Net Neutrality 2017

[Bang]

uh,, i am not putting my personal info into that site.

 

Paranoid.. sure.

 

~Bang

[PokerPacker]

1 minute ago, Bang said:

uh,, i am not putting my personal info into that site.

 

Paranoid.. sure.

 

~Bang

The thing below the video where you just put in a name is the search thingie.  The thing on the right is, I guess, if you do find yourself in there you can tell someone your identity has been stolen for nefarious internet purposes.

[Malapropismic Depository]

7 minutes ago, Bang said:

uh,, i am not putting my personal info into that site.

 

Paranoid.. sure.

 

~Bang

 

You don't have to.

I can put your name in, for you

[Hersh]

3 hours ago, Springfield said:

Here’s a website where you can search to see if you or someone you know had their likeness used fraudulently.

 

My name (not common) was used but a different address, an address that does not exist.

 

Is this real? I entered names from my household and while my address didn’t come up, it was pretty obvious some fake letters were up under a name. Easy to tell. 

[Bang]

Just the same. The world is toooooo screwball. I'll keep my paranoia.

I figure the chance my name or info has been used is probably pretty good anyway, and the chance there's anything i can do about that is nil, so. no point in any risk of getting on too many lists no matter how minimal or innocent it my seem. (which it's not, because regardless, it databases your info, guaranteed.)  If a bot is using me to make its lies, the problem is not something i can do anything about. Not only that, but i think it's incredibly naive to think that all these bot letters to the FCC made any difference, because they do not give a rat **** what we think or want anyway. the letters were not needed. Their minds were made up by their party affiliation, period. Our opinions? Meaningless, and thus bot intrusion, also meaningless. Greed ****s us, not bots pretending to be public opinion. Public opinion is nothing except a noise to be ignored or silenced.

 

No more trust. The internet has not earned it. Long ago i came to the conclusion that identity theft in one form or another is inevitable these days. deal with what you can, and avoid unnecessary exposure.

 

 

~Bang

Edited December 17, 2017 by Bang

[twa]

7 hours ago, Arsenic said:

 

 

What does the perfect future look like?

 

 

probably NSFW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgiE6iR6GWU

 

[Long n Left]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/motherboard.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/7xwknx/republican-members-of-congress-fcc-letter

 

Sorry if this has already been posted, went through thread rather quickly. 

 

Letter sent by congresspeople who support repeal of net neutrality, with amount of money received from telecommunications companies. 

 

A starting place to begin to bring down the hatchet.

[Wildbunny]

On 15/12/2017 at 2:45 AM, bearrock said:

They aren't going to start blocking sites right away.  They'll offer premium speed to paying sites in the future and leave non premium sites stuck on obsolete speed and say we are not blocking any content, just offering perk to premium content providers.  And certain segment of the population will buy it cause, you know, party before country or logic or sanity, etc.

That seems like a real stretch. I can see the theory, but having it working is another problem.

I was discussing that with a colleague and we camed to the conclusion that the only way you can do that is through apps deployed on everyone equipments, but even then it will slow everyone as you'll have to check every packets going through them to check the speed you have to use for each customer. That will require some time to calculation. Which will obviously slow everyone.

 

So, to us, that seems more like an Hoax. ISP are competing with insane rates to please potential customers. But offering 1G to everyone is pure utopy.

1st, almost nobody needs a 1G service at home. Voice is 64. TV is 15M or something in 4K mode. So basically, 30M is more than sufficient for the majority of the people.

But if you start delivering 1G to everyone, then you need some expensive MUX everywhere to gather all those 1G lines into 10/100/1000G. And those aren't cheap by any means.

 

So I believe the easier way to do it will be to downplay anyone. Limit everyone's speed to 10/20M through policies as the basic offer, and upgrade this for those pay a bonus...

 

Once again, like cloud services, this is looking like a good scam.

[bearrock]

9 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

That seems like a real stretch. I can see the theory, but having it working is another problem.

I was discussing that with a colleague and we camed to the conclusion that the only way you can do that is through apps deployed on everyone equipments, but even then it will slow everyone as you'll have to check every packets going through them to check the speed you have to use for each customer. That will require some time to calculation. Which will obviously slow everyone.

 

So, to us, that seems more like an Hoax. ISP are competing with insane rates to please potential customers. But offering 1G to everyone is pure utopy.

1st, almost nobody needs a 1G service at home. Voice is 64. TV is 15M or something in 4K mode. So basically, 30M is more than sufficient for the majority of the people.

But if you start delivering 1G to everyone, then you need some expensive MUX everywhere to gather all those 1G lines into 10/100/1000G. And those aren't cheap by any means.

 

So I believe the easier way to do it will be to downplay anyone. Limit everyone's speed to 10/20M through policies as the basic offer, and upgrade this for those pay a bonus...

 

Once again, like cloud services, this is looking like a good scam.

 

Not talking about the money from consumers but content providers and business.  Let's say Verizon goes to Hulu and Netflix and say we are moving on to the next tier in speed (5G, 2 Gigabit, terabit, whatever).  We are giving select companies the option of premium access, which will ensure that consumers can access those companies' websites and products at the top tier in speed at all times.  Non-premium companies may (read: will) be downgraded to lower tier speed during peak times.  This doesn't require individual customer calibration, it's network wide and is simple to implement.  

 

Another option is for ISPs to leverage their control over consumer's quality/speed of access to content and use it to promote their own content delivery platform.  We are already seeing it with mobile providers (unlimited access for company X, etc).

 

This will eventually have the effect of ISPs having the power to leverage more fees from content providers (which is why companies like google and netflix opposed net neutrality).  It will also have the effect of suppressing new platforms as most startups will be unlikely to be able to afford the premium access and/or established companies can just offer similar content with premium access (which may be why content providers didn't fight too hard against net neutrality).  In essence, it will degrade innovation and free spirit of the internet.  All so that ISPs have more flexibility to monetize their semi-monopoly over access to the net.  

[Wildbunny]

42 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Not talking about the money from consumers but content providers and business.  Let's say Verizon goes to Hulu and Netflix and say we are moving on to the next tier in speed (5G, 2 Gigabit, terabit, whatever).  We are giving select companies the option of premium access, which will ensure that consumers can access those companies' websites and products at the top tier in speed at all times.  Non-premium companies may (read: will) be downgraded to lower tier speed during peak times.  This doesn't require individual customer calibration, it's network wide and is simple to implement.  

 

Another option is for ISPs to leverage their control over consumer's quality/speed of access to content and use it to promote their own content delivery platform.  We are already seeing it with mobile providers (unlimited access for company X, etc).

 

This will eventually have the effect of ISPs having the power to leverage more fees from content providers (which is why companies like google and netflix opposed net neutrality).  It will also have the effect of suppressing new platforms as most startups will be unlikely to be able to afford the premium access and/or established companies can just offer similar content with premium access (which may be why content providers didn't fight too hard against net neutrality).  In essence, it will degrade innovation and free spirit of the internet.  All so that ISPs have more flexibility to monetize their semi-monopoly over access to the net.  

I believe you have it wrong here. Those same companies are already customers of ISP and are already paying them tons of money for increased bandwith. And if they are reaching their limits, they order more fibers, more datarate. (Which is why companies like Google, Microsoft have their own fiber system as ISP aren't able to deliver what they need).

 

So in your example Verizon wouldn't be able to come to Netflix and say "we are gonna slow your customers unless you pay X amount of money." Those companies are already paying a lot. And I'm pretty sure doing something like this would be against their respective contracts.

 

ISP are reaching full capacity. Upgrading their core network cost a lot of money. Deploying fibers cost lost of money. But since they can't charge customers more than what they are charging right now, they have to come out with other ways of keeping their finances OK. Internet has been constructed in a neutral way, because packets just don't care. They're passive and relies on the speed of the equipment, no matter where they come from. If they're on a 1G service, they'll travel at 1G. If they are on a 10M, they'll travel at this speed. ISP believes they can make up their cost by charging scams...

 

I wouldn't even be surprise to have someone in a year or two come up and say that they ****ed up everyone with charging stuff that doesn't even exist. Because there's absolutely no way a user behind is comp can see the difference between a 50M and a 2G service.

[bearrock]

1 hour ago, Wildbunny said:

I believe you have it wrong here. Those same companies are already customers of ISP and are already paying them tons of money for increased bandwith. And if they are reaching their limits, they order more fibers, more datarate. (Which is why companies like Google, Microsoft have their own fiber system as ISP aren't able to deliver what they need).

 

So in your example Verizon wouldn't be able to come to Netflix and say "we are gonna slow your customers unless you pay X amount of money." Those companies are already paying a lot. And I'm pretty sure doing something like this would be against their respective contracts.

 

 

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/08/netflix-sends-99-percent-of-its-traffic-over-free-connections-to-isps/

 

Major isp used to not charge. Then they forced netflix to pay.  Till net neutrality regs in 2015.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2017/7/21/16010766/verizon-netflix-throttling-statement-net-neutrality-title-ii

 

Of course, still shenanigans.

 

And now they can discriminate traffic again.  

[SoulSkin]

Interesting. Would have embedded the tweet, but it said, "**** it, we'll make our own."

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/j5djd7/motherboard-and-vice-are-building-a-community-internet-network-to-protect-net-neutrality?utm_source=vicetwitterus

[tshile]

@Wildbunny may I ask what your credentials are on the matter?

 

[The Evil Genius]

Has anyone read whether the common carrier laws will still stand for ISPs? FCC classified ISPs as them in 2015 when NN was enacted.

 

Seems like an important issue that no one is talking about.

Edited December 18, 2017 by The Evil Genius

[PokerPacker]

Any Networky people have any thought on Substratum?

https://substratum.net/

[Mooka]

2 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

Has anyone read whether the common carrier laws will still stand for ISPs? FCC classified ISPs as them in 2015 when NN was enacted.

 

Seems like an important issue that no one is talking about.

 

The laws were Net Neutrality. 

[The Evil Genius]

 

8 hours ago, Mooka said:

 

The laws were Net Neutrality. 

 

I should have been more specific. I'm addressing the part of common carrier laws that basically gave ISPs immunity from the content on websites powered by ISPs. 

 

Will we revert back to the Good Samaritan provision of the Communications Decency Act to protect ISPs? Or will Xfinity or whoever be liable for content now? 

 

 

[Mooka]

1 hour ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

 

I should have been more specific. I'm addressing the part of common carrier laws that basically gave ISPs immunity from the content on websites powered by ISPs. 

 

Will we revert back to the Good Samaritan provision of the Communications Decency Act to protect ISPs? Or will Xfinity or whoever be liable for content now? 

 

 

 

The CDA is unchanged atm, Congress still hasn't voted on changing it for the sex trafficking thing yet. Would be interesting if they changed the CDA while the FCC is simultaneously killing NN. 

 

It will fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission now I guess? Not sure. 

 

Funny enough, in this giant pretzle, we have broadband companies in legal battles with the FTC claiming they don't have authority because they are common carriers. 

[Springfield]

That didn’t take long...

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/12/19/comcast-cox-frontier-net-neutrality/

 

Quote

Comcast, Cox, Frontier All Raising Internet Access Rates for 2018

The timing of this couldn’t be worse.  But maybe that’s not a concern for major ISPs.  Accordingly, at least three major ISPs have now announced rate hikes for 2018.

That is, January, 2018.  So customers have very little time to react, modify their plans, or even cancel their accounts.

 

[Bozo the kKklown]

 

we will see

[tshile]

Wait we couldn't rely on the fcc so we're supposed to find hope in senators?

[China]

Net neutrality's impact on free porn could be significant, experts say

 

The Federal Communications Commission decision on Thursday to kill net neutrality rules that provide for equal access online to all types of content will likely reshape the multibillion dollar porn industry in the coming years.

 

It’s hard to overstate just how much porn is consumed online. Last year, Pornhub viewers alone watched over 91 billion videos and there were a total of 44,000 visits to the site per hour.  

 

But now that internet service providers will be able to control what users can access and charge a range of prices based on the type of content, that could change.

Pornhub and similar sites have been vocal about fighting against the repeal of net neutrality.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[spjunkies]

I'll put it this way, if they try to mess around with free porn I think there will be some significant resistance.

[twa]

Where are those pitchforks?

[SoulSkin]

45 minutes ago, twa said:

Where are those pitchforks?

 

Hard to tell at this point. I think we're all mostly experiencing nerve deadening from the repeated back stabbings. I suspect I have at least one wedged between my C6 and C7.