Remember when ATT blocked Sup Forums?

Remember when ATT blocked Sup Forums?

techcrunch.com/2009/07/26/att-blocks-Sup Forums-this-is-going-to-get-ugly/

Other urls found in this thread:

transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf
research.googleblog.com/2009/06/speed-matters.html?m=1
techcrunch.com/2009/07/27/shitstorm-averted-att-restores-access-to-Sup
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Good.

NICE BLOG POST LIBKEK FAKE NEWS YOUR TEARS ARE DELICIOUS HELL YEAH FUCK REDDIT

its funny now because we dont have teeth anymore and even if we did any talk of retaliation would just result in getting banned for doxing and calls to raiding.
fuck this gay earth

>FAKE NEWS
youre a fucking idiot and a newfag

"We" have never had teeth and raids were always a bannable offense. Cry moar, newfriend.

normiefags BTFO!!!

GOOD BYE AMERIFATS
DON'T COME BACK

>americans who cant into vpns and proxies wont be able to use Sup Forums
Sounds good

>not realizing your ISP has to actually allow you to connect to a VPN in the first place
Lmao I'm expecting a full blacklist with government and corporate workers getting PIV card exceptions for their VPNs.

what do you think they're gonna do, block https? there's a reason china hasn't banned vpns no matter how many times they try, you can't. You can blacklist as many ips as you want but you still won't find whatever vps im hosting openvpn on.

>comcast will ban Sup Forums and all vpns
Lmao

>Comcast can block all VPNs somehow

LMAO

Or they just whitelist all their verified sites and let everything else rot.
Yeah it's pretty simple. You can do it yourself on your own router without even specifying Sup Forums as a site to block. It's called a whitelist.
China doesn't block VPN because there's a huge market that comes with selling the people access to sites the government has blocked for political reasons. Here in the states, profitable and popular sites wont be blocked for political reasons. In fact, they'd still be widely accessible so long as they can pay their part and dont operate in the red like a certain pair of Administrators have constantly stated about a certain website over the years. Basically, totally different situation.

>comcast bans static ip vpns.
>vpns services change ips
Wew

>ISPs will just whitelist verified sites

user, what are you doing on a technology board? You're talking out of your ass.

Will be a glorious day when the_cuck can't post on Sup Forums anymore.
Just the reduced amount of stale meme pictures posted will save chinkmoot some traffic money.

Libsalt for 7 more years maga

Not him, but I'm pretty sure anons made a few people kill themselves, lose their jobs, break up their marriages, etc. At very least there was a huge influence on pop culture on a 1-2 year delay after Sup Forums got bored of it, Sup Forums has literally made people into millionaires based off of shitty jokes they started shilling ironically.

You might not remember, but there was a time when Sup Forums had quite a few really intelligent, psychopathic people lurking, and they could find out every little piece of information about someone within hours, and aggressively use it against them (or cost their company millions of dollars from ddoses/hacking/etc)

>any news that I don't like is fake news
The mental delusion of a neo conservative snowflake.

>Tyrone Manuel Hernandez thinks I'm an amerimutt.
Man verizon is taking too long to shut it all down.

Embarrassing post

I'm pretty sure was just shitposting...

>things that never happened

There were a few quality posters back in the day. Alot of them left Sup Forums for Sup Forums when it got overrun by porn and normies. It got popular because of a few internet memes like Jessie Slaughter, Habo Hotel, and those hackers from 2010 who everyone claimed were from Sup Forums. We never actually accomplished anything.

>We never actually accomplished anything.
Where do you think the whole Anonymous movement started from?

Schools and corporations have been internally blocking commercial VPNs for years. Either none of you are actual sysadmin or youve taken Trump's dick so hard you can't think properly anymore.

> hurr durr ill rent an ovh box

If all you're doing is sending traffic to one https port all day long, it's not hard to tell the IP is some sort of proxy service and block it automatically. There are commercial products that do this.

Even if you managed to partition your traffic out into reasonable chunks or did some weird obfuscation shit it's still beyond the ability of 99% of casual internet users and you mouthbreathing retards have still shit on the internet forever

>wants all the bad things to happen to "liberals"
>doesn't realize they're going to happen to themselves as well

Really makes me think

>anonymous movement

You mean the hackers who used us as cover and disinfo? There was never a "movement, " normiescum.

>everything i dont want is bad
Hahaha what liberals really think

>Either none of you are actual sysadmin or youve taken Trump's dick so hard you can't think properly anymore.

Most of those anons didn't even go to college, you're talking to literal neckbeard basement dwellers who think they are getting back at stacy and chad for voting on the guy they didn't like. It's their own autistic way to get back on their bullies you know?
I find it all very entertaining as someone who's watching all this shit get on fire from a safe distance.

China invests billions into its firewall every year and it's still relatively easy to get around it. ISPs can't effectively control the internet.

All that white trash is gonna be pretty pissed when their NEETbux dry up

>going to college
Good goy

Trump won college-educated whites and every income demographic above $30k. Most people on both sides are edgy retards, but the idea that you have a monopoly on intelligence is laughable.

>implying

I knoe this guy irl and he is really cool

Do you even understand TCP/IP protocols bro? Are you fucking retarded?

China doesn't block commercial VPNs because it doesn't want to. End of story. China wants its educated citizens to be able to use American websites if they are willing to pay extra for them because otherwise they would be completely disconnected from the real world. And theyre probably going to start blocking VPNs soon anyways.

To think that China is just incapable of creating a blacklist of IPs to block is just retarded.

This desu senpai.
And claiming intelligence by association is the most stupid thing a man can fo.

I think that user understands TCP/IP more than you because you can encrypt what's inside the packet but not the destination of it.
When you understand the part where the first step towards the web outside of your house is your ISP you will also understand they can do anything with said packet.
But on the bright side I doubt they will do anything for now, even if the laws in your country were repealed it takes ages for a company to set a plan on what they will do to screw you guys up. There's also the part where they will give it some time because all the media and consumers are focused on this shit right now so it would be bad PR to buttfuck you kids just a week after the thing was repealed you know?

> ISPs can't effectively control the internet.
Or just arrest the people want go out for politics reason instead porn.

It is retarded. They've attempted to block Tor for years now. They can't.

You're telling me that ISPs will invest billions in a perpetual game of cat and mouse to protect an unpopular pricing scheme. It's utterly ridiculous.

>isps spend billions
>to block vpns
>and lose customers
>for reasons
>because evil

How is it not fake news? They never actually blocked Sup Forums. And that was long before Title II.

By the way, if you want to talk fake news, go read Title II and show me where exactly it protects "net neutrality", because as far as I can tell (and from what the FCC who's in charge of enforcing Title II say), it doesn't. You got tricked into defending SOPA 2.0 because Obama gave it a nice name that had nothing to do with the contents.

>bilions
WTF?
>and lose customers
Normally who know to use VPN or BitTorrent are the high cust client. Lose them are so bad.

They do not have to. They will use the commercial software that has been available to schools and corporate networks for years. Autoblocking proxies is not an unsolved problem. It is not hard if you're a small business. It's even easier if you're AT&T and have access to vast amounts of metric data.

Dude, just do some research. You're arguing with a network engineer that software I installed and configured for my employer doesnt exist.

>vpn == torrents
:^)

>installing and maintaining firewalls is cheap

You're not a network engineer. Large corporations spend millions on such censorship. It's not unfathomable that the net cost to implement it across an entire Tier 1 ISP would be in the billions.

But they most likely already have the firewall hardware. It's just a matter of re-configuration.

> t. leddit

Where I say that. But most of the people know to use a VPN or torrent for personal use, know to use better his connection.
Most of the ISPs will never accept their users using 100% bandwidth is in the contract.

no i dont
i came here just 2 months ago from reddit

You know you're responding to a sarcastic post, right?

What are you even trying to say

>disney approaches ISP
>"block torrents and all piracy shit or we sue"
>ISP blocks everything up
>customers can't leave because there isn't any other ISP out there (amerilards)

dont forget exploding vans and blowing up football stadiums. we wuz terrorists and sheeiiiit

Kek you think NN protects illegal torrenting???????

user, most of the normal users only use a small share of their connections.
If everybody tries use100%(or even less) of their connection at the same moment, everything going down.

Right. So would NN stop networks from reaching capacity or what?

Its reconfiguration, management and expansion. The total will be in the upper hundreds of millions at the very least.

No but it did prevent exactly that from happening

The was saying ISPs would care of all customers equals instead focus those give more profit.
NN protected the customers who give less profit to those company by protecting the use of any protocol.

Without neutrality standards ISPs can just block peer to peer connections entirely, they weren't able to figure out what you were torrenting in the first place so it's like p2p won't be viable anymore, even for legit stuff.

Here you go: transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

Sec. 201. [47 U.S.C. 201] Services and Charges
(b) All charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in
connection with such communication service, shall be just and reasonable, and any
such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is
hereby declared to be unlawful: Provided, That communications by wire or radio
subject to this Act may be classified into day, night, repeated, unrepeated, letter,
commercial, press, Government and such other classes as the Commission may
decide to be just and reasonable, and different charges may be made for the
different classes of communications
(I truncated the above to only the relevant part)

Sec. 202. [47 U.S.C 202] Discrimination and Preferences
(a) It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or
unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations,
facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly
or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or
unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or
locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any
undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.

It's basically the entirety of the first two sections of Title 2 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. You make it sound like it was hard to find, by it is clear you have never read it at all.

2009 was just about 9 years ago already, huh? I really wish time would stop going by so quickly...

2009 was actually 4chans downfall.

So they can make reasonable discrimination and regulations and preferences? That doesn't sound like a very well defined mandate. How does this law affect anything that the preexisting antitrust laws and such didn't?

I wish Sup Forums would explode.

its absolutely hilarious how cancerfags call me reddit on a regular basis

Achmed, Yes!

2008*

2003*

>NN protects consumers by making sure companies dont mame too much profit
Hahahahahahahah holy fuck you commies say some dumb shit

Torrents are more dead than ever after NN

Well when they do let me know until the. I wont be trusting wild predictions

January 1, 1970*

???
user, if you rent a car for use in the weekend and you drive for 24 hours, you should be put on a blacklist for the drive too much?

Poe's law is strong with this one

1.4 million BC

Muh gibs

So are ISPs going to be expecting tithes from Fox, Disney, Netflix etc?

Yes. There's a fair amount of room for ambiguity here, but that's intentional. If you spell everything out, the laws become bloated, hard to understand, easy to find loopholes in, easy to hide surprising implications in, etc. That's why we have judges.

For instance, Title II (as far as I understand) does not clarify whether ISPs can offer "paid prioritization" (which would apply only during network congestion, rather than blanket throttling of certain classes of traffic). Whether this is considered "reasonable" is up to the FCC to decide if they want to enforce, the courts to decide if it is legal to enforce, or for Congress to decide if they amend the definition of Title II to clarify.

Without Title II the FCC has very little control over ISP behavior. In fact, when Comcast was blocking BitTorrent (before title 2 was in place), the courts ruled (rightfully so) that the FCC did not have the power to stop Comcast. This, and a variety of related court cases, was the motivation for putting title II in place, giving the FCC the ability to regulate ISPs as Common Carriers.

And note that Title II and the notion of "Common Carriers" is a very old legal concept, which dates back much further than the Communications Act of 1934.

And I'm not as informed about how our existing antitrust laws apply to this, but I would bet they don't have the teeth to deal with this kind of thing, considering how few companies control almost all of our entertainment, news media, etc, and especially considering the attitudes of our current administration.

*Title II's notion of Common Carriers is a very old legal concept. Title II is from 1934

They going do partnership do get money and data.

I've never heard of comcast blocking BitTorrent, but I know ISPs were pressured to do so by antipiracy lobbying. I'm assuming this was settled without NN rules, because it seemed like it hasn't ever been a continuous problem, and NN was only passed relatively recently in legal time. If that is the case, how was it resolved and why is NN specifically necesary?

To add on: blocking a protocol used for illegal activities seems very justifiable and reasonable from a legal perspective. It seems like NN rules you referenced would arguably not apply to this case.

In my opinion, ISPs will not do the real nefarious things that take advantage of a lack of net neutrality until their regulation status is codified in law. As is, the next president can appoint a new FCC head who can once again reclassify ISPs under Title II.

If Congress passes a law that says the FCC cannot classify ISPs as Common Carriers under Title II, that would take another law being passed to reverse, which is much harder to do (there are many, many ways to stop a new law from being passed, but very few ways to remove an existing one - a common example is filibuster).

But, even though most net neutrality violations so far have been stopped without Title II classification, the FCC's attempts to force ISPs to stop, and the following legal battles, are largely what drew attention to the issues. We're in much more danger of subtle things, like throttling. As a user, you can't really tell the difference between Throttling and Congestion. Only the ISP and regulatory agencies with access to ISP internals can.

My biggest concern is that this will stifle innovation. If all the existing big names can pay for higher quality service (Netflix, Google, Amazon, etc) we might see some increased fees for those services, but it won't impact most people. But if I'm trying to start a new, competing service, and don't have the money to spare to pay the ISP extra, users will just think my new website is slow.

This is embarrassing.

Well, under the Title II rules it is up to the FCC to decide what they consider reasonable, or for the courts to overrule them. In the past, the FCC was clearly of the opinion that blocking BitTorrent should not be allowed. The most important part is that ISPs cannot /rely/ on the FCC considering some NN-violating practice reasonable - instead they need to be very conservative, an consider that could change between administrations.

And sure, I agree that there's perhaps an /even better/ regulatory framework than Title II that could resolve ambiguity and make things even better. But that doesn't exist, and Title II is better than nothing IMO.

Cap of the last comments when they evac'd the meeting and Washington Post disabled comments on their live stream

>Guy Faux

The thing is, Netflix, Google, Amazon, etc. have a LOT of money, smaller companies usually don't ISPs will go after them, and they are reasonably justified in doing so because those companies are essentially running multibillionare dollar business of of the ISPs infrastructure. If Netflix and Google want better service from an ISP, they are going to be fleeced. This is why people are arguing that removing NN will prevent or reverse the monopolization of the internet. Being a enormous company based off of hosting web services and collecting user data just won't be as feasible.

I don't think a marginally slower connections to smaller, innovative, sites really hurts their business substantially, especially compared to larger sites. People are using them because they have some special feature or aesthetic they like, not because they load quickly.

Actually, it has been quite well-studied that even small increased in latency impact user retention: research.googleblog.com/2009/06/speed-matters.html?m=1

The argument that this will actually reduce monopolization of the internet is interesting, but not very convincing IMO. You are assuming that ISPs will act in a very specific way for this to be the case, and in reality they might adopt business models that neither of us has yet considered. On the other hand, there are real, documented instances of companies trying to discriminate betweens traffic classes for their own advantage, and because internet access is already sold in a tiered manner by bandwidth, it is easy for me to see consumers accepting that throttling and traffic discrimination are included in those tiers.

I'm leaving now, so I might not be able to respond to any more posts before the thread is pruned.

>The argument that this will actually reduce monopolization of the internet is interesting, but not very convincing IMO. You are assuming that ISPs will act in a very specific way for this to be the case, and in reality they might adopt business models that neither of us has yet considered.

Exactly, which is why I'm quite neutral on the subject, because I can see it going either way, and probably just not having a significant impact at all. I hate the disinformation and political framing, and just try to represent the side I feel isn't being discussed.

>Hey guys let's try making murder legal it's not like you know everyone will start murdering their neighbors come on what are you psychic?

This was all legal before 2014 and it didn't happen.

Except it did happen, and only through various court cases and bad press was it stopped.

It was legal until 2014 and ISPs didn't implement this sort of pricing model. Why would they start this time?

Because Jewggle, plebbit and cuckbook told them they would.

IT WILL INCREASE COMPETITION WHICH IS A GOOD THING

Remember when even Moot himself acknowledged it wasn't an act of censorship?

"
Here’s what happened:

For the past three weeks, Sup Forums has been under a constant DDoS attack. We were able to filter this specific type of attack in a fashion that was more or less transparent to the end user.

Unfortunately, as an unintended consequence of the method used, some Internet users received errant traffic from one of our network switches. A handful happened to be AT&T customers.

In response, AT&T filtered all traffic to and from our img.Sup Forums.org IPs (which serve Sup Forums & /r9k/) for their entire network, instead of only the affected customers. AT&T did not contact us prior to implementing the block. Here is their statement regarding the matter.

In the end, this wasn’t a sinister act of censorship, but rather a bit of a mistake and a poorly executed, disproportionate response on AT&T’s part. Whoever pulled the trigger on blackholing the site probably didn’t anticipate [nor intend] the consequences of doing so.

We’re glad to see this short-lived debacle has prompted renewed interest and debate over net neutrality and internet censorship—two very important issues that don’t get nearly enough attention—so perhaps this was all just a blessing in disguise.

Aside from that, I’ll also add that there is some big news due later this week. Keep an eye on the News page, Twitter, and global message for updates.

As always, I can be reached at moot@Sup Forums.org.

—

PS: If any companies would like to hook us up with some better hardware, feel free! The architecture we’ve got powering this large and influential beast is really quite embarrassing. ( ._.)
"
techcrunch.com/2009/07/27/shitstorm-averted-att-restores-access-to-Sup Forums-which-is-now-under-ddos-attack/