Slashdot Mirror
Bicyclist Protests Net Neutrality By Slowing Traffic Outside the FCC Building (thehill.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hill: A protester opposed to the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) net neutrality repeal slowed traffic to a crawl outside the FCC Monday as a demonstration against the repeal. A video released Monday shows Rob Bliss, video director for the website Seriously.TV, setting up traffic cones to block all but one lane for cars, then riding a bike slowly in the lane. Bliss wore a sign encouraging drivers to upgrade to "priority access membership" for $5 a month, which would allow them to drive at normal speeds. The protest was meant to mimic what critics say will be the effect of the net neutrality repeal, which will allow internet service providers to favor certain content or require content providers to pay for faster speeds.
I want 10 memberships from this guy
Wow! Excellent protest!
He inadvertently supported the other side.
By impeding everyone else's "bandwidth" on his bicycle, he made the point that someone should have the power to move him out of the higher-speed lanes and into a lower-priority one.
Oops.
As an avid cyclist myself, I neither approve of, nor condone the actions of Rob Bliss in this instance. It further damages the already bad reputation of cyclists everywhere, and we cyclists don't need any more bad press.
That having been said: I'm a firm supporter of Net Neutrality, and while there is humor in this stunt, breaking the law and creating a hazardous situation for both himself and the drivers he inconvenienced is not cool at all and just as likely convinced some people who don't even know what Net Neutrality is, that advocates of it are just lunatics. So I say "no thanks!" to this Rob Bliss, he's probably just made matters worse for both cyclists and for the case for Net Neutrality.
I encourage cyclists at every level to obey the same traffic laws that motor vehicles are bound to, and to ride safely in all circumstances. Lead by example.
I also encourage all advocates of Net Neutrality to make themselves heard whenever possible, and to educate those around them who do not understand what's at stake -- but to do it in a reasonable, rational, and lawful manner.
we would just ride over the idiot on the bike and at the minimum his cones. we already broke a lot of the bike lane dividers the city put up cause they are in our way
Remember, the most productive and efficient US states are passing laws to require Net Neutrality for all ISPs operating in their states, so even if the Feds don't take action, your state can force those doing business in their state to have full Net Neutrality if they want to have customers where you live.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
One good way to protest is to speak very slowly to the CSRs on the phone. They get evaluated on their call times.
Offer to speak faster for a discount equal to their "fast lane" fee.
A protest would be many bikers going slow all through town with picket signs. This is just one guy diverting traffic without a permit to grab attention for um, it looks like himself?
Without a working paid fast lane, all he's proving is that one dick hogging all the bandwidth for himself slows down the whole neighborhood.
He's not even on topic - going to a starbucks and slowing down their WiFi would have made a better point.
So, to protest the repeal of the executive actions in 2015 that created Net neutrality, he's blocking fast traffic to show how bad it was prior to 2015, when there was no Net neutrality. Right? You mean we didn't pay for faster access to some sites, just for overall speed of the tube connected to the home?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
A bit too much publicity stunt in it for my taste as well. Someone should encourage the monopoly man protester to come up with something.
ISps as gatekeepers==BAD Upstream monopolies like Google/Yahoo/Microsoft etc as gatekeeper==no big deal.
Slowing down the economy
How does making government employees late to work "slow down the economy"?
It seems to me it would have the opposite effect.
It's cute how you think the so-called czars are elected.
Did he inform the department of transportation and the local LEOs/Highway Patrol for that area that he was going to single-handedly block traffic? Did his actions reflect positively on cyclists, or did it just highlight the predominant American viewpoint that that cyclists are all entitled jerks who think the rules of the road don't apply to them?
These United States was birthed on the principle that Civil Disobedience is The Way To Get Things Done and I support that 9001% (*** FUCK THE POLICE ***) -- but this wasn't Martin Luther King leading thousands of blacks in a march for Civil Rights, it was ONE GUY ON A BIKE protesting something about Net Neutrality, and doing it in a way that, IN MY OPINION makes both Net Neutrality advocates and cyclist alike look like IDIOTS.
I stand behind my words 100% and if you or anybody else doesn't like that then you can shove it up your ass.
You want to organize a Net Neutrality support rally/march? I AM THERE. This jackass? Not so much. DEAL WITH IT.
Touche
Please, Tell us how you really feel.
Yeah! Unreasonable! It's outright fascist to require that a new franchisee agree to the same franchise conditions that all of the existing franchisees did!
Except that's not always the case. Though exclusive franchises are forbidden, I seem to remember reading that some franchise conditions require competitive providers to offer service to all addresses in a city from day one rather than rolling out service gradually from one end of the city to the other. That's too large of a capital investment for a smaller company to handle in any practical way that I'm aware of. And though all new franchisees in 2018 must agree to a particular set of conditions, these conditions may have differed in 1918 (or whenever) when the phone company first laid its copper.
Companies that need franchises (and not all ISPs do; many do not)
In the era of U.S. phone and cable line owners refusing to lease out their lines to competitive ISPs, how can an ISP work without a franchise? A wired ISP needs some access to rights of way, and the only way I can see to arrange that is to negotiate with a city.
How does making government employees late to work "slow down the economy"?
Because they'll miss their 8:30, 9:00, 9:30, and maybe 10:00 AM coffee breaks and Starbucks stock will crash.
The only place you need to be driving to is to get your script for meds filled.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This algorithm enables the little guy, and is eventually fair to all. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rf...
I would disagree with you inclusion of Germany. In fact, we hate you smug cycling mother fuckers. There are perfectly serviceable cycling lanes, but no... you fucking assholes need to ride your bike right, smack dab in the middle of the car lane. Not even off the side, but right in the middle. Forcing traffic into oncoming cars and putting everyone in danger because of these selfish m-f'ers who think they have the same rights as a car.
In most places, roads are mainly paid for from petrol taxes. If you are not using petrol, then you are driving on our roads without contributing to their upkeep. This means you should not have the same rights as a car.
At least in the US they "mainly" stick to the bike lanes. Fuck.. I hate cyclist in Germany.
Bicycles and tire traffic don't mix well. That's why cities need to build buffered or fully separated bike lanes.
Also - rest assured the average bicycle commuter has at least as dim a view of motorists as you have of cyclists.
I made a mistake in recommending the protest in my comment above: I'd like to see more protests this relevant.
It seemed to me that the protest might be appropriate for a 1 hour demonstration. I agree with others who would not like traffic to be slowed during rush hour.
As I said before: "Cities and counties should own and lease dark fiber. The Internet is a necessary public utility, like water, electricity, natural gas, sewage, and trash pickup." And, I should have said, road maintenance.
The protest initially seemed to me to help make the valid point that the Internet is "a necessary public utility". But, to be sensible, it would need to be done in a way that minimizes hassles and maximizes public awareness.
Bicycles and tire traffic don't mix well.
Well, if your bicycle has no tires, I'm not surprised you are holding up traffic.
Hello, counselor Deanna Troi.
#DeleteFacebook
Ajit Pai's home address is already known to the public, so this deliberate slow down of traffic could have and, I'd argue, should have occurred outside his own home. Slow down his commute to work unless he agrees to pay an extra toll on top of the gas, tire and municipal taxes he is paying to support road infrastructure. (but we must maintain our own integrity, if we manage to get him to cough up money, those funds in their entirety should be handed over to the local city works department.
Second, he is a lawyer and most likely in good standing with the bar association of D.C. and/or Virginia. His actions certainly appear to be in direct conflict with the public interest, a critical ethical standard for any attorney working as a public servant. Write letters to the Bar Association protesting his unethical actions and request (not demand, the Bar is only a quasi public body being a mandatory but still private corporate entity in D.C. and many States) that he be called before their ethics board to explain and/or defend his actions. A casual review of the D.C. Bar rules of professional conduct mention several areas where Mr Pai may have violated his professional and fiduciary duties. But I'm not a barrister or solicitor, so I can't say with any degree of certainty.
I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
disclaimer: I've been on the provider side for 25 years.
I really see all this hoopla about net neutrality as a non-argument.
On the one hand, I can't see how legislation can effectively either impede it or enforce it, but on the other, I don't see why it should be prohibited either.
Yes, as a quick knee-jerk argument for pro civil liberties evangelisation, claiming that all data should be treated equal and bla-bla-bla, sounds good...
*HOWEVER* it's a waste of time/energy to somehow want to legislate it.
Unless I've got things wrong (don't just give the easy answer of "yes, you're wrong", give arguments that counter my long-winded discourse below), it's a question of economics/logic. Privately funded/owned network providers are NOT there to provide a charitable service, but to earn money. They will want to tap into as much money as possible for as little cost/hassle as possible. The same goes on the consumer side. They are not there to "charitably" fund the providers, but to obtain as good a service as they can get for as little money/hassle they can.
So we get to a supply & demand situation.
If we're in a monopolistic situation, then YES legislate until you go blue on what the quality of service should be, how the provider should treat your data streams, what's the minimum speed etc...
However, in a competitive environment, as a PROVIDER I *want* the other providers to start messing around and purposely slowing all traffic for all of their users for no apparent reason (unless they pay for the additional "upgraded bandwidth" option), because then that creates a lovely market opportunity for ME to provide faster service at cheaper rates.
Doing a non-neutrality action is basically applying QOS using whatever rules I wish to define. Applying QOS can be either for technical reasons or for commercial reasons.
Technical reasons are easy to understand: generally it's because there's not enough bandwidth available to meet the demand, hence I either to let it all just "battle it out", upgrade my bandwidth, or decide pro-actively to guarantee/throttle certain flows
Let's have a look at the options:
-let it all "battle it out" means that certain types of traffic will just be unusable (video, voip), that certain types of users who can play with their settings will gain an unfair upper hand over others, and I just can't guarantee service levels, meaning crappy for everyone, with NO option to get a better service by paying more.
-upgrading my infrastructure bandwidth (which supposes that I've left it battling it out, and upgrade when the fighting starts), although nice, has a cost involved meaning I have to see if I can actually afford it and if it's worth it (should I leave them all at crappy service, and keep higher profit margins -caveat:see below -, or can I afford the bandwidth upgrades).
-QOS: If we accept that I won't always have the economical possibility/justification to upgrade all the way to COMPLETELY decongest ALL of my infrastructure at ALL levels, then just letting all traffic fight it out is actually bad business practice. I *WANT* to make sure that VoIP and realtime video can get through with a guarantee and with as little latency/dropping as possible. If I have residential users with a FTTH 1Gbp link paying $50/month, with CONTRACTUALLY no (or small) bandwidth guarantees, and a series of professional (or residential) customers who want to subscribe to a GUARANTEED 100Mbps up/down service for (for example) $500/month, then I want to be able to provide "best effort" quality to my residential users and GUARANTEE the 100Mbps to the others. I want to be able as a provider to be able to provide different service levels. I can't do that if it's a "just fight it out" situation.
Being responsible, as my infrastructure starts to near capacity, I SHOULD have a good understanding of what it is that is "killing" my links, and it should be up to me to decide if I want to throttle it or not, based on both economic and commercial reasons.
If I've seen tha
"The service" means "internet service."
That would be relevant if all Internet services were adequate substitutes for one another. But they are not. In particular, many forms of Internet service are not adequate substitutes for high-volume home Internet service.
You are correct that telephone service and Internet service are not the same thing. But the same companies that own the spectrum used for cellular telephone service also own the spectrum used for cellular Internet service and vice versa. Thus in addition to being providers of cellular telephone service, Verizon Wireless, Sprint, AT&T, and T-Mobile are also providers of cellular Internet service, as are MVNOs who sublet their frequencies. Because of the medium's properties, the medium can support only low-volume Internet service.
You are correct that wireless Internet service is Internet service. But because wireless Internet service is low-volume Internet service, it is not an adequate substitute for high-volume Internet service for those residential users whose use cases require high-volume Internet service.
You are correct that business Internet service is Internet service. But it is not an adequate substitute for residential service because I doubt that most users of Internet service are willing to drive to a business location every time they want to use Internet service.
You are further correct that cable and DSL are not the only physical media through which to provide high-volume home Internet service. A third wired medium for high-volume home Internet service in parallel to those two is possible in theory. But the discussion was about cities making deployment of such a parallel medium prohibitively difficult in practice.
Without the news coverage, I'd have to question the effectiveness of this kind of protest. If you're cutting the lanes down to just one, the guy immediately behind your bike is going to get the full impact of your protest too.
Every other car behind the first is just going to think the car in front is being an ass and won't see anything in regards to your protest.