Slashdot Mirror
Shunting the FCC To the Slow Lane
An anonymous reader writes "Following the FCC's proposal a couple weeks ago to allow an internet fast lane, a group of activists has come up with a fun counterproposal: force the FCC itself into the slow lane and see how they like it. They write, 'Since the FCC seems to have no problem with this idea, I've (through correspondence) gotten access to the FCC's internal IP block, and throttled all connections from the FCC to 28.8kbps modem speeds on the Neocities.org front site, and I'm not removing it until the FCC pays us for the bandwidth they've been wasting instead of doing their jobs protecting us from the "keep America's internet slow and expensive forever" lobby.' The group has published the code snippet that throttles FCC IP addresses, and they encourage other web admins to implement it."
I love it. :D
Do this for all goverment ip adresses
This will only have its intended effect if adopted by all porn sites.
So now you know what porn is good for.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Who the heck is that?
IOW: Some group nobody has heard of, throttled the FCCs connection speed to a site they'll never visit.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Slashdot needs to do the same!
Make them use those old telegraph wires for calls too!!!
I think CloudFlare and some of the other big CDN's would need to add this as an optional feature before it got big enough to matter. I just don't see Google adopting this.
Wikipedia OTOH....
Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
Maybe something will actually get done about the issue.
I love this idea. It's a great demonstration. Unfortunately, I can see the police getting involved but what are they going to do, pull a gun on you and tell you to change it?
I never knew nginx had a "limit_rate" config command. Finally learned something useful on Slashdot! :-)
Head voices. Surprisingly common. Lots of functional people with head voices.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Now if google, netflix, and a few other big players would also implement this, I think we'd see some real entertainment.
"Holy crap" comment from me.
Jeebus.
That's amazing.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
I expect that The Government will brand such actions as "domestic Internet terrorism". Off to Gitmo!
If ip in set(FCC) {
... speed = slow
... permanently overprint "Welcome to your new, non-neutral, net"
}
else {
... for 10 seconds overprint "We're slowing the FCC, you should too"
... speed = fast
}
davecb@spamcop.net
The one that challenges the Republican views that:money is speech, and since the rich have more money they should get to decide what speech I should listen to.
As pointless as a pencil after stabbing a belt sander.
The only thing that's going to make these bastards stop is hitting them in the money, or hitting them. Period.
Outside of that, they don't give a fuck.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Remember the SOPA/PIPA protests - Google actually participated in that one.
I could see someone like NYtimes, Washington Post, CNN.com or other media sites briefly doing this kind of stunt. Grandpa wouldn't be affected, unless he visited their sites from FCC HQ.
This is absolutely brilliant! It would be even cooler if this could be done surreptitiously to FCC public servers.
The one that challenges the Republican views that:money is speech, and since the rich have more money they should get to decide what speech I should listen to.
As opposed to the Dems who decide that since they have money, the white house, and media they get to decide what speech I should listen to?
I don't think the goal is to only throttle the one site, but to start a movement where websites all over the internet, including ones that those on the FCC do frequent, all do this.. so that they feel the effect.
Really? Dealing with some geniuses here.
The one that challenges the Republican views that:money is speech, and since the rich have more money they should get to decide what speech I should listen to.
You think the view is exclusive to Republicans? Then you either don't pay enough attention, or you need your head examined.
Remember during the sequester, the Democrat President shut down public access to the White House, but sold access to "donors" at half-a-million a pop.
Not to mention, >8 of the 10 richest Congressional districts are represented by Democrats, not to mention the fact that7 of the 10 richest Congresscritters are also Democrats.
With apologies to Charles Baudelaire - "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that Republicans are the party of the rich."
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Yeah, it's hard to find good Republican biased news these days. Haven't heard a thing about Benghazi or the IRS scandal or how much Obama hates America in at least 3 seconds. FUcking dems.
The FCC appears to have quite a large allocation there. One of those blocks give them 2^16 addresses.
Eh. I have to say, yes, the Ds are just as bought as the Rs. But lets get back on track here... There's a perception that the media is biased towards liberals. Ok, and I stretch to call the Ds liberals. But really. Benghazi. Over and Over and Over. Four people lost their lives, it was a tragedy, and it was a mistake... but it's NOT the story it's made out to be. The media is all in when we're talking about Benghazi though, and where's the real reporting instead of just parroting talking points?
Where were the congressional hearings when we started a war in Iraq on faulty intelligence? Four people lost their lives? Try thousands of our troops and hundreds of thousands of civilians. Where's the outcry in the media?
Our media is NOT liberal. They are corporate conglomerates, who parrot what they are told.
Snowden? Benghazi? Troops coming home in caskets? Oil spills? mines collapsing? Our media are tools, and they say what they're told to say. Liberal bias my ass. They have a corporate bias.
Look, this is /. I know a few of you work at ISPs that work on Tier1/2 networks. I say take this to the hole.
put these rules where they belong, on routers in the center of the internet. make some for Time Warner too, because its their idiot lacky who made them(tom wheeler).
At least a few of you have to work for the internet in some capacity.
you must be watching MSNBC or CNN if you havent heard about those things....
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I'm going to use your simile as my #2 rule on posting to /.
throttle the family of fcc top dogs. that'll get them to change their tune real fast.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
The whole Red vs Blue thing is missing the boat completely. You can bitch about Republicans all you want, but the problem is the Rich vs. Poor and both deomocons and republicrats are pandering to the wealthy. The only real difference I see is that Republicans are a touch racist on top of everything else. Doesn't matter what side of the ticket you punch in November, we are living in a plutocracy.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
...waiting for the 'Good Germans' line so we can just Goodwin this tread and all go home...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Now I have to figure out a way to do this in IPTables. :-D
This smells of an advertising campaign. I've never heard of the site and I bet FCC hasn't either.
Free advertising.
Pure brilliance I love it. Never occurred to me .. even if it only has sentimental effect.
We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!
exactly how many websites do you believe the FCC needs to access to do their job (not for leisure) that would implement this?
The one that challenges the Republican views that:money is speech, and since the rich have more money they should get to decide what speech I should listen to.
You think the view is exclusive to Republicans? Then you either don't pay enough attention, or you need your head examined.
Remember during the sequester, the Democrat President shut down public access to the White House, but sold access to "donors" at half-a-million a pop.
Not to mention, >8 of the 10 richest Congressional districts are represented by Democrats, not to mention the fact that7 of the 10 richest Congresscritters are also Democrats.
With apologies to Charles Baudelaire - "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that Republicans are the party of the rich."
What does it matter? Both parties serve the corporations.
Be seeing you...
With apologies to Charles Baudelaire - "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that Democrats are a party of lazy leaches."
The one that challenges the Republican views that:money is speech, and since the rich have more money they should get to decide what speech I should listen to.
Republican view? I'm confused.
Obama, a Democrat, said, “I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over”.
Obama, a Democrat, appointed Tom Wheeler, former cable & wireless lobbyist, to chair the FCC.
A democrat controlled Senate confirmed Tom Wheeler as the FCC chairman.
Tom Wheeler proposes the fast lane.
If you're going to spew partisan demagoguery, at least post it on a story it applies to.
What does it matter? Both parties serve the corporations.
True, but it matters because not everyone knows or believes that; even here on Slashdot, there's a fair amount of folks living in denial, who insist that one half of the One Party is somehow less evil/avaricious/etc than the other, by virtue of what members of that half have said. Thus, I feel it's important to point out when their actions counter their words, so maybe a fraction of the delusional who read this will realize their mistake, and stop making it.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I fail to see the relevance of that comment, care to expound?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Exactly one, as long as it's the one that someone important over there surfs.
This assumes that those in the FCC know how to use the internet.
What does it matter? Both parties serve the corporations.
They serve different corporations, and that is why they fight against each other. Republicans are oil and military. Democrats are internet and entertainment. Of course there is overlap, but if I had to choose, Republican would lose every time.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Exactly! I expect someone at NeoCities to die very soon. The Republicans kill for money just as they kill for food. They are horrific people that murder constantly. My Republican father-in-law makes sure something or someone dies for every meal he eats. He will not eat a meal unless an animal dies. They are disgusting.
and just force the FCC to beta.slashdot.org. Do it for an open internet.
Please, PLEASE do the same to the EPA. If you read the recent news, one of the staff who just got a bonus was spending most of his taxpayer-funded work hours downloading p0rn. This is a wonderful solution to that problem.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
https://mayone.us/
People just don't want to hear what they don't want to hear.
So far I've talked to two very close friends and one wife who both argued against believing Obama is 100% responsible for this. Then when the evidence presented was too much they shrugged and said "better than the other guys".
Not when it comes to privacy, security, freedom of the press, freedom of internet, lobbying, taxes, or really anything I can think of except for a health plan that, as a Massachusetts resident, I already had (Thanks to a Republican governor no less). And then these people tell me I throw away my vote when I vote for a third party. Unbelievable.
No, no... it's bitch. The Republicans are the party of the bitch. It's all they do, except whine, moan and advocate for more tax breaks for the rich, under the guise that greater concentrated wealth somehow incentivizes buzzillionaires to create more jobs rather than investing in efficiency, which by its very definition, results in the need for fewer employees per unit output.
I am a bit confused. Didn't net neutrality get shot down in the courts? Isn't this the FCC reacting to that decision? Shouldn't the pressure be on lawmakers?
Did you hear that sound, ganjadude? It was AC's joke going right over your thick skull...
bork bork bork!
Don't hate the fact that we are capitalists! The point of which is to take every last dollar you have while giving as little in return as possible! Now that government is also more involved in playing the for profit game than ever, just makes us more capitalist. It's a good thing to have laws and people with guns force you to do business with them; or else! Vehicle and health insurance government rent ( property TAX ) are only the beginning. Big-Data (spy corp), Big-Oil, Big-Agra, Big-MegaCorp, Too-Big-To-Fail-Bank, Big-GOVT and so on... All great things! We are blessed to have such an insanely doomed future in store! Figting it only slows the eventual end game; global revolution via 7 thousand million really pissed-off people will be the outcome though... That will be a fairly bad day to be an elite member of the planet, but like I said there's no explaining it to the powers that be, their much too smart and prepared for that, history is an MFer...
What does it matter? Both parties serve the corporations.
They serve different corporations, and that is why they fight against each other. Republicans are oil and military. Democrats are internet and entertainment. Of course there is overlap, but if I had to choose, Republican would lose every time.
Hmm... so Republicans = the rich who control the physical, and Democrats = the rich who control the ephemeral.
Actually, looking at it that way, giving Democrats absolute control seems more scary; if you're with the Republicans, they'll back you up, but if you're with the Dems, they'll just change your mind.
That's about the only benefit to the two-party system, that those two power bases have to spend time combatting each other for power so they can't fully bring it to bear on their userbase.
How are the Green party and the Pirate party doing in the US? Have they tried kickstarter campaigns like LL?
Let's let TOM speak shall we:
"I'm having great conversations on this site with one of my alias accounts" - by Tom (822) on Monday April 07, 2014 @02:29PM (#46686259) Homepage
FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
APK
P.S.=> Tom *tried* to libel me & failed after I destroyed him in a technical debate on hosts files... result?
Tom ended up "eating his words" here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... spiced with "the bitter taste of SELF-defeat" + HIS FOOT IN HIS MOUTH
... apk
But you do throw away your vote when you vote for a third party, especially in the presidential election. Of course, you almost certainly are throwing away your vote no matter what, unless you live in a swing county.
You missed the part where the House Republicans voted to end net neutrality years ago, only to be stopped by the Senate Democrats.
You also missed the part where Obama implemented a limited net neutrality via executive order, only to have that struck down by the courts, following a lawsuit by Verizon.
You also missed the part where Republicans cheered the court's ruling, declaring that net neutrality is "socialism".
Look here, or just google "obama net neutrality court" for a dozen other sources.
Here's the lede, in case you're too lazy to click:
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down regulations that require Internet providers to treat all traffic the same, dealing a potentially fatal blow to President Obama’s push for “net neutrality.”
Opponents of the rules, led by plaintiff Verizon, hailed the decision from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals as a victory over government meddling in the marketplace.
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), one of the biggest opponents of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules in Congress, applauded the court for striking down “socialistic regulations.”
Do you get it yet? The Democrats have been fighting for years to try to keep net neutrality around. The Republicans have fought to destroy it. The Republicans won, because the courts were on their side. And now you blame ...the Democrats.
This is why things will never get better. This is why you will lose everything, bit by bit. Because you don't pay attention, and you lash out at the same people who tried to fight for you. Really, you deserve to lose.
Please let me know if I'm wrong, as it's certainly possible. What the proposal allows for is that say Netflix, or Youtube, or any other content provider that would utilize a lot of bandwidth, would be allowed to purchase direct physical lines to individual large ISPs for that ISP's customers instead of sending data over the Internet backbone. The end result would be a faster connection for that provider and those end users, for ultimately less cost.
So what we're dealing with here is a content provider that adds extra bandwidth to the Internet (albeit for a specific purpose), and pays for it, for the intended purpose of saving money for all parties involved while improving the end customer experience. Can someone please tell me why this is a problem? Or am I reading it incorrectly?
I do agree that from a technical point of view, the provider is purchasing a higher tier connection from the ISP for an improvement in throughput, but this in no way impacts any other service. I can envision the standard net neutrality argument that would allow an ISP to possibly extort a content provider, although I can't imagine why they would ever want to do so, considering peering agreements favor the consumer of data. Even so, tweaking the rules to disallow the restriction of data would make more sense than forbidding a willing provider to selectively choose to improve the experience for a specific group of customers above and beyond what is currently possible through the Internet for the same cost.
Play with my webcams and lights here
The word "former" is clearly inaccurate.
"It's okay, I'm a former murderer!" *continues killing people*
How about you write to your Senators and Representatives? Even if they're Republican, they might listen.
How about we try to convince people to support some cause?
How about we don't listen to people who recommend nationalization of everything? (Regulation/breakup isn't the same as nationalization.)
Government bureaucracies already run about the same speed as a 300 baud dot matrix printer. They won't notice.
This is fundamentally the same as the web sites (there are many) where free access is throttled (or at least the downloads are) but if you buy a "Premier" (or equivalent term) membership you get unlimited download speed and volume. Of course, most of the ones I've seen charge much less than "Ferengi" prices, but then you're talking about real people vs. FCC staff (especially executives). Throttle on!
Where are the republicans calling for an amendment to overrule Citizens United? Where are the Rebublicans calling for net neutrality? Where do the Koch brothers spend their money?
I guess McCain probably doesn't think money is speech, but then he's a maverick in his own party, right?
Hate to be captain obvious, but it was a response to something about dems convincing people that repubs are the party of the rich, no? Two can play at that game, is the relevance.
This post says it better than I can, with plenty of evidence supplied. Repubs have fought net neutrality tooth and nail from day 1. Wheeler's just crying uncle at this point. Quitter.
While we're at it. A couple things you can do to help is sign the petition (yeah I know). https://petitions.whitehouse.g... And contract the FCC by calling 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) voice or 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322) TTY; faxing 1-866-413-0232; or writing to: Federal Communications Commission Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Division 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Let them know you want ISPs to be classified under Title II and that true Net Neutrality is important to you as a citizen.
Great idea, but I can't see it making much impact by single websites.
Who would be an entity sympathetic to this to do this for large scale effect? ISPs? A hosting company of significant size? Actual infrastructure?
Would bringing this forward really help?
-or just speed up the effect of net neutrality erosion?
Perhaps it's already in effect. Certainly you could become a millionaire off this by throttling a hedge funds connection. After you do that, the legal precedence response should hep fix the situation. If it doesn't, just enjoy your sangria in the sun... and send me some btc as an afterthought eh?
A blog I run for the wealth
Please give a few bucks to https://mayone.us
did you hear that mich?? that was my joke going right over you and the mods heads....
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I fail to see the relevance of your false claim of lack of relevance. Care to be relevant?
Are they arguing that they should be prohibited by law from doing this? If not, what's their point? If so, they are incredible douches.
Neither the GOP, Democrats, Tea Party are listening to the public.
As long as there is only two real choices during the general election (Red or Blue) this will persist.
The other countries with a pure district voting system without runoff elections are figuring out the importance of having a viable 3rd and 4th parties (UK and Canada). But since the USA think they know the answer to everything, they keep insisting on not learning from the other countries.
C'mon guys, you need to implement runoff elections, so that the USA could have at least 4 viable political parties (4,5 or 6 would be the sweet spot).
Plus, the electorade needs to stop voting for the guy with the most money and the most likable face, instead of finding out who he really is.
You should vote for the guy with less money, which means he's more inclined to listen to you instead of listening to big money (like this net neutrality issue).
Until you learn that it's not a GOP vs Dems battle. They are all utterly corrupt. It's about having a political party based on cheap campaign, so we are not tied to big money interests.
This post says it better than I can, with plenty of evidence supplied. Repubs have fought net neutrality tooth and nail from day 1.
So? That somehow justifies Obama's actions & lies, or Wheeler's obvious goals?
Wheeler's just crying uncle at this point. Quitter.
lol. He spends years as a lobbyist trying to get this kind of rule enacted, then takes a job that ostensibly should be opposed to it, and immediately "cries uncle" and gives in to his lobbying successor?
hahahahahahahhahahahahahaha. Is that the Eastern Ukranian's plan too? Are they going to defect and then immediately surrender?
Perhaps we could confuse them by running away more!
Hate to be captain obvious, but it was a response to something about dems convincing people that repubs are the party of the rich, no? Two can play at that game, is the relevance.
Ah, I see, the other poster misread my comment as some sort of dig at Democrats... I guess presuming that's what I meant by "devil?"
Not particularly - in fact, my point was that both parties are equally devilish, and this divisive, he-said-she-said, partisan rhetoric (like what I presume was his point in responding) does nothing positive for us regular folks.
Didn't mean to start a pissing contest among the extremists who can't see past their obsessive hatred of "the other guys."
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Where are the republicans calling for an amendment to overrule Citizens United? Where are the Rebublicans calling for net neutrality? Where do the Koch brothers spend their money?
Where are there any politicians actually doing any of those things? Well, the first two, anyway - I'd bet dollars against salmon that, were I to bother looking into it, I could find plenty of uber-wealthy people spending boo-koo bucks supporting Democrats (or rather, their corporate sponsors).
See, you've made the classic blunder of listening to what politicians say, rather than watching what they do.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
When I lived in the US mostly (60-80s) I would have thought that more than 2 parties would be chaos. Then I lived:
Holland: a gazillion parties, from greens, to commies to libertarians to pastafarians to white supremacists to religious conservatives to who knows what else. Absolutely fantastic! Love, love loved it, real republic with a complete spectrum of interests that battle it out in public. People switch sides, change sentiment, have a chance to talk about crazy ideas and think, think think.
China: one party. The trains run on time, and fast, and the focus is on giving the people what they want: toys toys toys for kids and adults. The government knows what you want, really they do: toys and more toys and cheap toys that break but then you can just get more, all supported by western economies.
Thailand: two parties. One party is the middle class beaurocrats, mostly in the capital city who want a strong middle class and are supported by the armed forces (and thereby America) and the King (and thereby, secretly, by some of the rich and powerful entrenched power and education elites). The other side is the poor, rural and uneducated people who fall for schemes like: "two cows in every backyard" and "$.50 per visit hospital charges" and other stupid public policy ploys to get votes from people who can't do math (and also supported by the remainder of the wealthy power elite who see the aged king as a power vacuum that they can exploit, as well as the police force and therefore the drug trade, casino and prostitution trades).
While I am sure that there are disfunctional examples of the multiparty model (Greece, Italy and others no doubt) the thing I saw and see is the importance of an informed electorate. It is easier to control the terms of the discourse if you control the information being debated in public forums. This is why we need an open internet and why the FCC ruling is so very important to our political discourse.
I came back to the US 3 years ago, and frankly, we are stupider than I thought possible. ALL the "news " programs are lame and single POV. From the far left to the far right there is no real room for intelligent discussion. It is probably NOT the number of parties, but that has supported a stupidification of our political discourse by making it more polar.
We need to choose a small number of very important issues, such as net neutrality and campaign finance reform. and focus on these. Anything that pulls us away from the core will just weaken our strength. I am not saying that we need to forget about the other issues, just that if we try to make a tidy package of them we will lose the war while busily winning useless, unfocused battles.
Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
I'm on the other side of the train. Brazilian, lived in the US for 7 years (93-01).
On one side, I wish we had USA problems, ours are far more complex and far more serious. We have over 20 parties, the main reason our system if screwed up (trying to be polite) is we don't have district voting. We have a proportional (per state for federal / state voting, per city for city voting). But on one side I'm sure happy we don't have just two parties.
But having just 2 parties is an invitation for those that are very powerful to be able to buy both sides.
It was meant more as a validation of your comment. Neither party's constituents are what the media (or other side) portrays them as. Many of the wealthiest, business owning Americans are Democrats. 8 of the 10 poorest counties in the US (the 'entitlements' voters) went to Romney. As a radical moderate, I find irony in either of the stereotypes.