Today Sept 10, 2014 you may find that a number of sites are "featuring" notices and links to "Battle for the Net".
Aside from being a US concern - as this question is currently in front of the FCC - these sites, and this organization are looking to swell the grass roots effort to maintain the internet as it currently exists - without a slow lane or corporate interference when you go out and retrieve websites.
If you are in the US please take the time to visit the effort; reach out to the FCC and your representatives. If we bring enough voices to this fight we can get the FCC to back away from the corporate interference like we did for SOPA.
Also covered at:
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Internet Slowdown Day Sept 10 - The Fight for Net Neutrality
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 31 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Wednesday September 10 2014, @06:42PM
This is probably representative of ISPs like mine dragging ass on upgrading and maintaining their stuff with the gigantic profit margin they have but apparently there is a large throttle being enacted by some of the participating sites. I haven't noticed. I know it's happening in some places but I still have seen 0 difference. My connection is just as shoddy and 3rd world quality as ever and yes I'm in the US. I don't know what kind of point they're going for here or if it's even going to do anything besides showing ISPs that the most they have to worry about are sites passive aggressively saving bandwidth in a roundabout way but I do think that for people like myself it does show how bad the problem is at the client side.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Blackmoore on Wednesday September 10 2014, @06:49PM
These bastards want both the consumers (you and i) AND the providers to pay them. Even tho we already pay for X amount of bandwidth.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday September 10 2014, @06:59PM
Exactly, also there is no intention of creating a "fast lane" as they're trying to spin it. What they want to do, as you said, is create a slow. Lane everyone that does pay continues using the existing system, anyone that doesn't pay gets bumped to the slow lane. On top of that, Netflix already came to an agreement to pay Comcast and Verizon extra and Comcast and Verizon are STILL throttling them. So it seems even if you are paying to use their pipes they can still stick you in the slow lane. That alone shows the system they're proposing isn't going to work in anyone except the ISP's interest.
They definitely need to be classified as common carries so they can't F with the flow of information or services everyone's already paying for.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Wednesday September 10 2014, @07:04PM
They have not spent money "upgrading" those pipes. They may have spent money on the servers that handle billing; and tracking; and then pay the employees poor wages to give us substandard support.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday September 10 2014, @07:10PM
I'm pretty sure the people at Level 3 (and many others) would disagree with your statement that recent bandwidth increases are still paid by the government.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Blackmoore on Wednesday September 10 2014, @07:30PM
I'll just add a quote I found on FARK.
<blockquote>
Actually, we have already paid for them to upgrade their infrastructure. Twice. But, the big boys didn't do what they promised to do with the monies they were given. Under the Telecom Act, the were given Federal monies with the provision that they use those monies to build, expand and improve their infrastucture into rural and low population urban areas. Instead, they took the monies given and said "Well, those people in the outlying areas won't be able to take advantage of all these nifty neat new technologies if we don't have them in our high density areas first. We'll just use this money to 'build up' our already existing infrastructures." And of course, the best way for them to "build up" their existing infrastructures was to use the monies they were given to increase corporate payroll, lobby for less oversight and regulation and pressure cities into giving them near unbreakable monopolies. Not one cent was used towards actually building new rural and low pop. urban infrastructure. So, when all those monies ran out, they lobbied and said "We need more to finish what we promised we'd do with the money you already gave us!" Guess what they did with that new money. Go ahead. I'll wait.
</blockquote>
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10 2014, @10:46PM
> Well it would be more accurate to say that we PAID for upgrades, but that money was redirected.
For more specifics, try this: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen. [pbs.org]
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Wednesday September 10 2014, @08:20PM
I don't know who originally paid for the fiber, but Level 3 bought an awful lot of their network at fire-sale prices from other failing networks.
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10 2014, @11:49PM
I think GP was referring to this: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen. [pbs.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Wednesday September 10 2014, @07:08PM
I'm waiting for a cable-style inversion of the power dynamic. In the full not-neutral Net, the content providers will have the ability to pull off their services from specific ISPs unless they get cash.
Try to imagine the power that Apple, Facebook and Google wield, as they serve all Verizon customers with a black "sorry, we're in fees negotiations, talk to your ISP about giving us [your] cash" page for a few days. (think about that one for a minute)
All in all, the end of net neutrality would be a fantastic thing ... for lawyers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10 2014, @10:51PM
> These bastards want both the consumers (you and i) AND the providers to pay them.
Think of them like the entertainment industry. They want to be the middlemen between the audience and the performers in order to extract tolls from both sides. And we all know just great a boon those guys have been.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10 2014, @06:45PM
Get premium access now, <click here!>
(Score: 2) by zafiro17 on Thursday September 11 2014, @11:43AM
Someone has done a really good mock up of exactly what you're talking about. Have a look at http://jointhefastlane.com/ [jointhefastlane.com] . It's a joke, so don't take it seriously - they've just a thoroughly awesome job of building a site that shows you exactly what to expect if these greedy ISPs and their scumbag lawyers and lobbyists get their way. It's frightening: they've got the language just right, including frequent usage of my all time most-hated word on the internet" "premium."
If these guys get their way, I'm going back to gopher and FIDOnet.
Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis - Jack Handey
(Score: 2) by tonyPick on Wednesday September 10 2014, @07:12PM
Neutrality, I could get behind. But Neutarlity? Sounds unhealthy.
(Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Wednesday September 10 2014, @07:38PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10 2014, @10:24PM
haha!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10 2014, @07:39PM
Intentionally cripple your site to engage in political evangelism? No visitors for you!
(Score: 2, Informative) by SrLnclt on Wednesday September 10 2014, @07:45PM
From TFA (with original emphasis): "On September 10th, sites across the web will display an alert with a symbolic "loading" symbol (the proverbial “spinning wheel of death”) and promote a call to action for users to push comments to the FCC, Congress, and the White House. Note: none of these tools actually slow your site down; they tell your visitors about the issue and ask them to contact lawmakers."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10 2014, @07:59PM
It's an intrusive popover message telling visitors to do what the message says. It's more intrusive than a popup ad and more annoying than a popunder ad.
When I see an intrusive popover message telling me to do what the message says, I'm not going to do what it says. I am going to close the window immediately and never visit the site again. Ever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10 2014, @08:05PM
Enjoy life without Netflix then?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10 2014, @08:11PM
Yes. Yes, I do enjoy life without Netflix.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 11 2014, @07:27AM
Knee-jerk rebelliousness like doing the opposite of what is suggested is fine when you're a kid, but you're really supposed to have more nuanced, mature ways of handling things by the time you're in your mid-teens, let alone an adult. How would you propose they alert the non-tech people that otherwise won't hear about it?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10 2014, @08:16PM
> Intentionally cripple your site to engage in political evangelism? No visitors for you!
And as usual whenever there are protesters not far behind is someone telling them they are doing it wrong.
The thing about protesting is that if it didn't disrupt people's daily lives, no one would notice. The trick is to find a happy medium where the disruption is enough to bring focus to the issues but not enough to enrage too many people that it backfires. But no matter what you do, there are going to be some people who are enraged. More often then not, those people weren't just ignorant of the issue, they were already opposed to the protestors' point of view and are just hiding behind fauxrage about the tactics to avoid addressing the issue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10 2014, @08:35PM
You're absolutely right. However, "tell those guys to make somebody else pay for my free stuff" is not a protest.
Free lunch ended when you voted for sixteen years of Bushbama. Idiots, you have only yourself to blame.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10 2014, @08:51PM
>> they were already opposed to the protesters' point of view and are just hiding behind fauxrage about the tactics to avoid addressing the issue.
>
> You're absolutely right. However, "tell those guys to make somebody else pay for my free stuff" is not a protest.
Exactly as predicted.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10 2014, @10:26PM
dumb ac...
(Score: 2) by meisterister on Wednesday September 10 2014, @11:38PM
...because I haven't actually seen any of the "protect net neutrality" messages yet. My question about all of this is: where's Google? They could have a HUGE influence on all of this.
(May or may not have been) Posted from my K6-2, Athlon XP, or Pentium I/II/III.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 11 2014, @12:19AM
> I haven't actually seen any of the "protect net neutrality" messages yet.
Here you go. [theverge.com] Some of them seem really subtle but perhaps they stand out better when animated.
> where's Google? They could have a HUGE influence on all of this.
They've been nearly absent for years. Today they published a letter [arstechnica.com] in what seems to be the most bare minimum possible in order to claim they aren't being evil.
But they are still members of ALEC. [respriv.org] Net nuetrality is not in Google's (short term) best interests. They can afford to out-spend anyone so internet slow-lanes are great for them because they are effectively a barrier to entry for competition. When you are on top, like Google is, you become super paranoid and hyper-obsessive about the short term because you have the most to lose of anyone. Just look at how terrible their response to Facebook has been - all the hallmarks of myopic, knee-jerk reaction instead of thoughtful planning.
(Score: 3, Informative) by BradTheGeek on Thursday September 11 2014, @12:11AM
Unfortunately I do not see major sites in this fight like with SOPA. Where is Google? Wikipedia?
The incumbent companies, the monied, have the most to gain from squeezing out upstarts. They are conspicuously silent. I would have expected more from Wikipedia though.
Regardless, I do not see as much traction. As much as I would like to see true net neutrality, it does not look to be soon if ever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 11 2014, @03:52AM
i must be missing something.
isnt this how capitalism works?
you pay more you get better service than those who dont.
personally i think its an appaling system for exactly that reason but it is how
the system currently works. all this "everyone should be treated equal stuff" must
be making brother gewg grin like the proverbial cheshire cat.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 11 2014, @07:38PM
i must be missing something.
isnt this how capitalism works?
What you are missing is that the telcos have government-granted monopolies.
They want the government regulation that keeps competition out but they don't want the government regulation that restrains abuse of the market power that comes from being in that position.