Russia wins again

Russia wins again

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/RJeugIJFXas
onsip.com/blog/in-depth-verizon-blocks-sip-traffic-using-alg
consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/
myredditvideos.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

The internet is mostly free again, feels good.

title ii regulations != net neutrality

>MUH BIG GUBMENT REGULATIONS!!!!!

This but unironically.

The people win, the CIA/FBI/Google/Facebook/etc. lose.

yeah you sure showed it to the CIA now wow

What's with these trolls? Do you enjoy bending over for some tip money or something? It's going to get worse for everyone, you included..

They engage in identity politics. They see that reddit and liberals like something, therefore they conclude that they have to dislike it.

Its ironic because far right shit will be the first to be censored

the internet was great before google/facebook/cia had control, now it'll be great again, honestly it wasn't that bad when the cabal was in control but it'll be even better again now

This. They don't think for themselves. Ironically the state of the right is as bad as the left just like the left is as bad as the right, because both of them hate anything that the other side likes.

>the internet will be great by cementing ISPs position as gatekeepers to the Internet

Everybody except the ISPs lose.

In what way were they in control in say 2015/2016 and how will this control be broken by abandoning net neutrality?

i'm sorry you hate personal freedom so much, maybe soviet russia or nazi germany would please you

Cacyгa

>muh russian

youtu.be/RJeugIJFXas

>less americans on the internet
>a bad thing
Repealing Amerinet neutrality was a great victory for the rest of the planet. I seriously hope US government with conjunction with american ISPs will double down on censorship and anti-customer practices.

none of you shills ever say what is going to happen, just "it's gonna suck" or other vague assertions, specifically, what do you chicken littles think is going to happen? don't go through life so scared of your own shadow, it's sad

>shill accusing others to be shills

What's going to happen is that ISPs are free to throttle or even block traffic if they wish to. Most likely they will do what Comcast already have done in the past, which is throttle certain providers (for example Netflix) in order to more or less force them to buy so-called fast lanes. This would most likely impact Netflix users today, it's not inconceivable that this would drive the subscription prices up for example.

In addition, ISPs can now offer different payment plans to their customers based on what services and websites they use. So, also potentially, they could offer a basic "internet package" that allow you to visit websites and then charge more money for other kinds of services such as VOIP (Verizon has already done this), video streaming, allowing VPNs, using P2P traffic (Comcast has already done this) etc.

In other words, they are free to hike up prices for both you and start demanding payment for downstream traffic delivery, in effect exploiting their position as gatekeepers to the Internet and engaging in digital racketeering.

The worst case scenario, which is most likely not going to happen due to freedom of speech laws, is ISPs starting to block or censor certain sites such as far-right forums. What they probably can do, though, is block all traffic on non-standard ports, effectively limiting Tor networks.

> unironically proving the point

Why are americans so partisan? Isn't even purely in politics, but in every damn thing. What caused this giant need to spite their opponents?

>Most likely
>most likely
>not inconceivable
>potentially
>worst case scenario
>most likely
>probably can do

...

It's their two-party system that's caused this. In other countries, where coalition governments are possible, it is advantageous to find middle ground among allies and make compromises. In their system, where the winner takes all, it is an effective tactics to try to distance yourself from your opponent as much as possible, and the most effective way of doing that is to demonize your political opponents.

I'm using those words because I want to be honest. I can't predict the future. Obviously, those companies may be all flowers and unicorns, but why would they even spend billions on shilling for removal of regulations if they don't plan on doing any of that in the first place?

If you don't trust Facebook and Google to do the right thing, it's inconsistent to trust Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, et al. While Facebook and Google may mine and store data about you, they still base their business model on what you voluntarily give them. ISPs, on the other hand, are trying to cement their position as gatekeepers to the Internet, which is far more sinister and has serious potential implications.

>forgets the "done in the past" part

>Comcast has already done this
>Verizon has already done this

what a bunch of horse shit, voip and video streaming were made possible because of net neutrality? come on, no credibility left after saying something like that

Oh man. You're basically letting a pedo move in next to the kindergarten with the promises that they're not going to diddle any kids, when it's their nature to try and diddle as many of them as possible.

What do you think Net Neutrality means?

so google/facebook/youtube will have less control and isps will have more control, it's a wash ; should work on getting more competition both from isps and providers, i have 2 choices of isp where i live, i have one choice of decent search, google, nothing else gives me the results i need

Go back to /r/politics, libtard

>google/facebook/youtube will have less control
No, their business model is still on hoarding personal data about you and then providing tailored data model to create effective targeted ads. This will not change.

>isps will have more control
Yes, they will become gatekeepers.

The losing party here are the consumers, not SV internet companies.

go back to rdonald trumptard

>voip and video streaming were made possible because of net neutrality?
Verizon has in the past attempted to block VOIP calls, because it competes with Verizon's main business (being a mobile provider).

Comcast has throttled video streaming in the past, because it competes with their main business (providing cable TV and on-demand TV). Comcast has also in the past blocked P2P traffic, because torrenting movies and series has competed with their airing rights to film and series content (aka competing with their cable/on-demand TV business model).


Saying that net neutrality has made these things possible is not so far fetched as you might believe.

>overwhelmingly negative response
so, uh, what exactly is the problem here?

>guys guys companies totally not exist to maximize profit its just a leftist conspiracy

mostly been trolling people that are freaking out, it is entertaining, but don't worry, these things always work themselves out one way or another, through cooperation, litigation, competition, etc. everything will be fine, don't go through life with your panties in a bunch over small shit like the internet

Same, I just post pro nn and pol falseflag threads to trigger retards

...

...

What is cryptography? How do you think I avoid traffic shaping while torrenting?

>throttle all encrypted traffic
or
>observe key exchange because I'm the Man in the Middle for everybody, decrypt packages

You know they're doing this to stop cryptocurrency from overthrowing the dollar right

>le_dolan

> i dont read hundreds pages of obama era regulation, i only know it is good for us because ISPs wont slow us down because of it, and drumph is baaad.

Theres a fucking article that states government will subsidized ISP to NOT throttle internet speed. So more taxpayers money went to ISPs thx to net neutrality regs.

>hundreds pages of obama era regulation
Which page in the manual did that come out of? Is that talking point B.12 or is it C.12, I'm having trouble remembering.

>People who support Trump find themselves censored after NN
>Blame Russia when we find out it's a scam

##Filter Sup Forums shitposts:##
/botnet/i
/shill/i
/jew/i
/feminis[tm]/i
/goy/i

Unironically this

You are preaching to the choir if you are talking to TrumpFags. They LOVE Russia and ARE Nazis.

get ready for poorly drawn centrist memes with no argument.

>Verizon has in the past attempted to block VOIP calls, because it competes with Verizon's main business (being a mobile provider).
>Comcast has throttled video streaming in the past, because it competes with their main business (providing cable TV and on-demand TV).
And they were sued by the FTC for anti-competitive behavior and had to stop because of anti-trust law. Nothing to do with NN.

>Comcast has also in the past blocked P2P traffic, because torrenting movies and series is ILLEGAL
Fixed. Maybe people should stop violating the terms of service and using their internet to illegal download content. Even with NN comcast is within their rights to shut down illegal behavior, there's no real change except for a handful of people using P2P for legitimate purposes, but piracy poisoned the pond.

>And they were sued by the FTC for anti-competitive behavior and had to stop because of anti-trust law. Nothing to do with NN.
Nope.

Verizon is still blocking SIP (a protocol used for setting up P2P/VoIP sessions): onsip.com/blog/in-depth-verizon-blocks-sip-traffic-using-alg

FTC did not intervene and Netflix ended the throttling by paying up: consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/

>Maybe people should stop violating the terms of service and using their internet to illegal download content.
P2P traffic is not only used for BitTorrenting. Most VoIP protocols prefer P2P for example, which is why they employ the ICE/TURN/STUN mechanism to attempt to establish direct P2P connections and ultimately falling back on a relay server if they're not able to.


BitTorrents or other torrents are not only used for illegal downloads (I download Linux ISOs using torrents frequently).

>there's no real change except for a handful of people using P2P for legitimate purposes,
A plethora of VoIP and video conferencing applications, as well as streaming applications use P2P, what the hell are you on about?

*were still blocking SIP before NN

>the results i need
what kind of mission critical stuff are you doing that can only be helped with google's search results

>JIDF
>MIDF
>2 cent party
>le shillbots
>Shareblue
>SRS
>Leftypol
>antifa
>CTR
>etc etc
...
>Russia being involved in shilling in the USA? Hmmmph! How dare you stain the impeccable reputation of based putin? He may pump athletes full of roids at the Olympics but he would never attempt to influence elections even with several sanctions and hostility from the US on his back, and even if he did influence the elections it's a good thing because the CIA has influenced their elections!

The Sup Forums userbase is a sad joke, almost boomer-tier in terms of self consciousness and intelligence

Finally someone who gets it.

>onsip.com/blog/in-depth-verizon-blocks-sip-traffic-using-alg
>For these reasons, we do not recommend using Verizon mobile broadband for anyone looking to use the OnSIP hosted PBX platform. We ourselves continue to use AT&T’s mobile broadband for demo purposes.

Seems like everything is working as intended? By the way, we block SIP all the time at work. You people should probably read those contracts that you sign with your ISP

>Seems like everything is working as intended?
Verizon blocking SIP for the purpose of jewing out their customers, you mean? Yes, that works as intended.

>By the way, we block SIP all the time at work.
Why?

I actually think NN is good, but saying it is not triggers liberals

That is why I say everywhere that NN, because it triggers liberals and it is funny

>Why?
So employees can't make personal Skype calls during work hours, obviously.

Smashing my own dick with a hammer, senpai. to own the libs

>muh Russia

>Verizon blocking SIP for the purpose of jewing out their customers, you mean? Yes, that works as intended.
They recommended another provider. See, problem solved. And what's this "jewing" thing. Were you somehow promised unimpeded SIP packets in your Verizon package?

>Why?
Extremely common to do in corporate settings. We control things like that across many many of our clients

>internet
>Free
By nature of the Internet, it cannot be free, it's a commodity controller by a third party.
Only way to make it free is to make sure everyone is following the same just rules, without said rules, internet is in prison from the people by thous who have the power, aka ISPs.

>They recommended another provider. See, problem solved.
Are you retarded or just pretending to be?

>Were you somehow promised unimpeded SIP packets in your Verizon package?
I were promised data traffic, yes. There were no mention of certain application layer protocols being blocked.

The reason why Verizon stopped blocking SIP after Title II was because it was an unlawful blocking.

>Extremely common to do in corporate settings.
And how is this relevant for a customer-provider point of view? Let me answer that for you, it isn't.

>Extremely common to do in corporate settings. We control things like that across many many of our clients
So your employees don't use VoIP software then, got it. Sounds like a real "efficient" workplace.

>Are you retarded or just pretending to be?
Not an argument

>I were promised data traffic, yes.
You may want to re-read that contract, pal.

>And how is this relevant for a customer-provider point of view? Let me answer that for you, it isn't.
Because all the internet is is other people's networks. Just like the "cloud" is just other people's computers. It's not yours, and it's not free (as in beer)

Not just bittorrent uses p2p, a lot of your video games may use p2p for voice chat or even to host games.

Some services also use bittorrent to distribute downloads of legitimate software, the largest one being world of warcraft. Imagine if a game startup can't afford to pay the fees to host a download on servers or is at odds with companies like EA or Steam with their distribution. Programs like bittorrent are incredibly helpful in this case.

>So your employees don't use VoIP software then, got it. Sounds like a real "efficient" workplace.
We can use whatever we want, but we get contracted to shore up networks, and block stuff like that left and right.

>Not an argument
Neither is "just change mobile provider lol"

>You may want to re-read that contract, pal.
Well, it's no longer valid as after NN they no longer did this.

>Because all the internet is is other people's networks
>Just like the "cloud" is just other people's computers. It's not yours, and it's not free (as in beer)
So you're okay with corporate censorship then? How jewish is that?

>We can use whatever we want,
Not if SIP is blocked. You effectively block all video conferencing applications.

>baaaww why can't Blizzard or Steam or EA use ISP infrastructure for free

>Not if SIP is blocked. You effectively block all video conferencing applications.
We have an ISP that wouldn't do that ;)

Getting it yet?

>We have an ISP that wouldn't do that ;)
You just used as an argument that corporations block it all the time... This is some low quality bait.

Also, "lol just change your provider" is a bullshit argument.

That's like FedEx charging the shipper and the person receiving a package for the service.

Do you shill for free?

I'm rich, I can pay whatever for my ISP to stop throttling

Plus I like making libs angry, being pro based Pajeet Pai is fun

>That's like FedEx charging the shipper and the person receiving a package for the service.
Implying that's inherently wrong.

Back to Sup Forums, dumbass

>We have an ISP that wouldn't do that ;)
Because of Title II. Now that it is repealed, nothing is stopping them from doing that or demanding extra payment for it.

What do you mean by 'wrong'?
Would you as a consumer enjoy paying extra to receive the same service?

Repealing Title II was never about consumers, it was the about the right for ISPs to not being forced into letting companies use their infrastructure for free.

That's literally not what I was saying.

I have no doubts in my mind that steam and EA have more than enough money to pay for fast lanes. But to create an anti competitive environment if a developer has a huge issue with these companies to distribute his game but entirely lacks the ability to host the servers on his own is another issue entirely.

You're basically being the libtard in this case wanting to ban the big scary guns just because news media disproportionately displays and glorifies acts of violence by lone gunmen in isolated cases.

>Would you as a consumer enjoy paying extra to receive the same service
yes, I have the money, fuck poorfags

>wanting to remove regulation that forces ISPs to let companies use their infrastructure for free is the same as wanting to ban guns
>implying wanting to lift a ban and impose a ban is "basically" the same thing
You're not making any sense.

this type of user is unironically a major part of several problems in the US

Except they already pay for services. With an internet subscription, probably an enterprise contract for their data centers worth more money per year than you'll ever see in a lifetime.

Paying Amazon for hosting in their data centres is not the same thing as Comcast receiving compensation for as much as 37% of traffic over their infrastructure originating from Netflix servers.

Then that's Comcast and Amazon's issue then isn't it?

Why are you infringing on the rights of Amazon to enterprise on cloud storage and services?

It's actually the customers of the ISP who are using the infrastructure of the ISP to demand and receive content

Your cuck repeal will actually end up fucking over the consumers and charging them more if companies like Blizzard don't cave in to the extortion from ISPs, for a service that you were already paying, to begin with.

This is about squeezing more money from the content providers and the customer, cuckold.

>Then that's Comcast and Amazon's issue then isn't it?
Amazon isn't generating the traffic.

>Why are you infringing on the rights of Amazon to enterprise on cloud storage and services?
???

I'm not. Amazon are already being paid by Netflix for computing power and storage devices.

Because you're fixated on what big bad steam and EA do and not on the main point of the issues with banning p2p services outright.

>If you use a service you need to pay for that service
Why is this a problem?

Amazon is generating the traffic though.

Its Amazon's web services connected to Comcast, no?

>Because of Title II. Now that it is repealed, nothing is stopping them from doing that or demanding extra payment for it.
Guess that's why we were blocked before 2015 then...

Tard

What? The customer pays for a 100mbps line, why should it matter where they get that 100mbps from? If the ISP is oversubscribing its services then that is the ISP's problem, not Netflix's.

If P2P is a service that your company relies on, then your company should have to pay in order to use that service.

I don't give a fuck about the size of your company. The price of a service is what it is, you can't demand a lower price just because you can't afford it. That's not how the real world works, you don't get to steal food from the supermarket just because you can't afford it.