For a free internet!

[LMuhlen]

Uh, those are known as transit isps. They are still internet service providers. And yes, they go through US isps before they hit the Atlantic or Pacific.

Other than what they are called. Will they be able to throttle as they please with no NN? Or is this intended cut on NN only affecting local ISPs servicing local clients?

[Deleted]

However, ISP's can control the speed if the intended destination is outside of their... 'comfort zone', shall we say. IP Geolocation is enough to dictate what rules should be placed in effect - for example, regardless of the destination or intention, they could limit it if it's international. The only way around this would be a proxy or VPN, but then again most people would use a public proxy (which again could be limited), or a commercial VPN service, since most don't know how to setup their own. Hell, they can control the speed and access to any IP or location if they so desire.

That affects only US customers. The rest of the world isn't affected.

[Polarthief]

That affects only US customers. The rest of the world isn't affected.

Except not only can ISPs in other countries try to rally behind this corporate greed bullshit idea, but anything on the internet that is US-based, WILL be affected, meaning a non-US consumer of the Internet might suddenly lose their favorite US-based sites because said site owners refuse to pay a premium.

So no matter how big or small, this affects literally everyone, unless you happen to be a person not in the US and you never, ever, go to a single US-hosted/based site, which is literally impossible given that you're reading this post I just made on MMO-Champion, which is hosted on a US-based server.

[I Push Buttons]

I'm going to be contrary here.

"Net Neutrality" should be called "Netflix Assistance Package". What do I mean? Netflix was soaking up a third of all internet traffic and that was a while ago, I wouldn't be surprised if half of all internet traffic today is Netflix traffic.

ISPs are looking at all that money Netflix is making and they are wondering why they should let this billion dollar company use their pipes without paying a fair amount.

Netflix lucked out in that consumers are worried that the ISPs plan on increasing the usage fees of users if net neutrality restrictions are lifted so internet users are supporting a billion dollar company Netflix.

But that's what it's about, billions of dollars in income.

Only Netflix, YouTube, etc., who eat up all that bandwidth are paying for that bandwidth... The people who access their content... Also paying for that bandwidth........... And then to top it all off the ISPs aren't even overburdened by it.

You act like everyone is accessing this stuff for free?

They merely want Net Neutrality gone so they can nickle and dime people more AND stifle their competition. Turn it into cell phone provider style markets. Charge people for data by the gigabyte and then offer them "free" services (their own services) compared to others like Netflix.

IE: "You want to watch a movie on Netflix!? Well that is going to eat up a few gigabytes of your allotted data... OR you could watch a movie on CBS/NBC/Fox Streaming© Brought to you by Charter® powered by Spectrum™ and it won't count against your data!"

[Deleted]

Uh, those are known as transit isps. They are still internet service providers. And yes, they go through US isps before they hit the Atlantic or Pacific.

No, they don't go through US ISPs. Unless someone decides to host website on his own computer, like its beginning of century.

Traffic goes like this: Datacenter -> t1 provider -> possibly another t1 provider -> customer's ISP -> customer. At no point it hits conventional US ISPs.

In case if someone misunderstands me, I replied to post about customers outside of US.

[breadisfunny]

I'm going to be contrary here.

"Net Neutrality" should be called "Netflix Assistance Package". What do I mean? Netflix was soaking up a third of all internet traffic and that was a while ago, I wouldn't be surprised if half of all internet traffic today is Netflix traffic.

ISPs are looking at all that money Netflix is making and they are wondering why they should let this billion dollar company use their pipes without paying a fair amount.

Netflix lucked out in that consumers are worried that the ISPs plan on increasing the usage fees of users if net neutrality restrictions are lifted so internet users are supporting a billion dollar company Netflix.

But that's what it's about, billions of dollars in income.

your not being contrarian since 1. you obviously don't know what it means since your using it incorrectly. 2. what you just posted sounds more like a conspiracy theory involving netflix which you seem to have some sort of bone to pick with. 3. your not really arguing for net neutrality your just trying to redirect blame for it's creation onto netflix. 4. you also seem to have no clue how the internet works but i'm not surprised by this as i've only seen you post a handful of times where you actually have a clue as to what your talking about.

[Polarthief]

IE: "You want to watch a movie on Netflix!? Well that is going to eat up a few gigabytes of your allotted data... OR you could watch a movie on CBS/NBC/Fox Streaming© Brought to you by Charter® powered by Spectrum™ and it won't count against your data!"

Not to mention nickel-and-diming the websites themselves. You don't pay? You won't be found on any search engine ever, or your website/content will run so slowly that no one will ever want to visit you. This would absolutely destroy anyone trying to start up an Internet-based company that needs even a decent chunk of bandwidth.

TL;DR: Net Neutrality protects both companies and consumers. Abolishing it ruins it for everyone except the greedy corporate bastard ISPs who are already trying their hardest to charge more for their already slow service (anything below Gigabit is slow), when it's already overpriced. I mean ffs, Google Fiber is $70/month for Gigabit speeds (and they even offer 20Mbps for FREE! 100% FUCKING FREE!!!!!) and even 10-20Mbps (50-100x slower speeds) in some suburban areas are like $80-100/month ($10-30 more per month) on your greedy asshole ISPs.

[breadisfunny]

That affects only US customers. The rest of the world isn't affected.

it will eventually.

[Deleted]

Except not only can ISPs in other countries try to rally behind this corporate greed bullshit idea, but anything on the internet that is US-based, WILL be affected, meaning a non-US consumer of the Internet might suddenly lose their favorite US-based sites because said site owners refuse to pay a premium.

Yes, that's a possibility in some countries.

Good thing in EU we have rather strict laws and great consumer protection. For example, as of next month, mobile providers aren't allowed to charge roaming fees for customers from another EU country. So any customer can use his/her phone anywhere in EU and won't get charged for being in another country. Lots of mobile providers got upset, then they sent emails to their customers making it look like it was their idea in first place. F**k corporations.

[Breccia]

http://thehill.com/policy/technology...hn-oliver-show

FCC says it was victim of cyberattack after John Oliver show

The Federal Communications Commission is claiming its website was hit by a cyberattack late Sunday night.

The attack came shortly after comedian John Oliver urged viewers of his HBO show "Last Week Tonight" to file comments on the site in support of the agency's net neutrality rules, which FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is aiming to roll back.

The website went down shortly after Oliver's segment. Initial reports linked the downed website to the volume of comments, but the FCC is disputing that connection.

“Beginning on Sunday night at midnight, our analysis reveals that the FCC was subject to multiple distributed denial-of-service attacks (DDos)," FCC chief information officer David Bray said in a statement Monday.

"These were deliberate attempts by external actors to bombard the FCC’s comment system with a high amount of traffic to our commercial cloud host," Bray continued.

"These actors were not attempting to file comments themselves; rather they made it difficult for legitimate commenters to access and file with the FCC. While the comment system remained up and running the entire time, these DDoS events tied up the servers and prevented them from responding to people attempting to submit comments."

"We have worked with our commercial partners to address this situation and will continue to monitor developments going forward,” he added.

I'm...honestly not sure how to read this.

1) Is the FCC actually saying a lot of people all filing complaints at once is a DDoS attack?

2) Or, was it a separate thing, and someone used a DDoS attack on the FCC in solidarity with John Oliver? Because attacking the FCC site while trying to help people going to the FCC site doesn't sound like a good idea.

3) Or, was it a separate DDoS attack intended to defeat the John Oliver thing? Because for one, he'll just ask again next week, and for two, isn't the US looking for people hacking us right now? Why stick your neck out over complaint forms?

4) Or should I just read this as the FCC saying "We don't like it when market forces out of our control slow down our services!" to which the trite reply is "Well now you know how we feel, dumbass."

[McFuu]

The fact that there are no Wolves in the Wolf of Wall Street seems a legit review.

[Polarthief]

Yes, that's a possibility in some countries.

Good thing in EU we have rather strict laws and great consumer protection. For example, as of next month, mobile providers aren't allowed to charge roaming fees for customers from another EU country. So any customer can use his/her phone anywhere in EU and won't get charged for being in another country. Lots of mobile providers got upset, then they sent emails to their customers making it look like it was their idea in first place. F**k corporations.

Cool story bro, doesn't help when US-based servers get fucked and you're trying to access them.

Again, Net Neutrality affects everyone. Some more than less, and if you're retarded enough to not support it, you shouldn't be allowed on the Internet.

[Deleted]

http://thehill.com/policy/technology...hn-oliver-show

FCC says it was victim of cyberattack after John Oliver show

Probably its #1. Its a popular show, many people probably went to tell FCC to gofccyourself and website couldn't handle that much traffic.

[Polarthief]

FCC says it was victim of cyberattack after John Oliver show

I'm...honestly not sure how to read this.

Either way, to a logical mind, it's in favor of Net Neutrality.

1. This just proves how vital NN is to consumers and how it should be protected.

2. No one in favor of NN would DDoS the site that should be there to help us.

3. See #2.

4. See #1, except it even protects the FCC's website, oh look more incentive to fucking support NN.

[xact4]

Is this going to be one of those deals where we have data caps on home internet?

My home internet has a data cap. If you go over it 3 times in a year, they bump you up to the next plan ($30+ more). People are extremely surprised when they hear that this is an actual thing, probably more common than one might think. No competition available that doesn't use caps.

[Breccia]

Probably its #1. Its a popular show, many people probably went to tell FCC to gofccyourself and website couldn't handle that much traffic.

That's fucking embarrassing. I don't know which is worse, that the FCC can't take that level of traffic, or that they'd call it a DDoS attack. I mean it technically is, I guess, but if each entry was an actual human being logging in we're talking a technicality here.

[Breccia]

Heh, they usually get very low traffic.

Yeah but they run communication. It'd be just as embarrassing if the Department of Transportation couldn't get into their parking lot because the only road that leads there was closed for construction.

[Deleted]

Cool story bro, doesn't help when US-based servers get fucked and you're trying to access them.

Again, Net Neutrality affects everyone. Some more than less, and if you're retarded enough to not support it, you shouldn't be allowed on the Internet.

Then you don't understand the issue at all. Its about local ISPs charging premium, not about T1 providers.

I fully support it, hell, I don't understand how Americans could support such corrupted government (no, its not a party issue, its a core of government issue with legalized corruption called "lobbying" and similar relics from centuries ago) that allows corporations do what they want in first place, but I don't pretend like its more of a problem than it actually is. Its a local US issue, not international issue.

[Deleted]

Yeah but they run communication. It'd be just as embarrassing if the Department of Transportation couldn't get into their parking lot because the only road that leads there was closed for construction.

Probably budget isn't big enough to get better servers. Then there are regulations that make them meet certain criteria, like hosting at approved providers or even in house, which makes things much more expensive.

[Breccia]

Probably budget isn't big enough to get better servers. .

They need a better series of tubes.