Cloudflare Might Be Exploring a Way To Slow Down FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's Home Internet Speeds (twitter.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cloudflare Might Be Exploring a Way To Slow Down FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's Home Internet Speeds (twitter.com)

Posted by msmash on Thursday November 23, 2017 @02:10AM from the taste-of-your-own-medicine dept.

Late Wednesday night, TechCrunch reporter Josh Constine pleaded to tech billionaires to purchase local ISPs near FCC chairman Ajit Pai's home and slow down his Internet speeds. One of the responders to that tweet was Matthew Prince, co-founder and chief executive of Cloudflare, who said: I could do this in a different, but equally effective, way. Sent note to our GC to see if we can without breaking any laws. In a statement to Slashdot, Mr. Prince said: Probably the easiest thing would be to slow down requests from the FCC's IP ranges. Or put up an interstitial whenever someone from those IPs visits a site behind us. I think it's less likely we'd do it across the board ourselves, more likely we'd implement it as an option our customers could opt in to. Basically taking this a step further.

308 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

No need to break the laws by Opportunist · 2017-11-23 02:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

Buy up all ISPs in his area and simply refuse service to him. Since it's not based on race, gender, ethnicity, sexual preference or anything it should be no problem to deny him service.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
1. Re:No need to break the laws by sinij · 2017-11-23 02:16 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  In Ajit's case FCC chairman is clearly a disability, and thus a protected status.
2. Re:No need to break the laws by svanheulen · 2017-11-23 02:24 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  "Buy up all ISPs in his area..." Soooo... just Comcast then?
3. Re:No need to break the laws by slashkitty · 2017-11-23 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, but the phone company is still a utility and can't deny service.
  
  --
  -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
4. Re:No need to break the laws by StormReaver · 2017-11-23 02:36 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Sorry, but the phone company is still a utility and can't deny service.
  They don't have to deny service. Just QoS him down to 300 baud. They can say that his circuit is overloaded, but they won't fix it. By Pai's own rules, that is perfectly fair. And since he won't have a choice of ISP's (which, by his own words, is thriving competition), he's stuck at a permanent 300 baud.
5. Re:No need to break the laws by FudRucker · 2017-11-23 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  then he can surf the internets and download with a 56k modem
  remember those???, it would take a full minute for a website like slashdot to load 15 years ago, today the new version would probably take 5 minutes on a 56k
  
  --
  Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
6. Re:No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  hmm they refused me service. I mean they don't provide DSL here but that's the same thing. They can just not provide it for him.
7. Re:No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  It's cool that you're old like me and remember the 300 baud days, but baud is the wrong term to use, since that refers to the underlying electrical signal. Probably 300 bps would be a better way to phrase it.
8. Re:No need to break the laws by Opportunist · 2017-11-23 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  A disability he can immediately cure by stepping down.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
9. Re:No need to break the laws by Opportunist · 2017-11-23 03:43 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Let's just agree on "A speed slow enough to do the TCP handshake with actual hands".
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
10. Re:No need to break the laws by Opportunist · 2017-11-23 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  The Slowloris protection would probably kick you off first.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
11. Re:No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  It's cool that you're old like me and remember the 300 baud days, but baud is the wrong term to use, since that refers to the underlying electrical signal. Probably 300 bps would be a better way to phrase it.
  300 bps modems only transmitted one of two voltages per transition, hence 300 bps modems ran at an underlying signal transition speed of 300 baud. For high speed modems, the bps exceeded the baud rate by modulating the signal into one of more than two voltages at each transition. It's possible for 300 baud to push more than 300 bps, but in practice, it didn't happen.
12. Re:No need to break the laws by DontBeAMoran · 2017-11-23 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  I just did a .webarchive of the site right now, and the file is 3209323 bytes.
  A quick search told me a 56kbps modem downloaded at about 6800 bytes per second.
  That means Slashdot would take ~472 seconds to load (7 minutes and 52 seconds).
  If something like Slashdot takes 3.2MB of data, imagine the size of the websites Ajit Pai is visiting (ex: New York Times, CNN, whatever).
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
13. Re:No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 04:28 · Score: 0
  
  The funny thing is, I believe by the proposed FCC rules, 300 bps qualifies as "broadband". Moreover no internet service, or service choice of just a single monopoly service provider, also qualifies as "thriving competition."
  There's nothing like a bureaucrat, or politician or corporate stooge, defining their own terms of success. And choosing a bar so low it was met back in 1980.
14. Re:No need to break the laws by squiggleslash · 2017-11-23 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, kinda. The phone company can't deny him phone service. They don't have to offer Internet service.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
15. Re:No need to break the laws by drinkypoo · 2017-11-23 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  His house is in Arlington, VA which has numerous ISPs including Cox and Verizon. So, crowdfunding, then?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
16. Re:No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  He's a right-winger, so it's probably particularly disgusting porn of men fucking each other on a pile of money.
17. Re:No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  A quick search told me a 56kbps modem downloaded at about 6800 bytes per second.
  Dude, if you had to search that you should be handing in your geek card immediately.
18. Re:No need to break the laws by sinij · 2017-11-23 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  You are not helping, but actually harming the NN cause with your post. It is easy to point at your idiotic behavior and generalize.
19. Re:No need to break the laws by sinij · 2017-11-23 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  Let's just agree on "A speed slow enough to do the TCP handshake with actual hands".
  I don't have enough hands for a three-way handshake.
20. Re:No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  This is Thanksgiving. You should be thankful that Trump isn't putting hot needles through your fingernails before pulling them off! Shame on you!
21. Re:No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  But will the universe collapse if he is driven to alt.* like a stone age herd from the cliff?
22. Re:No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 05:13 · Score: 0
  
  Not just him, but the legislators that enabled him. He was put in there because he would do their bidding, remember that.
23. Re:No need to break the laws by arth1 · 2017-11-23 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  It's possible for 300 baud to push more than 300 bps, but in practice, it didn't happen.
  In practice, some modems became slower than 300 baud, but used multiple carrier frequencies. The Telebit Trailblazer is a good example; the PEP protocol operated at 6 baud, but 512 channels, giving a maximum 18432 bps transfer rate, and great resistance to line noise, as only some of the channels would be affected, causing a small speed drop instead of outages.
  There's also audio frequency key shifting, like the 1200/75 modems used for videotex, minitel and remote terminals, and the Bell 202 modems. While nominally working at 300 baud, they would use two frequencies and work at half duplex, making 1200 bps possible.
24. Re:No need to break the laws by Opportunist · 2017-11-23 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe buying him would be cheaper.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
25. Re:No need to break the laws by Opportunist · 2017-11-23 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  Not strictly necessary. All you have to do is to ensure nobody wants to do the job anymore.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
26. Re:No need to break the laws by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2017-11-23 05:26 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  You are not helping, but actually harming the NN cause with your post. It is easy to point at your idiotic behavior and generalize.
  I'm so so so so sorry if I offended your delicate sensibilities with what was obviously a bit of hyperbole.
  (Let me know if you want me to explain any of those words to you.)
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
27. Re:No need to break the laws by houghi · 2017-11-23 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  https://tools.ietf.org/html/rf...
  We are also looking for hunters in the area to simulate dropped packages.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
28. Re:No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 05:41 · Score: 0
  
  Buy up all ISPs in his area and simply refuse service to him. Since it's not based on race, gender, ethnicity, sexual preference or anything it should be no problem to deny him service.
  Interesting position, but quite wrong. I really wonder how people like you can live with yourself much less other loving and caring human beings.
  Based on your overarching "logic", I would be justified to give you the death penalty for discriminating against a specific person.
  And in my locality our death penalty process "has an express lane"......
29. Re:No need to break the laws by gtall · 2017-11-23 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  Too late, he's already been bought. Wait and see which telecom he is hired by after he leaves office...services rendered ought to get him a very nice salary and perks.
30. Re: No need to break the laws by tacarat · 2017-11-23 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  That could be an expensive Kickstarter.
  
  --
  "Common sense will be the death of us all"
31. Re:No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 05:55 · Score: 0
  
  I just moved to Michigan, and AT&T refused to turn service on in my house. They have lines to it already, but once the previous owners disconnected, AT&T stopped service the entire road.
32. Re:No need to break the laws by sinij · 2017-11-23 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, I want you to explain your behavior, and why you though it was a good idea to suggest violence.
33. Re:No need to break the laws by DewDude · 2017-11-23 06:01 · Score: 2
  
  He's actually already Verizon property; he worked for them before Verizon bought the FCC seat and stuck him there.
34. Re: No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  Someone actually replied to Princes tweet saying he would be abusing his power if he did that
  It's ironic because Ajit Pai is abusing the FCC to make it possible for this to happen, and this is just a well deserved reaction.
  It's clear Ajit Pai isn't considering anything besides the agenda he had when entering the FCC, it doesn't matter what is in the comments.
  Net neutrality isn't a legal debate it's an ethical debate. Our only defense is the same congress that allowed this clown to stay at FCC. Whoever are your reps tday, vote against them next time.
35. Re:No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 06:34 · Score: 0
  
  Would it be illegal if everyone just say frequently pinged his IP address?
36. Re:No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 06:36 · Score: 0
  
  Its great that you are feeling rightous indegnation for some reason, but he didnt suggest violence at all. He just said that being the FCC chairman was a disability.
  However you have stated that 1 person making a joke on the internet is not only not helping, but actually harming Net Neutrality.
  I understand that a joke isnt helping but how is this harming Net Neutrality exactly?
  You are in fact the one here escalating the situation by calling someone an idiot for making an extremely obvious joke.
  You literally read something you didnt like & rather then keeping your emotions in check & making a rational comment OR no comment at all and just going about your day, you've responded by being a patronizing asshole who thinks you can demean others & that you somehow have some authority over some random person making a joke.
  
  Yes, I want you to explain your behavior, and why you though it was a good idea to suggest violence.
  Quite frankly you make Net Neutrality a joke, because somebody who supposedly stands for internet freedom & who thinks themselves to be a bastion for what is good and what is bad for NN, cant even handle a joke made on somebody who is trying to take all our internet freedom away.
  Your jimmies are rustled & your arrogence has rustled my jimmies as well, but you know what, I support your right to free speech online even if you want to silence others. And that is the difference between me and you.
37. Re:No need to break the laws by fahrbot-bot · 2017-11-23 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  You are not helping, but actually harming the NN cause with your post. It is easy to point at your idiotic behavior and generalize.
  I'm so so so so sorry if I offended your delicate sensibilities with what was obviously a bit of hyperbole.
  Sinij is going to be *really* torqued off when he reads A Modest Proposal.
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
38. Re:No need to break the laws by arth1 · 2017-11-23 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  I understand that a joke isnt helping but how is this harming Net Neutrality exactly?
  It gives the opponents another example they can point to when claiming that NN proponents are crackpots and potentially dangerous.
39. Re:No need to break the laws by sinij · 2017-11-23 07:07 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  "cure by beating his fucking brains out" is suggesting and/or calling for violence. Unless you can show me how you can beat someone's brains out in non-violent way.
40. Re:No need to break the laws by cbiltcliffe · 2017-11-23 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, because left-wingers, like all these Hollywood directors and actors being accused of sexual harassment, are all paragons of virtue.
  </sarcasm>
  For crying out loud, how much evidence do you need before you finally figure out that it's not right or left wing that's the problem. It's the powerful and elite that like to screw over everybody, regardless of political leanings. Don't give the powerful more power. If you don't regret it right away, you're setting a precedent that you will regret eventually.
  
  --
  "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
41. Re:No need to break the laws by DontBeAMoran · 2017-11-23 07:22 · Score: 0
  
  Because we're all supposed to know protocol overheads by heart?
  56kbps = 56000 bits per second = 7000 bytes per second. That's almost 3% faster than the number I found, which would have changed the download times I have wrote.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
42. Re: No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 07:22 · Score: 0
  
  Surgically? With an egg beater?
43. Re:No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 07:26 · Score: 0
  
  Give him service, upto 100mbit internet... throtted at 100 bits per second, unless he pays $2000 a month for guaranteed service.
44. Re: No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 07:28 · Score: 0
  
  You need to have your brains beat the fuck out as well. In front of your family and very, very, slowly. To maximize your suffering and their warning.
45. Re: No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 07:30 · Score: 0
  
  Arth1 is right - suggesting violence doesnâ(TM)t do anyone any good. The poster above is a butthurt fool.
46. Re: No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 07:32 · Score: 0
  
  I'd just like to point out that without net neutrality this argument likely wouldn't even be possible.
47. Re: No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 08:02 · Score: 0
  
  The three-way handshake isn't required to happen in three steps; it can actually be done in four (two syn-ack pairs without the combined syn+ack) and still comply with the RFC. So, you'd be ok, albeit a tad slower than usual computers.
48. Re:No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  In the words of Richard Feynman, "Dare to be imprecise". That 3% would have changed your entire argument, right?
49. Re: No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 08:19 · Score: 0
  
  #like ;)
50. Re: No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 08:22 · Score: 0
  
  97% of almost eight minutes is still way more than five minutes, so the point would still stand and you wouldn't saved a bit of time.
51. Re: No need to break the laws by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-11-23 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  Where did you get that idea?
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
52. Re: No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 08:41 · Score: 0
  
  I just switched to satellite :(
  Most sites don't work at all now.
53. Re: No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 08:45 · Score: 0
  
  Yes that would be illegal.
  'Member LOIC?
  Oooooo I 'member!
54. Re:No need to break the laws by StormReaver · 2017-11-23 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  ...but baud is the wrong term to use, since that refers to the underlying electrical signal.
  Yes, I am aware of the distinction, and posted with that in mind when I said 300 baud. :)
55. Re:No need to break the laws by DontBeAMoran · 2017-11-23 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  Damn right! Instead of being "extremely slow" it would have been "extremely slo...", oh wait.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
56. Re: No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 08:50 · Score: 0
  
  Refuse to service him? ( ÍÂ ÍoeÊ- ÍÂ)
57. Re: No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 08:56 · Score: 0
  
  He's too busy grabbing all the pussies for that shit.
58. Re:No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 09:03 · Score: 0
  
  You are not helping, but actually harming the NN cause with your post. It is easy to point at your idiotic behavior and generalize.
  I'm so so so so sorry if I offended your delicate sensibilities with what was obviously a bit of hyperbole.
  (Let me know if you want me to explain any of those words to you.)
  Explain "so".
59. Re:No need to break the laws by mysidia · 2017-11-23 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Tell him because you work for the FCC or or you're a decisionmaker over the FCC: we're only going to provide you 64K (The equivalent of dial-up internet service) until network neutrality protection is restored..
60. Re: No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 09:21 · Score: 0
  
  Unfortunately too often around the world when the government fails to represent the people and instead sells the people out to corporate or their own greedy interests there comes a point where the people or the military say enough is enough.
  It seems uncivilized to western countries but Coups, Riots, and Assassination are the tools to remove corrupt political leaders from office, they are violent, and they get the point across.
  I would argue that the founding fathers of the United States were also for the idea of civil uprising against a corrupt or tyrannical government and even prepared for the eventuality by creating the Second Ammendment.
  In the case of Ajit Pai it is obvious he is a corporate shrill who has been bought and no amount of lobbying or peaceful protest will change his mind on the matter, the US Senate can't be counted on because they mostly are in bed with Trump and support the selling out of freedom, so it leaves only one option, and that is physical harm of some form.
61. Re:No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 09:37 · Score: 0
  
  That's a good come back, I'll give you that :).
62. Re: No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 09:41 · Score: 0
  
  You are forgetting that usually most ISPs would be setup with 8-n-1 that being one parity bit for every 8 bytes of data. That is why you need to do 56000/9*8, and let's not forget that usually 56k was a bonus over 33.6k. Most of the time the phone line couldn't actually support 56k and it would run around 48k. The other funny thing is that with digitalization voice circuits are usually passed via PCM device and only after that multiplexed to the trunk, so the phone company can use less copper cable and co-mingle subscriber last mile, instead of doing analog frequency shift between trunks. The PCM will give you 16kbps only.
63. Re:No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 11:45 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, so many people who actually believe that getting net neutrality passed would be a good thing when in the end it will actually give more control to the corporations and the government to control our online lives. I for one am going to be laughing my ass off if anything like the current net neutrality goes through and everyone is all shiny happy and then the legitimate control from corporations and the government happens. People would be so dazed and confused about how a supposed good thing ended up being even worse it's not even funny. Ah, well, right, we want our "Freedoms (tm)" and we want it now!!!!!!
64. Re: No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 11:45 · Score: 0
  
  Amen brother
65. Re: No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 12:04 · Score: 0
  
  No one threatened violence. Unless in the case I ever ran into you, I'd slap the spit out your mouth.
66. Re:No need to break the laws by Opportunist · 2017-11-23 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  I keep hearing this from various shills, but none of them ever managed to give any kind of convincing argument why this was to happen. So... the usual FUD tactic, hoping that someone will believe it without any tangible argument?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
67. Re:No need to break the laws by Opportunist · 2017-11-23 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  Nah, you don't buy hos, only rent them.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
68. Re: No need to break the laws by lucm · 2017-11-23 13:04 · Score: 1
  
  He's too busy grabbing all the pussies for that shit.
  Still waiting for his MeToos.
  
  --
  lucm, indeed.
69. Re: No need to break the laws by UnknowingFool · 2017-11-23 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  It's a false dichotomy argument: "net neutrality gives too much power to corporations" ignores the logic that being against net neutrality also gives too power to corporations, they are just different corporations. In the case for net neutrality it's giving power to content providers, hardware/software vendors, and the consumers. Being against net neutrality is really only giving power to ISPs.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
70. Re:No need to break the laws by donaldm · 2017-11-23 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  Buy up all ISPs in his area and simply refuse service to him. Since it's not based on race, gender, ethnicity, sexual preference or anything it should be no problem to deny him service.
  Do honestly think that would sway Ajit Pai?
  Personally, I think he would love to play the martyr and spin it in such a way that he would come out smelling of roses.
  If you wish to something about "Net Neutrality" being repealed it would be best to make your congressman or and/or state representative know. You should talk to your friends and get them to do the same (unfortunately many will be apathetic). Also if you are a firm that has been impacted by the repeal such as being coerced into paying for higher speeds which can be considered "extortion", then make it known on your websites. Ratbags don't like their dirty washing being hung out for all to see. :-)
  I don't live in the US nor am I a US citizen but the removal of Net Neutrality in the US will eventually affect me since governments do have a tendency to listen to people with money although their main priority is to get votes.
  
  --
  There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
71. Re: No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 16:42 · Score: 0
  
  i actually blame the center, where are they?
72. Re:No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 18:53 · Score: 0
  
  Just charge him $30mil for fast lane access (say... 1Mbit), added to the world wide web package.
73. Re:No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 19:01 · Score: 0
  
  Just put a bullet in the piece of shit's head.
  Problem solved.
74. Re:No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 21:16 · Score: 0
  
  Of course, because left-wingers, like all these Hollywood directors and actors being accused of sexual harassment, are all paragons of virtue.
  He didn't say that. But if you've listened to the sexual harassment claims, you would realize that most of those involve *women*.
  Which is different (not the same as better) than "men fucking each other on a pile of money".
75. Re:No need to break the laws by Opportunist · 2017-11-23 21:33 · Score: 1
  
  Fatal flaw: He ain't worth the risk of a second of jail time.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
76. Re: No need to break the laws by Opportunist · 2017-11-23 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  Being for or against any policy will always result in a power shift. The question is, which power shift is better for the greater good?
  Being against slavery absolutely sucks if you're a slave owner, ya know?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
77. Re:No need to break the laws by Opportunist · 2017-11-23 21:41 · Score: 1
  
  Let's get our own. With Blackjack. And hookers.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
78. Re:No need to break the laws by Maritz · 2017-11-24 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  "cure by beating his fucking brains out" is suggesting and/or calling for violence. Unless you can show me how you can beat someone's brains out in non-violent way.
  I don't see that. It isn't there.
  This is what you replied to:
  
  A disability he can immediately cure by stepping down. -- We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
79. Re:No need to break the laws by TheRaven64 · 2017-11-24 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  There was a crowdfunding effort to buy the web browsing records of all politicians that voted to allow ISPs to sell these records and publish them online. Probably worth adding him to the list.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
80. Re:No need to break the laws by originalGMC · 2017-11-24 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  A disability he can immediately cure by stepping down.
  stepping down, or off a cliff.
81. Re:No need to break the laws by originalGMC · 2017-11-24 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  hmmm my finger points. Don't be such a negative nancy.
82. Re:No need to break the laws by sinij · 2017-11-24 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  Your inability to follow conversation due to a custom filtering or weighting is the problem. The post I replied to is as follows:
  
  A disability someone else can immediately cure by beating his fucking brains out. I don't usually endorse violence, but in this case I might allow it.
83. Re: No need to break the laws by TheRaven64 · 2017-11-24 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  Net neutrality isn't a legal debate it's an ethical debate
  
  If you phrase it as an ethical debate, then you've already lost. If you want people in Washington to care, phrase it as an economic debate: companies like Google, Facebook, Netflix, Amazon, Yahoo! and so on are possible because of network neutrality. How much do they contribute to the US economy in comparison to the ISPs? How much did the growth of the open Internet contribute in comparison to the likes of AOL and CompuServe?
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
84. Re:No need to break the laws by Opportunist · 2017-11-24 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  Either solves my problem.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
85. Re:No need to break the laws by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2017-11-24 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I want you to explain your behavior
  I didn't offer to do that. I offered to explain some of the words to you. It would appear that your reading comprehension is as deficient as your sense of humor.
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
86. Re:No need to break the laws by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2017-11-24 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Sinij is going to be *really* torqued off when he reads A Modest Proposal.
  Yes, but who will he get to read it to him?
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
87. Re:No need to break the laws by Altrag · 2017-11-24 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  Cloudflare has a distinct advantage here for doing these kind of guerrilla tactics -- they don't operate on the consumer's end, they operate as a middleman between the consumer and the content provider. And they do that for a surprisingly large portion of the internet (if you go back and find the articles about when they got hacked a while ago and find the list of sites that were potentially compromised by extension.. that is, at least a partial customer list.. its shocking how much this one company controls if they want to start messing with their own pipes and CDN systems..)
  So while Cloudflare might not be able to slow down the entire internet for Pai's household or the FCC in general, they could at least in theory slow it down for a decent chunk of all websites, and there's a good chance at least a few of them would be things Pai or other FCC members would want to access periodically.
  Of course because of their size and what they do, there is a chance that they themselves could possibly fall under existing regulations as a service provider. Meaning that making Pai an example of his own rules that won't be implemented for a month.. may get them in hot water under the old rules that are going away. Which would be ironic in a way but not so much an amusing way unfortunately as legal action would almost certainly be pursued to the fullest just out of spite and vengeance if there's any action available.
88. Re:No need to break the laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-27 07:50 · Score: 0
  
  I am miss ALENA IVANA i really need to share a testimony on how i get ride of herpes within 14 days of using herbal coco mixture by a specialize herbalist called Dr EGBE I suffer out break for so many year i visit different kinds of hospitals all to know avail until a friend of mine in AMERICA introduce me to Dr EGBE who encourage me and promise to help me which he really prepare a herbal medication and send it to me Via DHL shipment which i use as he instructed after 14 days of usage i should confidently go for health check up which i do for God so kind am completely cure from herpes I have never experience any out break for some years now i will kindly advise those out there to contact EMAIL, egbegodytemple@hotmail.com , for more information on how you can easily get ride herpes once and for all.
  1. Herpes
  2. Cancer
  3. Hiv/Aids
  4. Hepatitis
  5. Brings My Ex back
  6. Leprosy
  7. SARS
  8. Bubonic Plague
  9. Cerebrovascular Disease
  10. Lower Respiratory Infections
  11. Syphilis
  12. Influenza A-H1N1 (Swine Flu)
  13. Ischemic Heart Disease
  14. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
  15. Whooping Cough
  16. Perinatal Complications
  17. Diarrhea
  18.. Lung Cancer
  19. Influenza
  20. childlessness
  21. Measles
  22.metal problems.
  23 if anyone want to get how Menstruation back again
  REMEMBER -- sickness is not our friends this virus infection diseases. the more it stay in your body the more it keep destroying your body organs..via email. egbegodytemple@hotmail.com
Excelent by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 02:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

Just wait until he makes this legal, and then do it.
1. Re:Excelent by DewDude · 2017-11-23 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  I'm of the opinion if the big guys are so hell-bent on breaking the internet; then just disconnect them from it. See how the Comcasts and Verizons respond when they suddenly can't get connectivity outside of their network because the transit providers are no longer required to. The agree to peering if they agree to conditions that include neutrality. They start to break conditions, you break peering.
2. Re:Excelent by billn · 2017-11-23 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  You'll know what direction we're headed, for sure, when Netflix starts buying ISPs.
  
  --
  - billn
he reason to refuse by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 02:18 · Score: 0

he takes too much bandwidth and set a limit at his house to 5 kilobytes and then data plan of 100000 dollars per kilobyte
Unconvincing Tantrum by alternative_right · 2017-11-23 02:19 · Score: 0, Troll

This childlike tendency to focus on people instead of ideas reveals a herd mentality. Then again, that is typical of democracy.
If you cannot beat him in the realm of ideas, no amount of protests, slogans, and stunts will help.
You need a better argument for net neutrality than "they might charge me extra for midget porn." You need to address the fact that "fast lanes," by prioritizing traffic, have done -- using our knowledge of relativity here -- the same thing as slowing down all other traffic, especially as infrastructure improves.
Ajit Pai is just the figurehead. Very few people have looked into the issues underlying this issue, and so they are relying on masses of warm bodies to make the argument for them with a heckler's veto. That sets a precedent that benefits no one.

--
Alternative Right.
1. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by sinij · 2017-11-23 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  Not necessary, as it is city planners that decide priority for HOV lanes, but it is for-profit telecoms that would decide traffic priority for the last mile. One view is that lack of NN will lead to walled gardens - each ISP will turn into cable service, over data link with their own preset channels.
2. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by dgatwood · 2017-11-23 02:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Ajit Pai is just the figurehead. Very few people have looked into the issues underlying this issue, and so they are relying on masses of warm bodies to make the argument for them with a heckler's veto. That sets a precedent that benefits no one.
  Those of us who have looked into the issue have pointed out a long history of abuse by multiple cable companies (prioritizing their own in-house services to the detriment of competitors, etc.) that was stopped dead in its tracks by these regulations, and that would become legal again if these regulations are removed. We pointed out example after example of this.
  So at this point, focusing on the people seems like the only sane approach. Their ideas can and have be proven objectively wrong. Repeatedly. The ideas aren't the problem. The people spouting absolute nonsense are.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
3. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 02:45 · Score: 0
  
  The correct analogy would be the city knew a good estimate of how valuable one day of you going into work was for each car, and charged you a fee to drive into the city based of that. This is what will happen without net neutrality, any company making big profits will have to pay your isp to access you. The ISPs want end users to be both paying customers and a product they sell to other companies.
4. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 02:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Where I live, busses can use an extra lane to get faster into the city, similarly emergency services get priority.
  the bus passes the jam relatively well without significantly delaying the rest of the cars, taking as much space as 2-3 cars while transporting more than 50 people.
  ...while requiring the reservation of a lane that would otherwise have carried many hundreds of cars an hour and is now used by a few buses an hour, which are typically only full during peak hours. It increases traffic time for everyone to save a bit of time for the small fraction of people in that road who are in one of the buses.
  
  the question is wether anything that will come from a repeal of NN will make similar sense.
  If you think repealing net neutrality has anything to do with effective use of capacity, you are, to put it nicely, overly optimistic and confident in people's intentions in this matter.
5. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 03:00 · Score: 0
  
  Speaking of children and tantrums, your post has been rated "Troll," apparently.
  I miss the Slashdot of 20 years ago.
6. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by boudie2 · 2017-11-23 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, let's all listen to the "reasonable" alt-right guy. I'm sure he has our best interest at heart. As he himself said, "slogans and stunts won't help". He couldn't have had a straight face when he wrote that.
7. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by G · 2017-11-23 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  Not necessarily disagreeing with your assessment of the efficacy of protests. However, it is a bit short-sighted to presume incentives as being the most effective policy for the greater good.
8. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by JoshuaZ · 2017-11-23 03:19 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Net neutrality did win on the idea front already, as demonstrated by the massive number of FCC comments in favor of it, and demonstrated by the sort of shady tactics used by the anti-net neutrality groups like posting millions of fake comments. The ideas won. Unfortunately we have a government where what ideas have won doesn't actually matter, and that situation is far, far worse under the current administration than it was under any of the last four at least.
9. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 03:29 · Score: 0
  
  Then again, that is typical of mob mentality
  ftfw
10. Re: Unconvincing Tantrum by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-11-23 03:29 · Score: 2
  
  Very few people have looked into the issue? Here on Slashdot? Are you even fucking serious right now? We clearly understand it much better than you.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
11. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  The argument against it is fine, it's just that the guy in charge doesn't agree and there is nothing we can actually do to stop him. There is no marketplace of ideas here just him choosing something. Net Neutrality is the better plan and it has been shown to be a problem when not enforced (It's not speculation). The only people that don't agree are the people that will make money off it being walled off and the shills they fund.
12. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 03:34 · Score: 0
  
  So, you prefer to listen to those who want to deny or degrade service to an employee of the federal government?
13. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 03:40 · Score: 0
  
  Now, now. He *identifies* as being a "reasonable all-right guy". It's able-ist to mock his self-identity. Let's give him a safe space for people who identify as "reasonable", and not try to trigger anyone's questioning of their own stances.
14. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by Opportunist · 2017-11-23 03:49 · Score: 0
  
  If there is a tyrant and you shoot him, someone will come to replace him. You shoot that tyrant again. Do it 2-3 times and nobody will want to take the position, unless they are also willing to change what made you shoot their predecessors.
  You cannot kill ideas. Yes. But you can kill those that implement them, until nobody is willing to do it anymore.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
15. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by c0y · 2017-11-23 03:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I don't know. It seems like if CloudFlare can legally slow down traffic of any arbitrary individual they don't like, legally, we've already lost the battle. They just haven't figured out how to properly monetize that ability yet.
16. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by Opportunist · 2017-11-23 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  If that gets the problem solved...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
17. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-11-23 03:52 · Score: 2
  
  Firstly, I don't think you know what "objective" means; it means you can measure it, empirically.
  Counting examples is measuring a set, or at least providing a lower bound on its cardinality (which is measuring it, too, although more in the engineering sense and less in the mathematical sense).
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
18. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by Khyber · 2017-11-23 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  "If you cannot beat him in the realm of ideas, no amount of protests, slogans, and stunts will help."
  You're a historically-ignorant person if you think change cannot be effected.
  We simply target Pai and his family. Pure and simple French Revolution style.
  That gives all the other people reason to step the fuck back, 'lest they find themselves the next target.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
19. Re: Unconvincing Tantrum by kenh · 2017-11-23 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  Fully one-third of all comments posted were duplicate 'me too' comments, rendered irrelevant because after the first one the next 7.5 Million added nothing to the conversation.
  
  --
  Ken
20. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by Khyber · 2017-11-23 03:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "Firstly, I don't think you know what "objective" means; it means you can measure it, empirically."
  You sure as fuck didn't bother to read or comprehend what you were replying to, did you?
  
  Those of us who have looked into the issue have pointed out a long history of abuse by multiple cable companies (prioritizing their own in-house services to the detriment of competitors, etc.)
  That clearly shows an empirical measurement, one you can look up though the court systems.
  "If you agree to an action when it's done by $FOO but disagree with the same action when it is done by $BAR, you aren't anywhere close to holding the moral high-ground."
  I disagree with Catholics and Christians being anywhere near children because of their tendency to be rapey. I agree with animals being around children, they tend to not rape children.
  Oops, there went your bullshit morality argument, you ignorant emotionally-driven fucktard.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
21. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by drinkypoo · 2017-11-23 04:06 · Score: 2
  
  If you agree to an action when it's done by $FOO but disagree with the same action when it is done by $BAR, you aren't anywhere close to holding the moral high-ground. You are, in fact, one of those people spouting absolute nonsense.
  The pathetic irony of your comment is that you are the one who is spouting nonsense by making an absolute statement here. I can agree with Antifa making a human wall to protect people and disagree with Nazis making a human wall to keep people out of an abortion clinic. I can disagree with someone who punches someone because they want to, and I can agree with the person who punches them right in the fucking face in self-defense.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
22. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by drinkypoo · 2017-11-23 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  You cannot kill ideas. Yes. But you can kill those that implement them, until nobody is willing to do it anymore.
  You can't, though, not realistically. Enough you's can, but not just one you. The system loves it when one person freaks out and shoots cops because they just get ten more cops signing up because they've been brainwashed by their cop sucking family, and then they go into the academy and get brainwashed some more by a system that tells them that there is a war on cops when this is about the safest time in history to be a cop in America. Meanwhile, they are killing us in record numbers in this country. Kill ten or twenty of them, they'll just make twenty or forty more, and kill forty or eighty of us.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
23. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by Opportunist · 2017-11-23 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  This ain't a cop, this is basically the same as a politician. Cops still have this air of usefulness to people, where they actually do something good, the whole "serve and protect" thing.
  Politicians on the other hand... I doubt anyone would as much as raise his head if you neutralize one.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
24. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by drinkypoo · 2017-11-23 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  This ain't a cop, this is basically the same as a politician.
  Yes, but let's not try to be obtuse here. The other politicians will throw cops at you as fast as they can so that they don't become the next casualty.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
25. Re: Unconvincing Tantrum by Comboman · 2017-11-23 04:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What they add to the "conversation" is how many people support one view versus another. By your logic, Trump and Hillary tied the election with one vote each, since all of the duplicate votes were irrelevant.
  
  --
  Support Right To Repair Legislation.
26. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by DontBeAMoran · 2017-11-23 04:25 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The bus-only lane is not about bandwidth, it's about ping times.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
27. Re: Unconvincing Tantrum by HornWumpus · 2017-11-23 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  For definitions of 'people' equalling 'scripts stuffing comment boxes'.
  Internet polls mean fuckall.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
28. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  He's the guy that's making it legal for ISPs to throttle various services coming over the wire, so yeah. You make it sound like this guy is upset with the mailman for delivering too many advertisements in the mail and throttling him down for it.
  This is literally the guy that says that we don't need competition in the ISP space and that the ISPs should be allowed to discriminate between parties sending data over the wire for whatever reason they like even though one ISP is competition.
29. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by HornWumpus · 2017-11-23 04:41 · Score: 2
  
  Restudy history. The French revolution turned out _very_badly_ for all involved. It's a lesson on how not to do it.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
30. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  They just haven't figured out how to properly monetize that ability yet.
  You Sir lack imagination, Monetizing this would be easy "Pay us to unblock you or rot in the slow lane asshole"
31. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  You do realize that cities can make those lanes bus only during certain hours, right? Around here they're bus only typically during certain hours if the city really needs the lanes for other kinds of traffic.
  Having a single bus stuck in traffic carrying a full load makes traffic slower for everybody. But during rushhour the buses are commonly completely full, so even if the lane isn't beiing completely used at one time or another there's still likely more people using it in a day than if it were being used by cars.
32. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by Opportunist · 2017-11-23 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  Cops tend to be highly motivated if you hit other cops. For obvious reasons.
  Less so when it's about politicians. Twice if they don't really agree with their agenda.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
33. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by giggleloop · 2017-11-23 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  Can you DDOS a house?
34. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  It does indeed demonstrate that net neutrality does only a little to protect the end user. Their primary function is to let content providers like Cloudflare and, much more importantly, Google/Youtube to shape traffic however they like inside of their own network and then demand a level playing field once it is handed over. For the big guys, they typically own their own fiber all the way out to where they peer with the ISP, and there they have a caching server set up, so we are really only talking about the ISP access network. This is where the content providers like to use net neutrality to force ISPs to finance the added costs of higher resolution videos - instead of using shaping to keep those videos from hogging all the resources.
35. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  looks to see whether his ISP prioritises SoundCloud
36. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by doctorvo · 2017-11-23 05:50 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Their ideas can and have be proven objectively wrong.
  Well, the idea why I oppose net neutrality is because I do not wish the FCC to have additional regulatory control over the Internet or ISPs. Please "prove me objectively wrong".
  
  So at this point, focusing on the people seems like the only sane approach.
  That's the kind of approach terrorists take. The "sane approach" is to accept the outcome of the election and be more convincing next time.
37. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  Firstly, I don't think
  That much is obvious.
38. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by doctorvo · 2017-11-23 06:05 · Score: 0
  
  Those of us who have looked into the issue have pointed out a long history of abuse by multiple cable companies (prioritizing their own in-house services to the detriment of competitors, etc.)
  That clearly shows an empirical measurement, one you can look up though the court systems.
  That is not only an "empirical measurement", that is one of the desired outcomes of killing net neutrality. You may disagree that it's a good thing, but your disagreement then isn't based on some objective fact but a preference.
  
  I disagree with Catholics and Christians being anywhere near children because of their tendency to be rapey.
  Presumably, you want that in order to reduce child rapes (rather than out of religious prejudice). Unfortunately, you don't seem to ask the question of whether (1) it conflicts with Constitutional rights or (2) it is a rational policy; you just have a knee-jerk reaction based on how media program you.
  As for (1), you can't pass a law that infringes on the right of Catholics or Christians to interact with children; such a law would be against everything a free society stands for. We judge people based on their individual actions, not by their religious beliefs or statistics. But that's not the worst of your problems.
  A far worse problem is that with (2), that it's not a rational policy. In fact, both school teachers and step fathers pose a far greater threat to children in terms of sexual abuse than Catholics or Catholic priests (Catholic priests and Catholics probably commit sexual abuse at average rates). It is irrational to demand that "Catholics not be anywhere near children" (average abuse risk) without first demanding that something be done about sexual abuse by school teachers and step fathers.
39. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by doctorvo · 2017-11-23 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  Counting examples is measuring a set, or at least providing a lower bound on its cardinality
  And those examples are examples of what killing net neutrality is actually intended to achieve, namely to give ISPs the option of offering new kinds of products.
  The problem isn't that net neutrality advocates lack examples, the problem is that people disagree over the meaning of those examples.
40. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by DewDude · 2017-11-23 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  But that's kind of the beauty of it; you're giving these guys a taste of how badly this can backfire. They're expecting transit providers and other service providers to bend to them. You can't think of this as losing the battle; you're just using their own weapon against them. They will go crying about wanting some kind of regulation at that point.
  
  It's fighting fire with fire. You want to screw your customers; so screw you. I wouldn't slow them down, I'd just cut them off...entirely. Then you make them agree to new peering terms when they come begging that forces them to neutrality rules. When they ultimately find a way of breaking them, cut service for breach of contract. Then when the ISP's complain the public can point right back and them and go "YOU WANTED THIS! YOU PAID SO MUCH FOR THE DEREGULATION!".
  
  It's either going to be successful or backfire...and even if it backfires; it just speeds up what will eventually happen at the hands of the ISPs anyway.
41. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  You’re aware, of course, having “looked into the issues” that the net heutrality regulations were never ENACTED as they were blocked several months before they were to take effect.
  So uh... how were the ISPs stopped dead in their tracks?
42. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by c · 2017-11-23 07:35 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  It seems like if CloudFlare can legally slow down traffic of any arbitrary individual they don't like, legally, we've already lost the battle.
  As soon as the FCC makes it legal, the battle is lost.
  Personally, I think that the instant the FCC votes to kill net neutrality, every Internet service should just geoblock Pai's home zip code. Don't just slow it down or put up a protest interstitial; just silently drop every packet.
  
  --
  Log in or piss off.
43. Re: Unconvincing Tantrum by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 08:10 · Score: 0
  
  So if they were never enacted, what is he repealing?
44. Re: Unconvincing Tantrum by l0n3s0m3phr34k · 2017-11-23 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  "Me too"...like some brain-dead AOLer. We should do the world a favor and cap Pai like Old Yeller; he's just about as useless as jpegs to Hellen Keller.
45. Re: Unconvincing Tantrum by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 08:41 · Score: 0
  
  You mistakenly assume that FCC commentaries amount to voting.
  They dont.
  It's about ppl providing FCC new reasons not to act on their plan. If 10 millions give exactly the same unconvincing reason, it doesn't turn reason convincing all of sudden.
46. Re: Unconvincing Tantrum by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 08:47 · Score: 0
  
  Polls in general*
47. Re: Unconvincing Tantrum by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  Bullshit, they do what they are ordered to.
48. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 09:06 · Score: 0
  
  Firstly, I don't think you know what "objective" means; it means you can measure it, empirically.
  I don't think you know what a substantive argument means, it means saying something besides a random interjection about a dictionary definition.
  
  Secondly, if it is "objectively right" to force one set of companies to carry a message they do not want to carry, then it is objectively right to force other companies to do so as well.
  Yep, that's why Net Neutrality exists in the form it does. Thanks for noticing.
  
  If you agree to an action when it's done by $FOO but disagree with the same action when it is done by $BAR, you aren't anywhere close to holding the moral high-ground. You are, in fact, one of those people spouting absolute nonsense.
  Those who belabor others for spouting nonsense had best not live in a circus tent. $FOO is my husband, $BAR is not, the one can have sex with me, the other can't. Horrors! $FOO is a licensed, bonded, contractor, $BAR is a random drunk. The one can fix my roof, the other can't. $FOO is the delivery man from the pizza place I ordered a pie from, $BAR is a delivery man from a rival pizza place. The one can use my driveway, the other can't. $FOO can enter my place of business because of being a seeing-eye dog, $BAR being a purse dog cannot.
  You should try again when your brain isn't so caught up in babbling random rhetorical rejoinders. You blithering twit.
49. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 11:10 · Score: 0
  
  Secondly, if it is "objectively right" to force one set of companies to carry a message they do not want to carry, then it is objectively right to force other companies to do so as well.
  So what you're saying is, if it is right to give the ISPs the choice of what message they carry, then it is equally right to give me as a land owner the choice to charge the ISP what I wish as rent for their use of my property?
  I'm starting to see what you mean! If you agree to an action such as an ISP being allowed to block access to the Internet for me, then you also agree to an action such as me requiring the ISP to pay $10 million a month for use of my land.
  It's so simple
50. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 11:30 · Score: 0
  
  This childlike tendency to focus on people instead of ideas reveals a herd mentality. Then again, that is typical of democracy.
  Nope, but your creation of an incoherent rationale for your ideas is typical of people with bad arguments. You're blowing a lot of hot air, but there's no substance to it. Rather the opposite, notice how you're not focusing on ideas, but on people yourself.
  There's a word for that, isn't there?
  
  If you cannot beat him in the realm of ideas, no amount of protests, slogans, and stunts will help.
  You've got it backwards. He can't beat us within the realm of ideas, so he doesn't listen to them, so no amount of dialogue or persuasion will help, only protests, slogans, and stunts, up to and including beheadings on the White House Lawn.
  Such is the inevitable outcome you know.
  
  You need a better argument for net neutrality than "they might charge me extra for midget porn."
  
  You need a better understanding of net neutrality than "they might charge me extra for midget porn" .
  
  You need to address the fact that "fast lanes," by prioritizing traffic, have done -- using our knowledge of relativity here -- the same thing as slowing down all other traffic, especially as infrastructure improves.
  You need to address the fact that slowing down particular traffic, especially as infrastructure improves, has nothing to do with anybody's knowledge of relativity, not Einstein's, Hawking's, or Fred Flintstone's so bringing that up is only demonstrating your ignorance, not your knowledge.
  
  Ajit Pai is just the figurehead. Very few people have looked into the issues underlying this issue, and so they are relying on masses of warm bodies to make the argument for them with a heckler's veto. That sets a precedent that benefits no one.
  Ajit Pai isn't being personally held responsible, he's being personally made accountable, because nobody will listen otherwise, and like it or not, Ajit Pai is the man running the FCC, the body that is choosing to act, despite the many people who have tried to get an understanding across to certain members of said board, that their actions are continuing a precedent of only benefiting their donors and supporters while completely failing to address the concerns of their critics, and like you, blowing smoke as if there was no legitimate discourse from the other side. Sorry, but your pretensions are nothing new, you were the same when it was abortion, women's right to vote, slavery, and even taxation.
  You're just grandstanding over your purported indignation, yet the result is that people realize your actions are not congruent with integrity enough to even respect the other side, so they have no respect for you learning from anything except being given the full weight and measure of the consequences of your actions.
  You can sow the wind if you want, but then you shall reap the fruits of your labors.
51. Re: Unconvincing Tantrum by PoopJuggler · 2017-11-23 12:06 · Score: 0
  
  Reichsfuhrer Pusigraber would ban elections if he could.
52. Re: Unconvincing Tantrum by Opportunist · 2017-11-23 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  That's how the system should work, yes.
  But when has it ever?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
53. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by lucm · 2017-11-23 13:23 · Score: 0
  
  If you cannot beat him in the realm of ideas, no amount of protests, slogans, and stunts will help.
  That's how it works nowadays. Lynch mobs show up to conferences and panels, then use bullhorns and sirens and chants to silence them. And when it's not enough, the sewer of humanity (the antifas) show up with glass bottles and 2x4 to physically attack people.
  There is no room for discussion and this is 100% because of immature liberals. You would hope that those among the liberals that have some form of common sense would condemn those antidemocratic, anti-free speech behavior, but they're not. It is a sad day when the KKK and neonazis shows more restraint and respect for difference than liberal protesters. Don't expect better when it comes to this net neutrality issue.
  
  --
  lucm, indeed.
54. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by onepoint · 2017-11-23 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  I am looking at this from both sides. and I can see why someone wants a fast lane and a slow lane. but at the end, due to lack of a free market, ISP's are going to win, consumers are going to pay more.
  the Netflix issue back in 2014-2015 proved a very valid problem, pipe size, and pipe quality and at the end, it's the peering arrangement. Comcast made Netflix pay for the pipe, so will everyone else in due time.
  I think that when the telephone pole and access to laying fiber improve we Might see an improvement from the ISP ( shit, I offer you fiber at the cable prices, with a free install, You are going to join me )
  
  --
  if you see me, smile and say hello.
55. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by onepoint · 2017-11-23 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  offtopic :
  liberals are learning to operate like a lynch mob, because the protest with flowers
  and speeches did not really provide the results. So they just copied what has worked.
  I would think that the right does not like that the left has chosen to become slightly to
  extreme violence. And i feel that the left will learn how to become extremely violent.
  wishing both sides the best, I will be watching it in the news
  
  --
  if you see me, smile and say hello.
56. Re: Unconvincing Tantrum by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 15:56 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, never saw an immature Nazi before... Wait, there's one on Slashdot! Right now! But seriously, there are Nazis that commit terrorist attacks in the US in broad daylight these days. So it's not just edgy apologists on the internet anymore... All the apologizing and rationalization you do is now starting to bare real-world consequences.
57. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by lucm · 2017-11-23 17:04 · Score: 1
  
  wishing both sides the best, I will be watching it in the news
  Which means you're going to be exposed to a massive liberal bias, unless you take time to watch sources from both sides and try to find where the truth lies.
  
  --
  lucm, indeed.
58. Re: Unconvincing Tantrum by lucm · 2017-11-23 17:06 · Score: 0
  
  there are Nazis that commit terrorist attacks in the US in broad daylight these days
  Yes. And ironically they call themselves "antifas".
  
  --
  lucm, indeed.
59. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by Khyber · 2017-11-23 18:47 · Score: 1
  
  We're far better equipped and prepared than the French were. We have a literal glut of food and resources to work with.
  I don't think you're paying enough attention to what's happening around you and have too narrow of a focus.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
60. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-11-23 21:04 · Score: 1
  
  I'll be happy for my local water utility to "offer new kinds of products", I'm just not sure what those products should be. Sugared water? Coloured water? And if I can't get my normal water, do I have to move to get it? Since I don't really have to option of getting another set of pipes.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
61. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by dgatwood · 2017-11-24 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  Firstly, I don't think you know what "objective" means; it means you can measure it, empirically.
  Yes, and when the FCC says that there is no evidence of ISPs abusing their power and I list several instances thereof, that makes their statement objectively wrong, because several is objectively greater than zero. I know precisely what "objectively" means. The problem is that you're so completely convinced of your correctness that you're failing to actually objectively evaluate evidence to the contrary.
  
  Secondly, if it is "objectively right" to force one set of companies to carry a message they do not want to carry, then it is objectively right to force other companies to do so as well.
  No, it isn't. The purpose of laws is to limit the damage that people with power can do to people who are powerless. Whether laws should apply, then, depends on the extent of the difference in relative power between the two parties.
  In this regard, ISPs are objectively (measurably) different from companies that merely provide services on the Internet, in that they provide the sole pipe available to their users. If an ISP blocks something, you aren't getting access to it. (Yes, you can sometimes get around it by using VPNs, but that quickly becomes a technological arms race.) Most Americans don't have a choice in broadband ISPs. They get whatever one ISP is available in their neighborhood. So it is very necessary to limit what those monopolist ISPs can do to limit users' access to content.
  Other companies that are not ISPs do not have that power over their users, because users are free to use other services that don't have those limitations. When there are thousands of hosting providers, no one hosting provider has absolute power over its users. When there are dozens of search providers, no one search provider has absolute power over its users. When social media posts can be replaced by SMS messages, email messages, bulletin board postings, or the use of any number of other technologies, no social media provider has absolute power over its users. These companies are not natural monopolies, and cannot truly censor anything in an absolute sense of the word.
  Their absolute power to control access to services within a market is the reason that natural monopolies like ISPs are and should be highly regulated, whereas companies that are not natural monopolies are and should be only lightly regulated. The mere fact that two entities are companies does not automatically make them equivalent, because their influence is not presumptively equivalent, and it is unconscionable to imply otherwise.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
62. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by doctorvo · 2017-11-24 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  I'll be happy for my local water utility to "offer new kinds of products", I'm just not sure what those products should be.
  Well, and there you have given an excellent illustration of how ISPs are not like water utilities. That's why people have less of a problem with draconian regulations of water utilities than they have with draconian regulations of ISPs.
63. Re: Unconvincing Tantrum by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-24 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  Reichsfuhrer Pusigraber would ban elections if he could.
  I have seen no evidence of that. Hillary, on the other hand, has made it clear that she hates the first amendment, hates the democratic process, and disrespects the voters.
  Hillary and the Democrats are ideologically far closer to the Nazis than Trump and the Republicans.
64. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-11-24 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately they are, because I can't have more than one of either where I live.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
65. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by HornWumpus · 2017-11-24 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  I think you drank the koolaid.
  The French revolution ate itself. Lack of food had nothing to do with it.
  Once you start killing people that disagree with you, it ain't over till _you_are_dead_. As you say: 'we're better equipped', _you_ will die faster than Robespierre did.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
66. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by doctorvo · 2017-11-24 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately they are, because I can't have more than one of either where I live.
  Well, and there you have it: if you force Internet service to be as uniform and interchangeable as water service, then you're going to get as many providers of Internet service as you get for water: one. That's because providers can't differentiate themselves. That's one of the reasons for killing net neutrality.
  When you mandate that all the products in a market are exactly the same, you encourage the formation of a monopoly.
67. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-11-25 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  You could make the same "argument" about electricity or gas but you'd be provably wrong because I actually do have a number of utilities pestering me with offers in those areas. I can't get a different Internet connection or water supply, though. And the very point of Internet service from its very beginning was the uniformity and interchangeability. You had already had incompatible networks before TCP/IP came. So why the hell would I want something different when the value of the Internet, just like the value of the telephone system, lies in the network effect?
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
68. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by doctorvo · 2017-11-25 18:30 · Score: 0
  
  [I] could make the same "argument" about electricity or gas but [I]'d be provably wrong because I actually do have a number of utilities pestering me with offers in those areas.
  
  Hence, your point about water utilities was a red herring.
  
  And the very point of Internet service from its very beginning was the uniformity and interchangeability.
  And for 40 years, we got that without FCC imposed net neutrality. Furthermore, charging differently for different traffic doesn't affect uniformity and interchangeability anyway (in fact, that's already happening).
  
  So why the hell would I want something different when the value of the Internet
  Why would anybody care what you want? Do you believe that just because you want something, laws and regulations need to spring into existence to give it to you?
  All net neutrality advocates have done is special pleading for their interests and presenting a parade of horribles. Neither is a compelling argument for FCC net neutrality.
  Let's not kid ourselves: many nerds simply advocate net neutrality because they full well know that if net neutrality disappears, their ISP bills may well go up substantially. I have no problem with that, and I don't see why the FCC or lawmakers should care either.
69. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-11-25 21:10 · Score: 1
  
  Hence, your point about water utilities was a red herring.
  No, it's not, because I can have exactly as many water providers as I can have ISPs, namely one. That's why it's a perfect example in my case. I can't pick a better competing offer for either.
  
  And for 40 years, we got that without FCC imposed net neutrality. Furthermore, charging differently for different traffic doesn't affect uniformity and interchangeability anyway (in fact, that's already happening).
  We didn't need net neutrality in law for a very long time because TCP/IP hardware and software was net-neutral by default, because that's what packet switching does. For quite a lot of the time in the beginning, we were happy that the switches worked at all! And I'm quite happy that what's happening for you isn't happening for me.
  
  Why would anybody care what you want?
  Well, gee...because customers are here to buy things they want, and not the thing they don't want?
  
  Let's not kid ourselves: many nerds simply advocate net neutrality because they full well know that if net neutrality disappears, their ISP bills may well go up substantially. I have no problem with that
  I don't have a significant problem with that either, although non-nerd people may be asking why their bills are going up. Fortunately I live rather far away from the United $tate$ so the broadband subsidies scandal and regulatory capture and other ways of politicians being in bed with small, disproportionately powerful groups of people shaping the US has little or no impact on my ISP situation.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
70. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by doctorvo · 2017-11-26 16:33 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's not, because I can have exactly as many water providers as I can have ISPs, namely one. That's why it's a perfect example in my case. I can't pick a better competing offer for either.
  An example of what? A government-mandated monopoly?
  
  We didn't need net neutrality in law for a very long time because TCP/IP hardware and software was net-neutral by default, because that's what packet switching does.
  And what has changed about TCP/IP hardware and packet switching these days according to you?
  
  Well, gee...because customers are here to buy things they want, and not the thing they don't want?
  You personally aren't representative of all customers.
  
  although non-nerd people may be asking why their bills are going up
  Why would they be asking that if their bills go down?
  
  Fortunately I live rather far away from the United $tate$ so the broadband subsidies scandal and regulatory capture and other ways of politicians being in bed with small, disproportionately powerful groups of people shaping the US has little or no impact on my ISP situation.
  So why the fuck do you weigh in on US policy debates? And why do you advocate more regulatory capture for the US? Are you trying to sabotage the US?
71. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by strikethree · 2017-11-27 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree with Catholics and Christians being anywhere near children because of their tendency to be rapey. I agree with animals being around children, they tend to not rape children.
  Be careful around dolphins... Just sayin' :)
  
  --
  "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Plan "B" by boudie2 · 2017-11-23 02:20 · Score: 4, Funny

The old reliable - flaming bag of dog shit on his doorstep.
1. Re:Plan "B" by infolation · 2017-11-23 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  Or horse's head. But, each to their own.
2. Re:Plan "B" by boudie2 · 2017-11-23 02:43 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe we should just send over Luca Brasi to make him an offer he can't refuse.
3. Re:Plan "B" by ckatko · 2017-11-23 03:04 · Score: 2
  
  A 1972 Volkswagen Beetle covertable in mint condition?
4. Re:Plan "B" by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2017-11-23 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  Well, sure. But where you gonna find one of those nowadays?
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
5. Re:Plan "B" by boudie2 · 2017-11-23 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  I meant it literally, not figuratively.
6. Re:Plan "B" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 04:57 · Score: 0
  
  That would just make for a complete horse since there is already a horse's ass living there.
7. Re:Plan "B" by sexconker · 2017-11-23 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  No, you burn an effigy of him in front of his house, with an angry mob cheering.
  It's a perfectly legal use of your right to speech guaranteed in the first amendment.
8. Re: Plan "B" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 05:27 · Score: 0
  
  We should just legalize bribery. When bribery is outlawed, only outlaws can pass legislation.
9. Re:Plan "B" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 10:16 · Score: 0
  
  You youngsters and your odd pranks.
  When I was young we used tar and feathers on people that misbehaved.
10. Re:Plan "B" by onepoint · 2017-11-23 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  I just saw a VW Thing for $35K. super mint and perfectly restored. too much if you ask me, but if I had spare cash, it would be mine
  
  --
  if you see me, smile and say hello.
Good job guys by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 02:21 · Score: 0, Interesting

The public is already complaining that internet access is monopolistic, and now the company is stating it will take puntative action against a citizen. That's a fast way to get yourself regulated like a public utility, by the one guy who has the power to do it.
1. Re: Good job guys by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  ...which is exactly the goal of this stunt, to apply pressure on a key decision-maker to keep the Internet regulated like a public utility.
2. Re: Good job guys by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 02:50 · Score: 0
  
  I think you missed the point.... he is going to STOP regulating them like a public utility not begin regulating them.
3. Re:Good job guys by goose-incarnated · 2017-11-23 02:55 · Score: 0
  
  The public is already complaining that internet access is monopolistic, and now the company is stating it will take puntative action against a citizen. That's a fast way to get yourself regulated like a public utility, by the one guy who has the power to do it.
  Parent needs to be upvoted.
  
  --
  I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
4. Re: Good job guys by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-11-23 03:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  He is not a "citizen" in this context; he is an appointed public servant who is refusing to perform that task so that he can continue to be a corporate servant.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
5. Re:Good job guys by Opportunist · 2017-11-23 03:54 · Score: 2
  
  Well, if your public servants fail to do their job, it's an unfortunate necessity to remind them who they're working for.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
6. Re:Good job guys by Khyber · 2017-11-23 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  "now the company is stating it will take puntative action against a citizen"
  Once you become a government member, you actually LOSE some rights, dipshit, as you are no longer fully a citizen, you are now in a heavily-restricted world.
  Go shill for the FCC elsewhere, jerk.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
7. Re:Good job guys by DontBeAMoran · 2017-11-23 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Once you become a government member, you actually LOSE some rights, dipshit, as you are no longer fully a citizen, you are now in a heavily-restricted world.
  The solution is obvious: he should incorporate himself!
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
Protecting Net Neutrality by sinij · 2017-11-23 02:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

I like my Internet free, but recent article in The Atlantic made me second-guess this.

Key idea is as follows:

A public darling during the Obama years, when net neutrality won out, the tech industry has effectively become Big Tech, an aggressor industry along the lines of pharmaceuticals, oil, or tobacco. It’s true that one set of giant internet companies, like Comcast and Verizon, can’t currently mess with what people read, watch, and explore online. But another faction of giant internet companies can and do exert that power and control. Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and others manage access to most of the content created and delivered via broadband and wireless networks.
1. Re:Protecting Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 02:54 · Score: 0
  
  So let's repeal net neutrality and give the companies that have to much power over the Internet more power. That will solve everything!
2. Re:Protecting Net Neutrality by Yew2 · 2017-11-23 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  Apples and oranges. Getting rid of neutrality would cement monopolies since it would cost providers of content more to ensure efficient forwarding of their traffic - making startups much more costly/out of reach. This argument isnt key, its irrelevant to the issue of whether or not ISPs charge to optimize ALL services vs. the ones who pay. Regardless, if this idea really is "key" to you personally, then you should definitely support neutrality.
  
  --
  will work for dragon quest localization
3. Re:Protecting Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 03:33 · Score: 0
  
  If you think "big tech" are the baddies, then you need net neutrality even more, because those big companies don't need it, but small ones do. Who would get internet access that doesn't offer fast access to Facebook, Google and Netflix? Would would make sure that they can also access "Mom-and-Pop's Video Streams"? Those would be the companies that the ISPs would extort by withholding access to their customer base. If you like variety on the internet or just don't want the big companies to be the only game in town, then defend net neutrality!
4. Re:Protecting Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 03:35 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah except that they do have that power if they are the only ISP in the area and that's often true.
5. Re:Protecting Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  Oh no- websites (Google, Facebook, e.t.c.) can host whatever material they like and they might censor things they don't like. How terrible. What we need is ISPs to censor the internet as well so that the censorship cancels out!
  This viewpoint is so confusing and wrong it has to be a deliberate distortion of the debate by vested interests. No one can sincerely think like this surely.
6. Re:Protecting Net Neutrality by Opportunist · 2017-11-23 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  This has nothing to do with net neutrality. If anything, eliminating net neutrality would cast their dominant position in concrete, with google et al being able to afford "priority lanes" for their content while emerging new contenders and other sources for information would be struggling against slower and worse service.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
7. Re:Protecting Net Neutrality by drinkypoo · 2017-11-23 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  Key idea is stupid. Not having net neutrality makes that problem worse, not better.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
8. Re:Protecting Net Neutrality by DontBeAMoran · 2017-11-23 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  You are confusing the ISPs (the connection, which is at risk if NN is overturned) and the content providers (which have nothing to do with NN as far as I understand it).
  I can only conclude that your are a troll paid by Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
9. Re:Protecting Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 06:08 · Score: 0
  
  Just remember that The Atlantic is not neutral, it's own by Steve Job's wife.
10. Re:Protecting Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  I like my Internet free, but recent article in The Atlantic made me second-guess this.
  Key idea is as follows:
  
  A public darling during the Obama years, when net neutrality won out, the tech industry has effectively become Big Tech, an aggressor industry along the lines of pharmaceuticals, oil, or tobacco. It’s true that one set of giant internet companies, like Comcast and Verizon, can’t currently mess with what people read, watch, and explore online. But another faction of giant internet companies can and do exert that power and control. Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and others manage access to most of the content created and delivered via broadband and wireless networks.
  The issue with that point is that an open-internet allows those tech giants to work on an even playing field, thus open to the threat of competition and future innovation. Myspace was king of social media at one point in time, but Facebook de-throwned it. The next Facebook is waiting to happen. Same with Yahoo, which dominated the web search market until Google came along. The next Google is out there. AOL isn't thriving atop the internet for a reason, and that reason is having open internet policies allowing for innovation to thrive.
11. Re:Protecting Net Neutrality by brunes69 · 2017-11-23 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  I take great issue with the statement "But another faction of giant internet companies can and do exert that power and control.", specifically on the "and do" porition.
  Please give ONE example of Google exerting control over what sites I can access and the performance they run at? And don't try to argue that their completely algorithmic search indexing is somehow restricting access.
12. Re:Protecting Net Neutrality by Powercntrl · 2017-11-23 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  I like my Internet free, but recent article in The Atlantic made me second-guess this.
  Then you misunderstand the concept of Net Neutrality. It does not guarantee that there has to be a competitor to eBay, for example. What it does guarantee is that if you wanted to start a competitor to eBay, or you're a customer of a hypothetical new auction site, ISPs can't give preferential treatment to traffic from eBay because they had the resources to pay to be in the "fast lane".
  To see the future, look at the wireless industry, where it already pretty much doesn't apply:
  Net Neutrality is supposed to prevent shit like https://www.t-mobile.com/offer...>this, where an ISP gives preferential treatment to specific sites, or on the flipside, throttles sites that haven't coughed up their "protection money".
  Most wireless providers these days also scale down (usually to 480p) and recompress any video you stream - significantly reducing the quality from what was provided by the server of the original site.
  Then there's my personal pet peeve - tethering fees. Many wireless providers actually expect you to pay an additional monthly fee, to share the same high-speed data allotment *you're already fucking paying for*, with another device. This would be tantamount to the water company putting individual water meters on each point-of-use in your house, and charging a higher fee for potable uses, even though it's all exactly the same water.
  
  --
  
  ---
  DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
13. Re:Protecting Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  That has nothing to do with net neutrality.
  If Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon and Netflix lock me out, I can still use Bing, Yahoo Groups, Bandcamp, Alibaba and HBO digital.
  If Comcast locks me out, I'm fucked.
14. Re:Protecting Net Neutrality by strikethree · 2017-11-27 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  I like my Internet free, but recent article in The Atlantic made me second-guess this.
  To reiterate a comment I made earlier: Facebook and Google can not control the packet flows from your computer to the rest of the Internet. Comcast and AT&T can control your packet flows. Regardless of monopoly status, a monopoly at your router is more "evil" by far than a monopoly at a destination. I can avoid Facebook and Google to some extent. I can not, in any way, shape or form, avoid Comcast or AT&T.
  
  --
  "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Isn't that just targetted harassement ? by RedK · 2017-11-23 02:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

I for one will enjoy the civil suit that follows. Of course we know this is just a bunch of kids throwing a tantrum. Nevermind the fact that they are of adult age.

--
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
1. Re:Isn't that just targetted harassement ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  I for one will enjoy the civil suit that follows. Of course we know this is just a bunch of kids throwing a tantrum. Nevermind the fact that they are of adult age.
  To be fair, it's an adult tantrum in response to an adult tantrum.
  US politics (on both sides) seems to be a complete bun fight right now. I am so glad I don't live there.
2. Re:Isn't that just targetted harassement ? by StormReaver · 2017-11-23 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  Of course we know this is just a bunch of kids throwing a tantrum. Nevermind the fact that they are of adult age.
  And hopefully, having no usable Internet access will cause them to grow up and reinstate Net Neutrality.
3. Re:Isn't that just targetted harassement ? by OzPeter · 2017-11-23 02:45 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I for one will enjoy the civil suit that follows. Of course we know this is just a bunch of kids throwing a tantrum. Nevermind the fact that they are of adult age.
  I prefer to think of it as an experiment in demonstrating access in a post-net-neutrality world to a fixed sample sized demographic in order to obtain sociological impact data to the proposed rule changes.
  
  --
  I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
4. Re: Isn't that just targetted harassement ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 03:11 · Score: 0
  
  Oh please like itâ(TM)s better where you live. US politics is the same as itâ(TM)s always been itâ(TM)s just that youâ(TM)re finally paying attention.
5. Re:Isn't that just targetted harassement ? by Luthair · 2017-11-23 03:12 · Score: 2
  
  They're just shaping traffic...
  This is actually the reverse of what a lot of companies do - politicians and other officials are often (even if they aren't aware) have their accounts filtered out of normal channels and preferentially treated with kid gloves.
6. Re:Isn't that just targetted harassement ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 03:54 · Score: 0
  
  Is cloudflare (or anyone else) legally obliged to serve an individual a page in a timely fashion?
  Probably not. If they were discriminating against a protected class then that'd be one thing, but refusing service for other reasons (e.g. "you, personally, are an asshole") is A-OK.
  They could probably make a case that he's in violation of their ToS, as his internet usage behaviour is having a deleterious effect on other users.
7. Re:Isn't that just targetted harassement ? by Khyber · 2017-11-23 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  "I for one will enjoy the civil suit that follows."
  Over what? Pai doesn't have a fucking contract for anything with CloudFlare, they're under ZERO obligation to send anything to him for any fucking reason. It's their CDN, and he has no contract so they can freely refuse him access.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
8. Re:Isn't that just targetted harassement ? by sexconker · 2017-11-23 05:13 · Score: 2
  
  No, it's legally protected speech. They have grievances with a public official.
9. Re:Isn't that just targetted harassement ? by cstacy · 2017-11-23 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  "I for one will enjoy the civil suit that follows."
  Over what? Pai doesn't have a fucking contract for anything with CloudFlare, they're under ZERO obligation to send anything to him for any fucking reason. It's their CDN, and he has no contract so they can freely refuse him access.
  It would not be a suit for breach of contract, but there are lots of other theoretical causes of action.
10. Re:Isn't that just targetted harassement ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 12:01 · Score: 0
  
  They have a contract with the websites Pai is visiting. It'd be the contract with the website they'd be violating if they intentionally failed to deliver traffic in a timely manner.
11. Re: Isn't that just targetted harassement ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 16:14 · Score: 0
  
  Anywhere I can read up on this?
12. Re:Isn't that just targetted harassement ? by Khyber · 2017-11-23 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  Yea, given barely anyone's tried suing Cloudflare (Discord certainly doesn't have their 5-9 after the losses suffered this year, they ain't done shit) I doubt anyone's going to try, and if they do "Oh, looks like the servers that handle requests from that geolocation zone has issues."
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
13. Re:Isn't that just targetted harassement ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-24 01:25 · Score: 0
  
  Political statement. Free Speech.
Protecting Monopolies. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 02:29 · Score: 0

M*o*n*o*p*o*l*y. None of those have one even if it was their wet dream.
May Not Notice by grebonoj · 2017-11-23 02:37 · Score: 1

Demographicly, he might not notice the slow down. His children might, but again not likely: if they game and stream media, cloudflare wonâ(TM)t slow down that traffic. If they use social media, probably on mobile. Truth is home internet is increasingly uninteresting.
1. Re:May Not Notice by Rei · 2017-11-23 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  Latency problems can make any internet access painful, regardless of how much bandwidth is being sought.
  
  --
  We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
Internet Down Day by stooo · 2017-11-23 02:38 · Score: 0

That's actually a great idea !
The big internet companies should just put an 'internet down day' once a year,
perhaps only for countries with discriminatory laws like the one the FCC plans to implement.
This could have positive outcome for everybody.
You can discriminate based on calendar days and country :)

--
aaaaaaa
1. Re: Internet Down Day by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  For a week. But more... all government IPs for the House and Senate as well as the FCC. Yellow backgrounds for all webpages requested, at no more than... letâ(TM)s say... 64kbps? ISDN speeds ought to suffice.
2. Re:Internet Down Day by mysidia · 2017-11-23 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  How about discriminatively slowing down the internet of not just the FCC, but also the members of congress, and the whitehouse that have ultimate authority or nominated the FCC members.
Internet Down Day by stooo · 2017-11-23 02:39 · Score: 0

That's actually a great idea !!!
The big internet companies should just put an 'internet down day' once a year,
perhaps only for countries with discriminatory laws like the one the FCC plans to implement.
This could have positive outcome for everybody.

--
aaaaaaa
One problem at a time by Comboman · 2017-11-23 02:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

If Google abuses their dominant position in web search to promote (or hide) certain sites, that's definitely a problem and the FTC should look into it; but at least I have the option of using Bing or DuckDuckGo. Google's dominance is not a true monopoly. If I live in area were Comcast is the only option and they are promoting or blocking certain sites, I have not recourse because they are a physical monopoly and need to be regulated as such.

--
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
1. Re:One problem at a time by PopeRatface · 2017-11-23 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  Too bad you don't have the option of preventing Google from collecting and selling your data, tracking you and hitting you with targeted ads. If you think merely boycotting their search engine means you can avoid doing business with them, guess again. The part of Google you can avoid dealing with isn't the part that makes them their money. Your decisions as a consumer have no ability to influence their business conduct, whatsoever.
  
  --
  Oy vey! It's anudda Shoah, I tells ya! Anudda Shoah!
2. Re:One problem at a time by sinij · 2017-11-23 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  We are not quite there yet, but what are you going to do when businesses start operating on one of these platforms? Sure, you can try avoid using Google, unless your small-business email is run by them. Or what about Facebook, already I heard that Starbucks uses it to schedule shifts.
  
  I think this particular problem is only going to get worse.
3. Re:One problem at a time by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 07:11 · Score: 0
  
  you have plenty of recourses.
  each and every vpn service.
4. Re:One problem at a time by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  It's a natural monopoly, where they are literally with apple the best of breed of their services.
5. Re:One problem at a time by Gussington · 2017-11-23 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  but at least I have the option of using Bing or DuckDuckGo.
  
  No you don't. I trred going Google free and couldn't do it. Bing and DDG are absolute shit by comparison Google's dominance is not a true monopoly.
  Not by the definition of mono meaning one. But is effectively a monopoly since any competition (for search) is unusable by comparison.
6. Re:One problem at a time by Gussington · 2017-11-23 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  Reposting to fix formatting mistake...
  
  but at least I have the option of using Bing or DuckDuckGo.
  
  No you don't. I tried going Google free and couldn't do it. Bing and DDG are absolute shit by comparison
  
  Google's dominance is not a true monopoly.
  Not by the definition of mono meaning one. But is effectively a monopoly since any competition (for search) is unusable by comparison.
7. Re:One problem at a time by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 13:23 · Score: 0
  
  Just because a business uses Google or Facebook doesn't make them a MONOPOLY.
8. Re:One problem at a time by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 21:26 · Score: 0
  
  Which is weird, because compared to when Google was introduced, Google search is close to unusable. In fact, Google search has become worse than Altavista used to be[1] when they got beaten by two guys with something like six servers.
  And yet, no matter how much worse Google search becomes, somehow Microsoft manages to keep Bing worse than that.
9. Re:One problem at a time by Altrag · 2017-11-24 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  unless your small-business email is run by them
  Then you convince your small business ownership to change email providers. If you're successful then all is well. If you're unsuccessful.. that's not Google's fault.
  If you don't like Comcast and your small business is in an area where there are no competing ISPs, then all the convincing in the world won't make your small business change because they literally cannot do so. Its not a choice on their part, its a physical impossibility short of buying a new office in another jurisdiction and moving their whole operation.
10. Re:One problem at a time by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-26 10:07 · Score: 0
  
  If Google abuses their dominant position in web search to promote (or hide) certain sites, that's definitely a problem and the FTC should look into it; but at least I have the option of using Bing or DuckDuckGo. Google's dominance is not a true monopoly. If I live in area were Comcast is the only option and they are promoting or blocking certain sites, I have not recourse because they are a physical monopoly and need to be regulated as such.
  The true monopoly is the government. Taking away the special privileges afforded Comcast would allow you to build your own network in the area and compete with them. To have less monopoly you need less government, not more.
Cloudflare, sounds like a company one can trust by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 02:50 · Score: 0

Cloudflare is getting too big and they don't stay neutral. This is not a trustworthy company when they abuse their power/size to stick to Pai.
Not a problem when it aligns with ones own interest, right? WRONG! Abuse of power in every way!
1. Re:Cloudflare, sounds like a company one can trust by lucasnate1 · 2017-11-23 03:09 · Score: 2
  
  Ajit legalized this form abuse, let him experience it personally.
  
  --
  Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
2. Re:Cloudflare, sounds like a company one can trust by PPH · 2017-11-23 03:25 · Score: 2
  
  they don't stay neutral
  I think that's the whole point.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
3. Re:Cloudflare, sounds like a company one can trust by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  The worst evil is those who have the power to make change and do nothing.
4. Re:Cloudflare, sounds like a company one can trust by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  Reminds me what happened to Progressive Supreme Court justice David Souter. Libertarians tried to use eminent domain to seize Souter's New Hampshier farm and turn it into a hotel. This was in retaliation for the Kelo vs. New London Supreme Court case. The court ruled the govt can use eminent domain to take property from one private owner and give it to another all for the public good - more taxes generated by the new owner. The attempt failed and New Hampshire passed laws restricting this type of property transfer.
5. Re:Cloudflare, sounds like a company one can trust by DontBeAMoran · 2017-11-23 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  But what if everything is good as it is, and changing something would be the evil thing to do?
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
6. Re:Cloudflare, sounds like a company one can trust by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 06:31 · Score: 0
  
  Ajit legalized this form abuse, let him experience it personally.
  You're a low-info kneejerk reactionary idiot.
  NN rules were never enacted/enforced. There has never been NN. He can't 'legalize' what was never illegal.
  Stop getting all your information from HuffPo/Salon/MSM and thinking like a sheeple.
Giving Thanks by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 02:53 · Score: 2, Funny

On this wonderful Thanksgiving day, I just want to give a shout out to APK and his HOSTS file generator!
Net neutrality does not scare me as I know this tool will just tunnel a way to my internet destinations using only fast lanes, since it runs in kernel mode on the IP stack.
APK for AG! Who is with me?
1. Re:Giving Thanks by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 04:57 · Score: 0
  
  APK for AG! Who is with me?
  May as well, nothing to lose.
2. Re: Giving Thanks by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 05:50 · Score: 0
  
  Ill take incompetence over planned evil masquerading as incomp
Evil Netflix? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 02:55 · Score: 0

So to save us from the evil Netflix, Verizon will block them?? Saving their customers from Netflix evil plan to sell them Harry Potter movies?... well unless Netflix pays Verizon.
Gosh, if you put it like that Mr Astroturfer, it sounds great!
But won't Netflix simply pass the charge onto me? So I'll end up paying Verizon directly, and via a surcharge on Netflix website? Wait, how does that make Verizon not evil? Won't they simply charge websites more for access to their richer customers?? i.e. Republicans will pay more because they have more money?
And lower income people, well websites won't pay much to access those Verizon customers, so Verizon won't be able to sell access to them for much. So they won't get hit with a big bill.
I just point this out, because so many of these 'screw the customer' things from lobbyists end up screwing over the wealthy the most.
Target the FCC by GeLeTo · 2017-11-23 02:56 · Score: 1

He can find many ways to avoid this - ask the ISP to change the IP address and keep it secret, use a neighbour WiFi, use mobile internet...
Throttle the net for all FCC offices. This will be much easier to do, much harder to avoid and much more effective.
1. Re:Target the FCC by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  Throttle all his neighbors as well. Lets see how popular he is after that.
2. Re:Target the FCC by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  Either you're trolling, or are an idiot, or both.
3. Re:Target the FCC by Opportunist · 2017-11-23 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  All is fair in internet and war.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
4. Re:Target the FCC by arth1 · 2017-11-23 04:57 · Score: 2
  
  Throttle all his neighbors as well. Lets see how popular he is after that.
  And throttle traffic to all IP addresses used by the FCC and its contractors too.
  For a boycott to be successful, it has to be felt, by more than the target. It's those who suffer from collateral damage that will raise their voice and effectuate change.
  Or how about a "Your bandwidth is restricted today, because Ajit Pai wants this to be possible" that hits everyone at random days?
5. Re:Target the FCC by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 09:10 · Score: 0
  
  Doesn't windows 10 update do all that and more?
Leftists throwing their toys out of the pram again by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 03:05 · Score: 0

Happens every time they don't get their pony for Christmas.
Funny Thought by Luthair · 2017-11-23 03:26 · Score: 2

Companies can choose not to do business with someone, what if Google, Netflix, etc. all terminated his services. Attempts to get around it could be prosecuted under the computer fraud and abuse act ;)
1. Re:Funny Thought by Baron_Yam · 2017-11-23 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  I like that, actually. Internet banishment (or at least from the major services we now think of as critical to the Internet) as a punishment for inflicting damage on the Internet.
  Google would certainly have the ability to identify his connections and block Google Docs, GMail, and search. Netflix requires an account. You'd still have to get Microsoft online before you'd be able to hurt him significantly.
  On the other hand, I suspect those corporations don't want to be seen taking personalized retaliatory action against a regulator.
  It would, ultimately, be much better politically to buy controlling stakes in all the local ISPs and then ban him from service that way.
2. Re:Funny Thought by Opportunist · 2017-11-23 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  Facebook could get interesting. Considering that more and more companies use Facebook as a convenient way to sign in to save themselves the hassle to verify who they're dealing with and offload it to FB, that would make it quite a bit tricky to use a lot of webpages.
  And even if it doesn't mean shutout, it at least means creating a new account.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
3. Re:Funny Thought by sinij · 2017-11-23 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  You are cheering for this now, because it aligns with your values. However, such "weapon" should never be used or it will get used again, and maybe turned against you. What if FB, for example, start banning Ajax developers from their platform. They probably know that much about you. Say Zuck decided to do forceful deprecation of Ajax, like Jobs tried to do with Flash. I am sure someone out there can make a compelling argument how the web would be better if all Ajax developers were banned from everywhere, and their internet capped to 300 baud.
4. Re:Funny Thought by PPH · 2017-11-23 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  However, such "weapon" should never be used or it will get used again
  This, exactly.
  Absent some sort of regulations prohibiting such use of course. We could write these regulations. And call them something like ...
  .... net neutrality.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
5. Re:Funny Thought by PPH · 2017-11-23 05:18 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  a punishment for inflicting damage on the Internet.
  The Net interprets Ajit Pai as damage and routes around him.
  [Apologies to John Gilmore.]
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
6. Re:Funny Thought by Luthair · 2017-11-23 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  It wasn't meant be entirely serious, I think the bigger issue is that Comcast & al could do it to the FCC commissioner overturning the decision. I feel like there is probably a law against it, though it might not be a 'threat' or blackmail if the company didn't say anything ahead of time and didn't tie reversing it to policy changes.
7. Re:Funny Thought by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  Ridiculous slippery slope-isms add nothing of value to the conversation. Any conversation.
8. Re:Funny Thought by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 13:57 · Score: 0
  
  > Companies can choose not to do business with someone
  ... unless a gay couple wants a cake from a baker.
9. Re:Funny Thought by Trogre · 2017-11-23 16:42 · Score: 1
  
  The Net interprets the United States as damage and routes around it.
  
  --
  "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Cloudfare Error 502 by Computershack · 2017-11-23 03:32 · Score: 1

Unless Ajit Pai has a penchant for pornography he isn't likely to notice. Actually given how many times I've gone to sites hosted on Cloudfare to be met with the Error 502 message would he even notice any difference?

--
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
1. Re:Cloudfare Error 502 by Khyber · 2017-11-23 04:13 · Score: 0
  
  "Unless Ajit Pai has a penchant for pornography he isn't likely to notice."
  His ancestral people are well-known historically for what is essentially child pornography and slavery and rape, with events happening in that country to this day, so I would not be surprised to find out that if he had a penchant for pornography, that little dark side of it would be his favored type.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
2. Re:Cloudfare Error 502 by gtall · 2017-11-23 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  All people are historically well-known for what is essentially child pornography and slavery and rape. Now what point were you trying to make again that doesn't implicate you via your ancestors?
3. Re:Cloudfare Error 502 by Khyber · 2017-11-23 18:50 · Score: 1
  
  You're talking to a race of geeks and nerds on this site. If you think the majority of us have used their penises, you might want to look for ways to get back to your own universe.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
The right to protest. by MeNeXT · 2017-11-23 03:49 · Score: 1

As a protest, the minute this law is passed, all content providers should choose an ISP and reduce/delay/congest access from said provider for a given week. Then roll to the next ISP the following week until the law is repealed or Pai gets fired. This would be the perfect example as to the consequences of this law and if I am not mistaken, the right to protest is a form of speech so it would be perfectly legal.
I would think if there is enough noise the politicians will remember how the got into power. Ramming unpopular, undemocratic regulations down peoples throats should result in some discomfort. After all, with all that we fought for a few months of social discomfort should remind all that our illusion of democracy or our fake democracy still exists.

--
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
Better yet by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2017-11-23 03:51 · Score: 1

Better yet, have the speeds vary widely over time...
7:02pm, 5Mb download speed
7:04pm, 0.2Mb download speed
7:45pm, 8Mb download speed
7:47pm, 0.003Mb download speed ...and so on. Drive his corrupt ass crazy, and make sure you fuck with his phone.
And better than that would be to make him a walking dead zone, so that the minute he walks into a Starbucks, everybody's speed drops to a crawl. He leaves, the speed goes back up.
Make him like Typhoid Mary for bandwidth- a mobile dead zone that no one wants to be near.

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
1. Re:Better yet by mark-t · 2017-11-23 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  I like this... Especially your second suggestion. But is there a way to do it that's legal, but only without net neutrality?
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
2. Re:Better yet by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2017-11-23 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  I like this... Especially your second suggestion. But is there a way to do it that's legal, but only without net neutrality?
  Not to worry- I think the mega-corps are working on it. That way they can flip a switch and make anyone they don't like an instant pariah. It'll take implanting locator chips into every living human being, but I'm sure they're working on that too.
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
3. Re:Better yet by mark-t · 2017-11-23 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  More realistically, I think it would involve just tracking his mobile device, which would likely achieve the same ends for most practical purposes, but I'm not sure if even *THAT* is legal without his permission, let alone implementing the effects described above.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Leftists throwing their toys out of the pram ag by Opportunist · 2017-11-23 04:05 · Score: 1

What did you expect after all we gotten out of this dog-and-pony Show?
They asked for comments, then decided to simply ignore them because all the astroturfing, the propaganda and all the other shit they tried failed to convince anyone that it's a good idea to hand the ISPs that already go out of their way to gouge their customers blind the ability to determine what their customers should or should not see, of course with the intent to promote their own (failing) TV business over the emerging and obviously more popular internet based streaming services.
When you bullshit people too long, you can expect them to react accordingly. Personally, I think it's quite a restrained reaction. I would not brake if I saw that bastard in front of me on the road. At least not until my car is ON him.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Don't slow it. Block sites that he needd. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 04:16 · Score: 0

Imagine him trying and failing to access fcc.gov or other sites on the .gov domain, or verizon.com? :-)
Re:Leftists throwing their toys out of the pram ag by hyades1 · 2017-11-23 04:23 · Score: 2

Whenever somebody suggests they get back even a little of what they're dishing out, conservatives turn into such whiny little bitches!

--
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Tit for tat by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 04:40 · Score: 0

He's targeting American consumers with his own brand of harassment
Re:Leftists throwing their toys out of the pram ag by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 04:49 · Score: 0

I'd brake. So I could put it in reverse and run over him again.
Re:Nationalize Cloudflare by sinij · 2017-11-23 05:06 · Score: 1

Forget Cloudfare, just nationalize all the porn hosted on it.
Better Choice by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 05:12 · Score: 0

Redirrect all of his traffic to Goates.cx
waste of money by WindBourne · 2017-11-23 05:16 · Score: 1

Far better would be for billionaires to invest into SpaceX or 1-web and then push to get the sats going, with cheap 1 GB connections.
Another would be to invest into Googles Fiber, and continue stringing that. At that point, whenever an ISP introduces differential, simply announce that you will start building in those areas starting with their most profitable locations. They will QUICKLY stop it.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1. Re:waste of money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 12:16 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry your government is way too corrupt for that to happen. The lobbyists will never let that happen.
2. Re:waste of money by WindBourne · 2017-11-23 14:57 · Score: 1
  
  your hatred for America is amazing.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
3. Re:waste of money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-24 02:26 · Score: 0
  
  *cough*, your naivety is showing.
not over yet by aisaac · 2017-11-23 05:24 · Score: 2

This is not over yet! Sadly, we need to keep saying the same thing to the same people, who want to ignore the overwhelming, bipartisan public support for net neutrality. Weigh in directly with the FCC with this form, type 17-108 in the "Proceeding(s)" box, then fill in the rest of the required information.
This is a battle between the interests of consumers (citizens) and the interests of large ISPs (corporations). It is also crucial to us as citizens to have the free speech protections provided by strong net neutrality rules. Economists and lawyers have studied this. Claims that net neutrality rules hinder innovation have proved to be nonsense, empirically. Claims that existing antitrust law provides adequate net-neutrality protections have proved to be nonsense, legally. Tell the FCC to serve the public interest, not just corporate interests.
Easy by sexconker · 2017-11-23 05:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

A simple, guaranteed fix to turn this around would be to shut the internet down for 24 hours. I recommend Thanksgiving evening to Black Friday evening.
Harm to one vs harming many by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 05:58 · Score: 0

Denying him service would be a small gesture compared to the harm he wants to inflict on the whole country. Besides, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
somebody stop us from being so evil! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 06:17 · Score: 0

There's something weird with this whole story. Come on guys, help me figure it out. What I see so far:
1. People are upset that companies (ISPs, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Netflix, Cloudflare) will be overcharging customers, preventing competition and such.
2. Since it's not clear when and how exactly bad stuff will happen, the very same companies that are supposedly benefitting from repeal of net neutrality regulations are encouraged to start behaving in most nefarious ways to show that they should be forcefully regulated, or else
So we have generally good companies (Amazon, Google, Facebook, Netflix, Cloudflare) who are pretending to be evil just to force regulations that will prevent them from being evil? I mean, if those companies are genuinely evil, why would they even oppose removal of such regulations? And if they are not genuinely evil, why should we be concerned?
To me this whole thing is absurd. The proper reaction to companies abusing their customers is creation of companies that do not abuse their customers. Thus, next logical step should be lifting hurdles on the way of opening new ISP companies (gosh, if even Google has hard time with Fibre... something really needs to be done with that). If we'll see that Netflix or Google are using their power and money to make sure they have fastest access, thus preventing growth of competition - invest in fiber infrastructure so that bandwidth becomes so ubiquitous it stops being a serious issue.
Dunno. It all seems very weird to me, this panic mode I see around FCC decisions.
1. Re:somebody stop us from being so evil! by cbiltcliffe · 2017-11-23 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  You're either completely clueless, or intentionally stupid. If it's the first, I'll explain it to help you out:
  Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc, are not the target of net neutrality legislation. They are content providers, that provide or host the content that you view on the Internet.
  Comcast, Verizon, etc are Internet Service Providers (ISPs). They are the target of net neutrality legislation. They provide your connection to the Internet, not the content that you view on the Internet.
  Think of it as the difference between the road, and your grocery store. You get groceries (content) from the grocery store (content provider), and use the road (ISP) to get to the grocery store.
  The issue is that with net neutrality, Comcast has to provide their customers equal access to both Google and MyNextGenSearchEngine.com. This means if Google gets slow and sloppy and stops innovating, then MyNextGenSearchEngine.com can come in with a better idea and start taking market share from Google, by providing a better product.
  Without net neutrality, Comcast can say to Google "Give us $1 million dollars a year to get access to our customers." and Google will be able to pay it. When Comcast then goes to MyNextGenSearchEngine.com, which is run by two university grad students out of their garage, they can't afford $1 million, so Comcast blocks or degrades their site performance.
  When Comcast customers then go to MyNextGenSearchEngine.com, they either get nothing at all, or a very slow site. Comcast customers will then favour Google, even though MyNextGenSearchEngine.com may be a much better search experience, solely because Google had the money to pay to Comcast.
  Keep in mind, Comcast is already being paid by their own customers for Internet access, so the possibility is that they will be charging the customer for access, to the Internet, then charging Google for access to the customer. Google already pays for their own Internet access, but they'll also be paying ISPs that they do not use directly, just so that ISPs customers are able to access Google.
  Going back to the grocery store example: If the roads were privately owned, then the road owners could ask for what amounts to basically protection money from the grocery stores, or the road going to their store would be torn up and under construction for months or years, with only a single lane in and out. The big stores would be able to pay this money, but a new specialty grocery store wouldn't, so no customers would be able to drive to their store.
  It basically entrenches the big players, not allowing the smaller, less financially powerful startups to get a foothold.
  
  --
  "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
2. Re:somebody stop us from being so evil! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 12:11 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not sure you read what I wrote actually.
  Let's get back a bit and see what people are writing in this discussion space.
  * Yay! Let Cloudflare throttle Pai's connection -- that'll show him how bad the regulation really is!
  Well, it's not quite logical -- Cloudflare would be the one who generally benefits from lack of such net neutrality rule because, as you say, it entrenches its leading position in the market.
  Then, people say
  * Let's spread the thing and encourage Google, Amazon etc. to blackout the internet for one day so ppl will see how bad lack of net neutrality really is
  Again, all the big players are going to enjoy the extra bandwidth they're getting - as you just said there's going to be less of competition with lack of net neutrality.
  Still, Cloudflare is "threatening" to show how bad it can be throttling arbitrary persons... It just makes no sense!
  Now, we can discuss whether competition will be stifled or not - it's another topic. My point is - under current proposal no big player should do anything that can spook FCC. And still here we have Cloudflare potentially working against its interests, and throngs of online hamsters threatening violent riots (because they won't be able to open a startup that competes with existing content providers? I really doubt anyone who has so much time to waste online can do anything productive tbh)... And if you think companies are going to lobby against regulations (or lack thereof) that bring them money just because they want some competing product to appear and kick them off the market... It also goes against common knowledge that corporations are all about greed.
  Anyway. As I said - this whole wave of hysteria is totally absurd and does not pass basic sanity checks.
3. Re:somebody stop us from being so evil! by cbiltcliffe · 2017-11-23 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  You're missing one fact: Corporations are also arrogant. Nobody foresees their own downfall.
  Google, CloudFlare, et al don't want to have to pay Comcast millions of dollars that will keep competition out, because they don't think anybody can compete with them anyway. That's why the content providers are protesting the removal of net neutrality.
  They may be right. Net neutrality will certainly keep them innovating, because if they don't, they could be surpassed in the market. But lack of net neutrality isn't something they want, either, because it will cost them money.
  
  --
  "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
You aren't Google's Customer!!!! by FeelGood314 · 2017-11-23 06:19 · Score: 1

If I want to sell advertising on my websites I have to sell to Google. There just isn't anyone else who offers anything like Google's service and value unless I want to sell porn or malware. If I wanted to buy advertising on the internet, I advertise on Google or Facebook. No one else can reach my target audience.
Not a good idea by Sqreater · 2017-11-23 07:54 · Score: 1

because everything is illegal if the government wants it to be. And there is what I call the "Law and Order" effect, the twisting and massaging of laws and procedures to get a desired result. (After the tv program.)

--
E Proelio Veritas.
Wrong Target by cstacy · 2017-11-23 08:15 · Score: 1

You need to not only target the FCC's IP range, but also the rest of the government. All the federal agencies, Congress, and the Executive. Another possibility is to throttle EVERYONE so that businesses and citizens can feel the pain. I would suggest leaving the military alone. However, if this kind of thing is not generally illegal already, you can be sure that CloudFlare's Prince will be designated a terrorist.
Re: Cloudflare, sounds like a company one can trus by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 08:20 · Score: 0

You keep saying this. Answer me this then, WHY IS HE REPEALING THEM THEN?
just making noise - feed him a snickers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 08:39 · Score: 0

someone needs to feed Ajit his snickers bar -- is he really just another bs ivy elite wanting to make a name for himself.. what a douche...
Conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 08:42 · Score: 0

Just a step away from piracy.
Re:Leftists throwing their toys out of the pram ag by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 08:55 · Score: 0

Better than being whiny little bitches 24/7, like liberals....
Re: Cloudflare, sounds like a company one can trus by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-11-23 09:03 · Score: 1

Well, there is also Pai, who is evil because he has the power to effect change and did. Change is a vector.

--
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Re:Leftists throwing their toys out of the pram ag by hyades1 · 2017-11-23 10:05 · Score: 1

Another conservative trait: steal a remark, joke or idea and pretend it's theirs. Congratulations. Thanks for playing.

--
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Later, internet socialism (by Jeffrey Tucker) by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 11:52 · Score: 0

Tucker on the Pai plan: prepare for innovation, since socialized internet is finally kicked to the curb!
https://fee.org/articles/goodbye-net-neutrality-hello-competition/
1. Re:Later, internet socialism (by Jeffrey Tucker) by TimothyHollins · 2017-11-24 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  Tucker on the Pai plan: prepare for innovation, since socialized internet is finally kicked to the curb!
  Please take a moment for introspection as you fruitlessly shill your limited perspective.
  In order to get any attention at all you have to throw links around at every opportunity, like a blinking neon sign. Why do you think that is? Because you haven't arrived yet? Because the ball hasn't started rolling for you yet? Or perhaps, because people have read your pointless deluge of words, and found them, contrary to what you think, vapid, shallow, and/or inane?
  Please, consider the fact there is good reason to pay you no heed, no attention, not even rage, as you are uninspired and forgettable in every meaning of the word.
2. Re: Later, internet socialism (by Jeffrey Tucker) by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-24 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  For someone who evidently feels the need to use lots of intricate vocabulary on forums to show how smart you think you are, you nevertheless ended a sentence with a preposition. #fail
  As for being fruitless, seeing as net neutrality is about to get SACKED, it seems like you are the one fighting on the losing side.
Cool idea by OmegaWolf747 · 2017-11-23 13:31 · Score: 1

Then he can get a taste of what he's going to subject the rest of us to.

--
I charge forward recklessly, leaving chaos in my wake.
Cloudflare by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 14:39 · Score: 0

Is this the fucker who shut down TheDailyStormer on a whim and then said he shouldn't have that ability?
Paul's browsing history? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-23 15:37 · Score: 0

Can't someone anonymously, accidentally make Ajit Paul's browsing history publicly available?
Do more than the FCC IP ranges by PoopMonkey · 2017-11-23 18:48 · Score: 1

Do it for every .gov and .mil range too. And if you can tell what ranges belong to the corporate offices for ISPs that oppose net neutrality, do it to those ranges as well.
LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 01:01 · Score: 0

https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
Yeah Right.... by kattisch · 2017-11-27 10:55 · Score: 1

Ajit probably doesn't even use the internet. How else could he justify his actions?