive.is/4aW3

PART 3

TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company.

>The facts: Striking employees placed the names and addresses of Telus employees who crossed picket lines during a strike on their websites. The pages encouraged readers to harass and intimidate the employees. In order to ensure their safety, Telus blocked access to the websites and sought injunctions from the Canadian courts. The injunctions were granted(1), the pages were taken down, and access was restored.
>The impact: For the week when the injunction was pending, websites sharing IP addresses with the offending websites were also blocked to Telus users. No Telus employees were harmed, but the union suffered a major setback(2).

>The resolution: Canadian courts took no action against Telus although they did order the offending pages taken down.
>The FCC has NO jurisdiction in Canada.
(1)archive.is/AKdkK
(2)archive.is/7GaOX

AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone.

>The facts: While Apple approved a version of the Skype application for the early iPhone that only permitted its use over Wi-Fi networks, the allegation that its action was caused by AT&T remains unproven. In a related 2009 inquiry, Apple told the FCC that it set its own policies(1) on app store approvals without consultation with carriers.
>The impact: The timing of Apple’s more expansive policy toward voice applications corresponds with the transition of carrier networks to 3G. It’s doubtful these applications would have been reliable on 2G networks in any case.

PART 4

>The resolution: The FCC has NO jurisdiction over app stores, so this claim is a red herring. It’s perfectly plausible that Apple’s policies toward voice apps had more to do with quality concerns than with pressure from carriers. Apple is, after all, a very strong willed and independent company today, and was even more that way when when Steve Jobs was in charge. Hence it’s doubtful that the FCC played a role in resolving this issue.
(1)archive.is/KLl8h

WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox.
>The facts: Free Press portrays this incident as “hijacking user-search queries”, at best a misleading description. Windstream actually intercepted >>failed DNS lookupsThe impact: None, when domain names are typed correctly. Minor, when URIs were mistyped.
>The resolution: Customers complained and the problem was fixed in less than a week. Free Press complained to the FCC, but the ISP corrected the problem before the FCC responded to the complaint.

(1)archive.is/Tul38

PART 5

MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube.
>The facts: MetroPCS, now owed by T-Mobile, was a bargain basement mobile carrier with 22 Mhz of spectrum in its average urban market, and minimal allocations in rural areas. This was barely enough to provide voice and text, basic web browsing, and minimal video streaming. Because of its limited spectrum allocation, the company was more concerned about efficiency than were the large carriers. It was the first US network to implement LTE.
>MetroPCS made a deal with YouTube to provide highly compressed video streams to its customers, and Free Press complained to the FCC that this arrangement was harmful to other video streaming services.

AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.
>The facts: The issue was the poor security design of Google Wallet(1). It took control of the phone’s security element(2), blocked out other apps(3), and collected personal information(4).
>The impact: iPhone users were unable to use Google Wallet until its security issues were corrected to Apple’s satisfaction.
>Resolution: Google had to fix its security issues in order to be approved by the Apple app store. This finally happened in 2013(5), after the app’s insecure NFC feature was disabled. Google implemented the NFC functions in Android Pay. Like the other issues with app store approval, this issue is OUTSIDE the FCC’s jurisdiction.

(1)www.pcworld.com/article/249599/google_wallet_security_concerns_raised.html
(2)archive.is/CiGw0
(3)archive.is/WpYOx
(4)archive.is/tlWiK
(5)archive.is/6Y4I6

PART 6

VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones.

>The facts: Verizon charged users $20/month for mobile hotspot service. This was prominently disclosed by the carrier in its terms of use.

>The impact: Verizon customers who wanted to tether their laptops to the Internet through their phones had to pay extra for the privilege.
>The resolution: In 2012, the FCC fined Verizon $1.25 million(1) for blocking the hotspots and made it relent. The FCC had the power to do this because Verizon won 700 MHz C Block spectrum at auction that carried specific “open access” conditions(2) barring any blocking of any app at any time. This spectrum was less expensive than unencumbered spectrum, so Verizon had to honor conditions of sale. So this was less a matter of Open Internet Order rules than of auction conditions.

(1)archive.is/nvpDt
(2)archive.is/EuISV

AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan.

>The facts: FaceTime is a video chat program created by Apple for Apple devices. AT&T enabled it on its network in phases: initially it was only allowed on Wi-Fi and on the mobile network for users with tiered data plans. A few months after introduction, it was enabled on all LTE phones without conditions with respect to contracts(1). See the FCC Open Internet Advisory Committee’s case study(2) for all the details.

>The impact: AT&T users with 3G phones and unlimited data plans were unable to use FaceTime on the mobile network.
>The resolution: AT&T satisfied itself that FaceTime wouldn’t cause problems for its LTE network, but remains convinced that FaceTime over 3G is problematic. The FCC took no action other than referring it to the OIAC, which made a mixed assessment.

(1)archive.is/gvvCY
(2)archive.is/Hbu21

PART 7

VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” [EXTREMELY MISLEADING!!!!]

>The facts: The key word in Walker’s answer is “those”. To understand what kinds of arrangements she’s talking about, we have to look at the question she was asked. Free Press dramatically misrepresents the context in order to connect her comment to an entirely different question than the one that was put to her. Here’s her complete answer(1):

>”Well, as I was saying to Judge Silberman, what the Agency has done here is shut down and prevent the development of a two-sided market with respect to Internet services. >>>There is evidence in the record that edge providers are contracting with broadband providers where actually they demand payment, ESPN has a website that is so popular that ESPN demands and receives payments from broadband providers in order to allow those subscribers to access the ESPN content.

PART 8

>She was discussing two-sided markets, arrangements in which the ISP pays or charges edge providers separately from retail customers. She mentions ESPN charging ISPs to carry its content (listen to the arguments at 29:00)(2) and before that discusses arrangements where customers pay different fees for different grades of service. At 29:28, she says “this order will shrink the types of services that will be available on the Internet.” That’s very different from favoring some services over others. So Free Press is simply lying.

>The impact: The 2010 Open Internet Order shrank the types of services available on the Internet by effectively banning transmission services tailored to applications that don’t fit the traditional mold.

>The resolution: This issue remains unresolved. The 2015 Open Internet Order doubled-down on the ban on differentiated services by replacing the 2010 order’s rebuttable presumption against tailored services for a fee with a clumsy ban.

(1)archive.is/TxbUC
(2) c-span.org/video/?314904-1/verizon-v-federal-communications-commission-oral-argument

Lol what did we even do? Electing Hillary means she can use the FCC to censor internet, we can't stop it in anyway just as we can't stop pajii.

The Internet as we know it deserves this. Let's go back to an undeveloped content-centric and not socially-oriented Internet, peer to peer and IRC. Fuck the social cloud Internet.

Like the internet wasnt be censored already...

>be Burgerstani
>click on link to site that isn't part of the Jewgle network
>HEY WHAT ARE YOU DOING OUT THERE?! GET BACK TO THE MISSION!
>terminating connection in 10...9.....8

All I got from these explanation posts is that the ISP did do it but they either apologize or someone had to stop them. Them doing it so easily is a trouble. Now tell me are you going to argue that ISP will not fuck with you ever again and if they did you would have some kind of way to circumvent it by either forcing them to change back or to just choose another ISP? If so more power to you. You can give any explanation you want because I'm not the one being troubled by this. You are.

I've been coming to this site, realizing I'm probably chilling with other people from other countries who share my same interests.

The fact that this site is probably going to get taken down/pay to visit is just retarded.

If tere was ever a time for the "HACKER ELITE ANONYMOUS" to do something, now would be the time.

I like you guys no matter how autistic you act because it's been the reason why I keep coming back.

see you space Cowboys.

I agree with how you feel but nothing is actually going to happen.

yea the average citizen definitely had a say in that

b-bumping for cute maga girls...

The internet was a mistake.

>What is Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016

#killedbythefcc

Nice

We've had these threads all day, fuck off.
Take a look at the legal details of net neutrality
Here's the official document: web.archive.org/web/20171126115922/https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD079A89E13852581130053C3F8/$file/15-1063-1673357.pdf
Let's look at page 15-16 (pic related):
>While the net neutrality rule applies to those ISPs that hold themselves out as neutral, indiscriminate conduits to internet content, the converse is also true: the rule does not apply to an ISP holding itself out as providing something other than a neutral, indiscriminate pathway — i.e., an ISP making sufficiently clear to potential customers that it provides a filtered service involving the ISP’s exercise of “editorial intervention.”
>Such an ISP, as long as it represents itself as engaging in editorial intervention of that kind, would fall outside the rule. The Order thus specifies that an ISP remains “free to offer ‘edited’ services” without becoming subject to the rule ’s requirements . Order ¶ 556
>That would be true of an ISP that offers subscribers a curated experience by blocking websites lying beyond a specified field of content (e.g., family friendly websites). It would also be true of an ISP that engages in other forms of editorial intervention, such as throttling of certain applications chosen by the ISP, or filtering of content into fast (and slow) lanes based on the ISP’s commercial interests.
In summation, net neutrality was never what it says on the tin, and is an opt-in system. It made no difference, and was just a foot in the door for further internet regulation. ISPs could still throttle, selectively block and offer packages, with or without net neutrality.
Governments hate free speech, and a deregulated internet is the floodgates of communication. It allows the populace to come to terms with reality without the rose-tinted goggles of propaganda/indoctrination. It's no surprise that they wanted NN.

>What is difference between foreign sources of American propaganda and genuine internal politics

>the salt comes to us

>M-Muh Russian hackers!

>What is difference between foreign sources of American propaganda and genuine internal politics

A glow in the dark nigger spoofing your router is literally the only difference.

We defeated the socialist net? Fuck,still living in best time line, we haven't stopped winning.

>LEL REDDITORS GOT KEKED

>BUT IT RESTRICTS ME TOO, BUT I SUPPORT TRUMPS DECISIONS NO MATTER WHAT!

I'm willing to sacrifice some GBP and tendies just to watch plebbit get triggered into oblivion. You can't find entertainment like this on Netflix.

What the fuck did you want us to do?

>just so you could be contrarian to Reddit. Was it worth it?
It's always worth it.

considering we have a global surveillance system that already exists, figuring out who's using a vpn and who isn't is incredibly easy.
wake up sheeptards

nationwide*

oh no, shartblew will have to buy Sup Forums passes

>wahhh we have to pay for 4chinz like we did back in 2014
oh wait. shut up faggot.

Kek confirms.

Is this a sign we will be emancipated from this website? Or are we still here forever?

No, shills just make wild claims that the internet is coming to an end. Nothing meaningful will change.

No one cares, any true libertarian is opposed to stupid regulations. Only children and libtards want daddy government to make all the decisions for them.

>archive.is/XaBQA
You done good, kiwi.

Yeah, libertarianism like in Liberia

And nothing of value was lost

No more free interwebz for you DRUMPHTARDS!

Every bit.

I think this was the right choice. all this stuff about 'internet packages' was paranoia -- people want an open internet, so any ISP who provides that would beat out the competition. moreover, net neutrality was more about government regulation and control of the internet, which is a serious cause for concern unless you're naive. it also doesn't make sense to treat youtube.com and a text-based site the same way, since they have very different bandwidth needs.

>thinks a free market can magically appear after several decades of govt interference

Keep in mind some areas only have one choice of isp and inviting isps to assign their own value to certain traffic almost assures censorship for any reason.

>Was it worth it?
the lulz are ALWAYS worth it

Then it will spur competition. Honestly though there are very few areas not covered by Sat and 3G/4G.

Oh look, Daily Stormier got chased into the darknet while NN was fully in place. You're full of crap.

Yeah, back in 2015 it was just non-stop censorship and charging for different things, boy those were hectic times a few years ago. Just like how before ACA healthcare was non-existent.

Good luck to any new isps trying to compete against existing multibillion dollar companies that are given millions upon millions by the government.

I'll be the first one to advocate for a free market but in this situation it's not a fair market start.

It's happened in small cases that's for sure. Hard to say how far ISPs will take it.

>2008
>The Federal Communications Commission handed Comcast a cease-and-desist order and required the company to disclose to subscribers in the future how it plans to manage traffic. Comcast had said that its measures to slow BitTorrent transfers, which it voluntarily ended in March, were necessary to prevent its network from being overrun.

cnet.com/news/fcc-formally-rules-comcasts-throttling-of-bittorrent-was-illegal/

People who are salty about this are showing their dependency on the internet. Acting the same way as blacls would if we cancelled welfare. Maybe some of you will finally take your views to the real world and stop larping

Oh no, we reverted to 2015 internet before useless regulations