Cloudflare Might Be Exploring a Way to Slow Down Ajit Pai's Home Internet Speed
twitter.com
twitter.com
We also need to put pressure on them to simplify and close loopholes in the 400 page net neutrality document.
I think an NRA-styled non-partisan single issue internet freedom organization is needed to put pressure on our elected officials. It's amazing how much politicians fear the NRA, I wish we could get them to fear eroding our freedom.
Cloudflare's example is also a great reason why we also need to enforce neutrality on more than just the ISP to keep the internet free and open. The whole system from DNS providers, hosting, and other major internet companies need to have neutrality enforced on them.
Edit: Adding Source https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/03/12/392544534...
What 400 page net neutrality document?
If you are referring to the 300-400 page document that contains the 2015 Open Internet order that Pai and others have been fond of waving around as an example of how the 2015 rules were massive, complicated, micromanaging overregulation, they were not being entirely honest.
That document actually consists of a long discussion of net neutrality from a historical, legal, and policy standpoint and an explanation of why they picked the rules that they did, a long response to issues raised in the millions of comments received during the public comment period, and the actual regulations.
The actual regulations are about 8 pages.
The first link is from the FCC site, but has been slow lately, so I've also given a link to a copy at scribd.
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pd...
https://www.scribd.com/document/258492433/Full-net-neutralit...
Note: the page numbers in the table of contents are way off. Apparently the TOC was generated for printing in either a large font or on smaller sheets. In the following I will give page numbers as printed at the bottom of the pages of the scribd version. The FCC version bottom of page numbers are 5600 higher than the scribd version, so if I say page X, that is page X+5600 in the FCC version. In other words the numbering runs 1-400 in the scribd version, and 5601-6000 in the FCC version.
The actual rules are in APPENDIX A, "Final Rules". This starts on page 283 and ends on 290.
In a statement to Slashdot, Mr. Prince said: Probably the easiest thing would be to slow down requests from the FCC's IP ranges. Or put up an interstitial whenever someone from those IPs visits a site behind us. I think it's less likely we'd do it across the board ourselves, more likely we'd implement it as an option our customers could opt in to. Basically taking this a step further.
Just buy the information from all land and wireless providers.
I did not think for a microsecond anyone would be brave enough to implement it.
Kudos Cloudflare.
While a part of me would love to see what's mentioned in the conversation, I hope Cloudflare does not stray from their principle of being a utility provider and I don't want them to abuse their power to target individuals that they disagree with.
This is the same cloudflare CEO that decided it was going to arbitrarily block the Daily Stormer because he woke up in a bad mood.
If people support net neutrality, they're against peoples' Internet connectivity being interfered with by corporations, and by extension they're against this. If they support interfering with Ajit Pai's connectivity, then they're by extension against net neutrality.
The damage of doing so is extremely limited, while the damage he is proposing to do to the entire US is far more extensive.
I agree with you it's problematic that Cloudflare's CEO has this power. But the solution to that is not to complain that he has this power, but to make sure the rules prevent him exercising them...
Enforcing net neutrality would be a start.
No, I'm against throttling extortion being used by powerful actors for selfish, monopolistic reasons. Not every act of throttling is inherently evil or something, it's just bad because of the damages it causes. So some acts (like throttling people who have the power to affect policy to show them the dangers of deregulation) are perfectly acceptable morally.
However, I also belive in due process and just laws, so ideally, which is why it makes sense to have laws in place that prevent all Internet throttling extortion, regardless of the objectives, so that they may be simple and enforceable without loopholes.
Just because you want something prohibited does not mean you think all instances of that act are wrong. Just that we would be far better off with the law then without it.
Corporations using their power and resources to threaten and manipulate the federal government - yeah, that's something we need lots more of.
So then an ISP comes along and says 'Hey there Mr. Pai. Nice Internet you got there. Be a shame if something were to happen to it.'
That ISP is simply demonstrating what it means not to have such a law any more.
If you cut his cable, unless you're his ISP you're either carrying out criminal damage and/or trespassing, and if you're his ISP it boils down to what your contract allows.
But Cloudflare has no contract with Ajit Pai. So how is it anywhere remotely comparable?
There may be other issues, such as Cloudflare's contracts with their customers, but nothing that compares to physically cutting his cable.
Ajit seems to think so, seeing as he is trying to get rid of net neutrality which protects against this.
Anonymous should take over this task.
0: https://www.cloudflare.com/insights/
This is the second time in recent memory that this guy has been worked up by his political feelings and saw his company as a tool to punish his opponents.
As a CloudFlare user, this worries me. This is childish. Adults don't pull this crap.
The polite term for this is "concept creep".
If the only way you can defend your position is by invoking apocalyptic rhetoric, you might want to pick another hill to die on.
Regardless of your opinions on net neutrality, a roll back to 2015-era regulatory policy is not an extinction-level event. Obviously.
And now he’s suggesting violence. Ooph.
I think, though, a more effective strategy would be to throttle the entire congressional netblock.
1) Nazis, generally 2) Forces trying to literally dismantle the Internet as it has been known for decades
These seem like extraordinary enemies against which extraordinary means are justified.
1) He hosted nazi websites, without action even though it was reprehensible speech.
2) He dumped those clients, when they insinuated that Cloudflare was on their side.
That makes it slander, and insinuation that Cloudflare is a Nazi Sympathiser.
I would expect the CEO of such a firm to do something immediately to take care of his firms share holders and its reputation.
He did just that, and improved its image as a result.
How is that a problem? I would expect all firms to act like that, or be known as Nazi sympathisers.
Here's CEO Matthew Price in his own words:
"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."
The reaction at the time was the same as the reaction here: I'm glad this guy's against Nazis, but he picked a very infantile way to show it.
People who run their businesses on CloudFlare get a little uneasy when they see a CEO randomly turning off websites because he "woke up in a bad mood".
And instead said something along the lines of “picked a way to showcase his virtue” without the comment on business owners.
The Nazis don't agree.
Seriously, this is just part of the "innovation" Ajit is promoting. There will be nothing to stop Comcast from throttling sites for political reasons. CloudFlare will not be the only one to shape internet traffic for personal gain.
In what whacky moral universe is this okay?
Most parents smack this out of their kids by the time they're 4.
I think it's perfectly fair, if legal under all current laws.
"This is the future you want" doesn't sink in until your kids are bitching every day that YouTube is buffering.
"How much of the problem is real and how much of it is inflicted by activists who are willing to burn down the world in order to 'win'?"
Frankly, if my son suggested a means of demonstration as outlined here, I'd reward him for it. If he suggested violence against kids was ok, on the other hand? He'd never hear the end of it.
Considering the wider circumstances of net neutrality and the consequences it will have, especially on the poor and less educated, I don't have any problem morally with Ajit Pai having a brief encounter with the negative consequences his actions will have upon millions.
In general, I don't think there's much to be gained by discussion morals here though, and we shouldn't expect our morals to align exactly.
Just to make it crystal clear for the morally-challenged: if you "smack something out of" your 1, 2, 3, or 4 year old, the police will be called, CPS will be called, you will go to jail, and you will appear before a judge to explain why you shouldn't lose custody of your own kids.
You got all this information from a one sentence Tweet?
> As a CloudFlare user, this worries me. This is childish. Adults don't pull this crap.
It's a form of peaceful protest. Was it childish when sites blacked themselves out to protest the web piracy bill? Were they abusing their powers too?
Don’t debate it on its face.
I don't agree with the tactic, but I think you've misunderstood whats being talked about.
"Hey guys. We should have a law against being an asshole."
"Nah, people seem pretty nice."
"I'll show you, fuckface!"
I'm sure a lot of people hold this opinion about Comcast. Oh wait: https://consumerist.com/2014/04/08/congratulations-to-comcas...
No, it isn't. His next tweet reads "sent note to our GC to see if we can without breaking any laws.". But even so, I still think it's a joke.
Therefore, it's a great move, as it illustrates the dangers that we will face if Ajit Pai gets away with this.