51–60 of 71 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some "innovation" is a waste of resources. Specifically, the innovation required to work around broken policy.
Or fixing an already solved problem. Using a VPN addresses basically everything they are trying to fix.
Isn't the solution just more ISP competition?
ISP competition, assuming it's going to happen at all, will not happen quickly, and will be challenged by existing ISPs using a mix of legal and competitive methods.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. Beat me to making the comment. This is already a solved problem. A VPN solves this problem quite well. Only exception I see is overall bandwidth usage. They'll obviously still see the total amount of traffic going across their lines and may throttle that, but that would apply to everyone equally, which I don't have an issue with. Since they won't be able to see the traffic due to encryption, they can't inhibit/b…
Existing ISP's wouln't ban VPN's because of business use but they could make a special high cost lane just for VPN's.
Also, you can just keep track of known-business or known-personal VPN endpoints. VPNs don't hide the fact that you're using a VPN, nor which VPN you're using, from your provider. (You could still use Tor pluggable transports, but then you've completely given up on performance.)
Startups existed just fine before 2015 (when the repealed regulation was passed.) So why this now? I loathe Comcast & AT&T as much as any other person, but it seems like this issue has been sensationalized/editorialized so that any sensible commentary is drowned out. Edit: Well, this is an unpopular opinion (-2 points currently).
Stop spreading disinformation, the regulations from 2015 and reclassification is just legislative juggling. Net neutrality was an issue from way before that (1). See numerous violations (2) and try to assert what changes does a startup have if they are in direct competition with a service which the ISP offers along with internet. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S... (2) https://www.free…
I'm in the boat where I trust companies more than I trust the government, and believe that the original NN regulation was a path for the government to start actively censoring the internet, China-style.
Want to see more debate (even if devil's advocate) along these lines instead of "they are killing startups" and "they are taking away our free YouTube."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. Beat me to making the comment. This is already a solved problem. A VPN solves this problem quite well. Only exception I see is overall bandwidth usage. They'll obviously still see the total amount of traffic going across their lines and may throttle that, but that would apply to everyone equally, which I don't have an issue with. Since they won't be able to see the traffic due to encryption, they can't inhibit/b…
Can't they (the ISPs) just block or charge extra for VPN traffic? I've read that China detects and blocks VPN traffic.
Why are startups afraid? Shouldn't the biggest internet/cloud companies be worried first? They are going to be taxed most (esp. Netflix). Or maybe I'm missing something in the big picture?
Netflix potentially has something to gain, because they'll likely strike a deal with the ISPs to put content physically/technically closer to consumers (which means better quality at quicker rates).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. Beat me to making the comment. This is already a solved problem. A VPN solves this problem quite well. Only exception I see is overall bandwidth usage. They'll obviously still see the total amount of traffic going across their lines and may throttle that, but that would apply to everyone equally, which I don't have an issue with. Since they won't be able to see the traffic due to encryption, they can't inhibit/b…
That doesn't work if they decide to throttle anything not on the "whitelist" of high priority sites based on your plan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Netflix potentially has something to gain, because they'll likely strike a deal with the ISPs to put content physically/technically closer to consumers (which means better quality at quicker rates).
Netflix does this already, both via direct dedicated lines from their CDN to ISPs and content boxes in ISPs' own data centers. I don't think it can be considered a net neutrality violation since the concept of "neutrality" is still a consumer facing one and doesn't really apply for the massive internet infrastructure between ISPs and large company data centers, CDNs etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't work if they decide to throttle anything not on the "whitelist" of high priority sites based on your plan.
i don't believe that's true. they won't be able to see what you are accessing other than the VPN as long as you are routing all traffic through it (which you should be). so it's all or nothing for them. They can't really pick and choose what to prioritize because they can't see what it is due to the encryption.