
A list of ways to “Break the Internet” for the 48 hours before the FCC vote - doener
https://www.battleforthenet.com/breaktheinternet/#join
======
smsm42
> Go wild and Tweet every 10 minutes until the FCC vote, change your job on
> LinkedIn to “Defending Net Neutrality” or say you’re “Married to the Open
> Internet” on Facebook. Do whatever you can to get _everyone’s_ attention

Sigh. I don't know who made that page but if they thing tweeting every 10
minutes or changing your job desc on LinkedIn will get _anyone_ 's attention,
yet more _everyone_ 's, it's not even wrong. It's just sad.

Moreover, _everyone_ 's attention would be completely useless, as everyone,
especially everyone who reads random twitter feeds of people that have time
for such shenanigans, have absolutely zero input to FCC decisions.

Of course, you can do all this and feel you contributed to a great struggle.
Or you might spend this time doing something useful. That's always an option.

~~~
Santosh83
> Or you might spend this time doing something useful. That's always an
> option.

Genuine question: what are some ways in which we can usefully contribute?
Seems like there's not a whole lot of options there... Especially for non-US
people (because right or wrong, a lot of countries tend to follow in the
footsteps of the US. If Net Neutrality officially dies there, it won't be long
before it dies in many other places in the world.)

I agree tweetstorms will probably result in a few articles and that'd be
that...

~~~
hedora
I’m switching my cellphone from Verizon to Credo. (Due to Verizon’s successful
lobbying campaign for this and other, related moves by the FCC).

Credo uses Verizon as its underlying network, for better, or worse. I know
exactly what coverage to expect, and I’ll be feeding less money to the beast.

(Credo is a politically-active progressive company, with a good privacy policy
and warrant transparency. Verizon has historically been none of these things,
other than “politically active”).

Also, I don’t have decent sonic.net or unwired ltd coverage at the house, but
if you are in the SF Bay Area, it’s worth taking a look at them (instead of
comcast/at&t).

~~~
smsm42
I used sonic.net. They advertised (and still do) $40/mo internet, but turned
out it's $40 plus phone taxes (they sell only internet+phone, no option to
decouple) + equipment rental + other stuff, so first it was $55/mo and then
they raised it to $65/mo - 2/3 higher than their advertised price. I switched
to other provider as soon as my contract lock-in expired. Oh yes, and they
dinged me for another month as a parting gesture, because apparently you can't
just cancel with them as with other providers, you have to wait a month to be
able to cancel. Nope, thanks, never again. I've heard a lot of horror stories
about comcast/at&t, but neither of them tried pull such tricks on me.

------
DoreenMichele
TLDR: Would anyone care to explain to me pros and cons of net neutrality and
Pai's plan?

Confession: I have never really understood what _net neutrality_ was about. So
I decided to look it up (again).[1] And also asked the internet what the FCC
plans to do to repeal it.[2]

I am interested in seeing actual thoughtful discussion of the issue instead of
mudslinging, pretty please. I am open to hearing arguments from both sides. I
just would like it served up without name calling and that sort of thing. You
know: Like HN encourages routinely.

Then maybe I can decide in some kind of semi informed way if I want to help
break the internet or not.

Thanks.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality)

2\. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
switch/wp/2017/11/21...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
switch/wp/2017/11/21/the-fcc-has-unveiled-its-plan-to-rollback-its-net-
neutrality-rules/?utm_term=.17e168e0bca3)

~~~
greenpizza13
It's really quite simple.

Having strong "net neutrality" means that all bits are equal. It's like
imagining that your ISP can't see where the bits go, they just come read the
meter. In fact, the analogy to your electric bill is quite apt.

Imagine if your electric company billed you more for using your toaster than
it did for using your refrigerator. Imagine if you had to pay to add devices
to your electric plan, or if you had to pay extra to be able to use full power
on your microwave. Because the electric company just "reads the meter" and
treats all "bits" of electricity as equal, you are free to use your
electricity as you choose. This means a guy in his garage can run a server and
start a business and break into markets (that actually requires both
"electricity neutrality" and "net neutrality."

The ramifications of having no net neutrality regulations range from simply
throttling certain websites, like netflix, in order to squeeze them for more
money, to charging to access certain web sites or selling "packages" of web
sites you can access. If that sounds terrifying to you, you're not alone.

~~~
esaym
But the "bits are equal" argument still doesn't work. You can easily run your
own VPN and then what?

~~~
Retric
Sorry, VPN's require business grade internet starting at 300$/month.

Nothing stops them from throttling VPN connections, or even all encrypted
traffic. Read up on The great firewall of China and how it really does stop
VPN connections. Further, it's much easier for ISP's to block stuff because
the first hop for every connection you make is through them.

~~~
corndoge
>even all encrypted traffic

Never will this happen.

~~~
nerpderp83
It is not difficult to block traffic you don't understand. Require end users
to only use plaintext protocols, even go so far as install your own certs to
MITM them. Make it a requirement for using the service.

------
himom
Net Neutrality

With: sites are as fast as the slowest network link in a path from a server to
your device.

Without: sites throttled or blocked completely, depending on the monetization,
political and/or any other bullshit whims of your internet/mobile service
provider.

———

Evil Mobile cell phone plan options:

Want PornHub? $10/GB and $5/minute at 0.5 Mbps max, priority 1

Want Netflix? $5/GB and $30/month at 3 Mbps max, priority 3

Want YouTube? $10/GB and $20/month at 1.5 Mbps max, priority 4

Want YouTube in HD? Add only an additional $5/GB and $10/month, priority 5

ford.com, vimeo.com, pepsi.com and reddit.com not available on any plan.

gm.com and coca-cola.com available without data charges.

Fees and taxes not included. Some restrictions apply. Some services may not be
available in all areas. Some content types will be prioritized over others,
and some will have no available bandwidth under certain conditions. See store
for details. Limited time offer.

------
DougN7
I wrote my senator who is in favor of the repeal and this is his response
(which I don't endorse - just forwarding as a view point):

"However, I do not agree with the FCC’s 2015 “Open Internet Order,” which
abruptly decided, on a partisan vote, to apply outdated, utility-style
regulations to the internet. This inappropriate regulatory framework was
intended for monopolistic telephone companies in the 1930s. Instead of leaving
the internet vulnerable to the consistent threat of interpretation and change
by a group of unelected FCC commissioners, Congress should craft bipartisan
legislation that preserves a fair and open internet. If the FCC reclassifies
internet service providers, legislation passed by Congress will make policies
governing the internet transparent and consistent; rather than subject to
change from one administration to the next. This is an issue of great
importance that requires a thoughtful, transparent debate on the best path
forward."

~~~
boomboomsubban
Unless your senator has sponsored or cosponsored a bill advancing this
platform, they are essentially lying to you. There is no need for the FCC to
repeal the 2015 act for Congress to set up laws on the issue.

------
UnpossibleJim
This could all be taken care of if the internet would be classified as a
utility like the telephone services. You can't do this sort of thing to a
telephone service, as it is a government clasdified utility, and while that
isn't my favorite thing in the world, if you did it to the basic levels of it,
the laws governing it would (should) still apply to the higher levels if it.
Won't happen with an obvious puppet put in as head of the FCC and a rubber
stamp house and senate who placate a president with a 32% approval rating.

~~~
ktta
There was quite a bit of discussion last year about making the internet a
utility. I don't remember all the details, but it has to go with how it will
be treated federally, with taxes etc. and will cost more eventually if not.

I'm not too convinced either way though, so there's that.

~~~
UnpossibleJim
The best argument I heard against was the stifling of innovation and it
turning into land lines, which turned into useless monotech who refused to
change without a form 37-41B, which most certainly did not exist. I can't
argue that, as they're all hypotheticals, as all of these exist in a world of
hypotheticals, including my original statement, so these types of discussions
turn into sticky wickets super quick.

------
xg15
I appreciate the effort - but the internet is not the US. I don't think all
the international users will be so pleased to be interrupted by nag-screens
calling them to action for what, in the end is a domestic issue of the US.

~~~
rayalez
If US loses net neutrality, people from other countries are also fucked, other
governments are likely to follow the US path.

Besides let's be honest, 90% of the useful and interesting internet sites,
companies, innovation originate in the US(from my personal experience). If it
changes, that's bad for everyone.

It will affect startups as well. If you're interested in building an online
business based in US, you don't want your site to get throttled.

~~~
NationOfJoe
besides a slippery slope argument is the a technical argument why it will be
worse outside of the US? does the change only effect the last mile internet
consumers or will this effect backbone connections as well?

i have seen a lot of stuff about the proposed FCC changes but every time
someone asks about how this will effect non-US internet users the reply is
always "because the USA is the best and your government will copy us"

Don't get me wrong i competently agree with the need for net neutrality, ISP's
should not be allowed to throttle or dictate which data you can access or at
what speed. I just want to understand the issue better and how it effects the
global internet community.

I also don't think we should limit action to just the US region, if a website
wants to protest let them do it for everyone to see, it might help when the
fight starts in what ever country is next (apparently) but they do risk
alienating global consumers who frankly don't care about US politics.

~~~
bo1024
I don't know about the slippery slope argument, but there are lots of economic
arguments why people and companies outside the USA should be worried.

BBC, Al-Jazeera, any kind of non-USA news site should be terrified of losing
US business. They will be an obvious choice to not include in "default"
bundles.

Any non-US video or music startup (imagine one competing with Netflix) will
have no chance of getting off the ground in the USA, one of the biggest
potential markets in the world.

More nebulous, but a bunch of startups in the USA that would have otherwise
succeeded and brought innovation or service to other countries, will not be
squashed a fail.

------
legostormtroopr
The best way to break the internet has already been done. It was when the CEO
of CloudFlare proved that he had the ability to remove a site from the
internet, simply because he didn't like it. When he did a lot of people
applauded it by saying "but they are Nazis" \- which is true - but isn't a
defense of what he did.

Net Neutrality is dead - either by the FCC mandating it, or by Silicon Valley
choosing which viewpoints are "allowed" within their walled gardens, which are
quickly taking up more and more of the internet.

~~~
danans
Whether or not you believe him, the CEO claimed [1] he dropped them because
they falsely claimed they had his support, not because of the content of their
website.

1\. [https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-
stormer/](https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/)

~~~
caseysoftware
It's worth noting that was the public statement.. the internal email[1] was
less altruistic:

> _" This was my decision. Our terms of service reserve the right for us to
> terminate users of our network at our sole discretion. My rationale for
> making this decision was simple: the people behind the Daily Stormer are
> assholes and I’d had enough._

> _Let me be clear: this was an arbitrary decision. It was different than what
> I’d talked talked with our senior team about yesterday. I woke up this
> morning in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet. "_

1 - [https://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-
to...](https://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to-neo-nazi-
site-1797915295)

~~~
brailsafe
Wow. That is bold. In most ways I think that is an insane abuse of power. In
others...I kind of respect it. Effectively it amounts to probably nothing, but
for a period of time that's a proper GTFO

------
DavideNL
Offtopic:

When i read "break the internet" i was kind of hoping for something more
radical, like the screensaver software Lycos made back in the days, to fight
spammers by DDOS: "Make Love Not Spam",
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycos_Europe#Make_Love_Not_Spa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycos_Europe#Make_Love_Not_Spam)

~~~
DoreenMichele
Or whatshername who is famous for being famous and her infamous pic.

------
jerkstate
My suggestion for how to "Break the Internet" \- Disable congestion control on
your TCP stack!

[https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc896](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc896)

------
nathantotten
I’m all for activism, but it’s pretty clear that Pai doesn’t care what “the
people” think. He isn’t an elected official, he doesn’t need to raise money,
he is guaranteed a few board seats or consulting positions after his term that
will pay millions. I fear there is no stopping this one. We need to spend our
efforts on the long term - state laws, 2018/20/22+ elections - rather than
burning energy on a lost cause. The battle is lost, but the war can be won.

~~~
dwaltrip
Pai doesn't operate in a vacuum.

~~~
ianamartin
Yeah, but Trump does. Pai's existence in that role depends on Trump leaving
him there. And Trump gives no fucks about popular opinion.

------
rdtsc
Sure Break the Internet but also remember protesting the wrong way -- annoying
people who don't have an interest in the topic will turn them against the
cause.

------
mesozoic
I'm not sure changing your facebook or twitter avatar counts as activism?

~~~
brailsafe
What about writing open letters on Medium?

------
ryanwaggoner
I may be alone, but this feels completely hopeless. This administration is the
most corrupt, craven, and citizen-hostile in our history. Net neutrality is
hardly the biggest problem facing America, and they keep doing much worse
things, almost out of spite. And Congress has proven to be utterly feckless in
their duty to hold the executive branch accountable. So I guess I just don't
really see the point of engaging, because they. do. not. care. about. us.

At the end of the day, we need to flip control of Congress. I don't think
anything else will work.

~~~
marcoperaza
Have you considered that maybe there are thoughtful reasons why people might
disagree with your policy views? If you really can't understand conservative
policy aside from it being "corrupt, craven, citizen-hostile and spiteful",
then I don't think you're giving the issues an objective analysis.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
My view on this administration is about more than their policy positions.

For the record, I grew up conservative, my whole family is, I'm fairly
libertarian in my views, and I didn't vote for either major party due to their
policy positions. I understand conservative policy perfectly well.

~~~
username223
> "corrupt, craven, citizen-hostile and spiteful"

For the record, I'm not much different from a stereotypical commie pinko in my
views, but I agree that this administration is cynical and "for sale" on a
whole new level, and would vastly prefer dealing with actual libertarians or
conservatives. I'm actually somewhat conservative myself, in the sense of "if
it ain't broke, don't fix it." But pick your favorite issue, and there's a
good chance that the Trump folk are on the wrong side.

------
binarynate
Call your senators!
[https://www.callmycongress.com/](https://www.callmycongress.com/)

------
ksk
Is there any difference between being able to pick and choose TV channels
through a cable provider, and being able to pick and pick and choose services
via ISPs?

Seems like a lot of people are against bundling when it comes to cable
providers, but it seems to be the same arguments would apply to being against
NN.

------
amelius
Where is Google standing in all of this?

In my view: not doing anything == being evil.

------
notadoc
Why aren't all of the major tech companies pouring money into a swarm of
lobbyists to stop the repealing of net neutrality if they are concerned it
will be bad for business?

~~~
thephyber
> major tech companies

The shoestring startups are the ones that will be hurt, not deep pocketed tech
companies.

Major tech companies already live in an environment of parasites that sue them
daily like non-practicing entities + patent infringements. This will just
become another "fee" they pay.

Plus, Ajit Pai has already been seated as FCC commissioner. He already has a
Republican majority on the commission. It's basically a foregone conclusion
and lobbying Congress now is too little too late. If tech companies with clout
were going to do this, they would have done it years ago.

------
baud147258
Well, I hope the FCC vote goes through, just to annoy all the opposants to
Trump. And since I don't live in the USA, but in a state without net
neutrality, but with an healthy competition in the sector, with strong pro-
consumer laws, it won't affect me much.

Still, in my opinion, the current situation is not freedom vs corporation, but
more an opposition between old internet companies (ISPs) against the more
recent ones (google, twitter...)

~~~
shak77
Same. Annoying liberals is good. Annoying pro-NN drones is also good. I enjoy
living in a country without NN. So all is good.

------
singularity2001
These are great suggestions. It would be even better to add a link to
greenpizza13's explanation WHY the free internet is so important (for your
untechnical facebook friends).

Some years ago Mr. Schwarz died defending the internet, don't let him die
twice.

~~~
mr_spothawk
Wasn't Schwarz freedomizing literature?

~~~
erulabs
Yes, he was making papers freely available online. Papers that are created by
the U.S. Academia system, which (in my opinion) is a highly regulated /
controlled / subsidized ecosystem of institutions.

As far as I know Schwarz never campaigned for the Department of Education to
mandate "open access" to papers. Using Schwarz' name here to imply he would be
-for government regulation- seems extremely wrongheaded. Using any deceased
persons life as an aid to your own cause seems extremely wrongheaded too, but
I suppose the major religions of the earth all rest on that very tactic...

------
falcolas
So, I think we, as a community, have just been nerd sniped, big time.

Every time the topic of net neutrality comes up, there's a top level,
completely reasonable sounding post that says "why is this bad", and
completely derails the vast majority of the discussion away from the topic at
hand and into arguing back and forth about what is reasonable and what isn't.

Articles then disappear as these discussions trigger HN's flamewar detectors,
quite effectively burying the topic. For example, right now there's 140+
comments on a story with fewer than 100 upvotes. I mean, just look at the
number of responses the "Would anyone care to explain to me pros and cons" has
spawned, and not a single one talking about the actual article.

Perhaps I'm just paranoid, but derailing topics with arguments is a well
explored method of stopping productive discussions.

TL;DR: Someone, at this point, who claims they have never "understood" net
neutrality and wants a "thoughtful discussion" is lying to us in an attempt to
derail discussions.

[EDIT] No, this is not a charitable view of someone's potentially pure
motivations. But after a few dozen iterations of the same thing again and
again, you stop being charitable. Sorry.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15852481](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15852481)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15750166](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15750166)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15749926](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15749926)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15749674](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15749674)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15749642](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15749642)

Edit 2: Moderated out. Guess I should have expected it; these kinds of posts
do technically follow the rules while calling it out does not.

~~~
guns
> TL;DR: Someone, at this point, who claims they have never "understood" net
> neutrality and wants a "thoughtful discussion" is lying to us in an attempt
> to derail discussions.

This is not a charitable opinion. Reading old threads on NANOG¹ has convinced
me that net neutrality is more nuanced and technical than the "people vs big-
ISP" narrative advanced by campaigns such as the OP. If anything, the reddit
and battleforthenet bandwagons have created a hostile environment for actual
debate.

¹ AFAICT, the majority NANOG opinion on net neutrality is that it doesn't
actually address the underlying issue that prevents natural competition in the
ISP market.

~~~
DoreenMichele
I will add that anyone who ever wonders why women/blacks/whomever may not feel
comfortable here, this * type comment would be one reason why. It presumes
malice for asking an honest question and then talks trash about the asker. If
you don't already know what "insiders"/the majority here know and think what
they think, god help you for trying to find out.

There are plenty of ways to comment on the concern of the discussion being
derailed by noob questions that don't involve personal attacks, assumptions of
malice aforethought, etc.

* I mean the GP: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15910790](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15910790)

