‘Break The Internet’ In Protest Of Net Neutrality Repeal

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chettone

Honorable
May 20, 2013
34
0
10,530
0
Can an ISP from the USA have any kind of power on those who live outside USA? Is it a local problem or does it affect the whole world?

If I live in Argentina, were there is (still) net neutrality and use Netflix, how can a foreign ISP affect my download speeds?

If FCC wins, can consumers simply pick an ISP that doesnt violate Net Neutrality?

If possible, cant apps develop some kind of protocol to "mask" what kind of content are providing? maybe sharing proxys with sites that arent capped by ISP?
 

shrapnel_indie

Distinguished
Jan 21, 2010
2,152
10
20,465
277
<Sigh> THIS is an editorial more than a real NEWS story. (TH has the right to have them as much as news.)

With that said.... It's the responsibility of content providers, such as NetFlix, HBO, ShowTime, CBS, etc., to have the bandwidth necessary for the loads they will encounter. Users pay for bandwidth too. It's called tiered access... 5Mb, 10 Mb, 20Mb, 25Mb, 40Mb, 50Mb, 100Mb, etc. of speed or data (GB instead of Mb) per month. Net Neutrality itself doesn't stop that. It doesn't really stop hitting a limit and getting throttled to a slower speed or hit with a surcharge.

Net Neutrality is as stated: You don't pay anything extra beyond the speed/allowed data limits you pay for to get a service. You don't pay extra, outside of what HBO charges you for their service, to stream HBO Go to you desktop or device. You don't get to watch it without it using your data, while your neighbor has to use data to watch. Everyone has equal access to delivery and providers have equal access to deliver. Everyone is responsible for the cost for the amount of data they push or pull. If HBO doesn't pay enough to have the bandwidth to deliver (servers, connections) It don't matter how fast, how low latency, or if you have REAL unlimited data if HBO chokes because they didn't pay out enough for their usage requirements.


Addenum:
It's tiring to have these hit and run downvote "readers".. so... kms1699... why don't you join the conversation and explain to everyone what I said that you felt that it was necessary to downvote my response, I'd settle for you just dumping your 2 cents worth into the conversation in general.
 

therealduckofdeath

Honorable
May 10, 2012
783
0
11,160
70

You're affected indirectly as the corporations behind the ISP's will favour certain content creators over others and in the long run push some players out of the market. Less competition means higher consumer prices everywhere.
Encrypted connections ought to work most of the time, but they're often slower/capped by default.
 

Giroro

Honorable
Jan 22, 2015
688
128
11,190
13


Websites and content hosted in America (usually anything with .com in its url), could be cut off from the world entirely, if any ISP in the chain decides to block content from being accessed internationally. This could be because a website can't afford a their new "long distance" internet plans. Or maybe the ISP simply wants to damage a company because they perceive that company as competition or a threat.

Netflix itself can afford to host content internationally... but 2-3 years from now, Netflix most likely won't even exist in the United States. Cable companies will either block it entirely out of spite, or they will extort such extreme fees on Netflix and end users that Netflix will become more expensive than even the most overpriced premium cable packages.
Once Netflix's primary market collapses, the company may not be able hold itself together well enough to maintain servers and content licensing for international markets.
 

TMTOWTSAC

Honorable
Jun 27, 2015
1,459
4
11,965
225
If you like the current model that cable tv uses for selecting channel availability, you would probably like Net Neutrality to be repealed. Because then that model could be applied to the internet with even fewer restrictions. (FCC rules force cable tv services to include things like local channels and public access networks in their basic bundle.) It isn't even a question of throttling opposing services. It's a question of accessibility. It's your ISP saying, "We've signed an exclusive deal with Showtime, so you can get Showtime cheaper but you can't get HBO at all. But next year we're open for bids again, so maybe Hulu will pay us enough to block both of them."

While the focus has been on streaming video services, it isn't exclusive to them. It's any form of internet communications. Whether it be entire classes, like streaming, or gaming, or more granular. If you completely remove all regulations (and repealing NN is the first, biggest step) they could decide to allow Tom's Hardware and block AnandTech. They could allow Samsung.com while blocking Apple.com. They could allow only Playstation traffic to only EA servers only during World Cup games while blocking all Xbox traffic. They could treat each and every website, ftp server, game server etc like a separate tv channel and charge/block/PPV on an individual basis.

I know you think they can't do that, because they would be crazy to do it. The free market would stop them. I would say look at the state of cable tv right now, and what people are willing/forced to put up with there. And then realize that the single biggest threat to that model over the last decade has been people willing to cut the cord...which was made possible by the internet. Look at your phone and its list of carrier(s?) and exclusive contracts. Look at your health insurance and its list of preferred providers and covered procedures and formulary. The internet has been the great exception to the exclusivity model, not the norm.
 

wiyosaya

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2006
915
1
18,990
1


Right now, net neut does not prevent a surcharge.


This is not what people who support net neutrality are objecting to. The lack of net neut will amount to something like this: If you watch HBO Now, for instance, and your ISP has a monetary interest in Showtime but not HBO, your ISP could simply drop your access to HBO Now and put on their policy page something like this "We do not carry HBO Now because they are not part of our family of companies." Note the "." there. This, under the rules that would be in place if net neut is dropped, would be perfectly acceptable. So now, even though you prefer HBO Now to the similar Showtime service, you cannot get HBO Now at all because your ISP refuses to carry it, and because they have it posted in their policy section, you cannot complain to anyone because your ISP does not carry HBO Now. Like it or not, you are stuck with what your ISP decides to carry.

That is just a simple example. It is even wider than this. Your ISP could refuse any traffic from any web site for any reason - as long as they post it on their policy page. In essence, your ISP can chose what you get to visit.

I hope this makes it clear because this IS what is being proposed by the FCC at this time.
 

Druidsmark

Commendable
Aug 22, 2016
43
1
1,530
0
Can an ISP from the USA have any kind of power on those who live outside USA? Is it a local problem or does it affect the whole world?

If I live in Argentina, were there is (still) net neutrality and use Netflix, how can a foreign ISP affect my download speeds?

If FCC wins, can consumers simply pick an ISP that doesnt violate Net Neutrality?

If possible, cant apps develop some kind of protocol to "mask" what kind of content are providing? maybe sharing proxys with sites that arent capped by ISP?

This is a problem for people living in the U.S. so your safe for now, your government in the future could choose to eliminate net neutrality in the future.
 

Netflix offers the larger ISPs servers hosting Netflix content that they can put on their local networks so it doesn't impact the ISP's upstream bandwidth usage. They offer these servers for free. Verizon and Comcast refused Netflix's free offer just so they could manufacture a nonexistent problem to justify charging Netflix. (The other major ISPs may have refused too, I just didn't see any news confirmation of it.)

Yes you as the ISP's customer are paying for 5 Mbps, 10 Mbps, 50 Mbps, whatever level of service. What the ISPs want to do is not give you the service you're paying them for if the site you're trying to access doesn't also pay them. That in itself should be breach of contract by the ISP. The problem is even if they're found guilty of breaching their contract with you, it does you no good. Most Americans only have one choice of ISP because their local government has granted that ISP a monopoly. So if they breach their contract with you and you quit their service, you either can't get Internet at all, or only at a much slower speed.

Net neutrality tries to fix the problem by legally forcing the monopolies to behave. I, like may others, think the better solution is to just eliminate the monopolies. The government granted the monopolies in the first place. It should be trivial for the government to take them away.
 

There are a bunch of court cases winding their way up which deal with this without invoking net neutrality. It has to do with the common carrier status of the ISPs. Common carrier means that the carrier (ISP in this case) is agnostic to the content they deliver. In exchange, they are freed from liability for any content which may be illegal.

If the ISP argues that they should be allowed to block HBO Now, then they are no longer acting as a common carrier. They are actively filtering a specific website from their "Internet" access. The moment they do that, they lose common carrier status and they become liable for all the pirated movies and music, child porn, and mafia hit arrangements being conducted via their service.

There are some tortured arguments the ISPs are making trying to have their cake and eat it too. Some successful, others not. We'll have to wait for it to eventually makes its way to the Supreme Court before we can get a final ruling.
 

Giroro

Honorable
Jan 22, 2015
688
128
11,190
13


The problem, the "you pay for enough bandwidth and netflix pays for enough bandwidth and everything works out fine" is oversimplified, and that is not how it worked out in practice -> which is why regulation is absolutely essential. I won't address bandwidth caps, because the recent throttling data -quantity- have been implemented to directly circumvent the regulations preventing ISPs from throttling data -speed-. Four years ago, data caps on landline service in America was unheard of.

Here is how things worked out when ISPs were secretly throttling Netflix back in 2014, which set off the chain of events that led to the FCC reclassifying the internet in 2015. As a reminder, the FCC Open internet act of 2010 had been heavily contested in court and in 2014 it was officially overturned. Before 2010, broadband access was far less common and internet streaming services were not a very big issue like they are today. Also, up until when the FCC lost that order, ISPs had believed that the FCC at least had the potential to regulate the internet. Even as early as 2005 the FCC was uncontested when they fined a small ISP for blocking voip services. The point is that in 2014 it was the first time that it was definitively proven that the FCC had no power whatsoever to impose or enforce any regulation on broadband providers. It was America's first taste of what happens when even the threat of regulation was removed, and it was bad.

First, Netflix would pay it's Internet Service Provider for enough bandwidth to serve their content. Yes Netflix uses a lot of bandwidth, but they were absolutely paying for every last bit that they were using.
Second, you were paying your own ISP for a fast-enough data connection to receive netflix in your home. This is a different ISP than the one Netflix uses.

Netflix's ISP has a contract with the various other ISPs that it directly connects with in order send it's data over those other networks to the end-user. Sometimes data would need to be routed over lines owned by multiple major service providers in order to reach you. A portion of what Netflix pays to its ISP is used by that ISP to pay for all these interconnects, and those companies are contractually obligated to provide agreed-upon bandwidth, which is once again enough to cover Netflix.

Everything should then work out. Sure the ISPs are double dipping by charging on both ends, but that should just mean double-good services since they are being double-payed, right? The ISP interconnect contracts mean they get paid more as usage goes up, so they should be in love with netflix.

But in real-life, that isn't what happened.
ISPs like Comcast, Time Warner, and Verizon FiOS (none of whom are directly Netflix's ISP) also happen to be in competition with netflix, and they were noticing a drop in their lucrative television service business. So they quietly began to throttle Netflix's traffic at interconnect points before it traveled through their network.

The throttling ISP would then go back to Netflix's ISP as well as Netflix itself and blamed "old equipment" for the bottle-neck, and demanded more money, just to restore the already-agreed-upon service. When Netflix began paying these fees, the service would magically be restored immediately. There is no evidence that even a single piece of networking equipment was ever upgraded as a result of Netflix paying these additional "interconnect" fees.

Netflix did indeed pay these fees. A mere four months after net neutrality was overturned (April 2014) Netflix restructured their streaming services and raised prices for the first time by 25%. This really happened, It's not some hyperbolic exaggeration or doomsday theory. Netflix is not the only example of this happening, they are just the most well publicized.

Even at the time, throttling in this way was believed to be illegal- but difficult to prove in court. Toothless FTC regulation at the time was a complete joke, a company making millions in extra profit simply doesn't care about the threat of a 5 figure fine. This is important because "The FTC will regulate it instead" was one of the arguments used to overturn net neutrality in 2014, and is once again being used as justification by Ajit Pai to overturn it this time around.

Data gathered by netflix's speed test tool during this time period was one of many points of data used to push the FCC to reclassify the Internet under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Title II, in itself, is not net neutrality. It simply gives the FCC the power to regulate it, as needed.

The biggest problem with the FCC's upcoming vote to repeal, which not may people are talking about, is its permanence. When the FCC repeals a previous administration's action in this way, it also prevents all future administrations from reinstating it again. When the FCC loses it's power to regulate the internet, that power will essentially be lost forever. The oligopoly of ISPs will no longer have to control themselves under the threat of receiving harsher regulation. There will be no governing body capable of protecting what is arguably America's most important resource (just look at a list of the most valuable companies in the country). This is the first time that has ever happened, and the potential risk of one of these major ISPs to legally cause catastrophic economic harm is indescribably huge.

Yes, that risk could be mitigated if America's internet service was provided by an open an competitive market (another one of Ajit Pai's absurd arguments). This is laughable because America does not have an open market in this space, at all. There hasn't been competition in the telecom space since the very beginning of the telephone. The lack of competition is the reason the Communications Act of 1934 was passed in the first place. Cable companies are disallowed from competing with each other. The lack of competition, coincidentally, the real reason there is so little investment in network improvement. The upcoming repeal does exactly nothing to breakup guaranteed regional monopolies or otherwise restore competition to the market.
That in itself is a difficult enough proposition, since these private companies typically need to bury lines on public land (once again, a problem that will only get worse by repealing net neutrality).

If this vote passes, the only thing that will be able to restore accountability to this essential utility is an act of congress, signed by the president. Congress, unfortunately is comprised of a lot of 80-something-year-olds, possibly with alzheimer's.. at least one of which literally has brain cancer. And the current president is the one responsible for handing control of the FCC over to an obviously corrupt Verizon lobbyist in the first place.
 

TMTOWTSAC

Honorable
Jun 27, 2015
1,459
4
11,965
225
I'd like to add that it was also Verizon who sued over NN in 2010. That led to the 2014 ruling overturning it. The court ruled that they were attempting to regulate ISP's as common carriers, without having classified them as such. That lawsuit and ruling directly led to ISP's being classified as common carriers. Because Verizon was already suing over less restrictive regulations than common carrier status.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/verizon-is-mad-that-its-huge-net-neutrality-gamble-backfired/

 

alextheblue

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2001
3,078
106
20,970
2
Even before the current net neutrality rules passed in 2015, the ISPs were starting to ask video content companies for money in order to serve their content even at normal internet speeds. Services such as Netflix initially opposed that, and we started seeing Netflix video being throttled on some ISP networks.
Actually, it was Cogent, Netflix own transit provider. Cogent couldn't hack it. The provider Netflix was paying did not have enough mojo.

https://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/11/cogent-now-admits-slowed-netflixs-traffic-creating-fast-lane-slow-lane.html

Lucian probably won't grok that, though.
You're a smart guy, Solandri. Good to see you around again - not being sarcastic. But seriously, ISPs don't host stuff on their network for free, especially to benefit a competitor. If you want data hosted, you pay. It's that simple. Cogent couldn't cut it, that's great - pay another provider to host data.

Let's try an example. Say I've got an anime streaming service called Weebflix. We only serve up honorific-laced subtitled anime (normies can bite it). My servers are plenty beefy and I'm paying a company called Nogent for a connection. During peak hours, the service turns to crap! Sadly, I don't bother to do any serious research and assume the ISPs are the ones to blame. Later it is determined that Nogent was actually at fault. Oh well I won't admit I was wrong, Weebflix doesn't need egg on it's face. Well, either way - can't the ISPs for my heaviest customers just host my data for free?? I'll even provide the servers for FREE!

Also, I'm not against all forms of NN. But they need to allow for QoS - discrimination against non-real-time traffic. That way real-time traffic doesn't (VoIP, video chat, gaming, etc) suffer as badly during heavy traffic. Not all packets are the same, and they from a network engineering standpoint they shouldn't all be treated equally. Keep QoS and NN looks more appealing to me. Obviously you have to make sure your provider has the capacity, if you can't count on them you need to find new provider(s).
 

mihen

Reputable
Oct 11, 2017
363
39
4,820
3
Will Net Neutrality rules in the US affect other nations? No. That's not how the internet is structured. Much like how in other countries like Norway do not affect the rest of the world through it not having Net Neutrality.
The US has 2 types of ISPs, regional and local providers. Regional providers make networks between cities and sell access to their networks. Their customers are typically local ISPs and large corporations who want 1 less hop. Cogent, L3 Networks, and Verizon are some of these providers. Due to their business practice, its best to support Net Neutrality. It would alienate their customers if they started throttling certain types of traffic and could lead to backlash pretty quickly. For instance I can remember 2 times when Cogent had backlash for disputes with Virgin Atlantic, and throttling Netflix. Both instances were corrected in a very short time frame.
Since most traffic happens through these regional ISPs directly to a larger server farm, consumers outside the US do not deal with local ISP providers who are feared to abuse their position.
 

DerekA_C

Prominent
Mar 1, 2017
177
0
690
1
i can see ceo's and other board members of isp's getting gunned down by crazy people in the near future for screwing the people.
 

Olle P

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2010
670
50
19,090
24
I'd say that's plain wrong!
The entire idea behind the web is to have redundant paths, so if one ISP block the route another route (passing other ISPs) will automatically be chosen.
The only ISPs able to actually block content are those at the ends of the connection, and then only if they're alone. (Server providers that have "critical" connections use multiple ISPs with multiple physical routs out from their servers.)

The international influence of a law like this, passed or not, is that it will set some sort of presedence for the rest of us to follow.
 

atomicWAR

Splendid
Ambassador
@sharpnel_indie

Some of the points you brought up are true. Every one can pay for more or less bandwidth now. So buy what you need as it were in regards to bandwidth just like corporations like Netflix/HBO do now. And yes if HBO doesn't have the bandwidth to deliver it's content to its customers then regardless of the users speed, they video won't play properly. Your correct it is HBOs job to make sure their server farms hosting their content are up to snuff as is it's internet connection to said content. Yet this does not address the issue of local ISP throttling (ie end user) that would be legal with the down fall of net neutrality or worse and ISP outright blocking content. Whether it is a competitor, small start up not able to afford the pay for play cost, or worse someone expressing an opinion the ISP does not like. Killing net-neutrality is a bad idea, especially they way it is being done. The agencies left "in charge" of the internet will have a toothless bite. This was one of the reasons net-neutrality was reclassified a public utility. To give some teeth to the FCC on the subject. What they propose now is akin to pulling all their teeth and then asking their toothless cousin the FTC to do the job for them with both hands tied behind their back.

I am not arguing the internet couldn't use a face lift or some new ideas but what is being proposed is not a good idea. We only need to look at what ISPs were doing prior to net-neutrality became law. Like charging Netflix more money just so video's were playable on said ISPs connection, even though Netflix had already paid their ISP plenty for their bandwidth. These charges where just so the "end-user" could view the video without needing to buffer a stream 6 months before watching it. And don't get me going on what mobile connection providers tried to pull...I know AT&T unlimited subscribers back in the day don't need a reminder <cough> throttled after 2GB usage.

I thought i down voted you but seems you got lucky (cough...I got sloppy). I did contribute to the discussion though as you asked.
 

shrapnel_indie

Distinguished
Jan 21, 2010
2,152
10
20,465
277


I appreciate you joining in atomic.

The only thing I ask of anybody really is: do the research. Don't just accept the selling points of why killing NN is bad, or why NN should die... for that matter, anything. Do the research and not just accept it face value. Many, even here, seem to not be doing so.
 

xyriin

Distinguished
Feb 25, 2010
137
1
18,685
0


That's a nice theory but it's revisionist history and this myth was already debunked.
https://www.extremetech.com/g00/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth

The ISPs are guilty as sin and just want their extortion money.
 

BulkZerker

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2010
845
8
18,995
2
"With that said.... It's the responsibility of content providers, such as NetFlix, HBO, ShowTime, CBS, etc., to have the bandwidth necessary for the loads they will encounter"

Which they do. These service providers using a utility pay out the nose for the top teir services to he brought to their location. Then it leaves a major hi area and goes across the country, hitting wore that is older than 3 members of this site combined, and then has to go down into your home town and to your DSL router through a heavily over provisioned cable.

Netflix offered boxes to ISPs for free in 2014 https://gizmodo.com/this-box-can-hold-an-entire-netflix-1592590450 to remove congestion over larger Internet hubs The large ISPs refused.

The large ISPs (comcast, cox, verizion, ect) also own companies like MSNBC and HBO. So they have a vested interest in giving any "not Netflix, not Hulu" preference in terms of traffic priority.

Nevermind ISPs like verizion are know to double dip for content. Charging buissness like Netflix additional fees for *gasp* using their internet! *Dramatic fainting couch scene!* The cads, the scoundrels!


Now, remember, you asked for this and I'm giving it to you.
 

The Original Ralph

Distinguished
i'm a little shocked at the fear of "net neutrality" repeal, especially after it came out that google & comcast wrote in additional clauses at the last minute that weren't revealed until after the vote. For those outside the US, not sure how this could affect anyone outside the US, but in case folks aren't aware, whenever a democrat titles a new law or whatever, it's actual true effect is usually 180 degrees opposite. fwiw
 

shrapnel_indie

Distinguished
Jan 21, 2010
2,152
10
20,465
277
The arguments for not ending Obama era Net Neutrality deal completely/exclusively with what ISPs might do to the internet to the level of FUD. What these arguments completely ignore the underlying bits of the Net Neutrality regulations and rules that deal with government control, and how much government control it actually gives.

If the gov't arbitrarily decides your adult sites are bad for America, they can shut them off. (Not likely, as it is a major distraction to everything else they don't want you to know about.) If they decide that TH here has bad influences and promotes issues with them, they can shut it off. (Gov't has targeted sites/people/organizations wrongfully before.) This is an example: Gov't creates a bill that declares all homeless are not clothed, fed, and have a roof over their heads. We like it. The bill gets killed. Uproar ensues. Behind the scenes, attached to the very same bill, legislation that controls every bite of food and every drop of drink you can and cannot have (like prohibition, but worse.) Some would rejoice, the majority of others would not. Remember this is an example. Things like this happen every day: unsavory legislation attached to the heels of good legislation. And... when good legislation gets shot down because of it, the good is always highlighted and the bad is kept in the shadows.

The current NN rules forces ISPs to play and serve on an even field (the good,) while giving the Gov't full power to censor it at will in the name of national security (the bad.) And.. as usual, THIS part (the bad) isn't being talked about.

Here is some info:

In refreshingly honest congressional testimony, Wu has crystalized the net neutrality movement’s goal: “FCC oversight of the Internet.” His simple statement acts as a dog whistle to regulators, telling them to sweep everything about the Internet under the government-controlled net neutrality umbrella— technical operations, business decisions, content and speech. State manipulation of the Net would shape “not merely economic policy, not merely competition policy, but also media policy, social policy” and “oversight of the political process,” according to Wu’s testimony. Current regulations simply do not “capture” the Net the way more government powers would through powerful new rules, he argued.

Without contesting the adequacy of existing laws to protect consumers and preserve the free flow of information over the Net, Wu asserted that only “the FCC is equipped to deal with issues like regionalism, like localism, like diversity, which … aren’t captured” by other agencies. These words were likely not selected randomly: They have legal significance at the FCC in regulating speech and go far beyond net neutrality’s original sales pitch.
-- https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/?utm_term=.aebaa36a9f33


But can we really trust the FCC to ‘forebear’ authority to reach any further than the transport level? The history of the FCC is replete with examples of attempts to apply decency rules and censorship to content. Should we believe that ‘this time it’s different?’ We already have groups like Free Press calling for the FCC to reach up into the content level of the Internet and take action against ‘hate speech’.

Laudable as their underlying objective might be, the effect would be to put the FCC squarely into the internet content censoring business.

If other strong Net Neutrality supporters like the Electronic Frontier Foundation realize that FCC regulation might very well have a negative effect on freedom of expression on the Internet, one would hope that a group calling itself ‘Free Press’ would share those same concerns.
-- https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-carnes/net-neutrality--can-we-tr_b_609392.html


ut for many of us who oppose the FCC's mandates to enforce "neutrality" on the Internet, this conception turns the First Amendment on its head. The First Amendment's free speech guarantee is intended to protect against government censorship of private party speech, not to authorize government regulation of the speech of private parties in the name of enforcing neutrality.

The Free State Foundation, along with TechFreedom, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Cato Institute, recently filed an amicus brief in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals making just such an argument that the FCC's net neutrality regulations violate the First Amendment.
-- https://www.cnet.com/news/why-net-neutrality-is-incompatible-with-internet-freedom/


Now, some will be quick to dismiss most of this, stating about other government sources saying NN isn't about censorship or national security. Yeah, and the IRS wasn't about harassing groups that an administration felt threatening to their message... yet it became a club to bully some into submission.
 

TMTOWTSAC

Honorable
Jun 27, 2015
1,459
4
11,965
225


Just to address this part. It is not a a question of ISP's might do. It's what they were already doing.

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS