Cloudflare Might Be Exploring a Way to Slow Down Ajit Pai's Home Internet Speed(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Cloudflare Might Be Exploring a Way to Slow Down Ajit Pai's Home Internet Speed
https://twitter.com/eastdakota/status/933490344624304130
76 comments
> We also need to put pressure on them so simplify and close loopholes in the 400 page net neutrality document.
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.
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.
[deleted]
Any chance you have a link handy?
Here is the 400 page document that I think is usually the one being waved around.
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.
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.
Prince responded to Slashdot here https://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/11/23/149208/cloudflare-m...
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.
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.
Quite a number of people are concerned about how Cloudflare might find Ajit Pai's IP address(es). It's probably quite a bit easier than that given recent changes in legislation which, ironically, Mr. Pai endorsed (http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/03/technology/internet-privacy-...):
Just buy the information from all land and wireless providers.
Just buy the information from all land and wireless providers.
I joked that if Facebook, Google, Netflix and the other multibillion dollar user-trackers out there shut out Pai and the FCC, their tune would change overnight.
I did not think for a microsecond anyone would be brave enough to implement it.
Kudos Cloudflare.
I did not think for a microsecond anyone would be brave enough to implement it.
Kudos Cloudflare.
Facebook, google, amazon, etc all benefit from Pai's decision if they deem ISP fees affordable. It keeps competition from emerging and, with cable-like packages, would put their services in front of every Internet user.
Not sure how I feel about this. So they want to teach Ajit Pai about some of the potential consequences of killing net neutrality? I'm pretty sure he fully understands the consequences and he's most likely a puppet for the powerful forces who are hell bent on killing NN. It's worthwhile trying to understand who was behind the push to end net neutrality and how they managed to get so far. If anyone has links about this topic, feel free to share them.
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.
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.
I agree with OP, this is dangerous ground but the CEO in question has learned nothing from prior dangerous activity.
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.
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.
> If people support net neutrality, they're against peoples' Internet connectivity being interfered with by corporations
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.
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.
It's possible to think that putting these restrictions on Ajit Pai's connectivity on a permanent basis would be a bad thing and still think that putting them in place on a temporary basis is reasonable political activism.
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.
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.
How would this be materially different from just walking over to Ajit Pai's house and physically cutting his cable? It's targeting a specific individual to deny them the use of their property; pretty sure that's a felony, but either way it has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.
Corporations using their power and resources to threaten and manipulate the federal government - yeah, that's something we need lots more of.
Corporations using their power and resources to threaten and manipulate the federal government - yeah, that's something we need lots more of.
It's not the same. Ajit Pai says "We no longer need a law that prevents ISPs from saying 'Nice Internet you got there. Be a shame if something were to happen to it.'"
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.
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.
What law is it you are suggesting they would break, and how?
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.
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.
> Corporations using their power and resources to threaten and manipulate the federal government - yeah, that's something we need lots more of.
Ajit seems to think so, seeing as he is trying to get rid of net neutrality which protects against this.
Ajit seems to think so, seeing as he is trying to get rid of net neutrality which protects against this.
Would be funny if it were some hacker group. Not so funny when it's a for profit company playing on whatever whim it likes.
Anonymous should take over this task.
Anonymous should take over this task.
Just maybe the FCC should consider regulations to prevent for-profit companies from "playing on whatever whim it likes" then, instead of making it easier.
Anonymous are a bunch of skids.
regardless of whether you agree with net neutrality or this guys approach to making a point, surely this makes some people think twice about "fuck it just use cloudflare" - particularly if you just need tls and page caching. DDOS prevention is hard but most sites aren't unlikely to need that.
Perhaps a naive question, but how are they going to figure out Pai's IP address without great-firewall-tier DPI?
Limited options for ISPs. They can map a home address to likely possibilities, then use their vast cleartext MITM capabilities to narrow it down based on traffic content. Chilling really. I'd rather some hacker group take on the task.
In the us, if u can get their home address, it's pretty easy to tell which of the one or two isp's are available to them.
[deleted]
How petty of them.
Lol, just a simple tweet. Move on people.
What is his 'equally effective way'?
According to Cloudflare, over 10% of internet traffic flows through their network [0] of 6+ million websites [1] and 35% "market share" in DNS service [2]. They could slow down access to their network for Ajit Pai.
0: https://www.cloudflare.com/insights/
1: https://www.cloudflare.com/reliability/
2: https://www.cloudflare.com/
0: https://www.cloudflare.com/insights/
1: https://www.cloudflare.com/reliability/
2: https://www.cloudflare.com/
Find his ip and slow down everything cloudflare can when a packet they proxy go to his ip.
This isn't funny. Not only is CloudFlare's CEO scheming about going after the FCC chairman, but also those who live near him.
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.
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.
Yeah. There should be a rule against this. /s
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.
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.
"People will do bad things if we don't have net neutrality regulations. Let's show them how it's done by doing bad things ourselves."
In what whacky moral universe is this okay?
Most parents smack this out of their kids by the time they're 4.
In what whacky moral universe is this okay?
Most parents smack this out of their kids by the time they're 4.
I find it quite amazing that you question the morality of a temporary act of political demonstration against the agency responsible for setting rules directly related to the means of that political demonstration, and then suggest that parents should have violently abused their children to get any thoughts of such political demonstrations out of their heads.
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.
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.
It's not like the expectation is that his internet will be slowed down forever.
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.
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.
If activists are willing to intentionally make the world worse to prove a point, then reasonable people start to wonder:
"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'?"
"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'?"
But most protests make things a bit worse while they are happening, even in relatively benign ways as disrupting traffic. If they don't disrupt the status quo in some way then they are hardly going to be noticed.
Is smacking children a morally good thing? In a vacuum, I'd argue that hitting children is not a good thing, yet we do not live in a vacuum. I have a young daughter, and if she were ever to do something like run into the road I've already decided I would pick her up and smack her good in hopes that it might leave a strong impression on her that she should not run into a busy street. Is smacking a kid in this situation moral? You yourself seem to argue that smacking children is a good thing in certain circumstances.
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.
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.
Ugh. A really ugly attempt at straw-persons and lectures on "whacky" moral universes all wrapped up with advocating hitting kids....
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.
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.
What leads you to believe that this would affect anyone other than Ajit Pai?
I think, though, a more effective strategy would be to throttle the entire congressional netblock.
I think, though, a more effective strategy would be to throttle the entire congressional netblock.
As an aside, this would bother me more if the only two opponents he's chosen so far were not:
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) 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.
If you really believed this overly dramatic "extraordinary enemies" and "extraordinary means" rhetoric, you'd be out there staging a defense of civilization instead of writing dumb comments on Hacker News.
Hey just to set the record straight
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.
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.
I don't think CloudFlare improved its image as a result. We all agree Nazis are bad. No sane person thinks CloudFlare is pro-Nazi.
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".
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".
For future commenters: the parent response originally did not say “I'm glad this guy's against Nazis, but he picked a very infantile way to show it.”
And instead said something along the lines of “picked a way to showcase his virtue” without the comment on business owners.
And instead said something along the lines of “picked a way to showcase his virtue” without the comment on business owners.
> We all agree Nazis are bad.
The Nazis don't agree.
The Nazis don't agree.
They do when the entire Internet is threatened. At least, I would. Perhaps I'm not an adult?
"entire Internet is threatened"?
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.
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.
> Not only is CloudFlare's CEO scheming about going after the FCC chairman, but also those who live near him.
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?
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?
It’s a thinly veiled attack against net nuetrality.
Don’t debate it on its face.
Don’t debate it on its face.
It's intended to show the FCC Chairman how things might end up if he rolls back Net Neutrality.. The goal is to protect net neutrality by making a point personally with the FCC Chairman.
I don't agree with the tactic, but I think you've misunderstood whats being talked about.
I don't agree with the tactic, but I think you've misunderstood whats being talked about.
TLDR of this "strategy":
"Hey guys. We should have a law against being an asshole."
"Nah, people seem pretty nice."
"I'll show you, fuckface!"
"Hey guys. We should have a law against being an asshole."
"Nah, people seem pretty nice."
"I'll show you, fuckface!"
> "Nah, people seem pretty nice."
I'm sure a lot of people hold this opinion about Comcast. Oh wait: https://consumerist.com/2014/04/08/congratulations-to-comcas...
I'm sure a lot of people hold this opinion about Comcast. Oh wait: https://consumerist.com/2014/04/08/congratulations-to-comcas...
It saddens me to be reminded by your post that the valuable contributions to discourse provided by Consumerist came to end not too long ago :(
This isnt a first resort. This is after piles of evidence of against "people [sic] seem nice" has been ignored and dismissed.
[deleted]
this is really foolish.
Bad move. If this works it will show that preferential treatment is already possible, thus making the existing net neutrality meaningless.
Actually I think Prince's point is to do it _after/if_ it is passed. The issue isn't that it is possible today (all techies already know this), the issue is that after this you'll have to no legal recourse to equitable treatment once this is passed.
> Actually I think Prince's point is to do it _after/if_ it is passed.
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.
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.
No: we already know it's possible. The point is that the FCC is supposed to step in and stop it. But now under Ajit Pai, we don't have an FCC anymore—at least not as previously understood.
Therefore, it's a great move, as it illustrates the dangers that we will face if Ajit Pai gets away with this.
Therefore, it's a great move, as it illustrates the dangers that we will face if Ajit Pai gets away with this.
Preferential treatment being possible has nothing to do with it. The only reason random ISPs don't offer restricted packages of sites/services now is that they are forbidden to do so by an FCC ruling. It is not technically complicated, but it is illegal.
[deleted]
tuning buffers has been possible since the dawn of the internet. the point is selectively doing it in an exclusionary manner.
Robbery is possible. That doesn't mean laws against it are meaningless.
You'd think Cloudflare would have learned from the Stormfront incident
What should they have learned? At the end of the day they kicked Nazis off their platform, and they're as successful as ever but have gained some extra credibility for not being complicit in Nazism.
Indeed, somehow not surprising though.
My sentiment exactly.
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...