The Battle For The Internet's Next Round: Internet Slowdown Day

from the time-to-speak-up dept

A whole bunch of startups and activist groups are taking part today in Internet Slowdown Day — showing just what kind of internet we might be facing if the FCC caves in to the pressures of the big broadband access providers, allowing them to set up tollbooths on the internet, pick winners and losers, and generally limit the ability of innovative new startups to face an even playing field online. It would enable the big broadband players to double charge service providers, limit upstarts and competition, and generally make the overall internet a lot less dynamic and innovative. For these reasons and more, we’re quite concerned with where the FCC is heading, and are joining in today’s protests — we hope you will too. If you missed them, you can read our comments to the FCC on this matter, and you still have a few more days (until the 15th) to file your own.

Later today, we’ll also be posting a blockbuster “everything you need to know about net neutrality but were afraid to ask” post, and will likely have a few more posts on the topic as well… Stay tuned…

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “The Battle For The Internet's Next Round: Internet Slowdown Day”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
57 Comments
Ninjasays:

Re: Re:

Actually they are relevant. In quite a few countries the local players tend to mimic what the big powers out there do. At quite a few points the US spearheads inside for the good or for the bad and by knowing what is happening there we can take some preemptive strikes elsewhere to avoid it (in the bad cases) or improve it (in the good ones).

If you don’t like it don’t read it, go elsewhere. Actually you’d be doing us a favor.

Intabussays:

Re: Re:

Good luck getting to any American server or website if they dont pay their toll booth fee. Doesnt matter where you are in the world if the server you are trying to access is on a Major ISP backbone and they are not paying the fast lane fee.

Take your Ferrari and go on a road trip. Your starting point is a no speed limit 6 lane highway at 2am with no traffic or police. You can go as fast as you want. Halfway there your highway turns into a single lane road in a rinkey dink town that doesnt pay to fix the roads so its full of major potholes and the speed limit of 20 kph is enforced by spike strips and roadblocks every 500 meters.

Manabisays:

Hope they'll fix the form

I don’t know about the overlay that covered TechDirt’s site, but I pulled up the battleforthenet.com site in another tab to read through the letter and submit later. Then I noticed that it will not let me click in the form fields so that one’s worthless if they want me to participate. Maybe you could ping them and tell them it’s got a problem? Or provide some kind of direct link in one of those posts today?

Whateversays:

Re: Re: so-call ed

More than that… basically most lawmakers will take your automated submission and filter it off, like spam. It’s not accomplishing anything to be a virtual dittohead. They could have helped you out to write your own letter or something like that, making them all unique. But a form letter via email is the ultimate in easy to filter spam.

The form doesn’t work, it’s useless for people outside of the US, and doesn’t cookie so there is no way to stop it from popping up over and over again.

It’s a fail in all sorts of ways.

Whateversays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so-call ed

Perhaps it would be better if they geo’ed it so that people in each area were given something relevant for them. This program is mostly designed to piss people off, but it will end up pissing people off for the wrong reasons. The majority of internet users are NOT in the US. Forcing them deal with an annoying pop up to further a US political agenda is just plain stupid.

Arrogant Americans At Work… (AAAW)

Ninjasays:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so-call ed

Ah, now I got you, I don’t see it because I have noscript and other stuff on.

While I do agree that having pop-ups is a hassle they are there for pretty useless things too so this is not a problem exclusive to this campaign. Also, having this battle discussed and spread around is important because even though the campaign is American the problem pretty much happens in quite a few places around the world.

So yeah, sorry for not getting what you meant in the first place.

Whateversays:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so-call ed

The problem here is that fundamentally, I agree with the concept, although even what is considered net neutrality has been bastardized and politicized and basically taken over by special interest groups.

Net neutrality as a concept is wonderful. Too many people however think it’s a license for a free for all, thinking that it will do things like make it impossible to deal with piracy, promote the dark web, and generally render the internet lawless. If anything was that simple, I am sure everyone would have signed up for it already.

You are much more likely to see any net neutrality agreement come with one of those lovely political asterisk, where it says “does not apply to illegal activities”, which will then lead to the inevitable fights. Companies will not want to be held on the hook to provide support for illegal activities. You could also bet that ISPs will push for a “no P2P” type clause, meaning that IP services that go direct to consumers would be okay, but consumer to consumer (bit torrent, chat, telephony, and the like) would all be considered outside of the net neutrality arrangement and more seriously subject to restriction.

Look before you leap… supporting the heck out of something without knowing what you are buying is the first step towards hell.

So starting a “write in” campaign that can be defeated with a single line in a spam filter isn’t anything other than perhaps mental masturbation, you make yourself feel good but the effects are lost because the only one who got anything out of it was you.

it’s also annoying to see that it’s a “US Only!” thing, but the whole world is being subjected to the annoyance.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so-call ed

You are much more likely to see any net neutrality agreement come with one of those lovely political asterisk, where it says “does not apply to illegal activities”, which will then lead to the inevitable fights. Companies will not want to be held on the hook to provide support for illegal activities. You could also bet that ISPs will push for a “no P2P” type clause, meaning that IP services that go direct to consumers would be okay, but consumer to consumer (bit torrent, chat, telephony, and the like) would all be considered outside of the net neutrality arrangement and more seriously subject to restriction.

The whole point of net neutrality is that ISPs do not decide what services run over their pipes, and also are not held responsible for what their users do over their pipes. They should be like the phone service, they just connect people and companies, and have no responsibility for any form of policing. To take any other attitude to the ISPs services is the same as expecting the phone service to prevent people using the system to obtain drugs, guns and prostitutes.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so-call ed

You know that truth does not come from repeating the same debunked assertion again and again, right?

So, why don’t you stop with this:

“it’s also annoying to see that it’s a “US Only!” thing, but the whole world is being subjected to the annoyance.”

It is not a “US only”-thing.

Whateversays:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so-call ed

This is a US only thing. try to use the form to contact your Eu member of parliment. You can’t. Try to contact your member of the UK house with it. You can’t. Try to contact Putin. You can’t.

It’s only made to send spam to US elected officials, and only from Americans.

Thus, it is US only. The concept is NOT US only, but the implementation is, which is arrogant tail wagging the dog stuff.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:8 ugh

I live in Europe. I’m a regular reader of techdirt, but although I had seen that there were many articles about something called “net-neutrality” I had not read any of these articles yet.

When I saw the “slowdown”-popup, it made me curious, so I read this article, got interested, started searching for related stuff here in Europe.

Can I contact any politician representing me with the form? Nope. But I think the main goal – getting me involved – has been achieved. So: It may be suboptimal, it may “taste americentric”, but it is far from an annoyance.

Ninjasays:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so-call ed

Too many people however think it’s a license for a free for all

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

After this line that’s what your article is. A mouthful of incoherent bullshit. Net neutrality has nothing to do with legal or illegal activity, it has to do with treating all packets equally. The fact that some packets can be used for illicit activity does not mean you get to prioritize your own ‘content’ or ‘ip’ traffic over indie stuff, netflix, google, etc.

Look before you leap… supporting the heck out of something without knowing what you are buying is the first step towards hell.

Really now? Are you Satan himself then?

So starting a “write in” campaign that can be defeated with a single line in a spam filter isn’t anything other than perhaps mental masturbation, you make yourself feel good but the effects are lost because the only one who got anything out of it was you.

Dude. Stop. SOPA campaign was just like that and it won awesomely. You are making a fool of yourself, really.

it’s also annoying to see that it’s a “US Only!” thing, but the whole world is being subjected to the annoyance.

It’s annoying to see your “ME ONLY” attitude but everyone else is being subjected to the annoyance. Got the hint?

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so-call ed

it’s also annoying to see that it’s a “US Only!” thing, but the whole world is being subjected to the annoyance.

Funny, that’s what they said about SOPA and other laws, but all the RIAA clones worldwide continue to get a version implemented somewhere.

John Fendersonsays:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so-call ed

“Too many people however think it’s a license for a free for all, thinking that it will do things like make it impossible to deal with piracy, promote the dark web, and generally render the internet lawless.”

Whaaa?

I’ve not heard that concern, and I’m pretty baffled by it. What does net neutrality have to do with lawbreaking? What is the reasoning that connects the two?

Whateversays:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so-call ed

I’ve not heard that concern, and I’m pretty baffled by it. What does net neutrality have to do with lawbreaking?

In a “net neutral” situation where all services are treated absolutely equally, the ISPs would be common carriers devoid of any responsiblity. DMCA? Forget about it. They are common carriers. You can’t DMCA the company providing the wire, they have no real control over it.

True Net Neutrality would be a two way street as well – ISPs would not be allowed to discriminate against any type of traffic, which in turn could potentially mean that their TOS would have to change to allow end users to do what they like – including running servers, Tor exit nodes, seedboxes… whatever you like.

How far would common carrier status extend? ISPs? Hosting companies? interconnect companies? True common carrier status could possibly remove any responsibility or liability under DMCA, as they would not be in a position to turn off the services in the manner they do today.

Think of it as a potential sea change in the way the internet works in the US.

John Fendersonsays:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so-call ed

“Think of it as a potential sea change in the way the internet works in the US.”

It’s actually just undoing all the badness that has been layered on — returning the internet back to the way it used to work.

Much of what you say about the DMCA is true — and that’s a good thing. It means that liability will fall on those who are actually engaging in the lawbreaking rather than uninvolved parties. I don’t call that rendering the internet lawless at all (because it isn’t) — I call that ensuring justice.

Ninjasays:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so-call ed

That’s pretty much a given, road operators are not responsible for what is being transported, ISPs are the same. If there’s reasonable suspicion warrants will allow them to search for stuff in determined vehicles and the operator may have to help but they are not liable nor responsible for being the police.

True Net Neutrality would be a two way street as well – ISPs would not be allowed to discriminate against any type of traffic, which in turn could potentially mean that their TOS would have to change to allow end users to do what they like – including running servers, Tor exit nodes, seedboxes… whatever you like.

Which are all legal. If one of these servers is carrying illegal material the police can go for a warrant and get to the source. Again the carrier has nothing to do with it and all packets were treated equally until suspicion was raised.

How far would common carrier status extend? ISPs? Hosting companies? interconnect companies? True common carrier status could possibly remove any responsibility or liability under DMCA, as they would not be in a position to turn off the services in the manner they do today.

That’s what should happen indeed. The suspension should be demanded by a court after a full trial where the other party can defend themselves.

Think of it as a potential sea change in the way the internet works in the US.

If FCC slams title II on them it will surely be a ‘sea changer’. Net neutrality will truly be enforced (not your delusional definition by the way).

Gwizsays:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so-call ed

The majority of internet users are NOT in the US.

This may be true, but the US is second only to China in number of users.

More importantly though, is the fact that well over half of internet sites are hosted within the US or are using a domain name (.com, .net, ,org, etc…) controlled by the US.

Thinking that this issue isn’t important because you don’t reside in the US is a mistake, in my opinion.

Ninjasays:

Re: Re: so-call ed

At the end of the page.

For press inquiries, please contact us at:

978-852-6457 or 617-690-9547 or press@fightforthefuture.org

201-533-8838 or tkarr@freepress.net

269-267-0580 or nathan@demandprogress.org

All other inquiries, contact team@fightforthefuture.org

Send them a nod about the typo. I usually skip them due to context (I’m bad at spotting typos).

Anonymoussays:

The connection has timed out

The server at http://www.????.com is taking too long to respond.

The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few moments.
If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer’s network connection.
If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.

“Try again button”

If that is all people are seeing, I don’t think it is being very helpful to anyone except competitor sites and computer repair shops.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

I’m getting this:

One more step
Please complete the security check to access widget.battleforthenet.com

We moeten er zeker van zijn dat u een mens bent. Los de onderstaande uitdaging op en klik op de knop ‘Ik ben een mens’ om een bevestigingscode te ontvangen. Om dit proces in de toekomst eenvoudiger te maken, kunt u het beste JavaScript inschakelen.

(Techdirt has been doing the same thing all week. I could barely read it yesterday.)

Anonymoussays:

not only are the BB players trying to stop this part, but are trying to stop having to increase basic BB speed from 4mg to 10mg. this is for the obvious reason of having to spend some time and money on actually upgrading the service offered atm. what i found downright insulting was them saying that 4mg is fast enough. how dare they say that! it may well be fast enough for them but it isn’t them that are the users! there has been numerous cons performed by the likes of Comcast and Verizone, taking taxpayers money to ‘upgrade services’ in given areas, to better speeds, within certain time frames etc and nothing done that comes close to the terms of the deal. now they want to completely restrict the BB to high earners and companies and leave the majority of the people on probably even slower than 4mg. their piss taking knows no bounds!!

DeadBoltsays:

Re: Re: If This Site Was Still Loading, Would You Still Be Here?

Still better than South African internet where a carrier pigeon flying 100km beat a file transfer of 4gb.

Winston took one hour and eight minutes to fly between the offices, and the data took another hour to upload on to their system.

Mr Rolfe said the ADSL transmission of the same data size was about 4% complete in the same time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8248056.stm

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: If This Site Was Still Loading, Would You Still Be Here?

I honestly don’t get statements like “I can’t because I live in X”. I figure as long as you live on this earth you have the right to be concerned about what others are doing… because you know someday someone else’s problems might become YOUR problems as well.

Besides if we get people from outside the country expressing their concerns it could make this “Fast Lane” business a concern on a global scale. All you really have to do is say: “I’m from X and while it doesn’t seem like it this problem will eventually effect the entire world. This makes me and many others around here very concerned.” Or something to that extent…

Unless of course I’m completely misinterpreting your statement when you say you CAN’T contact our government or the FCC in the literal sense and you are not allowed to do so.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
06:31 DOJ Drops Ridiculous Trump-Era Lawsuit Against California For Passing Net Neutrality Rules (13)
06:27 The Wall Street Journal Kisses Big Telecom's Ass In Whiny Screed About 'Big Tech' (13)
10:45 New Interim FCC Boss Jessica Rosenworcel Will Likely Restore Net Neutrality, Just Not Yet (5)
15:30 Small Idaho ISP 'Punishes' Twitter And Facebook's 'Censorship' ... By Blocking Access To Them Entirely (81)
05:29 A Few Reminders Before The Tired Net Neutrality Debate Is Rekindled (13)
06:22 U.S. Broadband Speeds Jumped 90% in 2020. But No, It Had Nothing To Do With Killing Net Neutrality. (12)
12:10 FCC Ignores The Courts, Finalizes Facts-Optional Repeal Of Net Neutrality (19)
10:46 It's Opposite Day At The FCC: Rejects All Its Own Legal Arguments Against Net Neutrality To Claim It Can Be The Internet Speech Police (13)
12:05 Blatant Hypocrite Ajit Pai Decides To Move Forward With Bogus, Unconstitutional Rulemaking On Section 230 (175)
06:49 FCC's Pai Puts Final Bullet In Net Neutrality Ahead Of Potential Demotion (22)
06:31 The EU Makes It Clear That 'Zero Rating' Violates Net Neutrality (5)
06:22 DOJ Continues Its Quest To Kill Net Neutrality (And Consumer Protection In General) In California (11)
11:08 Hypocritical AT&T Makes A Mockery Of Itself; Says 230 Should Be Reformed For Real Net Neutrality (26)
06:20 Trump, Big Telecom Continue Quest To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Consumers (19)
06:11 Senators Wyden And Markey Make It Clear AT&T Is Violating Net Neutrality (13)
06:31 Net Neutrali-what? AT&T's New Streaming Service Won't Count Against Its Broadband Caps. But Netflix Will. (24)
06:23 Telecom's Latest Dumb Claim: The Internet Only Works During A Pandemic Because We Killed Net Neutrality (49)
13:36 Ex-FCC Staffer Says FCC Authority Given Up In Net Neutrality Repeal Sure Would Prove Handy In A Crisis (13)
06:27 Clarence Thomas Regrets Brand X Decision That Paved Way For The Net Neutrality Wars (11)
06:17 The FCC To Field More Comments On Net Neutrality. Maybe They'll Stop Identity Theft And Fraud This Time? (78)
08:56 AT&T, Comcast Dramatically Cut Network Spending Despite Net Neutrality Repeal (16)
06:18 Ajit Pai Hits CES... To Make Up Some Shit About Net Neutrality (24)
06:24 Mozilla, Consumer Groups Petition For Rehearing of Net Neutrality Case (22)
06:49 AT&T Exec Insists That No Broadband Company Is Violating Net Neutrality Even Though AT&T Is Absolutely Violating Net Neutrality (18)
06:45 Shocker: ISPs Cut Back 2020 Investment Despite Tax Breaks, Death Of Net Neutrality (61)
06:28 Ajit Pai Whines About The Numerous State-Level Net Neutrality Laws He Just Helped Create (47)
06:37 States Rush To Protect Net Neutrality On Heels Of Court Ruling (19)
06:21 Former FCC Boss Wheeler Says New Court Ruling Won't Stop Net Neutrality (14)
10:50 Court Says FCC Can't Stop States From Protecting Net Neutrality (63)
09:37 One More Time: Just Because The Internet Didn't Explode Doesn't Mean Killing Net Neutrality Was A Great Idea (45)
More arrow