Major Websites Are Planning a 'Day of Action' To Block Repeal of Net Neutrality (medium.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Fight for the Future, a nonprofit advocacy group concerned with digital rights, has posted to medium today, revealing that many major websites, online communities, and internet users are planning a "day of action" focused on finding the final vote needed to pass the Congressional Review Act (CRA). "50 Senators have already come out in support of the CRA, which would completely overturn the FCC's December 14 decision and restore net neutrality protections," the post reads. "Several Senators have indicated that they are considering becoming the 51st vote we need to win, but they're under huge pressure from telecom lobbyists. Only a massive burst of energy from the internet will get them to move."

The day of action is scheduled for February 27, and participants include Tumblr, Etsy, Vimeo, Medium, Namecheap, Imgur, Sonos, and DuckDuckGo. "Internet users will be encouraged to sound the alarm on social media and sign up to receive alerts with their lawmaker's position on net neutrality and prompts to take action on the big day, while websites, subreddits, and online communities will display prominent alerts driving phone calls, emails, and tweets to Senators and Representatives calling on them to pass the CRA." The post notes that we're faced with an uphill battle as the fight will elevate to the House of Representatives if the CRA can pass the Senate. From there it will go to the President's desk.

Comments

So why are all these companies so concerned

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally am concerned when all these companies seem so concerned about net neutrality. Usually companies only are this concerned when they have some direct benefit from its outcome. Yeah, it sounds like their fighting a noble cause but something is amiss.

Re:So why are all these companies so concerned

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because they don't want to be charged more by ISPs.

Re:So why are all these companies so concerned

[Anonymous Coward]

correct. ISPs can legally charge them to access their networks now. doubtful they care about anything on the consumer end.

Re: So why are all these companies so concerned

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the ISPs were previously prohibited from charging these websites for access to their ISPs network? Nice deal of you can get it! Most people (and companies) have to pay for internet access.

Re: So why are all these companies so concerned

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize they do pay for access via their connected carriers right? Telecoms now want to charge them for delivery IN ADDITION to the price they already pay to their carrier for network access.

Re:So why are all these companies so concerned

[Mashiki]

Bingo. Nothing actually stops these companies from "using corporate policy" and promoting it as such, or listing it as a core value. They want these regulations, all of them for some reason. Which likely means there's something tasty and delicious that's feeding them and most people aren't seeing.

Re: So why are all these companies so concerned

[vux984]

Yeah. I pay my ISP for my connection to "the Internet" and my traffic. They pay their ISP for their connection to "the Internet" and their traffic. That's how its 'supposed to work'.

Then some ISPs got the bright idea that even though I'm a their customer and am paying them to deliver packets to me from the servers of my choice; thay they could start a protection racket and charge the operator of the server extortion money not to 'disrupt' or 'slowdown' the packets.

ie... my ISP says to various service providers i use:

"Gee, a lot of our customers are requesting packets from you; you must have a really nice useful service there. Be a shame if anything stopped your packets reaching our customers; maybe if you pay us some protection money we'll make sure they get there safe and sound!"

Re: So why are all these companies so concerned

[Anonymous Coward]

The only argument you pro-NN people ever have is the netflix deal. THAT WAS NETFLIX FAULT!! They wanted to arrange their own peering agreements. They didnt have the amount of traffic they thought they had to get a lower price than they were already paying. they cried fowl because they had then pissed off their original provider. In the end they ended up paying slightly more, its their own fault.

Re: So why are all these companies so concerned

[vux984]

"The only argument you pro-NN people ever have is the netflix deal."

I didn't mention netflix.

There are plenty of good examples. Many ISPs are also landline providers, cellular phone providers, and/or in the cableTV business. Many also offer internetTV and/or voip services; or they form partnerships with various providers of those services. And then they have all kinds of incentives to ensure their own (or their partners) telephony and video services work best, including prioritizing them on the network, or even throttling their competitors.

We aren't going to see a lot of big tiffs like Netflix a few years ago, or Amazon and Google fighting over youtube (not an NN issue, but the same type of competing interests are creating that mess.)

What we are going to see is that the ISPs will pick the winners and losers of internet services. And by 'pick' I mean get 'paid for', resulting in the entrenchment of existing large players, which already had the advantage.

Meanwhile the only argument you anti-NN people ever has is ... well... nothing. There is no good anti-NN argument, is there? I've yet to hear one that was:

a) any good.
b) anything to do with NN*

* I have heard lots of great arguments that medical monitoring and voip traffic shouldn't have to be treated like windows updates and bit torrents from anti-NN quacks, and I even agree with that, but that's really got nothing to do with NN.

Does this involve private companies

[Anonymous Coward]

making the perpetrators lives hell? If not, this is just more lip service.

How about this for action, publish the browsing data of every facility that is politically associated, until they grasp the idea that we need data highways that are as free and open as I-80.

Re: Does this involve private companies

[Anonymous Coward]

Err, a toll road?

Re: Does this involve private companies

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be thinking of I80 across Wyoming, not the western most 5 miles up to the SF Bay Bridge

Kind of a waste of effort

[rsilvergun]

the current administration has ignored everything thrown at them with regards to net neutrality. They've used obviously false & spam comments as proof that people support repeal. They've lied about cable companies expanding. They just plain don't care what anyone thinks.

The thing is, NN is small potatoes to most people. It's gonna mean $10-$20 month out of their pockets for their cable bill, if that. 99% of Americans are never going to start an internet business to compete with established players. They don't have the capital, the skills or the time & energy. For most Americans surviving is all they can do. 40% of us don't have $1k in the bank.

I've said it before and will say it again, if NN is important to you then you have to listen to issues that are important to the rest of Americans. You need to get them health care, jobs and education. One they've taken care of survival and other more pressing concerns then you can hit them up to support your pet freedom project.

Re:Kind of a waste of effort

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually sir, I am one of those "false & spam" people that support the repeal of Net Neutrality and sent an email to the FCC. See my post below...

Re:Kind of a waste of effort

[Anonymous Coward]

the current administration has ignored everything thrown at them with regards to net neutrality.

That's not entirely true. They might have ignored the protest, but they paid plenty of attention to the money that was thrown at them.

Re:Kind of a waste of effort

[Anonymous Coward]

The Democrats always include hyperbole such as Armageddon and old people will die, etc. All politicians suck so get over that part. NN is good and bad, which part is important to the vast majority of Americans?

Re:Kind of a waste of effort

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's gonna mean $10-$20 month out of their pockets" Where did you pull that number from? How will net neutrality help that? My internet bill went up more than that while net neutrality was in place.

Re: Kind of a waste of effort

[ljw1004]

You think the repeal of NN is unimportant to most because it will add $100 - $250 to their annual bills.

You think most people have less than $1k in the bank, I.e. the repeal of NN will be a significant chunk of money to them.

I don't know how to reconcile those two things?

Re: Kind of a waste of effort

[CrimsonAvenger]

You think the repeal of NN is unimportant to most because it will add $100 - $250 to their annual bills.

Yes, he thinks that most people won't care.

You think most people have less than $1k in the bank, I.e. the repeal of NN will be a significant chunk of money to them.

No, he doesn't think this. Unless he believes (as you seem to) that 40% is "most people"

Note that 60% not caring is "most people", but 40% not having $1k is NOT "most people"....

Re: Kind of a waste of effort

[kenh]

Care to support the notion ThatcHer Neutrality, as it is being discussed here today, will shave up to $20/month off my internet bi!l? It really seems like you pulled that number out of your backside.

Also, I'm a little confused how most people don't care about $20/month, or $240/yr, when 40% of Americans have less than $1K in savings? Please explain that seeming contradiction...

Re:Kind of a waste of effort

[segwonk]

"the current administration has ignored everything thrown at them with regards to net neutrality."

I agree that lobbying either the Trump administration or the FCC may be a waste of time. But isn't that why the effort is aimed at senators? You know, someone who could/might actually make a difference?

The question I have: even if you got a senator, wouldn't you still be facing an uphill battle in the House?

Huge pressure?

[realmolo]

"Several Senators have indicated that they are considering becoming the 51st vote we need to win, but they're under huge pressure from telecom lobbyists."

Jesus.

"We want to do what we know is the right thing, but we can't just say no to a pile of money for doing what we know is the wrong thing!"

This country is so fucked up.

Waste of time, Sadly

[hillbluffer]

Trump will veto any action to overturn Pai... and I don't think a 2/3rds majority to support such action is likely. Say goodbye to Net Neutrality until Trump is gone.

Re:Waste of time, Sadly

[duke_cheetah2003]

Trump will veto any action to overturn Pai... and I don't think a 2/3rds majority to support such action is likely. Say goodbye to Net Neutrality until Trump is gone.

Na. Not a waste of time. It will reveal which senators and congress-critters oppose restoring NN. Ammo for the democrats in November. Dems aren't as stupid as one might desire to think. They know this is a game they can well, game.. for political gain in November.

I think it's pretty amusing what this administration is up to, it's like they're trying to piss off everyone, in every way possible. It's like they want to be shamed and ridiculed endlessly. The levels of stupid out of this administration are at a level we've not seen... ever.

I don't like Net Neutrality being used in this political game, but we have to work with whatever this administration shovels our way. Be thankful they are throwing very important topics into the spot light. What we have to do as the common person is pass this along, get your friends and family interested in Net Neutrality, explain what it means, educate your fellows. Do it while it's a hot-button topic, before the yawning and disinterest sets in. The more sheeple you can get interested in this, the more noise they'll collectively make. Never a waste of time, not ever.

Re:Waste of time, Sadly

[Xenx]

Fighting what is perceived as a losing battle is not a waste of time. The battle itself has meaning, regardless of outcome.

Re:Waste of time, Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

What I am hearing you say... is that you don't expect to see Net Neutrality back until... 2049 at the best?

I figure we've got Donald until 2025, President Ivanka until 2033, Melania until 2041... all to pave the way for the primarch Barron until 2049.

Long may they reign!

Re:Waste of time, Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like they want to be shamed and ridiculed endlessly.

You assume they care.

Recall that for years, those primarily on the left have been quick to accuse those they disagree with of being racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, etc.

Have you noticed how little power those terms affect most of those they are hurled at? It took ages, but plenty of people have come to realize that being called nasty words is imimportant, doubly so if they know they aren't racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, etc.

Like it or not... Trumps election was the expected result.

Re:Waste of time, Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

Dems are plenty stupid. I say this as someone who is a registered democrat and mostly votes for democrats. I'm only AC to preserve mods.

Look who the minority leader is. Look how yammering on about Russian collusion is backfiring. The DNC leadership itself is in turmoil. They will attach unrelated riders to spending bills to trigger a government shutdown, not to get the deficit under control, but for the sake of illegal immigrants. There is no overestimating how tone deaf and insular they can be.

They will find some way to take something that most Americans can overwhelmingly agree on like NN, and squander that political capital with outrage fatigue from petty partisan bickering and attacking Trump personally with help from their friends in the media.

Promoting an actual policy agenda? Fuck that, Trump is mentally deranged because he used both hands to drink a water bottle.

Re:Waste of time, Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

And I hope he's here for the entire eight years. It's about time we have a great President instead of the swamp-varmints we've been getting.

Major Websites Plan Day of Irrelevance

[Anonymous Coward]

Yawn.

Nobody cares. Turn your stupid website off. We'll go play video games. You're not that important.

Re:Major Websites Plan Day of Irrelevance

[PopeRatzo]

Nobody cares. Turn your stupid website off. We'll go play video games. You're not that important.

Uh, dummy, here's what Net Neutrality means to people who "play video games".

https://www.pcgamer.com/how-ne...

Re:Major Websites Plan Day of Irrelevance

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea. Right.
quoting from your link: "The impact may not be immediate, but it's likely that any rule affecting net neutrality will eventually affect how you use the internet to play games or interact with the PC gaming community."

In other words: we have no reason to believe you'll be affected in any way, but we don't like Trump administration so let us scare you anyway.

Nothing is going to happen, bandwidth will grow and will become cheaper, as it happens with anything that's in demand.

Re:Major Websites Plan Day of Irrelevance

[Anonymous Coward]

you're a fucking tard

Re:Major Websites Plan Day of Irrelevance

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the liberal response that means "Your're Right" They just don't know how to pronounce those words as they can never be wrong.

Re:Net Neutrality...

[Anonymous Coward]

My god, man, you do not have a clue.

Why are the idiots multiplying in droves?

In upside-down world the man that walks on his hands is king.

Moral Victory!! Agony of Defeat...

[GregMmm]

Even if the 51st vote is found, then it heads to the House where it will most likely die. If by some miracle the house passes it, it will go to President Trump and he will surely veto it.

So I guess everyone involved can feel good they did something, but I can't see how this will change the decision on NN.

If it's so important, pass a law

[WoodstockJeff]

They're perfectly willing to showboat for something pushed out by the last president, but unwilling to make it the law of the land in the normal "write a bill, pass it by both house and senate, and get the president to sign it".

If they did that, what the FCC chairperson of the week says does not matter. They would have to implement the law.

Re:If it's so important, pass a law

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. We didn't push for it when we had the supermajority in the Senate, the House, and the White House, but somehow we blame Trump.

Re:If it's so important, pass a law

[Brett Buck]

That was my point a couple of weeks ago, and got modded into oblivion.

        We should *want* this to happen, instead of living on proclamations from on high to make things happen. The fallacy of relying on government by decree has never been more clear. If you can't actually convince your representatives to sign on, then you have some recourse. Decrees can be anything the guys making it wants, whether its what you want or not.

     

Re:If it's so important, pass a law

[geek]

Because these people don't believe in laws. Just like Hillary, Obama, Comey, McCabe etc etc etc. They are above the law. You will obey them or else.

And mysteriously duckduckgo disappears

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course no one would rate shape traffic that day.

Re:Net Neutrality...

[duke_cheetah2003]

Why are the idiots multiplying in droves?

Child Tax Credit.

I thought we already had one.

[Anonymous Coward]

Reddit was covered in net neutrality spam for days, and people have already forgotten about it. People don't remember the SOPA protests either, which was only effective because of Wikipedia, which is now too embroiled by admin abuse to be effective.

Re:I thought we already had one.

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember your fucking stupid SOPA protests, and I still don't give a shit about SOPA.

Those are "major web sites"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tumblr, Etsy, Vimeo, Medium, Namecheap, Imgur, Sonos, and DuckDuckGo

Those are not "major web sites". This is a list of major web sites. Only one of those is even on the list, and it clocks in at #47.

I'd wager the average dude on the street hasn't heard of a single one of those sites.

Now if you can get Google, Facebook, or Youtube to join, then maybe somebody will notice. You know, the kind of sites you can mention to a random stranger on the street and they know what you're talking about.

Re:Those are "major web sites"?

[brewthatistrue]

For those dying to know, it looks like imgur is #47 on the alexa ranking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind...

Re:Those are "major web sites"?

[supremebob]

Of course... the companies in the top 40 can easily afford whatever additional fees the telcos will want from them. Hell... they might even appreciate the additional barrier of entry for new potential competitors.

Major Dicks

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop playing with yourselves. You ain't gonna do shit.

I have to do this every time

[PopeRatzo]

NN is not what you think it is.

We don't have to "think" about the definition of net neutrality. We have had a perfectly good one for over a decade:

https://www.eff.org/issues/net...

So maybe you should tell us what you think it is.

Re:I have to do this every time

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Data is not treated fairly now. Many larger cloud companies (Netflix, Google, etc.) already have direct peering agreements with the major ISPs. This does not mean that they get better service over the rest - but say, for instance, you request data from Netflix. This data traverses over these peering links (often quite large on bandwidth - Netflix is a gigantic bandwidth hog) and bypasses the "normal" route data would take. You could view this as special access to their network already. Note: these companies do not pay for the upkeep and general maintenance of the network they are using to provide you service.

2) From the website:
We don’t want regulations that will turn ISPs into gatekeepers, making special deals with a few companies and inhibiting new competition, innovation and expression.

Are not ISPs already gatekeepers? The real reason why NN is pushed so hard is simply because ISPs can legally charge these large companies for access to their network and customers. With NN in place, they cannot. Do you honestly think these large companies have you in mind? If so, you are naive as you are dumb. ISPs would make a lot more money by charging companies - who rely on the ISPs infrastructure to sell their services (again, these companies pay nothing for the upkeep of the overall network) - than by charging their customers for access to specific websites.

3) Prior to NN, the internet was fine. NN has been repealed now for months. Nothing bad has come of it. There is no doom and gloom of internet packages or "slow lanes" (which is already there by data caps and tiers of service). Implementing this on the back-end of a large ISP would be a nightmare. It would be very bad PR and people would likely drop that ISP in droves. This would foster other ISPs to not do this, and perhaps even get more local ISPs into the mix, which would not offer the "website packages" or "slow lanes". I'm not saying that it may not happen in the future, but it is not the primary reason why NN is pushed so hard.

Re:I have to do this every time

[PopeRatzo]

3) Prior to NN, the internet was fine.

No, it was not.

https://www.freepress.net/blog...

Re:I have to do this every time

[SlaveToTheGrind]

You know what's missing from that exquisitely curated list?

A closing sentence at the end of each item that says (1) the situation was not resolved prior to Net Neutrality; and (2) it WAS resolved (and by the FCC, mind you) following the institution of Net Neutrality.

I can't imagine why they didn't fill in those details.

Re:I have to do this every time

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you should tell us why everything was OK before Obummer's rule adding it.

Re:Net Neutrality...

[Mr307]

My reading list and I agree with you, it may not be the opposite but its much more complex than the simple representation of 'dont throttle', the set of rules implemented in 2015 to 2017 being repealed didn't break anything, and if it gets reworked in a way that doesn't negatively effect small groups/companies who want big pipes(amongst other problems with NN that are never talked about) like that set of rules was causing then it will work out better in the end.

And in case someone doesn't get it, I am for some version of NN but not the one imposed in 2015, and not some other one imposed because of a shrill 'the internets are dying' panic. It needs to be worked on some more.

(not my list I can figure out where I got it if anyone cares) The last item was a particularly interesting debate with good discussion:

Robert Kahn, the most senior figure in the development of the internet, delivers strong warning against Net "Neutrality"
https://goo.gl/5SUZ9Z
Dr. David Clark - Internet's Chief Protocol Architect talks Net "Neutrality"
https://goo.gl/iYZH5o
Vonage Co-Founder Jeff Pulver rejects Tim Wu's idea for Net "Neutrality"
https://goo.gl/P7Kxdm
Why Net "Neutrality" is a misnomer
https://goo.gl/o1ZJAG https://goo.gl/tcpQCJ
Former FCC Chief Technologist talks Net "Neutrality"
https://goo.gl/sRYNNo https://goo.gl/uD91hc
Economics used to justify Net "Neutrality" wrong, unsupported, or irrelevant
https://goo.gl/K1RBfm
Internet prices continue to fall
https://goo.gl/JiZJgm https://goo.gl/JLvFRw
Dan Rayburn presents CDN Data
https://goo.gl/bFQWfP
Interview with The Verge on Apple CDN
https://goo.gl/Rvnfcd
Interview with TechCrunch on Microsoft CDN
https://goo.gl/DXANKZ
How President Obama thwarted FCC Chairman Wheeler / Schmidt urges Obama not to pursue Net "Neutrality"
https://goo.gl/dhGHtn
Schmidt tries to bridge "hard-core Net 'Neutrality'" divide
https://goo.gl/FkjzHq
BitTorrent Former CTO statement on Comcast's network management
https://goo.gl/7arhib
BitTorrent Co-Founder rejects heavy legislative approach to solving "non-neutral" internet. Comcast BitTorrent collab "win, win, win." https://goo.gl/7kPBH3
BitTorrent Former CEO claims internet neutrality was achieved with a light regulatory touch, believes the best way to achieve this principle is very much an open debate.
https://goo.gl/aVvwLD
Tim Wu acknowledges Net Neutrality ultimate goal of state internet regulations
https://www.c-span.org/video/?...
Across the country, new local mesh networks which become more powerful as more people use them are an alternative to big ISPs. https://goo.gl/KFHShw
The Future of Mesh Networks
https://goo.gl/hukXpG https://goo.gl/LgAo2f
Elon Musk plans to dethrone telecoms
https://goo.gl/gdpp4D https://goo.gl/WsDpLq https://goo.gl/ZZ7318
FCC regulation withholding progress for new internet service technology
https://goo.gl/SQyCFE
The Law and Economics of Network Neutrality
https://goo.gl/d87HW3
Net Neutr

The NN monopolies

[AHuxley]

Keep the NN rules so the existing big brand monopolies and their paper insulated NN networks can stay in place?
All the federal NN rules did was further protect a few part political connected monopoly telcos and their POTS networks.
Let the innovative private sector move in and create some really great new networks all over the USA.
With no competition and protective federal NN rules nothing is upgraded by the few NN network monopoly telcos.
Someday a wealthy walled community, city, town can build its own new community broadband and bring in new ISP.
Competition at last.

All electrons to be treated equally - or else?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been pondering this for a while. How can the electrons travelling inside the electronics of a router know and treat individual bits inside its memory, cpu, mainboard and network card understand which electron belongs to what network session and then balance the flows so each and every session is exactly equal? That is ultimately what we are discussing here. Writing laws is one thing, but to then putting the onus on the electronics companies to ensure all electrons are treated equally reminds me of the tale of King Canute and his quest to control nature.

With the recent Intel Sceptre/Meltdown and related speculative computing technology security flaws and ramifications of that design, this would effectively end Intel and all networking and computing making everyone a criminal. Quite the chilling effect. We might as well go back to sending letters.

Could 'net neutrality' is better suited to describe the practice of not limiting the free speech of anyone who is not solely promoting "White Left" ideas? Only recently Harvard labelled alt-media, like /., fake news and cannot be trusted - yet we're all still here. Google has admitted in court documents they have a department dedicated to demoting non-"White Left" ideas off the internet, what can we do to stop that and keep alt-media like /. alive?

FAKE PAID POSTER

[i286NiNJA]

Hahahah shut the fuck up you paid shill. Jesus christ i can't believe i spent all my mod points before seeing your post.
Even fucking comcast of all places has *some* support of net neturality. Except for the parts they don't like, naturally.

It's obvious you're not a real person. Why the fuck are you guys posting on slashdot of all places though? This place is just a clubhouse for a few old nerds these days.

Re:FAKE PAID POSTER

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut your mouth, junior. You can come out of your room when you decide to behave.

I support the repeal

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who have done research on net neutrality knows it should be repealed. It is a turd with perfume and a bow, it can be made to look and smell good, but it is still a turd.

Had just started using DuckDuckgo, but looks like I have to find a different search engine.

The people opposing NN

[rsilvergun]

are promising them jobs. Good jobs. They're gonna send the Mexicans who took their jobs packing, and punish the companies who outsource jobs. And not just any jobs. Good jobs. The kind they can do. The kind that paid their pappy and their grandpappy enough for a nice house a car and a family.

Meanwhile the folks yelling about NN are promising $10-$20 off your cable bill. Oh, I suppose they also said they'd knock a few points off your kid's student loans. Seriously, that's all I heard from the other side in the last election. It's a whole lot of stuff they either can live without, don't care about or is just plain out of reach. It's meaningless to them.

Americans want populism. That's why Trump won and why Bernie is the most popular politician in America.

Re:The people opposing NN

[GameboyRMH]

Promising people jobs from the '70s that aren't coming isn't populism, it's mendacious demagoguery, the latter is a subset of the former, they're not the same thing.

40% not having $1k _is_ most people

[rsilvergun]

where it counts. If they're concentrated in swing states then it might as well be most people. And they are.

EXPOSING JewTube/JEWgle/FakeBook Khazars

[Anonymous Coward]

Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Perrone, Spanish inquistion & Spain 1492 (Christopher Columbus the jew https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22C... sailed to the US for them to create it), France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above. Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud. This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

"Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer â" so I wasnâ(TM)t lying â" and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveâ Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDE

Another one of these.

[Chas]

Are we also supposed to turn our lights off, and not buy gasoline (or anything else) for the day as well?

Because THAT'LL accomplish SOMETHING! I'm SURE of it!

Ow. Need to head to an opthalmologist. I just strained a bunch of things from rolling my eyes so hard...

Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Google should charge one dollar per search for one day just to open peoples eyes.

Re: Google

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they should pay each of us a dollar, for every web bug, every AdWords, everything they track us with, all day long

That is a pretty big list of websites

[Anonymous Coward]

I donâ(TM)t care about

Re:Blame the Obama appointee...

[ClickOnThis]

Obama had no choice but to appoint Ajit Pai to the FCC. A Republican seat was open. The Republicans proposed Pai. Obama had to accept him.

If you want to blame anyone, blame Trump for elevating Pai to the chair.

The beauty of arguing for no regulation

[Solandri]

Is that lack of net neutrality works both ways. The websites can gang up and do unto the ISPs what the ISPs want to do to them. The major websites (Google, Facebook, Reddit, Yahoo, Netflix, etc) could agree that if they detected an ISP throttling any one of them, all of them would throttle that ISP. Then the ISPs would have the power to throttle websites, but would be afraid to use it for fear of signing their own Internet death warrant.

Simple : Throttle Down their Connection

[AncalagonTotof]

Their should be no problem to target some of the many people who supported the repeal.
Starting with Pai himself.
Then, if not the ISPs, the GAFA, Tweeter, Facebook, etc, could throttle down their services to show them what "no Net Neutrality" really means. Ideally inserting forms asking for money to get higher grade services.
What about Cloudflare ? They said they were looking for all possible legal action to throttle Pai's Internet ?

Re: Simple : Throttle Down their Connection

[kenh]

Yea! Drag Ajit Pai's internet connection all the way back to those horrible early-2015 days - that'll show him!

Problem is, the internet in the US wasn't horrible before NN rules (not laws) went into effect in 2015, and for 99.9% of Americans the passage of NN rules (not laws) had zero impact on their life/on-line Internet experience.

Re: Simple : Throttle Down their Connection

[GameboyRMH]

Can we recreate all these problems for Ajit?

https://www.freepress.net/blog...

Finding the vote!

[Bayoudegradeable]

Thank spaghetti monster they are finding the vote! Don’t let those pigs hide it any longer. Find the vote! Find the vote!

These internet 'school's are always so effective..

[kenh]

#BringBackOurGirls, for example.

The average American has no idea what Net Neutrality is, and a bunch of D-list websites organizing a 'day of action' that likely won't be reported on the evening news will have close to no impact, and will likely not result in 'flipping' that covered 51st senator, and I can't even begin to imagine the uphill battle this group will face in the House.

BTW, having 51 senators supporting a bill doesn't guarantee it will be brought up for a vote in the senate.

Where...

[Anonymous Coward]

.....were their "days of action" a couple years ago BEFORE net neutrality was even a thing? They didn't need it then.

Is NN worth it? Break the monopolies instead!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still not convinced net neutrality is good for the consumer. When you see almost every major corporation spending so much energy defending it, it should make you suspicious. Is having a big bureaucracy going to help things? I would argue the lack of regulation is what made the internet develop so well compared to the telecoms.

What if I want to buy a service that prioritizes time sensitive traffic like SIP? Not all traffic is the same. Streaming video can easily handle a high degree of jitter. My phone call cannot.

Shouldn't the rules instead be around preventing monopolies. Restrict exclusivity agreements in municipalities. Break up Comcast and Verizon. There are plenty of other ways to better handle this. The only thing worse than big business is big government in bed with big business. NN is a huge mistake.

Legislation can be repealed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Net Neutrality (2015-2017, RIP) was not legislation. I don't know that much about the issues, but am inclined to distrust the side with the most slippery rhetoric. Casting NN as legislation by discussing its repeal counts as "slippery". I award zero points, and may God have mercy on your dissimulating souls*.

(objection! assumes facts not in evidence!)

I was half excited until I saw the list...

[bjdevil66]

...of participants. If any one of the following participated, it would have an immediate impact:

* Google
* Amazon
* Youtube
* Facebook
* Twitter
* The major porn sites/networks.
* Maybe Ebay and/or PayPal.

Without any of those players, this effort will be forgotten after half a news cycle.

BTW - DuckDuckGo participating is the one search engine that won't make a dent. People that are aware enough of internet-related issues to use DuckDuckGo have likely already written entire treatises about the evils of net neutrality online to spread the word...

Re:I was half excited until I saw the list...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would any of the big ones want to argue for net neutrality when, with their inmense resources, they can erect another barrier for smaller challengers?

U.S. regulators ditch net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

- New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a Democrat, said in a statement he will lead a multi-state lawsuit to challenge the reversal.

- Immediately after the vote, Senator Edward Markey, a Democrat, said he and 15 other senators planned to introduce a resolution to undo the FCC action and restore the net neutrality rules.

Sign on petition here and support us https://isignfund.com/petitions/hVvB0PDd4r