Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Electronic Frontier Foundation The Internet Your Rights Online

Americans Plan Massive 'Net Neutrality' Protest Next Week (theguardian.com) 110

An anonymous reader quotes the Guardian: A coalition of activists, consumer groups and writers are calling on supporters to attend the next meeting of the Federal Communications Commission on September 26 in Washington DC. The next day, the protest will move to Capitol Hill, where people will meet legislators to express their concerns about an FCC proposal to rewrite the rules governing the internet... The activist groups are encouraging internet users to meet their lawmakers and tell them how a free and open internet is vital to their lives and their livelihoods...

"The FCC seems dead set on killing net neutrality, but they have to answer to Congress, and Congress has to answer to us, their constituents," said Evan Greer, campaign director for Fight for the Future, one of the protest's organisers. "With this day of advocacy, we're harnessing the power of the web to make it possible for ordinary internet users to meet directly with their senators and representatives to tell their stories, and make sure that lawmakers hear from the public, not just lobbyists for AT&T and Verizon," she said.

Monday Mozilla and the Internet Archive are also inviting the public to a free panel discussion featuring former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler on ways the American public can act to preserve net neutrality.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Americans Plan Massive 'Net Neutrality' Protest Next Week

Comments Filter:
  • "Americans"? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    No WE don't. Some of us realize the hypocrisy of this movement - and this article.

    • by mi ( 197448 )

      the hypocrisy of this movement - and this article

      This article is a barely disguised advertisement of the event. Guardian's "journalists" are making this story instead of merely reporting it....

      Strangely enough, no one complains about this incident of foreign meddling in the America's political process.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        This article is a barely disguised advertisement of the event. Guardian's "journalists" are making this story instead of merely reporting it....

        You have cause and effect mixed up. The sources cited in the article existed prior to the Guardian citing them. Or perhaps you believe that reporting on North Korea's missile launches are advertising them? "Waah someone is reporting on something I don't like, they must be the cause of it" -- retard logic, go figure.

        • by mi ( 197448 )

          The sources cited in the article existed prior to the Guardian citing them.

          Sure, of course. But their reach was not sufficient — and the article helps the organizers inform far wider audience of their plans.

    • You're either for an open internet for the good of everyone or you can fuck off.
  • LOL (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18, 2017 @06:55AM (#55217959)

    "and Congress has to answer to us, their constituents,"

    That's the funniest thing I've ever read...

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Since most people haven't even heard about it. I learned about it reading this headline. It'll be massive like Trump's inauguration.

    • Define massive.

      AKA:bigly [dictionary.com]

      "The FCC seems dead set on killing net neutrality, but they have to answer to Congress, and Congress has to answer to us, their constituents," said Evan Greer...

      Isn't that cute? Don't get me wrong, I love it that this is how the constitutional republic works in theory, but if you can't get 50% of the people to vote once every four years, a grass-roots uproar loud enough for the governors to listen to is unlikely on the order of hen's teeth in your omelet.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Congress isn't even in session so nobody fucking cares massive!

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jez9999 ( 618189 )

      I know right? If only Hillary had got in, I know she would be a much better defender of people's rights and net neutrality. She never caved into lobbying from big corporations.

      • Just because A is bad doesn't mean B is better. What you say is the equivalent of "You don't like Cholera? Well, you sure must hate it that the last Pest wave went past our town!"

  • The rules on what's being called "Net neutrality" has never been in force. The internets the way they are today are how they've always been.

    • Isn't that likely to undo the President's swamp-draining?

      If it wasn't for those crazy storms, I would've gotten away with it, too!

  • Define "Massive" You keep using that word, and I'm not sure you know what it means.
  • by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Monday September 18, 2017 @08:44AM (#55218379)

    "...they have to answer to Congress, and Congress has to answer to us, their constituents,"

    Before you go spouting off regarding who answers to whom, remember just how much people don't give a shit about Rights anymore. Just last week, Millennial's confirmed they would gladly give up their Right to Vote in exchange for getting some college debt relief.

    • I've mostly ignored my right to vote because I don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils and can't seem to find any somewhat neutral candidates that have a chance in hell of getting voted in. So my lack of vote is my opinion of the available candidates.

      • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        I've mostly ignored my right to vote because I don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils and can't seem to find any somewhat neutral candidates that have a chance in hell of getting voted in. So my lack of vote is my opinion of the available candidates.

        Too bad people see it as a vote for "I don't care, I support whoever wins".

        There are many ways to vote and still not vote.

        You hate all the candidates? Vote for none of them! Write in your own name if you want (I hear that's a thing). Spoiling the ballot

    • by swb ( 14022 )

      My son is in 7th grade and the US History class is doing a unit on the Constitution.

      The teacher gave them a list of 20 rights written in plain language, which included the bill of rights and some others not in the constitution (everyone is entitled to a free education) and they had to pick 10 from the list. I'm pretty sure fewer than half of the original bill of rights wound up in their aggregate list.

      • My son is in 7th grade and the US History class is doing a unit on the Constitution.

        The teacher gave them a list of 20 rights written in plain language, which included the bill of rights and some others not in the constitution (everyone is entitled to a free education) and they had to pick 10 from the list. I'm pretty sure fewer than half of the original bill of rights wound up in their aggregate list.

        No offense directed at your son, but when a twentysomething Millennial barely recognizes the value of the Right to Vote, I'm pretty sure a 7th grader won't have a clue as to how to value Rights, reinforced by a complete lack of real-world application.

        • by swb ( 14022 )

          Well, they are all about 13 years old and learning, so I kind of expect them to pick the "rights" that make sense to 13 year olds.

          And really, I think the general population has been shown in polls for years to find many existing constitutional rights to be unwanted or misunderstood.

          The problem is it's kind of a logic trap, where you have to have a certain list of specific rights to have any of the others hold up.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Sounds like indoctrination against the bill of rights to run an experiment like that on children that have not yet learned high-school level civics.

        It clearly was set up for the children to think selfishly instead of what would make for a stable democracy. Note that the US is the longest concurrently operating, stable democratic nation in existence, so the constitution gets it more right than any other plan tested.

    • By now, thats the rational choice. Mrs De Vos Clearly shows that voting to get rid of the death-knell in US educational finance is a non starter.

  • I am not against net neutrality per se. I am against Internet companies lying that they will provide me certain data rates, when in fact behind the scenes they are extorting a part of my Netflix fee, in essence making me pay more to them than the agreed-upon amount.

    And no, hiding it in fine print, hoping people don't realize, is fraud.

    • And no, hiding it in fine print, hoping people don't realize, is fraud.

      You misspelled The American Way of Doing Business...

  • >> Massive 'Net Neutrality' Protest Next Week

    Are you sure? Usually we need a little more advance notice to do that for you.

    >> ordinary internet users to meet directly with their senators and representatives to tell their stories

    I don't think I've heard the phrase "internet users" in about 20 years. You might find that most people already in touch with their reps are already on the Internet, but sure, let's see what you dig up!
  • Since when do they need to answer to the public? And I do not mean where it is written when they should, but since when they actually do it and what the consequences are in reality when they don't do that.

    Because what I now see is that there is no accountability. They are being re-elected, so there is no reason for them to listen.

    It is like saying to kids they are not allowed to take a cookie and they do it. If there are no consequences, they will take another one. You can moan and yell and be upset and poi

    • by Anonymous Coward

      You can moan and yell and be upset and point at the house rules and say to wait till daddy comes home and put out the jumper cables...

      Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  • "they have to answer to Congress, and Congress has to answer to us" HAHAHAHHA what fantasy world do YOU live in? Once they get to DC, they could give crap about anyone. It's a little club...once you are invited in, and play along with their rules, you are there FOR LIFE, and become rich beyond your wildest dreams!
  • Don't ruin the internet for the rest of the world either, FCC.

  • I thought the jugalos were a few days ago.
  • Americans Plan Massive 'Net Neutrality' Protest Next Week

    Don't people normally protest against an action or idea? If they support a given cause, it's usually called a rally.

  • by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) <skennedy@tpno - c o . o rg> on Monday September 18, 2017 @10:27AM (#55219179) Homepage

    I have a solution. The infrastructure "generally" belongs to the ISPs, right? I'm on board with personal freedom, so I tend to side with property owners to do with their property as they will. Yes, I know that would suck for the customers, but I have a solution for that...

    Congress pass a law which allows privately held ISPs to filter and shape traffic however they will. Same bill would explicitly allow city/county/state/fed entities to setup their own infrastructure AND create a federal fund that these entities can apply for to help build out their own infrastructure. ISPs would be barred from making any changes for 5-10 years, during which time they pay a new tax into the "build out" fund.

    Private property is private property, and no one should be forced to restrict their use of such. So we make the infrastructure public, and introduce serious competition into the market. :D

    • by Anonymous Coward

      It's private property, but it's placed in the public rights of way. Without permission to use the public rights of way the ISPs have no access to customers.

      The government needs to pull their heads out of their asses and use the resources they already control. Require minimum standards of service before allowing any private entity to place their private property into the public rights of way.

  • It's not that I don't think the ISPs should notbe given control of the internet. The ISPs have shown that they shouldn't be given control by their bad behaviour.

    I'm just not so interested in fighting the ISPs so that Google can control the internet.

    ----

    The greatest trick of Google was proving to the world that it was not evil.

  • What percentage of the population understands what net neutrality is and what percentage of those people are big enough activists to protest?

In 1750 Issac Newton became discouraged when he fell up a flight of stairs.

Working...