Net Nuetrality

[V'rass]

No need for violence... its much easier (and more fun) to use guile and cunning to get around or destroy one's foes. I forget the name of the guy but he wrote a book on this back in the renaissance and it became almost standard reading for politicians heheheh...

[Nyeleni]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli

"The Prince" is the book. It is still not so clear if he was a defender of "Realpolitik" or just a "Republican" showing us how the despots rule.

[Laughingman]

RIP net neutrality.

[GholaMan]

Pour one meme out for my old homie net neutrality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40eKNdN940M

[Hoihe]

Red Cop - Today at 8:59 AM
So first off
They didn't repeal net neutrality
They repealed the 2015 Obama regulations
So we're on the modified version of the 2010 rules
Red Cop - Today at 9:00 AM
Which are as follows
Transparency: Consumers and innovators have a right to know the basic performance characteristics of their Internet access and how their network is being managed;

No Blocking: This includes a right to send and receive lawful traffic, prohibits the blocking of lawful content, apps, services and the connection of non-harmful devices to the network;

Level Playing Field: Consumers and innovators have a right to a level playing field. This means a ban on unreasonable content discrimination. There is no approval for so-called "pay for priority" arrangements involving fast lanes for some companies but not others;

Network Management: This is an allowance for broadband providers to engage in reasonable network management. These rules don't forbid providers from offering subscribers tiers of services or charging based on bandwidth consumed;

Mobile: The provisions adopted today do not apply as strongly to mobile devices, though some provisions do apply. Of those that do are the broadly applicable rules requiring transparency for mobile broadband providers and prohibiting them from blocking websites and certain competitive applications;

Vigilance: The order creates an Open Internet Advisory Committee to assist the Commission in monitoring the state of Internet openness and the effects of the rules
Now also affecting this is the repeal's clauses
The repeal made it so that companies have transparency requirements now
That they must disclose their practices to their consumers, entrepreneurs, and the commission
They've also put the FTC in charge of defending consumers
From, I quote
"any deceptive, unfair and anticompetivie practices"
They also reclassified the ISP's back to information services
So first off
Net Neutrality was not repealed.
Alot of what's out is hype and misinfo
From what I read
The only thing I've heard about is people are worried that ISP's may be able to throttle connections now. Which I believe is still not allowed.
We'll all have to see tho.

Tl:DR:
@Politics Net Neutrality was not repealed. There are still protections in place and from what I understand the only founded fear is throttling, which under the repeal bill draft I read which was the only thing I could find can count as an unfair practice and therefore mot be allowed.
Everyone go home it'll probably die in congress anyways.


Sauce: Discord chat about trying to interpret https://www.axios.com/read-the-draft-te ... 11397.html.

[Laughingman]

@Politics Net Neutrality was not repealed. There are still protections in place and from what I understand the only founded fear is throttling, which under the repeal bill draft I read which was the only thing I could find can count as an unfair practice and therefore mot be allowed.
Everyone go home it'll probably die in congress anyways.

#not a bill
#not a repeal
#congress not involved

[NeOmega]

internet is already throttled. Google and Twitter did this to themselves. There is no need to force internet providers to give unlimited bandwidth to these hogs.

Netflix and Google just butt-hurt they might have to pay for their increased bandwidth use. (Netflix already made a settlement with Comcast, now they cry, because they might have to again, so they just run to DC and try to force Comcast to let them hog the bandwidth for free. If you cant strike a deal, pay congress to force it... it's the American way!)

I dont netflix, Google actually dropped their "dont be evil" motto.

Netflix, its specials, and all the hollywood garbage is propaganda. I am not guzzling any tears for them. Maybe if Google, Youtube, and twitter weren't such censor freaks, they'd have real public outcry and support. Firefox and wiki cried too, while wiki locked and disappeared those they disagreed with, and Firefox forced pocket onto its users. (been using Firefox for 17 years, but i dont need a feed of things that might interest me, including their version of "news", post 2013 NDAA which allows the CIA to spread propaganda domestically. Bye Firefox, and stop begging me for more money, and telling me how important net nuetrality is, while you force pocket on my browser. i gave you enough, and you repaid me by making your browser bloated with useless trash and clickbait. Beg pocket for your money now, and circle it with them when you are crying about "net neutrality".

Net Nuetrality is doublespeak. It had nothing to do with neutrality, and nothing to do with me.

[MrPsion]

Maybe if Google, Youtube, and twitter weren't such censor freaks

The way that owners of services (including this board) moderate content should not be conflated with RFC level changes to packet handling. Labeling specific services as hogs is a dangerous path because the hogs are actually data centers.

traceroute to google.com (172.217.9.238), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 router2-nac.linode.com (207.99.1.14) 0.780 ms 0.844 ms router1-nac.linode.com (207.99.1.13) 0.456 ms
2 173.255.239.6 (173.255.239.6) 0.783 ms 173.255.239.16 (173.255.239.16) 0.745 ms 173.255.239.4 (173.255.239.4) 0.727 ms
3 core1-0-2-0.lga.net.google.com (198.32.160.130) 1.365 ms 173.255.239.8 (173.255.239.8) 0.922 ms 0.913 ms
4 de-cix.nyc.google.com (206.130.10.41) 1.227 ms 1.197 ms *
5 * 216.239.62.21 (216.239.62.21) 1.468 ms 1.473 ms
6 lga34s11-in-f14.1e100.net (172.217.9.238) 1.639 ms 1.602 ms 216.239.62.21 (216.239.62.21) 1.460 ms

That's five hops between my VPS in New Jersey and Google's data center in Palo Alto, California. We are discussing a scenario where each of those five parties may enforce arbitrary prioritization algorithms per packet header data and that's ok because a BGTSCC moderator may decide this post is in violation of their Terms of Service, which I agreed to upon account creation?

Back to the distinction between services as hogs and data centers as hogs. TBH I'd rather be playing games. The server you retrieved data from to read this post and the server we kill bandits on is hosted by a data center in New York City. What else is in this data center? Who are their top tier 100K/mo clients? Are they nascent services that could be labeled as hogs? What is the impact to our community if this happens? What is the impact to other things in this data center if we are labeled a hog? When the guilty party moves on to another data center, will the designation of data hog linger? What is the infrastructure to determine this? How much does it cost to build and maintain? Why should society have to answer these questions because of people's feelings getting hurt by moderation?

[NeOmega]

Maybe if Google, Youtube, and twitter weren't such censor freaks

The way that owners of services (including this board) moderate content should not be conflated with RFC level changes to packet handling. Labeling specific services as hogs is a dangerous path because the hogs are actually data centers.

traceroute to google.com (172.217.9.238), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 router2-nac.linode.com (207.99.1.14) 0.780 ms 0.844 ms router1-nac.linode.com (207.99.1.13) 0.456 ms
2 173.255.239.6 (173.255.239.6) 0.783 ms 173.255.239.16 (173.255.239.16) 0.745 ms 173.255.239.4 (173.255.239.4) 0.727 ms
3 core1-0-2-0.lga.net.google.com (198.32.160.130) 1.365 ms 173.255.239.8 (173.255.239.8) 0.922 ms 0.913 ms
4 de-cix.nyc.google.com (206.130.10.41) 1.227 ms 1.197 ms *
5 * 216.239.62.21 (216.239.62.21) 1.468 ms 1.473 ms
6 lga34s11-in-f14.1e100.net (172.217.9.238) 1.639 ms 1.602 ms 216.239.62.21 (216.239.62.21) 1.460 ms

That's five hops between my VPS in New Jersey and Google's data center in Palo Alto, California. We are discussing a scenario where each of those five parties may enforce arbitrary prioritization algorithms per packet header data and that's ok because a BGTSCC moderator may decide this post is in violation of their Terms of Service, which I agreed to upon account creation?

Back to the distinction between services as hogs and data centers as hogs. TBH I'd rather be playing games. The server you retrieved data from to read this post and the server we kill bandits on is hosted by a data center in New York City. What else is in this data center? Who are their top tier 100K/mo clients? Are they nascent services that could be labeled as hogs? What is the impact to our community if this happens? What is the impact to other things in this data center if we are labeled a hog? When the guilty party moves on to another data center, will the designation of data hog linger? What is the infrastructure to determine this? How much does it cost to build and maintain? Why should society have to answer these questions because of people's feelings getting hurt by moderation?

society....

government...

corporations...


political thread should be dead.

[Aspect of Sorrow]

What is the impact to other things in this data center if we are labeled a hog? When the guilty party moves on to another data center, will the designation of data hog linger? What is the infrastructure to determine this? How much does it cost to build and maintain? Why should society have to answer these questions because of people's feelings getting hurt by moderation?

The game server is hosted in Canada at OVH. We have multiple options to our disposal to route around problematic hosts. One player joins us from mainland China.

[MrPsion]

I got lazy and just checked the forum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Tekill]

Im not very savy on this topic, but should be.
Thanks OP for bringing it up.
There seems to be decent net neutrality regulation here in Canada. But the media here is predicting we will still be affected by the changes in the U.S., in some form.
How or what that affect will be, seems to be still up in the air.
Any ideas?
Big picture wise though, it seems to depend on how much ground was given in undoing Obamas efforts, and what doors have now been opened to allow more ground to be given in the future.

Its not like the internet is going to turn into cable telivision tomorrow, but partially due to my ignorance of the subject, I am starting to worry about it.

[Laughingman]

I'd guess in a few years many companies will have their contracts violated and be forced to pay large sums of money to not have their services throttled. A company such as google for instance already pays for and has a contract for their internet usage and this will allow ISP's to adjust the costs mid contract. This was already done prior to the classification and although the ISP's lost in court it costs so much to fight it that many will simply settle. In the US delaying in a court fight to cost the plaintiff as much as possible is a perfectly valid tactic. The chance of ISP's blocking sites that compete with their own in the immediate future is low. The chance of it happening eventually is high unless proper legislation comes from congress (unlikely).

[V'rass]

Whether is gets implemented or not i will not be bound by it.