The FCC just KILLED Net Neutrality

[Mooshi]

Just now, SurvivorNVL said:

It's one of the few things that people make a fuss about but barely existed in the first place.  And if it pisses off large tech companies, it's gotta be doing something right now that it is heading toward stacked courts and eventually Congress.

Buzzwords aside, I think what people really want is to access sites at the speeds they paid for. Nothing more, nothing less. If an ISP wants to give priority over their service, I'm totally fine with that so long as I'm getting what I paid for elsewhere. 

[givingtnt]

https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/14/the-fcc-just-repealed-net-neutrality-what-happens-next/?ncid=mobilenavtrend

[JAKEBAB]

16 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

There's a lot of misinformation and fake news being spread of how net neutrality was beneficial. All I need to say is that I'm glad it's gone.

Well how about you inform the masses instead of posting such a vague and provocative comment?

[Nowak]

Just now, TheCherryKing said:

Nobody really knows what will happen. Y'all just have to wait and see. 

Considering how my ISP (Comcast) removed their net neutrality pledge page just before the vote, and considering how Comcast has already attempted to block Bittorrent and throttle Netflix, and can't keep a stable internet connection especially around holidays like Christmas, I have the lowest expectations.

[Soonercoop]

Imo a lot of people are reacting to this with misinformed understandings. Internet service in the U.S. has never been "free market" and is broken in so many ways that this whole conflict (about regulation and classification of ISPs - not just NN) was bound to happen eventually. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Silentprototipe]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Yes. All of your heathen NepGear pron.

All the Gear 

 

[Sharif]

Good majority of the people (at least on the internet) support net neutrality, not even once have I heard someone say I wanna get rid of net neutrality, how does this go on happening after having so much support 

 

ps I wasn't following news thinking this won't ever happen (A little naive yes.) 

[xXBeefyDjXx]

Well, This is certainly going to be a pain. 

If you asked me just 2 years ago "Would you like to move to the United States?" I'd have said "Hell yeah" 

Since Trumps reign as president, That's changed to "Ah, I'd rather live here in the UK for now..." 

I really feel for everyone living there who actually knows the facts and gives a damn about their country.  Trumps reign must come to an end. ASAP, however, money talks. As shown when he first entered presidency....

 

Here in the UK, I am kicking my feet up with a almost free use internet, I am with Virgin Media, Now owned by US "Liberty Media". 

No caps on bandwidth, even during peak times, and the only blocks are those legally imposed, For example anti piracy laws outlawing any use of P2P sites, however I can legally use Torrenting for Linux distros and so on.. (We know ways around it, like a VPN or even TOR but lets not go off topic.)

In the UK, VM is one of the only well known ISPs that gives a free internet, with a majority of providers like BT and Sky only recently offering no bandwidth caps, but at a significantly higher cost, and you still only receive a 10th what you do on fibre because Telephone lines are crap to say the least. 

 

There was a state where Theresa May and the Conservatives were planning to kill security but that's been postponed (mostly) due to a huge backlash by isps and consumers, who said they should be tackling more important issues such as Brexit and welfare, rather than imposing internet bans because they didn't like what was there. 

[SurvivorNVL]

Just now, Sharif said:

Good majority of the people (at least on the internet) support net neutrality, not even once have I heard someone say I wanna get rid of net neutrality, how does this go on happening after having so much support 

 

ps I wasn't following news thinking this won't ever happen (A little naive yes.) 

There's at least 8 or so people who've been hopeful it'd get repealed on this forum.

[burnttoastnice]

1 hour ago, mynameisjuan said:

You cant read contents of an encrypted packet. All we see are IPs and ports. 

 

1 hour ago, jagdtigger said:

Not all of them, OpenVPN over port 443. Good luck filtering that one out...

 

If I was packet inspecting and saw a single OpenSSL handshake followed by just encrypted data and no plaintext whatsoever, it's pretty obvious a VPN is being used on that network. If there's multiple OpenSSL handshakes and the occasional dns request then the person is just browsing https websites normally

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Sharif said:

Good majority of the people (at least on the internet) support net neutrality, not even once have I heard someone say I wanna get rid of net neutrality, how does this go on happening after having so much support 

 

 

 

America land of perceived freedom. Really it's identical to china,  just controlled by large corporations instead of the government.

[SurvivorNVL]

Just now, Kumaresh said:

Now I'm curious to see what ACTUALLY happens and how you're all going to react to it.....

If you all happen to be right, there's gonna be an economic downturn due to massive losses by all the major telecom companies. Else I'm gonna be dropping the phrase "Much ado about nothing". And especially after seeing Ajit Pai's video regarding the subject, he seems to strongly suggest that NOTHING is going to change from the normal consumers perspective. Let's see who's right.....

It's basically going to be the "nothing will change" scenario.  Inevitable economic problems will occur, but that's with fingers crossed for an American economic collapse, though, and not really related to NN.

[leadeater]

40 minutes ago, wcreek said:

I mean, for awhile before ISPs being classified as a Title II service. CenturyLink was building their fiber optic network and heavily advertising it then sometime around the reclassification they just seemed to stop.

 

So.

That doesn't mean that it was a result of it. They could have stopped because they as a business did not like it so purposefully stopped expanding their fibre network to use as reinforcing evidence as to the impact of the regulation change.

 

As for some of the other comments about how now more startups can come in well that's just not going to happen. Not only did Title II not prevent that at all, or even make it harder, it wasn't happening before Title II either.

 

For or against ISPs being classified as Title II wouldn't it have been better if rather than just repealing that a new legislation was formed specifically for this that tried to address the issues, passing that would have then also reverse the Title II classification anyway.

 

Seems a bit like going in to hospital to get stitches, complaining that it still hurts, pulling the stitches out then proclaiming that you're still bleeding from the wound anyway so they didn't do anything. Title II may not have fixed anything, it may not have reversed any past problems but at the very least it could have helped preventing things from getting worse. Get the feeling a lot of people want a quick instant fix to everything and if something doesn't do that then it's a failure and needs to go.

[mynameisjuan]

8 minutes ago, burnttoastnice said:

 

 

If I was packet inspecting and saw a single OpenSSL handshake followed by just encrypted data and no plaintext whatsoever, it's pretty obvious a VPN is being used on that network. If there's multiple OpenSSL handshakes and the occasional dns request then the person is just browsing https websites normally

I have a packet capture here of 1 sec of traffic on our smallest trunk which is currently 8Gb/s. If you want to sift through it to find VPNs go for it lol.

[Max_Settings]

Calm down everyone it won’t ever pass Congress 

[Maxxtraxx]

From the day Al Gore invented the internet until 2015 net neutrality did not exist, the world survived (in spite of what Al Gore predicted) and the internet has continued to grow in size and speed.

 

No chicken little, net neutrality did not erect the sky in 2015 only to have it fall down in 2017.

 

Net neutrality put regulatory chains on the ISP's but not at all on the left leaning politically correct technomonopolies who are so happy to do the actual opinion and thought censorship on the internet but are the darlings of so many despite their immense power and willingness to squash dissenting voices. These same technomonopolies also stand to monetarily benefit from net neutrality which is why their support for it has been so fervent... But no one seems to care about or notice that...

 

Rapid Growth and innovation requires taking risks on expensive new technologies and thusly requires inequality of service to fund said investment.

 

Net neutrality not only harkens back to the Bell/at&t monopoly on telephones, it follows the same idea by destroying investment and advancement because of burdensome government involvement that removes the incentives for advancement and creation.

 

Quote:

"Progress requires inequality. If you don’t give entrepreneurs the ability to become unequal—not just get rich themselves, but they have to make their customers unequal, they’ve got to give their customers commercial advantage or life advantage. That’s what drives progress. If you take that out of the equation, if you say all traffic has to be treated equal, all customers have to be treated equal—first of all, capital investment in the network is going to go down. We’ve already seen some of that. But so is innovation. Why would you want to give that up?"

 

quoted from here

 

Update Addendum:

 

 

 

 

To go along with Net Neutrality and compliment it...

The FTC should unveil: BOX Neutrality

 

The federal government will now ensure that all packages are now treated with the same priority.

 

UPS, Fedex, DHL, USPS have for too long given preferential treatment to certain customers while relegating others to the SLOW lane. All packages shipped inside the U.S. must now be treated with the same priority level regardless of the sender or the customer.

Example: UPS will no longer be allowed to treat Company X's overnight expedited delivery any different than ground shipping on packages from Walmart.

 

What does this do?

• It removes added value services such as: 2day prime shipping, Free 2 day shipping on orders over $150, ect. which are part of a good sales and marketing strategy.
• It Forces UPS, Fedex, DHL, and USPS to compete on nothing more than price instead of improving quality, speed, or service.
• It removes healthy, normal, natural, growth and competition as companies compete to offer the best product at a premium price, an acceptable product at a low price or anywhere in the middle.
• It argues that the Roads and Air lanes are government built or controlled entities so the government should therefore force these companies that perform this service and use something the government had a hand in constructing to comply with a set of rules to ensure equality for all.
• It forces all companies to lay off their higher paid staff that perform expedited services and hire only the cheapest per mile ground freight drivers to achieve their minimum requirements.
• It promotes stagnation and mediocrity instead of achievement and exceptional performance.
• It hamstrings the entire commerce market for the sake of some perceived need for equality(because THAT is politically correct, and therefore enforceable).

[SurvivorNVL]

2 minutes ago, Max_Settings said:

Calm down everyone it won’t ever pass Congress 

It will.  The likelihood of it not is very low.

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

Now I'm curious to see what ACTUALLY happens and how you're all going to react to it.....

If you all happen to be right, there's gonna be an economic downturn due to massive losses by all the major telecom companies. Else I'm gonna be dropping the phrase "Much ado about nothing". And especially after seeing Ajit Pai's video regarding the subject, he seems to strongly suggest that NOTHING is going to change from the normal consumers perspective. Let's see who's right.....

 

What about the throttling that did happen before NN?  when netflix was essentially blackmailed into paying ISP's.

 

https://media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/the-misconception-about-internet-fast-lanes

https://www.vox.com/cards/network-neutrality/how-does-netflixs-recent-peering-dispute-with-comcast-affect-net

http://www.zdnet.com/article/level-3-accuses-major-isps-of-forcing-internet-traffic-into-the-slow-lane/

 

If it happened before,  only a fool would think it wouldn't happen again.  

[DeScruff]

23 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

Nobody really knows what will happen. Y'all just have to wait and see. 

And nobody knows what would happen if we all decided it was a good idea to cut a finger off every 5 years, and feed it to the birds.
Guess we will have to wait and see why that be a bad idea.

[Nowak]

 

[Lurick]

57 minutes ago, wcreek said:

I mean, for awhile before ISPs being classified as a Title II service. CenturyLink was building their fiber optic network and heavily advertising it then sometime around the reclassification they just seemed to stop.

 

So.

Here's Neil Smit, Comcast Cable's President and CEO telling Wall Street that nothing about Title II changes anything (on page 16):

On Title II, it really hasn't affected the way we have been doing our business or will do our business. We believe on Open Internet and while we don't necessarily agree with the Title II implementation, we conduct our business the same we always have...

He immediately follows that up by stating:

We have invested significantly in our capacity and will continue to do so and that includes both the -- we launched a 2 gigabit speed, 2 gigabit symmetrical speed recently. We are rolling that out across 18 million homes by the end of the year...

That doesn't sound like the disaster for broadband investment that Pai and his supporters are claiming.

How about AT&T? AT&T's Randall Stephenson was asked by a UBS analyst "are these net neutrality or Title II rules an impediment..." and Stephenson responded:

No, we don’t think so.

How about Charter (formerly Time Warner Cable)? Well, just last year at a UBS conference, he said:

I mean, Title II, it didn't really hurt us; it hasn't hurt us.

And, that wasn't the first time he said that. A year earlier he made it clear the company changed nothing about its investment plans:

"the commission’s decision to reclassify broadband Internet access under Title II has not altered Charter’s approach of investing significantly in its network to deliver cutting edge services."

[AresKrieger]

As far as I'm concerned net neutrality isn't needed, that said ISPs need to be destroyed as the only reason net neutrality is even a thing is due to them attempting to be dicks. So I feel l am mostly fine without net neutrality but want comcast's head on a plate as compensation

14 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

It's 1:38 AM in the morning here. I'm going to be sleeping and then going for an exam in the morning. I'll be done by 12:30. Anything important that's gonna happen by then ? And perceptible changes likely to occur based on predictions ? Kindly tag me and tell me what's likely to happen. Thanks in advance.

Rules like this take months to change, so nothing will change for quite a while the FCC themselves as shown in the post @Daring made said several months

[Stefan1024]

3 hours ago, Rubymaster said:

They can. VPN's use specific ports. They can tell if someone is using a VPN and throttle or block all VPN traffic.

Edit: Forgot a period.

When I work from home I use a VPN to connect to the companies servers. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one doing this. So a lot of employees and companies will be pissed.

[SeriouslyMikey]

What about an argument from the other side? 

[Guest lilbman]

I'm not worried.  Before we had net neutrality, nothing was different.

 

People are just flipping their shit for no reason.