Slashdot Mirror
Cloudflare Might Be Exploring a Way To Slow Down FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's Home Internet Speeds (twitter.com)
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.
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.
Just wait until he makes this legal, and then do it.
The old reliable - flaming bag of dog shit on his doorstep.
Key idea is as follows:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Ajit legalized this form abuse, let him experience it personally.
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
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.
they don't stay neutral
I think that's the whole point.
Have gnu, will travel.
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 ;)
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
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.
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
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
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...
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.
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.
Better yet, have the speeds vary widely over time...
7:02pm, 5Mb download speed ...and so on. Drive his corrupt ass crazy, and make sure you fuck with his phone.
7:04pm, 0.2Mb download speed
7:45pm, 8Mb download speed
7:47pm, 0.003Mb download speed
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...
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
"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.
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.
"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.
"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.
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.
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.'"
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.'"
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.
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.'"
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.
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.
The bus-only lane is not about bandwidth, it's about ping times.
#DeleteFacebook
The solution is obvious: he should incorporate himself!
#DeleteFacebook
But what if everything is good as it is, and changing something would be the evil thing to do?
#DeleteFacebook
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'
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.
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'
Forget Cloudfare, just nationalize all the porn hosted on it.
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.
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.
Can you DDOS a house?
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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
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.
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.
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......
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.
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.
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.
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......
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Unfortunately they are, because I can't have more than one of either where I live.
Ezekiel 23:20
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'
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.
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.
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
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
An example of what? A government-mandated monopoly?
And what has changed about TCP/IP hardware and packet switching these days according to you?
You personally aren't representative of all customers.
Why would they be asking that if their bills go down?
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?
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
Ajit probably doesn't even use the internet. How else could he justify his actions?