Net Neutrality "Internet Slowdown" Protest Set for Sept. 10 - Update

Net Neutrality "Internet Slowdown" Protest Set for Sept. 10 - Update

Internet Slowdown 310x

Slowing down those Internet tubes to raise awareness.

Update: Netflix has confirmed it will be joining in on the Internet Slowdown protest as well, as reported by Variety. The company won't be slowing down its streaming services, but instead will feature a spinning icon on many of its pages (member and public alike). These icons will link to the Battle For The Net homepage.

Original Story: The FCC is closing public comments on its Open Internet policy next week, on September 15th. Before the comments go dark, however, large forces on the World Wide Web are gathering for one final pro-net neutrality push.

Battle For The Net is an awareness campaign backed by several nonprofit groups, including Fight for the Future, and Demand Progress. Similar in size and scope to the online SOPA protests in 2013, the goal here is simple: Raise awareness about net neutrality, open Internet rules and regulations, and how "Cable companies want to slow down (and break!) your favorite sites, for profit."

While the Battle For The Net campaign is very much a public affair, and one that aims to stem the cable industry's own lobbying efforts and representations, several large technology companies in the United States will be showing support as well. Vimeo, Reddit, Mozilla, and Etsy are just a few of the big-name firms that will be joining in on the protest, as they encourage visitors and users to be vocal to the FCC, and Congress.

So if supporting such a movement seems to be your brand of vodka, Battle For The Net has a number of banners, images, and other accoutrement that you can use to show your support (you can find such things here).

EDIT: Because there's some confusion in the comments: No, the Internet is not actually going to slow down on September 10th, nor is any site going to slow its services down (as far as I know). The "slowdown" is more of a reference to how the Fast Lane approach to the Internet would work (paying cable companies for more bandwidth). The events on the 10th are purely to raise awareness. --Devin Connors

Source: BFTN | The Verge

Permalink

Yes, but what is it? I mean, the headline implies that they're slowing down loading times on sites or something to protest, but the story doesn't explain anything. I had to go to the site to figure out that they're actually putting loading icon animations on everything, not actually slowing things down. I agree with their cause, I just don't think this story is very clear.

debtcollector:
Yes, but what is it? I mean, the headline implies that they're slowing down loading times on sites or something to protest, but the story doesn't explain anything. I had to go to the site to figure out that they're actually putting loading icon animations on everything, not actually slowing things down. I agree with their cause, I just don't think this story is very clear.

Well, they've already constricted FCC net access, the primary targets of this protest. They wouldn't use us as collateral damage if they don't have to.

They should have done this weeks ago when it could have got more people in the US aware that they were about to be bent over by most of the country's ISPs. Then, even the most tech-illiterate internet users would at least write to their congressman, if not also posting on the FCC site how they've been burned by Comcast/Time Warner Cable/[insert other greedy Coms company here] to many times to allow this to happen. Hopefully some sites will also divulge info on the Comcast/TWC merger trying to be cleared by the FTC, and more people voice how that's like what happened to Middle Earth .

The perfect vehicle for this (which I'm assuming is the idea, but that article wasn't very clear) is have a day (or more) of extremely slowed access to youtube (google services in general), netflix, hulu, amazon, etc. with an extremely clear banner on the sites or message to mobile/console users letting them know that if this comes to pass, that THIS will be the new normal connection speed unless you're willing to pay more to your ISP.

MAKE. THIS. HAPPEN. Then people will get it.

tangoprime:
The perfect vehicle for this (which I'm assuming is the idea, but that article wasn't very clear) is have a day (or more) of extremely slowed access to youtube (google services in general), netflix, hulu, amazon, etc. with an extremely clear banner on the sites or message to mobile/console users letting them know that if this comes to pass, that THIS will be the new normal connection speed unless you're willing to pay more to your ISP.

MAKE. THIS. HAPPEN. Then people will get it.

For the first few videos they view, that would be an effective way to get the message across.

But if it happened for the whole day, it would just piss everyone off.

...Then again, I guess that would be the whole point, so...hmm.

tangoprime:
The perfect vehicle for this (which I'm assuming is the idea, but that article wasn't very clear) is have a day (or more) of extremely slowed access to youtube (google services in general), netflix, hulu, amazon, etc. with an extremely clear banner on the sites or message to mobile/console users letting them know that if this comes to pass, that THIS will be the new normal connection speed unless you're willing to pay more to your ISP.

MAKE. THIS. HAPPEN. Then people will get it.

Isn't more like they (google, netflix,....)have to pay the ISP for better(normal) speed?
Which no doubt will make its way down to the customer.
Maybe the streaming companies should draw a line in the sand and say "how about NO" to the ISP's
kinda what they are doing now.

If there are ISP's that don't demand money chances are high people will change ISP.
Netflix and youtube are very populair, if they lose customers because of slow netflix they might change policy.
But as i understand it, unfortunately there are limited options for ISP choice.

But there is a drawback to this.
If the ISP's don't get money from netflix, they will charge the customers.

I have seen this in the Netherlands.
Mobile phone companies wanted to charge people for us of Whatsapp,... to make up for the decline in text messages(big cash-cow)
But a law came to pass stopping this.
Not more than a month after, they stopt the unlimited data plans and changed it to a 1gb hard limit.

Jeroenr:

tangoprime:
The perfect vehicle for this (which I'm assuming is the idea, but that article wasn't very clear) is have a day (or more) of extremely slowed access to youtube (google services in general), netflix, hulu, amazon, etc. with an extremely clear banner on the sites or message to mobile/console users letting them know that if this comes to pass, that THIS will be the new normal connection speed unless you're willing to pay more to your ISP.

MAKE. THIS. HAPPEN. Then people will get it.

Isn't more like they (google, netflix,....)have to pay the ISP for better(normal) speed?
Which no doubt will make its way down to the customer.
Maybe the streaming companies should draw a line in the sand and say "how about NO" to the ISP's
kinda what they are doing now.

If there are ISP's that don't demand money chances are high people will change ISP.
Netflix and youtube are very populair, if they lose customers because of slow netflix they might change policy.
But as i understand it, unfortunately there are limited options for ISP choice.

But there is a drawback to this.
If the ISP's don't get money from netflix, they will charge the customers.

I have seen this in the Netherlands.
Mobile phone companies wanted to charge people for us of Whatsapp,... to make up for the decline in text messages(big cash-cow)
But a law came to pass stopping this.
Not more than a month after, they stopt the unlimited data plans and changed it to a 1gb hard limit.

The difference between your example and this is that in your example the mobile phone companies had a smaller income due to the app. They were "losing" money because of it.
This time around the ISP's aren't losing anything. They simply are greedy and want more without spending or giving more. They want to take what you have and lock it because they want more. They aren't losing anything.

BiH-Kira:

Jeroenr:

tangoprime:
The perfect vehicle for this (which I'm assuming is the idea, but that article wasn't very clear) is have a day (or more) of extremely slowed access to youtube (google services in general), netflix, hulu, amazon, etc. with an extremely clear banner on the sites or message to mobile/console users letting them know that if this comes to pass, that THIS will be the new normal connection speed unless you're willing to pay more to your ISP.

MAKE. THIS. HAPPEN. Then people will get it.

Isn't more like they (google, netflix,....)have to pay the ISP for better(normal) speed?
Which no doubt will make its way down to the customer.
Maybe the streaming companies should draw a line in the sand and say "how about NO" to the ISP's
kinda what they are doing now.

If there are ISP's that don't demand money chances are high people will change ISP.
Netflix and youtube are very populair, if they lose customers because of slow netflix they might change policy.
But as i understand it, unfortunately there are limited options for ISP choice.

But there is a drawback to this.
If the ISP's don't get money from netflix, they will charge the customers.

I have seen this in the Netherlands.
Mobile phone companies wanted to charge people for us of Whatsapp,... to make up for the decline in text messages(big cash-cow)
But a law came to pass stopping this.
Not more than a month after, they stopt the unlimited data plans and changed it to a 1gb hard limit.

The difference between your example and this is that in your example the mobile phone companies had a smaller income due to the app. They were "losing" money because of it.
This time around the ISP's aren't losing anything. They simply are greedy and want more without spending or giving more. They want to take what you have and lock it because they want more. They aren't losing anything.

that's true.

But ISP's see a big increase in bandwidth use, for a large part coming from Netflix (and alike).
Bandwidth isn't free to them, so they don't have a decreased income but a increased cost.
Bottom line, that's about the same0
so they are looking for ways to make up for the increased cost.(plus a little something for their trouble)

But the point is, if they won't get the money one way, they will try to get it a other way

debtcollector:
Yes, but what is it? I mean, the headline implies that they're slowing down loading times on sites or something to protest, but the story doesn't explain anything. I had to go to the site to figure out that they're actually putting loading icon animations on everything, not actually slowing things down. I agree with their cause, I just don't think this story is very clear.

So since its not annoying anyone, it will do nothing. SOPA worked because major sites downright stopped you using them. Wikipedia was completely unusable the day they protested. The idea was to intentionally annoy people because THATS WHAT A PROTEST DOES. This is like putting up flyers. Useless.

marioandsonic:

For the first few videos they view, that would be an effective way to get the message across.

But if it happened for the whole day, it would just piss everyone off.

...Then again, I guess that would be the whole point, so...hmm.

Indeed it would. the point is to piss "REgular users" enough so they want to do something about it. an d then tell them who to blame.

Jeroenr:

But there is a drawback to this.
If the ISP's don't get money from netflix, they will charge the customers.

i dont think its possible to overcharge costumers more. if it was - they would be doing it already.

Strazdas:

marioandsonic:

For the first few videos they view, that would be an effective way to get the message across.

But if it happened for the whole day, it would just piss everyone off.

...Then again, I guess that would be the whole point, so...hmm.

Indeed it would. the point is to piss "REgular users" enough so they want to do something about it. an d then tell them who to blame.

Jeroenr:

But there is a drawback to this.
If the ISP's don't get money from netflix, they will charge the customers.

i dont think its possible to overcharge costumers more. if it was - they would be doing it already.

Al they need is a "good" reason to do so.

I wish Google would have the balls to get involved with one of these protests. But they're too big to have anything to really lose from this, except their poorer competitors, soon to be their broke ex-competitors.

So how can I support this, besides spreading the word? What will the people I've spread the word to be able to do? What will I be able to do?

Thats funny, it feels like they've been protesting for months now.

As a Verizon FIOS tech support guy I've been following this since February. We had this official statement and everything for people affected by slow Netflix. We did trace-routes with our Network Technicians to "prove" it wasn't us throttling our bandwidth when our customer's videos would freeze 10 times per viewing. Come to find out that Verizon isn't -technicallly- throttling bandwidth. Instead a "switching station" of routers in our backbone only has 4 x 10Gb pipelines. The second I learned this I became embarrassed of the company I work for.

Shape up your act Verizon and STOP MAKING EXCUSES!

Jeroenr:

BiH-Kira:

Jeroenr:

Isn't more like they (google, netflix,....)have to pay the ISP for better(normal) speed?
Which no doubt will make its way down to the customer.
Maybe the streaming companies should draw a line in the sand and say "how about NO" to the ISP's
kinda what they are doing now.

If there are ISP's that don't demand money chances are high people will change ISP.
Netflix and youtube are very populair, if they lose customers because of slow netflix they might change policy.
But as i understand it, unfortunately there are limited options for ISP choice.

But there is a drawback to this.
If the ISP's don't get money from netflix, they will charge the customers.

I have seen this in the Netherlands.
Mobile phone companies wanted to charge people for us of Whatsapp,... to make up for the decline in text messages(big cash-cow)
But a law came to pass stopping this.
Not more than a month after, they stopt the unlimited data plans and changed it to a 1gb hard limit.

The difference between your example and this is that in your example the mobile phone companies had a smaller income due to the app. They were "losing" money because of it.
This time around the ISP's aren't losing anything. They simply are greedy and want more without spending or giving more. They want to take what you have and lock it because they want more. They aren't losing anything.

that's true.

But ISP's see a big increase in bandwidth use, for a large part coming from Netflix (and alike).
Bandwidth isn't free to them, so they don't have a decreased income but a increased cost.
Bottom line, that's about the same0
so they are looking for ways to make up for the increased cost.(plus a little something for their trouble)

But the point is, if they won't get the money one way, they will try to get it a other way

The issue with that is that the ISP is lying to you and to me. They sell us what 50Mbps? I am already paying for that bandwidth. So If I use it to watch netflix or whatever, I have already paid for it. If they say well lots of people are using 50Mbps they should re evaluate their over subscription business model.

Also bandwidth in country is fairly cheap. The big telecom's got huge government subsidies to lay down a ridiculous amount of fiber optics not that long ago and they have huge bundles of dark fiber that they are happy to lease for private use. They are no where near running out of bandwidth, they just want to make a even larger profit margin and because we let them get away with monopoly behavior over and over again, they figure they can push this one through too.

It is just bullshit, I say give us, the citizens the rights back to every piece of fiber laid under public land at the public expense and let us run let the cable companies rent it back from us.

Surprising that this debate is *still* ongoing. Thought it had been dealt with by now.

If the law changed to allow ISPs to do this crap in the US, I wouldn't be surprised if a select few ISPs rebranded themselves as "net neutral" and their "thing" was that they didn't partake in the shit the others do. I imagine a lot of customers would migrate to them quite quickly.

But then I've heard that many in the US don't actually have options when it comes to Internet provider, so not sure what it's all about.

KingsGambit:
Surprising that this debate is *still* ongoing. Thought it had been dealt with by now.

If the law changed to allow ISPs to do this crap in the US, I wouldn't be surprised if a select few ISPs rebranded themselves as "net neutral" and their "thing" was that they didn't partake in the shit the others do. I imagine a lot of customers would migrate to them quite quickly.

But then I've heard that many in the US don't actually have options when it comes to Internet provider, so not sure what it's all about.

We don't at all. Believe me, I wish we did. My option is Comcast...or...Comcast. I have no other option for high speed internet. Comcast actively bribes towns in its areas to prevent other companies from coming in. I know because I work for one of those towns and I know how much money gets kicked to the officials to have them deny other ISPs from entering the area.

So... did it happen? Did anyone care that it happened.

Anyone here feel the slightest bit impacted by a 9/10 slowdown of the internet?

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here