Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Digital Trends)   Web host throttles FCC's internet access to dial-up speeds to remind them what net neutrality can do. But is happy to restore their access for 1,000 bars of gold-pressed latinum. Quark, you're doing it wrong   (digitaltrends.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

11230 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 May 2014 at 7:42 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



132 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-05-09 04:23:35 PM  
This guy is gonna get a pretty quick visit from the FBI. Interfering with a government agency and extortion, yeah, buh-bye moron. His heart might have been in the right place, but his head was firmly up his ass.
 
2014-05-09 04:29:31 PM  

strangeluck: This guy is gonna get a pretty quick visit from the FBI. Interfering with a government agency and extortion, yeah, buh-bye moron. His heart might have been in the right place, but his head was firmly up his ass.


Uh, no. He's throttling access on  his side, not on  their side. It's a screwed up headline.
 
2014-05-09 04:38:27 PM  

Rincewind53: He's throttling access on his side, not on their side. It's a screwed up headline.


What's the difference? I'm not asking to be contrary...I really don't know. Anyone want to educate a non-tech guy?
 
2014-05-09 04:51:35 PM  

Rincewind53: strangeluck: This guy is gonna get a pretty quick visit from the FBI. Interfering with a government agency and extortion, yeah, buh-bye moron. His heart might have been in the right place, but his head was firmly up his ass.

Uh, no. He's throttling access on  his side, not on  their side. It's a screwed up headline.


I'm not saying you're wrong, but maybe I'm misunderstanding the article.

"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 28.8-kbps 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."

So, he's throttling access to his site from their agency? Or what exactly is he doing.
 
2014-05-09 04:55:14 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: Rincewind53: He's throttling access on his side, not on their side. It's a screwed up headline.

What's the difference? I'm not asking to be contrary...I really don't know. Anyone want to educate a non-tech guy?


It means that it only happens with someone with an IP address from the FCC tries to access his website. It's not like he's slowing down their internet when they're trying to access anything else.

It's the difference between an individual Las Vegas casino banning you from gambling at  any casino anywhere in the world and a Las Vegas casino banning you from their own individual casino.
 
2014-05-09 04:57:00 PM  

strangeluck: So, he's throttling access to his site from their agency? Or what exactly is he doing.


Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Which is clearly not illegal. It's his personal site/group of sites, he could cut off all access to any IP address from the FCC and it'd be legal. There's no right to go on a website.
 
2014-05-09 04:58:30 PM  
Facebook, Youtube, Hulu and Netflix should all do the same.
 
2014-05-09 05:02:54 PM  

strangeluck: Or what exactly is he doing.


Sorry, technical aspect may make this easier to explain.

When any IP address from the FCC queries his server for content (so, for example, an employee of the FCC wants to go to one of his sites), the server detects the IP as coming from the FCC and throttles down the content that was asked for to 28.8kbps speed. Therefore, he's artificially limiting the speed at which the FCC can get information  from him. He's discriminating against the FCC by choosing to serve them more slowly, but he's not affecting their own personal internet speed.

This is different from "throttl[ing] FCC's internet access." That implies that  all internet traffic coming  out or into the FCC is being slowed down, which only something that the FCC's ISP could do.

So, imagine he owns an ice cream shop and the FCC wants to drive there to pick up some ice cream. He's not causing any traffic on the road to his shop, but when he sees a person with an FCC badge walk into his store, he refuses to serve them quickly and makes them wait a really long time for their ice cream.
 
2014-05-09 05:23:35 PM  
I've heard of neocities, but something tells me people at the FCC won't notice his protest.
 
2014-05-09 05:24:05 PM  
So the true question is, why are FCC employees (or anyone for that matter) going to the new Geocities?

This is more like a man who sells boiled horse dicks banning a company from buying his boiled horse dicks. I get the meaning behind it, but no one wanted boiled horse dicks in the first place.

Now bring some heavy hitters in there (like netizencain said) and you might be able to shake something.
 
2014-05-09 05:39:15 PM  

scottydoesntknow: no one wanted boiled horse dicks in the first place.


Well let's not get carried away. I'm sure somebody wanted boiled horse dick...subby's mom, for example...
 
2014-05-09 06:28:39 PM  
And who is this asshole to decide who and who doesn't get preferential treatment for internet access?  I don't know what net neutrality is, but you bet your ass I'm now against it.
 
wee
2014-05-09 06:57:51 PM  

Mike_LowELL: And who is this asshole to decide who and who doesn't get preferential treatment for internet access?


The asshole in this story would be the head of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, and treatment is decided based on money.

He's a cable and media company shill whose goal is to make sure that preferential treatment goes to those with money, and any little guys (or new startups) can't get into the game.  Big, established companies pay a ransom to not have their network access throttled, in other words.  If you can't pay, you likely won't thrive.  This helps remove future competition, hence the pay-offs and lobbyists and so forth.

Instead of keeping the internet open and easy to access for all players, he wants to slow it down unless you can pay the companies he used to work for before he became head of the FCC.

Here's a good read on why the guy is a complete asshole who has no business pretending to be a public servant: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/05/fcc_cha i rman_tom_wheeler_s_lame_excuses_for_his_net_neutrality_proposal.html
 
2014-05-09 07:39:37 PM  

Rincewind53: strangeluck: So, he's throttling access to his site from their agency? Or what exactly is he doing.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Which is clearly not illegal. It's his personal site/group of sites, he could cut off all access to any IP address from the FCC and it'd be legal. There's no right to go on a website.


That makes more sense, I just misread the story.
 
2014-05-09 07:47:22 PM  

Mike_LowELL: And who is this asshole to decide who and who doesn't get preferential treatment for internet access?  I don't know what net neutrality is, but you bet your ass I'm now against it.


If the FCC rules go through, it's pretty much COmcast and their ilk.
 
2014-05-09 07:49:45 PM  
This guy is awesome.
 
2014-05-09 07:50:48 PM  
Dumbass tag?
 
2014-05-09 07:51:35 PM  

wee: Mike_LowELL: And who is this asshole to decide who and who doesn't get preferential treatment for internet access?

The asshole in this story would be the head of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, and treatment is decided based on money.

He's a cable and media company shill whose goal is to make sure that preferential treatment goes to those with money, and any little guys (or new startups) can't get into the game.  Big, established companies pay a ransom to not have their network access throttled, in other words.  If you can't pay, you likely won't thrive.  This helps remove future competition, hence the pay-offs and lobbyists and so forth.

Instead of keeping the internet open and easy to access for all players, he wants to slow it down unless you can pay the companies he used to work for before he became head of the FCC.

Here's a good read on why the guy is a complete asshole who has no business pretending to be a public servant: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/05/fcc_cha i rman_tom_wheeler_s_lame_excuses_for_his_net_neutrality_proposal.html


This would be pretty much a textbook case of regulatory capture.
 
2014-05-09 07:51:49 PM  
I'm ok with this. Get google or amazon to do it and I'd be impressed.

He's not technically denying them access. Just prioritizing his data with industry standard best practices network management. Just like comcast and BitTorrent.
 
2014-05-09 07:52:30 PM  
Good.
 
2014-05-09 07:55:03 PM  
Wait, the governemt gets it's internet from like one guy? One guy?
 
2014-05-09 07:55:20 PM  

wee: Mike_LowELL: And who is this asshole to decide who and who doesn't get preferential treatment for internet access?

The asshole in this story would be the head of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, and treatment is decided based on money.

He's a cable and media company shill whose goal is to make sure that preferential treatment goes to those with money, and any little guys (or new startups) can't get into the game.  Big, established companies pay a ransom to not have their network access throttled, in other words.  If you can't pay, you likely won't thrive.  This helps remove future competition, hence the pay-offs and lobbyists and so forth.

Instead of keeping the internet open and easy to access for all players, he wants to slow it down unless you can pay the companies he used to work for before he became head of the FCC.

Here's a good read on why the guy is a complete asshole who has no business pretending to be a public servant: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/05/fcc_cha i rman_tom_wheeler_s_lame_excuses_for_his_net_neutrality_proposal.html


thumbnails.cbsig.net
The Internet Quadrant, gentlemen - millions of new customers at our very doorstep. The potential for FCC business expansion is staggering.
And best of all, no one there has ever heard the name 'FCC'!
Our reputation will be absolutely stainless.
Our word can be our bond.
Until we decide to break it!
 
2014-05-09 07:57:57 PM  
hell, why don't we just go and cut the fiber lines to the FCC's offices, and then tell them to reset their modem 5 or 6 times, tell them that everything looks good from your side, and hang up on them a few times. Then, after a few days of that, finally tell them that we've scheduled a tech to come out on thursday of next week between the hours of 3 and 6 PM, and have our techs promptly fall asleep on their couch.
 
2014-05-09 07:59:22 PM  

netizencain: Facebook, Youtube, Hulu and Netflix should all do the same.


i.imgur.com
 
2014-05-09 07:59:34 PM  

Rincewind53: strangeluck: This guy is gonna get a pretty quick visit from the FBI. Interfering with a government agency and extortion, yeah, buh-bye moron. His heart might have been in the right place, but his head was firmly up his ass.

Uh, no. He's throttling access on  his side, not on  their side. It's a screwed up headline.


Im going back to my bbs fark ya all
 
2014-05-09 07:59:52 PM  

wee: Mike_LowELL: And who is this asshole to decide who and who doesn't get preferential treatment for internet access?

The asshole in this story would be the head of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, and treatment is decided based on money.

He's a cable and media company shill whose goal is to make sure that preferential treatment goes to those with money, and any little guys (or new startups) can't get into the game.  Big, established companies pay a ransom to not have their network access throttled, in other words.  If you can't pay, you likely won't thrive.  This helps remove future competition, hence the pay-offs and lobbyists and so forth.

Instead of keeping the internet open and easy to access for all players, he wants to slow it down unless you can pay the companies he used to work for before he became head of the FCC.

Here's a good read on why the guy is a complete asshole who has no business pretending to be a public servant: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/05/fcc_cha i rman_tom_wheeler_s_lame_excuses_for_his_net_neutrality_proposal.html


And he was hand picked by Obama.
Don't over look that fact.
 
2014-05-09 08:01:21 PM  
Get Amazon and Google to do this and then it will be a real party.

But I'm guessing at this point they are on the "Crush the little guy" side of things anymore.
 
2014-05-09 08:04:48 PM  

aseras: I'm ok with this. Get google or amazon to do it and I'd be impressed.


Get Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, Wikipedia, Bing, Ebay, and LinkedIn to do the same, plus add all government agencies and individual elected members and their families, and someone might get the hint.
 
2014-05-09 08:04:57 PM  

Kit Fister: hell, why don't we just go and cut the fiber lines to the FCC's offices, and then tell them to reset their modem 5 or 6 times, tell them that everything looks good from your side, and hang up on them a few times. Then, after a few days of that, finally tell them that we've scheduled a tech to come out on thursday of next week between the hours of 3 and 6 PM, and have our techs promptly fall asleep on their couch.


I see you have experience with Comcast
 
Pav
2014-05-09 08:08:14 PM  
I often wonder if people who are pro net neutrality really know exactly how the internet works and what the costs actually are to run an ISP where 1 new popular application can blow up the bandwidth charts in a matter of days.  If Netflix wants to take its servers and put them inside the cable plant bypassing the peers and transit links thereby giving their customers better service and saving the ISP a boatload in bandwidth overhead, who the hell is anyone to complain?
 
2014-05-09 08:12:14 PM  

netizencain: Facebook, Youtube, Hulu and Netflix should all do the same.


Do you really think  any of them want a smaller site eating their pie?
/BTW Comcast/NBC owns a ton in Hulu
 
2014-05-09 08:13:46 PM  

Pav: I often wonder if people who are pro net neutrality really know exactly how the internet works and what the costs actually are to run an ISP where 1 new popular application can blow up the bandwidth charts in a matter of days.  If Netflix wants to take its servers and put them inside the cable plant bypassing the peers and transit links thereby giving their customers better service and saving the ISP a boatload in bandwidth overhead, who the hell is anyone to complain?


I think most people fully understand that it costs a lot of money to run a business like a telecom, but if we were to leave the American side of the net purely in the hands of those telecoms, they'd be extorting everyone for large amounts of money just to get fair internet speeds. We need a balance somewhere, and based on everyone's experiences with some of the major ISPs and phone companies out there, letting the companies dictate how the internet is run is a very, very, bad idea.
 
2014-05-09 08:14:08 PM  

zepher: wee: Mike_LowELL: And who is this asshole to decide who and who doesn't get preferential treatment for internet access?

The asshole in this story would be the head of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, and treatment is decided based on money.

He's a cable and media company shill whose goal is to make sure that preferential treatment goes to those with money, and any little guys (or new startups) can't get into the game.  Big, established companies pay a ransom to not have their network access throttled, in other words.  If you can't pay, you likely won't thrive.  This helps remove future competition, hence the pay-offs and lobbyists and so forth.

Instead of keeping the internet open and easy to access for all players, he wants to slow it down unless you can pay the companies he used to work for before he became head of the FCC.

Here's a good read on why the guy is a complete asshole who has no business pretending to be a public servant: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/05/fcc_cha i rman_tom_wheeler_s_lame_excuses_for_his_net_neutrality_proposal.html

And he was hand picked by Obama.
Don't over look that fact.


this is Fark, that fact will never get mentioned again and if it does, it will be met with "BOTH SIDES ARE BAD SO VOTE REPUBLICAN" by some mouth breather
 
2014-05-09 08:15:24 PM  
Would be great to see dozens of other services follow suit. Netflix, all Google properties, Amazon, etc. That would make an impression.
 
2014-05-09 08:16:52 PM  
FREE MARKET! YEAH

Maybe on Pluto. Get it, Pluto?
 
2014-05-09 08:17:28 PM  

Mike_LowELL: And who is this asshole to decide who and who doesn't get preferential treatment for internet access?  I don't know what net neutrality is, but you bet your ass I'm now against it.


Yeah, keep your government hands off my internets!
 
2014-05-09 08:19:51 PM  
Here is an explanation of moving information on the intrawebs.
 
2014-05-09 08:23:00 PM  

SovietCanuckistan: FREE MARKET! YEAH

Maybe on Pluto. Get it, Pluto?


I don't know about Pluto, but I WRECKED Uranus!!!

/ba dum bump!
//try the veal
 
2014-05-09 08:26:36 PM  

PreMortem: I've heard of neocities, but something tells me people at the FCC won't notice his protest.


Neocities... I ran a geocities site back in high school, it's where I learned html while I was sitting around waiting for the school day to end.

Since then I've come back to it, made a bit of money and am now launching my own online business. I'm getting all kinds of nostalgic over here.


/all the feels
 
2014-05-09 08:28:24 PM  
Who hired the FCC clown?
 
2014-05-09 08:42:23 PM  
I'm not sure where I stand on the net neutrality thing. On one hand I know that the big telecoms and their ilk are shielded from proper market forces by their buddies in the FedGov and I think any way we can restore customers position to the proper 50% of a business deal, it's probably a good idea. That's how a free market is supposed to run. The buy and the seller either agree on a mutually beneficial price for a good or service or they don't. If they don't, no sale. Enough people don't buy at the inflated price and the company will have to lower prices in order to sell anything. Look at the way prices drop pretty fast on shiatty products after an outrageous launch price. Once company X realizes that no one wants their shiat for the price they thought it could sell, they drop the price until they start shipping units or their left with warehouses full of overpriced stuff but no actual sales.

On the other hand, some of this reminds me of all the shiat people talk about how evil Wal-Mart is, how they're destroying mom and pop stores, bad for towns etc....an yet most if not all of those people never put their money where their mouth is and stop shopping at Wal-mart. The only way a Wal-mart store moving into a town can actually destroy the mom and pop shops is if people actually choose to shop at Wal-Mart over those smallers stores. And they do every time. They talk high and mighty about standing up for the small guys, Wal-Mart is evil, etc but at the end of the day they never actually have the balls to pay the higher prices needed to keep those smaller stores alive. Wal-Mart doesn't shut down smaller stores. Customers in those small towns choosing to ignore their own rhetoric and shop at Wal-mart do. They're the real problem. And I think in some way this applies here too. If people actually walked the walk and refused to do business with shady telecoms, things would get shaken up pretty fast. That's also how a free market is supposed to work. It seems like a lot of people just want to farm out their responsibility to make good decisions to the Feds. They don't have the balls to actually say en masse "I don't want to do business with Comcast, so I won't until they change for the better". See also EA in terms of video games. People talk so much shiat about EA destroying video games, but then turn around and keep handing them $60 a pop + DLC every time a game comes out. If EA didn't sell hundreds of millions of dollars worth of their next POS game, they might actually have a reason to change. Businesses will sell what people will buy. People show their true intentions with their wallets. People want Wal-mart. People want EA. And people want Comcast. No matter what they say, the money flowing into these companies shows what they really want.

Sometimes you just have to be willing to do without something you want if you really hold your principles that dearly. But saying "I'm against Wal-Mart/EA/Comcast/etc" but refusing to do your part by denying them revenue is just cowardly and only adds to the problem. Throwing up your hands and just saying "I don't want to change, but I want the government to step in and make the decision for me" is pathetic.
 
2014-05-09 08:55:04 PM  

Tyrosine: aseras: I'm ok with this. Get google or amazon to do it and I'd be impressed.

Get Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, Wikipedia, Bing, Ebay, and LinkedIn to do the same, plus add all government agencies and individual elected members and their families, and someone might get the hint.


I think that was the plan. To get this idea out there to bigger fish. The SOPA blackout got a lot of press, right?
 
2014-05-09 08:56:04 PM  

taurusowner: I'm not sure where I stand on the net neutrality thing....



You're assuming that internet service is equated with shopping at Walmart. More and more it's on par with other utilities, like electricity and phone service (or should be, which is what this whole net neutrality thing is about). The proper analogy would be to say that you have a choice of paying a ridiculous price for electricity that works better on lamps provided by the only electric company available in your are (and poorly, if at all on a lamp your kid made in shop class), or, should you choose to "put your money where your mouth is," you can choose not to have electricity at all.
 
2014-05-09 08:56:33 PM  

Tyrosine: aseras: I'm ok with this. Get google or amazon to do it and I'd be impressed.

Get Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, Wikipedia, Bing, Ebay, and LinkedIn to do the same, plus add all government agencies and individual elected members and their families, and someone might get the hint.


There's no need to do it to the other agencies. They don't have the authority to do anything about it. That's like complaining to the stocker at an Amazon warehouse that you don't like their web services. What's that guy going to do about it? He might mention it to a coworker and that'll be the end of it. The FCC has authority to change this, not the zoning board. Don't pick on the zoning board over this.
 
2014-05-09 08:57:26 PM  
Because the FCC never heard of proxies and VPN's?
 
2014-05-09 08:58:08 PM  
This is nothing but an attention whore stunt.   If someone with websites anyone actually visited did this it would be amusing,
 
2014-05-09 09:08:00 PM  

Pav: I often wonder if people who are pro net neutrality really know exactly how the internet works and what the costs actually are to run an ISP where 1 new popular application can blow up the bandwidth charts in a matter of days.  If Netflix wants to take its servers and put them inside the cable plant bypassing the peers and transit links thereby giving their customers better service and saving the ISP a boatload in bandwidth overhead, who the hell is anyone to complain?


I work for a tiny ISP that doesn't even cover an entire state.  We have a local mirror of the entire netflix library.  Anyone in our network with a netflix acct streams from inside our network.  We're tiny, and we can do that without undue hardship.  Why can't them jokers?
 
2014-05-09 09:11:31 PM  

taurusowner: some of this reminds me of all the shiat people talk about how evil Wal-Mart is, how they're destroying mom and pop stores, bad for towns etc....an yet most if not all of those people never put their money where their mouth is and stop shopping at Wal-mart.


Not to go off-topic here, but I don't know anyone who is anti-Wal-Mart but shops at Wal-Mart. I know a few people who have occasionally gone to Wal-Mart out of sheer necessity for one thing they were having trouble finding elsewhere. But the reason Wal-Marts succeed is because the vast, vast, vast majority of people don't give a fark about anything but their own wallet.
 
2014-05-09 09:18:36 PM  

taurusowner: On the other hand, some of this reminds me of all the shiat people talk about how evil Wal-Mart is, how they're destroying mom and pop stores, bad for towns etc....an yet most if not all of those people never put their money where their mouth is and stop shopping at Wal-mart. The only way a Wal-mart store moving into a town can actually destroy the mom and pop shops is if people actually choose to shop at Wal-Mart over those smallers stores


Two problems here:

1) You don't seem to have any basis for the assertion that the people who complain about Wal*Mart continue to shop there.

2) For the analogy with ISPs to work, your choice would have to be either Wal*Mart or a lone hotdog stand run by a narcoleptic octogenarian with advanced alzheimers... because for many people, the choice in ISP is either mostly sh*tty broadband from Comcast or unusably sh*tty dialup.

Satellite broadband, if available, is very high latency and has dialup/DSL speed upstream - that means anything interactive like streaming out is not going to work, and it'd be faster (possibly cheaper) to send files by burning them to DVD or putting it on a flash drive and FedEx it overnight.
=Smidge=
 
2014-05-09 09:21:05 PM  

Tobin_Lam: Tyrosine: aseras: I'm ok with this. Get google or amazon to do it and I'd be impressed.

Get Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, Wikipedia, Bing, Ebay, and LinkedIn to do the same, plus add all government agencies and individual elected members and their families, and someone might get the hint.

There's no need to do it to the other agencies. They don't have the authority to do anything about it. That's like complaining to the stocker at an Amazon warehouse that you don't like their web services. What's that guy going to do about it? He might mention it to a coworker and that'll be the end of it. The FCC has authority to change this, not the zoning board. Don't pick on the zoning board over this.


As I read your comment I am sitting inside an Amazon warehouse.

spooky.


/Kind of want to email the article to Bezos
 
Displayed 50 of 132 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report