What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

FCC set to approve Net Neutrality rules today (1 Viewer)

'guderian said:
Here is the very real impact of Net Neutrality regulations...

AT&T to Fit Subs With Broadband Caps

AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T) is following in the footsteps of some of its cable competitors by installing monthly broadband consumption caps designed to keep bandwidth hogs in check.

AT&T will impose a new, monthly 150GB cap on all DSL customers and a 250GB cap on all U-verse subscribers starting May 2. AT&T will be alerting customers of the new terms of service between March 18 and March 31, according to DSL Reports.

AT&T is also looking to impose penalty charges on customers who regularly exceed the cap, but is stopping short of implementing a full metering policy on broadband services. The carrier will reportedly charge US$10 for every 50GB above the usage threshold, but has inserted a grace period of sorts as it will only ding customers if they exceed the new caps three times. As it does for wireless plans, the carrier will also tell customers when they reach 65 percent, 90 percent and 100 percent of their monthly allowance.

Instead of going with a tightly integrated usage-based billing model that has taken root in Canada but has historically been the cause of political and consumer firestorms in the US, AT&T is borrowing a page from some MSOs by going with a large consumption cap. Comcast Corp. (Nasdaq: CMCSA, CMCSK), for example, implemented a monthly 250GB cap on "excessive use" in October 2008, but doesn't charge customers for exceeding it. (See Comcast Draws the Line at 250GB.)

AT&T was not immediately available for additional comment.

Why this matters

The concept of metered billing in the U.S. has grown hot again following a new set of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) network neutrality rules that, some fear, could open the door to by-the-byte billing policies. Those rules may not stick, however, after a House panel voted for a bill to block them last week. (See Net Neutrality Rules in Jeopardy, The FCC Strikes Back, FCC Votes to Approve Net Neutrality Rules and Verizon Fights Net Neutrality Order.)

AT&T is clearly taking baby steps into the world of consumption caps and metered billing. It, along with Time Warner Cable Inc. (NYSE: TWC), used Beaumont, Texas, as a proving ground for metered, usage-based billing on broadband services, but pulled them back amid a highly publicized backlash. At the time, AT&T was testing out a 20GB cap on its low-end DSL package and a 150GB cap for its fastest offering, and then billing $1 for every GB consumed beyond the threshold.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Companies are being forced to come out and inform existing and potential users of bandwidth caps and other practices that may be used to meter, throttle or otherwise prevent anyone from using "too much" of their lines?Schlzm

 
Charging heavy users (whether they're an individual, a company, or a peer provider) of a service more for the service is not a net neutrality issue.

 
'Rich Conway said:
Charging heavy users (whether they're an individual, a company, or a peer provider) of a service more for the service is not a net neutrality issue.
Click to expand...
Correct. As long as the charging practices are outlined in the contract and readily available for review this is nothing more than competitive market forces at work. Sprint released a new ad campaign stating that when they say unlimited use they mean it while others are moving to usage caps and overage charges. Let the consumers pick the winners here.Schlzm
 
Awesome. This is getting interesting and we all need to take notice.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/09/1298152/-In-the-ultimate-Net-Neutrality-protest-web-host-throttles-FCC-connections

"Web Host Throttles FCC Connections to 28.8kb"

Read some of the comments. One person said if this goes through they could throttle Wikipedia to 9kb/sec and charge $9.99/mo for Encyclopedia Brittanica at 18mbps.

It was pointed out that big boys like Facebook and Google need to step in too. We can't count on that. I'm writing to the FCC and my local representatives.

 
johnnyrock62000 said:
Awesome. This is getting interesting and we all need to take notice.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/09/1298152/-In-the-ultimate-Net-Neutrality-protest-web-host-throttles-FCC-connections

"Web Host Throttles FCC Connections to 28.8kb"

Read some of the comments. One person said if this goes through they could throttle Wikipedia to 9kb/sec and charge $9.99/mo for Encyclopedia Brittanica at 18mbps.

It was pointed out that big boys like Facebook and Google need to step in too. We can't count on that. I'm writing to the FCC and my local representatives.
Click to expand...
Email is easy to automate to the trash bin. The FCC is already complaining about the call volume about this issue, so let's keep the pressure on and call them:

1-888-CALL FCC

For anyone that doesn't know what to say, just say something like this:

"I am very concerned about the proposed rules that Tom Wheeler laid out a few weeks ago, and that the establishment of a "fast lane" for the Internet would eliminate Net Neutrality as we know it regardless of other rules. I would like to see the FCC classify the broadband Internet carriers as common carriers so they are obligated to treat all content the same. The United States is already falling behind other countries, and the proposed rules would only give free reign to the broadband carriers to keep doing business as usual, while the US would continue to fall behind."

 
Ugh, not loving this:

Surprise! New Net Neutrality Regs Have Huge LoopholeNow that the FCC has officially released their new “Net Neutrality” regulations, the tech geeks are finally getting a chance to examine the rules that will likely change the Internet forever. Sure enough, they’re finding some special interests got their way after all.

The several hundred pages of regulations nobody saw before their approval re-classify Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as Title II utilities to give the FCC the power to regulate their transaction rates. The hope is that this will ensure all bandwidth is treated equally so that ISPs can’t blackmail people and/or businesses by reducing their ability to access the Internet or certain parts of it without paying a premium.

While the new rules may prevent companies from charging for the “fast lane” as it were, it turns out there’s a sizable loophole that allows them to block and throttle any content they want, so long as they suspect it’s unlawful:

When we
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdfread the new rules
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdfit’s clear that the “
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/mpaa-and-riaa-seek-net-neutrality-copyright-loophocopyright loophole
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/mpaa-and-riaa-seek-net-neutrality-copyright-loopho” many activists protested against in the past is still there. In short, ISPs can still throttle or block certain types of traffic as long as it’s related to copyright infringement.
Click to expand...
But it’s not quite that simple, as TechRaptor notes:

The new Net Neutrality regulations don’t just repeat old rules regarding the blocking and management of copyright infringing data, but seem to further empower ISPs to deal with the issue. The document iterates several times that ISPs may block and throttle illegal content. On the surface, this may seem very reasonable, but the problem is… the document doesn’t set forth any standard for which to determine whether users are engaging in illegal acts. It seems to indicate that ISPs may block and throttle their users on the mere suspicion of illegal activity.
Click to expand...
Nor would the document want to specify standards for identifying illegal activity because the purpose of the loophole isn’t to protect the ISPs if the government comes knocking with a court order to stop a child pornographer. It’s to protect the financial interests of the RIAA and MPAA, who lobbied for the loophole as a part of their decade-long struggle to stop people from using file sharing technologies like BitTorrent to pirate their entertainment.

Assuming the new rules survive the inevitable legal challenges, this virtually guarantees ISPs will end up throttling bandwidth as they get crunched between greater demand for services and the cost of expanding their pipelines. Before they’d have to work that out with their customers or negotiate with other big entities like Netflix, etc. to figure out how to supply everyone those kinds of high bandwidth services, but now they can just pick things like BitTorrent to throttle under the guise of it looking suspicious. That of course is the deliciously ironic cherry on top, since it was Comcast throttling BitTorrent users that kicked off this whole Net Neutrality debate in the first place.

Ultimately, this proves once again that using the government to address a problem that the free market can and already does address only gives the keys to giant special interest groups that nobody likes.
Click to expand...
http://buzzpo.com/surprise-new-net-neutrality-regs-have-huge-loophole/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
New Net Neutrality Regulations… Not Entirely NeutralWhile it’s no secret that new Net Neutrality regulations were recently implemented by the FCC, and that internet service has been reclassified as a Title-II utility. The exact details of these regulations have, until recently, remained shady.

Now that the full text of these regulations has been made available, we can take a look at some of the finer details of the new Net Neutrality and Title II classification. Honestly, the document doesn’t seem to reveal too much that isn’t expected. Many are championing the new regulations as a victory, and advocates of Net Neutrality would appear right to do so. There doesn’t seem to be any secret agenda woven into the text of these regulations, but there are some unwanted relics of the past.

Of particular concern are the passages regarding ‘reasonable network management’ as it pertains to ‘copyright protection.’ These passages allow ISPs to act as the internet police, blocking and throttling customers they deem to be engaged in illegal activity. This is somewhat ironic because it was Comcast’s throttling of BitTorrent users that brought Net Neutrality to a head in the first place. Also ironic is that when the FCC discovered that Comcast was clandestinely throttling their BitTorrent users, they ordered them to stop. Comcast agreed to move away from this behavior and stated that they would find another way to manage their internet traffic.

After all that, one might imagine that the FCC would attempt to protect internet users from these types of actions with their shiny new regulations. Unfortunately, the FCC seems to have forgotten about this, and has left a huge loophole in their new document. A loophole which ISPs may be able to abuse.

The new Net Neutrality regulations don’t just repeat old rules regarding the blocking and management of copyright infringing data, but seem to further empower ISPs to deal with the issue. The document iterates several times that ISPs may block and throttle illegal content. On the surface, this may seem very reasonable, but the problem is… the document doesn’t set forth any standard for which to determine whether users are engaging in illegal acts. It seems to indicate that ISPs may block and throttle their users on the mere suspicion of illegal activity.

While it’s one thing for an ISP to block illegal activity based on a courtroom verdict. It is completely another for it to be in the position to judge or guess which actions from its users are illegal, and then block content based on their own assumptions.

The EFF’s hall of shame already paints a disturbing picture of overzealous copyright protection. This dubious honor goes to sites and services that were taken down by illegitimate copyright claims against a wide array of users, many of which did not have the means to fight the take-down orders. Orders that should have never been given in the first place.

Thanks to these loopholes in the new Net Neutrality regulations, we are looking at a situation where an ISP may block or throttle your traffic simply because you do something they deem as suspicious. It’s possible they could block entire websites. Even a place as notorious as The Pirate Bay may still have viewers that are not engaging in illegal activity. For instance, I may wish to visit the site to take screen captures or look at their forums to gather information for an article. There are also many public-domain items that are accessible from that site.

If ISPs choose to use these new regulations as an excuse to molest and inhibit the data of their users, we could find it a bit more difficult to use BitTorrent. It’s important to note that BitTorrent is becoming more popular for legitimate uses. League of Legends uses it to help speed up the downloads of their client. Anything that uses the often maligned Pando Media Booster uses BitTorrent, and Pando is included in many games across the web. It’s also worth mentioning that Microsoft plans to use BitTorrent style peer to peer as a means of disseminating updates for Windows 10.

In the end, it’s probably too early to raise the alarm here, but the wording of the new Net Neutrality regulations does seem to give ISPs unprecedented power to police their bandwidth. Whether and how they choose to use that power is the question. It may be that they don’t to do anything above and beyond what they are already doing. If they did decide to be more aggressive and block P2P applications and sites like The Pirate Bay, we can rest assured someone would cause a stink and it’d make headlines. For now, we must wait and see how things unfold…
Click to expand...
http://techraptor.net/content/new-net-neutrality-regulations-not-entirely-neutral

 
I don't know if you guys know what has happened here but this is very pro corporate, anti-transparency, and anti-democratic.

It presents serious problems to political bloggers who seek to use "Fair Use" rules to criticize and expose government and politicians.

In the end, as written, this has not been good.

 
Does anyone know what a TAKE DOWN NOTICE is?


Diebold Tries to Wipe Out Discussion of E-Voting Flaws
In 2003, while the public was coming to grips with the perils of electronic voting, voting machine manufacturer Diebold used a series of baseless copyright claims to silence critics and sweep evidence of e-voting flaws under the rug.

In the course of pitching various governments on e-voting machines, Diebold employees exchanged emails about security issues, solutions, and notably, techniques for hiding visible evidence of those security problems. Someone leaked an email archive of these discussions to the public, and many involved in the healthy debate about electronic voting reposted and linked to the email discussion online. Diebold sent cease-and-desist letters to numerous ISPs, claiming that the linking and reposting infringed their copyrights, ultimately resulting in the disappearance of many discussions as ISPs caved to the threat.

EFF represented one ISP, Online Policy Group, in a landmark case against Diebold for sending the false DMCA takedown threats and won, proving that would-be DMCA abusers should think twice before attempting to squelch free speech online.
Click to expand...
https://www.eff.org/takedowns/diebold-tries-wipe-out-discussion-e-voting-flaws


Cowboy Group Tries to Censor Animal Welfare Nonprofit
As part of its campaign to raise awareness about the treatment of animals at rodeos, nonprofit group Showing Animals Respect and Kindness (SHARK) posted a series of videos of rodeo events to YouTube. In response, the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association (PRCA) filed takedown demands for 13 of the videos under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), claiming the videos infringed their copyrights -- despite the fact that the PRCA has no copyright claim in live rodeo events. Initially, SHARK's entire YouTube account was canceled, but the account was reinstated after EFF and SHARK sued, eventually obtaining a settlement from the PRCA.
Original Title of Threatened Content:
GRAPHIC -- Rodeos Abuse, Maim and Kill Animals
Click to expand...
https://www.eff.org/takedowns/cowboy-group-tries-censor-animal-welfare-nonprofit


Real Estate Developers Censor Community Critic's Website
New York City activist Savitri Durkee created UnionSquarePartnershipSucks.org, a website parodying the official website of Union Square Partnership (USP), a group backing extensive redevelopment of the Union Square area. In response, USP sent Durkee's Internet service provider a notice pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act improperly asserting that her parody site infringed USP's copyright, leading to the shutdown of the site. USP also filed a copyright lawsuit against Durkee and later filed a claim with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) seeking to take control of the parody site's domain name. EFF filed a response to USP's complaint on Durkee's behalf, pointing out that Durkee's parody is protected under the First Amendment and fair use doctrine. The website and domain were ultimately restored.
Original Title of Threatened Content:
Union Square Partnership Sucks .org
Click to expand...

https://www.eff.org/takedowns/real-estate-developers-censor-community-critics-website

Congratulations, we actually broke the internet.

This was a f'up.



 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Does anyone know what a TAKE DOWN NOTICE is?


Diebold Tries to Wipe Out Discussion of E-Voting Flaws
In 2003, while the public was coming to grips with the perils of electronic voting, voting machine manufacturer Diebold used a series of baseless copyright claims to silence critics and sweep evidence of e-voting flaws under the rug.

In the course of pitching various governments on e-voting machines, Diebold employees exchanged emails about security issues, solutions, and notably, techniques for hiding visible evidence of those security problems. Someone leaked an email archive of these discussions to the public, and many involved in the healthy debate about electronic voting reposted and linked to the email discussion online. Diebold sent cease-and-desist letters to numerous ISPs, claiming that the linking and reposting infringed their copyrights, ultimately resulting in the disappearance of many discussions as ISPs caved to the threat.

EFF represented one ISP, Online Policy Group, in a landmark case against Diebold for sending the false DMCA takedown threats and won, proving that would-be DMCA abusers should think twice before attempting to squelch free speech online.
Click to expand...
https://www.eff.org/takedowns/diebold-tries-wipe-out-discussion-e-voting-flaws


Cowboy Group Tries to Censor Animal Welfare Nonprofit
As part of its campaign to raise awareness about the treatment of animals at rodeos, nonprofit group Showing Animals Respect and Kindness (SHARK) posted a series of videos of rodeo events to YouTube. In response, the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association (PRCA) filed takedown demands for 13 of the videos under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), claiming the videos infringed their copyrights -- despite the fact that the PRCA has no copyright claim in live rodeo events. Initially, SHARK's entire YouTube account was canceled, but the account was reinstated after EFF and SHARK sued, eventually obtaining a settlement from the PRCA.
Original Title of Threatened Content:
GRAPHIC -- Rodeos Abuse, Maim and Kill Animals
Click to expand...
https://www.eff.org/takedowns/cowboy-group-tries-censor-animal-welfare-nonprofit


Real Estate Developers Censor Community Critic's Website
New York City activist Savitri Durkee created UnionSquarePartnershipSucks.org, a website parodying the official website of Union Square Partnership (USP), a group backing extensive redevelopment of the Union Square area. In response, USP sent Durkee's Internet service provider a notice pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act improperly asserting that her parody site infringed USP's copyright, leading to the shutdown of the site. USP also filed a copyright lawsuit against Durkee and later filed a claim with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) seeking to take control of the parody site's domain name. EFF filed a response to USP's complaint on Durkee's behalf, pointing out that Durkee's parody is protected under the First Amendment and fair use doctrine. The website and domain were ultimately restored.
Original Title of Threatened Content:
Union Square Partnership Sucks .org
Click to expand...

https://www.eff.org/takedowns/real-estate-developers-censor-community-critics-website

Congratulations, we actually broke the internet.

This was a f'up.
Click to expand...
None of these links have anything to do with the FCC or Title II regulations. If you think the DMCA is heavily weighted in favor of copyright owners then that's fine, but that's a law that's completely independent from the Communications or Telecommunications Act.

 
njherdfan said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Does anyone know what a TAKE DOWN NOTICE is?


Diebold Tries to Wipe Out Discussion of E-Voting Flaws
In 2003, while the public was coming to grips with the perils of electronic voting, voting machine manufacturer Diebold used a series of baseless copyright claims to silence critics and sweep evidence of e-voting flaws under the rug.

In the course of pitching various governments on e-voting machines, Diebold employees exchanged emails about security issues, solutions, and notably, techniques for hiding visible evidence of those security problems. Someone leaked an email archive of these discussions to the public, and many involved in the healthy debate about electronic voting reposted and linked to the email discussion online. Diebold sent cease-and-desist letters to numerous ISPs, claiming that the linking and reposting infringed their copyrights, ultimately resulting in the disappearance of many discussions as ISPs caved to the threat.

EFF represented one ISP, Online Policy Group, in a landmark case against Diebold for sending the false DMCA takedown threats and won, proving that would-be DMCA abusers should think twice before attempting to squelch free speech online.
Click to expand...
https://www.eff.org/takedowns/diebold-tries-wipe-out-discussion-e-voting-flaws


Cowboy Group Tries to Censor Animal Welfare Nonprofit
As part of its campaign to raise awareness about the treatment of animals at rodeos, nonprofit group Showing Animals Respect and Kindness (SHARK) posted a series of videos of rodeo events to YouTube. In response, the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association (PRCA) filed takedown demands for 13 of the videos under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), claiming the videos infringed their copyrights -- despite the fact that the PRCA has no copyright claim in live rodeo events. Initially, SHARK's entire YouTube account was canceled, but the account was reinstated after EFF and SHARK sued, eventually obtaining a settlement from the PRCA.
Original Title of Threatened Content:
GRAPHIC -- Rodeos Abuse, Maim and Kill Animals
Click to expand...
https://www.eff.org/takedowns/cowboy-group-tries-censor-animal-welfare-nonprofit


Real Estate Developers Censor Community Critic's Website
New York City activist Savitri Durkee created UnionSquarePartnershipSucks.org, a website parodying the official website of Union Square Partnership (USP), a group backing extensive redevelopment of the Union Square area. In response, USP sent Durkee's Internet service provider a notice pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act improperly asserting that her parody site infringed USP's copyright, leading to the shutdown of the site. USP also filed a copyright lawsuit against Durkee and later filed a claim with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) seeking to take control of the parody site's domain name. EFF filed a response to USP's complaint on Durkee's behalf, pointing out that Durkee's parody is protected under the First Amendment and fair use doctrine. The website and domain were ultimately restored.
Original Title of Threatened Content:
Union Square Partnership Sucks .org
Click to expand...

https://www.eff.org/takedowns/real-estate-developers-censor-community-critics-website

Congratulations, we actually broke the internet.

This was a f'up.
Click to expand...
None of these links have anything to do with the FCC or Title II regulations. If you think the DMCA is heavily weighted in favor of copyright owners then that's fine, but that's a law that's completely independent from the Communications or Telecommunications Act.
Click to expand...
That merely explained what a take down notice is, those are examples, apparently corporations and politicians doing this has been made easier thanks to NN.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The examples above reminded me of something but wasn't there was webpage named bestbuysucks.com or something close to that? I googled it and it didn't come up. Is that not a "legal" site to have now?

 
Mario Kart said:
The examples above reminded me of something but wasn't there was webpage named bestbuysucks.com or something close to that? I googled it and it didn't come up. Is that not a "legal" site to have now?
Click to expand...
I think you're thinking of cybersquatting, in which someone can take your name or company name and turn it into a negative.

 
So the way this works is that the regs allow an ISP to block "unlawful" content. Who defines what is unlawful? The FCC? The ISP? Basically any posting of copyrighted text or music without permission is "unlawful", though "Fair Use" rules exist this now explicitly allows an ISP to block content if they simply deem it "unlawful." Or else we inherently have to await the FCC to declare what is lawful/unlawful. Either way you are either allowing ISPs to throttle content or the FCC to regulate it.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
So the way this works is that the regs allow an ISP to block "unlawful" content. Who defines what is unlawful? The FCC? The ISP? Basically any posting of copyrighted text or music without permission is "unlawful", though "Fair Use" rules exist this now explicitly allows an ISP to block content if they simply deem it "unlawful." Or else we inherently have to await the FCC to declare what is lawful/unlawful. Either way you are either allowing ISPs to throttle content or the FCC to regulate it.
Click to expand...
In your opinion, what was the current state of the legality of posting copyrighted materials under the DMCA before Title II reclassification (which hasn't gone into effect yet), and how did the reclassification change anything involving copyright law?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Totally interested in any opposing viewpoints - but before ISPs could not make calls on what violated a copyright, whether it be text or music, so a US court order was needed, preferably one from the ISP's jurisdiction. Now it appears for the first time ever that ISPs are either permitted or asked to make such determinations.

 
“It’s one thing to say that ISPs can block subject to a valid court order, quite another to let ISPs make decisions about the lawfulness of content for themselves,” he adds.

According to Walsh the issue is particularly concerning because many ISPs also have their own media properties. This means that their incentive to block copyright infringement may be greater than the incentive to protect fair use material.

For example, although the Net Neutrality rules prescribe no blocking and throttling, ISPs could still block access to The Pirate Bay and other alleged pirate sites as an anti-piracy measure. Throttling BitTorrent traffic in general is also an option, as long as it’s framed as reasonable network management.

A related concern is that ISPs can use privacy invasive technologies such as Deep Packet Inspection to monitor users’ traffic for possible copyright violations. The FCC didn’t include any protections against these practices. Instead, it simply noted that people can use SSL, VPNs and TOR to circumvent it.

“The FCC’s response to concerns about deep packet inspection is that users can just use SSL, VPNs and TOR,” Walsh says.
Click to expand...
https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-net-neutrality-has-a-massive-copyright-loophole-150315/

Torrent Freak was the original whistle blower on torrent throttling:

https://torrentfreak.com/comcast-throttles-bittorrent-traffic-seeding-impossible/

So to summarize:

  • We have new rules potentially allowing content control by ISP's or regulation by definition by the FCC, or both; and
  • The original raison d'etre for the NN regulations - torrent throttling - has been left in place because ISP's can still throttle so long as it's deemed "reasonable network management."
 
PIK95 said:
How bad will it be?  Will movie streaming still be allowed?  Will they be in our emails again?
Click to expand...
Imagine they will throttle virtually all streaming traffic and torrent traffic and start tiering customers based around their content. 

VPN will be nearly mandatory. 

 
I speculate in 2017 Kodi will be the new name widely associated with pirating , like "pirate bay" & "Napster" in their eras.

 
Quez said:
I speculate in 2017 Kodi will be the new name widely associated with pirating , like "pirate bay" & "Napster" in their eras.
Click to expand...
I am less worried about the future of Kodi, and more worried about the effects of favoring cable companies - who already suck, and in the likely shift towards capping or tiered pricing for heavy internet users.  

It looks like the cable/internet providers have found a government-assisted way to recapture lost revenue from lost cable subscriptions.

 
culdeus said:
Imagine they will throttle virtually all streaming traffic and torrent traffic and start tiering customers based around their content. 

VPN will be nearly mandatory. 
Click to expand...
Do you pay for a VPN service or are there free ones that don't move at a snail's pace?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Tax Advice for Son
Replies
2
Views
285
eoMMan
E
Courtjester
Board Games--I know there is another thread but I can't find it
Replies
18
Views
487
Wildcat
Wildcat
rockaction
The Overwhelming, Overweening Therapeutic Avalanche In Modern Consciousness
2
Replies
59
Views
1K
Ilov80s
Ilov80s

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top