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.

38 of 308 comments (clear)

  1. No need to break the laws by Opportunist · · 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 · · 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 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Buy up all ISPs in his area..." Soooo... just Comcast then?

    3. Re:No need to break the laws by StormReaver · · 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.

    4. Re:No need to break the laws by Opportunist · · 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.
    5. Re:No need to break the laws by DewDude · · Score: 2

      He's actually already Verizon property; he worked for them before Verizon bought the FCC seat and stuck him there.

  2. Excelent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just wait until he makes this legal, and then do it.

  3. Plan "B" by boudie2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The old reliable - flaming bag of dog shit on his doorstep.

    1. Re:Plan "B" by boudie2 · · Score: 2

      Maybe we should just send over Luca Brasi to make him an offer he can't refuse.

    2. Re:Plan "B" by ckatko · · Score: 2

      A 1972 Volkswagen Beetle covertable in mint condition?

  4. Protecting Net Neutrality by sinij · · 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.

  5. Isn't that just targetted harassement ? by RedK · · 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 OzPeter · · 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?
    2. Re:Isn't that just targetted harassement ? by Luthair · · 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.

    3. Re:Isn't that just targetted harassement ? by sexconker · · Score: 2

      No, it's legally protected speech. They have grievances with a public official.

  6. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by dgatwood · · 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.

  7. One problem at a time by Comboman · · 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.
  8. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  9. Giving Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

  10. Re:Cloudflare, sounds like a company one can trust by lucasnate1 · · Score: 2

    Ajit legalized this form abuse, let him experience it personally.

  11. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by JoshuaZ · · 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.

  12. Re:Cloudflare, sounds like a company one can trust by PPH · · Score: 2

    they don't stay neutral

    I think that's the whole point.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  13. Funny Thought by Luthair · · 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 PPH · · 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.
  14. Re: Unconvincing Tantrum by Zero__Kelvin · · 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
  15. Re: Good job guys by Zero__Kelvin · · 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
  16. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by c0y · · 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.

  17. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · 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:Good job guys by Opportunist · · 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.
  19. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by Khyber · · 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.
  20. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by drinkypoo · · 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.'"
  21. Re: Unconvincing Tantrum by Comboman · · 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.
  22. Re:Leftists throwing their toys out of the pram ag by hyades1 · · 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.
  23. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The bus-only lane is not about bandwidth, it's about ping times.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  24. Re:Unconvincing Tantrum by HornWumpus · · 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'
  25. Re:Target the FCC by arth1 · · 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?

  26. not over yet by aisaac · · 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.

  27. Easy by sexconker · · 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.