Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday May 09 2017, @02:21PM   Printer-friendly
from the public-servants-not-serving-the-public dept.

Common Dreams reports

Last Week Tonight host John Oliver on [May 7] issued another powerful rallying cry to save net neutrality protections, and, repeating the outcome of his 2014 plea, his viewers flooded the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) site, causing it to temporarily crash.

[...] Oliver said it's worth noting that [FCC Chairman Ajit] Pai is "a former lawyer for Verizon", a company which "won a lawsuit which meant that if the FCC wanted strong, enforceable protection, its only real option was to reclassify the ISPs, and yet he cheerily insists under questioning that there is just not evidence that cable companies were engaging in rampant wrongdoing".

"Title II is the most solid legal foundation we have right now for a strong, enforceable net neutrality protections", Oliver said, and urged "we, the people, [to] take this matter into our own hands".

To that end, Last Week Tonight bought the domain name gofccyourself.com, which redirects users to the official FCC page[1] where open internet advocates can leave a comment and call for these protections to remain in place. (Oliver notes that it simplifies the commenting process the FCC "has made more difficult since three years ago".)

"Everyone needs to get involved. Comment now, and then maybe comment again when the FCC makes its proposal official. Even call you representative and your senators", Oliver urged.

So successful was the start of his campaign, according to Motherboard, that there was such a high volume of traffic flooding the Federal Communications Commission that the site temporarily went down. As of this writing, it is up and running again.

[1] The fcc.gov page is almost entirely behind scripts.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:00PM (6 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:00PM (#506953) Journal

    There is a simple and noble reason why the FCC wants to remove net neutrality.

    1984: The chocolate ration has increased to 20g this week.

    Trump: The internet ration has increased to 20 MB this week. It's the best! Trust me! You'll love it! I promise!

    Without the scourge of net neutrality, you will only be able to connect to approved sites. And share approved ideas. No more badmouthing corporations or their government puppets. No more widespread dissemination of inconvenient facts. Everyone will be happy drinking their Victory Coffee [youtube.com] while discussing more important national issues like which Kardashian has the most massive backside. And no more fast forwarding commercials.

    --
    The people who rely on government handouts and refuse to work should be kicked out of congress.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @05:06PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @05:06PM (#506979)

    Zero rating != a blacklist

    A bunch of tired net neutrality slippery slope stuff in your post. What will really happen is that if the govt. does not like a site, such as a video streaming or dark web site, they will seize the domain name or hack it to install malware on visitors' computers.

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:38PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:38PM (#507031)

      Zero-rating + low cap = blacklist (or overage fees).

      "You are totally free to watch Netflix or Amazon until your 200MB cap expires. If you watched Comcast programs instead, you would keep all 200MB of your cap for banking, playing and FB. Optionally, you may subscribe to our Gluttony-is-bad plan, which will give you 50GB for $100, or 150GB for $300. Did we mention our Cable package is a cheap $99?"

      That sound in the distance? a Comcast exec jizzing his pants just thinking about it.
      That zero here -> 0 - ? The odds the Comcast would not screw their customers for giant profit, killing Amazon video and Netflix as a bonus.
      Me needs to buy some stocks. Where's my gas mask?

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:43PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:43PM (#507034) Journal

      Zero rating is evil and should not exist.

      Suppose, let's say, Netflix negotiates a dirty smoke filled back room deal to get Netflix content zero rated on AT&T. Now AT&T subscribers don't pay for bandwidth used to watch Netflix. But Netflix is paying AT&T. And Netflix is going to pass that cost on to its customers.

      If Netflix only passed that cost to its AT&T customers, the scam would be exposed. So as part of the dirty deed, AT&T will require Netflix not to charge AT&T-Netflix customers differently. That means that Verizon-Netflix users are subsidizing the costs of AT&T-Netflix users.

      Now suppose HBO negotiates a nasty deal with Verizon to have HBO content zero rated on Verizon. Now AT&T-HBO users are subsidizing Verizon-HBO users.

      Eventually ever big player will get into bed with every big ISP. All this does is conceal and shift costs around. It doesn't save anybody anything. Why can't I pay Netflix for what they provide me, and pay AT&T for what they provide me?

      If AT&T isn't making enough money because of Netflix usage, then CHARGE ME for that. It is ME that is using that bandwidth, not Netflix. Netflix is paying handsomely on their end of the connection. AT&T should charge me for the bandwidth I use in exactly the same way whether I use Netflix or HBO or something that clueless AT&T doesn't even know about yet.

      Zero Rating also disadvantages new entrants into the streaming video or streaming audio markets. Or streaming anything, really. This kinid of disadvantage hurts innovation. What if a new streaming VR service were to emerge.

      --
      The people who rely on government handouts and refuse to work should be kicked out of congress.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday May 09 2017, @05:16PM (2 children)

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 09 2017, @05:16PM (#506987) Journal

    Of course, it's not controlling thoughts that is their main goal.

    It's robbing us fucking blind by deregulating in a way that's designed to kill the very competition they think makes free-market approaches to problems great in the first place.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:25PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:25PM (#507018)

      they don't believe in competition. they are crony capitalists. just because they talk about free markets to lie to their base doesn't mean anything.

      • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday May 10 2017, @11:15PM

        by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday May 10 2017, @11:15PM (#507798) Journal

        they don't believe in competition. they are crony capitalists. just because they talk about free markets to lie to their base doesn't mean anything.

        No, free markets are *exactly* what they want, and they want it *because* they don't believe in competition. That's the whole point of all this deregulation, in every single market from net neutrality to mortgages. These massive corporations already own the market. They can easily crush any competitors -- they already produce at a larger scale, which often gives greater efficiency, meaning lower prices. If that doesn't work, they have enough cash in the bank and diversity of products that they can sell at a loss for a while. If that doesn't work they can sign exclusivity deal with retailers to lock the competitors out of the market. Or they can just buy the competitor. Or they spend some of those cash reserves to do real R&D until they're back on top (which would certainly be a nice change if they ever got that desperate...) Or they can try to eliminate the market entirely (like M$ did to browsers by bundling IE.) There's a lot of regulations preventing them from doing all of that. They want those regulations gone.

        TL;DR: They do honestly want free markets, they just define "free" as the freedom to rape and pillage and murder.