Shunting the FCC To the Slow Lane 194
An anonymous reader writes "Following the FCC's proposal a couple weeks ago to allow an internet fast lane, a group of activists has come up with a fun counterproposal: force the FCC itself into the slow lane and see how they like it. They write, 'Since the FCC seems to have no problem with this idea, I've (through correspondence) gotten access to the FCC's internal IP block, and throttled all connections from the FCC to 28.8kbps modem speeds on the Neocities.org front site, and I'm not removing it until the FCC pays us for the bandwidth they've been wasting instead of doing their jobs protecting us from the "keep America's internet slow and expensive forever" lobby.' The group has published the code snippet that throttles FCC IP addresses, and they encourage other web admins to implement it."
Bwaaaahahahahah! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bwaaaahahahahah! (Score:3, Insightful)
I love it. :D
If ever there was a case of "+1 agree" modding, here it is.
There is absolutely nothing funny about "I love it." unless you're watching Naked Gun... which this is not. Don't mod the story.
That would be me.
I've been swimming in raw sewage.
I love it.
Re:Bwaaaahahahahah! (Score:2)
Damn, I should have read your comment before posting mine.
I mean, not this comment that I just made, but the one before that.
Re:Bwaaaahahahahah! (Score:2)
You've been swimming in raw sewage?
Re:Bwaaaahahahahah! (Score:2)
This is a waste of time.
The people you are throttling that will be effected have 0 say in what goes on here, we work the same job many engineers developers and BA's and testers do across the nation.
Also, most of our work is for services we provide to the public. Most outwards traffic is to look up commands or to mess around on facebook/reddit/slashdot.
And to be honest, im sure over 95% of the people reading this have never heard of neocities.org. Sorry.
Take it a step further (Score:5, Insightful)
Do this for all goverment ip adresses
Re:Take it a step further (Score:5, Insightful)
Political party IP addresses. Just before campain donation season.
Re:Take it a step further (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Take it a step further (Score:3)
Re:Take it a step further (Score:4, Interesting)
Why just government ip addresses? I think it'd be much more effective to throttle all of Comcast's address space and add a banner making it clear that Comcast is trying to double dip and get paid twice for internet they have already sold you and to be extra nice and helpful Comcast's 1-800 # for support.
Re:Take it a step further (Score:3, Funny)
But... how would the Comcast user notice the difference? :P
Pron (Score:5, Funny)
This will only have its intended effect if adopted by all porn sites.
So now you know what porn is good for.
Re:Pron (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pron (Score:2, Insightful)
You do realize that the FCC has thousands of employees. And that you just called them all dipshits, over the rules created by the FCC leadership, which was appointed and installed by various politicians...
That makes you a asshole. How about you tone down on the generalizations. I'm all for throttling the FCC, but direct the anger where it is due
Re:Pron (Score:2)
It is appropriate to criticize the lowest janitor of any organization that does evil. What would the CEOs/Directors/Generals/Honchos do if they had nobody to boss? They'd shrivel up and die. Every person who works at the FCC is culpable -- same rules apply to any organized evil.
Re:Pron (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pron (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pron (Score:2)
The people could practice non-violent noncooperation. Worked for Gandhi.
Re:Pron (Score:2)
I work for a not-for-profit hospital, you insensitive clod!
(Really, I do, and I sleep soundly knowing I contribute to good and not evil).
Re:Pron (Score:2)
Every person who works at the FCC is culpable -- same rules apply to any organized evil.
I forget... Who do you pay taxes to again?
Re:Pron (Score:3)
Indeed, all the employees "just following orders."
Re:Pron (Score:4, Interesting)
Did you choose where you currently work, or did someone pull you out of your home at gunpoint and command you to do job X?
When someone choses to work for incompetent dipshits, it doesn't really reflect well on their own level of genius.
Re:Pron (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pron (Score:2)
Why should there be starvation, when we produce a huge food surplus? Why should there be homelessness, when there are something like 10 million empty houses? The reason starvation and homelessness exist is precisely so House Republicans can boss the poor around, imposing artificial scarcity to satisfy their control-freak urges.
Re:Pron (Score:2)
Re:Pron (Score:2)
For a privately owned company that helps keep people warm in the winter. My conscience can live with that.
Has your government done anything you're not proud of? Comitted any acts you call evil? You chose to pay taxes didn't you?
No, actually, I don't. I submit to taxation only under duress, the threat of Government Guns appearing on my doorstep. I actively oppose the majority of US foreign policy, and consider the government in its current form as little more than an occupying entity entirely hostile to both the constitution and the founding principles of my country.
Any more questions?
Re:Pron (Score:2)
Has your government done anything you're not proud of? Comitted any acts you call evil? You chose to pay taxes didn't you? No, actually, I don't. I submit to taxation only under duress, the threat of Government Guns appearing on my doorstep. I actively oppose the majority of US foreign policy, and consider the government in its current form as little more than an occupying entity entirely hostile to both the constitution and the founding principles of my country.
No one is going to shoot you for not paying taxes. They may imprison you, but that's a conscious choice. Conscientious objectors have gone to prison for far less motivation than opposing an "occupying entity entirely hostile to both the constitution and the founding principles of my country."
If you genuinely believe that to be the case, financially supporting such an entity and willingly living under its rule is a far more serious act than working within the bureaucracy of the FCC.
Re:Pron (Score:2)
And what do you suppose they do when someone refuses to peacefully submit to arrest for failure to pay their official annual extortion fee, through a barred and reinforced door?
Hint: They don't challenge you to a debate.
They may imprison you, but that's a conscious choice.
A choice between prison and? Again, we go back to "Government Guns". We always go back to that, because the government really has no other power except the power to kill us if we don't oblige them. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant us our rights, it merely carves out a niche of special subjects We The People outright ban the government from regulating. Try reminding them of that next time you stand in a designated Free Speech Zone(tm).
/ Fact of the day: The US made it through over half of its existence with no income tax in place except for extremely limited wartime assessments.
Re:Pron (Score:2)
No one is going to shoot you for not paying taxes. And what do you suppose they do when someone refuses to peacefully submit to arrest for failure to pay their official annual extortion fee, through a barred and reinforced door? Hint: They don't challenge you to a debate..
Sure, if you take it far enough, you could force the government to shoot you. Given the right forced circumstances could also force me to shoot you. That same power you think is the only power the government has, is ultimately the only power you have also. Taken to the ludicrous extreme, the only power you really have ultimately is the power to kill people who oppose you.
/ Fact of the day: The US made it through over half of its existence with no income tax in place except for extremely limited wartime assessments.
Also, electricity and reliable indoor plumbing. The historical circumstances of the country have no direct bearing on its current functional requirements and goals. Whether the government levies too much taxes or not, the fact that it did not levy a general income tax in the past is not particularly relevant. For most of US history women could be denied the right to vote because the US Constitution granted almost unlimited power to the states to decide more or less arbitrarily who could and could not vote. The fact that the country apparently functioned reasonably well without granting women the right to vote on the federal level does not mean it was not a beneficial change.
Re:Pron (Score:2)
Re:Pron (Score:2)
You do realize that the FCC has thousands of employees. And that you just called them all dipshits, over the rules created by the FCC leadership, which was appointed and installed by various politicians...
That makes you a asshole. How about you tone down on the generalizations. I'm all for throttling the FCC, but direct the anger where it is due
Given that they're a government body, I'd say that's a fair assessment.
Re:Pron (Score:5, Informative)
over the rules created by the FCC leadership, which was appointed and installed by various politicians...
No. They were all appointed by Obama [fcc.gov].
Tom Wheeler, Chairman, appointed by: Obama; November 2013
Mignon Clyburn, Commissioner, appointed by: Obama; May 2013 and June 2009
Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner, appointed by: Obama; May 2012
Ajit Pai, Commissioner, appointed by: Obama; May 2012
Michael O'Reilly, Commissioner, appointed by: Obama; August 2013
Re:Pron (Score:3)
Yeah. And they *ARE* worse than the previous bunch of bastards.
Remember, the MPAA, RIAA, etc. tend to give more money to Democrats than to Republicans. Republicans prefer other souces for their graft.
Re:Pron (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Pron (Score:2)
Re:Pron (Score:2)
what if central internel providers and hosting companies started doing this.
we could block them off the net
Re: Pron (Score:2)
It would not.
But nothing stops google to going even lower, like let's say 300BPS.
NeoCities? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who the heck is that?
IOW: Some group nobody has heard of, throttled the FCCs connection speed to a site they'll never visit.
Re:NeoCities? (Score:5, Informative)
I think the point is, they are are showing other folks how to do this, and that they should all implement this.
Re:NeoCities? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the site that getting free advertising via Slashdot.
Re:NeoCities? (Score:2)
Some group nobody has heard of, throttled the FCCs connection speed to a site they'll never visit.
We've heard of 'em now, haven't we?? (Nice attempt to focus on the messenger instead of the message, by the way...)
Re:NeoCities? (Score:2)
Who the heck is that?
It's the GEOCITIES for the trench coat mafia stuck in 1998 who can't wait for The Matrix to come out.
Slashdot needs to do the same (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot needs to do the same!
Re:Slashdot needs to do the same (Score:2)
That's one way to increase the FCC's productivity..
We all need to do the same (Score:5, Funny)
... permanently overprint "Welcome to your new, non-neutral, net"
}
else {
... for 10 seconds overprint "We're slowing the FCC, you should too"
... speed = fast
}
Re:Slashdot needs to do the same (Score:5, Funny)
Naw, just make them use beta all the time.
Re:Slashdot needs to do the same (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Slashdot needs to do the same (Score:2)
I think more importantly we need to investigate what IP blocks the FCC chairman and other VIPs in the FCC use at their houses and tarpit those as well. You know, make sure the point really hits home.
CloudFlare could make this actually hurt. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think CloudFlare and some of the other big CDN's would need to add this as an optional feature before it got big enough to matter. I just don't see Google adopting this.
Wikipedia OTOH....
Remember the SOPA/PIPA protests? (Score:4, Interesting)
Remember the SOPA/PIPA protests - Google actually participated in that one.
I could see someone like NYtimes, Washington Post, CNN.com or other media sites briefly doing this kind of stunt. Grandpa wouldn't be affected, unless he visited their sites from FCC HQ.
Do it to Congress instead (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe something will actually get done about the issue.
Re:Do it to Congress instead (Score:2)
Oh my... yes, this! It's too bad my mod points expired.
Re:Do it to Congress instead (Score:5, Insightful)
This should be done to the entire US goverment, not just the FCC or congress.
Nice! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now if google, netflix, and a few other big players would also implement this, I think we'd see some real entertainment.
Re:Nice! (Score:2)
This. A hundred blogs and random websites don't matter, you'll affect maybe 3 people.
But if Google, Facebook and another 2-3 big players do it, it'll hurt.
"Internet Terrorism" (Score:5, Insightful)
I expect that The Government will brand such actions as "domestic Internet terrorism". Off to Gitmo!
Re:"Internet Terrorism" (Score:2)
Re:"Internet Terrorism" (Score:5, Funny)
The FCC is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, unless you slow it to modem speeds.
Re:"Internet Terrorism" (Score:2, Funny)
Cyberterrorism
Well, it has my PC shaking with fear.
No, wait. That's just a bad power supply fan. Never mind.
Re:"Internet Terrorism" (Score:3)
"Cyberterrorism"... sounds scarier.
Considering that "cyber" has been taken over to be a sexual term, they might think it is some sort of BDSM play.
Think you've got that backwards, mate. I haven't heard/seen someone use "cyber" as a sexual reference in a solid decade, whereas it seems to be the government's new favorite militaristic buzzword (cyberterrorism, cyberdefenses, cyberoffenses, cyberborders, et.al.)
Brilliant! (Score:2)
FCC Executives? (Score:2)
IPV4 Address Blocks (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:IPV4 Address Blocks (Score:3)
Yeah.... welll... I decided the nginx lines were too complicated an extra config addition... I preferred the iptables -I INPUT -s xxx.../16 -j DROP instead.
lets do this on border gateways (Score:4, Insightful)
put these rules where they belong, on routers in the center of the internet. make some for Time Warner too, because its their idiot lacky who made them(tom wheeler).
At least a few of you have to work for the internet in some capacity.
Re:lets do this on border gateways (Score:2)
At least a few of you have to work for the internet in some capacity.
Unfortunately, most of those that do would like to continue doing so. But nice try!
Re:lets do this on border gateways (Score:2)
Then what is so far fetched from the heavy hitters of the internet doing the same?
We, not just indivudals, but companies, and the entire IT community needs to make a stand.
Re:lets do this on border gateways (Score:2)
Oh man, I wonder which ISP will be the first to block access to a competitor's website.
On comcast? Go to Verizon.com = 28.8kbps.
if you really want their attention... (Score:2)
throttle the family of fcc top dogs. that'll get them to change their tune real fast.
Priceless (Score:3)
Pure brilliance I love it. Never occurred to me .. even if it only has sentimental effect.
EPA please! (Score:2)
There might be some confusion. (Score:3)
Please let me know if I'm wrong, as it's certainly possible. What the proposal allows for is that say Netflix, or Youtube, or any other content provider that would utilize a lot of bandwidth, would be allowed to purchase direct physical lines to individual large ISPs for that ISP's customers instead of sending data over the Internet backbone. The end result would be a faster connection for that provider and those end users, for ultimately less cost.
So what we're dealing with here is a content provider that adds extra bandwidth to the Internet (albeit for a specific purpose), and pays for it, for the intended purpose of saving money for all parties involved while improving the end customer experience. Can someone please tell me why this is a problem? Or am I reading it incorrectly?
I do agree that from a technical point of view, the provider is purchasing a higher tier connection from the ISP for an improvement in throughput, but this in no way impacts any other service. I can envision the standard net neutrality argument that would allow an ISP to possibly extort a content provider, although I can't imagine why they would ever want to do so, considering peering agreements favor the consumer of data. Even so, tweaking the rules to disallow the restriction of data would make more sense than forbidding a willing provider to selectively choose to improve the experience for a specific group of customers above and beyond what is currently possible through the Internet for the same cost.
Won't make a difference (Score:2)
Government bureaucracies already run about the same speed as a 300 baud dot matrix printer. They won't notice.
Sound the warhorn! (Score:2)
Re:Because the FCC cares about his shitty little p (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think the goal is to only throttle the one site, but to start a movement where websites all over the internet, including ones that those on the FCC do frequent, all do this.. so that they feel the effect.
Re:Because the FCC cares about his shitty little p (Score:2)
Exactly one, as long as it's the one that someone important over there surfs.
Re:Because the FCC cares about his shitty little p (Score:2)
I'm going to use your simile as my #2 rule on posting to /.
Re:Wow, the Republicans... (Score:4, Insightful)
The one that challenges the Republican views that:money is speech, and since the rich have more money they should get to decide what speech I should listen to.
You think the view is exclusive to Republicans? Then you either don't pay enough attention, or you need your head examined.
Remember during the sequester, the Democrat President shut down public access to the White House, but sold access to "donors" at half-a-million a pop. [poorrichardsnews.com]
Not to mention, >8 of the 10 richest Congressional districts are represented by Democrats, [slashdot.org] not to mention the fact that7 of the 10 richest Congresscritters are also Democrats. [go.com]
With apologies to Charles Baudelaire - "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that Republicans are the party of the rich."
real bias of the media (Score:5, Informative)
Eh. I have to say, yes, the Ds are just as bought as the Rs. But lets get back on track here... There's a perception that the media is biased towards liberals. Ok, and I stretch to call the Ds liberals. But really. Benghazi. Over and Over and Over. Four people lost their lives, it was a tragedy, and it was a mistake... but it's NOT the story it's made out to be. The media is all in when we're talking about Benghazi though, and where's the real reporting instead of just parroting talking points?
Where were the congressional hearings when we started a war in Iraq on faulty intelligence? Four people lost their lives? Try thousands of our troops and hundreds of thousands of civilians. Where's the outcry in the media?
Our media is NOT liberal. They are corporate conglomerates, who parrot what they are told.
Snowden? Benghazi? Troops coming home in caskets? Oil spills? mines collapsing? Our media are tools, and they say what they're told to say. Liberal bias my ass. They have a corporate bias.
Re:real bias of the media (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't honestly say I disagree with anything you've said here. Any apparent bias between the different 'news' agencies seems to be purely for show, and achieves nothing but furthering divisions among us.
Just like Lincoln warned us about.
Re:real bias of the media (Score:2)
Quick sanity test: is the New York Times a liberal newspaper?
If you don't know, then you are dangerously uninformed. The Grey Lady itself answered in the affirmative. Anyone who thinks the NYT is objective is a freaking idiot.
Wake up and smell the ducats, peons.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wake up and smell the ducats, peons.... (Score:3)
Re:Wow, the Republicans... (Score:5, Insightful)
The one that challenges the Republican views that:money is speech, and since the rich have more money they should get to decide what speech I should listen to.
You think the view is exclusive to Republicans? Then you either don't pay enough attention, or you need your head examined.
Remember during the sequester, the Democrat President shut down public access to the White House, but sold access to "donors" at half-a-million a pop. [poorrichardsnews.com]
Not to mention, >8 of the 10 richest Congressional districts are represented by Democrats, [slashdot.org] not to mention the fact that7 of the 10 richest Congresscritters are also Democrats. [go.com]
With apologies to Charles Baudelaire - "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that Republicans are the party of the rich."
What does it matter? Both parties serve the corporations.
Re:Wow, the Republicans... (Score:3)
What does it matter? Both parties serve the corporations.
True, but it matters because not everyone knows or believes that; even here on Slashdot, there's a fair amount of folks living in denial, who insist that one half of the One Party is somehow less evil/avaricious/etc than the other, by virtue of what members of that half have said. Thus, I feel it's important to point out when their actions counter their words, so maybe a fraction of the delusional who read this will realize their mistake, and stop making it.
Re:Wow, the Republicans... (Score:2)
What does it matter? Both parties serve the corporations.
They serve different corporations, and that is why they fight against each other. Republicans are oil and military. Democrats are internet and entertainment. Of course there is overlap, but if I had to choose, Republican would lose every time.
Re:Wow, the Republicans... (Score:2)
I guess McCain probably doesn't think money is speech, but then he's a maverick in his own party, right?
Re:Wow, the Republicans... (Score:2)
With apologies to Charles Baudelaire - "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that Democrats are a party of lazy leaches."
Re:Wow, the Republicans... (Score:2)
I fail to see the relevance of that comment, care to expound?
Re:Wow, the Republicans... (Score:2)
Hate to be captain obvious, but it was a response to something about dems convincing people that repubs are the party of the rich, no? Two can play at that game, is the relevance.
Re:Wow, the Republicans... (Score:2)
Where are the republicans calling for an amendment to overrule Citizens United? Where are the Rebublicans calling for net neutrality? Where do the Koch brothers spend their money?
Re:Wow, the Republicans... (Score:5, Insightful)
The one that challenges the Republican views that:money is speech, and since the rich have more money they should get to decide what speech I should listen to.
Republican view? I'm confused.
Obama, a Democrat, said, “I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over”.
Obama, a Democrat, appointed Tom Wheeler, former cable & wireless lobbyist, to chair the FCC.
A democrat controlled Senate confirmed Tom Wheeler as the FCC chairman.
Tom Wheeler proposes the fast lane.
If you're going to spew partisan demagoguery, at least post it on a story it applies to.
Re:Wow, the Republicans... (Score:2)
You missed the part where the House Republicans voted to end net neutrality years ago [nytimes.com], only to be stopped by the Senate Democrats.
You also missed the part where Obama implemented a limited net neutrality via executive order, only to have that struck down by the courts, following a lawsuit by Verizon.
You also missed the part where Republicans cheered the court's ruling, declaring that net neutrality is "socialism".
Look here [thehill.com], or just google "obama net neutrality court" for a dozen other sources.
Here's the lede, in case you're too lazy to click:
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down regulations that require Internet providers to treat all traffic the same, dealing a potentially fatal blow to President Obama’s push for “net neutrality.”
Opponents of the rules, led by plaintiff Verizon, hailed the decision from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals as a victory over government meddling in the marketplace.
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), one of the biggest opponents of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules in Congress, applauded the court for striking down “socialistic regulations.”
Do you get it yet? The Democrats have been fighting for years to try to keep net neutrality around. The Republicans have fought to destroy it. The Republicans won, because the courts were on their side. And now you blame ...the Democrats.
This is why things will never get better. This is why you will lose everything, bit by bit. Because you don't pay attention, and you lash out at the same people who tried to fight for you. Really, you deserve to lose.
Re:Wow, the Republicans... (Score:2)
This post [slashdot.org] says it better than I can, with plenty of evidence supplied. Repubs have fought net neutrality tooth and nail from day 1. Wheeler's just crying uncle at this point. Quitter.
Re:Wow, the Republicans... (Score:2)
But you do throw away your vote when you vote for a third party, especially in the presidential election. Of course, you almost certainly are throwing away your vote no matter what, unless you live in a swing county.
Re:Wow, the Republicans... (Score:2)
Did you hear that sound, ganjadude? It was AC's joke going right over your thick skull...
Re:Wow, the Republicans... (Score:2)
Re:limit_rate (Score:2)
Re:Perfectly Splendid (Score:3)
Or be added to the list of domestic terrorist groups.
Re:Perfectly Splendid (Score:2)
I can see the police getting involved
The "police", or the FTC in this case, can't do anything because no laws are being broken.