Slashdot Mirror


Amazon, Mozilla, Kickstarter, and Reddit Are Staging a Net Neutrality Online Protest (washingtonpost.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Some of the Internet's biggest names are banding together for a "day of action" to oppose the Federal Communications Commission (alternative source), which is working to undo regulations for Internet providers that it passed during the Obama administration. Among the participants are Etsy, Kickstarter and Mozilla, the maker of the popular Firefox Web browser. Also joining the day of protest will be Reddit, the start-up incubator Y Combinator, and Amazon. On July 12, the companies and organizations are expected to change their websites to raise awareness of the FCC effort, which is aimed at deregulating the telecom and cable industries. Mozilla, for example, will change what users see on their screens when they open a new browser window. Other participants include Demand Progress, Etsy, Vimeo, Private Internet Access, Fight for the Future, EFF, DreamHost, Creative Commons, BitTorrent, American Library Association, ACLU, GreenPeace, Open Media, and Patreon. Find more details here.

70 comments

  1. then the FCC chairman yawned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty much the FCC chairman yawned at the thought of this protest.

    1. Re:then the FCC chairman yawned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yawn is right. Anyone who cares already cares, anyone who doesn't care still won't. Anyone who has made up their mind on either side of the issue will not change their mind.

    2. Re: then the FCC chairman yawned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until they see the impact. Then it will be: "why didn't you warn us?"

      Are you silent on all issues because of your cynical view? Or just negative in this case?

    3. Re:then the FCC chairman yawned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yawn is right. Anyone who cares already cares, anyone who doesn't care still won't. Anyone who has made up their mind on either side of the issue will not change their mind.

      that's right, apathy and cynicism. that's not what got us into this mess in the first place or anything...
      let me guess, you also didn't vote because you hated both candidates equally.

    4. Re: then the FCC chairman yawned by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      We DID warn you about putting the government in charge of the definition of 'QoS'...you didn't listen.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re: then the FCC chairman yawned by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Well, isn't that what the fuss is about? Getting the government out of being in charge of Quality of Service and letting those altruistic corporations do what they do best?

      Please stay on the line. Your call is very important to us!

    6. Re: then the FCC chairman yawned by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It's worked up to now without government control of routers.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:then the FCC chairman yawned by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

      Yawned, because this protest is lame.

      Now if the internet-powers-that-be started blocking one different site per day - e.g. block completely all access to fcc.gov on Thursday, then to gop.com on Friday, and so on - people would (maybe) start to realize what net neutrality really means.

    8. Re:then the FCC chairman yawned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, why raise awareness of an issue many people are not aware of and that will change the way the get information and entertainment.

      There is no reason to do so. None more reason.

    9. Re:then the FCC chairman yawned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exactly. the big companies want to "protest" by putting up a banner ad. real sacrifice, bozos.

    10. Re: then the FCC chairman yawned by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      That's because no bean counter has yet come up with a way to monetize routers by making them discriminatory.

      Yet.

      Of course, that could change if, say, Juniper and Netflix cut a deal where you only get the best quality Netflix using a Juniper router. Then Google/YouTube make another one with Cisco. etc., etc., etc. And let's not even think about what Apple could do.

      Actually, the government did effectively control routers at one time. Back when the Internet was still the US Government's DARPA net, your router played nicely with to the other DARPA routers or you didn't get on the net.

  2. Waiting for the Mozilla Haters... by brianerst · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Mozilla should be spending 100% of its time working on its browser! Why are they wasting time doing anything other than rolling back the GUI to the one in Firefox 4.0? I hate the new Chrome look so damned much I switched to Chrome and never looked back."

    1. Re:Waiting for the Mozilla Haters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does say a lot about how far Mozilla have fallen when their participation in a net neutrality protest has a negative impact on the protest. Mozilla dragged their own name through the mud, and now their brand has a negative value.

      If they want to help they should probably just stay away. The discussion here has already turned to a Mozilla discussion, so they're clearly detracting from the protest.

    2. Re:Waiting for the Mozilla Haters... by Luthair · · Score: 1

      waaah I want more of my screen taken up by useless UI chrome.

    3. Re:Waiting for the Mozilla Haters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >It does say a lot about how far Mozilla have fallen when their participation in a net neutrality protest has a negative impact on the protest.

      According to some guy on the Internet, sure. Mozilla could end world hunger or cure cancer and you'd find a way to insist that it's a failure and they have no relevance.

    4. Re:Waiting for the Mozilla Haters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, Mozilla is way ahead of the curve on this one. Firefox is so slow that data throttling won't even be noticeable!

    5. Re:Waiting for the Mozilla Haters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mozilla user here. Disappointed but not a disappointed as seeing Moby lower himself to try and supplant communism by getting faithless electors to betray democracy. I look forward to the stock in these companies falling.

  3. "The popular Firefox Web browser" by slipped_bit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Shouldn't that be "the *once* popular Firefox Web browser"? (Not a hater; it's my main browser, although the things it has done over the last few years has annoyed me and is starting to push me away.)

    1. Re:"The popular Firefox Web browser" by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      Firefox is still the heavyweight in open source browsing, but Chrome has pulled heavily from the "I want performance" and "I want compatibility" pools, while Firefox and Chromium spinoffs have pulled to a degree from the "I want open source" pools. Firefox can fight on performance, has lost the war for compatibility, and probably has lost some trust from the "I want open source" pool that isn't coming back (but could still win back a lot of that with actions- but probably won't).

  4. the popular Firefox Web browser by Topwiz · · Score: 5, Informative

    I wouldn't call 6.55% US market share and dropping popular.

    1. Re:the popular Firefox Web browser by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      how about worldwide?

    2. Re:the popular Firefox Web browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know about worldwide, but here in Japan, no one uses Firefox. I've never seen a single install.

    3. Re:the popular Firefox Web browser by Topwiz · · Score: 2

      6.21% so lower. UC Browser (China) is third behind Safari and Chrome.

    4. Re:the popular Firefox Web browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      UC Browser (China)

      Does that one seem a bit Orwellian?

      I guess it'd be worse if it was WeC.

    5. Re:the popular Firefox Web browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox's marketshare is 12% worldwide, as it has been since late 2014. No sign of dropping at the moment.

  5. Mozilla needs to focus on "extension neutrality" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mozilla is breaking thousands of extensions in November including uBlock, and is integrating a clippy clone into Firefox as of version 55. It also moved the refresh button again with no way to move it back.

    Mozilla can no longer be trusted as a voice on the web as it keeps crippling a once great web browser. in November we will be stuck with spyware browsers or having to pay thousands of dollars to get a Mac to get the new tracking protection in Safari.

  6. nothing has changed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then net is going back to the way it used to be. Nothing new here.

    1. Re: nothing has changed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So worse then, at least slower for most. That is what going backwards for the Internet means.

    2. Re: nothing has changed by aicrules · · Score: 1

      We shall see. If there are actual notable abuses, then perhaps net neutrality will gain some traction again.

    3. Re: nothing has changed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We shall see. If there are actual notable abuses, then perhaps net neutrality will gain some traction again.

      You can't boil frogs by dropping them into hot water, you have to slowly warm it. Expect creeping abuse, not a quantum jump.

  7. Not Greenpeace! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there's a way to damage the credibility of your cause, just highlight Greenpeace as a key proponent. We'd be better off without them in the mix. They can't even articulate practical solutions to the problems they are supposed to be knowledgeable about, and the average independent mind pretty much laughs at them.

    1. Re:Not Greenpeace! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least they didn't get PETA to join this

  8. Kind of exciting.... by cfalcon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's nice to see a bunch of special interest groups work towards a goal that generally benefits the American citizens of the net (and certain corporations, at the expense of certain other corporations). Watching the right twist hard on this issue has been yet another source of bitter amusement for me over this last year (and believe me, I've had sources of bitter amusement from ALL political sides over the last year or two).

    Here's the lowdown: net neutrality used to enjoy a broad coalition of pretty much everyone- the idea that carriers can't charge based on certain qualifications is a pretty appealing one. Some libertarians like it because the carriers are themselves a kind of monopoly (and therefore shouldn't be allowed the same power over their wires as if it was a free market), most liberals like it because it prevents corporations from screwing over the little guy, and some conservatives like it because it prevents conservative speech from being branded separately or upcharged ("CNN is free, Fox News costs extra!" or somesuch). This changed recently and rapidly: in addition to the more strict market libertarians (who were formerly pretty much the only natural philosophical opponents of net neutrality), the broad base of conservatism, led by Trump, are now opposed to net neutrality. Now it's meddlesome government, and (somehow!) the ability to censor data.

    The conservative switch on this is not ENTIRELY surprising, given that the most recent action on net neutrality happened under Obama, but why would conservatives not be in favor of common carrier status? Certainly they don't want to pay more for electricity depending on its use (nor would they be ok with the power company monitoring everything in their house to ensure that they pay the correct rate for "television electricity" versus "microwave electricity"), so why the odd position?

    The answer appears to be depressingly top-down. This coalition of dudes listed in the summary is pretty much all liberals (I'm not aware of any that even gave Trump credit for smashing the TPP, which they were opposed to), and they pretty much universally supported the losing Hillary Clinton in the election. Meanwhile, those who stand to benefit from the repeal of net neutrality didn't use their bully pulpit to denounce Trump for two years straight, and are broadly more Republican donors. That part I guess is part and parcel of our vaguely corporate Republic, but it is darkly amusing to watch the needs of the donors DRAG THE PHILOSOPHY IN REAL TIME. Just nuts.

    1. Re:Kind of exciting.... by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Certainly they don't want to pay more for electricity depending on its use...

      I don't disagree with anything you said, but wanted to lend some more data to your viewpoint. Here, we DO pay more for electricity depending on its use: https://www.bbec.org/wp-conten.... Aside from different service charges, the rates are different for each use. For example, Residential is $0.6/kWh while irrigation is $0.03/kWh...for part of the year. I'm sure there are reasons and justifications for all this, but thought you'd find it interesting nonetheless.

      On an unrelated note, I'm not happy getting electricity from coal when I could (should) be getting it from hydro where I'm at...

    2. Re:Kind of exciting.... by zaphod · · Score: 1

      When do we get road neutrality? I'm tired of paying tolls on roads that are deemed "more important". I'm also tired of being told I can't drive in certain lanes due to the contents of my car (HOV lanes for those that don't understand the reference).

      Are roads not considered to be a utility? Lack of road neutrality increases the costs for individual people driving as well as the costs of goods sold shipped over the roads.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you!
    3. Re:Kind of exciting.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your analogy is not quite correct.

      Any vehicle - as long as it fulfils the requirements can use a road. As the government runs the roads, it could easily give itself priority access (and it does so for Amublances and Police with very good cause) but it doesn't. It doesn't have "Fast Lanes for Toyotas" or "Slow lanes for Mexicans". This is net road neutrality: all vehicles are treated equally regardless of brand or the person(s) inside the vehicle, and anyone can fulfill the requirements easily

      Similarly for ISPs under Net Neutrality, they're free to charge / throttle / etc streaming videos / bittorent / website as long as it doesn't matter WHO'S video / torrent / site it is. Under NN, their own video service must not be treated any different than any other service (like Netflix). If it throttles bittorrents, it should throttle ALL bittorrents equally.

      This is why TMo's unlimited data packages that compress / throttle videos is net neutral, despite being shady because they didn't tell anyone that's what they were doing when people signed up for it.

    4. Re:Kind of exciting.... by jon3k · · Score: 1

      If you build your own dedicated road, like a toll road, you can charge for it. Go put fiber in the ground, then call up the major carriers and offer to charge for it's use. That's how that works. What you cannot do is charge more to Bob than Larry to drive over that toll road. "HOV lanes" can be constructed whenever carriers see fit, this happens all the time. They lease additional capacity from another carrier and use this for excess traffic or periods of peak activity because while expensive, it's cheaper than laying more fiber, at least for some period of time.

    5. Re:Kind of exciting.... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Certainly they don't want to pay more for electricity depending on its use...

      I don't disagree with anything you said, but wanted to lend some more data to your viewpoint. Here, we DO pay more for electricity depending on its use

      And here we actually pay more for electricity depending on its SOURCE. We have the option of signing up for "green energy" from a couple of different companies, both of which cost more than the electricity from the normal hydro-based electric company. Nobody I know of complains about this as being a lack of "electric neutrality", even though there is a very strong incentive to buy the electrons from the power company and not from the specialized "content" sources.

      My parents also paid different amounts for electricity based on the use, for a residence. They had two meters. One for the mains, one for the power that went to the electric heat. Electric heat electrons cost less than TV electrons.

    6. Re:Kind of exciting.... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      What you cannot do is charge more to Bob than Larry to drive over that toll road.

      Really? Bob, who drives an 18-wheeler, always pays more to drive on the local toll roads than does Larry, who drives a motorcycle. Kind of like being charged more for more bandwidth.

    7. Re: Kind of exciting.... by N!k0N · · Score: 1

      That's fine. We're already good with that. If Bob and Larry are getting charged different rates because of the time of day / color of car / manufacturer / etc. (while both vehicles fall into the same class and go the same distance) , that's what people are up in arms about.

    8. Re: Kind of exciting.... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      (while both vehicles fall into the same class and go the same distance) , that's what people are up in arms about.

      And yet, that isn't what often happens. Netflix traffic crosses at least one border gateway into Comcast's network; Comcast's video services use a non-Internet delivery system and are almost always delivered from the local headend, for example. Very different distances and classes. T-Mobile's zero-rated video streaming is done at 480p and uses a lot less bandwidth than arbitrary video streaming from a non-participating content provider. Different.

      In any case, the statement I replied to was that we cannot charge Bob and Larry differently. Yes, we can. It happens every minute of every day all over the planet.

    9. Re:Kind of exciting.... by jon3k · · Score: 1

      This is where the analogy falls apart. Packets are all the same size (MTU/MSS) when the traverse a carrier's network. Even bandwidth isn't an adequate analogy here because that would be charger more if you wanted to transport lots of cars (packets).

    10. Re:Kind of exciting.... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Packets are all the same size (MTU/MSS) when the traverse a carrier's network.

      No, they aren't.

  9. Re:Mozilla needs to focus on "extension neutrality by cfalcon · · Score: 1

    > in November we will be stuck with spyware browsers or

    Or maybe getting Iridium, a chromium-based browser that removes the google tracking present in Chromium (and Chrome)?
    https://iridiumbrowser.de/

    Or maybe checking out Pale Moon, based on an older baseline of Firefox?
    https://www.palemoon.org/

    (note that the Pale Moon guy is also going to be building a browser based off of the Firefox baseline that supports the current extensions)

    It's true, you'll still need a spyware browser for Netflix, and probably a couple other websites. But that doesn't mean you have to do 95% of your browsing there, when there are other alternatives.

    Also there's that Brave browser, but I'm not sure on all the details about it being a non-spy browser yet.

  10. Re:Mozilla needs to focus on "extension neutrality by ArhcAngel · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've been using Waterfox for years. It's based on the current branch of FF main but strips out the tracking bits and enables features Mozilla has disabled (NPAPI for those who still have need of it).

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  11. Dog That Isn't Barking by PMuse · · Score: 2

    Whither NetFlix?

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    1. Re:Dog That Isn't Barking by davecb · · Score: 1

      Some large companies have been rolling out CDN-like services to deliver active, not just static, content on ISP networks with lots of customers. I'm no longer in that corner of the business, but that could be as little as a financial deal to guarantee excellent SLAs to the end-user. Think of it as a workaround for net neutrality and/or anti-trust accusations.

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    2. Re:Dog That Isn't Barking by Seor+Jojoba · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that was my question too. This seems entirely aligned with their interests, and they have joined efforts like this before.

    3. Re:Dog That Isn't Barking by by+(1706743) · · Score: 1

      I just contacted them lamenting their change of stance/current apathy.

      Hopefully enough people will do this that the suits will at least notice. Not keeping my fingers crossed or anything...

    4. Re:Dog That Isn't Barking by brewthatistrue · · Score: 1

      like davecb said, they've already solved that problem for themselves.

      Solving it for everyone would:
      * be a huge headache for them
      * reduce their competitive advantage

  12. Yes by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

    Start demanding $20/day from IP addresses originating in D.C. to get more than 5KB/s transfers. Shouldn't have any complaints about that, should they?

    --
    There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    1. Re:Yes by will_die · · Score: 1

      At least then we would have some actual examples on why it is needed.

    2. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will not bite the hand that feeds them.

      The goal of eliminating net neutrality is to force consumers in general to pay more in order to get what they had before (and to engage in various anti-competitive behaviors, of course). That is the motherload, and if giving a little bit of special treatment to politicians is what it takes to win it, consider it done.

    3. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sad but true.

  13. Remember the SOPA protests. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Government remembers the SOPA protests, and will ignore net neutrality protests.Even Wikipedia protesting won't help this time, As Wikipedia is known to use its own "secret police" called checkusers to ban users they don't agree with. If you want net neutrality, set up your own mesh networks, and allow users who want to download terabyte sized files for free on it.

  14. Without Google, Facebook, and Netflix... by edi_guy · · Score: 2

    This is a non-starter protest. And I think Netflix CEO Reed Hasting's opinion on Net Neutrality "We're big enough not to care" is likely shared by the others, they just won't say it. Now that Yahoo is owned by Verizon, even they won't be part of the 'opposition'. Cards are falling into place very nicely for our corporate information overlords. Kudos to you Bezos and Amazon. You might be the last tech titan with actual principles.

    1. Re:Without Google, Facebook, and Netflix... by jmccue · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points, I agree with this sentiment, most people here know the issues, but without Facebook and Netflix it will be tough. Amazon is in the list, so that should help out a bit, but I think many people using Amazon will at least heard of Net neutrality.

      You need to get the 'crazy' masses on Facebook riled up and get them posting :) Without Facebook most people will not know what is going on.

  15. Re: Mozilla needs to focus on "extension neutralit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're itching to get a Mac and don't want to fork over the thousands of dollars just run the Mac OS on a VM.

  16. "aimed at RE-deregulating the telecom and cable.." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FTFY. They were already deregulated thanks to the $400 billion broadband scandal where they took taxpayer money, promised fiber and associated speeds and bandwidth directly *to the home* @ $20/month in the late 1990's in exchange for no regulation. We got the oligopoly that exists today and no fiber. That's fraud and, if the large companies in "protest" were really in protest, they would demand the Attorney General file a fraud case against the telecoms and get the AG to throw the CEOs and other people at the top in prison and then persuade Congress to pass appropriate regulation legislation that should have been applied a long time ago when it was obvious the telecoms would never meet their responsibilities. If anyone complains? Then toss them in prison too for good measure.

  17. GreenPeace?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wtf?!

  18. Death knell for Mozilla... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

    Mozilla, for example, will change what users see on their screens when they open a new browser window.

    I get tired of Google popping up the notice that I can make Google my default search engine (when it already is) and I can make Google my home page (which it will never be.) Imagine if Mozilla somehow hijacks the "about:blank" home page I have configured so I start seeing crap from Mozilla.org instead of a blank page.

    Oh, wait, Firefox ALREADY ignores my home page setting on a regular basis, depositing me at a CentOS welcome, even after being configured to a blank home. And when you first start it up, it automatically runs home to momma and reports the installation details before you have any option of telling it not to.

    1. Re:Death knell for Mozilla... by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      > And when you first start it up, it automatically runs home to momma and reports the installation details before you have any option of telling it not to.

      I mean, you can down the interface ahead of time. But that shouldn't be default behavior.

  19. Why don't websites team up? by Solandri · · Score: 1

    ISPs are able to selectively throttle Internet traffic to/from certain websites because they enjoy a government-granted monopoly. Customers can't switch to a different ISP even when they know throttling is going on.

    Why can't websites create a pseudo-monopoly of their own? What if all the websites concerned about net neutrality joined a net neutrality pact? If any member of the pact detected that an ISP was throttling traffic to their site, all pact members would throttle their traffic to that ISP. So if an ISP tried to throttle Netflix, all of their customers trying to access Google, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, Slashdot, etc. would find those sites slow to load as well, and would flood the ISP with complaints. Unlike ISP throttling which looks to the customer like the slowdown is specific to the Netflix site and leads them to (incorrectly) conclude the problem is with Netflix, this slowdown across a wide range of sites would cause customers to (correctly) conclude the problem is with their ISP. And blame would fall upon the correct culprit.

    1. Re:Why don't websites team up? by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      Good idea, but difficult to organize and pretty easy to blockbust. A few years ago this was used to put the squeeze on Netflix. Nowadays it will help Netflix not deal with competitors. Any members of your theoretical coalition not driven by perfectly long term self interest and fairness could get bent over.

    2. Re:Why don't websites team up? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      ISPs are able to selectively throttle Internet traffic to/from certain websites because they enjoy a government-granted monopoly.

      Not in the US. Where do you live that this happens? (Yes, I am once again pointing out that the government-granted CABLE monopolies that no longer exist do not apply to ISP service and never have. Please stop spreading this misinformation.)

  20. Re:Mozilla needs to focus on "extension neutrality by cfalcon · · Score: 1

    Waterfox follows Firefox very closely. There are plans to continue to support normal extensions in a new codebase, but we'll see. The big thing is, when Firefox throws away its older extension model, some browsers will continue to support that, and others will not, and I think it is a hard prediction.

    I'll definitely check out Waterfox around that time though, thanks.

  21. yeah but I use dicksfox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    on yo momma

  22. Epitome of Corporatism at the cost of freedom. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When corporations lobby government to enact a law, citizens should be worried....very worried.

    1. Re:Epitome of Corporatism at the cost of freedom. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Foreign corporations if their tax filings are to be believed, its like a whose whose of tax avoiders, perhaps no taxation, no representation, if they dont want to pay for society why should they get a say in it.

  23. LOAN OFFER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good day everyone, My name is Kimberly Lisa, I’m from USA, Florida and I am here to give a brief story about a loan testimony I received from Donald Mark Loan Funding . I was looking for a legit loan lender few days back when I got the email from this company and they gave me a quick loan. Apply for a fast loan today email contact: ( donaldmarkloanfunding@gmail.com ) .. Share this good news and get your loan today.Stay Blessed. Mrs Kimberly Lisa