
How to throttle the FCC to dial up modem speeds - mrsaint
https://gist.github.com/kyledrake/e6046644115f185f7af0
======
PaulHoule
I'd like to see a law that government offices can only have an internet
connection as fast as the slowest constituent.

~~~
minikites
Agreed and also this should be true for the pay of elected officials and
corporate executives.

~~~
eloff
Good luck attracting and retaining talent if you can't pay market prices for
executives.

~~~
KingMob
I doubt they should be so worried. Studies show no link between executive pay
and executive performance:
[http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/02/focus-0](http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/02/focus-0)

~~~
bostonpete
I think this is showing a lack of a link between executive pay and _stock_
performance. It could be the case (though I don't know how you'd measure it)
that executive performance improved with pay but just had no discernible
impact on stock performance.

~~~
niels_olson
I don't think most executives do it for the money. Money is just a way of
keeping score.

------
smcl
From the comments

> Should a simple header/corner banner be injected also?

This would be good, particularly if it was served from a connection without
this throttling.

~~~
TheCraiggers
I'm actually against this idea, for the simple reason that if that page ends
up being delivered via cache somewhere, I don't want them thinking "Well, it
says I was throttled, but it actually wasn't that bad. I don't see what all
the fuss is about."

~~~
mseebach
You could inject anti-caching headers, too. Should, indeed, since the page
will have been customised for the user.

------
dahart
The pictures comment lead me to Tom's list of speeches, the latest of which
directly contradicts the claims being made here. Are we _sure_ the FCC is the
bad guy?

[http://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-tom-wheeler-remarks-
nct...](http://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-tom-wheeler-remarks-ncta)

"Let me be clear. If someone acts to divide the Internet between “haves” and
“have-nots,” we will use every power at our disposal to stop it."

"Prioritizing some traffic by forcing the rest of the traffic into a congested
lane won’t be permitted under any proposed Open Internet rule. We will not
allow some companies to force Internet users into a slow lane so that others
with special privileges can have superior service."

~~~
inh3
"Actions speak louder than words."

The FCC could put the money where their mouth is by re-classifying ISPs as
"Title II - Common Carriers."

~~~
dragonwriter
> "Actions speak louder than words."

I think the FCC's repeated adoption of pro-neutrality regulations are very
clear actions. The people who keep knocking them down are the federal courts,
and then the FCC keeps setting up new ones framed slightly differently but
aimed at achieving the same ends. So, yeah, actions speak louder than words --
and the FCC's actions on net neutrality are pretty consistently in favor of it
(just as the words of the majority of commissioners, including the current
chair, are.)

The whole "fast lane" idea is based on a couple news outlets reporting of
claims of anonymous sources with unspecified qualifications about their
interpretation of the content of an unreleased proposal (note also that the
original articles weren't actually _consistent_ on their claims, either, as
one claimed that the proposal would include a provision allowing for "fast
lanes", and one suggesting that the proposal would allow it implicitly because
it didn't address the practice at all), claims which have been emphatically
denied on the record by Wheeler, whose proposal it is.

Once they've actually published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for public
comment, there will be a chance for informed discussion.

------
IgorPartola
Can anyone shed some light on what the goal here is. I am all for messing with
people for no good reason in subtle ways they do not understand but the author
clearly has a purpose here? Is this to teach the FCC about net neutrality?

~~~
icehawk219
That's the general idea. Show them what life will be like if you're on the
internet slow lane in the hopes they'll wake up and realize what it really
means. Especially since the branding has become that they really want to
create a "fast lane" which actually doesn't sound like such a bad idea until
you realize the reality is the exact opposite.

~~~
twoodfin
_Show them what life will be like if you 're on the internet slow lane in the
hopes they'll wake up and realize what it really means._

How do we get from "the kind of deal Netflix struck with Comcast will continue
to be legal in the future" to "Comcast will start serving web sites to
customers paying $50/month at dial-up speeds"?

It's nonsense. Why have so many ostensibly smart people bought into it?

~~~
jdmichal
Because Netflix only struck a deal with Comcast because too little Netflix
traffic could pass through Comcast. That doesn't hurt Comcast at all, because
they have monopoly. It does hurt Netflix, because now they have a bunch of
subscribers who can't effectively use their service. People who can't
effectively use a service tend to stop paying for it.

So, given that these kinds of deals only happen when service is slow: What's
the best way for Comcast to continue to be able to pull these fees in from
large services? You're a smart person; I'm sure you can figure it out. Hint:
Comcast has not exactly shown reluctance to participate in "traffic shaping"
in the past.

~~~
twoodfin
_Comcast has not exactly shown reluctance to participate in "traffic shaping"
in the past._

The only references to Comcast traffic shaping I can find are related to
BitTorrent. Did you have something else in mind? And again, what does that
have to do with a supposed future of browsing websites at dialup speeds?

~~~
charonn0
> The only references to Comcast traffic shaping I can find are related to
> BitTorrent.

Isn't that enough?

------
thisjustinm
I like this concept but think about how the user at the FCC will perceive
this. When your internet is slow who do you blame?

1 - The site, i.e. "Yahoo must be getting a lot of traffic today."

2 - Your ISP. ie. "Comcast must be overloaded in my area right now."

3 - Your equipment. i.e. "Maybe I need to restart my wifi / PC"

And then, somewhere way down that list you maybe, just maybe think - "I wonder
if there is an organized effort by a small group of developers to set up their
sites in such a way that my particular IP here at the FCC is having its speed
throttled."

I agree that we need to spread the word about what is at stake with Net
Neutrality but I'm not sure if this is the best way.

~~~
Florin_Andrei
They know already. Their techies know. They are on Reddit and HN just like
everyone else.

------
m0dest
I could see this backfiring. If this gains any momentum at all, the media
response from the ISPs will be obvious: "We appreciate that web developers are
embracing their right to throttle certain customers. We're very happy that the
FCC has decided to grant ISPs those same privileges."

------
cddotdotslash
If you want to simulate this in JavaScript for all users, I wrote this short
snippet:
[https://gist.github.com/matthewdfuller/69f990f58f1e0850443e](https://gist.github.com/matthewdfuller/69f990f58f1e0850443e)

------
bavcyc
Cringely has a post on peering issues, slight allusion to the FCC issue :
[http://www.cringely.com/2014/05/06/14890/](http://www.cringely.com/2014/05/06/14890/)

------
kemmis
If you want to throttle IIS, I think the IIS Media Pack Bit Rate Throttling
module might be a good place to start:
[http://blogs.iis.net/vsood/archive/2008/03/14/bit-rate-
throt...](http://blogs.iis.net/vsood/archive/2008/03/14/bit-rate-throttling-
is-now-released.aspx)

------
johnjwang
This doesn't seem like the best outlet to protest the FCC's stance on net
neutrality. The people that are going to be affected most by this (if it does
work) are going to be the rank and file at the FCC who have no decision making
power and only hold a job there. The FCC has 2k employees and most of them
don't even work in the relevant bureau that deals with net neutrality.

When news outlets say the "FCC's plan for net neutrality", what they really
mean is the plan that Tom Wheeler and his office put together. You're going to
hurt the wrong people if you do this and it succeeds. Why not write to your
Congressperson instead or think of something that doesn't adversely affect a
ton of people who don't have anything to do with the net neutrality debate?

~~~
dragonwriter
> This doesn't seem like the best outlet to protest the FCC's stance on net
> neutrality

Its not a protest of the FCC's stance on net neutrality, its a protest of a
media _rumor_ of the stance of the FCC chair in a proposal under discussion at
the FCC that has been denied by the FCC chair. Literally _no one_ at the FCC
(well, except maybe the minority on the commission that were overtly opposed
to net neutrality before the recent Open Internet Order was struck down) has
publicly endorsed anything like the rumored position.

> When news outlets say the "FCC's plan for net neutrality", what they really
> mean is the plan that Tom Wheeler and his office put together.

But when they say it would "allow a fast lane", they mean that a couple of
news outlets had anonymous sources that claimed something like that (which
other outlets have grabbed and reported the fact that other outlets have
reported it), and Wheeler himself has rather forcefully denied it.

Now we've got some news outlets claiming, based on the original leaks, and not
paying attention to later information, that the "fast lane" is part of the FCC
proposal, and others, based on assuming the original leaks were completely
accurate, but trying to reconcile the later denial into a coherent narrative,
that the FCC "reversed course" on the "fast lane" proposal.

~~~
pdabbadabba
Well, yes and no. The FCC is considering a proposed rulemaking that would
require ISPs to disclose their policies to consumers, ban blocking of legal
content, and prohibit "commercially unreasonable" traffic discrimination.
[http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/openinternet.pdf](http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/openinternet.pdf)

The specific regulations, of course, have not been drafted, but if these are
the only three policies the FCC has in mind, it seems reasonable to infer that
the ban on "commercially unreasonable" discrimination, implies that
"commercially reasonable" discrimination is permissible. The devil, of course,
is in the definition of ""commercially unreasonable." But it seems like there
is good reason to worry that this would permit something like a fast lane and,
thus, it seems like a good idea for those of us who think this is a bad idea
to begin mobilizing.

That all said, I do think that throttling the entire FCC to dialup speeds is a
stupid idea. As others have pointed out, this will harm many more people than
are actually involved in the regulatory decision in any way, and is unlikely
to make a difference in the thinking of the actual regulators in the face of
the reams of actually well-thought-out comments they will be receiving from
lawyers and internet policy experts.

It also ignores the fact that the "slow-lane," if it does come to exist, is
very unlikely to be at anything like dialup speeds. Given the FCC's overall
commitment to increased broadband penetration (which has been amply
demonstrated, I think) I doubt that anyone at the FCC would be inclined to
find such discrimination "commercially reasonable."

If you really want to have an impact, maybe you should band together and write
a comment letter.

~~~
dragonwriter
> But it seems like there is good reason to worry that this would permit
> something like a fast lane

There might be reason to worry that it could, but to assume that it will and
react as if that were an established fact rather than a possibility of concern
is not reasonable. Before there is a rule in effect there will be a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking which will say _exactly_ what the rules would be and how
the FCC intends to apply them, just as there was with the old Open Internet
Order.

~~~
pdabbadabba
Sure. I agree with this, of course. But I suppose I don't see the harm in
taking action now, even if these are early days, to make our views known.
(Though, as I said, I don't like this particular strategy.)

Lobbying in Washington does not begin after an NPR has been issued. Why should
we behave differently? The NPR is an important regulatory document because it
typically indicates the Commission's favored outcome and plays an important
role in framing the debate.

~~~
dragonwriter
> But I suppose I don't see the harm in taking action now, even if these are
> early days, to make our views known.

I agree with that -- I just think that the action should be focussed on what
regulation should or should not contain, not on treating the regulatory agency
involved as an enemy.

> Why should we behave differently?

Attacking people who are decision-makers that have historically been (and
overtly still are) supportive of the position you espouse based on media
rumors of provisions that might be in a plan that they are preparing _is_
behaving differently than the firms that lobby before a concrete proposal in
the form of an NPRM is released. Compare that attacks on Wheeler and the FCC
to the Google/Amazon/Facebook/etc. letter.

~~~
pdabbadabba
It would seem that we were never actually disagreeing about anything--as I've
said repeatedly, I think the throttling proposal is a bad idea.

------
hartator
Am I the only one who think that childish?

You aren't even sure that will target the right people and not some kind of
public worker who just doing some job!

~~~
nokcha
>You aren't even sure that will target the right people

Indeed. The FCC tried to promulgate a rule requiring net neutrality, but a
Federal Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC lacked statutory authority to do
so [1]. So the FCC is powerless unless and until Congress revises the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 or otherwise grants the necessary legal
authority to the FCC.

[1]
[http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D93...](http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf)

------
sehr
Might as well do Congress while you're at it!

~~~
rschmitty
White house, supreme court, how about anything from the government?

~~~
aaronholbrook
Why not take it a step further and limit the lobbyists and bad telcos?

~~~
rschmitty
Oh I thought about that, but how are you going to target the lobbyists and bad
telcos without harming actual customers on those providers who may very well
be against this whole debacle.

Government branches likely have a block of IPs while lobbyists I doubt are
registered like that :)

~~~
logfromblammo
I'm sure the lobbyists for the music and film industry can be uniquely
identified by their IP addresses. You could at least do them.

------
geekam
I'd like to have this done to all government agencies, at least all of the
major ones.

------
BWStearns
Maybe add the congress and senate addresses? I know that they're not
immediately responsible for the decision but they're a good group of
influencers.

------
Vanayad
Wouldn't it be awesome to have the major website/companies (like Facebook,
Google, MS, Amazon, etc) have a landing page when accessing their site in a
style like they did with SOPA but now the whole webpage is unavailable for ~1
minute "due to slowed down traffic" or something. I think that would get the
attention of people. (Of course, this should run just for a limited time )

------
JohnnyLee
I think the focus on the FCC is too narrow. In my opinion throttling all .gov
addresses would be more effective.

Including .edu addresses would affect a population with plenty of time on
their hands and who aren't afraid to let everyone know about their problems.

~~~
Fomite
And a bunch of people who _don 't_ have time on their hands (staff and
faculty) who will probably just go "Fuck you guys, now you're getting in the
way of work."

~~~
Pfhreak
Isn't that the idea?

~~~
Fomite
Not if they can't particularly help effect change. "Random departmental
secretary trying to book flights" isn't going to write their congressman over
your clever code. All you've done is make their day worse.

------
higherpurpose
Does it come with a message that says tongue in cheek that you're on the "slow
lane", and they should upgrade to the fast lane? Otherwise they may just think
that site is slow.

------
m1
Apache port:
[https://gist.github.com/m1/e5f1f190ba309b500f0a](https://gist.github.com/m1/e5f1f190ba309b500f0a)

------
SimeVidas
Can someone ELI5 this? Why would the FCC visit your site?

~~~
minikites
They wouldn't, it looks like more pat-yourself-on-the-back then give-yourself-
a-high-five internet slacktivism. Someone should make a petition!

~~~
DigitalSea
Think bigger. What if Google implemented something like this to prove a point?
This is a genius idea, it goes beyond your standard Internet activism which is
usually words and no action.

~~~
ChikkaChiChi
Google would probably have a slightly more elegant solution than copypastaing
an nginx config from Github.

~~~
DigitalSea
Which is why I said, "implemented something like this" I didn't say implement
this. I meant same idea, but done in a more Google way.

------
rynop
I'd be willing to bet Tom Wheeler and the "higher ups" of the FCC are not at
the office a majority of the time.

It would be sweet if businesses in the service industry (like lets say
Manny's) had pics of the top X guys at the FCC in their kitchen. See one of
them walk in - just delay their service ;)

Here is Tom Wheeler [http://tinyurl.com/mlwnlgr](http://tinyurl.com/mlwnlgr)

~~~
DannyBee
Why would you bet they aren't in the office.

A friend of mine who interned at the FCC says the commissioners are almost
always around in their offices.

It's not like the FCC pays _amazingly_ well and these guys are sitting on
beaches. The commissioners each earn $155,500 a year (they are level IV on the
executive schedule).

------
bdamm
This is a foolish, dangerous game to play. You know, there are probably just
as many people in the government who are trying to win the fight for the
people.

What you really want is to identify the browsers of actual users in decision
making capability, and target them. Surely, with the level of user tracking
going on these days, this is a feasible concept.

------
Datsundere
If only popular social media did this now. I bet the people over there check
their facebook/twitter every 10 seconds.

~~~
iLoch
No way, they're too busy checking _LinkedIn_.

------
lukecampbell
I don't think the entire FCC, and all of their employees are really out to get
you and I. A few maybe but I think it's somewhat too broad an approach to
punish the few by punishing everyone associated with the FCC.

Their IT staff probably doesn't deserve this either.

~~~
sp332
It's a temporary protest, not a punishment.

------
justizin
the irony of using network management techniques to protest the lack of a law
which could outlaw this very type of network management is pretty thick.

pure net neutrality could make it illegal to have software which treats any ip
addresses differently.

there are some real issues to think through, but most of what's happening
right now is emotionally driven banality.

------
dsjoerg
Way to stick it to the man... er, well, the man's crony's underlings.

------
ksolanki
This doesn't seem very productive. As Gandhi once said, "Hate the sin not the
sinner". This is not even punishing the sinner, who are not your everyday
public workers but likely some lobbying corp.

~~~
ForHackernews
Edit: Nevermind, I guess he did say it--although he's not the originator of
the quote.

~~~
ksolanki
Pretty sure Gandhi said that (I have read his biography 3 times!), but should
point out that this is nothing much to do with Hinduism.

------
BastianHof
How do we know these are actually FCC ips?

