One year anniversary of Net Neutrality being repealed

Jaxon Davis
Jaxon Davis

Do you guys remember how things used to be before we lost it all? I guess the lesson here is to never take things for granted

Attached: C-09N-eXUAENcw7.jpg (19.33 KB, 480x460)

Other urls found in this thread:

eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/net-neutralitys-day-court
eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/countries-zero-rating-have-more-expensive-wireless-broadband-countries-without-it
techdirt.com/articles/20150505/09051330890/mere-threat-real-neutrality-rules-appears-to-have-helped-calm-verizon-level-3-cogent-interconnection-feud.shtml
freepress.net/our-response/expert-analysis/explainers/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling
sunlightfoundation.com/2014/05/16/how-telecoms-and-cable-have-dominated-net-neutrality-lobbying/
medium.com/mozilla-internet-citizen/poll-americans-overwhelmingly-support-net-neutrality-98b6b77f6cfe
hackernoon.com/more-than-a-million-pro-repeal-net-neutrality-comments-were-likely-faked-e9f0e3ed36a6?gi=63f27d2ac446
yro.slashdot.org/story/07/09/27/157253/verizon-reverses-itself-on-pro-choice-news-texting-ban
guns.com/news/2013/03/28/comcast-turning-its-back-on-guns-in-advertising
cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/1998-99/nuremberg-files/censorship.html
potsandpansbyccg.com/2018/09/21/the-zero-rating-strategy/
stopthecap.com/2013/07/18/verizon-diverting-landline-fios-investment-to-pay-for-more-profitable-wireless-upgrades/
blog.cloudflare.com/the-relative-cost-of-bandwidth-around-the-world/

Nathaniel Brown
Nathaniel Brown

Ajit Pai totally roasted those normies with that vid though lol

Alexander Jenkins
Alexander Jenkins

I am more curious why you guys didn't riot. I feel like most problems with the government could be solved with people destroying government property. I am not supportive of it in any way but I would of thought you guys would of done that when it passed.

Josiah Allen
Josiah Allen

The internet has completely gone down the drain thanks to corporations, normies and consumerism, to the point where I've gone back to reality only to find a barren wasteland.

Attached: eric.png (357.4 KB, 472x910)

Chase Fisher
Chase Fisher

Worst part is we didn't even get the aesthetics typically shown in hacker movies.

Instead it's suger coated "OOPSIE WOOPSIE!! Uwu We made a fucky wucky!! A wittle fucko boingo! The code monkeys at our headquarters are working VEWY HAWD to fix this!" error messages along with soft pastel colors, roundified and flattened design that's obviously phoned in, and privacy haemmoraging cross site scripting or third party program dependencies doing the same.

The least the gigacorporations could do is letting me find relief in neon noir, but they gotta cockblock me there too just to spite me.

Elijah Ross
Elijah Ross

Exactly, I don't understand why my computer and everything on it absolutely must have the look of a children's toy. And what's the point in theming engines when every theme is the same?

Jackson Jackson
Jackson Jackson

Seriously, does ESR have FAS or something or is he just one ugly fuck

For me ARM SoCs with their poorly supported software environment (lacking drivers, outdated hacked up kernels that spam dmesg with chinglish "Hello world" driver equivalents) are somehow the perfect example what a shitshow tech has become. In an ideal world, we'd all have libre 5W computing devices on our desks with which we'd browse a mainly text based internet full of informative pages that'd load in an instant on these tiny computers.

Instead it's this absolute garbage, and the devices aren't libre, they're proprietary black boxes full of IP bloat. We could have it so much better. So, so much better. But hey, at least guys like Zuckerjew and that Bezos got filthy rich.

Gates also doesn't get nearly enough shit these days. He can act being the nice philanthropist all he wants but he's directly responsible for a lot of shit we have to deal with now.

Gavin Anderson
Gavin Anderson

Net neutrality was always gay and was never going to solve the monopoly issue.

Attached: weev-nn.webm (14.68 MB, 426x240)

John Butler
John Butler

I've witnessed no change. Has it actually affected anyone here?

Jacob Wood
Jacob Wood

because the money is in targeting adult children. That idiot wandering without an adblock who really thinks there are horny milfs in their area.

Camden Clark
Camden Clark

a bunch of stores, which prevent stock from other stores appearing on their shelves, banded together to force congress to make yet another bunch of stores lawfully required to stock their items.
Net neutrality was fucking dumb.
Until Amazon is legally required to stock bullshit from Target, then Sprint should be free to continue to tell Netflix to fuck off and stop congesting their network with jewry.

Ryan Bell
Ryan Bell

It'd make it hard to monetize people even with monopoly like conditions.
That's the whole point of it, nerfing big brother companies.

Jace Green
Jace Green

That's the whole point of it, nerfing big brother companies.
Nigger, every GloboHomo Corp was pro-NN. It had nothing to do with neutrality and everything to do with them paying less for bandwidth. They were still going to shit all over you, and their competition, on their own platforms because muh private enterprise muh terms of service bullshit.

Luke Rogers
Luke Rogers

oh shit here we go again
one of those imaginary (but creative) "good" ideas that end up being used by corporations for their own end or governments to strangle the internet for "greater good"

Aiden Baker
Aiden Baker

Any effects already? Did they started to get people used to having less power over what they do on the Internet? Are prices higher? When they took away net neutrality from you I laughed, but now I'm sorry. Lobby is actually so strong it didn't really matter how many people are against.
25% of the EU population voted against filters and nothing have happened and we are going to have filters by 2021. Wonder how will one year anniversary of this will look like...
But hey, Netflix works, so normies are ok with it... Is there any chance both lack of net neutrality and censorship in the EU will make normies feel uncomfortable leading them to changing the current situation?

Alexander Watson
Alexander Watson

That's the whole point of it, nerfing big brother companies.
I can't tell if you're joking or /reddit/index.html

Adam Morales
Adam Morales

Not until the can't afford food. that's the trick, slowly lower wages, remove social security, expand the police state etc. so that every small change is not worth rising up against.

Henry Anderson
Henry Anderson

I still remember a time when Cloudflare wasn't necessary for a page to exist and people actually had their own websites.
The last year really has been nothing compared to the havoc wreaked on the net the rest of this sorry millenium.

Brody Green
Brody Green

old Internet was better nostalgia goggles
We didn't used to have Internet, we had privatized corporate shithole BBSs delivered via the pricegouging monopolized telephone company. Cheap open 'net access from the mid-'90s to the late '00s was an abberation.

That isn't entirely true. NN is still being partly protected in much of the country by court injunctions and legislation disputing Pajeet's FCC policy:
eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/net-neutralitys-day-court
As a result of this uneven demolition of NN, and public scrutiny on such issues resulting from it, burgerlard ISPs haven't quite gone full nuAOL like those in some other countries have:
eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/countries-zero-rating-have-more-expensive-wireless-broadband-countries-without-it

abloo abloo muh peering
NN has zero to do with backend anything. Specifically, NN forces ISPs to charge users (frontend) the same for all sites, and deliver them all at the same speed, the proceeds of which ISPs are free to charge backend providers whatever they to facilitate that. In fact, NN actually causes peering agreements to be fairer:
techdirt.com/articles/20150505/09051330890/mere-threat-real-neutrality-rules-appears-to-have-helped-calm-verizon-level-3-cogent-interconnection-feud.shtml

The actual history of NN was fought one lawsuit at a time as ISPs experimented with bolder and more abusive forms of overreach against an FCC regulatory regime far too outdated to protect the Internet:
freepress.net/our-response/expert-analysis/explainers/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

Attached: AOL-logo.jpg (11.22 KB, 392x415)
Attached: Compu-Serve.jpg (67.2 KB, 827x827)
Attached: prodigy-logo-crop.png (2.19 KB, 349x192)

Juan Lopez
Juan Lopez

protect the internet
cringe

Benjamin Hill
Benjamin Hill

See the pics, that's where we're already back to.

Wyatt Stewart
Wyatt Stewart

Go to bed in your pile of stuffed brown envelopes shitpie

Dominic Allen
Dominic Allen

The problem is that there are always horny milfs in their area, or anything else they may want, but the horny milfs are also trapped by some other ad or platform engineered to lock their brains in, and no one ever does anything or goes anywhere, from here to eternity all castrated and spiritually mutilated by that same crap.

Attached: IMG-20190502-205757.jpg (118.47 KB, 1011x946)

Joseph Turner
Joseph Turner

NN has zero to do with backend anything. Specifically, NN forces ISPs to charge users (frontend) the same for all sites, and deliver them all at the same speed, the proceeds of which ISPs are free to charge backend providers whatever they to facilitate that.
Wrong. Bandwidth-heavy companies create autonomous systems to peer with ISPs, then ISPs create infrastructure and lay fiber to accommodate them. The ISPs charge them more for bandwidth than they do residential customers because of the sheer amount of bandwidth they use AND because it's how these multi-million/billion dollar bandwidth-heavy companies earn their revenue.
These bandwidth-heavy companies don't like that so they make up all this "ISP censorship" propaganda and push it all over social media through their emissaries. They tell lies about ISPs censoring speech, they have never done that, all the while one of NN's chief sponsors, Google, pulls domain name registrations because they don't like the political affiliation of the site owner.
With NN, all bandwidth is treated the same and you can't charge differently based on the content (whether it's some residential customer playing games or YouTube delivering their shitty videos at 4K 60 fps). With NN, the FCC can set prices and force the ISPs to take a loss (yes, they would still have shit tons of profit but that's not the point) for being a service provider to bandwidth-heavy companies.
NN is not about getting rid of the ISP monopolies; that's what DOJ trust busting is for. NN is not about protecting online speech, its biggest sponsors already ban you for posting the word, "honk". NN is not about you being in the slow or fast lane depending on the content; its biggest sponsors already use a fast lane made for them. NN is not about lowering service or bandwidth prices; its about its corporate sponsors being greedy and using the law to swindle ISPs out of money.
You're defending laws and regulations that have nothing to do with your rights but rather pertain to one class of corporations trying to fuck over another class of corporations. Nice shilling.

Austin Thompson
Austin Thompson

Nothing has changed.

Joshua Roberts
Joshua Roberts

The ISPs charge them more for bandwidth than they do residential customers because of the sheer amount of bandwidth they use
Yes, under NN, everyone is charged strictly based on the amount of bandwidth/reliability/etc they want, to get equal access to every other customer of that ISP or of other ISPs via the Internet.
"ISP censorship" propaganda
Facts aren't propaganda, read the Free Press link in my post, and you'll see ample examples confirmed in court going back to 2005 of ISPs strongarming websites, as well as attempting to upsell their own oligarchic competing services.
all the while one of NN's chief sponsors, Google, pulls domain name registrations because they don't like the political affiliation of the site owner
<abloo abloo
Anti-NN ISPs do the same thing. Try harder.
With NN, the FCC can set prices and force the ISPs to take a loss
Nonsensical gibberish. All that NN does is force ISPs to give everyone equal service for equal money. They can't lose money by selling more product in return for more money.
NN is not about getting rid of the ISP monopolies
It plays a key role in preventing ISPs from expanding beyond the ISP market, and abusing their position as middlemen to obtain an unassailable anticompetitive advantage against some of their customers' markets (content providers, hosts, backbone, etc.) and as kingmakers. Contrariwise, sewing up exclusive access to premier content would render it even more impossible for upstart ISPs to enter the ISP market.
that's what DOJ trust busting is for
Ackshually, the best solution would be to extend common carrier local loop unbundling, which guaranteed competitive markets for POTS dial-up and ISDN/DSL ISPs, to cover cable, fiber, and cellular. This would've been part of the same shift of regulations from Title I to Title II by the FCC that is being undermined by anti-NN efforts:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling
its biggest sponsors already use a fast lane made for them.
Only a result of NN crumbling in the 2000s, and as the Tech Dirt link in my prior post illustrates, even weak NN regulations render peering agreements less abusive.
NN is not about you being in the slow or fast lane depending on the content
NN is not about lowering service or bandwidth prices
It absolutely is, zero rating is the most blatant form of this.

Nice shilling
That's pretty rich, considering the anti-NN lobby outspent the pro-NN lobby by over 5:1:
sunlightfoundation.com/2014/05/16/how-telecoms-and-cable-have-dominated-net-neutrality-lobbying/
That public opinion among Democrats, independents AND REPUBLICANS is >70% pro-NN:
medium.com/mozilla-internet-citizen/poll-americans-overwhelmingly-support-net-neutrality-98b6b77f6cfe
And that in the FCC's request for comment, nearly 100% of anti-NN comments were botspam, and nearly 100% of non-botspam was pro-NN:
hackernoon.com/more-than-a-million-pro-repeal-net-neutrality-comments-were-likely-faked-e9f0e3ed36a6?gi=63f27d2ac446
Given those facts, you're the one far likelier to be a shill or corporate bootlicking dupe than I am.

Attached: bootlicker.gif (998.05 KB, 500x341)

Elijah Garcia
Elijah Garcia

Yeah, shit.
I used to be able to post on Zig Forums all day, now i can only post on it all day.

Jace Reed
Jace Reed

I promise NN is good for you.
We'll still control all the content on our OWN platforms to dictate what you can and can't say, but at least ISPs will charge us less for the bandwidth we consume.
t. Sundar Pichai
Fuck off Pajeet.

Jaxson Nelson
Jaxson Nelson

Anti-NN ISPs do the same thing. Try harder.
Any documented cases of an ISP refusing service to a customer based on _political beliefs_? The answer is no.
<abloo abloo
This is some tranny speak, isn't it?
It plays a key role in preventing ISPs from expanding beyond the ISP market
So you admit it does nothing to stop the collusion the ISPs engage in and doesn't fix the monopoly issue in this market. Glad we agree.
Ackshually, the best solution would be to extend common carrier local loop unbundling
And most of the ILECs have been bought up by CLECs. Try harder.
Only a result of NN crumbling in the 2000s
Nope. Try harder. The explosive growth of autonomous systems and the infrastructure they needed was going to cause these results regardless of regulation.
It absolutely is, zero rating is the most blatant form of this.
Nope. Try harder. NN was never going to lower prices. Zero rating is something that's done specifically by phone companies in "emerging markets". It is something that is shoehorned into the NN discussion, by your friends over at Google/Netflix/Facebook/Reddit/YouTube/PornHub, to scaremonger people to support NN and was heavily propagandized all over social media.
Given those facts, you're the one far likelier to be a shill or corporate bootlicking dupe than I am.
What you fail to understand is that neither outcome benefits people. NN benefits those corporations who want to pay less for their high amount of bandwidth and anti-NN benefits from price-gouging the corporations who use a lot of bandwidth. All you've proven is that you're siding with corporations who censor you. Congrats.

Julian Harris
Julian Harris

That (content consolidation, pic related) is a mostly separate problem from NN, which seeks to prevent the giant content platforms from merging with ISPs to (re)create an utterly invincible abomination on par with AOL or Compuserve, minus the freedom of POTS dial-up that proved their downfall.

Aside from mature solutions such as antitrust, probably the best weapon against them would be to terminate their neither-fish-nor-fowl "safe harbor" exemption that allows them to simultaneously hotpocket their users, not explain (nor even require) rules for doing so, and remain free of any legal liability in spite of that. If they were legally required to either open themselves up for censorship lawsuits, or completely eliminate centralized moderation to remain immune to liability, that would almost entirely fix the problem.

Any documented cases of an ISP refusing service to a customer based on _political beliefs_?
Perhaps not in their capacity as ISPs (though I could've sworn several ISPs honored flimsy takedown requests by the LWs early in GG, maybe I misremembered), but these leviathan conglomerates do so as much as anyone else in their other divisions that are more closely concerned with content rather than networking:
yro.slashdot.org/story/07/09/27/157253/verizon-reverses-itself-on-pro-choice-news-texting-ban
guns.com/news/2013/03/28/comcast-turning-its-back-on-guns-in-advertising
Indeed, back when early ISPs were still in their hybrid BBS stage as crucially involved in content, this was a regular occurrence:
cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/1998-99/nuremberg-files/censorship.html
For this reason, it is vital ISPs not be allowed to merge together their divisions in different industries, nor partner with firms in other industries, in anticompetitive ways.
So you admit it does nothing to stop the collusion the ISPs engage in and doesn't fix the monopoly issue in this market.
It doesn't entirely solve either problem, but it does prevent it from being made tremendously worse.

And most of the ILECs have been bought up by CLECs.
Zero rating is something that's done specifically by phone companies in "emerging markets". It is something that is shoehorned into the NN discussion
First, that's false, as Comcast's Stream TV (and arguably all "double/triple-play") illustrates:
potsandpansbyccg.com/2018/09/21/the-zero-rating-strategy/
Second, landline in general is dying as part of a concerted scheme against (most especially local loop-unbundled DSL, and to a lesser extent cable/fiber) infrastructural construction, in favor of fixed cellular:
stopthecap.com/2013/07/18/verizon-diverting-landline-fios-investment-to-pay-for-more-profitable-wireless-upgrades/
This is also why the fate of ILECs/CLECs in burgerstan is irrelevant, because the copper POTS network they competed in was intentionally destroyed through neglect so that telecom monopolies wouldn't be legally required to accommodate competitors.

The explosive growth of autonomous systems
...in burgerstan was entirely a result of corporate greed exploiting a weak regulatory regime to kill free nonprofit peering in favor of paid private transit, resulting in monopolization and massive profit for the network industry, unlike basically the entire rest of the planet:
blog.cloudflare.com/the-relative-cost-of-bandwidth-around-the-world/

NN benefits those corporations who want to pay less for their high amount of bandwidth
False, NN merely requires that they pay the same as anyone else, strictly on the basis of their bandwidth/QoS/etc needs, and nothing else. Moreover, that ISPs can't attempt to subsidize their own branded content on technologically false justifications.

Attached: 150304-consumer-internet1.jpg (762.28 KB, 900x2002)

Liam Reyes
Liam Reyes

Nothing actually changed, the corporations just have slightly less leverage in the realm of regulatory capture than they otherwise would.

Evan Brooks
Evan Brooks

When will redittors apologize for their scaremongering?

Owen Cox
Owen Cox

No. That's the joke.

Julian Bennett
Julian Bennett

Honestly, what actually happened as a result of this, I'm a mick so I've kinda just watched it from afar, to my knowledge I don't think ISPs have been bundling websites in packages or shit that was foretold, but I don't really know.

Anthony Adams
Anthony Adams

As I pointed out upthread, NN isn't entirely dead (lawsuits, state legislation, inter-agency squabbles beyond the FCC, etc.) and the political furor over the NN issue has prevented ISPs from immediately going hog wild with abusive practices in light of continuing public attention focused on them.

Aside from the slow but steady rotting encroachment of caps, throttling, tiering, and neglect of landline "last mile" infrastructure, there probably won't be any big, sudden change.

For instance, look back at the history of what spurred "net neutrality" to become a political buzzword in the first place, back in the 2000s, ISPs tentatively nibbling away at any weak spot they could find:
MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.
COMCAST: In 2007, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.
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. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.
AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.
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. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.
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. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.
PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.
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.
EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.
freepress.net/our-response/expert-analysis/explainers/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit