Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Government Networking

Shunting the FCC To the Slow Lane 194

Posted by Soulskill
from the your-tax-dollars-at-buffering dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Shunting the FCC To the Slow Lane

Comments Filter:
  • by whistlingtony (691548) on Friday May 09, 2014 @12:23PM (#46960243)
    I love it. :D
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Yakasha (42321)

      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.

      • Damn, I should have read your comment before posting mine.

        I mean, not this comment that I just made, but the one before that.

    • You've been swimming in raw sewage?

    • by 228e2 (934443)
      I work for the FCC, and my opinions and statements are that of my own.

      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
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 09, 2014 @12:27PM (#46960277)

    Do this for all goverment ip adresses

  • Pron (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tokolosh (1256448) on Friday May 09, 2014 @12:27PM (#46960281)

    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)

      by Thud457 (234763) on Friday May 09, 2014 @12:40PM (#46960427) Homepage Journal
      They really need to implement the banner injection mentioned. Make it CRYSTAL clear to these dipshits why their connection is slow.
      • Re: (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

        • by anagama (611277)

          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)

            by whistlingtony (691548) on Friday May 09, 2014 @01:27PM (#46960843)
            ha! Where do YOU work? Don't be so quick to throw that stone..... It's a rare company these days that can be called anything but parasitic.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Gryle (933382)
              Dear God in Heaven, my kingdom for mod points. In a world with so many conflicting moral paradigms, any person on the planet has probably done evil in the sight of some other person on the planet. I'll re-state GPs logic with a few changes. "It is appropriate to criticize the lowest citizen of any country that does evil. What would the Presidents/Prime Minister's/Dictators/Generals/ do if they had nobody to boss? They'd shrivel up and die. Every person who lives in [America / The British Empire / The Roman
            • 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).

          • by Minwee (522556)

            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?

        • by Tokolosh (1256448)

          Indeed, all the employees "just following orders."

        • Re:Pron (Score:4, Interesting)

          by pla (258480) on Friday May 09, 2014 @01:35PM (#46960923) Journal
          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...

          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)

            by meerling (1487879) on Friday May 09, 2014 @01:39PM (#46960961)
            In this current economy with crap for job prospects, as long as they aren't breaking the law, the clear and real threat of starvation and homelessness is a pretty damn effective 'gun' to your head.
            • 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.

          • by Gryle (933382)
            Alright genius, where do you work for? Better yet, where do you live? Has your government done anything you're not proud of? Comitted any acts you call evil? You chose to pay taxes didn't you? Obviously choosing to give financial support to a government that does things you don't agree with makes you an evil person.
            • by pla (258480)
              Alright genius, where do you work for?

              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
              • by dnavid (2842431)

                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.

                • by pla (258480)
                  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.


                  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
                  • by dnavid (2842431)

                    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 func

          • So when the bosses of your company do something assholish, you immediately quit?
        • 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)

          by Yakasha (42321) on Friday May 09, 2014 @02:28PM (#46961417) Homepage

          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

          • by HiThere (15173)

            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)

      by Mr D from 63 (3395377) on Friday May 09, 2014 @12:48PM (#46960491)
      How about doing it to all campaign sites for anyone who supports it?
      • by ewieling (90662)
        Voicing your dissent by throttling FCC's access to networks you control is unlikely to get you in trouble. Trying to interfere with an election is an entirely different matter.
    • what if central internel providers and hosting companies started doing this.

      we could block them off the net

  • NeoCities? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OverlordQ (264228) on Friday May 09, 2014 @12:28PM (#46960285) Journal

    Who the heck is that?

    IOW: Some group nobody has heard of, throttled the FCCs connection speed to a site they'll never visit.

  • by sinij (911942) on Friday May 09, 2014 @12:28PM (#46960297) Journal

    Slashdot needs to do the same!

  • by fsterman (519061) on Friday May 09, 2014 @12:30PM (#46960321) Homepage

    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....

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 09, 2014 @12:41PM (#46960437)

       
      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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 09, 2014 @12:30PM (#46960323)

    Maybe something will actually get done about the issue.

  • Nice! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 09, 2014 @12:33PM (#46960367)

    Now if google, netflix, and a few other big players would also implement this, I think we'd see some real entertainment.

    • by Tom (822)

      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.

  • by leftism11 (177941) on Friday May 09, 2014 @12:35PM (#46960381)

    I expect that The Government will brand such actions as "domestic Internet terrorism". Off to Gitmo!

  • This is absolutely brilliant! It would be even cooler if this could be done surreptitiously to FCC public servers.
  • Really? Dealing with some geniuses here.
  • IPV4 Address Blocks (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mt1104 (3462603) on Friday May 09, 2014 @12:59PM (#46960573)
    The FCC appears to have quite a large allocation there. One of those blocks give them 2^16 addresses.
    • by mysidia (191772)

      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.

  • by davydagger (2566757) on Friday May 09, 2014 @01:30PM (#46960871)
    Look, this is /. I know a few of you work at ISPs that work on Tier1/2 networks. I say take this to the hole.

    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.
    • by robot256 (1635039)

      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!

      • if google and wikipedia as per company policy can blackout their sites to protest SOPA/PIPA.

        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.
    • 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.

  • throttle the family of fcc top dogs. that'll get them to change their tune real fast.

  • by WaffleMonster (969671) on Friday May 09, 2014 @01:48PM (#46961031)

    Pure brilliance I love it. Never occurred to me .. even if it only has sentimental effect.

  • Please, PLEASE do the same to the EPA. If you read the recent news, one of the staff who just got a bonus was spending most of his taxpayer-funded work hours downloading p0rn. This is a wonderful solution to that problem.
  • by Restil (31903) on Friday May 09, 2014 @09:19PM (#46964035) Homepage

    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.

  • Government bureaucracies already run about the same speed as a 300 baud dot matrix printer. They won't notice.

  • While we're at it. A couple things you can do to help is sign the petition (yeah I know). https://petitions.whitehouse.g... [whitehouse.gov] And contract the FCC by calling 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) voice or 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322) TTY; faxing 1-866-413-0232; or writing to: Federal Communications Commission Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Division 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Let them know you want ISPs to be classified under Title II and that true N

Any program which runs right is obsolete.

Working...