That would basically mean that any government internal IT project would have to be able to work usable on dialup. Government IT contracting is already enough of a disaster.
That'll show those government workers who work for SNAP (food stamps), National Institutes of Health, NASA, and National Science Foundation. Serves 'em right for daring to work for the government. Since the workers in those offices are clearly to blame for the speed at which ISPs deliver internet service. /s
I'm actually against this idea, for the simple reason that if that page ends up being delivered via cache somewhere, I don't want them thinking "Well, it says I was throttled, but it actually wasn't that bad. I don't see what all the fuss is about."
The pictures comment lead me to Tom's list of speeches, the latest of which directly contradicts the claims being made here. Are we sure the FCC is the bad guy?
"Let me be clear. If someone acts to divide the Internet between “haves” and “have-nots,” we will use
every power at our disposal to stop it."
"Prioritizing some traffic by forcing
the rest of the traffic into a congested lane won’t be permitted under any proposed Open Internet rule. We
will not allow some companies to force Internet users into a slow lane so that others with special
privileges can have superior service."
Can anyone shed some light on what the goal here is. I am all for messing with people for no good reason in subtle ways they do not understand but the author clearly has a purpose here? Is this to teach the FCC about net neutrality?
That's the general idea. Show them what life will be like if you're on the internet slow lane in the hopes they'll wake up and realize what it really means. Especially since the branding has become that they really want to create a "fast lane" which actually doesn't sound like such a bad idea until you realize the reality is the exact opposite.
I like this concept but think about how the user at the FCC will perceive this. When your internet is slow who do you blame?
1 - The site, i.e. "Yahoo must be getting a lot of traffic today."
2 - Your ISP. ie. "Comcast must be overloaded in my area right now."
3 - Your equipment. i.e. "Maybe I need to restart my wifi / PC"
And then, somewhere way down that list you maybe, just maybe think - "I wonder if there is an organized effort by a small group of developers to set up their sites in such a way that my particular IP here at the FCC is having its speed throttled."
I agree that we need to spread the word about what is at stake with Net Neutrality but I'm not sure if this is the best way.
I could see this backfiring. If this gains any momentum at all, the media response from the ISPs will be obvious: "We appreciate that web developers are embracing their right to throttle certain customers. We're very happy that the FCC has decided to grant ISPs those same privileges."
This doesn't seem like the best outlet to protest the FCC's stance on net neutrality. The people that are going to be affected most by this (if it does work) are going to be the rank and file at the FCC who have no decision making power and only hold a job there. The FCC has 2k employees and most of them don't even work in the relevant bureau that deals with net neutrality.
When news outlets say the "FCC's plan for net neutrality", what they really mean is the plan that Tom Wheeler and his office put together. You're going to hurt the wrong people if you do this and it succeeds. Why not write to your Congressperson instead or think of something that doesn't adversely affect a ton of people who don't have anything to do with the net neutrality debate?
The other way is that we treat the FCC as an entity. We make it tough for that entity to do everything in order to put pressure on the top. It's not like the employees have zero power there. And while it may indeed be near-zero power, I still feel that they have more power as an employee of the FCC than I do as a member of the faceless public. Maybe this will empower a scared employee to come forward and speak out. Or maybe you're right and they do have zero power there, but maybe they'll understand what's at stake and call their representative.
Also, it's not like we're throttling these employee's home connections. We're not slowing down their daughter's access to Wikipedia at home, we're slowing down their connection to Facebook while at work.
> This doesn't seem like the best outlet to protest the FCC's stance on net neutrality
Its not a protest of the FCC's stance on net neutrality, its a protest of a media rumor of the stance of the FCC chair in a proposal under discussion at the FCC that has been denied by the FCC chair. Literally no one at the FCC (well, except maybe the minority on the commission that were overtly opposed to net neutrality before the recent Open Internet Order was struck down) has publicly endorsed anything like the rumored position.
> When news outlets say the "FCC's plan for net neutrality", what they really mean is the plan that Tom Wheeler and his office put together.
But when they say it would "allow a fast lane", they mean that a couple of news outlets had anonymous sources that claimed something like that (which other outlets have grabbed and reported the fact that other outlets have reported it), and Wheeler himself has rather forcefully denied it.
Now we've got some news outlets claiming, based on the original leaks, and not paying attention to later information, that the "fast lane" is part of the FCC proposal, and others, based on assuming the original leaks were completely accurate, but trying to reconcile the later denial into a coherent narrative, that the FCC "reversed course" on the "fast lane" proposal.
>You aren't even sure that will target the right people
Indeed. The FCC tried to promulgate a rule requiring net neutrality, but a Federal Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC lacked statutory authority to do so [1]. So the FCC is powerless unless and until Congress revises the Telecommunications Act of 1996 or otherwise grants the necessary legal authority to the FCC.
Call me a hawk, but I think it makes more sense for content provider who wont be buying their way into the fast lane to pre-emptively rate limit all customers of the major US ISPs.
Content providers that depend on the US may want to synchronize on specific day of the week to limit each ISP, for example Comcast Thursday, while foreign providers can conservatively cut off all of the US so they don't have to worry about missing any future pay networks..
Wouldn't it be awesome to have the major website/companies (like Facebook, Google, MS, Amazon, etc) have a landing page when accessing their site in a style like they did with SOPA but now the whole webpage is unavailable for ~1 minute "due to slowed down traffic" or something. I think that would get the attention of people. (Of course, this should run just for a limited time )
And a bunch of people who don't have time on their hands (staff and faculty) who will probably just go "Fuck you guys, now you're getting in the way of work."
Does it come with a message that says tongue in cheek that you're on the "slow lane", and they should upgrade to the fast lane? Otherwise they may just think that site is slow.
[+] [-] PaulHoule|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] afarrell|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] however5342|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eli|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] minikites|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smcl|12 years ago|reply
> Should a simple header/corner banner be injected also?
This would be good, particularly if it was served from a connection without this throttling.
[+] [-] fooqux|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dahart|12 years ago|reply
http://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-tom-wheeler-remarks-nct...
"Let me be clear. If someone acts to divide the Internet between “haves” and “have-nots,” we will use every power at our disposal to stop it."
"Prioritizing some traffic by forcing the rest of the traffic into a congested lane won’t be permitted under any proposed Open Internet rule. We will not allow some companies to force Internet users into a slow lane so that others with special privileges can have superior service."
[+] [-] inh3|12 years ago|reply
The FCC could put the money where their mouth is by re-classifying ISPs as "Title II - Common Carriers."
[+] [-] IgorPartola|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icehawk219|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thisjustinm|12 years ago|reply
1 - The site, i.e. "Yahoo must be getting a lot of traffic today."
2 - Your ISP. ie. "Comcast must be overloaded in my area right now."
3 - Your equipment. i.e. "Maybe I need to restart my wifi / PC"
And then, somewhere way down that list you maybe, just maybe think - "I wonder if there is an organized effort by a small group of developers to set up their sites in such a way that my particular IP here at the FCC is having its speed throttled."
I agree that we need to spread the word about what is at stake with Net Neutrality but I'm not sure if this is the best way.
[+] [-] Florin_Andrei|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fuxy|12 years ago|reply
Shouldn't be that difficult I get the same thing with cookies because i have a UK ip. Well not the throttling part but the banner part.
[+] [-] m0dest|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cddotdotslash|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bavcyc|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kemmis|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnjwang|12 years ago|reply
When news outlets say the "FCC's plan for net neutrality", what they really mean is the plan that Tom Wheeler and his office put together. You're going to hurt the wrong people if you do this and it succeeds. Why not write to your Congressperson instead or think of something that doesn't adversely affect a ton of people who don't have anything to do with the net neutrality debate?
[+] [-] fooqux|12 years ago|reply
The other way is that we treat the FCC as an entity. We make it tough for that entity to do everything in order to put pressure on the top. It's not like the employees have zero power there. And while it may indeed be near-zero power, I still feel that they have more power as an employee of the FCC than I do as a member of the faceless public. Maybe this will empower a scared employee to come forward and speak out. Or maybe you're right and they do have zero power there, but maybe they'll understand what's at stake and call their representative.
Also, it's not like we're throttling these employee's home connections. We're not slowing down their daughter's access to Wikipedia at home, we're slowing down their connection to Facebook while at work.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|12 years ago|reply
Its not a protest of the FCC's stance on net neutrality, its a protest of a media rumor of the stance of the FCC chair in a proposal under discussion at the FCC that has been denied by the FCC chair. Literally no one at the FCC (well, except maybe the minority on the commission that were overtly opposed to net neutrality before the recent Open Internet Order was struck down) has publicly endorsed anything like the rumored position.
> When news outlets say the "FCC's plan for net neutrality", what they really mean is the plan that Tom Wheeler and his office put together.
But when they say it would "allow a fast lane", they mean that a couple of news outlets had anonymous sources that claimed something like that (which other outlets have grabbed and reported the fact that other outlets have reported it), and Wheeler himself has rather forcefully denied it.
Now we've got some news outlets claiming, based on the original leaks, and not paying attention to later information, that the "fast lane" is part of the FCC proposal, and others, based on assuming the original leaks were completely accurate, but trying to reconcile the later denial into a coherent narrative, that the FCC "reversed course" on the "fast lane" proposal.
[+] [-] hartator|12 years ago|reply
You aren't even sure that will target the right people and not some kind of public worker who just doing some job!
[+] [-] nokcha|12 years ago|reply
Indeed. The FCC tried to promulgate a rule requiring net neutrality, but a Federal Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC lacked statutory authority to do so [1]. So the FCC is powerless unless and until Congress revises the Telecommunications Act of 1996 or otherwise grants the necessary legal authority to the FCC.
[1] http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D93...
[+] [-] sehr|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rschmitty|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Yunk|12 years ago|reply
Content providers that depend on the US may want to synchronize on specific day of the week to limit each ISP, for example Comcast Thursday, while foreign providers can conservatively cut off all of the US so they don't have to worry about missing any future pay networks..
[+] [-] lsllc|12 years ago|reply
+1
[+] [-] geekam|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BWStearns|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Vanayad|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] JohnnyLee|12 years ago|reply
Including .edu addresses would affect a population with plenty of time on their hands and who aren't afraid to let everyone know about their problems.
[+] [-] Fomite|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] higherpurpose|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m1|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SimeVidas|12 years ago|reply