316
Off Topic / Re: 11 days until christmas ~HOLIDAY EXTREME MEGATOPIC~
« on: December 18, 2017, 12:18:08 AM »
whatcha coding
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
317
Forum Games / Re: YOU LAUGH YOU LOSE v666
« on: December 17, 2017, 05:49:48 PM »
that's like putting your entire life savings on red
318
Off Topic / Re: POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD
« on: December 17, 2017, 05:45:16 PM »
what he said was literally just a repeat of one of the ten commandments (Thou shalt not bear false witness), how the hell is that "getting into politics"
319
Off Topic / Re: POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD
« on: December 17, 2017, 05:06:43 PM »I was mocking your response to yiffquarxgood nickname
320
Off Topic / Re: POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD
« on: December 17, 2017, 04:34:33 PM »
321
Off Topic / Re: Net neutrality shenanigins are happening.
« on: December 17, 2017, 02:02:24 PM »What too many people don't realize is we've only had Net Neutrality since 2015.I'm going to be explaining this in detail for Aplem since there are people in this thread who are attempting to confuse people.
Here's a short timeline:
- In 2005, the FCC started attempting to enforce their rules on Net Neutrality. Yes, the rules existed, as is clearly stated in the court documents of Verizon V. FCC. At this point, Net Neutrality exists. To say it didn't is to add useless pedantry to the conversation. It contributes nothing, as Net Neutrality was being actively enforced.
- Throughout 2005-2013, the courts slowly reduced the amount of Net Neutrality-related violations that they were allowed to enforce. Net Neutrality still exists, the rules are in place clear as day, the FCC's ability to enforce it has been weakened but not stopped.
- In 2014, it was ruled that the FCC has zero ability to enforce net neutrality. At this point, Net Neutrality effectively does not exist as they're following court orders to no longer enforce it at all, but the courts fully agreed in writing that Net Neutrality existed before this. You can literally read it for yourself if you don't believe me.
- In 2015, the technicality that Verizon et al. used to get out of Net Neutrality regulations was fixed, and the FCC regained the ability to enforce Net Neutrality.
- In late 2017, the FCC under Ajit Pai announces their plan to repeal Net Neutrality, and votes 3-2 in favor of repealing.
- Immediately following, 18 states and counting have filed lawsuits against the FCC, claiming that they have no ability to repeal Net Neutrality. The rules are still in place pending these 18 lawsuits, and will only be fully revoked if they win every single one.
- There are also bills going through the political system in order to try to legislate Net Neutrality, but it's unclear whether they'll succeed.
322
Off Topic / Re: Net neutrality shenanigins are happening.
« on: December 17, 2017, 01:48:30 PM »First sentence.The reason it says that is because of the 2014 ruling. Before then, despite the fact that Net Neutrality was being enforced, the FCC technically didn't have a legal basis to. But nobody actually knew that until the ruling in 2014.
Like I said, read the court ruling. It clearly says that NN was being actively enforced by the FCC, and that the FCC should stop.
323
Off Topic / Re: Net neutrality shenanigins are happening.
« on: December 17, 2017, 01:25:44 PM »324
Off Topic / Re: Net neutrality shenanigins are happening.
« on: December 17, 2017, 01:04:16 PM »What too many people don't realize is we've only had Net Neutrality since 2015.I know this has been said multiple times here but this is not true. Net Neutrality has been in place for a very long time. Verizon sued the FCC in 2011 to remove Net Neutrality rules and only succeeded in 2014, and a year later they were back in place.
And even with net neutrality in place, there were still regular violations and blocking of legal content by ISPs.
Quote from: some dude on reddit
MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.
COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.
(This is the only non-US example) TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.
AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.
WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.
MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.
PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.
AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called CIA, which all three companies had a stake in developing.
EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.
VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.
AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.
VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.
And this isn't even a complete list.
So to review:
- We had net neutrality before 2015
- Even when it was illegal to violate NN, ISPs regularly chose to violate it anyways to the detriment of consumers
- ISPs have stated in court multiple times that they will look into violating net neutrality if said rules go away.
This is not some sort of "gotcha" people are trying to hold against Annoying Orange. This is not a partisan issue. Net Neutrality will benefit you insanely more than a lack of Net Neutrality will unless you're literally a telecom giant CEO.
325
Off Topic / Re: Fox News says killing N.N. will save the internet
« on: December 17, 2017, 11:26:00 AM »feel free to pay them to run fiber optic out to me though id appreciate itthe government literally did that and they didn't do stuff
this is 100% on them to solve lmao
If their infrastructure is literally so stuffty that it can't handle legitimate user requests that's not on the users, that's not on the business, that's on them
326
Off Topic / Re: Fox News says killing N.N. will save the internet
« on: December 17, 2017, 02:07:48 AM »
They're talking inter-country traffic between two specific countries. Their peak traffic is all traffic across the globe, which includes their CDNs (content distribution networks) in each individual country so that the bulk of the traffic isn't going across countries. This is the basics of how these kinds of websites work. There is no issue with bandwidth whatsoever. This is the basics of how content distribution works.
And this is of no fault of their own; they're merely providing a paid service to users who are explicitly requesting that they send the data over. To say that an ISP has the right to extort money from a business because it's become popular and has many people requesting data from it is just silly.
And this is of no fault of their own; they're merely providing a paid service to users who are explicitly requesting that they send the data over. To say that an ISP has the right to extort money from a business because it's become popular and has many people requesting data from it is just silly.
327
General Discussion / Re: New Years 2018 - 12/16
« on: December 17, 2017, 12:55:39 AM »
taput me onf the list
328
General Discussion / Re: "Ana" ARG thread
« on: December 16, 2017, 11:21:42 PM »
a feature i'm surprised ANA hasn't taken advantage of yet
329
Off Topic / Re: POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD
« on: December 16, 2017, 11:08:03 PM »george soros pays my rentdoes he send cheques to canada? asking for a friend
330
Off Topic / Re: POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD
« on: December 16, 2017, 10:45:22 PM »Eat stuff and die.You're automatically assuming a legally unproven allegation is correct
I thought that was a deadly sin for you? Also telling me to eat stuff and die, classy.