Net Neutrality: Sept. 10 We Go Visual!
13Join the fight by using the below:
Sept. 10th is the Internet Slowdown
Big Cable wants to slow down the Internet? Fine.
Let's show the world what a web without net neutrality would be like.
Join our open, international call for action to protect Internet Freedom.
Keep me in the loop
Fight for the Future will send you developer updates. Privacy policy
Cable companies are spending billions to gut net neutrality and create fast lanes and slow lanes on the Internet. We can’t let this happen, but they’re so powerful. To win, we need a response that pulls out all the stops and drives the maximum number of people to voice their support for net neutrality.
On September 10th, sites across the web will display an alert with a symbolic "loading" symbol (the proverbial “spinning wheel of death”) and promote a call to action for users to push comments to the FCC, Congress, and the White House. Major websites and services are lined up to push hard on this — it affects literally everyone who uses the Internet for work or pleasure. This is the moment to win this battle for the net.
We need all hands on deck for this. Think about how best to get your audience's attention and join the Internet Slowdown with your site or mobile app. The spirit of the slowdown is that everyone can join in their own way, but we’re providing tools to make it easy. If you're going to participate, tell the world ASAP. Announce it on your blog and twitter. Help get others to join. Got a question? Contact us.
Oh it's on. September 10th.
The Internet Slowdown starts at midnight eastern time on September 10th, and runs through midnight on September 11th. Whatever awesome stuff you've got planned, do it then! And remember: the goal is to drive as many emails and calls to Congress, the White House, and the FCC as possible.
Sites: Get the code
There’s a bunch of different ways for sites to participate. The best way? Run this modal. The runner up? This alert. You can also change your site’s logo (or one of its letters) to a spinning wheel of death or embed this action tool in a high traffic page. We’ve got widgets for Wordpress.com, and Wordpress (self hosted).
NOTE: none of these tools will slow down your site; they just show a symbolic loading symbol. By default they link to battleforthenet.com, but you can change the URL if you like.
Modal:
To show the modal on September 10th, paste this code into the of your site. More info.
Light banner: Paste this code into the of your site. More info. var _bftn_options = { animation: 'banner' } ( Note: this will only show up on Sept 10th, and only once per user ) Dark banner: Paste this code into the of your site. More info. var _bftn_options = { animation: 'banner', theme: 'dark' }( Note: this will only show up on Sept 10th, and only once per user )
Apps: do a push notification
If you have a mobile app, can you send just one push notification to your users? Tell them that ISPs are threatening to slow your app, and link them to https://www.battleforthenet.com.
Share these images!
We need as many people as possible to see this site, write Congress and the FCC, and keep fighting until we win. Can you post these images everywhere?
Say you're in.
Are you participating? Tell us so we can list you, announce it to the world, and invite others to join. Starting on 9/2 we’ll be announcing which sites are in. Help us spread the word about the campaign by tweeting something like this or this. Want to show your support in real life? Get the Team Internet shirt (then post a photo, obv.)
You're our only hope.
This is the time to go big, visible, and strong - that's the only way we can actually win this fight. We all need to get as many people in our respective audiences motivated to do something. We can make this epic, but only if you help. We need companies to be frontrunners, leaders, and heroes on this, that’s the key ingredient to raising the bar and making sure everyone goes big.
We realize it's a big ask, but this is the kind of bad internet legislation that comes along (or gets this close to passing) once a decade or so. If it passes we'll be kicking ourselves for decades—every time a favorite site gets relegated to the slow lane, and every time we have to rework or abandon a project because of the uncertain costs paid prioritization creates. Doing the most we can right now seems like the only rational step.
Let us know if you're interested in principle, and if there's something you need from us to join: evan@fightforthefuture.org
- 12 comments, 39 replies
- Comment
If you don't join in on this, people, the net is going to suck. And you'll be bitching and moaning about it to everyone after the fact. Deep down you'll know you gave up your chance to add your voice- that maybe you could have made it go the other way- AND YOU JUST LET IT HAPPEN.
So buck the fuck up, men. Ladies, tell your gaggle of girls about it. Make this shit happen!
I use a Windows PC and Android mobile devices. I don't get a "spinning wheel of death".
Has anyone explained why slow, crappy Netflix and YouTube and Pandora connections are a good thing? That's what net neutrality seems to be about to me. I'm probably OK with my e-mails arriving a second or two later if I have a good Netflix connection.
@editorkid This is about evil internet providers like TWC having the freedom to charge internet sites for bandwidth. So a site like Netflix will pay to ensure fast content. A site like Meh might not be willing to pay the extortion, so their page will load slow. There's nothing okay about that.
@bluedyn and Netflix has already caved to Comcast amazon will probably be next after that? Google it's self I guess. you DO NOT WANT an internet run by companies as evil as comcast.
@bluedyn They charge me for bandwidth too. And why does Meh need to be fast? It isn't streaming. It's a few K of text and a couple of megs of other. @Foxborn I DO want good streaming quality.
@editorkid yes they charge you for bandwidth, and everything coming to you should be plain bits for all they know.
Netflix is also being charged for bandwidth and then they need to pay the gatekeeper an extra fee to get their content to you who is already paying for the bandwidth.
@editorkid But why should the providers get to charge sites for bandwidth you're also paying for? How is it okay that they charge both sides? And sure meh.com was a meh example (content size wise), but think of something else small you love. It's legalized extortion for the ISPs, plain and simple.
@bluedyn any startup without the cash to pay the fees is a good example, twitch might have never grown to the size it did if it had to pay those fees when it started.
@Ignorant But, again, why do RTSP and SMTP need to be treated equally? That genuinely doesn't make any sense to me. Thirty progressive frames need to show up on my screen every second. E-mail, tweets, and JPGs just aren't time-sensitive to that degree. (Granted, this wasn't true 32 years ago when a friend at DEC and I chatted in real time using e-mail subject lines...)
@bluedyn If you picked up your cell phone to call me on my cell phone to discuss this, you know who'd get charged for those minutes? Both of us. How is it okay that they charge both sides?
@editorkid Netflix is already paying, they would be paying double. It's like if I called you and I had to not only pay AT&T (my provider) but also had to pay verizon (your provider) and you are already paying verizon.
@editorkid I have unlimited minutes so it wouldn't be me paying. Also, I'm gonna leave this fight to @Ignorant. And John Oliver
@bluedyn no @Ignorant is out of it, John Oliver does a fine job on his own.
@Ignorant But it cuts both ways. I've read that between a quarter and a third of the Internet traffic every night is Netflix alone. If Netflix is sucking up one-third of the bandwidth in America, that alone is going to stop plenty of potential competitors. And the Internet wasn't built for Netflix, as much as I like it. If it has gargantuan bandwidth requirements, let it pay to build that out.
@editorkid that's false logic, but as I said I'm done.
@editorkid By that logic, Walmart should have to pay much higher local taxes than any other type of store as more customers use local infrastructure (roads, traffic control, lights, etc) to go to Walmart to shop than at any other store. Just because many people choose to use the bandwidth they have bought to run Netflix instead of using it for something else is not relevant to whether Netflix should have to pay extra for use of the information superhighway.
@moondrake Thank you! I get that. I actually agree with the point about Walmart paying higher taxes, but because it uses those resources, not the customers, and I see the distinction you make. Thanks for framing it beyond "OMG COMCAST"; of course Comcast sucks, but net neutrality isn't just about Comcast Sucks, and Comcast Sucks isn't just about net neutrality.
And in practice we all do this ourselves. Low-bandwidth types like grandparents who just want to see baby pictures and all that can get cheap, low-bandwidth plans. Gamers who want as close to zero latency as they can get spend big bucks on high-quality connections. In a practical sense, we consumers have already voted against net neutrality at our end.
@editorkid Really didn't expect to see someone not on the side of net neutrality here. I think you're giving companies too much credit if you think they won't abuse the hell out of anything available to them. It's not going to be "pay X for super extra lightning fast HD streaming Netflix!", it's more likely to be "pay X for the same level of quality you have now, or don't and experience a loss in quality and throttling."
@editorkid And citing the system we have now isn't a good example. We pay a lot more than many countries for slower internet, so we shouldn't even have to be doing that.
@JonT Don't get me wrong. I'll take as many bits as I can for as few dollars as I can. But I think if you ask gamers if they're OK with higher latency and movie fans if they're OK with tiling and broken audio because their neighbors are downloading a few gigs of baby pictures on a low-end cable connection, they'll say no. Out on the street, I think, we've already decided all bits are not equal. Ultimately, I think net neutrality is like the free market -- a great idea that can never work in the real world because the real world is real.
@JonT What I am really concerned about is a consolidated ISP developing their own version of Netflix at 2-3x the monthly price and running it fast while throttling Netflix and its siblings to death. Monopolies = bad. Powerful corporations getting the muscle to forcibly create monopolies and deny all competition = racketeering.
@editorkid I think you might be mixing up Net Neutrality with QoS (Quality of Service) requests. It's fine for a user to have a service that requests priority because it is inelastic (say, VoIP or your example of low-latency online gamers), and ISPs should respect those requests that come from the consumer. However, the Internet Fast Lane stuff is out of the consumers' hands and is allowing the ISPs to decide what will and won't be throttled, based on what services choose to pay extra to them. This reeks of extortion and artificial bottlenecking, and as several people have already indicated, creates a very unfair playing field for startups or non-profit/low-profit services.
@curtise That's another good explanation. I think there's a fuzzy area there; startups that demand more resources need to be able to pay for those resources, and if those resources either need to be built out or end up consuming a disproportionately (and unexpectedly) higher amount of bandwidth than expected, they need to cover that, too. Maybe in advance sometimes. As for low-profit services, Meh seems to be doing OK.
This article is a great overview of the many dirty tricks Comcast has used against Netflix on consumers: http://www.dailytech.com/Comcast+Forced+Fees+by+Reducing+Netflix+to+VHSLike+Quality/article36481.htm
@dashcloud Unfortunately, like a lot of the net neutrality arguments, it lost my layman's attention quite early on. The front edge of this argument needs to be "dumbed down" for people like me who start hearing white noise when advocates start talking about CDN distribution.
@moondrake Please watch the John Oliver pice that's posted above. It makes the thing easy to understand.
@Teripie I am going to try to make time this evening for it-- no watching vids at work.
I found this a few months ago and found it helped explain to those who didn't really 'get it'. Granted, I just grabbed the link this time and didn't rewatch it, but I assume it is still relevant.
@PurplePawprints thanks - that's a pretty awesome. I liked this part (and another one later) best:
@PurplePawprints Thank you for this video. I'll confess that I kept my head in the sand about the whole thing. After watching this video, I now understand the importance and severity of what's going on. This also explains why my local cable company (Optimum/Cablevision) has been advertising the hell out of their new "Ultra", "Ultra 50" and "Ultra 101" plans.
@bluedog You're welcome. I have a feeling a lot of people aren't really paying attention because they don't really see how it will affect them 'that much'. :-/
@PurplePawprints The video starts off on a false premise. The problem is the government makes it so difficult for new "shipping companies" to take on the existing ones. Capitalism does work when it is truly capitalism. The problem is governemnt and crony capitalism. Make the competition truely free.
John Oliver got to me a couple months ago. I've sent some of my best flames to The Dingo and his cronies. I don't hold out much hope for us little guys. The country is broken and we're all going to be screwed, and not just online.
OK, maybe I'm in after all.
@editorkid Whatever it takes…
So consider this logic: Current large internet providers (Comcast, Time Warner, etc) constantly lobby the government to (Obama golfs with Comcast CEO) protect their interests. Net neutrality would argue for increased government regulation. How do you think the regulation would written? Would it not have the interests of the large internet providers in mind? Since when has K street been ignored? As long as they continue whatever form of kickback, the lobbyists will puppeteer representatives to push their agenda.
Government is known for it's absurd inefficiencies. At the cost of nearly $1 billion, they still couldn't get the health care website to function correctly on the go-live date. $17+ trillion in debt. $125+ trillion in unfunded liabilities. Congress has a 14% approval rating. But hey, don't worry, they'll get the net neutrality regulation written and implemented without a hitch.
The problem is the difficulty for new internet providers to enter the market. Make it easier for these new providers and competition takes over. Competition breeds innovation while pushing costs lower. Sound familiar, Meh?
Let the large corporations throttle data, piss off customers, and lose market share. The only reason they get away with it right now is the lack of competition. Net neutrality doesn't solve this. The market will only self-correct if it is free to do so.
The other slippery slope is giving the government the foothold into the internet. It is one of the last truly free bastions left. It's freedom is why it's evolved into the powerhouse it is now - and why modern society revolves so heavily around it. In the immediate short term, it may be thought as a good idea (a la Patriot Act), but it will risk limiting freedoms in the long term.
The answer to incorrect regulation is not more regulation. It's less regulation.
Oh god, one of them.
@jc283 I can't agree with the majority of what you're saying. Yes more competition is a good thing, no not all government regulation is bad.
just so no one thinks @jc283 starred this themselves, i will own up to it. i guess i'm "one of them" too... that means "libertarian" right? anyway, i don't know what's right as far as net neutrality... when it comes to gov't regulation i say "when in doubt, leave it out"... and i'm in doubt. on the other hand... it's not like ISPs actually represent the free an unfettered market.
@katylava huh...I always thought it was "when in doubt, whip it out"
@editorkid Yes, one of "them" who believes in more freedom, not less.
@katylava I agree, the market is not free. That should be the first issue to address.
@jc283
@editorkid I don't believe anything I've stated has been troll-worthy. I was only trying to have a discussion.
TL;DR (damn, y'all have a lot to say ;-) )
But I'm amused (and annoyed) by some of the comments about the system we have. Yeah, like how great healthcare is in this country. Americans bitch about the stupidest things but then swallow it when it comes to things that matter even a little (like healthcare and access to the information--and, okay, cat videos--of the world), because of this perverse need to believe that we're somehow better than everyone else. I'm pretty sure we don't deserve to be a super power. Sigh.
We in Brazil got a law specifically for that.
"Marco Civil da Internet".
Besides guaranteeing net neutrality, it also has a clause that forces some websites to remove stuff as soon as the government wants.
What can (and will, probably) be exploited as hell, removing everything adverse to the current government.
Which sucks. But oh well.
@cynexyl Damned if we do and damned if we don't :(
Many salient points about today's lacktivity.