Hey all, I'm wondering if I can get a Net Neutrality for Dummies overview for how these new measures will effect being a cam girl. Just wanna know if I should get riled up and what to be riled up about!
thanks
thanksAmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!
Net Neutrality ??
- Thread starter sexisally
- Start date
-
** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
- Status
Guy
Deactivated Account
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ality-is-not-dead-yet-2&utm_term=.88b8d3eb449Hey all, I'm wondering if I can get a Net Neutrality for Dummies overview for how these new measures will effect being a cam girl. Just wanna know if I should get riled up and what to be riled up about!
Changing Net Neutrality would affect any services that would involve datastreams, for example, technically, cable companies could demand extra money from cb or mfc for use of high-speed internet, these extra costs the hosting sites could mitigate by increasing costs for customers or lowering pay-outs to models. Though hypothetical, it's not at all unlikely. Also this means that current cam hosting sites are likely only ones that will survive seeing they're established and probably can bear the financial burden but new and smaller hosting sites would likely fade out, which is perhaps not so bad cause yay cb and mfc but there will be less competition, less incentive to improve. In short, nothing to your advantage would come of this, wether you cam or not, this purely is for the benefit of cable companies.
The reason net neutrality is important mainly in the US is because monopolies. Most US customers deal with a monopoly or duopoly in their areas of companies that can supply broadband. Usually when you can only get a service from a single source they make it a utility (power and water for example).
Now if they were actually going to do something drastic to open the market like they did back in the teleco days(when an ISP could connect through existing cables) it might be a different story but they're removing the bandaid without treating the wound at all. Just like they try to do with repealing Obamacare. They don't want to do the hard part just pull off Obama bandaids for kicks.
Short answer is yes just like the banks decline business to things they don't like wait for a major ISP make all sex work sites and example in some campaign of how they can now 'protect' people from themselves or charge premiums for things like VPN traffic.
The one thing I will say is the sex business is the most adaptable industry that ever existed. The format and method of access would change but I don't see camming going away even if censored.
Now if they were actually going to do something drastic to open the market like they did back in the teleco days(when an ISP could connect through existing cables) it might be a different story but they're removing the bandaid without treating the wound at all. Just like they try to do with repealing Obamacare. They don't want to do the hard part just pull off Obama bandaids for kicks.
Short answer is yes just like the banks decline business to things they don't like wait for a major ISP make all sex work sites and example in some campaign of how they can now 'protect' people from themselves or charge premiums for things like VPN traffic.
The one thing I will say is the sex business is the most adaptable industry that ever existed. The format and method of access would change but I don't see camming going away even if censored.
I was thinking a similar thing... how will this affect my perve time. I am in another country, we work on a different system so net neutrality just doesn't apply: Will ISP's in the US either profit from or absolute restrict my access to US model content.
Externally probably nothing since most major services that work outside the US also have servers outside the US as well. Like if you're in EU you check your gmail on google's EU servers. So it really depends on WHAT you are using and IF it's HOSTED inside the US and IF the provider for that server farm in the US is performing some kind of throttling service against that service.
The biggest risk here in the US from this is not throttling of Netflix but throttling of encrypted traffic like VPN connections or data requests from known proxy IP. Allowing the ISP to throttle this traffic will be used to compel those that which to be anonymous out of the shadows in order to use services at normal speeds in some cases making you pay a premium to run encrypted packets at all through their pipes.
Only if you flatter him a lot during the private. Calling yourself Ivanka may help as well (sorry, cheap shot, couldn't resist).
https://www.battleforthenet.com/
please sign the petition and make the call! this is a bipartisan issue!
please sign the petition and make the call! this is a bipartisan issue!
Hey all, I'm wondering if I can get a Net Neutrality for Dummies overview for how these new measures will effect being a cam girl. Just wanna know if I should get riled up and what to be riled up about!
I would get very riled up at major ISPs being able to give preferential access and bandwidth. But they all do it to an extent. Its anticompetitive though. I'm angry if it helps
I was thinking about Net Neutrality from this perspective earlier today. This is only a problem because they won't allow ISPs to compete fairly as is. I actually think an ISP should be allowed to put up pay walls and delegate which of their clients get faster speeds, etc. Those sorts of practices should be within the rights of any company. If there wasn't such a monopoly among internet providers, people just simply wouldn't subscribe to a service that pay walls sites they want to access. They would take their business elsewhere, to a provider that better suited their needs. The free market would be able to adjust prices and services accordingly by customers voting with their dollar and I think any ISP wanting to engage in shitty business tactics would soon go under.
It's so frustrating to see people arguing over things like net neutrality when the actual problems are so much more foundational than the measures we're prompted and encouraged to vote on.
Guy
Deactivated Account
If Net Neutrality is killed, AT&T could be a threat to the camming industry. They have a history of blocking Skype on iPhones.
https://thenextweb.com/business/2017/08/31/when-it-comes-to-net-neutrality-att-cant-be-trusted/
https://thenextweb.com/business/2017/08/31/when-it-comes-to-net-neutrality-att-cant-be-trusted/
Kokoro
Inactive Cam Model
- Apr 20, 2013
- 2,240
- 7,787
- 213
- 31
- Twitter Username
- @evakaylive
- Tumblr Username
- evakayxo
- Streamate Username
- Eva_Kokoro
- ManyVids URL
- https://www.manyvids.com/Profile/14196/Eva-Kay/
If net neutrality is killed then the amount of freeloaders will definitely go up. You'll get people who wanna see a free titty and when you say you gotta pay they'll argue that they already pay $X to be able get access to the site your stream on and they don't feel they need to pay any more.
I read the article linked by Guy and it states:
Under the agency’s proposal, providers of high-speed Internet services, such as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T, would be able to block websites they do not like and charge Web companies for speedier delivery of their content.
So, if you are with hypothetically Comcast and they decide to block MFC, don't you just cancel and go to Verizon / AT&T / small provider with a more enlightened attitude?
Or are you in the situation where there is no competition, in town "A" you can only get a connection from Comcast as they are the only provider with infrastructure present and in town "B" you can only get a connection from AT&T, etc. and if you have one company's physcial line to your house, you can't use any other ISP than their own?
Where I live (UK), every home in the country can get a telephone line from British Telecom (unless they live in Kingston upon Hull, due to a legislative anachronism) and with that they can access a wide selection of ISPs as British Telecom are obliged to open up their network to wholesale ADSL/VDSL access. So if I don't like the policies or quality of one ISP, I have loads of others to pick from and I just move on.
Under the agency’s proposal, providers of high-speed Internet services, such as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T, would be able to block websites they do not like and charge Web companies for speedier delivery of their content.
So, if you are with hypothetically Comcast and they decide to block MFC, don't you just cancel and go to Verizon / AT&T / small provider with a more enlightened attitude?
Or are you in the situation where there is no competition, in town "A" you can only get a connection from Comcast as they are the only provider with infrastructure present and in town "B" you can only get a connection from AT&T, etc. and if you have one company's physcial line to your house, you can't use any other ISP than their own?
Where I live (UK), every home in the country can get a telephone line from British Telecom (unless they live in Kingston upon Hull, due to a legislative anachronism) and with that they can access a wide selection of ISPs as British Telecom are obliged to open up their network to wholesale ADSL/VDSL access. So if I don't like the policies or quality of one ISP, I have loads of others to pick from and I just move on.
most places in the US have two ISP providers they can use. some only one. any third party would be using what available isp services.
Ms_Gingersnatch
Inactive Cam Model
In the US, only about half of all households have access to more than one high speed (25mbps download) internet provider. I would have abandoned Comcast in disgust long ago if that were an option. I don't know many people personally that could switch ISPs, and most everyone I know would like to switch if they could.
Actually it is not hypothetical - it's just that those agreements are not public.
For example, you might remember hearing that Comcast was throttling Netflix a few years ago - the details of the situation aren't public, but from working on this industry I can guess what happened: Comcast wanted Netflix to pay for access to users on their network, which Netflix (like most content providers) disagreed; Comcast then responded by throttling Netflix causing a ton of suffering for their users as a way to show them who "owns" the users. Eventually the situation was resolved after a war of press releases; we don't know the terms, but from my interactions with Comcast it probably means Netflix ended up paying them a very large sum.
This sort of thing is exactly why net neutrality is important - while it wouldn't outlaw those types of paid agreements to exchange traffic, it would set a framework that ensures users cant be harmed and that those deals must be fair. Without net neutrality, nothing prevents an ISP like Comcast from setting insane fees that would essentially bankrupt new companies trying to enter the market, specially if those companies compete with the ISP's business somehow (like when Skype was throttled/blocked by AT&T because it competed with its voice and video call business).
Also, I should point out that paid setups like these are rare/non-existent where there's actual competition between ISPs - in those situations, the ISPs tend to go into settlement-free agreements with content networks because they know it's beneficial for them (for example, I've seen quite a few ISPs advertising their more expensive products as "HD verified by google" since google launched their ISP quality report for youtube).
Guy
Deactivated Account
Comcast is hinting at a plan for paid fast lanes after net neutrality is repealed. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...-not-to-charge-tolls-for-internet-fast-lanes/
Comcast did not throttle netflix. The connection between netflix and comcast (provided by level 3 IIRC) was insufficient for the amount of bandwidth going through it. That has nothing to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality doesn't magically make all connections unlimited bandwidth. The only questionable thing there was that comcast was trying to charge netflix for a higher bandwidth connection, which isn't typical in a peering agreement. I'm not even sure net neutrality addresses that issue since comcast wasn't throttling, deprioritizing them, or treating them any differently than any other traffic. They were simply out of bandwidth. That is a completely different issue.
Guy
Deactivated Account
That doesn't even remotely prove throttling. Not even the slightest. It could just as easily (and more likely) be lack of bandwidth in one of many connections between netflix and verizon. Using a VPN proves nothing as the traffic would take a much different path. How do I know? I'm a network engineer. I deal with shit like this for a living.
Guy
Deactivated Account
Verizon admitted to throttling Netflix last summer. https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/21/...-throttling-statement-net-neutrality-title-ii
While a VPN will generally cause decrease in speed, in some situations, such as ISP throttling, a VPN will increase your speed. Also, the amount of speed decrease varies from each VPN service. Back in December of last year, I used VyprVPN on MFC to test out its effects on the speed of streaming per sever when I was on MFC using VyprVPN's Hong Kong server when I was in my apartment in Madison WI, I was shocked to see that there was no noticeable decrease in the speed of loading or streaming on MFC. When I used NordVPN on MFC on the following day there was a very noticeable decrease in the speed of loading and streaming.
I've been researching VPNs every day since September 2013. @weirdbr can explain more.
While a VPN will generally cause decrease in speed, in some situations, such as ISP throttling, a VPN will increase your speed. Also, the amount of speed decrease varies from each VPN service. Back in December of last year, I used VyprVPN on MFC to test out its effects on the speed of streaming per sever when I was on MFC using VyprVPN's Hong Kong server when I was in my apartment in Madison WI, I was shocked to see that there was no noticeable decrease in the speed of loading or streaming on MFC. When I used NordVPN on MFC on the following day there was a very noticeable decrease in the speed of loading and streaming.
I've been researching VPNs every day since September 2013. @weirdbr can explain more.
SaffronBurke
Cam Model
- Jan 3, 2013
- 19,430
- 64,064
- 3,093
- 35
- Twitter Username
- @Sweet_Saffron
- Tumblr Username
- saffronburke
- MFC Username
- SaffronBurke
- Streamate Username
- SaffronBurke
- Chaturbate Username
- SaffronBurke
- Clips4Sale URL
- http://clips4sale.com/store/62613/Saffron
That is the title of the article but that's NOT what Verizon said. They said that, "limits were applied to all video applications'"during the test. This is legal even under the current rules because it's not targeted and affected all of the same traffic. What @cammingcouple was saying about this is part of the issue. Our broadband infrastructure is not able to keep up with demand. On top of that the major ISP underestimated the cost of these contracts started to lose money so they stopped deploying or upgrading in many places even major cities. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/nyc-sues-verizon-alleges-failure-to-complete-citywide-fiber-rollout/
It's important to understand and separate the various issues before believing the net neutrality rules are the only thing that can affect your internet access. Most people don't even know about this like the global fiber wire shortage that made it harder for all ISP even the good ones to expand out.
Romania for example doesn't have net neutrality issues but thrives because almost anyone can run their own wires off the telephone poles allowing incredible competition as well as RDS(there main telco) allows leasing through their own wires to third parties. This is why their internet is so cheap and open.
tl;dr Net Neutrality is only a bandaid. There are competition and local regulation issues that do more damage and not being fixed. When will reddit run a campaign to call your local mayor and city councils to lift anti-competitive contracts that bid an entire area to a single ISP?
I'm actually not saying verizon isn't (or wasn't) throttling netflix, only that that test is in no way shape or form anything even remotely resembling proof that they are throttling. It's people drawing whatever conclusion they want to draw. You would've seen the same results back when netflix's link into comcast's network was saturated. If you used a VPN, netflix traffic would've flowed through a different connection (that wasn't saturated) into comcast's network and would've also worked better. That doesn't mean throttling is taking place. Traffic from a VPN will take a different path into the ISP's network, bypassing the saturated link as a result. Just because something is faster through a VPN does not mean throttling is taking place. Period. The traffic is taking a different path into the ISPs network. You cannot distinguish between a saturated link vs throttling by using a VPN. The only way to prove throttling is if traffic A is faster than traffic B under identical conditions (ie, follows the same path at the same time). Even then, it's not 100% proof.
That's great you've been resarching VPNs since 2013. I've been building VPNs for dozens of sites and hundreds of users since 2002 and have held certifications in VPN technology for over 10 years. I've also personally setup netflix throttling on several networks.
I'm actually not even completely opposed to net neutrality. However, so many examples of and "proof" of why it's needed comes from ignorance on networking. I'm not saying there aren't examples, only so many I've seen like the one you posted and the comcast/netflix fiasco are not proof/and or have nothing to do with net neutrality. Again, I'm not opposed to it, but the regulations shouldn't come from ignorance. And I've seen a ton of ignorance and lots of fear mongering coming up with hypothetical scenarios of what ISPs could do (but didn't do in the 20+ years the internet existed before net neutrality became "law" in 2015). That said, I do have concern for ISPs blocking competing services. I think the fear of ISPs blocking things or charging more for things like camming sites are ridiculous (fear of governments blocking things like that are completely legit, as many are doing exactly that). People seem to forget the internet has been around for 20+ years longer than net neutrality. Personally, I think it's mostly a hammer looking for a nail and another power grab by our government to control the internet, with some legitimate concerns that should be addressed.
This is a far bigger issue than net neutrality IMO. Competition would solve even the hypothetical problems of lack of net neutrality. I know first hand some of the shit pulled between service providers and local governments to ensure a monopoly in an area. It's insane what the get away with.
Also, here's the comcast/netflix fiasco from a network engineer's perspective (rather than the media). Notice there's no mention of throttling, but rather it's clearly a capacity issue:
http://packetlife.net/blog/2010/dec/1/comcast-vs-level-3/
I'm not siding with comcast (who I despise with a passion), but nothing was throttled. Level 3 needed to increase their capacity into comcast's network, and comcast charged them for it. Comcast is probably in the wrong, but that doesn't seem like a net neutrality problem to me.
Another network engineer's perspective on someone claiming "proof" of verizon throttling:
http://etherealmind.com/net-neutrality-and-net-reality/
Again, it fits the symptoms of throttling, but it also fits a simple lack of bandwidth problem as well.
http://packetlife.net/blog/2010/dec/1/comcast-vs-level-3/
I'm not siding with comcast (who I despise with a passion), but nothing was throttled. Level 3 needed to increase their capacity into comcast's network, and comcast charged them for it. Comcast is probably in the wrong, but that doesn't seem like a net neutrality problem to me.
Another network engineer's perspective on someone claiming "proof" of verizon throttling:
http://etherealmind.com/net-neutrality-and-net-reality/
Again, it fits the symptoms of throttling, but it also fits a simple lack of bandwidth problem as well.
It was Cogent actually in the incident I'm thinking of. Also, it has everything to do with net neutrality - this is Comcast using explicit tactics to strong-arm a company into a position where they are more likely to accept their terms, which is what net neutrality tries to prevent/set a framework to handle.
It's true that bandwidth is not unlimited, but there's a simple solution - augments and new peering. However, one of Comcast's techniques to strong-arm companies into accepting their peering agreements is by delaying new peering connections and upgrades of existing ones by a very long time - this has the "benefit" of technically not being a throttling technique, but it achieves the same goal.
And in fact, Cogent's version of this story is eerily similar to what we dealt with at my workplace: (from https://www.cnet.com/news/cogent-sa...connection-deal-with-clever-traffic-clogging/ ) :
Which fiber shortage? We buy fiber by the truckloads for our uses at work and we haven't had any issues over the last couple of years. Also, it's not only us - for example here in Switzerland, Swisscom, Init7 and EWZ have had no problem expanding their fiber network across the canton of Zurich over the last couple of years and I know of similar projects in the canton of Basel having no problems.
Actually most ISPs are still doing deployments and upgrades - I recommend you check out their earnings reports: it leads to the amusing situation where they claim to the FCC that they are having to cut investments while at the same time they gloat to their investors that they are expanding everywhere.
- Status
Similar threads
