Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
The Internet Businesses Your Rights Online

Net Neutrality Advocates Plan Protests For December 7 at Verizon Stores ( 151

Jordan Crook, writing for TechCrunch: During yesterday's announcement of the upcoming vote, the FCC neglected to mention the historic 22 million comments on the issue, the majority of which were opposed to its rollback. In response, protests are being held on December 7 at Verizon retail stores across the country. The protests were organized by Demand Progress, Fight For The Future, and FreePress Action Fund. Here's what the protest organizers have to say on their event page: "Ajit Pai is clearly still working for Verizon, not the public. But he still has to answer to Congress. So we're calling on our lawmakers to do their job overseeing the FCC and speak out against Ajit Pai's plan to gut Title II net neutrality protections and give Verizon and other giant ISPs everything on their holiday wishlist.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Net Neutrality Advocates Plan Protests For December 7 at Verizon Stores

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    A health care startup could pay to prioritize the traffic of its patients who are being monitored remotely: "That could be perk," he says.

    "When IoT pacemakers are a thing I want mine in the fast lane and fuck you poor bitches", he says.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      I"m with you. I don't want some asshole's pacemaker getting priority over my Netflix feed.

      • by gnick ( 1211984 ) on Wednesday November 22, 2017 @04:34PM (#55605863) Homepage

        If that asshole's pacemaker has a minimum bandwidth requirement to keep him safe, there is something critically wrong with that asshole's pacemaker.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Easy fix, rig the pacemaker to send itâ(TM)s heartbeat to the smart light switches in his house, that way if his heart stops the neighbors know to call the paramedics.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          If that asshole's pacemaker has a minimum bandwidth requirement to keep him safe, there is something critically wrong with that asshole's pacemaker.

          I agree. I don't want any assholes with malfunctioning pacemakers getting priority over my Netflix.

        • If that asshole has a pacemaker and that has a minimum bandwidth requirement to keep him alive...

          Say, on a completely unrelated issue, is that LOIC still a thing?

    • Pacemakers aren't 'monitoring' devices.

    • When IoT pacemakers are a thing and this guy has one, it gets REALLY hard for me to keep my fingers from working for the greater good.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    What do protests really accomplish?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      It makes liberals feel somewhat better.

      • you don't need to be liberal to protest this kind of idiocy.

        • But you have to be liberal to think protesting at his former employer will somehow be effective in effecting change.

          • by Eldaar ( 5056619 )
            Given that doing so will raise attention because of Verizon's popularity, yes, it could be effective.

            The whole point of protest isn't that the act of protesting itself changes things. It's that it directs the attention of the media and the public to the issue. And if that works, then advocates may have a chance of their grievances being addressed.
    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by ichthus ( 72442 )

      They give the news outlets something to talk about, and lend credence to their narrative.
      I just hope that, as the Soros-funded buses transport these protesters into place, they make some effort to educate the protestors on what "net neutrality" means. It's always embarrassing when my fellow beanie wearers can't properly evangelize the cause.

      • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I am as tin-foil hat wearing as they get (when I don't have a MAGA hat on), and I espouse the virtues of Randian logic and rejoice in the fact that we have Libertarian ideals guiding our country, with the economy at its zenith, with employment being at full capacity.

        However, in my experience where there are protests, I have never seen a Soros-funded bus, nor personally heard of even an acquaintance's mom's sister's cousin's best friend's SO getting a check made from Soros to go and raise havoc in town. I h

  • Doesn't Matter (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22, 2017 @04:16PM (#55605717)

    Pai said from the get-go that public commentary would not impact his decision. He's making regulations that financially benefit him and his cronies, in direct opposition to both public welfare and public demand. It's clear that this is simply one more example of corporate hijacking of our political system -- they're just going through the motions to make it seem legitimate.

    • Pai said from the get-go that public commentary would not impact his decision.

      You want popular opinion to guide federal regulation?

      I'd consider it you'll let the gov't count all similarly-worded comments as redundant, all comments with invalid email addresses as invalid, and off-topic comments go uncounted.

  • Protesting Comcast and Time Warner Customers will be rerouted through back alleys and abandoned lots until they reach Walmart, where they will be directed to the Straight Talk counter.

  • I've heard a lot of bitching about the FCC dropping NN.

    Well OK then - what EXACTLY are your predictions as to what will happen as a consequence that is bad? What will be different after today than what companies were already doing to date?

    • If you'd actually bothered to google the issue, instead of exposing yourself to nothing but "bitching", you could answer the question for yourself.
      • If you'd actually bothered to google the issue/em>

        I can read all sorts of works of fantasy. I want people who complain to put forth something they think is REAL amidst a storm of FUD, and then we'll see what actually plays out and see how valid your fears and concerns actually were.

        I think it's pretty telling you are not willing to commit to single negative aspect of NN being repealed. Almost as if nothing bad were actually going to happen but you were unwilling to admit that.

        Your actions speak louder

        • I want people who complain to put forth something they think is REAL amidst a storm of FUD,

          That's essentially trolling. If you really wanted information, you'd just go find it. What you want is to sneer at people. Good luck with that.

          we'll see what actually plays out and see how valid your fears and concerns actually were.

          That's already going to happen. We don't need your discount gauntlet test for that.

          I think it's pretty telling you are not willing to commit to single negative aspect of NN being repealed.

          I think it's pretty telling how laser focused you are at pissing on people you think are disagreeing with you. I haven't mentioned my feelings about NN in my reply to you because I don't care. The FCC will pass the measure, we'll have a couple years of ISPs trying to make as much hay out of it as possible, then a Dem admin will reverse it. It's all extremely yawnerrifc from my perspective.

          Your actions speak louder than your (lack of) words...

          Settle down, Beavis.
        • by sheph ( 955019 )
          Think about how fast pass works at all of the theme parks. You pay more to get to the front of the line. You can't possibly hit all the rides in one day if you don't purchase a fast pass so more and more people do it because to them it's the greatest value. But the grandmother who is poor and saves all year to take her grandkids can't afford a fast pass. So she and her kids spend most of the day standing in line watching the wealthy go to the front of the line. That is essentially what the result of ne
          • by sheph ( 955019 )
            Sorry that should have been "That will essentially be the result of net neutrality going away."
          • I thank you for actually answering the question unlike certain posters that prefer to evade the point and don't feel secure enough in their convictions to make predictions of what they are certain is Doom but a curiously generic one without form.

            I have two thoughts about your comparison of NN to fastpass:

            1) If there were no fast pass at DisneyWorld, it would simply mean everyone would have to wait in very long lines, all the time. Why is it no better that people can get faster admission to a few rides they

            • I think what you fail to understand with the OP's analogy is thinking that this will only impact the consumer, however, this will also have a huge impact on small business. Say a startup decides to competes with Netflix who has very deep pockets, all Netflix has to do is to pay the ISPs more so their service is delivered faster than the startup, effectively killing the competition. This essentially will stifle innovation and consolidate the web down to a few big players (even more than today). Either way, k
      • Can you answer the question? (No, you can't.)

      • He can't: Comcast cut him off of Google!
    • by Jarwulf ( 530523 )
      Content will be censored and controlled at the website level (ie the Google/Facebook/Twitter/etc monopoly) rather than the ISP level.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      There is literally zero possibility that you've made it through the news cycle today without being exposed to the answer. Stop wasting bandwidth.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22, 2017 @04:42PM (#55605907)

      You paid for 100Mbps internet. But your ISP decides they don't like Hulu or Netflix. So they now charge you an extra $10 per month for both services. Want Spotify? That's another $5. Oh, people hate this? Ok. We won't charge you. We'll just limit your speeds to these services to 100kbps until each of them pay us for the privilege allow you access. Which will simply come back to you in increased subscription costs for each.

      Never mind that you already paid for your 100Mb pipe. And all those services are paying for their fat pipes on to the Internet.

      Most ISPs have already declared that is exactly what they want to do. And NN is the only thing stopping them.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22, 2017 @04:44PM (#55605923)

      Hrmmm well lets see here for a short list of shenanigans from prior to 2015:

      2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.
      2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.
      2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.
      2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except YouTube.
      2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their own wallet apps.
      2012, Verizon was demanding Google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction.
      2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.

      Oh and this:

      Oh and multiple attempts to created various tierd network services.

      If you can't see the very predictable trajectory that ISPs have plotted their path on, then you've been drinking too much of the Kool-Aid that's been dripping from the Republican party's nether regions.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by SuperKendall ( 25149 )

        All of the issues you mentioned were resolved without NN rules in place, so obviously in the end they did not ed up being issues of any import, just stupid ideas. Even without NN rues in place all of the things you list would be stopped by today's FCC, so why does it matter NN rules were dropped?

        I'm not saying ISP's will never do anything stupid, I am asking people to point out some stupid thing they will do that will actually harm people long term specific to NN rules being dropped.

        • All you have to do is imagine what is POSSIBLE without NN to realize its a bad idea.

          This idea is popular, if not a bit dramatic... https://www.intelligenteconomi... []

          But one big problem that sticks out in my mind is that ISPs want to enjoy the protections of Title II (the main one being no liability for information transmitted over its facilities) without having the responsibility and accountability of a Title II (common carrier) service. It's a classic case of "have your cake and eat it too" and this a
        • by c ( 8461 )

          Even without NN rues in place all of the things you list would be stopped by today's FCC

          Even without the NN rules in place, those things we're stopped by yesterday's FCC. The same FCC that passed the NN rules that today's FCC is trying to dismantle.

          There isn't a terribly long track history to really tell us how today's FCC would have those same situations, but what they've shown so far doesn't look too promising.

    • by MagicM ( 85041 )

      Without net neutrality rules, Comcast is allowed to slow down Netflix traffic to the point where it's unusable, just because they feel like it. They're allowed to tell you "use our Xfinity streaming service instead", and you're allowed to switch to their competitor (which doesn't exist in your area).

      Without net neutrality rules, Comcast is allowed to charge you extra money for a not-slowed-down-Netflix, and they're allowed to charge Netflix for that same privilege.

      Without net neutrality rules, Comcast can

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        What really concerns me is how perverted the lack of NN rules can be twisted into.

        I propose a simple scenario. I am a baker, and I don't want to bake a cake for your homosexual wedding, because I feel it infringes on my free speech. We've all heard about this story. Let's now twist it into what a lack of NN will do:

        I'm an internet provider. My company's stance is abortion is evil. To protect my free speech, I will be blocking all sites relates to abortion, good and bad. Because that's my right. Also,

      • How exactly does that work out? Netflic currently peers directly with Comcast and pays them some low price for transit. Before that they bought bandwidth directly from Level 3 and Cogent who tried to route that traffic onto peering connections against their agreements with ISP's

    • I'm more mad that the public's complaints were so blatantly ignored. I honestly think Vladimir Putin is listening to his public more then the FCC is listening to us.

      If the IPS's take it too far I have faith in those of us in IT to be able to work around the problem. Imagine if Netflix changed their browser player to pull their data from other media players much like now bittorrents work?

      They can pass any law they want, I can still setup a VPN network to somewhere that it's filtered/throttled. They can't thr

    • by Anonymous Coward

      This SuperKendall was posting a lot of Russian propaganda along with the 0101010101010000 guys whose 5 digit userids also got bought.


      Admins, you might want to start paying more attention to your access logs. Get both passive VPN detection and GeoIP resolution going.

    • The internet will be dragged all the way back to the way ias back in 2015 - Horrors!

    • by chubs ( 2470996 )
      My prediction: 1) ISPs will artificially slow down all traffic, using current era technology for "fast lanes" that are actually just normal-speed lanes. 2) ISPs will then offer "fast lanes", which are really just normal-speed lanes where the artificial throttle has been lifted. Only companies with HUGE amounts of money to spend will get to use them, while all other traffic is throttled. Note that these fast lanes will not be made by buying cutting-edge hardware, just by lifting artificial limitations on exi
      • by chubs ( 2470996 )
        Didn't like the formatting of the first post. Sorry for the repeat, but wanted a little more readability.

        My prediction:
        1) ISPs will artificially slow down all traffic, using current era technology for "fast lanes" that are actually just normal-speed lanes.
        2) ISPs will then offer "fast lanes", which are really just normal-speed lanes where the artificial throttle has been lifted. Only companies with HUGE amounts of money to spend will get to use them, while all other traffic is throttled. Note that th
        • by chubs ( 2470996 )
          #3 should have read "When a new streaming startup tries to deliver content to you, it is throttled because they don't have the capital for a 'fast lane'. "
        • Thanks for the detailed response. It will be interesting to see if that comes to pass.

          However kind of the opposite thing has happened so far related to item 1 - things like T-Mobile's "Binge On" work not by getting you faster speeds for some content, but instead by lowering quality of content for any provider that supports the T-Mobile content, in return for choosing lower quality content it does not impact your data allowance.

      • See, Internet packages are setup as a certain speed for a certain price. If they don't provide that speed to you, then they are not providing the service that they signed a contract for. Then it becomes a FTC issue. FCC should have nothing to do with this. How do you not see this? Are you saying that you pay for say 100mbit package, and only get 20mbit service and nobody is going to do anything about that? Think about that for a bit.


        • Actually that's quite common in my area. No competition. If you complain about speed, they respond it's "up to" 100mb, and 5mb is indeed a part of "up to 100mb". My choices are to continue giving them money, or live without internet, as they are the only broadband provider
          • try getting in contact with your local news company, and maybe some of your local government officials. if you pay for 20mbit service and you don't get 20mbit service its highly illegal, I had that issue with cox here in Las Vegas, and after a few phone calls my 150/50mbit service was actually 200/80 so they could guarantee the speed I was paying for. That's what a lot of people don't understand apparently, there are already laws in place to prevent them from doing "boogeyman scenario" everybody complains a

            • by chubs ( 2470996 )
              I might have to do just that. Since they only advertise a maximum speed and not a minimum, I'm not sure how far I'll get, but it might be worth investing some time doing some research. Still, it doesn't change the scenario I suggested. Let's say your ISP offered a new service, which was only 5 Mbps. However, they promised 200 down/ 200 up from certain sites like Netflix, Hulu, Facebook, etc. And let's say it was half as expensive as your current 150 down/50 up service (which they would be able to do becaus
    • by bjdevil66 ( 583941 ) on Wednesday November 22, 2017 @06:35PM (#55606895)

      They'll start doing what they were doing before 2015, like they did to Netflix. A major ISP (Comcast, IIRC) throttled Netflix's throughput for a few months. The issue with Netflix content appeared rather abruptly, and then after Netflix agreed to pay an undisclosed amount [] it magically went away - as if their pipes could suddenly, almost magically, could handle the traffic again.

      There were no longer allowed to do that under the Net Neutrality rules, and with Ajit Pai saying F U to everyone not from an ISP that kind of abuse will happen again.

    • I guess zero rating content will become illegal again, no more âoefree Netflixâ and âoeunlimited only on our music serviceâ.

      Thatâ(TM)s what Obamaâ(TM)s NN actually accomplished. True technical Net Neutrality wasnâ(TM)t accomplished as you can see with the number of data caps still in place.

  • why can't we have twitter move Donald Trumps Twitter account to a server running 56.6 Kbit connection to the internet? would that not be hard and or fitting?
  • FTC already said when they take over regulation from the FCC, they will keep net neutrality.

    The difference is the switch from title-2 to title-1 reclassification, and the Information providers control, which would also regulate Facebook/Google, etc.

    Lots of fud going around has people worked up and worried, just read what FCC Chairman [] has been saying and google ftc net neutrality. []

    Way overreaction from media getting people upset.

  • Every time I hear people freaking out about this regulation, I want to slap them. They are worried about the wrong thing! Think of what T-Mobile and sprint do to the cell phone market. Two much smaller companies force Verizon and AT&T todo things they don't want to. This is capitalism. The problem with the ISP isn't net neutrality, but to much government iteration. The government is/has picked winners and losers. City's close out competition, Limit access to polls making cost to market very high/imposs
    • You are truly a special kind of stupid.
      • by zippo01 ( 688802 )
        I would imagine you disagree with all libertarian, Reagan/Republican values? The socialist values you follow? The state should control everything, and determine who get what and at what cost? State run media? I would put my trust in a true capitalist system over a government system any day. Watch or read some information by Milton Friedman. I also agree with the other guy, you are simply a tool.
    • A truly competitive market will fix itself, but they need competition

      I completely agree. Unfortunately, ISPs are pretty close to a natural monopoly and have very high costs to enter the market. No amount of deregulation (short of near-complete anarchy, maybe) is going to lead to any significant competition, and with that little regulation, all the ISPs will end up merging into a monopoly anyway.

      • by zippo01 ( 688802 )
        If amazon or google started having their profits threatened by this, they have the resources to change it, enter the market. But they face obstetricals every step of the way. Look at google fiber.
  • If people want to actually get results start by:

    1. Writing (hardcopy and sent by "snailmail") letters to public officials with formal-language grammar expressing displeasure and politely offering solution of law to override: district representatives for the House, state representatives for the Senate, and President [] [] []

    2. It does not hurt to submit or virtually sign a petition here: https://petitions.whit []
    • Make attempt to contact state level officials to make laws to override: States, under 10th Amendment are not without sovereignty in spite of Article I, Section 8.

      I strongly suggest you go back and reread Article 1, Section 8 (which specifically assigns responsibility to Federal government), and the 10th Amendment (which leaves everything not assigned to the federal government to the states), and rethink your position on this.

      Are you imagining that the FCC is unconstitutional?

      • The FCC as an organization certainly isn't. As far as the decisions made that are directed specifically at states, it's a question of nature. Mention was at an unverified source, namely a different posting of Slashdot [], but apparently FCC intends on preempting state and local laws. It has be previously done by Federal agencies in some cases, but in others, it has not. There is then the question on which is correct. The Constitution does not prevent states from making laws th
  • FTA: "Net neutrality closed down market competition by generally putting government and its corporate backers in charge of deciding who can and cannot play in the market. It erected barriers to entry for upstart firms while hugely subsidizing the largest and most well-heeled content providers." []
  • Whenever there is a massive political or PR campaign, it's not good. Yet for net neutrality it seems overwhelmingly good, yet it's still happening. You really have to stop and ask why.

    Lets start with what everyone hates about the internet or is intimately connected to the internet:

    • DRM - wouldn't work without the internet.
    • Government spying - wouldn't work remotely at the scale it does without the internet.
    • Corporate spying - wouldn't work without the internet.
    • Bitching at people you've never met because the
    • Yeah, I think that distills down to the following:

      Keep NN, keep the internet we love, with all its warts.

      Lose NN, lose the internet we love, try to build something new and probably not as good, have it mature, and surpass Internet 1.0, then get regulated like the internet already is, and back to square one, but now we have 2 Internets.

      Logic failure.

      • You clearly didn't bother to read the points listed or you are just a hapless shill. Keep going with your "NN is good" brainwashing, I'm sure Google appreciates that their PR campaign so effectively controlled your mind.
  • by duke_cheetah2003 ( 862933 ) on Wednesday November 22, 2017 @06:32PM (#55606871) Homepage

    Ok so I didn't do any research, I'm just going to ask. How is removing Title II from ISPs going to affect safe harbor and copyright infringement issues? Title II protects ISP from litigation when illegal activity is facilitated by their networks. If NN goes poof, and ISP's are no longer Title II, do they lose their protections against litigation, regarding facilitating criminal behavior?

  • If the Republicans believe in the free market, tearing down Net Neutrality is a failure to practice what they preach. Part of a free market is ensuring competition is encouraged for the benefit of the consumer. When protecting freedoms they seem to favor corporate freedom over individual freedom about 100 to 1. That fucktard has no business making FCC policy. Hooray for regulatory capture!

... though his invention worked superbly -- his theory was a crock of sewage from beginning to end. -- Vernor Vinge, "The Peace War"