Webhost Protests FCC's Net Neutrality Proposal By Limiting FCC Access To 28.8Kbps
from the welcome-to-the-slow-lane dept
Earlier this week, venture capitalist Brad Feld put up a good post concerning the risk of the FCC’s “open internet” rules actually turning into the ability for big broadband providers to set up a “fast lane” for large companies to pay for faster access to users. He suggested was that the best way to make clear how bad an idea this would be, would be to have internet companies demo the slow lane:
What if we did the same by Demoing the Slow Lane for a day. Algorithmically, all sites could slow themselves down dramatically, demonstrating what performance might look like over a 1/1 pipe. Or even a 0.5/0.5 pipe….
Let the world see “Waiting for”, “Connecting”, and “Buffering” show up in their browser continuously throughout the day. Explain what is going on. Then click a button to bypass the Slow Lane and get normal connectivity.
Instead of everyone getting tangled up in the legal question of what “net neutrality” means, consumers can see what could happen if / when ISPs can decide which companies get to use their fast lanes by paying extra and who is relegated to the slow lane.
It appears that (as many, many of you sent in), one web hosting company has adopted a somewhat modified plan based on a similar concept. Neocities has taken the FCC’s IP block and rate limited any traffic from the FCC to Neocities’ site down to the equivalent of a nostalgic 28.8Kbps modem (old man in me: I remember when those were considered “fast”).
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.
Neocities will let the FCC use a fast lane for just $1,000 per year. Neocities has also released the code it used, in case anyone else would like to do the same thing.
Filed Under: fast lane, fcc, net neutrality, open internet, rate limited
Companies: neocities
Comments on “Webhost Protests FCC's Net Neutrality Proposal By Limiting FCC Access To 28.8Kbps”
Pay up for the “fast 100 Kb/s lane” FCC.
This...
…if it took off, would be great!
Now that’s how you protest epically.
Though they could charge a higher price for added impact.
I like Neocities’ demo the slow lane idea. All the major internet companies like Google and Wikipedia should consider setting this up on the websites like this for a day. Similar to the ACTA blackouts.
This is a bad idea to let ISPs do this because consumers are going to get caught in the middle of this war between the FCC and the ISPs.
Re: Re:
No they won’t because the admins KNOW what they are doing. You don’t.
Re: Re:
A webhost is not an ISP.
Re: Re:
eh…too late?
Re: Re:
forgot to take your anti-derp pills today?
Re: Re:
Where’s the “Captain Obvious” button…
You just stated what all of us knew already – and the FCC hasn’t figured out quite yet.
Re: Re:
I agree with you kenichi tanaka. Between mission creep from the FCC and corporations seeking to increase profits by charging extra before it is over with you’ll pay through the nose or have to settle for that 28.8 kbs internet connection.
It’s already this way just not as bad as it could get with the restraints removed.
Re: Re:
How? NeoCities is specifically targeting the FCC. How do you see this ‘war’ happening?
Re: Re:
This is a bad idea
Then do share with us all the better idea.
Re: Re:
You obviously dont know how the internet works or what the term “IP Block” means.
I hope Netflix adopts this code.
Re: Re:
I hope Facebook adopts this code.
I thought it would be a great idea to send a message to the corrupt Gov.But expand the range of addresses to encompass the Gov.And have as many people do it as possible.But the kicker could be seeing all the biggies do this to them.
netflix,google,wikipedia,amz,apple, etc.
We all know the Gov is full of money taking assbags so why not do to them what they would do to us.
Re: Re:
If Google slows down the internets, how will they search for pirate sites to submit DCMA notices for?
Re: Re: Re:
That sounds like a solution hunting for the problem. Is there a downside to this?
Re: Re: Re:
Everyone should only slow down the Internet for the MPAA/RIAA.
Heck, that could be a good way for those that don’t like these organizations to protest their monopoly on laws. Slow down their web services to them.
Apply the same to ALL government websites
Let’s see how long it take before congress orders the FCC to enforce net neutrality – the REAL net neutrality.
Re: Apply the same to ALL government websites
Have you got all century?
Given the FCC is a government body, and therefor a group for whom $1,000 per year is pocket change, they should be charging them that rate on a monthly basis, not yearly, to really drive the point home.
Hopefully more ISP’s will follow suit, targeting the FCC and other government groups/agencies as well, really let them get a taste of what the public is so ‘worked up’ over.
Re: Re:
*Hopefully more webhosts will follow suit
Re: Re:
Just switch it to a 24 hour rate, increase it to 100k.
Call it the Netflix throttle rate charge, make sure they know to thank the paid for FCC Chairman (aka Communications Industry pawn) and his stance on the Commcast / Netflix decision.
Show Comcast et. al. the Slow Lane, All Right!
But do it with the court system. $100,000/day for each legal action they have active in the court system. Talk to a judge? $10,000/minute for every minute of delay under 24 hours delay. Their opponents pay nothing and get instant access.
I’m sure ComCrash and others will appreciate being on the receiving end of their own ideas.
uncool story
It would be a great story if anyone was talking about intentionally slowing things down, which they are not. They are talking about current standard plus more, not less.
It’s a protest by mis-information, which is less intelligent than the FCC proposal.
Re: uncool story
Not exactly. Because if this sort of thing had come around in the 28.8 days, that is how things might look.
Re: uncool story
It would be a great story if anyone was talking about intentionally slowing things down, which they are not. They are talking about current standard plus more, not less.
The rules don’t have a slow lane, but do enable a fast lane. And once you do that you’ve created a slow lane too. Slowing things down is a very basic way of showing the inevitable impact of having a fast lane.
Re: uncool story
It would be a great story if anyone was talking about intentionally slowing things down, which they are not. They are talking about current standard plus more, not less.
The point of this, I think, is that 20 years ago 28.8k was the “current standard”, and if this scheme had been implemented back then, that’s what the “slow lane” would still be. It’s not so much showing what the merely annoying immediate effects of this policy will be, but what the utterly catastrophic effects will be after a couple decades.
Re: uncool story
This misinformation is when people claim that what’s being discussed won’t have an effect on on people who aren’t willing to pay the extortion fee. It will. Best case, it means that the “current standard” will never be increased.
Also, nobody is promising that the “current standard” won’t be degraded. The major ISPs have already proven, time and time again, that they will gladly harm the “current standard”.
Re: Re: uncool story
The major ISPs have already proven, time and time again, that they will gladly harm the “current standard”.
Really? Do you have an actual example of that? You know, what that doesn’t involve a sudden influx of traffic from a bandwidth hog service or P2P?
Re: Re: Re: uncool story
This whole”bandwidth hog service or P2P” argument is a red herring.
The end user paid for the bandwidth. The ISP don’t have to provide more bandwidth than their users already paid for, no matter if the source is netflix or wikipedia.
You basically arguing, that netflix should pay more, because netflix users use their full bandwidth, while wikipedia users use only a fraction.
Re: Re: Re: uncool story
Level 3 accuses Comcast, other ISPs of ‘deliberately harming’ broadband service
http://www.infoworld.com/t/net-neutrality/level-3-accuses-comcast-other-isps-of-deliberately-harming-broadband-service-241999
Level 3 calls out Comcast, TWC and others for ?deliberately harming? their own broadband
http://bgr.com/2014/05/06/comcast-internet-service-criticism-twc-cablevision-level-3/
Re: Re: Re: uncool story
Sure, Comcast and Netflix.
Re: Re: Re:2 uncool story
Ack, hit submit too soon. You may consider Netflix a “bandwidth hog” (while ignoring that Netflix actually pays for all that bandwidth they’re hogging), but the way that Comcast extorted from Netflix was to allow their peering point to saturate. This affected Netflix, of course, but also everyone else who was going through that peering point. Comcast did not block Netflix, they simply decided not to maintain the “current standard” over those links.
I hope the FCC will take the time to visit the neocities site to get an idea of what an unchecked future might look like. And then walk that horrible zombie net neutrality proposal back to the cash-lined grave from whence it lurched.
It’s a protest by mis-information, which is less intelligent than the FCC proposal.
If it wasn’t for misinformation, the nitwits here would never be able to make a point.
Re: Re:
Talk about nitwits and here comes the trolls. Who left the outhouse door open?
Re: Kenichi Tanaka
🙂 Thanks for making your own point.
Re: Re: Kenichi Tanaka
Ignore the subject in the above post. A mistake, not relevant.
sometimes the only way to fight fire is with water!
if Wheeler cant/wont see how big a mistake it’s going to be to carry out his plan, ignoring everything else from everywhere else telling him what the outcome is going to be, he must be receiving a hell of a thrumpence to do so!!
Re: Re:
Agreed. If we knew how much, maybe we could crowd source a better offer
Too bad we can’t get the FCC’s upstream provider to implement this.
A return to Freedom 2.0. I like it.
Internet Citizens: Defend Net Neutrality
By CGP Grey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtt2aSV8wdw
They should do this for everyone in protest. Like the SOPA day protest with the blackout. Instead slow down the loading of big websites, and tell people “This is how your Internet will work if FCC’s net neutrality proposals pass”.
Great. There goes my taxpayer dollars as the FCC pays these “fast lane” fees of $1000/year.
😛
I think this is a fantastic idea. Just as websites did with SOPA, all of them should unite and show government just how ridiculous their regulation can be, if passed.
Some people need a visual stimulant to see the bigger picture.
FCC was supposed to ONLY regulate Power and Frequency!!!
The FCC was supposed to ONLY regulate Power and Frequency!!!
This net neutrality crap has allowed them to jump into your shielded cat5 cables.
All this is mission creep is by the fascists running the FCC.
They tore up the original FCC mission statement. No longer do they hire their engineers to regulate the spectrum (Power and Frequency) in the public interest.
They vaguely said the broadcast stations would put their PUBLIC FILE online, but where is it? All this time and since they left it vague, it NEVER HAPPENED. At best the sheeple can set up an appointment with the stations PUBLIC FILE.
otherwise all these fascist stations would have long since had their frequency allocation’s and station id’s yanked by the complaints in their PUBLIC FILE[s].
The MSM is now the ministry of propaganda for the FASCIST POTUS, and the fcc is the sheriff of huddersfield. (find the iron maiden song to comprehend)
Look the FCC I Can understand needs to regulate power and frequency, but they can’t even do that right, they’re now completely sold out to the corporations interests over the public interest as per their original mission statement.
In short, the spectrum was supposed to be managed in the public interest and SAFETY (yes too much power in your face causes damage to you) and instead what we have is 96% public spectrum being controlled by Corporate Interests (3% freqs for .gov / .mil, right right..)
Maybe 1% public access and amateur bands. Which they most certainly hate the existing thereof.
Look, I just do crap with soldering guns and chips and code, I am just the messenger, I had nice tv show (what I wanted to really do), and POOF it’s gone now with the NDAA 2012 Cause ya never know when you might interview someone who is the next al cia duh and then your tied to them and disappeared (even if the whole thing is entirely retarded beyond comprehension)
There’s nothing left of this country unless your positioned now.
Only the militia, and a few hunkered down still has BALLS. But that day will come when you have no more choice but to fight!
Re: FCC was supposed to ONLY regulate Power and Frequency!!!
Wow –
Re: FCC was supposed to ONLY regulate Power and Frequency!!!
Very interesting. So you’re saying that the FCC taking action that favors the people over corporations is somehow fascist?
Wider "Buzz" than usual
My wife brought this up at dinner last night…it’s usually the other way around…so a much wider impact is being made by this action than usual.
Same for the Amazon patent on photographic lighting!
Net Neutrality is not the Answer
Unless you don’t support the small business ISP that can’t necessarily offer everything to its customers. Or unless you support an ultraviolent monopoly telling everyone what it can or cannot do all at gunpoint for the sake of a few roads.
Regulations always benefit the bigger corporations as they limit the ability for small startups and force larger investment. The same is true of net neutrality (as proven already by the case of MetroPCS).
The World Wide Wait, all over again!
I bet a lot of people think “net neutrality” means Google not deciding what a person sees when they do a search.