/tech/ - Technology★

Ajit Pai totally roasted those normies with that vid though lol

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.

>>1069511

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.

>>1069519

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?

>>1069511

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For me ARM SoCs with their poorly supported software environment (lacking drivers, outdated hacked up kernels that spam dmesg with chinglish "Hello world" driver equivalents) are somehow the perfect example what a shitshow tech has become.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.

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

>>1069529

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

>>1069504 (OP)

>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.

>>1069545

It'd make it hard to monetize people even with monopoly like conditions.

That's the whole point of it, nerfing big brother companies.

>>1069594

>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.

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"

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?

>>1069594

>That's the whole point of it, nerfing big brother companies.

I can't tell if you're joking or >>>/reddit/

>>1069616

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.

>>1069504 (OP)

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.

>>1069674

>protect the internet

cringe

>>1069677

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

>>1069677

Go to bed in your pile of stuffed brown envelopes shitpie

>>1069674

>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.

>>1069504 (OP)

Nothing has changed.

Yeah, shit.

I used to be able to post on 8chan all day, now i can only post on it all day.

>>1069674

>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.

>>1069703

>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.

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

When will redittors apologize for their scaremongering?

>>1069546

No. That's the joke.

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.

>>1069933

>>1069938

>>1069939

>>1070064

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.

https://www.freepress.net/our-response/expert-analysis/explainers/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history