Hey Sup Forums, is there any way I can hide from my ISP when net neutrality is gutted?

Hey Sup Forums, is there any way I can hide from my ISP when net neutrality is gutted?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=FUPstXCqyus
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Are you serious?
You realize net neutrality is an Obama era thing and Obama didn't invent the internet.
To quote an old transformers cartoon: the seeds of the future lie buried in the past.

Except that net neutrality predates the Obama era and stems back to when the internet was first created?

Are you just pretending to be this dumb, or are you actually this dumb? (Like a simple Google search would have cleared this up for you.)

NN was just what was happening put to law, and it wasn't even NOT happening, because services did try to throttle people using specific services, and got sued by the FCC. Watch sum more transformers and they'll get to that part in the next episode

No
They're going after the big fish first. Netflix, Google, Amazon etc. expect price increases from these networks and services. Pay attention to your contract when January rolls around.

>Except that net neutrality predates the Obama era
the FCC rules don't
bitch

Look jackass, the only people who need to be worried about this are stupid people or the willful ignorant. I don't need to Google shit to get around whatever they try. So long as they don't pull the plug this is a non issue.

God, you’re fucking dumb. Yeah, the FCC rules don’t, but the FCC rules aren’t what make up/constitute net neutrality.

The FCC rules were put into place when it became clear that ISPs were considering throttling internet access/bandwidth in order to further increase profits and further monotize internet access/speed.

So, for fucks sake go fucking spend 10 minutes reading about shit before you make everyone here dumber by saying dumb shit.

first of all you need to stop acting superior because you read a wiki page
second of all you need to remember that the FCC makes rules for the US not the world, for the rest of the world access to those services would not be affected.

>>ISPs were considering throttling internet access/bandwidth in order to further increase profits and further monotize internet access/speed

your isp already does this its called tiered service

you're a tiered service

youtube.com/watch?v=FUPstXCqyus

... i don't see where you were going with that

sorry, must be a top tier joke then

mfw the entire united states relies on internet to function nowadays. well see how long shit lasts when it starts effecting business's drastically and big business's start putting pressure on the fcc to do something.

the real question you need to ask yourself is why you let the media scare you so badly
i bet if the media told you in 2003 they were going to take down the pirate bay you'd have believed them wouldn't you?

RIP piratebay
RIP kazaa

First of all you can go fuck yourself because I wrote a fucking 50 page paper about this.

Yeah, tiered service exists, but that’s not all of what net neutrality refers to, and the fact that regulated tiered services exist doesn’t mean that nothing is going to fucking change if/when the FCC removes all net neutrality safe guards.

Presently, tiered services exist insofar as a user’s broadband speed is connected—that’s not the problem here. The problem is that even if you (as idiot A) pays X dollars for the fast as fuck internet package, well that package won’t mean shit if the website your visiting elects not to bow down to the ISPs and/or can’t meet the upcharge that they are going to be hit with to accommodate/compensate for the fact the whatever stupid fucking website you waste your time visiting gets a fuck ton of traffic.

pirate bay is still going lol

and later they backed off
again, without FCC net neutrality rules, which didn't exist
the old internet didn't have direct interconnections between the largest content providers and ISPs either
all this shit started because ISPs like comcast would try to charge them for special interconnections instead of selflessly giving them, and the rich content providers went crying to the FCC
why should any take the content providers' side on this?
it's either one big industry or another that wins: none of them deserve any favors

they've needed assistance from other domains, plus their traffic is alot lower now due to stuff like projectfreetv giving streaming options too

i didnt say they were good. i just said they were still around lol. mainly only use them for music since theres no other sites that handle music as much as they do. i used to use them to dl comic book bundles but it looks like DC cracked down on them and pulled the entire collection of comics

I am getting told to go fuck myself by a person who got an F on a 50 page paper on this?
if you got anything other than an F whoever assigned it is an idiot, you aren't talking to one of the braindead masses here you nimrod you are talking to someone who has already threw a wrench in your entire theory, this is a problem inside the US from that ISP connecting to that service if they decide to throttle. if you have no idea how to solve that problem if you are inside the US then you have no business acting like you are anything other than an idiot pretending to know "Stuff n Thangs"

Because what makes you think this is only going to affect content providers? And what about content providers that don’t fucking generate revenue?

Do you like cheating on your essays by using Wikipedia? Well, you’ll have to learn to live without it.

Do you like wasting your time on here—well, depending on how much traffic is generated, you’ll have to learn to waste your time elsewhere.

Like piratebay/torrents? That’s gone. Without question. (

cancel your service?

you can hide your dick between your legs

>Do you like wasting your time on here
no
>you’ll have to learn to waste your time elsewhere.
good riddance
>ISPs are Tier 1 network providers
nope
some were, but companies like comcast definitely aren't
peering with content providers and peering with core networks are different propositions
content can still route through core networks (at lower quality, unacceptable for low latencies) without direct interconnections between content providers and ISPs: those are the networks the government started
ISPs don't single out low bandwidth websites
they go after services to put heavy strain on their hardware or cost additional engineering, reasonably

>some were, but companies like Comcast definitely aren’t.

Where I live AT&T has regional control of the market, so the fact that smaller ISPs exist and aren’t tier 1 is of zero consequence. (Hence, what I was referring to when I mentioned how ISPs have regional monopolies over the market and generally - at least when speaking of larger ISPs - don’t engage in any competition.)

That said, it seems like you either missed my point, or I didn’t understand your response.

Websites like PB, Wikipedia, etc. recieve high volumes of traffic but - currently - aren’t forced to pay a premium to keep their sites running at an acceptable speed.

That said, if the FCC regulations are removed, then I don’t see what is stopping ISPs from saying, “you know, fuck PB. Let’s finally get rid of this problem now that we can control the speed at which users are able to visit/interact with the website.

Lastly, the reason I didn’t make the distinction you made is because it doesn’t matter if Comcast isn’t a Tier 1 network—for the most part all ISPs (including Comcast) have been able to piggy-back off of all the initial infrastructure subsidized by tax dollars. To my knowledge only Google has been forced to build their own infrastructure—because other ISPs hate that Google is providing actually fair/decent internet packages at affordable rates. (As a result, the Tier 1 ISPs said, “fuck you guys” build your own infrastructure and won the eventual legal appeal.)

So, again, this is more a case of more train companies building more trains and less a case of train companies building their own railroads.