# What Happens if My ISP Blocks FA?



## FluffyShutterbug (Apr 18, 2018)

So, net neutrality officially ends on Sunday at 11:59 PM in America. I'm pretty sure that most people are aware of the ramifications. But, I'm concerned that I'll be barred from using FA, and I won't know what to do to protect my account in case this goes long haul. I don't want somebody to claim my account if it appears that I've stopped using it.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 19, 2018)

I don't think the ISPs even know what FA is. They'll be more concerned about throttling bandwidth in general, and for popular websites like Youtube, Netflix, etc.


----------



## Rant (Apr 19, 2018)

I can't believe we lost net neutrality.... We are going to be bled dry


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 19, 2018)

Rant said:


> I can't believe we lost net neutrality.... We are going to be bled dry



Feeling those trickle down economics yet?


----------



## Rant (Apr 19, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Feeling those trickle down economics yet?


Feels more like cold piss.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Apr 19, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I don't think the ISPs even know what FA is. They'll be more concerned about throttling bandwidth in general, and for popular websites like Youtube, Netflix, etc.


Specifically, (and this is what ISPs have been brought up on charges for under Net Neutrality) any ISP that also runs a streaming service, is liable to artificially improve user experience for using that streaming service compared to competitors by throttling connections to those competitors. Or they may exclude their own streaming service from any bandwidth cap they impose on users.

This is the kind of activity that earns them money (through streaming service subscriptions) without pissing customers off nearly as much as saying "if you pay another $$$ we'll let you access YouTube".


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Apr 19, 2018)

Then you're fucked. Better look for a decent VPN.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Apr 19, 2018)

Won't work. They can fuck with VPN's too.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Apr 19, 2018)

Still, this whole issue has made me so upset to the point where I'm almost at a mental health crisis. Millions and millions of Americans could have their lives ruined because of one man's greed. Makes me feel like there's no such thing as justice or karma.


----------



## LuciantheHugmage (Apr 19, 2018)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Still, this whole issue has made me so upset to the point where I'm almost at a mental health crisis. Millions and millions of Americans could have their lives ruined because of one man's greed. Makes me feel like there's no such thing as justice or karma.


There will be....

We as internet users just need to make a big enough fuss to make them realize that they've dun f###ed up.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Apr 19, 2018)

DragonMaster21 said:


> There will be....
> 
> We as internet users just need to make a big enough fuss to make them realize that they've dun f###ed up.


We've already have... But, I fear that our demands are falling on deaf ears.


----------



## Ginza (Apr 19, 2018)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Still, this whole issue has made me so upset to the point where I'm almost at a mental health crisis. Millions and millions of Americans could have their lives ruined because of one man's greed. Makes me feel like there's no such thing as justice or karma.



I just want to note that this isn’t because of “one man’s greed”. That’s not how laws work. Trump can’t just say “this is a law” and boom, it’s in. In fact, the bill was proposed by the FCC, not trump. For a law to actually be passed, it is an extremely tedious process that must pass through all branches of the government. Please just keep this in mind.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 19, 2018)

Ginza said:


> I just want to note that this isn’t because of “one man’s greed”. That’s not how laws work. Trump can’t just say “this is a law” and boom, it’s in. In fact, the bill was proposed by the FCC, not trump. For a law to actually be passed, it is an extremely tedious process that must pass through all branches of the government. Please just keep this in mind.



That's actually rather a misrepresentation of the facts, since Trump deliberately chose the CEO of Verizon for this task. You're getting to see what happens when corporations actually run sections of the government. I'm content to let things get fucked up a bit so that republicans will maybe finally realize why the revolving door is a bad idea.


----------



## Open_Mind (Apr 19, 2018)

I sincerely hope that things do not go as you fear. I know that optimism is practically my middle name, but in this case -- I am just a concerned friend.  I hope this comes and goes without impacting our fandom, and that you can slowly begin to feel better. ♡


----------



## Yogoat (Apr 20, 2018)

I found some comfort in looking into what some ISP's have said they plan to do and don't plan to do. They aren't _promises_, but I gotta cling to something. Like this from Charter.

Maybe I don't understand everything.. that might be likely, since I don't understand a lot of technical stuff, but I get the vibe it's all more about charging folks more to access high-bandwidth services like Netflix or YouTube, like already mentioned. I don't see how FA would factor in to that kind of degree, unless it's because of all the NSFW? Porn is legal, so I wouldn't understand blocking it.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Apr 20, 2018)

Yogoat said:


> I get the vibe it's all more about charging folks more to access high-bandwidth services like Netflix or YouTube, like already mentioned


That's all in how you present it, though. For multiple reasons:

ISPs in North America are increasingly starting to implement data caps on residential lines. There isn't much of a sound technical reason for doing this; it's basically just a game of "how can we get people to pay extra to raise their data caps without pissing them off too much?"
You already (presumably) pay for X bandwidth/speed. At least in most areas I'm aware of down/up speed is how different Internet service plans are tiered. ISPs throttling your connection because you're connecting to Youtube are basically saying "you can have X bandwidth, unless you actually use it" which is sorta equivalent to selling someone a more water-efficient laundry machine only to then advise you that by the way you need to bucket an amount of water into the machine to rinse it out between loads that equates or exceeds the savings from the more efficient cycle. If you want to have people pay extra for using high-bandwidth services, you raise the price of your high-bandwidth plan, you don't pick and choose what services should be effected.
A number of ISPs are either owned by the same parent company as a particular streaming service, or owns a streaming service of their own. Most likely, the "high bandwidth service" fee would magically not apply to their own service. Thus creating an unfair market.
The US ISP market isn't free. ISPs have more or less deliberately split the US up between them so that a given area often only has one or two options available to them. 
Basically ISPs want you to believe they're going to behave ethically, when history has already shown (this is why Net Neutrality was implemented in the first place) that they won't.



Yogoat said:


> Porn is legal, so I wouldn't understand blocking it.


Netflix is legal. Most of Youtube's content is legal. The question isn't legality, but whether people will be willing to pay extra for it.


----------



## Yogoat (Apr 20, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> That's all in how you present it, though. For multiple reasons:
> 
> ISPs in North America are increasingly starting to implement data caps on residential lines. There isn't much of a sound technical reason for doing this; it's basically just a game of "how can we get people to pay extra to raise their data caps without pissing them off too much?"
> You already (presumably) pay for X bandwidth/speed. At least in most areas I'm aware of down/up speed is how different Internet service plans are tiered. ISPs throttling your connection because you're connecting to Youtube are basically saying "you can have X bandwidth, unless you actually use it" which is sorta equivalent to selling someone a more water-efficient laundry machine only to then advise you that by the way you need to bucket an amount of water into the machine to rinse it out between loads that equates or exceeds the savings from the more efficient cycle. If you want to have people pay extra for using high-bandwidth services, you raise the price of your high-bandwidth plan, you don't pick and choose what services should be effected.
> ...



But, the difference between FA and Youtube is pretty big. Youtube streams video, and has far more traffic. I would still find it hard to believe FA being targeted, at least.

I understand what you're saying. Though... if prices get too ridiculous for one ISP, a different ISP could offer more reasonable prices. Every area doesn't have the luxury of choosing their ISP, but a lot do. Can't this create a more competitive market in a way? Do you think we'll all really get completely screwed over by them all? I ask genuinely, not meaning to be snarky hehe. If the ISP's are "working together" and keeping their prices/services similar so they're all making good profit and not being competitive, isn't that illegal? I don't recall what this is called, but I know it is illegal for stores to do things like, cooperating with a similar store and BOTH agreeing to raise their prices in similar fashion.

If things were to remain competitive, wouldn't customers still have a decent chance to not get screwed over too badly? I mean, an overwhelming amount of the population is for net neutrality. I find it hard to believe there wouldn't be come kind of outrage if things got too restrictive. Alternatively, new presidential cycles with the opportunity to fix the issue one way or another?


----------



## quoting_mungo (Apr 21, 2018)

Yogoat said:


> But, the difference between FA and Youtube is pretty big. Youtube streams video, and has far more traffic. I would still find it hard to believe FA being targeted, at least.


Absolutely. I'm not convinced FA would be worth targeting specifically from the ISPs' point of view. Though I will note that it does have a pretty high Alexa ranking, so it's not entirely outside the realm of possibility.



Yogoat said:


> Can't this create a more competitive market in a way?


Ideally, it would. Realistically, just consider this: ISPs don't gain anything by a more competitive market bringing down prices. ISPs are the ones who've been lobbying for the repeal of Net Neutrality.



Yogoat said:


> If the ISP's are "working together" and keeping their prices/services similar so they're all making good profit and not being competitive, isn't that illegal? I don't recall what this is called, but I know it is illegal for stores to do things like, cooperating with a similar store and BOTH agreeing to raise their prices in similar fashion.


Oh, it absolutely is illegal if they're caught doing it. I believe the thing they've mainly been doing of divvying the US up between them (reducing competition in any given area) is a gray area; US business law isn't exactly within my area of expertise.



Yogoat said:


> If things were to remain competitive, wouldn't customers still have a decent chance to not get screwed over too badly? I mean, an overwhelming amount of the population is for net neutrality. I find it hard to believe there wouldn't be come kind of outrage if things got too restrictive. Alternatively, new presidential cycles with the opportunity to fix the issue one way or another?


That's the creepy thing with businesses doing what US ISPs have been doing for the last, oh, decade? They'll test out alternatives to find the sweet spot where they can get more money out of you for less service without pissing you off so much that you leave.

Some 15-20 years ago, I was on dialup/ISDN, my family paying per minute for Internet connection. My US friends at the time almost universally were on flatrate Internet plans, significantly cheaper than the sometimes pretty terrifying bills my family could run up.

Now I have a fiber connection, some 20+ providers available to me, and can get an order of magnitude more bandwidth, for less money, than people I know in eg the Boston area in the US. That tells me two things:
1. Internet connectivity doesn't need to be as expensive as it is in the US (pretty much all tech/electronics over there are like half the price, so it's not a matter of hardware costing more money)
2. Somewhere along the line, US ISPs actively made the decision to take a step backwards in development (by adding data caps where there were none)
If a country of 10 million people can support 20+ ISPs in my tiny-ass city, the US should be able to support more than 2-3 ISPs in a major metropolitan area (which to my understanding is a pretty common number to see even in urban areas).


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Apr 21, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Absolutely. I'm not convinced FA would be worth targeting specifically from the ISPs' point of view. Though I will note that it does have a pretty high Alexa ranking, so it's not entirely outside the real of possibility.



Fuck... So, since there is a chance, even if it's small, what would I do if I can't use FA anymore?


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Apr 21, 2018)

I just checked the Alexa rank for FA. 1427. That's pretty scary, tbh....


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Apr 21, 2018)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Fuck... So, since there is a chance, even if it's small, what would I do if I can't use FA anymore?


There's always a _chance _for anything. But when that chance is so marginally low it's almost non-existant


----------



## quoting_mungo (Apr 21, 2018)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Fuck... So, since there is a chance, even if it's small, what would I do if I can't use FA anymore?


Honestly, it's small enough that it falls under "cross that bridge when you get there". If there's more than one ISP in your area there's voting with your wallet, and while blocking VPNs is technically possible, it's unlikely that the ISP would keep up with VPN network changes if you saw fit to go that route.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Apr 21, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Honestly, it's small enough that it falls under "cross that bridge when you get there". If there's more than one ISP in your area there's voting with your wallet, and while blocking VPNs is technically possible, it's unlikely that the ISP would keep up with VPN network changes if you saw fit to go that route.


Voting with my wallet really isn't possible, since I only have two choices, Comcast Xfinity and Verizon, which both are assholes. I've been looking into a VPN, but I have no idea what I'm doing. Any leads?


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Apr 21, 2018)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Voting with my wallet really isn't possible, since I only have two choices, Comcast Xfinity and Verizon, which both are assholes. I've been looking into a VPN, but I have no idea what I'm doing. Any leads?


Depends on what you're trying to get out of your VPN


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Apr 21, 2018)

Do you all think that Discord could also be in trouble? It has an Alexa rating of 73...


----------



## Lucierda Solari (Apr 21, 2018)

What you fear the most cannot actually happen.

Whatever horrible moments you’re afraid of, they cannot match the way the situation is actually going to go down.


----------



## MidnightMoonTail (Apr 22, 2018)

Hey idk if this helps but they can't actually block websites just make them really slow to use so imagine fa on McDonald's WiFi and that's the worst that can happen


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Apr 22, 2018)

Ginza said:


> I just want to note that this isn’t because of “one man’s greed”. That’s not how laws work. Trump can’t just say “this is a law” and boom, it’s in. In fact, the bill was proposed by the FCC, not trump. For a law to actually be passed, it is an extremely tedious process that must pass through all branches of the government. Please just keep this in mind.


We have a system of checks and balances for a reason.  Obviously that failed.  It might be more hands at work than just two, but there’s only one puppet master.  And it ain’t Trump.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Apr 22, 2018)

MidnightMoonTail said:


> Hey idk if this helps but they can't actually block websites just make them really slow to use so imagine fa on McDonald's WiFi and that's the worst that can happen


Yeah there would be a lot more hell raised if they were talking about actually blocking anything.  They’re just trying to get people to spend more money so you’re not waiting 20 minutes for one porn comic page to load :V 

But in all seriousness that’s not a concern.  Just slow as Christmas


----------



## Dragoneer (Apr 23, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I don't think the ISPs even know what FA is. They'll be more concerned about throttling bandwidth in general, and for popular websites like Youtube, Netflix, etc.


You never know. FA sn't exactly a small site in the global scheme of things. =P Actually, we're in the top 1% of millions of sites that Alexa tracks






But I don't foresee website/domain blocking. I see ISPs going for data caps. It's much more profitable to install caps and then charge for overages than blocking sites, and companies like Comcast and Time Warner have been testing data caps for quiet some time now. 

money.cnn.com: Comcast increases its data cap to 1,000 GB

Comcast's caps are 1TB. I downloaded two movies earlier, one was 6TB and another was 7GB. So they're pretty generous, but you could expect them to come out with cheaper internet packages and smaller caps... which will rely on customers using more data and paying higher fees. That's the most likely scenario.


----------



## Hilin1995 (Apr 24, 2018)

Yes it does work to me, i havent got any issues with that!  Btw can someone recommend a tire site for my car? Desirable where it could also be a size classifier! I found something here but I would like to see another one too! TireReviews.co » Tire Reviews


----------



## Simo (Apr 24, 2018)

When I take the train to work, sometimes my phone will switch and want to log onto Amtrak Connect, and then, I get a 'site can not be reached' error for FAF, before I switch the phone back, to my own network...and so, I've wondered, if Amtrak blocks certain sites? Just an odd observation, on a sort of tangent, here.


----------



## Dragoneer (Apr 24, 2018)

Simo said:


> When I take the train to work, sometimes my phone will switch and want to log onto Amtrak Connect, and then, I get a 'site can not be reached' error for FAF, before I switch the phone back, to my own network...and so, I've wondered, if Amtrak blocks certain sites? Just an odd observation, on a sort of tangent, here.


Corporate networks often employ blocking -- but those are on public wifi system, not private home connections. What they choose to block (and why) is sometimes a mystery. FA? Blocked for "porn" despite a majority of our content being SFW. Twitter? Whitelist, despite allowing REAL pornographic content.

So the logic some companies employ doesn't always make sense.


----------



## Simo (Apr 24, 2018)

Dragoneer said:


> Corporate networks often employ blocking -- but those are on public wifi system, not private home connections. What they choose to block (and why) is sometimes a mystery. FA? Blocked for "porn" despite a majority of our content being SFW. Twitter? Whitelist, despite allowing REAL pornographic content.
> 
> So the logic some companies employ doesn't always make sense.



It is very arbitrary, as you say! On a positive note, the University of Maryland doesn't (and from what I have heard is not allowed to) block any sites, unless they are deemed illegal, under the idea of protecting access to free speech, so that is a plus, working there : P Also, one never knows when somebody might be actually researching various aspects of human behavior : )


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Apr 27, 2018)

I think you may be blowing this a bit out of porportion.


----------



## RailRide (Jun 18, 2018)

Simo said:


> When I take the train to work, sometimes my phone will switch and want to log onto Amtrak Connect, and then, I get a 'site can not be reached' error for FAF, before I switch the phone back, to my own network...and so, I've wondered, if Amtrak blocks certain sites? Just an odd observation, on a sort of tangent, here.



Yes, AmtrakConnect employs content filters. I don't know for certain that they pick and choose which sites to block, but probably subscribe to a third-party content filter provider.

---PCJ


----------

