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!
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.
Now if google, netflix, and a few other big players would also implement this, I think we'd see some real entertainment.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
Pure brilliance I love it. Never occurred to me .. even if it only has sentimental effect.
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...
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
Or be added to the list of domestic terrorist groups.
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
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.