/tech/ - Technology★

Here's a question: Was net neutrality required in the first place?

Were you being sold website packages before it was implemented?

>>828848

Before the internet was partially covered by FCC regulators regarding telecom companies I believe

Personally I would be all in-favor of Net Neutrality if Internet Access in general was constitutionally protected but until then it really doesn't fucking matter

the real problem is isp's are all monopolies in the areas they service. there's is no free market competition to deal with the inevitable in the OPs images. these monopolies need to be broken up. i'm almost never a fan of government regulation but this shit is unacceptable. this kikery must be stopped.

>>828857

>Before the internet was partially covered by FCC regulators regarding telecom companies

This was never really the case, ISPs stopped being telecom after dial-up, but that's besides the point.

Was net neutrality required in the first place?

>there are kikes who actually support net neutrality on /tech/

>>828845 (OP)

>the second is apparently what a Portuguese telecom is offering their users.

for mobile data usage so that those applications would not use their data allowance, so not even related to net neutrality. Nice try, kike OP.

>>828882

>No one says a word even though its clearly in violation of the spirit of NN

Except it isn't, you dumb fuck.

>>828848

I don't see any positive with either corporate America or the government in charge of regulating the internet. Just look what the cabal did to the dailystormer website! Even if I'm not a big fan of his stuff, the concerted corporate effort to eliminate his online presence disgusts me.

>>828882

BT was the first to do this, and it was the main reason US telecoms have been killing unlimited plans, or making them 'unlimited but throttled'. It was the "plan B" in case of some sort of net neutrality legislation as there's no clear way to prevent it and it wouldn't be covered by any net neutrality bill. This was long before Obama's NN bill and made that whole fight pointless.

>>828894

Oh yes, I love the unlimited* plans.

>>828887

>Except it isn't, you dumb fuck.

https://www.t-mobile.com/offer/binge-on-streaming-video-list.html

>Netflix is free unlimited

>youtube is free unlimited

>Alternatives like liveleak metered $$

>Twitter free unlimited

>8chan metered $$

And look at the companies on that list. Most of them are ones claiming to support NN yet they participate in programs that clearly undermine it when it helps them lock out competitors.

>>828898

Except the practice doesn't violate net neutrality, you dumbfuck, that's what I was saying. Learn how to read.

>>828923

That anon said it violates the spirit of NN, which it does. Maybe you should learn how to read.

>>828845 (OP)

>>the second is apparently what a Portuguese telecom is offering their users.

It's for mobile data plans, tho that doesn't make it any less bad

>>828848

No, but ISPs have been throttling P2P traffic at least since the 2000s, which is something net neutrality would seek to eliminate.

tbh I wish shaping prioritising latency-sensitive traffic were applied. However everyone knows kike ISPs would abuse it to prioritise their services to the detriment of anything else instead, which is why I prefer no shaping at all

>>828864

>le competition meme

Competition is a red herring; companies compete for who can make the most money, not who offers the best service. They just need to stop being kikes.

Hello reddit!

>>828933

>companies compete for who can make the most money, not who offers the best service

...

Think that through for a second.

Who decides whether their service is the best?

>>828933

>net neutrality would seek to eliminate

You have net neutrality now (the debate is to repeal it), and yet they still do this.

>>828939

youre retarded

its availability that determines who buys what. there are huge swaths of the country with no choice in who their ISP is, and much of the rest has 2 choices and no more

>>828931

>That anon said it violates the spirit of NN, which it does.

Except it doesn't, at all.

>>828949

>there are huge swaths of the country with no choice in who their ISP is, and much of the rest has 2 choices and no more

Because of net neutrality and the ISPs wanting it to stifle competition

>>828981

You might be retarded, anon.

>>828983

>says the net neutrality cuck

>>828981

net neutrality laws raise the barrier to entry to the ISP market... how?

I secretly hope all these nightmare scenarios become a reality. It would be fun to see just how much these protected services would be willing to abuse their position in the bandwith highway. Meanwhile everyone outside that would be forced to remove all unneeded javascript and other bloat. This all would probably give torrents and other p2p sharing a big boost in popularity since you can't stream anything outside the few services like netflix

>>829022

>This all would probably give torrents and other p2p sharing a big boost in popularity since you can't stream anything outside the few services like netflix

Anon, they are doing this BECAUSE they want to throttle torrenting. They couldn't give two shits about stuff like WhatsApp traffic because it can be measured in kilobytes, or some websites over others because all websites nowadays are the sane bloated shit. They want to get rid of those sweet 20 Mb/s torrents because that kills the ISP, and also MAFIAA fuckery.

>>829023

They already can, and do. Obama's bill makes it legal to do so as 'reasonable network management'.

>>828845 (OP)

Wouldn't simply tunnelling my connection resolve this?

>>829051

Not with zero rating. If traffic isn't destined to partner sites, it isn't zero rated and you get billed/limited at the regular rate.

Is there a way to make torrent traffic look like https? using port 443 and encryption is not enough, the cunts still throttle it.

Also the retards who get their news from WSJ should leave.

The internet should be considered a public utility, like roads.

>>829065

So neglected and clogged that people pay for FasTrak express lanes instead? I don't think you intended to make a great point for the anti-NN crowd, though.

>>828845 (OP)

Net neutrality is essentially price fixing. It's good for Google, Netflix, Comcast and others, who lobbied for net neutrality because it crushes potential competition. On the other side, you have cable companies who seek to have this repealed so they can jack up prices. There are innovative solutions waiting in the wings such as distributed networks, mesh networking and fiber optics, which have the potential to undermine the cable company oligopoly, but because of Net Neutrality, people with better ideas on how to approach this can't compete and have their solutions tried. The sooner we repeal net neutrality, the sooner these new solutions are tried.

>>829071

>There are innovative solutions waiting in the wings such as distributed networks, mesh networking

dohoho, no. Distributed authority does not work. It's why global multicast never left the lab.

>fiber optics

FTTX doesn't change the game at all.

>>829065

No it shouldn't

>service X is granted full traffic allowance

>/nutech/ goes full reeeeee muh librtees

>instead of writing a tunneling protocol that exploits this service as transport

Fucking technology board.

>>828981

>Because of net neutrality and the ISPs wanting it to stifle competition

Just as much a state problem as a federal one, they get their hooks into state legislatures and prevent municipalities from putting together public internet services, or preventing them from selling the services outside of their incorporated service area

>>829071

Comcast didn't lobby for net neutrality, you're just retarded.

>>828866

It was in some form since 2005 until Verizon took the FCC to court and forced their hand.

>>829118

Also, source about the 2005 action:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/opinion/courts-net-neutrality-fcc.html

Timeline is basically:

- 2005 slapdown on small ISP throttling Vonage

- 2008 slapdown on Comcast throttling BitTorrent

- 2010 Open Internet Order (first official network neutrality regulations under Title I)

- 2014 Verizon vs FCC, Verizon crying and shitting its pants over 2010 Open Internet Order, judge says FCC does not have the authority under Title I, but they do have the authority if ISPs are classified as Title II

- 2015 Open Internet Order part deux, Title II regulation, peering dispute remediation, etc.

- 2017 Pajeet dismantles it

Regulation doesn't have to be 'codified' to allow a regulator to take action. They just slapped ISPs for anti competitive behavior and throttling traffic before any order was released.

There's a lot of shitposting on this board because drooling retards from /pol/ found their way here, but they're just retarded. Their opinions are worth less than dogshit, so just laugh at them.

>>829118

Don't forget about the time Comcast signed a petition for ending NN multiple times using information from dead people in their database.

>>829121

Why do you always bitch about /pol/ in almost all of your posts on this board?

COMCAST DID NOTHING WRONG

>>829158

I don't "bitch about /pol/ in almost all of my posts on this board" you cocksucking faggot, do you think every poster who tells /pol/ to go back to their shithole is the same person? Also, it's only natural when retards come to this board and shit it up, loving the dick this administration is giving them, getting rid of Network Neutrality and attempting to push total liability onto services which will lead to the death of this website because it's ironic. I only bring up irony to give credit to some of them, the vast majority are the lowest of the low knuckle dragging retards, and they wouldn't know what irony is even if it shot them in the face. They honestly believe stupid shit because they're mouth breathers.

>>829162

>>829158

Also, more on topic. I think Tim Wu is right. The FCC needs a reason to go back onto those regulatory actions when they were establishing the framework. They will probably lose in court over repealing network neutrality.

>>829162

It's clearly the same (you) in these threads.

>>829208

I do agree with you on the rights though. Nobody really has any rights.

>>829115

What service, hasn't been implemented so we can't test it.

>>828848

Net Neutrality came into effect in 2015.

Was the Internet was better or worse before 2015?

>>829224

>>829225

Exactly. Just look at what Cloudflare has done to the net, and they started throwing their weight around this year.

>>829232

Yep.

It's not the evil old ISP's that are censoring. Comcast didn't remove DS and SF I use them as an example only because they are well known. They where removed and hunted down across the internet by virtue signaling (((silicon valley))) tech companies that want the force of law to push their will.

They know one day they will get their Obama/Hillery back in to office and they want that person to have total control over what happens on the internet. They need the internet to remain under fed control.

>>829244

Both parties are kiked, they'll push to control speech either way. Our Jew problem isn't going to be solved by elections.

675 thousand people have gone down with wit a bullet in the streets of america in the past 20 years and you fuckmuppets failed put a single slug in any of the politicians who deserved one

this is the government and dystopia you've earned. now live in it

>>829261

Don't be defeatist.

>>829121

>There's a lot of shitposting on this board because drooling retards from /pol/ found their way here, but they're just retarded

Prove to us you're not a retard from /pol/

>>829268

He's from /leftypol/. He does this shit on /v/ too - his form of autism is a fingerprint. Watch for his reactions like >>829162 in future threads, it's a fun game.

>>829268

The butthurt faggot uses opportunity he can to go on his anti /pol/ diatribes. Then he goes to >>>/metatech/ and begs the mods to delete /pol/ posts. Total loser.

>>829244

I think a bunch of the old school ISPs are dead, and not just the smaller ones. Mostly it's just big conglomerates now.

BTW: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netcom_%28United_States%29#Scientology

/pol/yps will unironically defend this

>>829270

Here, a freebie to get you started. Found him - >>>/tech/829293

>>829199

I haven't actually posted on /tech/ in six months before this thread, so you're just a fucking retard who's trying to change the subject. I'd tell you to suck on a dick, but considering you're a raging homosexual it's obvious that you choke on dick daily.

>>829298

>>829406

That post doesn't even mention /pol/, it just rambles about leftists and AIDS.

Why is it that you retarded sacks of shit actually can't dispute what I was actually saying in this post >>829121

Rhetorical question, it's because you're a fucking retard.

>>829016

The laws prevent corporations to censor thigs they don't like, like ads for smaller businesses or for competition.

>>828864

Anti-NN shills are just as likely to claim that government breaking up monopolies is also wrong. Don't let the corporate cocksucker brigade fool you.

>>829425

Lol, /leftypoo/ communist, corporations can do no wrong and free market is the best.

Unless it's a (((corporation))) run by (((them))), in which case all they do is kikery and Trump will send them back to Mexico

>>829431

I can't tell if this is parody or an honest post. Please add tags next time.

>>829431

>leftard thinks this is because of a free market and not corporatism driven by kikes sleeping in bed with government to create legal monopoly to undermine free markets

>>829448

>Dude, that's corporatism. All we need to do is make it so the world works like my fairytales and implement a system that has never, ever existed.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK TO BELIEVE IN OR WHAT TO SUPPORT

Do I get fucked by the government jew?

or

Do I get fucked by the corporate jew?

>>829454

East Asian Model Capitalism with a Classical Liberal twist?

>>829458

It's easier to jew the corporate jew without going to jail.

Maybe, not sure how's the things go in America.

>>828864

This is the exact problem that Title II solves. Under Title II common carriers, they have to lease their last mile to competitors. Under Title I, they do not have to lease jack shit. They can tell competitors to fuck off.

This is why they do not want Title II.

>>829544

Anyways between /poll/ acting retarded and retards redefining network neutrality for the second time now, where the wiki definition has something to do with anti zero-rating, it's clear that we can't have nice things.

There's no possibility to have a discussion without laying out the ground rules, and once you lay them out everyone would agree with Title II regulation, because ISPs are telcos, there's no question about it. Anyone pretending that they're not telcos are either brain damaged or ironically shitposting.

>>829458

it's not a choice since in every capitalist society gov is owned by corporations by now

>>829595

Cyberpunk is reality. Ghost in the Shell or Gunnm?

>>829448

>his entire argument is blaming the joos

Just kill yourself already. You know you want to.

>>829545

>/poll/

>>829603

>I don't have an argument, so I'll nitpick a typo

>>829425

>Anti-NN shills are just as likely to claim that government breaking up monopolies is also wrong

Except the government is the one that makes monopolies, genius.

>>829684

Go be retarded with you fellow neoliberal bootlickers on/pol/ and stop embarrassing yourself in front of your betters.

The government is the only thing preventing monopolies. If it were not there all companies would continuously merge until there is only MEGACORP (R). Competition is costly and a wasted opportunity for profit.

>>829731

Everything you posted is scientifically false

>>829731

>The government is the only thing preventing monopolies.

Unless those monopolies somehow benefit government, like Facebook and Google with their massive data collection. Then government does nothing to stop them.

>>829776

You're not a shill, but you're certainly a fucking retard.

>>829781

Hint: Neither was your post, retard.

>>828848

Yes, without it ISPs will keep pushing their slimy agenda further and further. In the past (the '90s, and especially before the mid-2000s) most of the abusive practices NN seeks to curb hadn't been invented yet, or were not yet practical due to the structure of the internet at that time.

>>828875

>mobile isn't most peoples' primary isp

>cellular isn't increasingly being forced on fixed customers because of intentional neglect toward dsl & cable

>mobile isn't a harbinger for other isps

>>828893

>>829225

>just because corporations other than isps censor means isps haven't repeatedly censored both unilaterally and in response to even the most baseless takedown requests

>>828945

>>829224

NN was barely in effect for a very brief period of time.

No, NN wasn't in force yet

>>829792

An INFINITELY better one. Perhaps one where, the lobbyists stopped paying him.

>>829795

The difference being that the government isn't trying to take as much money out of your pocket as they can, unlike, let's say, toll roads. And then we have the whole issue of competing services or even getting the right land permits. You cannot do a highway system privately, so please fuck off with your complaining about how roads are also a service. Yes, we know that. The thing is that they are a service best provided by government.

>>829793

>(the '90s, and especially before the mid-2000s)

>structure of the internet at that time

>>829639

This

https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=103050

>Privatization: 1993-1998. Commercial

>firms noted the popularity and

>effectiveness of the growing Internet and

>built their own networks. The proliferation

>of private suppliers led to an NSF

>solicitation in 1993 that outlined a new

>Internet architecture that largely remains

>in place today.

>

>From that solicitation, NSF awarded

>contracts in 1995 for three network

>access points, to provide connection

>points between commercial networks,

>and one routing arbiter, to ensure an

>orderly exchange of traffic across the

>Internet. In addition, NSF signed a

>cooperative agreement to establish the

>next-generation very-high-performance

>Backbone Network Service. A more

>prominent milestone was the

> ""decommissioning of the NSFNET""

>backbone in April 1995.

>>829069

>If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it and aren't forced to pay for it you faggots.

Except when your area is run by a regional monopoly. Good luck functioning in modern society without it.

>>829817

>Yeah and the reasons why most libertarians and "tax is theft" are morons is because they don't realize how much the benefit from services they don't' actively "use"

I don't give a shit, it's my money not my neighbors or yours. Cry more, commie faggot. Taxation is theft because the government can only collect taxes under the pretense of using force to do so. Here's your (you).

>>829852

> The idea that libertarians hate all forms of taxation is stupid

Except it isn't, because it's true. Taxation is unethical and anti-freedom.

>>829852

>you know what's a service you don't benefit from? Welfare.

Wow, I'm sure glad I don't have to worry about losing my job, or even wanting to quit without waiting to line up another job in advance. After all, it's not like having a fallback option for workers between jobs helps decrease the massive amount of coercive leverage abusive or inconsiderate employers have.

>>829868

Cry more, you fucking hippie. Lrn2savings.

>>829868

It's not really the governments job to wipe your ass for you, commie. The only person who's fault it is for not having a fallback option is YOURS. It's called being fiscally responsible like an actual productive adult

>>829870

>>829871

>accept your penance for defying the corporate overlords

>those savings you intended to do something useful with should be handed over to the ((chosen ones)) with a smile on your face whenever they want to fuck you over

>>829871

Doesn't help that the government also taxes income and thus doesn't provide an incentive to save money which destroys fallback options.

>tfw no national sales tax to replace the income tax

>tfw the 16th Amendment was never actually ratified and it technically is violating the 14th Amendment

>>829874

>>those savings you intended to do something useful with should be handed over to the ((chosen ones)) with a smile on your face whenever they want to fuck you over

So you agree taxtation is theft?

>>829876

>sales tax

>income tax

You realize the reason most anti-tax whining is about the federal income tax, is because it's the one tax that hits the rich hardest? You realize sales tax is almost never spoken of by lolberts is because it impacts the majority of the population worse than any other tax?

>taxation is theft

Sure, but it's the least bad option to ensure we have a pooled fund to deal with expensive but rare problems that are easy for society to pay for, but devastating for individuals. I mean, theoretically, you could have unemployment insurance, like many labor unions, but that would pretty much be the same thing minus the fact that tax funding forces the bosses to pay in as well.

>>829879

>You realize the reason most anti-tax whining is about the federal income tax, is because it's the one tax that hits the rich hardest?

It hits everybody the hardest because the government has no right to your earnings.

>You realize sales tax is almost never spoken of by lolberts is because it impacts the majority of the population worse than any other tax?

Except it doesn't impact the majority of the population worse. Also

>lolberts

Okay, you're a /pol/edditor, nevermind, opinion discarded. Here's your final (you), plus tax :^)

>>829891

https://itep.org/whopays/

>>829903

We had zero rating and 'reasonable network management' throttling P2P under the NN bill, so we're fucked either way.

>>829935

>i'll just find a service that doesn't do that

My apartment complex has a single wired provider and it's AT&T. How exactly do I take my business elsewhere?

>>829884

It makes no sense that the people who actually put in effort have to pay more to cover the people who sit around all day watching anime. I'm going to be in that $200k+ bracket this year as I've been working 12 hour days in tech and I'm furious that a big chunk of that is going to Tyrone, Muhammad, and Paco.

>>829947

>Don't forget about the now long-dead competitors of the internet.

You mean competitors of the World Wide Web? All those services used the internet you mental defect

>>829953

I'm sorry, that's a LITTLE BIT too much newfag.

The Internet before the mid-'90s was the exclusive, very expensive reserve of mainframes in giant institutions like the military, universities, and corporations, that you could only access via 3-hops (or more!) from another BBS. Major BBS services like AOL distinguished themselves from normal BBSs by constructing their own regional, nationwide, and eventually global private WANs that allowed subscribers to communicate over long distances. It wasn't until years later that they offered (for an additional fee) gateways to certain Internet services like eMail & newsgroups, let alone full PPP access as ISPs.

>>829957

Maybe, just maybe, if we apply enough regulations to the Internet (not just NN, but sector/region-based anti-monopolization, and aggressive ongoing antitrust investigations against major websites), we can push things back. We have nothing to lose.

At the software layer, a lot of the ideas being thrown around on /tech/ would be very helpful, making a decentralized, attack-tolerant, 2-way system.

Rebuilding everything from scratch at the physical layer though, especially without land and cabling rights, would be a real bitch.

When I buy internet access I should get a pipe with x bandwidth for y dollars a month. The service provider should have no say over what I do with that pipe, nor how much/often I use it. That is net neutrality.

Any other definition of net neutrality is bullshit meant to deceive, obfuscate, and inveigle. That's the biggest problem here. Things that are not net neutrality keep being called net neutrality.

>>829797

>the government isn't trying to take as much money out of your pocket as they can

I take it you don't live in a blue state

>>829945

Use a non-wired service, genius

>>829969

>use a laggier, slower, more expensive service

>>829960

>Maybe, just maybe

Maybe I will win the lotto tomorrow. Maybe I will live to 150. Maybe, just maybe.

Look at the things the majority of normies who are involved in the NN hype are worried about.. Their NETFLIX buffering. Access to Social Media..Being able to share their 8MP selfies with their "friends" on clapchat apps etc. All non-mainstream traffic could be blocked outright and they wouldn't care as long as their APPS worked.

>BT, nntp, tor, ssh? Isn't that the stuff terrorists and pedos use. Or even worse fucking NAZIS?!?!?

/tech/ types make up <1% of the internet population. The things you wish for will never happen because there is no will for it to happen.

>>828845 (OP)

finally, pcfags will pay for steam!

>>829971

What do you want? A speedy service or one that doesn't screw you over? It's up to you to decide what's important for your enjoyment.

>>829975

>I think you've reached a point of cynicism where you assume the average normalfag literally never goes to any other site besides facebook, youtube, neflix, and the occassional porn site. I'd recommend talking to real people some time, you'd be amazed at how versed people are with the internet these days.

Look how many people own a desktop computer vs a smartphone today. Look at VZN, AT&T and friends running away from fixed line "wired" internet in favor of being 100% LTE. Frontier and the other 2nd tier wired ISPs are expected to go bankrupt soon. Even GoogleFiber is exploring wireless for the last mile because the fixed line growth is just not there.

On the CATV ISP side the industry has consolidated to basically 3 players who are all looking to get in bed with cell companies.

Look at the state of the PC industry today vs 15 years ago.

Give a normie millennial the choice between their smart phone or a real computer and they will pick their phone 100% of the time. Financial reasons are increasingly forcing that decision. What rules mobile? APPS APPS APPS.

The future is APPS,LTE and mobile.Walled gardens with metered/zerorated data plans.

>>829988

The point is that alternatives are going to be squeezed harder and harder.

>>829407

why is it your post doesn't support the fearmongering that somehow hatechan will get shut down if we don't have NN to protect us

>>828864

ISPs lobby the shit out of government to raise barriers to entry to the market. Fucking Google had this problem when they wanted to roll out dirt-cheap Google Fiber to San Francisco at the start. Major ISPs forced them out of the city at the time.

>>828887

What the fuck are you smoking? It is clearly against the spirit of net neutrality. The entire point of net neutrality is that ISPs not be able to say "pay us cash if you want to use these sites" or selectively throttle sites and services they don't like.

>>828939

>>829935

>muh free market

American ISPs aren't a free market you fucking moron. They're an oligopoly, and in many regions an outright monopoly. When your choices are to take it up the ass, have no internet, or resort to extreme slow shit like satellite or dial-up internet, there is no competitive incentive for the ISP in your neighborhood not to price-gouge the shit out of you for internet access, which they will.

>>829270

>he actually thinks there's just one guy giving /pol/ posters shit for being cripplingly retarded

It'd be cute if it wasn't so goddamn stupid. Look, you're in a net neutrality thread, and a lot of nu/pol/acks are fucking retards who think reading is overrated or shit because they already got told their opinions by whatever fuckers they decided to listen and believe. Old /pol/ may have been nutters, but they were at least clever nutters who understood the value of doing your homework and researching shit. New /pol/ whines about spoonfeeding and /leftypol/ and reddit and whatever the fuck else when people ask you what the hell you're on about and why you're acting retarded. They're classic 4chan shitposting imbeciles who think a "retort" is just as good as an intelligent answer because it makes them feel like a winner either way. Two years ago this board was much better off without your kind of scum.

>>829458

Let me put it in language /pol/tards might understand: You get fucked by the government jew either way. The question is just whether you also want to get fucked by the corporate jew. When a government jew tells you government cannot be trusted so you should support his attempt to ambiguously deregulate government, you can bet your ass it is not a deregulation that will help you. He is selling a toxic pile of shit and preying on your distrust of government to make you accept it.

>>829944

That's like saying the government wiretaps you anyway so we should just accept legalization of government wiretaps. It will get taken up to a whole new level once the shit is legal.

>>830011

>everyone I don't like is reddit/samefag

>the emotional child's guide to online 8chan discourse

Mate, I'm sure he touched a nerve there, but believe it or not 8chan is not some fucking /pol/chan. A lot of our boards predate the last few waves of /pol/tards flocking to the site and liked it better before your kind decided to newfag shit up with that 4chan cancer of yours. If anyone has to go back, it's obviously you.

>>830073

If you're going to be paranoid and crazy, at least make something cool like Terry. Do you have any software projects you've made?

What effect would end of NN in US have on EU?

>>830073

It would be easier to turn coal into diamond than find sympathy for Google. Nobody cheers for ISPs. They simply hate the hypocrites in Silicon Valley more. Even Tim Berners Lee is a hypocritical POS. If you can read between the lines, these people don't give a fuck unless it costs them money. They're not champions for your rights.

>>830094

About the same as the end of it in the USA.

None.

>>829964

Thank you for actually making the real argument. Nobody I've seen talking about NN has ever brought this up.

The ISPs are arguing that people using Netflix is taking bandwidth from other services. However, if I'm using all my bandwidth watching Netflix, then that should be my choice. If the ISP is properly managing their network, then me watching Netflix shouldn't harm any other company, any more than me choosing to eat a hot dog 'harms' the burger industry.

The underlying issue, I suspect, is that the ISPs are always oversubscribing their networks. They have to throttle connections because they can't offer a fraction of the bandwidth they promise. They have to choose who to prioritize because their shitty network would choke if everyone tried to get the bandwidth advertised.

While I believe that true NN should be fought for, I'd like to see a bigger push requiring ISPs to actually provide advertised speeds. I'd rather pay for a lower speed that I can get 90% of the time than pay more for a 'high' speed that I never get.

>>830380

Switching from monthly fees, to something charged per-GB, with some kind of divisor based on total network load, would be far better IMHO. But in order to avoid ludicrous price-gouging, ISPs would have to open themselves up to harsh government-imposed transparency requirements about their actual costs.

Currently, ISPs lie through their teeth about the insanely low cost of providing service, allowing them to get away with nearly unique 98% profit margins:

https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/25-Of-Your-Bill-Actually-Goes-To-Bandwidth-113131

It's mindblowing that ISPs describe the stereotypical email & web granny user as somehow victimized by people running torrents and streaming video, in spite of the fact that ISPs get away with charging her $30/month for service that's not even worth 30¢/month.

>>830407

I hate the $/GiB price model. It's touted as similar to electric costs where ISPs say "You pay for what you use", but really, the cost for them is in the bandwidth, not the amount of data transferred.

In a $/GiB model, a 1KiB/s connection used continuously for 1 month will be cheaper for an ISP than a 30MiB/s connection used occasionally during peak times. However, they'll charge more for the slower connection over longer time because "Muh GiB!"

>>830380

>However, if I'm using all my bandwidth watching Netflix, then that should be my choice.

I agree with this on principle, but in that case why can't it be the ISP's choice what to throttle on their network?

The ISP's case is a bit more sympathetic than you outline it. From their perspective, Netflix, and other high data users are running mutli-billion dollar industries on their infrastructure, and the ISP can only indirectly profit off of it through charging the consumers more for data. They, and the consumer, are finding that difficult to arrange because no one wants data caps or to pay more for high amounts of streaming. The ISPs are stuck between charging more for data and implementing caps, or charging huge data distributors like Netflix, google, etc. for their absurdly disproportionate market share.

'Tough', you might say, and that's a perfectly tenable position if you just don't like the ISPs and want them to suffer. But it's about the balancing of power, and if you want weak, public utility tier ISPs you're going to get monolithic web companies. I'm personally more worried about the monopolization of the web, so I'd appreciate it if the ISPs were given some teeth to go after them. I'm not worried about mass censorship or application favoritism from them, because that would be PR suicide. I think giving them teeth would encourage new competition to emerge, because now ISPs are more profitable, and can maneuver against each-other in the services and agreements they offer.

The ISP monopolies that exist now are due to government lobbying and cronyism. Those have to be dealt with, but the way to do that is to remove the regulations preventing new ISP from entering an area, and giving them an opportunity to make money.

>>830407

That analysis is so naive it's not really worth commenting on, just read the comments on the page you linked and think critically about the actual costs of the business. But one thing:

>there's also abundant new revenue streams (advertising via webmail, BVAS, selling your clickstream data, DNS Redirection revenue, charging to get around spam filters, targeted behavioral advertising).

Do you want ISPs to do any of this?

>>830418

>high data users are running mutli-billion dollar industries on their infrastructure, and the ISP can only indirectly profit off of it through charging the consumers more for data.

What costs? The infra is already there. They've already bought it, and the cost of running a few electrons down a cable is negligible compared to the cost of the physical infra. If I have a pipe of size X, and all my customers want to get their water from the lake, instead of the pond, what business is it of mine? If I'm having trouble providing enough water for my customers, instead of limiting the lake supply, I should build a bigger pipe.

If I set the precedence of limiting the lake, that just sets me up for later down the line. If I wanted, I could buy the pond and limit the lake to a trickle, making everyone essentially forced to buy my water from the pond. You may say "Why would they do that? It would be bad PR?". If they own all the pipes in town, what will people do? Go without water? The fact that they have this kind of power, regardless of whether they say they won't use it, is enough of a threat in and of itself.

>>830414

>>830418

Sure, you could have more detailed billing, in addition to a fixed monthly charge for the connection, with total utilization-weighted per-GiB fees. But the main issue is the stunning lack of transparency. Backbone costs, peering costs, and last mile costs are all VASTLY exhaggerated, here's a more detailed analysis:

https://broadbandnow.com/report/much-data-really-cost-isps/

>remove the regulations preventing new ISP from entering an area

I think this would be disappointingly ineffective today, because unlike the old days, there is no shared modern telephone or cable TV infrastructure for competing ISPs to use, and the supposed alternatives (cellular and microwave) are fundamentally inadequate. At the physical level, networking is a natural monopoly, and we need some kind of initiative to lay down fibre without bilking people or reinventing the wheel.

>Do you want ISPs to do any of this?

No, and that's why I think transparency requirements are probably the only solution. They'll just keep crying and whining about unrelated expenses and fake fees eating them alive, even as they rake in profits practically no other industry can even dream about, fooling customers into paying for or consenting to cons nobody wants.

>>830439

>The infra is already there.

No it isn't, there are always new areas to expand to or improve the infrastructure. Even existing infrastructure needs to be maintained. And the initial cost of investment in the infrastructure needs to be recuperated. And this is only speaking of incumbent ISPs, don't you WANT new ISPs, who would have to develop their own new infrastructure, to be viable businesses?

>What costs?

I don't run an ISP, so I can only imagine. But customer service and paying and managing employees is a huge cost with endless, inexplicable fees including legal work, pensions, etc. And these overhead costs get larger and more self sustaining and reproducing the larger and older a company gets. Trying to estimate the margin's of a company by the cost of reproducing it's product compared to its price is a foolish proposition. It's a very difficult thing to do, even with the most sophisticated analysis, which is why some people make a fuckton of money doing market analysis. In a Free Market™, price gouging isn't really a problem because the value will hover around the cost eventually. ISPs don't operate in a free market in some areas, and that needs to be addressed, but NN doesn't directly help that.

> If they own all the pipes in town, what will people do? Go without water?

Another ISP would come in and absolutely demolish their monopoly. Or their customers in other regions would be so disgusted they'd find another provider. Access to netflix is not water, and these kinds of business practices are already protected against by anti-trust laws.

As far as the data caps go, they're obviously a way to profit off of high data usage like streaming without being able to go after the stream distributors, and limit their bandwidth consumption. It's absurd to criticize the ISPs for charging for data when their costs are in bandwidth, because the vast majority of data usage comes from streaming at particular times of the day, which puts a floor on what bandwidth you must provide to an area to maintain advertised speeds. The price on data is obviously a surrogate for the cost they'd like to levy on Netflix for necessitating so much bandwidth. Would you rather the ISPs milk you or Netflix?

>>830441

The article you linked just concludes with exactly what I'm saying: the actual cost is unclear, and we need to fight for a freer market so we can be sure it's fair.

>>830460

>The article you linked just concludes with exactly what I'm saying: the actual cost is unclear

It says absolutely nothing like that:

>Calculations based on Internet transit costs, as detailed below, suggest an ISP cost per gigabyte measured in fractions of a penny.

>While infrastructure costs were as high as 20 percent of revenue when the company started up, the number has since dropped to less than two percent, says Dane.

We have ISP shareholder reports that blatantly indicate the MAXIMUM expense of most major ISPs is in the low single digit percentages, the only "uncertain" part is that due to all the Triple-Play-type bullshit mixing such figures into non Internet services, the actual numbers might be EVEN LOWER.

>>830467

From the article

>With the cost of data so low as to be negligible, the real factor for ISPs is more substantial operating costs like infrastructure upgrades, technician payroll, network engineers, call centers, and every other moving part in the “last mile” Internet business.

>capping consumers rather than upgrading infrastructure to account for increased traffic looks highly suspicious

>Ultimately, the only way to ensure that the ISPs maintain reasonable profit margins is to foster a competitive marketplace that lets the “invisible hand” bring the consumer price closer to the ISP cost.

>While infrastructure costs were as high as 20 percent of revenue when the company started up, the number has since dropped to less than two percent, says Dane.

>While infrastructure costs were as high as 20 percent of revenue when the company started up,

>While infrastructure costs were as high as 20 percent of revenue

>While infrastructure costs were

> infrastructure costs

> infrastructure

The main cost is not in the infrastructure.

>We have ISP shareholder reports that blatantly indicate the MAXIMUM expense of most major ISPs is in the low single digit percentages, the only "uncertain" part is that due to all the Triple-Play-type bullshit mixing such figures into non Internet services, the actual numbers might be EVEN LOWER.

Why don't you link those, and explain in context how they relate to the total operation costs of the business and how this is evidence for consumer exploitation.

>net jewtrality

>>>/reddit/

>>830460

>don't you WANT new ISPs, who would have to develop their own new infrastructure, to be viable businesses?

I do, but I fail to see what NN has to do with it. Why are new businesses hampered by not being allowed to throttle connections? In fact, many small ISPs have already come out saying that NN has not hurt their ability to run and expand their networks: https://eff.org/files/2017/06/27/isp_letter_to_fcc_on_nn_privacy_title_ii.pdf

>I don't run an ISP, so I can only imagine. But customer service and paying and managing employees is a huge cost with endless, inexplicable fees including legal work, pensions, etc. And these overhead costs get larger and more self sustaining and reproducing the larger and older a company gets.

The thing is though, none of those costs are related to how much of their bandwidth is being used. They would be paying those costs regardless of how much bandwidth Netflix is using on their network, because those are the costs of managing a company, not the costs of shooting beams of light down a tube. I have yet to see anyone explain to me what specific costs a company incurs when its network is near capacity while streaming Netflix, vs when that network is far below capacity because it's being used for email.

Now, of course there are costs of increasing overall bandwidth to provide more speed to more people. But once again, those costs are incurred regardless of how much use the new lines will get, so I again fail to see why those costs should be subsidized by the websites whose data may or may not travel down those new lines.

If the costs of running an ISP and expanding a network are so high that they cannot afford to expand without forcing tech companies to subsidize those costs, then how have they managed to stay in business so long? Obviously costs must be so horrible that they should have either internet costs should have been shooting up, or they'd have gone bankrupt long ago.

>>830414

This is to prevent people from using their full bandwidth 24/7 for no reason. The lines are oversubscribed and that's okay because it is the only way to operate a network at reasonable cost. The alternative would be a cap and no way to use more than that, but no one wants such a plan.

>>830523

Rules 1 & 2, don't be such a sperg. This isn't even really a partisan issue, since the vast majority of both democrats and republicans support net neutrality.

>>828848

You fucking bet it was. Porky will always try to get way with more, and the megacorps have been doing exactly that, especially in areas where they're the only option. This traffic discrimination bullshit is one such nickel-and-dime measure, but one that might have massive repercussions, not just because of the egregious customer fleecing, but mainly because the various deals and corporate relations between ISPs and media outlets would create these "corporate tribes", whose clients would be limited to specific news sources and other sites. Corporations would have even more power over the public discourse than they already have.

>>830512

Nah, it's pure kikery. If they just wanted to keep a handful of people from hogging the bandwidth, they would institute plans that punished them in some other way, such as temporary speed decrease, which would be perfect to curb hoggers. But that would only save them what, a few dimes worth of electricity and a less clogged line that no one would notice anyway because the service is always shit? Charging by the GB is far more profitable, it's almost free money. It's essentially taking away what used to be a free feature and start charging for it just because they can.

To further drive the point home, I don't know how used to be there in Burgerstan, but around here, all ISPs had no transfer cap, from the dial-up days and well into the broadband era. Then one of the bigger ones tries to squeeze its customers some more, like they always do. Normies barely notice, so more and more ISPs follow suit. I think my state doesn't have a single ISP without transfer caps anymore, I'm lucky that I have an old-ass contract that keeps me on the old, unlimited transfer plan.

>>830530

Temporary speed decreases have definitely been a thing

>>831204

I hate to interrupt urop prematurely celebrating as usual, but you're currently much worse off. Your ISPs were among the first to start zero-rating. BT was even doing it before the first NN bill. You also have hate speech laws that are used to pull sites that challenge the government's positions. And you aren't allowed to speak the truth about the Jews or question the Jewish version of history. Should probably work on that when not being crushed by trucks of peace.

>>831237

>all europe is the same

I live in Bulgaria and none of these apply here

still a second world country, but in terms of internet is perfect

also it's so poor and unimportant that the migrants don't wanna stay here, there was this one riot at a migrant camp, and the police went in and beat the shit out of everyone

>>830544

>wew lad, it's real

Except it has nothing to do with net neutrality, or violating it. As previously stated this is a mobile carrier offering plans that allow users to subscribe to special services that do not suck up the data allowances you get per month with that cellular carrier. Are you retarded or just stupid?

>>831983

Except that's literally what net neutrality is about.

>>831988

Mobile plans have always had data-caps. That one example people keep bringing up has nothing to do with anything. Maybe mommy pays for your phone plan, but not everyone is that ignorant.

>>831988

Except it isn't.

>>831995

>Mobile plans have always had data-caps

No, they didn't, but that's not the point. Data caps aren't against net neutrality. Different caps for different services are.

>>832006

So what makes the packets above the data cap different than any other packets? I thought net neutrality was about treating ALL packets equally.

>>832009

Now you're just being silly. The point of net neutrality is not to ensure people can leech as much as they want. It's to ensure fair competition among different online service providers.

>>832014

No, it's so that each packet has to be treated equally by ISPs. If you don't support that statement you don't support net neutrality.

>>832016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality doesn't say anything about data caps being against net neutrality and I'd bet virtually anyone working in the industry (tech people, not support pajeets and management) would disagree with you. So, what do I support then?

>>832006

>No, they didn't, but that's not the point.

Yes they did, faggot, and the point is you don't have a point, because either way it doesn't apply. Seeing as Portugal is part of the EU, 'net neutrality' clearly doesn't prevent this, and has nothing to do with it.

>Different caps for different services are.

They are not taking anything away, they are giving you more data for certain sites if you want, in addition to the standard data-caps they usually have. You're grasping at straws in a desperate bid to add validation to your doomsday scenario. There is no basis for the level of hysteria I've been seeing, where people are seriously telling me I'm not going to be able to post on this backwater site anymore.

Fuck off. Net jewtrality was completely co-opted and is full government control of the internet. None of you redditniggers has any sense and keep shilling the same fucking lies for years.

>i-if you don't pass this the ISPs will do this crazy multi package piecemeal internet pricing thing that they aren't doing right now without net neutrality passed because uh uh uh uh uh UH UH UH FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR BE AFRAID JUST FUCKING SUPPORT IT REEEEEEEEEEEEE

>i-if you don't pass this the health insurers will drop everyone and literally millions of people will die even though that didn't happen before obamacare was passed because uh uh uh uh uh UH UH UH FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR BE AFRAID JUST FUCKING SUPPORT IT REEEEEEEEEEEEE

>i-ignore the fact net jewtrality is supported by (((corporations))) and (((open society foundation)))

Same shit, same shills, different words. Fucking kill yourselves.

>>832021

>They are not taking anything away, they are giving you more data for certain sites

Not sure if you're retarded or just pretending. Charging $10 for 1byte + unlimited Faceberg and $100 for more non-Faceberg bytes is taking something away.

>>832021

>Yes they did, faggot,

Looks like they didn't: https://web.archive.org/web/20080501213014/http://www.t-mobile.com:80/shop/plans/Default.aspx?plancategory=7#Voice%2c+E-mail+%26+Internet

That's the first and only archived plan I could find mostly because I know only very few american cell providers

>inb4 t mobile doesn't count for some bullshit reason

>Seeing as Portugal is part of the EU, 'net neutrality' clearly doesn't prevent this,

Seems like EU net neutrality laws suck?

>and has nothing to do with it.

repeating it doesn't make it any more true

>They are not taking anything away, they are giving you more data for certain sites if you want, in addition to the standard data-caps they usually have. You're grasping at straws in a desperate bid to add validation to your doomsday scenario.

No, you're not getting the point. Imagine Netflix giving an ISP a few shekles so their videos can be watched unlimitedly at no obvious additional cost, but other streaming sites don't get this benefit. This gives customers of other ISPs a reason to switch, so the ISP benefits. Netflix also gains customers from other streaming sites, and can now earn more money than they're paying to that ISP. Where does the money come from? It's you! And other, smaller streaming sites have it even harder to compete.

>There is no basis for the level of hysteria I've been seeing, where people are seriously telling me I'm not going to be able to post on this backwater site anymore.

That's their doomsday scenario, not mine. While it is possible, it's unlikely.

>>832038

>Imagine Netflix giving an ISP a few shekles so their videos can be watched unlimitedly at no obvious additional cost ...

And what's wrong with that? If Netflix thinks it's a good investment to give a few shekels to the ISP in order for them to make money what's wrong with that? If all other streaming sites are allowed to do the same (at the same rate) then I see no issue. The only issue I see with a scenario here is the ISP only allowing Netflix to be a part of the deal while the other streaming sites are left with 'data caps' of the person trying to use their service.

Aslong as you and I, as well as the other streaming sites are getting the service speeds and 'data caps' we are paying for then I see no issue with letting Netflix pay the ISP for no 'data caps.'

>>832049

>If all other streaming sites are allowed to do the same (at the same rate) then I see no issue.

Yeah, if... and even if they technically can, this can be unaffordable for small, new competitors.

>>832053

This all comes down to good business ethics, something that shouldn't be regulated by the government.

>>829267

>>832057

>>832038

'Unlimited' plans still exist, it's just that you have to pay out the ass for it. The thing is though, going through something like 10GBs of data on your phone is actually pretty unlikely, so there's no reason to pay for it, and they even though it's 'unlimited', the truth is they will throttle you if you really abuse it.

>>832056

>This all comes down to good business ethics, something that shouldn't be regulated by the government.

Lolbert, in the end it is you who's paying for unnecessary bullshit.

>>832061

Why should I run to the government if I make a bad judgement call?

>>832060

They throttle you on everything as soon as you go over the "limit".

NN is about selective throttling.

t. Have to use broadband because wired services apparently doesn't like trailer parks.

>>832061

Sage isn't a downvote, commie :^)

Well, I though there was a way around this by creating onion sites.

>>832196

You can't get around zero-rating. All traffic not going to a partner site is penalized. All your onion traffic would be penalized.

>>832024

>they aren't doing right now

But they are

>without net neutrality passed

Net neutrality is the old status quo ante bellum, so to speak, as ISPs used to operate solely on the common carrier-regulated telephone network. Current net neutrality legislation is necessary only because ISPs have started worming their way out from under preexisting regulations through loopholes

>i-ignore the fact net jewtrality is supported by (((corporations))) and (((open society foundation)))

As opposed to anti-NN, which is pushed by far more established corporations that out-spend pro-NN efforts by a 2-5:1 ratio on lobbying, are overwhelmingly against bipartisan pro-NN (70% of Republicans) opinion among the general populous, and who shill so hard that anti-NN opinions encountered online are 10 times more likely to be botspam.

>that didn't happen before obamacare was passed

Except that's precisely what happened for decades until HeritageCareRomneyCareObamaCare was passed, and forced insurers to cover more people for less money.

>>832049

>Websites and ISPs making sweetheart deals is just business, nothing for consumers or startups to worry about!

>>832060

>Unaffordably expensive unlimited plans still exist along side the zero-rated monopolies, so you still have free choice!

You realize no matter how clean you lick that boot, they'll never let you wear it, right?

Stop being useful idiots. There is no way that you can justify that data from Netflix and data from hospital remote surgery machines need to have same priority.

>>832279

It's easy.It's all data. It's not like we worry about prioritizing electricity to hospitals.

>Sorry little Timmy, you won't get to watch your DVD's because the hospital needs that electricity for Mrs. Jones boob job.

That's why they usually have backup generators. They get the same electricity everyone else does. They should get the same internet too. They get x bandwidth for y dollars, and they can do whatever they want with it. Same for little Timmy. He gets x bandwidth for y dollars, and if he wants to stream porn while the hospital is experimenting with remote surgery, that's not the carrier's concern.

>>832279

>competing requests from different customers of the same ISP

The strawman FUD you're shilling

>competing requests from the exact same customer for different websites

What NN is actually about

>>832279

I'd like to perform some remote surgery on pajeet pai's shit eating grin.

>>832286

Electricity is a public utility, the Internet is not, and it should stay that way.

>>832203

Zero rating has nothing to do with the letter of network neutrality. Regulating zero rating is 'neutrality' beyond Title II. Why do you retards keep bringing up zero rating? Is it because Wikipedia focuses on it and you didn't actually read Tim Wu's original paper or know anything about network neutrality before this year?

Zero rating violates the spirit of network neutrality, but it has nothing to do with regulating carriers to prevent blocking or throttling of application-level traffic.

If they don't throttle or block anything, and yet offer agreements (probably with a CDN box on their network) for some shitty movie streaming service to not use data, it is, in effect, giving an advantage, but it's not an advantage that prevents you from using competing services.

>>832057

wow, you must really not understand economics.

>>829792

he's been chased off /tech/ ever since reddit took over. they were jealous of the attention he was getting and started mass-reporting him

>>830094

most US ISPs would be free to throttle access to websites they dislike which means 0% traffic from americans which means the sites would die

Why are so many posters in this thread shilling for same thing that Google and Facebook support? Are they doing something good this time or are they sending those posters here?

>>832697

You wouldn't accept any other answer than "Yes, we're being paid by Google/Zuckerface/Soros/whoever" so why do you even ask?

>>832726

That is not true. I am actually interested in finding out if Google, FB, etc. are actually doing something good.

>>832728

I'm for Trump, for net neutrality, and against the facejew. Where did you find these 'most people'? Are you talking about reddit and /pol/?

>>832729

I think there is one major reason why Google and Facebook are supporting net neutrality: Their workers grew up on the internet, they literally build all aspects of the internet. They know it and it's the center of their lives. It worked well for decades without fast lanes, zero rating, or filtering. They don't want it ruined by corporate bureaucratic bullshit rules (or, as we would call it, jewry) made by people who voluntarily wear ties and suits. Because the companies can't afford their own workers to turn against them (and they would even if their employers took a neutral stance), they support net neutrality.

Besides that, Google and Facebook don't have much to gain through net neutrality, but they don't really have anything to lose either because they're already monopolists.

Netflix on the other hand has competition, they could lose customers if ISPs favored one of their competitors, e.g. by zero-rating or giving them the fast lane.

>>828939

if your "libertarian" meme ideology were any true we'd live in fucking paradise and not in this shithole dictatorship of the wealthy, the fact you honestly think more competitors rigging shit however the fuck they want is any better for most people shows just how delusional and disconnected from reality you are

go fuck yourself

>>832739

> They don't want it ruined by corporate bureaucratic bullshit rules (or, as we would call it, jewry)

So they're anti-net neutrality?

>>832782

Crony capitalism that relies on the state is not libertarian capitalism, sage-kun

>>832859

Look, I can't help you if you're not even trying to understand what I write.

>>832860

>muh crony capitalism

You're just like commies and their 'gommunism has neved been dried befod x-DDDDDDd' meme. I'm sick of hearing this shit.

Businesses always will resort to shady tactics and defraud the consumer to save shekels; they don't give a shit about playing fair.

example: all telcos in my country are either refusing to install copper lines (even if the fucking wiring is already in place) or forcing crappy, dropout-prone GSM landline phones (with obscene rates) down new subscribers' throats in hopes of getting people to switch to mobile (also with obscene rates). If we didn't have consumer protection offices to keep them in check, they'd fucking get away with it without any consequences whatsoever.

Go die in a fire, you pathetic useful idiot.

>>832941

- Buying a package that limits access to sites that you aren't using anyway isn't going to save any money, so there are no savings an ISP could pass on to you. This means the weighted average price of a package has to be at least as expensive as your current package.

- The most expensive part of your internet connection is the last mile of copper to your house. Cost for sending a few extra bits over cables that are already there is very low, so the more expensive packages wouldn't actually "pay what they use", they would subsidize your cheaper package. But why would an ISP introduce packages that need subsidy by more expensive packages? Just for the extra shekels from Netflix?

Hey, tech. Since we have about 10 days left until NN is gone I am starting to prepare for it but I still have a few questions. Will end of NN destroy Google and FB? Should I start exporting photos from FB and documents from Google Drive? What about MS OneNote, is it still going to work after NN is gone? Will I still be able to watch movies on Netflix and buy things on Amazon after NN is removed?

>>832991

Those companies already violate what you'd think of as NN by paying for zero-rating of their traffic. The Obama NN bill is worthless and didn't prevent that. Example: t-mobile's binge-on thing which was not illegal under the NN bill and all these tech companies were 100% on-board with. You'll see no difference as everything was already fucked.

>>833070

>I'm already chocking on corporate cock, might as well take it up the ass too

kys trumpie

>>833072

Sup cocksucking tranny, what specifically do you think they'll do after NN is repealed that isn't currently legal under the NN bill? Are you aware all those "they'll tier the internet!!1" posts your fellow LARPers make are already possible under Obama's worthless NN bill?

>>833099

Commodore had zero chance as it had zero presence in industry. It wasn't even remotely close to winning, it was just a question of when IBM would enter the PC market.

>>832991

No, it won't destroy everything.

Also, network neutrality will be saved by the courts.

Pajeet Pai is acting in bad faith. One of the legal requirements of the FCC is to benefit the consumer. Along with zero factual reasons backing the repeal of the Open Internet Order, they will lose in court. To elaborate, the FCC also needs strong reasoning to reverse regulatory direction in this manner. "Network neutrality" was first enforced with fines, but through no regulatory framework, from 2005-2008. It was only until 2010 that there was a concrete framework, but then Verizon shot itself in the foot and made the FCC reclassify them to Title II.

You can be sure the EFF and the ACLU have lawsuits that they're waiting to file after the vote.

>>833070

Zero rating has little to do with network neutrality, you fucking retard. Again, as has been explained multiple times. Go read Tim Wu's paper.

>>833106

>Zero rating has little to do with network neutrality, you fucking retard. Again, as has been explained multiple times. Go read Tim Wu's paper.

Just because it's not in the original paper from 2003 doesn't mean it doen't have anything to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality is a topic that has been discussed for years and zero rating was always an aspect part of that discussion. To me it seems like you are the one who has just discovered NN.

>>833097

>Are you aware all those "they'll tier the internet!!1" posts your fellow LARPers make are already possible under Obama's worthless NN bill?

Except it wasn't a bill, and it wasn't legal. Nice try, though. It's so nice that no matter what Trump does, you choke on his dick as if it was the source of life.

>>833108

No, it wasn't. Also, as admitted in the thread multiple times, it does violate the spirit, but not the letter.

Ostensibly, as long as nothing as throttled or blocked, beyond data overuse, it's not a violation of network neutrality. I agree with priority for things like voice, E911, and medical, which is what "reasonable network management" is, however.

Retards on wikipedia have redefined network neutrality to prominently mean "anti-zero rating" but that was not the case, at all. Primarily what network neutrality has been, has been slapping down ISPs throttling/blocking things like Vonage or BitTorrent.

The main point of it has been going back to the AT&T shit that Title II was necessary for: no restricting network attachments and network uses. However, under such common carriage exists "toll-free", perhaps you aren't familiar with the concept since you're underage.

Zero rating is basically ISPs signing agreements with content providers and putting CDN boxes that don't cross the boundary of their network, I understand why they do that. It's basically "toll free."

>>833122

>No, it wasn't.

Maybe I should have said I'm an eurofag.

>>833128

No one cares what your dumbass codifications of network neutrality are. The only thing we care about are the original definition (see Tim Wu's original paper on network neutrality) and what regulatory framework the US uses for this.

Again, I will readily admit that zero rating, in many cases, violates the SPIRIT of network neutrality. That spirit, treating ALL traffic equally. But, it doesn't work like that. You have to have prioritization for E911, voice, and medical. So there's already damage to the spirit for the good of the consumer, if you were so autistic that you would make zero concessions.

Zero rating is a different topic than stopping ISPs from throttling or blocking traffic on a whim. It's also a different topic from forcing last mile ISPs to lease their last mile so competition can exist.

This is the reasl reason ISPs do not want Title II. It has nothing to do with Google getting a free ride or whatever bullshit. Google does not get a free ride. They have made massive investments to their networks just to deliver this traffic, and while they use IXP's, it's definitely not a free ride. They've paid for their bandwidth and infrastructure. They've paid for their agreements. ISPs whine about it, but it's primarily them whining about upgrading their failing infrastructure for a shitload streaming video, which anyone could've seen coming in 1995. That's not what they really take issue with, it's just a simple scapegoat.

What they take issue with is being forced to lease their last mile to competitors. Title II effectively ends regional monopolies. That is the real, underlying truth in this US political shitstorm.

>>833132

>You have to have prioritization for E911, voice, and medical

Isn't that sort of question wholly and unequivocally divorced from the most hated policies like zero-rating and DPI for throttling, since it occurs on the other side of the fence from the WAN connection between a consumer and their ISP? Whether or not different customers get treated differently by ISPs in the LAN-WAN side, has absolutely zilch to do with whether different requests from the same consumer get treated differently at the WAN-Internet side.

>>833138

>different customers

Has nothing to do with network neutrality.

Network neutrality is talking about regulation to prevent ISPs from throttling or blocking certain applications/hardware.

All of this retardation is just retards taking a vague term that they don't understand "network neutrality" and projecting it onto things they don't like. The term was coined, specifically, for the eventuality of ISPs blocking and throttling services, whether there is an anti-competitive motivation or not.

It's not "zero rating." It's not "my torrent traffic is more important than E911". It's "you cannot restrict network attachments (forcing modem rental fees, restricting computers or equipment, etc), to a reasonable extent, and you must not throttle application-level competition to your services, or any application you do not like."

And no, it's not. There has to be some sort of network management. Even if something is a "dumb pipe", it's really not, there's some semblance of network management going on.

The ideal is "treat all traffic equally" but it doesn't work that way. If you're not autistic you know there are concessions to be made.

Ultimately, network neutrality will be saved in court. Pajeet Pai has failed to demonstrate that Title II depresses investment, he has failed to demonstrate that this is not the FCC's purview (if it were not, then the Bush II FCC would not have fined ISPs for blocking Vonage), and he has failed to demonstrate any actual reason for going back on previous regulatory direction, spanning two administrations. He also is demonstrating bad faith to the consumer "network neutrality supporters are desperate" comments made within the last week, and ignoring public comments. Which is a legal requirement for the FCC, act in good faith for the consumer.

The ACLU and the EFF will tear him a new asshole in court, I'm not too worried.

>>833132

No one cares about the definition from the original paper. The discussion shapes the meaning of the word. The discussion, at least in my country, has always included zero rating into the definition.

>>833148

>retards projecting

:^)

>And no, it's not. There has to be some sort of network management.

Bigger pipes, if customers demand it. It's that simple. And yes, t. networkfag.

>>833152

>has always included zero rating into the definition.

>No one cares about the definition from the original paper

Why have words if you don't know what the fuck they mean, retard? Zero rating is a violation of the spirit of it, but just because it's regulated there does not mean you come into here and bitch about net neutrality not being net neutrality because your definition in yurop is different, despire being coined in the US.

Fuck off, faggot. Quit shitting up the discussion with zero rating, it's confusing enough with redditors and /pol/acks not knowing the definition either.

>Bigger pipes, if customers demand it.

You're fucking retarded. This has nothing to do with network neutrality. And yeah, you can demand FTTP all you want, you just gotta pay for it.

>>833161

Given the 97% profit margins of ISPs, the intentional suicide of DSL and now cable in spite of enormous headroom remaining, continued effort by ISPs to push stationary customers onto fixed 4G or microwave connections, and repeated instances of ISPs gulping down infrastructure subsidies without actually spending them on buildout as contractually obliged, I very much doubt any amount of money would convince ISPs to give me FTTP.

>>832945

Or you could just not buy anything from those companies you hate so much. You're the one being a pathetic useful idiot.

>>833152

>The discussion, at least in my country, has always included zero rating into the definition.

And your country is probably some backwards shithole. Your point?

>>833148

>Ultimately, network neutrality will be saved in court. Pajeet Pai has failed to demonstrate that Title II depresses investment,

Except he has and many other have illustrated this too.

>>833171

That's great man, I know all about the stolen subsidies when they were unregulated, it's still a different topic. Just some retarded yuropoor trying to shit up and further complicate the discussion.

>>833179

No, he hasn't. We've already discussed it itt. There is no statistical evidence that there's any "depression" in the one year of regulation under this. It's bullshit. What I have seen is variable capex.

Don't get so angry over the fact that the EFF will tear Pajeet a new asshole in court, anon. It's going to be glorious.

>>833182

If you're European, do you have any insight on how the EU has NN regulations, yet they're apparently dependent enough on "national interpretation" that Portugal became the poster child for abusive ISPs?

>>833161

>Why have words if you don't know what the fuck they mean, retard?

You don't know what they mean. 2003 is pre-industrialization era of the internet. No one except you is using the definition from 2003.

>does not mean you come into here and bitch about net neutrality not being net neutrality because your definition in yurop is different,

The assumption that the definition is the same makes sense, doesn't it?

>despire being coined in the US.

Who gives a fuck

>Fuck off, faggot.

no u

>Quit shitting up the discussion with zero rating

see above

>>Bigger pipes, if customers demand it.

>You're fucking retarded.

no u. This board really has affected your mental well-being, hasn't it?

>This has nothing to do with network neutrality. And yeah, you can demand FTTP all you want, you just gotta pay for it.

You do realize I'm talking about backbone pipes? Why would you need shaping on you average customers' uplinks?

>>833186

I'm saying the yuropoor that I will reply to below.

>>833186

>The assumption that the definition is the same makes sense, doesn't it?

No, because it's not the same definition.

>no one but you

No, retards like you shit up wikipedia and just lump everything under network neutrality because it's a great vague phrase that obviously didn't have the foresight to not be abused, a better term would be "open internet" as in "open internet order" under title II.

The open internet order basically encompasses network neutrality, but zero-rating is something beyond this, and it's an open question whether it would be detrimental to consumers and/or competing services.

And ultimately the only reason that it was done this way was because there was no chance in hell that it would be accomplished through legislation. The US is dysfunctional, and now it's even more dysfunctional with regulatory agencies under Trump shitting things up. There has already been one lawsuit regarding this sort of regulatory uncertainty, there will be a second one, once the FCC gets rid of the Open Internet Order.

Seriously, fuck off. Quit shitting up the US-tailored discussion.

>>833189

Can you please explain why zero rating is harmful to users? Users are literally getting free stuff, I fail to see how that harms them.

>>833198

>make nuAOL free/cheap as loss-leader

>gradually increase the price of Internet access

>throw in other petty degredations of Internet access like caps and throttling

>as people start depending more and more on nuAOL, nAOL services like NSABook & NormieFlix discontinue their Internet presence

>Internet dies

>AOL is reborn, no alternative

>>833110

>it wasn't legal

So t-mobile's binge-on thing is illegal? Why no lawsuits?

>>833204

So, problem with zero rating is that people are going to like some service so much that they are going to ditch all other services? I understand that zero rating might nudge some users to use one service over similar non zero rated service. But I doubt that zero rating would create web singularity like one that you described.

If user has choice why would she choose ISP that forces nuAOL on her over ISP that allows her to use services she likes more?

<she

>>833216

That wasn't a throttling of packets, only a lack of penalty from data cap when using their services. Net neutrality did not make capping illegal. You should read shit next time before acting like a retard.

>>833223

It's zero rating, and tiered internet plans can be built on top of that, and are in the developing world. You guys were scammed by the original NN legislation and still haven't realized it.

>>833172

<or you could just just not buy anything from those companies you hate so much

>or you could do away with having a phone number because all telcos (also conveniently mobile carriers) in the area are pulling the same shit

and this is why lolbertarians should be gassed along with commies.

>>833243

>net jewtrality shills lie as always

CELL PHONE PLANS ARE NOT THE INTERNET YOU QUINTUPLE NIGGER

>>833243

>>833257

Wired internet plans are unmetered, free of traffic shaping and relatively cheap in Germany. IIRC, traffic shaping is not against the law, but incompatible with the market.

>>833239

The only problem is that it didn't go far enough, according to what you're saying, not that NN is bad, which is what faggots seem to be arguing. That is, unless you're arguing that we're better off without any protections because current protections are inadequate, in which case, you're a fucking retard.

>>833217

>If user has choice why would she [sic] choose ISP that forces nuAOL on her [sic] over ISP that allows her [sic] to use services she [sic] likes more?

That's the crux of the entire issue. There isn't meaningful competition in most areas of the US; people often have no choice at all. If and when that changes all the rest of this debate will dissolve like the nitpicking it ultimately is.

>>833267

It's like if we were in danger of being stampeded by elephants and the government passed an anti-stampeding bill but it excepted elephants. It's not that it didn't go far enough, it was a sham. People were swindled and 'reasonable network management' throttling was legalized in a law they thought did the opposite.

>>833257

>net jewtrality shills lie as always

nigger you can't even sage probably. You are obviously not from here.

>>833297

It goes in all fields.

>>833303

>>833299

>>833304

As you two can see, it doesn't. You are not from here.

>>833308

It's pretty obvious you guys are not from here. For starters you can't sage properly and more importantly you just throw buzzwords around. Let me guess, you are part of nu/pol/?

>>833303

>>833308

>he thinks sage is pronounced like the herb

Shoo newfags.

>>833311

What is nu/pol/?

>>833286

If it didn't do anything, the telecos wouldn't be so interested in making it go away. You're either a shill or a retard.

>>833329

>I don't know what it does but it must do something

Ah yes, the informed voter.

>>833243

Please quit being fucking retarded, none of those pictures have anything to do with net neutrality.

>>833251

>WAAAAAAAAAAH I NEED MUH INTERNET GIBES MUH INTERNET

Start gassing yourself then, commie.

>>833217

Some very gullible people will like it, and they will be used as an (oft-exaggerated in size) excuse by ISPs to make things worse for anyone who refuses to go along, until a combination of con-artistry, coercion, and outright lies have shrunken the Internet to the point where ISPs can get away with disconnecting entirely. Carrot and stick tactics typical of such predatory loss-leader pricing.

>>833257

>>833264

>>833396

>implying cellular plans aren't a harbinger of things to come for landline connections

>implying cable/DSL subscribers aren't being herded into fixed 4G cellular connections right now as willfully unmaintained telephone/coax networks are shut down

>implying 3rd-world landline ISPs aren't already doing this, as krautposter himself noted

>>833303

If it's being pushed so hard by "muh soros", then why is pro-NN advocacy being outspent 4:1 or more by anti-NN corporate shills and lobbyists?

>>828939

>Who decides whether their service is the best?

in theory, the consumer. in practice, the company withg the deepest pockets. The big player does a race to the bottom in pricing. Consumers flock to them, the competitors starve and either shut down or get acquired by the big player. With no competition, big player ratchets up the kikery to 11 with stratospheric price increases and ever-diminishing service. No other game in town means they eventually capture most of the market and become too big to take on.

>>833428

Infrastructure is a natural monopoly by its very structure, networks even more so (for instance, all of the so-called market competition that occurred in the dial-up days was actually the result of the Bell network being opened up for loop-unbundling by federal intervention). Strong regulation is the only realistic alternative to private monopoly in the utilities sector.

>>833303

>Trump doing anything against his jew masters

when will you realize that you guys elected the best goy?

I unironically hope the internet shits itself to death from a failure of net neutrality because the net as it currently exists is a mass media engine for social control rather than the information sharing network it was conceived as.

I wish that ISPs get so incredibly shitty that new models and new companies arise to feed on their rotting corpses. I sincerely believe it would be best for the main ISPs get so bad that people start making local intranets to route around the trash.

>I unironically hope the internet shits itself to death from a failure of net neutrality

It won't.

>>833443

still better than the other options.

>>833331

Except I do know what it does, and I know the reason the telecos want it gone. People like you are arguing that it makes no difference. If that's the case, then it follows that the telecos wouldn't be spending millions to fight it. Again, you're either a shill or a retard.

>>833705

i don't think Shillary would've been that much of a good goy.

>>829121

It's still just a government bandage to fix a government created problem. That being cable companies having state monopolies. That is what should be undone along with net neutrality. Let the market decide who can and cannot provide internet access. You don't end corporatism with more corporatism, it only exacerbates the problem. Just look at the financial industry.

>>833396

>I didn't read the post I was replying to nor do I have an argument so I'm going to reply with insults

Nigger, landline phone service is a public utility; companies can't just fucking refuse to install them because they make more money off mobile phones.

>>833927

Without government regulation, "the free market" would still turn it into a monopoly, especially in a natural monopoly sector like networking infrastructure. If what you're arguing for is different government regulation, something that forces ISPs to promote artificial free markets, such as net neutrality AND loop unbundling? That's a fair argument to make.

Incidentally, the problem with the financial industry, if (as I assume) you're talking about the last recession, that was caused by the erosion of preexisting regulations. Kinda' like this issue.

>>832279

Yet you would accept a world where the ISP can charge that hospital an enterprise rate because of the files that they have to transfer. Data is data no matter how you shake it, and a 100 gig transfer of anime is going to be the same network pressure as a 100 gig transfer of someone's CT scan. It is clear that the ISPs would rather cut costs and hold off on having to vastly improve their delivery of data. Making them publicly held companies was a mistake and I await the day that the freedom of the internet is granted as a constitutional right.

>>833953

Remember that "muh hospitals, muh animes" is strawman FUD. The issue NN is focused on isn't requests from different users (two hospitals on two different ISPs sending data back and forth, competing with other users on both ISPs torrenting anime), NN is focused on requests by the same users (a hospital wants to send data to another hospital, but most hospitals are SLOWLANE'D so only hospitals that made a deal with the ISP work at full speed. Some weeb wants anime, but BitTorrent is THROTTLE'D and anime-specific services like Crunchyroll are CAP'D, so the only anime they can watch is on XFinity or whatever).

We do not have much time left until NN is gone in US. It is time to discuss most important aspect of NN removal. What is best way to extract as much fun as possible out of salty Americucks?

>>833412

Because Soros is a boogyman.

>>834051

If they're too salty to let you actually string a line, your best bet is directional wireless. Simple high-gain directional 802.1 bridges capable of several miles in clear-line-of-sight conditions are cheap, here's a pair for $140:

https://www.cdw.com/shop/products/EnGenius-EnStation-2-wireless-bridge/3606919.aspx

If you're even more isolated, you'll need something exotic like microwave or optical bridges, which cost about $2k-$10k.

>>834061

DIY optical here for $100: http://www.twibright.com/hw.php

>>833898

She's a much gooder goy which is why the media was furious. But we're still dealing with blue Jew or red Jew and need to deal with the problem at its source.

>>833428

>I am not a payed shill

said the unpaid shill

>>832728

>The impression I get is most people are for/against net neutrality only because they're against/for Trump.

Well no shit, It wouldn't suprise me that people are using this as another excuse to shit/defend on him (and thus ignoring the real problem to stead make it about Trump again). I myself don't know what to make out of this, it seems that everyone has his own definition on what NN is so it just creates a moot point, I guess I will wait and see how it goes.

>>829074

They won't let them be tried. FCC has restricted broadcast/information innovation for the last 80 years. Its not going to stop with NN.

>>829121

>- 2017 Pajeet dismantles

yeah former Verizon exec helping his friends. nothing to see here

>>829734

yet historically true ala mabell standard oil US steel

>>832006

bingo comcast has data caps 1024 GB/month for me. been limited a few times working from home.

>>833412

>being this much of a corporate shill who hates freedom

>>834320

Except both of those examples only happened because of the government creating those monopolies. Are you retarded?

>>833991

Net neutrality has nothing to do with what you posted, you dumb fuck.

>>834292

>NN is super ambiguous

Do you hate throttling? Hate caps? Hate zero-rating? Congratulations, you already support NN. Don't believe the FUD.

>>834069

Trump is a corporate whore who (like all Republican presidents) will try to deregulate the Internet into some sort of AynCrap free market hellscape, but Clinton as much as promised Australian-style state and private censorship. Both are terrible, but Clinton definitely would've been even worse.

>>834421

>Robber barons are totally innocent of using predatory loss-leader pricing to starve and buy up their smaller competitors, establishing price-fixing trusts with bigger "competitors", and creating unbreakable monopolies.

>It was da gubmint!

>>834423

Argument not detected

>>834554

Shillbot rapefugee fresh off the boat from cuckchan, I take it?

>>834683

He's pretty obviously an underage cuck/v/ refugee.

>>834554

>Kill yourself kike.

if i were a kike wouldn't i be happy about best goy's election ?

>>829224

>Net Neutrality came into effect in 2015.

You're retarded. We've always had net neutrality, the FCC just made it something that was protected in 2015.

>>834489

>Do you hate throttling? Hate caps? Hate zero-rating? Congratulations, you already support NN. Don't believe the FUD.

But Obama's NN law we're talking about explicitly allowed throttling, caps, and zero-rating. Do you know what you're fighting for?

>>837513

>We've always had net neutrality

We have not. DSL providers were notorious for gimping the residential-class lines with claims they were preventing attacks in order to force people who wanted to use more complex software to buy business-class DSL (same line and modem) which wasn't wrecked by filters. This is still legal and is called 'reasonable network management'.

This will help to keep normalfags off the internet, since they'll be too stupid to figure out how to circumvent it. It's unfortunate that any rich normalfags will still be a problem, but you can't have everything.

>>837574

>circumvent

So tell me how you'll circumvent zero-rating.

>>837556

>that watch strap flopping around

Disgusting.

>>837556

You know, the cool thing about these words is that you can look up the definition to see their true meaning. Which means if you still think NN is some kind of evil thing, you're a fucking retard or you didn't look it up. Kill yourself, faggot.

>>837641

Repealing it isn't evil either.

>>837659

This is a regulatory state we've never been in. It's not evil, but it certainly wasn't the status quo before the first open internet order, nor the second.

>>837556

Common carriage has nothing to do with the two other things. Network neutrality is not an "orwellian" phrase, it's quite simple:

http://www.jthtl.org/content/articles/V2I1/JTHTLv2i1_Wu.PDF

It's basically a word to describe the application of telecom regulations to ISPs. Which makes sense, because ISPs are fucking telecom. The regulations have nothing to do with "hate speech" and the dumb telephone harassment shit that /pol/ likes to talk about isn't even in the regulations, Title II was not fully applied in the case of the Open internet order because of a process called "forbearance."

Utter this sentence to any alt-right retard claiming NN would invoke censorship and get no response, they'll leave the thread and cry on /pol/

"Why didn't Obama use it to censor Trumps election online?"

>>828848

>>828848

>Were you being sold website packages before it was implemented?

There wasn't packages but certain websites cost more to access and P2P was throttled to hell. Theres an argument told here by a certain shill "but da internet waznt bamboozled in 2005!!" completely ignoring the fact data use a decade later is significantly higher. Streaming is the majority of internet traffic in the united states at a time corporate cable is dying.

By pure fucking coincidence, the same companies involved in cable are also distributing and regulating the internet, Comcast and Verizon are attempting to control the content on the web and these tinfoil dumbfucks believe stripping consumers of their only leverage against regional monopolies is "fixin the free markets mann!!!".

>>828845 (OP)

>still isn't aware a piecemail internet package is legal under NN

I pray enough for autists to stop existing but they keep coming. Am I cursed?

>>830073

10/10 post

>>834065

Thanks anon, I might use this.

>>834061

That seems good too, and the data transfer is larger.

I'm having a hard time choosing.

When is NN going to be removed in US?

>>837838

Today...

>anti-NNers claim title II prevents infrastructure (((investment)))

So.. pre-2015 where was the """"""competition"""""" and """""investment""""" coming from?

Can anyone answer this? correct me if I'm wrong but if consumers didn't light a fire under an ISPs ass with NN to expose their shitty infrastructure where was the motive to lay in new cables and infrastructure?

Do these mongoloids actually believe these corporate giants don't have politicians lobbied to restrict the market?

Has it been removed yet? What time?

>>837855

vote is literally happening right now

https://www.fcc.gov/general/live

https://www.fcc.gov/general/live

https://www.fcc.gov/general/live

With broadband now classified as a Title I communication service, ISPs are no longer considered a "common carrier" but now an "information provider". This change brings with it new responsibilities and obligations. In recent years there has an explosion in the popularity of hateful websites promoting white supremacy and holocaust denial. The most well known offenders are the dailystormer and 4chan's politics board. These sites are breeding grounds for extremists and are having a profound negative influence on the next generation of young Americans. Sending their message through your networks is now as obscene and unthinkable as delivering a national socialist TV channel along with the food network and MTV. I understand that such changes will require time to organize and execute. However in the mean time we will be contacting your top advertising customers and will urge them to also express their desire to not do business with ISPs which promote hate.

Thank you for your time,

Benjamin Shapiro

>>837874

>With broadband now classified as a Title I communication service, ISPs are no longer considered a "common carrier" but now an "information provider".

F

>>837874

Get ready for the salt.

IT ALL COMES

TUMBLING DOWN

TUMBLING DOWN

TUMBLING DOWN