FCC gets a taste of what it will be like to not have proper net neutrality laws - Polidicks

[quote=Escapist Magazine] Lots of companies on the web are complaining about the Federal Communications Commission's decision to trash net neutrality, but one of them is actually doing something about it. NeoCities, a free, open-source web hosting company, has dropped the hammer on connections from the FCC to its site. "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 founder Kyle Drake wrote in a blog post. [/quote] [url]http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/134371-FCC-Throttled-By-NeoCities-In-Net-Neutrality-Protest[/url]

if google did this too then the FCC would really listen.

I hope more companies do this, it would own

This is hilarious and awesome, but bigger sites would have to get involved. I think this is a decent way to protest something.

I'm sure the FCC being unable to access their favourite open-source hosting company's website is really opening their eyes up

They probably don't even use the internet.

[QUOTE=bdd458;44765879]if google did this too then the FCC would really listen.[/QUOTE] Google and Facebook should throttle any IP from the U.S. government, and offer them "premium access" for an absurd amount of money.

[QUOTE=Hardsurface;44765925]They probably don't even use the internet.[/QUOTE] "Does it run off a floppy disc?"

Step it up to throttling all US Federal agency IPs. And get Google, Wikipedia, and especially YouTube in on the act.

[QUOTE=Andokool12;44765902]I'm sure the FCC being unable to access their favourite open-source hosting company's website is really opening their eyes up[/QUOTE] Yeah, I am sure that your sarcastic shitposts will do a better job

[QUOTE=Teddybeer;44765998]The internet version of cancer cured in one day. I somehow think they would get sued to hell and back if they did.[/QUOTE] They can't be, because we currently don't have any laws prohibiting it! They just voided them a few months ago. Essentially, this is their whole plan backfiring on them. It just needs more people behind it.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;44766006]Yeah, I am sure that your sarcastic shitposts will do a better job[/QUOTE] but what he's saying is true they've embargoed the fcc from a service they don't care about because they don't use it

[QUOTE=Kondor;44766075]but what he's saying is true they've embargoed the fcc from a service they don't care about because they don't use it[/QUOTE] Which is basically something the previous three posts already pointed out without trying to be witty

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;44766106]Which is basically something the previous three posts already pointed out without trying to be witty[/QUOTE] There'll be no sass-mouthing on Awesomecaek's watch!

[QUOTE=Kondor;44766075]but what he's saying is true they've embargoed the fcc from a service they don't care about because they don't use it[/QUOTE] it isn't that they're making a physical dent in anyone's services and profits by placing a pathetic throttle that would only affect a few people (if any) due to nobody regularly visiting that site, [i]it's that they're doing it[/i]. It's the statement and the realization it needs to spark, that this would be legal for providers. That literal extortion of major services and the further extortion of the end-user trying to access anything will not only be within their grasp, but easily put into practice for no other reason than "we want more money"

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;44766006]Yeah, I am sure that your sarcastic shitposts will do a better job[/QUOTE] This doesn't make sense I get the significance that it'll matter once bigger companies get on board but the idea of a company so far from relevance to the FCC doing this is funny, sorry I consistently have to explain to you that I am not in fact as pissed off as you think I am

Someone also uploaded code ([URL="https://gist.github.com/kyledrake/e6046644115f185f7af0"]Nginx[/URL], [URL="https://gist.github.com/m1/e5f1f190ba309b500f0a"]Apache[/URL]) so that anyone with a server can do this.

Garry should do this on the off chance a facepuncher works at the fcc

[QUOTE=_Kent_;44766734]Garry should do this on the off chance a facepuncher works at the fcc[/QUOTE] Hey, we've got a politician in Maine(?). It's not too far-fetched.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;44765974]Step it up to throttling all US Federal agency IPs. And get Google, Wikipedia, and especially YouTube in on the act.[/QUOTE] Google owns YouTube so that last one wouldn't be too hard. [editline]9th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=woolio1;44766876]Hey, we've got a politician in Maine(?). It's not too far-fetched.[/QUOTE] We had someone run for an office in New York. [editline]a[/editline] Found him [url]https://www.facebook.com/brandonjneider[/url]

What YouTube could do is have the non-skippable 30 second ads play for every video they watch. I mean they get to screw with them and make money

Google should redirect the FCC homepage to a petition regarding the FCC trying to trash net neutrality :v: To think how much power Google has over such matters.

[img]http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/ferengi-plan-neocities.png[/img] I chuckled.

I hope every company that possibly can does this to the FCC and people who support the removal of net neutrality

[QUOTE=bdd458;44765879]if google did this too then the FCC would really listen.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=KillerJaguar;44765937]Google and Facebook should throttle any IP from the U.S. government, and offer them "premium access" for an absurd amount of money.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;44765974]And get Google, Wikipedia, and especially YouTube in on the act.[/QUOTE] You mean the same Google that flip-flops on net neutrality [url=http://www.wired.com/2013/07/google-neutrality/]when it's convenient[/url]? Do you guys really think they're the good guy here, and not just making any play that will net them more profit? I also have to wonder how much people saying 'restrict their access and charge them for it!!11' actually understand the issue, because as an analogy it makes no sense. If ISPs could charge content providers for increased bandwidth, it wouldn't force consumers to pay money to access particular sites.

[QUOTE=Teddybeer;44765998]The internet version of cancer cured in one day. I somehow think they would get sued to hell and back if they did.[/QUOTE] I doubt it. It's a form of protest and it's optional, you don't HAVE to have internet. Besides, throttled access is still access and it's something the FCC is proposing themselves. If they took legal action against companies that did it, it would be so hypocritical they would forever be a joke

[QUOTE=catbarf;44769116]You mean the same Google that flip-flops on net neutrality [url=http://www.wired.com/2013/07/google-neutrality/]when it's convenient[/url]? Do you guys really think they're the good guy here, and not just making any play that will net them more profit? I also have to wonder how much people saying 'restrict their access and charge them for it!!11' actually understand the issue, because as an analogy it makes no sense. If ISPs could charge content providers for increased bandwidth, it wouldn't force consumers to pay money to access particular sites.[/QUOTE] idk they were just the first company to pop into my head since pretty much everybody uses Google to look stuff up.

get all the lower tier providers to do this, the last leg providers are the ones trying to game the entire pyramid while the smaller guys actually running everything are screwed over by them because they dont make the huge dollars

I really hope this shit crashes and burns.