Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

John Oliver Gets Fired Up Over Net Neutrality, Causes FCC's Site To Temporarily Crash (fortune.com)

Posted by msmash on from the go-fcc-yourself dept.

Three years ago, late night comedian John Oliver propelled an arcane telecom topic into the national debate by spurring millions of ordinary Americans to file comments with the Federal Communications Commission in favor of "net neutrality." Among other things, that effort caused the FCC website to crash, which couldn't handle the "overwhelming" traffic. Now Oliver is back at it, and he is already causing the site some troubles. From a report on Fortune: On Sunday night, Oliver devoted a chunk of his Last Week Tonight show to condemning a plan by the FCC's new Chairman, Ajit Pai, to tear up current net neutrality rules, which forbid Internet providers from delivering some websites faster than others. In the clip, Oliver urges viewers to visit a website called "GoFCCYourself," which redirects users to a section of the FCC site where people can comment on the net neutrality proceeding, known as "Restoring Internet Freedom" in Pai's parlance. Viewers took up Oliver's offer in spades -- so much so that the FCC's servers appeared to be overwhelmed by the flood of traffic. The comment page is currently loading with delays and, according to reports from several outlets, the site went down altogether for a while. On Monday, Ashley Boyd, VP of Advocacy for Mozilla, also published a blog post to remind people that the next 10 days are critical for the internet's future. Much like Oliver, Mozilla is also making it easier for people to voice their opinion. The post adds: Add your name to our letter, and we'll deliver your message straight to the FCC. You can also record an impassioned voicemail using Mozilla's call tool. So far, Internet users have recorded more than 50 hours of audio for the FCC's ears.

153 comments

  1. Trump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Take this #fakenews off the page. Businesses can regulate themselves. Trump knows businesses and what's best for America. I'll take his alternative facts over this immagrants any day.

    1. Re: Trump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Immagrant! I hate them as well. That's why my text editor underlines the word!

    2. Re: Trump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you hate them because they spell better than you?

    3. Re:Trump! by beelsebob · · Score: 2

      If Trump doesn't want a select few organizations to have control over the message that gets out to people, and in doing so have huge political sway, perhaps he should consider whether a law guaranteeing that all messages have equal priority over an internet connection...

      Lack of net neutrality is exactly what gets you Comcast, Verizon and AT&T carefully controlling what news people see.

    4. Re: Trump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooosh.

    5. Re: Trump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      u misspelled that

    6. Re:Trump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "fake news"
      FTFY.

    7. Re: Trump! by samwichse · · Score: 1

      Whoosh

  2. Obama's "net neutrality" was a lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Let's ignore the whole part where it wasn't "net neutrality" to start with, it was a payoff to a certain large corporation that funded Hilary's campaign, but didn't give us anything close to real net neutrality.

  3. Where do you even comment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I clicked that link, clicked around the page, can't find anywhere to comment.

    1. Re:Where do you even comment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      You can comment down the crack of Trump's ass. Exactly where you belong.

      #MAGA

    2. Re:Where do you even comment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The site is down

    3. Re:Where do you even comment? by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      Try the 'File a Public Comment' link, bottom right.

    4. Re:Where do you even comment? by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

      Go here: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/searc...

      Click this: "+ Express"

  4. Live by the FCC - die by the FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is what you get when you DICTATE legislation and policy through regulatory bodies like this -If you politicize the bodies to get your way don't be surprised when another side gets in and changes the rules to the politics they want.

    1. Re:Live by the FCC - die by the FCC by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      The FCC is part of the executive branch of government what you call the administration, so you are blaming the administration of being political?

      I have heard the Pope might be catholic too, maybe that would also be a worthy cause for you?

    2. Re:Live by the FCC - die by the FCC by guises · · Score: 1

      What are you trying to get at here? (Also, why is dictate in all caps?) Are you trying to suggest that congress should be able to determine regulatory policy? And you think that this would be less politicized? ... There was a time when this would have been a rhetorical question, I would have followed it up with something like, "Of course you don't think that, no one is that stupid." ... ::sigh::

      Congress already dictates regulatory policy. The FCC and other such bodies only have what powers congress gives them, and they can be overruled by congress at any time. I.e.: congress can DICTATE (?) policy to the regulatory body and that body must follow it, congress can assume control whenever they wish. The point of having these agencies is simply a matter of delegation.

  5. Comedians are running the country now? by tomhath · · Score: 2

    I suppose some would say it's been that way for a long time.

    1. Re:Comedians are running the country now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wrong. Corporations run the country. Comedians just work for them.

    2. Re:Comedians are running the country now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well you've elected him...

    3. Re:Comedians are running the country now? by edx93 · · Score: 0, Troll

      This is scary considering how wrong or incredibly misleading (read: biased) he has been on issues I'm more familiar with. I'll go ahead and assume the same level of bias on other topics as well. The fact that people (millenials?) gobble up his crap without second thought is mindboggling (FWIW, I am NOT a republican)

    4. Re:Comedians are running the country now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They could hardly do worse work than the politicians.

      and there would be the benefit that comedians would at least be funny occasionally when being ignorant, the politicians just seem to be able to project the image of energetic stupidity.

    5. Re:Comedians are running the country now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is scary considering how wrong or incredibly misleading (read: biased) he has been on issues I'm more familiar with. I'll go ahead and assume the same level of bias on other topics as well. The fact that people (millenials?) gobble up his crap without second thought is mindboggling (FWIW, I am NOT a republican)

      Such as? Yes, we get it, you're not Republican, you're Alt-Right. Have any non-alternative facts to back up your assertion?

    6. Re:Comedians are running the country now? by edx93 · · Score: -1, Troll

      It's been quite some time since I last listened to what he had to say so spoonfeeding you the evidence would require that I go back and listen to all his crap again (which, quite frankly, I won't bother since I have way bigger fish to fry right now). That being said, if you're that defensive over mere assertions of bias then i fear there's nothing anybody could ever show you that would sway your opinion.

      p.s. I'm Independent. Nice try though.

      This is scary considering how wrong or incredibly misleading (read: biased) he has been on issues I'm more familiar with. I'll go ahead and assume the same level of bias on other topics as well. The fact that people (millenials?) gobble up his crap without second thought is mindboggling (FWIW, I am NOT a republican)

      Such as? Yes, we get it, you're not Republican, you're Alt-Right. Have any non-alternative facts to back up your assertion?

    7. Re:Comedians are running the country now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you admit you don't listen to him but you're convinced he has nothing of value to say. That's called confirmation bias.

    8. Re:Comedians are running the country now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More or less scary than the fox and friends/POTUS feedback loop?

    9. Re:Comedians are running the country now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Clearly, edx93 is fucking idiot and slanders Oliver with no evidence. In contrast, John Oliver is very thorough in his citations/evidence when discussing a topic. Who is one to believe is more correct?

    10. Re:Comedians are running the country now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He recorded a 20-minute video about the subject with evidence and references ... you just posted a vague accusation of perceived bias... who to believe?

    11. Re:Comedians are running the country now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it's been a while since I've watched him, but I remember he had bullshit anti-Brexit views despite having left the country and being on a US show, I remember he's one of those lunatics that thinks gender is a "spectrum," I remember he did the whole "make Donald Drumpf again" in some sort of effort to influence the election. Generally his show is all about SJW topics except when he decides to talk about net neutrality. He's not worth listening to and it's unclear why HBO hasn't canceled the show yet unless you assume that, being ad-free, they don't care about ratings. Once Game of Thrones comes to an end and people start mass canceling HBO subscriptions, except his show to be one of the first to get the axe.

    12. Re:Comedians are running the country now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, no examples then.

    13. Re:Comedians are running the country now? by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      BINGO! Everyone I got Bingo!

      Appeal To Authority
      Extraordinary claim without evidence
      Assuming everyone else is biased other than thyself.
      Refusing to provide evidence when asked claiming he didn't have time to finish a conversation he started.
      Managing to get some people with the same political alignment as yourself to mod you up.
      Claiming you're actually independent in the end.

      It's like a perfect shit-posting bingo.

    14. Re:Comedians are running the country now? by D00MSlayer · · Score: 2

      Considering the number of Emmy's they just won, along with a bunch other awards, it doesn't appear like his show is going anywhere anytime soon.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      You're just butthurt that John Oliver is damn good at shedding light on serious and sometimes controversial topics.

    15. Re:Comedians are running the country now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You made the claim and have nothing to back it up. You can't even come up with an issue that you found his coverage of to be misleading. Not one anecdote or data point. Nothing. Nobody is asking for a dissertation, just some sign that you're not full of it. And you choose to go straight to "you won't even listen to what I have to say, so I'm just going to stop at completely unsubstantiated assertions and declare moral superiority." We've heard that one all too often from people who deal in nothing but lies. If you don't want to be lumped in with them, stop acting exactly like them.

    16. Re:Comedians are running the country now? by BioNTechKid · · Score: 2

      You need to rearrange that to spell 'MERCA

      Managing to get some people with the same political alignment as yourself to mod you up.
      Extraordinary claim without evidence
      Refusing to provide evidence when asked claiming he didn't have time to finish a conversation he started
      Claiming you're actually independent in the end.
      Assuming everyone else is biased other than thyself.

      There, fixed it for you.

    17. Re:Comedians are running the country now? by WheezyJoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wrong. Corporations run the country. Comedians just work for them.

      This comedian was simply suggesting people exercise their right to comment before rules go into force. You know, democracy, rulemaking. Look it up.

      It's actually quite good, just nobody knows about it, except lawyers and lobbyists, I suppose because either people sleep through their high-school civics class, or your state doesn't bother even having a civics class in the curriculum because, you know, wasteful government spending teaching kids their rights as citizens and how to participate in their government. How do most kids even know they have a right to an attorney if arrested? Saw it on TV somewhere.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    18. Re:Comedians are running the country now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Well, it's been a while since I've watched him, but I remember he had bullshit anti-Brexit views despite having left the country and being on a US show, I remember he's one of those lunatics that thinks gender is a "spectrum," I remember he did the whole "make Donald Drumpf again" in some sort of effort to influence the election. Generally his show is all about SJW topics except when he decides to talk about net neutrality.

      He's had three seasons, and something like 40+ episodes. You're going to need to be more specific about 'is all about SJW topics'.

    19. Re:Comedians are running the country now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither.

    20. Re:Comedians are running the country now? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      You forgot "Appeal to authority" - you can get AMERCA.

    21. Re:Comedians are running the country now? by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      This is Slashdot, even if by your own admission you are not very familiar with the issues of net neutrality, most other people here are. John Oliver is right on this topic.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    22. Re:Comedians are running the country now? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      You're also a top-poster, which demonstrates that you're also independent of the ability to think. You are completely illogical. You are stupid and ignorant, and indeed too stupid and ignorant to realize that you are.

    23. Re:Comedians are running the country now? by erapert · · Score: 1

      Why are you annoyed at edx93 instead of the AC he responded to?
      That's like being angry because someone shot someone else... and ignoring the part where that someone else assaulted the person who shot them.
      Be angry at the instigator. Why does it matter how imperfect the defender is?

    24. Re:Comedians are running the country now? by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      Why are you annoyed at edx93 instead of the AC he responded to? ... Be angry at the instigator. Why does it matter how imperfect the defender is?

      Too bad edx93 was the instigator. Perhaps you forgot to click "parent" that one last time.

    25. Re:Comedians are running the country now? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Because I have a low tolerance to bullshit. I have an even lower tolerance to someone who's unable to follow a conversation but insists on commenting anyway, so now I'm angry at you too. It's 7:30am. Thanks for ruining the morning.

  6. maybe he needs to look in a mirror? by known_coward_69 · · Score: 0, Troll

    he works for HBO that pays ISP's to host their content for better performance than the little guy. and he puts his content up on youtube which has dark fiber across the world and direct links to every ISP on the planet to deliver their content

    but yeah, he's fighting for the little guy. just like bill o'reilly

    1. Re:maybe he needs to look in a mirror? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah you are right, highlighting net neutrality issues will finally put this all traffic is equal crap away for good! Well done Oliver! Much better than hiding it away as "restoring internet freedom" so we might miss this excellent change by Pai.

    2. Re:maybe he needs to look in a mirror? by Shatrat · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm not sure you understand how the Internet works. I'll explain it to you, in case you want to learn. I'm an optimist.

      Caches are a symbiotic relationship between the content provider and the ISP. By streaming high-demand content more locally the load on the ISPs Internet Drains and Peering Links is dramatically reduced. Drains are typical billed per byte, so having 10s of thousands of customers each streaming the latest GoT episode can get expensive. Peering is not billed, but it still requires a serious investment in transport from the ISPs residential users back to the nearest IXP like 350 Cermak in Chicago or 56 Marietta in Dallas. Caching moves that high demand content out to the local offices so the episode only has to be downloaded once across the transport. Google does it, Netflix does it, and any ISP that isn't trying to push their own video offering embraces these caches because it reduces the load on their network without them having to invest in more transport. Anyone can do this, even the little guy by going through a 3rd party such as Akamai which sells this functionality as a service. The content isn't prioritized across the actual access network. It's not given higher CoS or dedicated infrastructure. It's just moved closer to save money and improve customer experience.

      Youtube doesn't own dark fiber. Google does own dark fiber, although it's not dark because they're actually using it. This is because Google's volume of traffic is so high that it's cost effective for them to build their own transport network. This doesn't link to every ISP in the planet, it only links to major IXPs and NAPs. ISPs also come to these locations to peer and buy transit.
      I can also put content up on Youtube. I'm not sure what you think this has to do with anything.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    3. Re:maybe he needs to look in a mirror? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like someone's jealous a comedian on HBO can still Slashdot a website long after Slashdot itself stopped being able to. Low energy. Sad!

    4. Re:maybe he needs to look in a mirror? by GeLeTo · · Score: 1

      And how is this different from hosting your content on a CDN? You know - a widely and competitively available service from multiple providers. NOT serving every bit of information from a single place, often halfway across the globe is IMO how the internet should work.

    5. Re:maybe he needs to look in a mirror? by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      56 Marietta is in Atlanta. 1950 Stemmons is in Dallas. On my first pot of coffee.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    6. Re:maybe he needs to look in a mirror? by ArhcAngel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google does it, Netflix does it, and any ISP that isn't trying to push their own video offering embraces these caches because it reduces the load on their network without them having to invest in more transport.

      And this is where the problem lies. Netflix offered to host their "cache" called a Content Delivery Network (CDN) on Comcast's network which would benefit both companies as far as bandwidth was concerned. Comcast refused to let them unless they paid Comcast to put their equipment on Comcast's network. Comcast was also throttling Netflix traffic on their network. Why? Comcast On Demand. Once Netflix paid the ransom traffic suddenly normalized. An ISP should not be allowed to also offer content or internet service should be regulated. This doesn't fall under free market because Comcast is using government granted right of ways for its cabling that smaller ISPs do not have.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    7. Re:maybe he needs to look in a mirror? by halivar · · Score: 1

      This doesn't fall under free market because Comcast is using government granted right of ways for its cabling that smaller ISPs do not have.

      And this is why I don't support net neutrality. It's fixing the wrong problem.

    8. Re:maybe he needs to look in a mirror? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're a fucking moron.

    9. Re:maybe he needs to look in a mirror? by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      That's like saying you're not in favor of seat belts because we need more guardrails.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    10. Re:maybe he needs to look in a mirror? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would agree if the seat belts required that every car on the highway drive at the exact same speed, regardless of if it's an emergency vehicle or a broken-down Ford Pinto. Net Neutrality in it's current form restricts a lot of things that are truly beneficial so that everything can equal. I think we need NN, but in a different form.

    11. Re:maybe he needs to look in a mirror? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To elaborate, in my last example the problem NN is trying to fix is like some vehicles being restricted from using the passing lane unless they pay extra, but it fixes this by saying everyone must use every lane equally, down to the point where EMS and broken down vehicles must run at the same speed as everyone else, and no passing allowed. Sure, you shouldn't be able to pay for privleged access, but does that mean that DNS, VoIP, and bit torrent should be at the same priority?

    12. Re: maybe he needs to look in a mirror? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the stupidest thing I've read today.

      You are just entirely wrong.

    13. Re:maybe he needs to look in a mirror? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is why I don't support net neutrality. It's fixing the wrong problem.

      Well, way to fail at history. Telephones, utilities, even railroads have taught us that any industry that relies on laying out infrastructure over large geographical areas and requiring right-of-way easements is going to tend towards a monopoly. There may be some local competition in high-value markets (dense populations of high-income households), but less than 25% of households have a choice of provider for 25 Mbs or better broadband. That's not going to be fixed without heavy subsidies for alternate providers.

  7. TV comedians now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Next up on Slashdot: Kim Kardashian offers her wisdom on cyber security. If Hollywood douchebags are on your side, maybe you should reconsider your positions.

    1. Re:TV comedians now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Lol little triggered special trump snowflake voter detected! You mad that a comedian is going against your little dumbass dictator in chief huh??

    2. Re:TV comedians now? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1, Troll

      Next up on Slashdot: Kim Kardashian offers her wisdom on cyber security. If Hollywood douchebags are on your side, maybe you should reconsider your positions.

      Yes, all actors are vapid simpletons, incapable of cogent thought:
      For example: Dolph Lundgren:

      Lundgren received a degree in chemical engineering from the Royal Institute of Technology in the early 1980s and a master's degree in chemical engineering from the University of Sydney in 1982.

      Lundgren was awarded a Fulbright Scholarship to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1983.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:TV comedians now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wanna know something that all serial killers have in common? They all breathe Oxygen.

      If serial killers breathe Oxygen, maybe you should reconsider what you breathe. I suggest H2O.

    4. Re:TV comedians now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ricky Gervais has a degree in Philosophy. Which means he could probably recognise a strawman argument if he saw one.

      GP never claimed "all actors", you dimbulb.

    5. Re:TV comedians now? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      On top of that, Cum Cardassian is totally *not* an actor.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:TV comedians now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Kim Kardashian is not an "actor".
      2. Not all Hollywood types are lumped in "Hollywood douchbags". I would say Lundgren is not a douchbag.
      3. Profit?

      Disregarding some of the bad points of all previous arguments I do agree that you shouldn't be given power just because you are famous. Sadly, the public doesn't agree with me.

    7. Re:TV comedians now? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      The GP probably likes serial killers, so that's not going to sway him. Tell him that Leftists also breathe oxygen. Now we're getting somewhere.

    8. Re:TV comedians now? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      And moderators that don't understand sarcasm, mod posts troll - frelling /. (sigh)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  8. Trump's FCC pick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    will use the outages as an example for why preferential channels are needed. >_>

  9. Trump's FCC pick.... by spiritplumber · · Score: 1

    ....will use the outages as an example for why preferential channels are needed. >_>

    --
    Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
    1. Re:Trump's FCC pick.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posted the first one as AC, eh?

    2. Re:Trump's FCC pick.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anything can be spun to fit a narrative. An outage could be used as an argument for either side if worded right.

  10. Slashdoted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I really missed this. It's so difficult to find a decent BADLY DEPLOYED site these days...
    Yay!

  11. I mean, come on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's $CURRENT_YEAR and politicians still do things I don't like!

    1. Re:I mean, come on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and STILL you go on breathing, taking air from those of us that will do something useful for society with it.

  12. Update: The redirect page has been blanked by spiritplumber · · Score: 4, Informative

    You now have to go to https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-... instead.

    --
    Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
    1. Re:Update: The redirect page has been blanked by martinfb · · Score: 1

      http://gofccyourself.com/ works fine for me!

      Perhaps your browser needs refreshing; or you were there at a busy time.

      --


      Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  13. And now Slashdot ... by BenBoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nothing, I suppose, compared to the Slashdotting to come ...

    1. Re:And now Slashdot ... by brianerst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We've long since passed the age where Slashdot had any significant effect on web traffic.

    2. Re:And now Slashdot ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've long since passed the age where Slashdot had any significant effect on web traffic.

      Ooohhh cheap shot at all the rightwing bot-nets that make 90% of the comments. Don't poke the beast!

  14. It's alright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Once the bill passes they can pay internet providers to throttle traffic to the site to prevent future crashes.

  15. Write you Congresman by franblets · · Score: 1

    It is useless to crash the FCC site... The judges have refused to hear further arguments. Now all that will help is to crash the congressional email servers.

  16. The title almost stopped my heart. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    John Oliver Gets Fired Over Net Neutrality ...

    One word makes all the difference!

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:The title almost stopped my heart. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes: "late [...] comedian John Oliver". He will be remembered.

  17. Relevant video: by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can watch the segment on youtube here.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Relevant video: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unless you are in Canada

    2. Re:Relevant video: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or Australia

  18. I agree! by Comboman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Next up on Slashdot: Kim Kardashian offers her wisdom on cyber security. If Hollywood douchebags are on your side, maybe you should reconsider your positions.

    I agree wholeheartedly. If we start putting reality TV stars in positions of power, our country is truly screwed.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    1. Re:I agree! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Which is why I never supported Trump, preferring Ted Cruz or Scott Walker or Rand Paul or even Gary Johnson. But serious people can't get elected to national office in a country where comedians and celebrities are the thought leaders.

    2. Re:I agree! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      LOL that libertards are your idea of serious people.

    3. Re:I agree! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If we start putting reality TV stars in positions of power, our country is truly screwed.

      Reagan even got re-elected you dipshit.

    4. Re:I agree! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "thought leaders" - what on earth have you been smoking?

    5. Re:I agree! by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Like Reagan?

    6. Re:I agree! by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

      The stuff that the Thought Leaders tell us to.

    7. Re:I agree! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Versus "LOL"?

    8. Re:I agree! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what on earth have you been smoking?

      A modern "thought leader" comment. +5 insightful

    9. Re:I agree! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 8-year governor of CA? Not really like Reagan, no.

    10. Re:I agree! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reagan was a MOO-VEE star you dimwit. And heck, he was president of SAG, so he even had EX-peer-ee-unz!

    11. Re:I agree! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was the problem...marginally reasonable choices were spread too thin, so the only thing left was the great quantity of stupid that voted Trump. And then, you know, BENGAZI and EMAILZ!

    12. Re:I agree! by erapert · · Score: 1

      But serious people can't get elected to national office in a country where comedians and celebrities are the thought leaders.

      Why wasn't this modded up just for this sentence alone?
      /. despises Trump but doesn't mod this insightful?!

  19. Meh to oliver. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    I stopped caring about and watching John Oliver a while ago. He is a twat.

    Even if he rants on something I agree with, the way he twats himself around is agonizing.

    Fuck John Oliver.

    1. Re:Meh to oliver. by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Fuck John Oliver.

      You only wish you could.

  20. Are all posts anonymous by p51d007 · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Seems like the more I come here, the more lDIOTIC posts from "anonymous" you find.

    1. Re:Are all posts anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a free login for an increasingly bad "tech" site. You are obviously a wise individual with valuable opinions. Please enlighten us further.

  21. And in the end, nothing will come of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's lovely that people are making their voices heard (literally), but in the end it's too little too late. The people with money want more of it, and you gave up what shreds of rights when you voted a Cheeto into office.

    1. Re:And in the end, nothing will come of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's lovely that people are making their voices heard (literally), but in the end it's too little too late. The people with money want more of it, and you gave up what shreds of rights when you voted a Cheeto into office.

      Yeah, but doing it over loud and public outcry vs doing it with no opposition voiced can have long lasting effects. It's easier for subsequent leaders to make changes on issues with vocal support than it is for them to make changes on issues where no opposition was noted. Why do you think totalitarian regimes don't even want dissent voiced at all?

    2. Re:And in the end, nothing will come of it by guises · · Score: 1

      This is important. I think part of the reason and the anti-internet privacy bill have gotten through congress so easily is the perception that these are issues which the public doesn't care about, or at least doesn't care much about.

  22. Less Comedian, More Satirist by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Satire has for quite some time been a useful tool to highlight institutional problems and call people to action.

    1. Re:Less Comedian, More Satirist by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

      "Satire," as the old showbiz saw goes, "is what closes on Saturday night." And that's been the problem of late with so many of these late-night comedians. As they strive so desperately hard to advance a political POV, they have become less funny. Not sure how long they can maintain their required levels of audience as they provide less laughter and simultaneously turn off the section of their audience which was more right-leaning (may not have been a huge percentage, but there had to be some, and they won't be hanging out much longer). Colbert's audience may have skewed upward after the homosexuality bit, but so does a freakshow's -- briefly -- when it gets a new attraction. Because how many times can you watch the bat-faced boy before the novelty wears off?

    2. Re:Less Comedian, More Satirist by losfromla · · Score: 1

      I find them hilarious and much more, relevant, due mainly to their incisive political commentary. Without that, they'd be nothing more than an amusing diversion and I don't have much time for that nonsense.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    3. Re:Less Comedian, More Satirist by erapert · · Score: 1

      Wait... you're seriously admitting that you let your political opinion be informed by a comedian?

    4. Re:Less Comedian, More Satirist by losfromla · · Score: 1

      abso-fucking-lutely. Why are you so surprised?
      Their presentations are very much fact based. I figure I'm about 1000 orders of magnitude better informed listening to the Colbert Report and Last Week Tonight With John Oliver than I would be watching Faux "News". Faux "News" after all won a lawsuit by claiming, apparently successfully, that they are entertainment and not news.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
  23. If only ISPs could do QoS by Hentes · · Score: 2

    See, if only ISPs could implement proper quality of service, the site wouldn't have gone down.

    1. Re:If only ISPs could do QoS by rkhalloran · · Score: 5, Informative

      The NN rules had ZERO to do with QoS traffic shaping, and *everything* to do with preventing ISPs from rent-seeking behavior against services they competed with (ref. Netflix, Hulu, vs. ISP premium/PPV offerings, wanting to charge major sites like FB, Google etc to reach their customer base, etc.). "Fast lanes" or "zero-rating" by the providers simply lets *them* pick market winners by their ability to pay for access to customers, which is NOT how the Net has traditionally worked, and will effectively strangle startups unable to pay the troll. It's anti-free-market in the extreme, which should have all these Republicans shouting it down, except for the wads of payola jammed in their mouths....

    2. Re:If only ISPs could do QoS by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Except that is basically not any of that. Zero rating was never really prevented by NN as implemented. The carriers found ways around it anyway. AT&T, VZ, and Comcast all can and were buying up media properties to zero-rate.

      A company should be able to offer whatever service it wants, and that includes zero-rating stuff if they think its a selling point. The problem is and always was the lack of free-market in internet service in general. The solution should not be to regulate what carriers have to do but instead to actually legislate the existence of a free market.

      As much as I don't like taking things away from local control this is case where local governments simply don't have leverage to say no to carriers that demand exclusivity agreements in exchange for serving the region. We need laws that prevent municipalities for granting such agreements anyway public rights of way are used or eminent domain is or has been used; for telecom delivery.

      If the ISPs and cable operators cry they can't make money that way than the solution is the municipalities build the cable plant out just like they do water and sewer, and lease the ISPs spectrum on it. Give customers choice in ISP for real and none of this will be an issue.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    3. Re:If only ISPs could do QoS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best comment on this so far!

    4. Re:If only ISPs could do QoS by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Exclusivity agreements, while obnoxious are not all of the problem. CA has legislated away exclusivity agreements, yet the problem still exists.

      The real issue is that providing telecoms services to houses is a natural monopoly. The only way to solve it is to require the last mile networks be available at cost to alternative providers. That's what happened in the UK and there is more competition there.

      The USA briefly required last mile access be available to competitive providers, but the dollars from telecom companies swept that away.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    5. Re:If only ISPs could do QoS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, if only ISPs could implement proper quality of service, the site wouldn't have gone down.

      Exactly, if only the FCC wouldn't have attempted killing Net Neutrality then it would be a crime for ISPs to use their QoS rules to block traffic to the FCC website.

      But since they want NN dead, well this is what the FCC gets, it will cost extra from you to be able to reach the FCC website.

  24. Only those from Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are all posts anonymous

    Nah, only those from Russia!

  25. Not going to do anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Politicians in charge do not want an open and free internet.

    1. Re:Not going to do anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      unfortunately true.

      100s of millions of comments could come in, all favoring network neutrality, and the current head of fcc won't give a damn; because his job when appointed to the chairmanship by mister orange monkey himself, was to do exactly this.

    2. Re:Not going to do anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they think they can put that one back in the bottle, they're more stupider than I thought.

  26. Anyone get this to work? by paulxnuke · · Score: 1

    Entering 17-108 or Proceeding 17-108 on the form does nothing, it gets blanked out when I try to get to the review page. Is there a secret? It was certainly a pain to figure out how to get to that form.

    1. Re:Anyone get this to work? by Njorthbiatr · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, you have to fill out the csv template they give.

      It's pretty fucking clear they want as few people as possible to be able to comment, by making technologically prohibitive to do so. It's fucking scummy as shit.

    2. Re:Anyone get this to work? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you have to fill out the csv template they give.

      It's pretty fucking clear they want as few people as possible to be able to comment, by making technologically prohibitive to do so. It's fucking scummy as shit.

      The site has reverted to the previous (slightly less scummy) behavior. The gofccyourself.com URL redirection works again, and the form accepts data normally.

    3. Re:Anyone get this to work? by guises · · Score: 1

      Someone posted this link above. Putting 17-108 in the first field there worked for me.

  27. I Pity Those... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...who receive their direction in life from a comedian.

    1. Re:I Pity Those... by Newander · · Score: 1

      You'd have to be crazy to trust one of those guys.

      --

      Jesus saves and takes half damage.

    2. Re:I Pity Those... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did you link to a list of people who wrote more than John Oliver has shat and pissed in his life,
      who have garnered more education for their time compared to what John Oliver could in 2 lifetimes at his pace,
      and who have spent more time on critical thinking than John Oliver will spend living?
      That's doesn't make any sense.

    3. Re:I Pity Those... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Which party was it that elected an actor and reality show star as president, and another actor as governor?

      Just because someone uses humor as a vehicle does not mean they are Bozo the Clown.

    4. Re: I Pity Those... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found the /pol/tard!

  28. This please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    The FCC should stand back and observe. If there is a problem, then step in and regulate.

    You don't try to solve a problem before it even occurs, especially with a, relatively, still emerging technology like the internet.

    Twenty years ago people were worried that push technologies like Pointcast were going to clog up the internet. Fifteen years ago people were freaking out over the dominance of Internet Explorer as a web browser. Eight years ago people were worried about MySpace taking over everything. The internet changes rapidly. Too rapidly, IMHO, to try to push broad regulations onto it and expect them to be effective, or even know what the overall effect is going to be.

    1. Re:This please by GrumpySteen · · Score: 4, Informative

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      It's already a problem.

    2. Re:This please by tralfaz2001 · · Score: 1

      That is like thinking we should not put stop signs or traffic lights at new intersections. We should just wait and see if anyone crashes into anyone first. We don't do that because it is obviously dangerous based on observed conditions. Just like we already know that if internet traffic shaping is abused people, will get screwed.

  29. Update 2: "+ Express" link is now non-functional by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Informative

    The link above provides you with another link to here where you should be able to click "+ Express" but the link doesn't seem to work.

    To leave a comment you need to go here, put 17-108 in the first field and then fill out the rest.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  30. Stop blaming politicians for voters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Here's my favorite Trump quote (a tweet), issued in response to the Women's March on Washington: "[I] was under the impression that we just had an election! Why didn't these people vote?"

    That applies here too. If the Internet were so important, than surely people would have voted against Republicans in November, so that Congress could move on treating Internet access as a utility. They didn't. If anything, people voted to make the Internet more expensive and limited. So why pester the FCC about this? You are telling the FCC to work directly against what the voters said they want.

    There will be another election at the end of 2018. You can always re-classify Internet access then, if you've so radically changed your mind since 2016.

    Maybe another way to look at this is: ELECTIONS ARE IMPORTANT, YOU FUCKWITS. Every other November, all you (yes, even you people here on Slashdot) treat the election a complete joke that will have no relevance in your life. This is the kind of government you get, when you don't take it seriously. SUCK IT.

    Don't like the consequences? Then start fucking taking the fucking elections fucking seriously. Don't ever, ever let Republicans win anything again. (And if you're smart, you'll run the Democrats out of the country too, but you need to get their replacements lined up first.)

    1. Re:Stop blaming politicians for voters by spiritplumber · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Trump lost the popular vote, so... people DID vote, it just didn't work.

      --
      Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
    2. Re:Stop blaming politicians for voters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Attempting to retroactively change the rules after you lost doesn't work either. Try changing them going forward if you can get enough people to agree with you. Stopping a regional monopoly on lawmaking was one consequence and benefit of a federation of states.

    3. Re:Stop blaming politicians for voters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smaller states only joined the union because of Electoral College so they don't get dictated to by 3 states.
      You want to change the rules, pass an Amendment, but that requires smaller states agreeing.

      Its almost as if elections were set up so "flyover country hicks" get a say in things. Perhaps if you spent less time insulting them they might listen to you. But you can't, so lets have another round of you telling us how stupid they are. I'm sure the 100th time they will finally understand and follow your voting suggestions.

    4. Re:Stop blaming politicians for voters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you can't, so lets have another round of you telling us how stupid they are.

      Okay, but they're not all stupid...some are billionaires that will actually benefit from resulting policies, and others are racist dirtbags.

    5. Re:Stop blaming politicians for voters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smaller states only joined the union because of Electoral College so they don't get dictated to by 3 states.
      You want to change the rules, pass an Amendment, but that requires smaller states agreeing.

      Its almost as if elections were set up so "flyover country hicks" get a say in things. Perhaps if you spent less time insulting them they might listen to you. But you can't, so lets have another round of you telling us how stupid they are. I'm sure the 100th time they will finally understand and follow your voting suggestions.

      Sure man, now let me turn your words against you, by a little perspective altering:

      Larger states only joined the union because of the House, so they didn't get dictated to by a bunch of tiny states, as they were with the Articles of Confederation. They expected to have some protections, which have since been lost.

      You want to abuse the rules? Expect that to come with some friction.

      It's almost as you don't realize that dissing the cities, and the non-rural people, but letting the system get more and more imbalanced to serve your own interests is going to be a problem.

      But you can't, so you're going to be courting the resentment and anger of people who realize you've been screwing them.

      I'm sure you believing that perpetuating the imbalance arising because of the malapportionment in the House, and the rampant partisan Gerrymandering isn't stupid, but the people keep telling you otherwise, so one day, perhaps you will understand.

      (The same problem also happened in many states, which ultimately resulted in Reynolds v. Sims and Baker v. Carr, which is better than coups, such as the Dorr Revolution and the Election of 1876.)

    6. Re:Stop blaming politicians for voters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have always said that I wanted to fire them all and start from scratch and never allow any politician prior to the firing to hold public office ever again. Make it a surprise firing so they can not sabotage the infrastructure while they exiting though.

    7. Re:Stop blaming politicians for voters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Attempting to retroactively change the rules after you lost doesn't work either.

      Yes, it does, it's called a Revolution, and it's explicitly allowed in the US, having succeeded twice in short order. A third time if you count the effects of the Civil War as a Northern Coup.

      Try changing them going forward if you can get enough people to agree with you.

      That's the point of protests and opposition, yes. We can even retroactively change the results. Trump could be removed from office in no less than 6 different ways. All legal.

      Stopping a regional monopoly on lawmaking was one consequence and benefit of a federation of states.

      Amusingly, a major complaint of the Southern Slaveholders was that they wanted a regional Congress to decide its local laws instead of a federation. They kept pushing for that reform, but lost their nuts when Abe Lincoln was elected, and then paid the consequences.

      All nice and legal.

  31. Title is too long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    It should have ended with "John Oliver gets fired..."

    I hate that fucker.

    1. Re:Title is too long by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

      Does he disturb your precious universe with a harsh dose of reality that much?

  32. If government wants to control networks by zerofoo · · Score: 0

    Then government should get off its duff and build them.

    So long as muti-billion dollar multinational companies are building these networks, don't be surprised when they want to extract every last nickel from them.

    1. Re:If government wants to control networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does not having a soul hurt?

      Shilling for cable companies....that's worse than hell. That's an almost inconceivable afterlife.

    2. Re:If government wants to control networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They try. But every time a municipal group tries to build a high-speed network in an area, some cable company sues them into oblivion.

    3. Re: If government wants to control networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell you what: the ISPs can have 100% control of their network, with one caveat.

      They must immediately reimburse federal, state, and local governments for all the billions in subsidies they've been paid over the years, and any and all laws providing monopoly protection to them are immediately rescinded.

      Oh, what's that? Free market only applies when the government is doing things you don't want? Drats!

  33. IP providers restricted the traffic to FCC? by 4wdloop · · Score: 1

    Perhaps IP providers restricted the traffic to FCC site that made it crash...no? :-)

    --
    4wdloop
  34. John Oliver Gets Fired... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    John Oliver Gets Fired Over Net Neutrality, Causes FCC's Site To Temporarily Crash
    Well bummer for him, he didn't even get to grope women like at FOX....

  35. Update: Bitcoin... Only 7 Days Left To Comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have only 7 days left to support your ability to invest in digital currencies and digital currency based economies.

    Official comment method.......
    https://www.sec.gov/rules/submitcomments.htm
    To: rule-comments@sec.gov
    Subject: File Number SR-BatsBZX-2016-30

    Reconstructed link from earlier comment period.......
    https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/ruling-comments?ruling=sr-batsbzx-2016-30&action=Show_Form&rule_path=/comments/sr-batsbzx-2016-30&file_num=SR-BatsBZX-2016-30&title=SR-BatsBZX-2016-30:+Support+For+Bitcoin+ETF,+Digital+Currencies,+Investing+In+Same,+and+Digital+Currency+Based+Economies

    Example comments........
    https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbzx-2016-30/batsbzx201630.shtml

    Search for sr-batsbzx-2016-30 ...
    https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/batsbzx.htm

  36. Need an Alt-Net already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great, now there is an *accelerated* need for a truly decentralized internet operating independently of The Internet right down to the Physical Layer. Abuse by the big ISPs and the governments they paid for will only increase until such time as there exists a real alternative.

  37. so disappointing by kaatochacha · · Score: 0

    So I'm reading "John Oliver gets fired...."
    And I think 'Yeah!", because honestly, he's just shrill and unfunny, and his British accent on US televsion doesn't work in making him sound smart. If he and Samantha Bee had children, they would be the most deadpan unfunny creatures in the universe.
    But then I kept reading, and was disappointed.

  38. Official FCC response about the commenting outage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOLOL it wasn't loads of angry commentators, it was evil hackers!!!!!!!!!

    https://www.fcc.gov/document/statement-fcc-cio-denial-service-attack-fcc-comment-system

    Media Contact:
    Mark Wigfield, (202) 418-0253
    mark.wigfield@fcc.gov
    For Immediate Release
    FCC CIO STATEMENT ON DISTRIBUTED DENIAL-OF-SERVICE
    ATTACKS ON FCC ELECTRONIC COMMENT FILING SYSTEM
        --
    WASHINGTON, May 8, 2017 - Federal Communications Commission Chief Information
    Officer Dr. David Bray issued the following statement today regarding the cause of delays
    experienced by consumers recently trying to file comments on the FCC's Electronic Comment
    Filing System (ECFS):
    Beginning on Sunday night at midnight, our analysis reveals that the FCC was subject to
    multiple distributed denial-of-service attacks (DDos). These were deliberate attempts by external
    actors to bombard the FCC's comment system with a high amount of traffic to our commercial
    cloud host. These actors were not attempting to file comments themselves; rather they made it
    difficult for legitimate commenters to access and file with the FCC. While the comment system
    remained up and running the entire time, these DDoS events tied up the servers and prevented
    them from responding to people attempting to submit comments. We have worked with our
    commercial partners to address this situation and will continue to monitor developments going
    forward.
    ###
    Office of Media Relations: (202) 418-0500
    ASL Videophone: (844) 432-2275
    TTY: (888) 835-5322
    Twitter: @FCC
    www.fcc.gov/office-media-relations
    This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes
    official action. See MCI v. FCC, 515 F.2d 385 (D.C. Cir. 1974).