Net neutrality effect on datacenters?

[Mornincupofhate]

So, fuck ajit basically.

 

I want to renew my subscription to private internet access. Will net neutrality throttle data center connections too?

[kb5zue]

It won't as long as you're willing to pay for it.  Unfortunately there were basically only two reasons for getting rid of net neutrality.  The first reason was greed (money), and the second was more greed (more  money).  Oh, forgot.  More money.

[captain_to_fire]

7 minutes ago, Mornincupofhate said:

So, fuck ajit basically.

 

I want to renew my subscription to private internet access. Will net neutrality throttle data center connections too?

It depends. Your VPN will conceal your browsing history so the likes of Comcast or Verizon will not see that you’re watching LTT videos in 4K but they can see how much data you’re using and they can tell that you’re using a VPN by looking at the ports being used. Most VPN providers use port 1194 and your ISP can implement DPI to just like China to block VPN access or they’ll just ban IP addresses known coming from VPN providers. 

[Himommies]

3 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

Most VPN providers use port 1194 and your ISP can implement DPI to just like China to block VPN access or they’ll just ban IP addresses known coming from VPN providers. 

I don't know what but I feel like there's definitley something illegal here

[captain_to_fire]

1 minute ago, Himommies said:

I don't know what but I feel like there's definitley something illegal here

Well the use of Deep Packet Inspection isn’t illegal as large corporations use that as part of their intrusion detection. But in some restrictive countries like China they use that as part of their Great Firewall. 

[jet224presents]

26 minutes ago, Mornincupofhate said:

So, fuck ajit basically.

 

I want to renew my subscription to private internet access. Will net neutrality throttle data center connections too?

everyone has it all WRONG there will likely be no negative outcomes form the removal of net neutrality even the new york times agrees that, "it simply is not in service providers’ interests to throttle access to what consumers want to see"(Engelhart). i don't believe we will have any negative impacts but if we do lawsuits will be filed and isp's will lose. Remember before net neutrality how there were no problems? NOBODY can REASONABLY confirm or deny the claims on the effects of the repulsion of net neutrality. I can reasonably confirm that THERE will most likely (i could be wrong) not be any payment needed to use any sites, for the Internet in the US is FREE and big companies like google and what not will sue these ISPs for profiting off of the services that google and other companies own the rights too. plus, consider the fact that if people had to pay money for google searches or just extra in general the traffic to the websites would decrease greatly. in economics it is easier and most effective to keep prices low and have a large customer base than to raise prices and set extreme restriction as within capitalism these companies will fail because NOBODY will use them. Realistically all net neutrality does in the first place is force ISP's to not prioritize traffic. Actually, currently most ISPs do throttle P2P communications in order to prioritize largely used domains (which is allowed in net neutrality laws). this means the there is in fact a bottleneck for large sites if rarely accessed sites are forced to have speed the same as google, these connections hog and effectively slow down ISP's servers than more often trafficked websites. in past (before net neutrality) issues with ISPs and any providers, the problems have not been negative to small business  but in fact specifically targeted to large business and the public out lash has forced these service providers to stop throttling it's our job to tell the provider what we want for our money not the government.    

 

 

 

NYTimes article link=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/opinion/net-neutrality-overblown-concerns.html

By: Ken Engelhart       

[Donut417]

9 minutes ago, jet224presents said:

everyone has it all WRONG there will likely be no negative outcomes form the removal of net neutrality even the new york times agrees that, "it simply is not in service providers’ interests to throttle access to what consumers want to see"(Engelhart). i don't believe we will have any negative impacts but if we do lawsuits will be filed and isp's will lose. Remember before net neutrality how there were no problems? NOBODY can REASONABLY confirm or deny the claims on the effects of the repulsion of net neutrality. I can reasonably confirm that THERE will most likely (i could be wrong) not be any payment needed to use any sites, for the Internet in the US is FREE and big companies like google and what not will sue these ISPs for profiting off of the services that google and other companies own the rights too. plus, consider the fact that if people had to pay money for google searches or just extra in general the traffic to the websites would decrease greatly. in economics it is easier and most effective to keep prices low and have a large customer base than to raise prices and set extreme restriction as within capitalism these companies will fail because NOBODY will use them. Realistically all net neutrality does in the first place is force ISP's to not prioritize traffic. Actually, currently most ISPs do throttle P2P communications in order to prioritize largely used domains (which is allowed in net neutrality laws). this means the there is in fact a bottleneck for large sites if rarely accessed sites are forced to have speed the same as google, these connections hog and effectively slow down ISP's servers than more often trafficked websites. in past (before net neutrality) issues with ISPs and any providers, the problems have not been negative to small business  but in fact specifically targeted to large business and the public out lash has forced these service providers to stop throttling it's our job to tell the provider what we want for our money not the government.    

 

 

 

NYTimes article link=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/opinion/net-neutrality-overblown-concerns.html

By: Ken Engelhart       

Im sorry to tell you this but your are partially wrong. Part of the reason Net Neutrality exists is because Comcast  was throttling different services. For example they got slapped on the wrist by the FCC when they throttled BitTorrent traffic. The Federal courts said under title I Comcast had the right. Which is why Title II was used. So there is a reason why they recalssifed ISP's under Title II. But, for the most part, I dont think ISP's would be stupid enough to do anything drastic. The fact is traditional TV is dead, I think most Cable providers have come to that conclusion. Plus what a lot of people dont know is that Congress could always intervene and solve this themselves. Well that wont happen till 2019 as next year is the mid term elections. But in any case, I have a feeling this ruling could only be temporary. 

 

Ive seen a lot of negativeness about Net Neutrality because people believe it means Government Control over the internet. Which I have to disagree. Regulation does not equal government control. Regulations are just a set of guide lines businesses have to follow. Im less worried about the throttling and more worried about Caps and Overages. Seeing how the FCC kinda wants to screw with us. I think states should band together and force ISP's who have caps have their meters inspected yearly. Make it a pain in the ass for them to do it. Make them suffer. 

[burnttoastnice]

1 hour ago, Mornincupofhate said:

Will net neutrality throttle data center connections too?

 

This is what I'm concerned about. How will this affect overseas consumers using cloud services based in America? Especially those who don't have overseas datacenters?

[jet224presents]

10 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Im sorry to tell you this but your are partially wrong. Part of the reason Net Neutrality exists is because Comcast  was throttling different services. For example they got slapped on the wrist by the FCC when they throttled BitTorrent traffic. The Federal courts said under title I Comcast had the right. Which is why Title II was used. So there is a reason why they recalssifed ISP's under Title II. But, for the most part, I dont think ISP's would be stupid enough to do anything drastic. The fact is traditional TV is dead, I think most Cable providers have come to that conclusion. Plus what a lot of people dont know is that Congress could always intervene and solve this themselves. Well that wont happen till 2019 as next year is the mid term elections. But in any case, I have a feeling this ruling could only be temporary. 

 

Ive seen a lot of negativeness about Net Neutrality because people believe it means Government Control over the internet. Which I have to disagree. Regulation does not equal government control. Regulations are just a set of guide lines businesses have to follow. Im less worried about the throttling and more worried about Caps and Overages. Seeing how the FCC kinda wants to screw with us. I think states should band together and force ISP's who have caps have their meters inspected yearly. Make it a pain in the ass for them to do it. Make them suffer. 

the problem is that regulation will trickle down to us the consumer making us pay more of the provider has to do more work they aren't doing it for free the increased costs in operation will end up causing the consumer more money. if they suffer we suffer. i think that rules should be in place i just don't believe they should in any way have the effect of potentially slowing speeds or increasing cost. right now we have a lack of ISPs because of governmental interactions with these providers such as subsidies etc. when the government does something it does it poorly and it is our job to point it out we need realistic regulation that benefits both the consumer and the ISPs (yet i nor mostly anybody has any solutions). plus i believe that net neutrality opened a backdoor for taxing the internet correct me if i'm wrong. We need to start fresh this is the first step it may suck at first but if we can make americans lives better it will be worth it in the end.

[jet224presents]

9 minutes ago, burnttoastnice said:

 

This is what I'm concerned about. How will this affect overseas consumers using cloud services based in America? Especially those who don't have overseas datacenters?

sadly nobody knows and anybody who is telling you has no facts we will just have to wait in see.

[Donut417]

11 minutes ago, jet224presents said:

regulation will trickle down to us the consumer making us pay more

Where the fuck have you been. They dont need Government regulations to make us pay more. Plus your already paying the gov regardless. 

 

Gov Fee

USF 

Sales Tax

Franchise fee (Local or State) 

 

Bull Shit Fee (ISP instituted) 

Cable modem rental fee

TV Box rental fee

Broadcast TV fee

Sports Fee

Pay with a credit card fee

Pay with Cash fee 

 

The fact is, your internet is not going to get any cheaper by not having net neutrality. To think that is just plain wrong. No the Government is not perfect. BUT ISP's are greed bastards. Some times you need the big bad government to keep these greedy bastards in line. Your better off paying the Government that 40 cents per month so that when you have an issue with your provider, you have some one with real power to go to when you need to complain. Thats just my two cents. 

[jet224presents]

3 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Where the fuck have you been. They dont need Government regulations to make us pay more. Plus your already paying the gov regardless. 

 

Gov Fee

USF 

Sales Tax

Franchise fee (Local or State) 

 

Bull Shit Fee (ISP instituted) 

Cable modem rental fee

TV Box rental fee

Broadcast TV fee

Sports Fee

Pay with a credit card fee

Pay with Cash fee 

 

The fact is, your internet is not going to get any cheaper by not having net neutrality. To think that is just plain wrong. No the Government is not perfect. BUT ISP's are greed bastards. Some times you need the big bad government to keep these greedy bastards in line. Your better off paying the Government that 40 cents per month so that when you have an issue with your provider, you have some one with real power to go to when you need to complain. Thats just my two cents. 

The fix to these fees is competition i myself have switched between charter and AT&T by whoever has the best prices. i agree with you on fees there a load of crap but if anyone is bad at it that would be cell providers and phone providers. on the AT&T bill large sections have to deal with the phone Landline. including many federal taxes that shouldn't exist in the first place and stupid fees and surcharges but for tv That is expensive and it's going to stay that way the best experience is still through cable our current provider charter never taxed or "fee'd" us but yet just ended up to be expensive the cable boxes where the only other charges except for taxes we have recently cut the cord so we do not pay any fees and use internet from them for a great price (that will go up) yet our savings from cable tv is in the 1,000s a year. we use sling netflix amazon prime and a OTA antenna to get more channels than we could possibly want for pretty cheap. our provider provides our modem so we don't have to pay that like we did AT&T. The major problem is that unlike many european dense cities we have often only 1 or 2 internet providers little competition leads to a bad result for the customer yet we can still choose the better of two evils and end up for a good product albeit expensive. 

[xXCapAwesomeXx]

4 hours ago, Himommies said:

I don't know what but I feel like there's definitley something illegal here

It was Illegal until today

[kb5zue]

One of the posters in this blog makes reference to the New York Times.  But I wouldn't trust the NYT as far as I could throw them.  The people that control the NYT are in bed with the CCF.  (Clinton Crime Family)

[TheCherryKing]

2 hours ago, jet224presents said:

everyone has it all WRONG there will likely be no negative outcomes form the removal of net neutrality even the new york times agrees that, "it simply is not in service providers’ interests to throttle access to what consumers want to see"(Engelhart). i don't believe we will have any negative impacts but if we do lawsuits will be filed and isp's will lose. Remember before net neutrality how there were no problems? NOBODY can REASONABLY confirm or deny the claims on the effects of the repulsion of net neutrality. I can reasonably confirm that THERE will most likely (i could be wrong) not be any payment needed to use any sites, for the Internet in the US is FREE and big companies like google and what not will sue these ISPs for profiting off of the services that google and other companies own the rights too. plus, consider the fact that if people had to pay money for google searches or just extra in general the traffic to the websites would decrease greatly. in economics it is easier and most effective to keep prices low and have a large customer base than to raise prices and set extreme restriction as within capitalism these companies will fail because NOBODY will use them. Realistically all net neutrality does in the first place is force ISP's to not prioritize traffic. Actually, currently most ISPs do throttle P2P communications in order to prioritize largely used domains (which is allowed in net neutrality laws). this means the there is in fact a bottleneck for large sites if rarely accessed sites are forced to have speed the same as google, these connections hog and effectively slow down ISP's servers than more often trafficked websites. in past (before net neutrality) issues with ISPs and any providers, the problems have not been negative to small business  but in fact specifically targeted to large business and the public out lash has forced these service providers to stop throttling it's our job to tell the provider what we want for our money not the government.    

 

 

 

NYTimes article link=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/opinion/net-neutrality-overblown-concerns.html

By: Ken Engelhart       

Wow! For once the New York Times said something that is true!

[TheCherryKing]

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

Where the fuck have you been. They dont need Government regulations to make us pay more. Plus your already paying the gov regardless. 

 

Gov Fee

USF 

Sales Tax

Franchise fee (Local or State) 

 

Bull Shit Fee (ISP instituted) 

Cable modem rental fee

TV Box rental fee

Broadcast TV fee

Sports Fee

Pay with a credit card fee

Pay with Cash fee 

 

The fact is, your internet is not going to get any cheaper by not having net neutrality. To think that is just plain wrong. No the Government is not perfect. BUT ISP's are greed bastards. Some times you need the big bad government to keep these greedy bastards in line. Your better off paying the Government that 40 cents per month so that when you have an issue with your provider, you have some one with real power to go to when you need to complain. Thats just my two cents. 

You can eliminate many of those fees by buying your own modem and not getting cable television. 

[jet224presents]

13 minutes ago, kb5zue said:

One of the posters in this blog makes reference to the New York Times.  But I wouldn't trust the NYT as far as I could throw them.  The people that control the NYT are in bed with the CCF.  (Clinton Crime Family)

my point is that even a left leaning organization is speaking the truth

[leadeater]

8 hours ago, Mornincupofhate said:

I want to renew my subscription to private internet access. Will net neutrality throttle data center connections too?

For datacenters, not much. The traditional cable providers who are also ISPs or compete with ISPs really aren't concerned about that sort of thing, what they care about is residential customers who are or could be or were their customers who could be/were lost for cheaper internet accessed services.

 

Unless it's a home internet connection it really is a 'nothing to see here, move along' situation.

[leadeater]

7 hours ago, jet224presents said:

everyone has it all WRONG there will likely be no negative outcomes form the removal of net neutrality even the new york times agrees that, "it simply is not in service providers’ interests to throttle access to what consumers want to see"(Engelhart). i don't believe we will have any negative impacts but if we do lawsuits will be filed and isp's will lose. Remember before net neutrality how there were no problems? NOBODY can REASONABLY confirm or deny the claims on the effects of the repulsion of net neutrality. I can reasonably confirm that THERE will most likely (i could be wrong) not be any payment needed to use any sites, for the Internet in the US is FREE and big companies like google and what not will sue these ISPs for profiting off of the services that google and other companies own the rights too. plus, consider the fact that if people had to pay money for google searches or just extra in general the traffic to the websites would decrease greatly. in economics it is easier and most effective to keep prices low and have a large customer base than to raise prices and set extreme restriction as within capitalism these companies will fail because NOBODY will use them. Realistically all net neutrality does in the first place is force ISP's to not prioritize traffic. Actually, currently most ISPs do throttle P2P communications in order to prioritize largely used domains (which is allowed in net neutrality laws). this means the there is in fact a bottleneck for large sites if rarely accessed sites are forced to have speed the same as google, these connections hog and effectively slow down ISP's servers than more often trafficked websites. in past (before net neutrality) issues with ISPs and any providers, the problems have not been negative to small business  but in fact specifically targeted to large business and the public out lash has forced these service providers to stop throttling it's our job to tell the provider what we want for our money not the government.    

 

 

 

NYTimes article link=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/opinion/net-neutrality-overblown-concerns.html

By: Ken Engelhart       

Personally, not that it really effects me much at all, I was never concerned about any of the pay wall claims or egregious throttling. My issue is that the big ISPs in the US are cable TV providers and they are very reluctant to actually improve internet connection rates and transition to better technologies like GPON because of their vested interest in cable TV and the control that gives them over how and when content is consumed.

 

Even when those providers create on-demand internet services they really aren't that good and I see them more as an excuse to say they are not anti internet content services. An ISP that is unwilling to actually improve residential internet access is the real problem, that problem exists because improving internet services will actually hurt their business and profits.

 

It's true what the masses are harping on about is a bit ridiculous however the real underlying issue is still there. Tittle II didn't fix it and couldn't, at least it would prevent ISPs from degrading service qualities of competing services though.

 

There is a reason why basically every person that works in the IT industry, I'm talking about the general independent person not companies, say it was better to keep Title II however they all also say it's not the solution to the problem either.

[specter13]

On 12/14/2017 at 10:44 PM, jet224presents said:

The fix to these fees is competition

Americans love the ISP market!