/tech/ - Technology

Brought to you by archive.org

Posting mode: Reply

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Password
Drawing x size canvas
File(s)

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 350.00 MB

Max files: 5

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Catalog | Bottom

Expand All Images


Anonymous 11/30/2017 (Thu) 14:19:24 [Preview] No. 11817
A new Net Neutrality debate should begin. No matter who you are, whatever your political preference, whether you support or do not support Net Neutrality, I'd like to hear from all of you!

Why Do Major Corporations - Who Are Known For Censoring Their Social Platforms - Want Net Neutrality?

>>>/news/3886
https://archive.fo/https://endchan.xyz/news/res/3886.html (I'll be archiving the debate as it unfolds)

This thread documents and exposes the censorship behind three major tech companies that support Net Neutrality.

Now we really want to figure out WHY and what you anons think about all of this.


Anonymous 11/30/2017 (Thu) 15:07:21 [Preview] No.11818 del
>tfw third world shitwhole no numale newtrality
>but but, what happens in murrica will soon mirror the whole world
I can wait.


Anonymous 11/30/2017 (Thu) 15:13:19 [Preview] No.11819 del
Personally I like the sound of net neutrality, it sounds like a very good idea, but at the same time I cringe to think the government will make the decisions and become the traffic police and here's why:

Back in the 90s Bill Clinton signed into law something known as "The Fairness Doctrine" and similar to Net Neutrality the FCC became the police of radio airwaves for around a decade (until it was repealed that is). What happened was the FCC abused their power by shutting down a bunch of radio shows (that where more or less conservative or rebellious against the current administration) and later we had around 70% of all local radio shows shutting down. Only the major ones benefited in the end and bought up all the airwaves.

Seriously don't want history to repeat itself so I'm a bit worried.


Anonymous 11/30/2017 (Thu) 21:35:33 [Preview] No.11820 del
(39.74 KB 485x450 1511826675991.jpg)
What they are proposing would allow your ISP to charge you more for playing video games or streaming videos in general or from certain websites. It would make it legal for say, Verizon to slow down data downloads from Hulu and from Netflicks, but to then offer faster downloading speeds to Netflicks if they paid a for a special plan so as not to piss off their customers. Removing net neutrality makes for more monopolistic behaviour, while hurting the consumer. The customer would wonder why video data from one website streams slower than identical data from another website, and the ISP would not be required to treat both of the data equally, but could charge more for uninterrupted, faster, and more reliable data from the website it is cozy with.

Any SJW ISPs would also be free to slow down data from Right wing websites that do not agree with their agenda, and the freedom to decide for yourself what to view in full speed and without data interruptions would be replaced with freedom by the ISP to decide.

Make no mistake, abolishing net neutrality isn't good for the consumer in any way, and saying you heard It's to prevent Socialism just shows how gullible you are. If I asked you if free libraries for all was good you would say yes. If I asked you if free internet for all was good you'd say no that's Socialism because you're an idiot.

For an idea how close the above statement is and how close we are to it, Look up who owns Comcast and his family history. Better yet, look up Comcast's history of this shit involving their customers. Even further use foresight and see that Comcast and its shitty business practices are doing them in and who do you think will jump into the party to take their place?

I've got my money on Google Fiber. Tell me, are you really ready to deal with that monopolizing all consuming shit show?


Anonymous 11/30/2017 (Thu) 23:33:30 [Preview] No.11821 del
>>11820
Very good point anon. I have worried about both corporate and governmental takeover of the internet traffic for quite some time (way before this whole net neutrality issue came up). Looks to me like we are being screwed either way, and ISPs controlling content may end up even worse than the FCC in control (FCC would be incompetent as usual, while the major ISPs are corrupt monopolies).

What I really think needs to be done is trying to force some anti-trust laws for once to break up those ISP monopolies. We need to allow competition in the market place instead of empowering monopolies even further.


Anonymous 12/01/2017 (Fri) 01:33:19 [Preview] No.11822 del
>>11817
Fuck the rich old faggots running the government and idiotic organizations.

You should all consider yourselves lucky, I am not even certain many of you are aware of just how much power you have at this moment with a viable connection to the internet. Millions of websites to visit, and by learning a different language, say, Russian, you now have access to even more websites and information, differing views and perspectives that really opens your eyes to how the world works together, it is quite amazing what has been established here. If a coalition of groups composed of highly intelligent individuals was conceived from all locations of the planet with varying backgrounds, you would have a think tank that could solve massive problems and could make discoveries that would triumph all the great minds in history, we have a massive shortage of polymaths in modern times, and people end up seeing the trees but not the forest.

Don't expect your typical "normalfag" to understand, they frequent only a handful of websites that suit their needs: Entertainment. They could lose access to millions of websites overnight and they probably wouldn't even notice.

As for the FCC tyranny, how did they decide that they were the owners of airwaves? I understand thousands of individuals broadcasting on every frequency can be a massive mess, but there are better solutions than charging someone to broadcast.


Anonymous 12/01/2017 (Fri) 01:59:31 [Preview] No.11823 del
Delete ICANN


Anonymous 12/09/2017 (Sat) 22:02:33 [Preview] No.11884 del
>>11817
> I'd like to hear from all of you!
Okay;
if the death of net neutrality makes hypocrites no longer able to larp as far-right survivalists while benefiting daily from communist free-road internet, I'm glad.

Especially the "it's muh tax money" crowd who usually pay next to shit proportions for the maintenance but never forget to demand premium service anyway. What they're doing is creating a secondary economy of loud whining as the currency, while A Cheat Pie is giving capitalists what they've been asking for: tying transaction of goods into cold hard cash, so that nobody can transact goods without paying up. Data has value, so now it's going to cost money to move it, enjoy your strong economy. Surely you wouldn't want all that competitiveness to go under-the-counter for free?

t: bitter bernie bro


Anonymous 12/09/2017 (Sat) 22:15:21 [Preview] No.11885 del
>>11820
>If I asked you if free internet for all was good you'd say no that's Socialism because you're an idiot.
If I said it's socialism (it is) and you say "that's bad", you're not just an idiot, you're an ideologue you silly hypocrite.


Anonymous 12/10/2017 (Sun) 00:02:21 [Preview] No.11886 del
>If I said it's socialism (it is)

What's your thoughts on Meshnet or Ad Hoc chucklenuts?


Anonymous 12/10/2017 (Sun) 01:40:20 [Preview] No.11887 del
>>11886
>we're not gonna need roads if our driveways and parks cover all of earth

To be fair this isn't really a free speech issue so much because it's not really an issue of getting your word out, it's an issue of advertising your agenda effectively alongside massive HD streaming, be it bragging how cool your frags look in 120fps or reminding people that there's fluoride in the water. The mass appeal is what's going to cost money. I don't really think that the door has been opened to completely stop "harmful" networking of ideas, nor does it need to be, the authority can just make up whatever excuse and ban what they ban like in Britain or Sweden or China. What has been started is clearing of the wood, that paves the way for it no longer being a business secret what you do in somebody else's physical network and allowing ISPs to tattle to anyone they like if you commit wrongthink where previously their hands would have been tied for privacy if somebody comes asking. If ISPs can admit to knowing what kind of networking you're doing, they can admit to knowing what to sell when somebody wants to buy your information. Your various chucklenuts can do what they wish by me if they think they're able to be effective. If you ask me Google is one of them, and they've come so far as to build their own financially failing fiber network and maybe their own ISP service to use it, why not. The funny thing is, Google Fiber is not competitive because ISPs are too restricted, cheap, and useful. That changing, Google might become the megacorporation to push all competition out of cities, and then lower the prices and bring plenty of that free shit to everyone. And being Google. I bet there'll still be plenty of ad hoc radio amateurs on At&T in the deepest Kentucky.


Anonymous 12/10/2017 (Sun) 01:50:06 [Preview] No.11888 del
From what I understand now, its all about the money. ISPs (ATT, Comcast, Verizon et al) fighting content providers (Google, Facebook, Netflix et al) over attempted consolidation of profits.

ISPs want to charge more per content in the near future (removing unlimited bandwidth or making it extremely expensive). Reason? They are losing so much money from growing 'cable cutters' (TV opt outs).

Content providers want Net Neutrality because ISPs would inhibit user's traffic to their services (via more costly bandwidth caps). This would interfere with their profits.

So its greedy corps vs greedy corps.


Anonymous 12/10/2017 (Sun) 02:00:30 [Preview] No.11889 del
>>11888
You're not wrong. But I just realized, content providers mostly benefit from ad revenue in a sellers market. So what do they care if a prices go up, they'll just be competing for your attention to shitty netflix or shitty facebook, but competing for the same money as with good netflix and good facebook.


Anonymous 12/10/2017 (Sun) 07:35:33 [Preview] No.11892 del
(341.49 KB 1280x720 1512524690288.jpg)
>>11887
>To be fair this isn't really a free speech issue so much because it's not really an issue of getting your word out, it's an issue of advertising your agenda effectively alongside massive HD streaming, be it bragging how cool your frags look in 120fps or reminding people that there's fluoride in the water. The mass appeal is what's going to cost money. I don't really think that the door has been opened to completely stop "harmful" networking of ideas, nor does it need to be, the authority can just make up whatever excuse and ban what they ban like in Britain or Sweden or China. What has been started is clearing of the wood, that paves the way for it no longer being a business secret what you do in somebody else's physical network and allowing ISPs to tattle to anyone they like if you commit wrongthink where previously their hands would have been tied for privacy if somebody comes asking. If ISPs can admit to knowing what kind of networking you're doing, they can admit to knowing what to sell when somebody wants to buy your information.

Doing a 180 degree subject turn, the post.

>Your various chucklenuts can do what they wish by me if they think they're able to be effective. If you ask me Google is one of them, and they've come so far as to build their own financially failing fiber network and maybe their own ISP service to use it, why not. The funny thing is, Google Fiber is not competitive because ISPs are too restricted, cheap, and useful.

Google Fiber is spreading dumbass, not the other way around. Unless you're historically illiterate and you are, companies like Comcast got their beginnings with practices like that in the start as well and then when they controlled the market, treated their consumers like shit because they knew they had no way out. Spouting normie meme trash like a smartass doesn't negate your lack of foresight.

>That changing, Google might become the megacorporation to push all competition out of cities, and then lower the prices and bring plenty of that free shit to everyone.
>and then lower the prices and bring plenty of that free shit to everyone
>mfw

Yeah, because every tyrant in history that has ruled without opposition has never abused their power right?

>I bet there'll still be plenty of ad hoc radio amateurs on At&T in the deepest Kentucky.
>Not knowing how Ad Hoc or Meshnet works
>Waits this far in to admit internet is inherently free like a pseudo clever asshole.

I pity your parents for having to raise a dumb shit like you. I'll bet you think Mark Zuckerberg is a 'successful' businessman and not just a talking face financially supported by actual successful companies.


Anonymous 12/10/2017 (Sun) 11:38:19 [Preview] No.11893 del
>>11817
Will people shut the fuck up already about net neutrality, it's a load of fucking shit, a power grab from a bunch of greedy kikes. It's not fighting monopoly of internet service and infrastructure, it's encouraging it and putting it under the "guidance" of a select few, perhaps even an unelected autonomous department. There are real problems out there, stop debating the actions of two groups of greedy kikes to decide which is less evil.


Anonymous 12/15/2017 (Fri) 22:48:56 [Preview] No.11945 del
So now that Net Neutrality is not a thing what's your "wishlist" on the least worst case scenario?

>P2P traffic is only throttled but at least left undisturbed
>normalfags who use bullshit like hulu, netflicks, fagbook, youtube etc religiously have to pay for data packages
>videogaming is raped but fortunately p2p (ironically) rescues it

What I think will actually happen

>P2P traffic will be banned
>normalfag bullshit sites like tumblr, reddit etc are the only websites you can access with "Standard" cheap internet packages
>there will be a special package so you can access "bad goy" websites
>online videogaming completely dies and only the rich can afford it


Anonymous 12/16/2017 (Sat) 02:34:16 [Preview] No.11948 del
>>11892
>spilling this much spaghetti over insisting that socialism is free because it happens in America

neat


Anonymous 12/16/2017 (Sat) 15:33:22 [Preview] No.11951 del
>>11945

>So now that Net Neutrality is not a thing what's your "wishlist" on the least worst case scenario?

CRA


Anonymous 12/17/2017 (Sun) 05:39:58 [Preview] No.11967 del
(57.72 KB 1024x576 1513476077391.jpg)
>>11948
Show me the part where the servers were forcefully taken and redistributed among the masses.


Anonymous 12/17/2017 (Sun) 06:29:12 [Preview] No.11969 del
(2.09 MB 1260x6666 66128.png)
Found this elsewhere.
It is quite lengthy but makes a lot of sense.


Anonymous 12/17/2017 (Sun) 17:21:37 [Preview] No.11974 del
>>11969
Whoever wrote that text certainly knew what they were talking about, perhaps they were a government worker? (Potentially even a psyop, but I highly doubt it...)

This Net Neutrality movement has been heavily planned out and is being orchestrated perfectly, we are fighting a massive government project supported by think-tanks with some extremely intelligent anonymous individuals, the battle for the internet, the largest medium to house information that exists in documented history, and if the government gained control, we would be absolutely and certainly fucked.


Anonymous 12/17/2017 (Sun) 17:54:07 [Preview] No.11975 del
>>11974
From what I understand the whole thing started with a growing number of "cable cutters" (that is younger generations ditching expensive cable TV and flocking to cheaper online streaming services)... because of this the major ISPs were losing billions of dollars over the last decade. So, the ISPs decided they will charge much more for downloading and streaming to make back the profits they were losing from the cable cutting generations. Net Neutrality (as a Title II regulation) would have prevented the ISPs from doing this - treating traffic unfairly.

Now that Net Neutrality is repealed, the ISPs can go along with their schemes to charge separately per stream/download to make back profits they lose from all the TV service cancellations.

Right?


Anonymous 12/17/2017 (Sun) 17:59:04 [Preview] No.11976 del
>>11888
Yes! Exactly. The question is will they be able to remove unlimited bandwidth from those who ALREADY have payment contracts for unlimited bandwidth?

Reason I ask is because I am one of the minorities who still has a 15 year old unlimited bandwidth contract with my ISP service. I have always refused to upgrade, so I have a really old contract.

Will they be able to revoke that in the near future or will I be billed more for it?


Anonymous Board owner 12/17/2017 (Sun) 18:03:16 [Preview] No.11977 del
>>11976
Did that contract state that they have the right to change the contract and the bills that you pay for the service? If so, you're fucked. If not, you can attempt to sue them for not keeping their side of the contract.


Anonymous Board owner 12/17/2017 (Sun) 18:10:54 [Preview] No.11978 del
>>11977
But, realistically that will probably most likely be an non-negotiable change done against the user's will just as various Verizon users were revoked of their unlimited plan service despite being under 100GB per month and that was during Net Neutrality. In short, the Libertarian wet dream does not apply to huge monopolies that have unfair competition.


Anonymous 12/17/2017 (Sun) 18:24:07 [Preview] No.11979 del
>>11977
Good question anon. I'd have to review it. All I know is this is an old contract and was wayyyy before we had a lot of these problems today. I'm assuming thats why they keep trying to pressure me to "upgrade" too.


Anonymous 12/17/2017 (Sun) 18:25:40 [Preview] No.11980 del
>>11975
It's not just charging more for using certain services, but deliberate blocking of competitor services plus platforms or throttling of competitors. The only thing I don't agree with the way the FCC used Net Neutrality is Zero Rating. I think Zero Rating should be allowed, if a company is providing an internet service and want to give you bonuses for using their platforms on their internet service they should be allowed to.


Anonymous 12/17/2017 (Sun) 20:17:50 [Preview] No.11984 del
>>11980
Well the most likely thing ISPs will throttle (and have in the past) is P2P / bit torrent traffic. Its not right to do -- I don't think they should be allowed to do that -- but they have been known doing it for many many years. And even when Net Neutrality became law they likely still did it and got away with it. Pirates downloading illegal content are not going to complain to the government about throttling, because they rather face slower traffic than get busted for pirating in the first place.

What I am more concerned about is the ISPs shafting their consumers will huge price gouging increases to stream or download content. Or even worse: trying to re-create the web entirely by promoting really "cheap" web bundles similar to TV packages (access 12 normfag sites for only $10 per month! and of course you won't be able to access anything else with those bundles). Meanwhile they'll keep increasing the prices for regular internet bills until no one can afford it, and the web turns into a TV subscription service. That's what scares the fuck out of me.


Anonymous 12/18/2017 (Mon) 16:44:02 [Preview] No.11990 del
>>11984
>What I am more concerned about is the ISPs shafting their consumers will huge price gouging increases to stream or download content. Or even worse: trying to re-create the web entirely by promoting really "cheap" web bundles similar to TV packages (access 12 normfag sites for only $10 per month! and of course you won't be able to access anything else with those bundles). Meanwhile they'll keep increasing the prices for regular internet bills until no one can afford it, and the web turns into a TV subscription service. That's what scares the fuck out of me.
I have access to over a million physical books (I'm completely serious, this person I know owns a massive storage filled with millions of books, and they haven't even sorted through them completely, we still find EXTREMELY rare books every now and then), but a library will never hold a candle to the massive medium of information that is the internet, if shit like this ever happens, there will be a massive uproar, and I am fairly certain that the redditors will not be pleased either (What normalfags fail to understand is all of these small websites create the content they observe on facebook and twitter, if everyone is restricted to only a few select "government certified" websites, then content creation will seriously drop, and people will become desperate.


Anonymous 12/18/2017 (Mon) 17:28:19 [Preview] No.11991 del
>>11990
People would be forced to create content on those major corporate-run services at that point, which would fall victim to government vetting and censorship no doubt.

Yes, I agree a whole lot of people would be furious and rightfully so. The question is can the ISPs do this, will they be allowed to get away with this? Or will there be such massive rebellion that it would create a crisis for the ISPs if they went along with it? Such as a future generation of "internet cutters", same thing as what happened with all the "cable cutters" who cut off TV services? It might end up one big blowback in their face.

I for one am not risking anything, I got my private VPN service and I am backing all the media I want and need the fuck up and am storing it all offline, in cold storage backups. If, for example, one day I don't have the internet anymore because I refuse to get shafted by the ISPs, I'll still have all the movies, tv shows, music, etc. I would ever need, all accessible offline. I'd have my offline computers to access them with, along with my software to rip DVDs and CDs, to convert media files, to play media files, etc.

Just get ready for living life without the web if worse comes to worse.



Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply