
We are throttling the FCC to dialup modem speeds until they pay us for bandwidth - kyledrake
https://neocities.org/blog/the-fcc-is-now-rate-limited
======
valarauca1
I would really like to see larger corporations like google, facebook, reddit,
4chan, etc. do this to anyone connection from a government end point for a day
or two.

Just make them see how bad removing net neutrality would be.

~~~
adrr
I don't get why these companies just don't charge the cable companies for the
right to carry their content. TV stations charge cable companies, cable
company has a choice to not carry it but risk losing customers because they
lack content. Content is king in this war .

~~~
AnthonyMouse
Because "content is king" is a load of malarkey. Not having Netflix on Comcast
causes damage to both Netflix and Comcast, but it causes _less_ damage to
Comcast because their customers have no viable alternatives whereas Netflix
customers do, and the damage to Comcast is offset by the gains made when
Netflix customers use Comcast's video services instead of Netflix.

~~~
mikeash
I'm not sure that's an argument against "content is king". The thing is,
Netflix produces almost no content. They have one self-produced show? For
everything else, they're merely a distributor, and one of many.

If Netflix had a lot of popular original content, they would have a lot more
leverage here. For an example of that, see how much HBO gets paid for letting
the cable companies carry _their_ stuff.

~~~
rayiner
I don't get Netflix's business model. It's so thin. Distribute other peoples'
content from other peoples' servers over other peoples' wires.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
They're an aggregator. I can pay Netflix one monthly fee and watch content
from multiple different content providers. Customers going direct to the
content providers would require dealing with them each individually, paying
multiple bills, etc. The convenience of that gets them customers, the
existence of paying customers gives them leverage when negotiating for
exclusive licenses with content providers. Locking up exclusive licenses gets
them more customers and creates entry barriers for competitors, repeat ad
infinitum.

It's kind of like saying: "I don't get eBay's business model. It's so thin.
Distribute other peoples' products from other peoples' facilities using other
peoples' trucks."

~~~
rayiner
EBay's trick is that they connect (big number) buyers with (big number)
sellers, and take advantage of network effects to stay ahead of the
competition. In Netflix's line of business, the number of sellers is very
small and well-known (a handful of large studios own almost all the valuable
content).

Exclusive licenses do indeed keep them ahead of competitors, but why would
content owners give them an exclusive license? Netflix's leverage over content
creators is their customer base, but that seems so thin to me when it's so
easy to just sign up for another streaming site. My wife and I have a few
subscriptions (Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Prime), and if say Paramount started
their own service, it wouldn't be a big deal to add another one to the list.
It seems like the studios have all of the leverage in that relationship, and a
lot of incentive to cut out the middle-man.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Exclusive licenses do indeed keep them ahead of competitors, but why would
> content owners give them an exclusive license?

In exchange for money?

> EBay's trick is that they connect (big number) buyers with (big number)
> sellers, and take advantage of network effects to stay ahead of the
> competition. In Netflix's line of business, the number of sellers is very
> small and well-known (a handful of large studios own almost all the valuable
> content).

> My wife and I have a few subscriptions (Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Prime), and if
> say Paramount started their own service, it wouldn't be a big deal to add
> another one to the list.

For Paramount to release their own service, they would have to pull their
content from Hulu, Netflix and Amazon or no one would have any reason to use
it. So they would have to spend big money on marketing only to regain the
revenue lost by pulling their content from the existing distributors. Then
they would have to build their own distribution infrastructure, code and
maintain apps for different brands of smartphone and smart TV, etc. Why would
they want to incur all that expense instead of just trading content for cash
with the entities that have already done it?

~~~
rayiner
I think you miss my point. If I'm Viacom, I want to capture as much of the
user revenue as I can. And I hold all the cards--the user is very particular
about watching my content, but probably not that attached to Netflix being the
distributor. So it's in my incentive to extract as much of Netflix's margin as
I can in return of granting an exclusive contract. If they balk, I can always
set up my own distribution system, because I already have a huge marketing
infrastructure, and because Amazon is renting out the actual
hardware/bandwidth wholesale. Or I can license my content to an upstart
Netflix competitor that charges (small dollar value) less. If customer's
aren't particularly attached to Netflix per se, this competitor will quickly
see users switch. Netflix is in a much weaker position. It can't easily
replace my content if I pull it.

I guess it works out for Netflix if users place a really high value in being
able to get all their content from one place. At least watching my friends,
who subscribe to a bunch of streaming services, I don't know if that
assumption is a really great one.

~~~
digikata
That might be true, but you're discounting how hard it its to actually
distribute video well over net to multiple devices. If Viacom goes it's own
way, it has to regenerate all that capability.

Also, as as user, I've stayed far away from video content hosted by the big
studios. They can't seem to keep their own executives from crippling access to
their product - it almost seems like they need a Netflix to prevent themselves
from overreaching to the point that it's a big customer negative.

Netflix isn't in all that weak a position if a given content holder withholds
rights. For me anyway, Netflix already offers programming in excess of my time
to consume it. As long as other quality content is available, then other
content providers will end up getting that revenue.

------
junto
Cloudflare need a one click opt-in button in their client admin, to turn on
such a feature for anyone to do with promoting anti-net-neutrality.

I'd enable that setting and I imagine lots of others would. I imagine
Cloudflare already have a lot of sites under their control.

~~~
arh68
Who's going to maintain the uh, _brownlist_?

~~~
junto
Crowd-sourced? Shall we start one somewhere? Let's start with Comcast's
headquarters... :-)

------
adventured
Why is it so commonly glossed over that Wheeler was nominated by President
Obama?

If this were the Bush White House, there would be endless press stories (and
rightfully so) about cronyism and how Bush & Co. were in the pockets of big
business. Meanwhile, the Obama DOJ is shortly going to allow a Comcast merger
that will lock up the cable industry under a monopoly. The same Comcast that
donates overwhelmingly to the Democratic Party, and whose CEO is an Obama
golfing buddy.

Wheeler isn't the problem. The Obama White House is, they're directing all of
this.

How is it so many people are missing what's obviously occurring here.

~~~
eddiedunn
Wheeler might not be the problem. But the Obama White house isn't the root of
the problem, either. The American two party duocracy is. Sadly, it seems that
the only viable option is to vote for either of two equally corrupt parties.

~~~
couchand
And in turn, the duocracy isn't the root of the problem, but rather our first-
past-the-post voting system. Sadly, it seems the only viable option is to cry
into my beer.

------
__david__
I'd throttle the FCC. What _is_ their internal IP block?

~~~
benjarrell
FCC (NET-165-135-0-0-1) 165.135.0.0 - 165.135.255.255

FCCNET2 (NET-192-133-125-0-1) 192.133.125.0 - 192.133.125.255

FCCNET (NET-192-104-54-0-1) 192.104.54.0 - 192.104.54.255

FCC2-126-30 (NET-4-21-126-0-1) 4.21.126.0 - 4.21.126.255

FCC (NET6-2620-610-1) 2620:0:610:: - 2620:0:610:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF

SPRINTLINK (NET-208-23-64-0-1) 208.23.64.0 - 208.23.64.127

TBD (NET6-2600-803-230-1) 2600:803:230:: -
2600:803:230:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF

Q0503-65-125-25-64 (NET-65-125-25-64-1) 65.125.25.64 - 65.125.25.127

~~~
surge
Why stop there, throttle the Congress and White House IP's for being
complicit. I'd throttle every US government IP block myself.

~~~
atoponce
Let's start getting a list together then.

~~~
vimes1984
hows the list going?

------
wil421
This sounds like a great plan but I think the FCC probably cares as much about
access to neocities as they actually care about the consumers.

If we could find a 3rd party the FCC depends on for their IT infrastructure
and then limit that pipe, it might have some effect.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
Maybe it would be better to make it the whole federal government rather than
just the FCC? That would at least get more people complaining (especially if
more than just this site would do it).

~~~
wil421
I love it. If the govt can shut itself down like last year then the people
should be able deny them services.

------
bcRIPster
The more I think about it, the only way you're going to get movement on this
is to get people pissed off, and for that to happen, someone like Google would
need to apply this throttle to EVERYONE along with a link to a page where they
could mock pay to have their speed restored. Now that would get some
attention.

------
digikata
It would be a great fundraising idea for an awareness day where providers to
the FCC sold off "fast lane" bandwidth to protesters to the point it choked
off their link. Proceeds to go to EFF, et al...

Heck, sell off Whitehouse and congressional network "fast lane" bandwidth too.

------
mful
This is a clever stunt, though I'm not sure how effective this strategy would
be even on a more popular site. It seems unlikely that this form of protest
would reach a large enough audience, given the relatively small number people
who are directly affected, to gain any traction.

EDIT: Grammar

~~~
AimHere
Well maybe there's room for mass action along these lines.

If, some ISP, say, "Bombcast", decides to throttle some website, say "Slacker
News" as part of an extortion plan, can't we have every other content-
providing internet service - be it Wikipedia, reddit, AirBnB, Facebook, maybe
even google, if they're on this side of the fight - throttle all of Bombcast's
customers right back.

Suddenly half of Bombcast's customers find their favourite sites moving at
unacceptable speeds, with a black border around the edges and an annoying
black popup window telling them exactly _why_ their website access is being
throttled, and recommending they switch to some less heinous ISP instead.
Naturally, hit the FCC, any part of the US legislature that voted against Net
Neutrality and so forth into the bargain. Force customers to choose between
the faceless drones who laid the cable to their door ten years ago and send
them a bill every month, or the guys who provide all the shiny internet stuffs
that they enjoy for more or less free.

Might some sort of content provider's union be quite powerful? Because of who
they are, they have a head start at winning hearts and minds so they'd have
leeway when it comes to taking action that might alienate their public.

~~~
icehawk219
The problem with this plan is that Bombcast couldn't care less. They have a
monopoly so what are their customers going to do? Switch to a non-existent
ISP? And thanks to the death of Net Neutrality Bombcast can even go as far as
to say "Hey Netflix, see this competitor of ours? Your rate just went up 250%
if their customers are allowed on your site." (and for those thinking this
would run afoul of anti-trust regulations you are 100% correct and I would
LOVE to live in a universe where the government cared enough to do something
about it, but I just can't believe that that would actually happen).

ISPs have proven time and time again that they can't be bothered to care about
their customers. So while I would like to see your idea come to fruition the
only people who really lose are the customers. The ISP doesn't care, the FCC
doesn't care, the rest of the government doesn't care, even the people don't
care enough to do anything substantial.

~~~
reitanqild
A gentle pop over telling them the phone number to customer support?

Next day the email address to helpdesk, next email address to executives etc

------
jebblue
I really wanted to check out their web site but it's on a CIDR banned in my
firewall due to heavy spammer activity:

[http://www.tcpiputils.com/browse/ip-
address/198.27.81.179](http://www.tcpiputils.com/browse/ip-
address/198.27.81.179)

------
lotsofmangos
Nice idea, would probably work if a big player like google or facebook did it.

------
rynes
$1,000 is way too low - any lobbyist has more than that in his pants for
"walking around money." They spend more than that taking a Govt. Official to
lunch.

~~~
walden42
No, they shouldn't be able to pay to get full service back. Paying any sum of
money does not come from their pockets, but from taxpayer pockets. They'd pay
any price and not care one bit.

------
brokentone
Can we open source this as a server module of some variety?

~~~
cordite
What, and have a centralized registry of IP's to slow down?

------
ohashi
So how would you implement this on other sites? People started a campaign with
JS snippet last time for SOPA. Would this be an apache/nginx line? I'm
actually not sure how I would go about throttling IPs from my server.

------
gabriel34
What is it about the telecom business that makes it so propense to local
monopolies?

------
viggity
The internet has flourished because of a lack of regulation, not despite a
lack of regulation. Let the companies duke it out and keep the government out
of it.

If I were in netflix's shoes I'd just charge each comcast customer enough
extra to cover the surcharge and mark it clearly on their bill. Let comcast
deal with the deluge of complaints to their call centers.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> If I were in netflix's shoes I'd just charge each comcast customer enough
> extra to cover the surcharge and mark it clearly on their bill. Let comcast
> deal with the deluge of complaints to their call centers.

Nothing is more clear than the fact that Comcast cares nothing about customer
service. American ISPs regularly appear at the bottom of customer satisfaction
surveys. They just don't care.

Putting the charge on the customer's Netflix bill might be effective if it led
the customer to conclude that switching ISPs in order to remove the charge
would be cost effective. But when the customer has no viable alternative ISP,
all it does is make Netflix more expensive. Since presumably Netflix is
already charging the profit-maximizing price for its service, adding an
additional charge would do nothing for Netflix but exceed the profit-
maximizing price and cause it to lose money.

~~~
rayiner
The "no viable alternative ISP's" thing really isn't true as often as people
on this site make it out to be. DSL is almost always available if cable is
available. And some cities don't raise stupid regulatory barriers and have
some real competition. In my zip code in Chicago, we had Comcast, RCN, AT&T
U-Verse (with FTTN). Heck, there's a ton of FIOS households in the shadow of
Comcast Center in Philadelphia.

If you really just have one ISP in a substantially-sized city, go blame your
municipal government because it's almost always their fault. I just have
Comcast or 1.5 mbps DSL here in Wilmington, and it's 100% the government's
fault. Verizon wanted to build FIOS here, but the city killed the deal with
ridiculous demands: [http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Dont-Actually-Demand-
Anyt...](http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Dont-Actually-Demand-Anything-Of-
Verizon-Or-You-Wont-Get-FiOS-107751).

~~~
AnthonyMouse
I don't think you can put _all_ the blame on local governments. A huge part of
the problem is structural. Having two ISPs isn't actually competition.
Conscious parallelism and other signaling mechanisms allow them to collude
implicitly without violating antitrust laws. If you have two alternatives but
both of them behave identically (e.g. both charge Netflix for peering) then it
isn't really much of a choice.

In order to have enough competition that the free market can behave as it does
in capitalist philosophy you would need to have a dozen or more separate ISPs
to choose from. But building that many competing networks is a waste of
resources, and to recover their costs each ISP would then have to charge
$500+/month because the cost of the network (which has significant costs that
are per mile rather than per customer) would have to be amortized over far
fewer customers.

The way you can get the desired level of competition without building
duplicative infrastructure is local loop unbundling (with a prohibition on the
entity providing the local loop competing for customers against the entities
leasing it). But that isn't any less of a regulatory burden than network
neutrality.

~~~
rayiner
You don't need a dozen or more competitors to have a reasonable level of
competition. You just need a few, targeting the right market segments. Cities
are almost exclusively responsible for preventing those few competitors from
arising.

Here is (I believe) the current franchise agreement between Wilmington, DE and
Comcast:
[http://www.wilmingtonde.gov/docs/1320/3716Rev1.pdf](http://www.wilmingtonde.gov/docs/1320/3716Rev1.pdf).

Note Section 1(F), that it's a non-exclusive franchise. Then note 2(A)-(C).
2(C) states that Comcast must offer service in any part of the city with at
least 40 residences per linear mile of cable plant, without cost-sharing with
residents. It also extracts almost $2 million in grants, on top of the
franchise fee, which is 5% of gross.

Basic cable here in Wilmington is $13.50/month (which is usually regulated by
state law). This is usually a regulated rate set by state law. Serving the
least dense linear mile at basic rates therefore offers a potential maximum
revenue of $540/month. Out of that comes recouping your capital costs,
marketing, bill collection, etc.

Wilmington is a city of ~70k people, and about 2/3 of the land area is in
census districts that have a poverty rate in excess of 30%, and a good part of
the downtown core is in districts that have a poverty rate of around 50%.
These are not people buying $150/month cable packages.

Now, say you're an enterprising new VC-funded fiber internet company. You
think: you know, there's a few areas in the western part of the city and
downtown that have the right combination of income level and density to
support premium internet service profitably. If the city let you build in just
those areas, it'd be a huge boon to competition against Comcast, because it
hits them among the subset of customers that actually justify their business
in the city. This is true even though only a relatively small number of
customers may have an alternative to Comcast. You don't get perfect
competition this way, but it weeds out a lot of the obviously bad behavior.

Instead, the city says: if you want to operate here at all, you have to
operate in all the marginally profitable or outright unprofitable areas. So
the returns aren't there, the VC's throw their money elsewhere, and Comcast
gets to keep their de-facto monopoly.

~~~
danielweber
Out of curiosity, if I were to start connecting residences with fiber on my
own, at which point would I start to hit regulatory burdens?

~~~
rayiner
Depends entirely on the local law, but you probably hit the first major
roadblock when you need to lay cable on a public right of way. Some creative
ISP's have been using line-of-sight microwave technology to overcome that
limitation: [http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/two-brothers-built-their-
ow...](http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/two-brothers-built-their-own-internet-
service-provider-on-the-roof-of-a-supermarket-in-brooklyn).

(Not legal advice.)

------
wfjackson
Isn't Neocities mostly text? In that case 28.8kbps is not going to be too much
lag time. If that's the case they should add some latency instead, like 5 to
10 sec. That gets annoying quickly.

------
nobody_nowhere
Cute.

