9 ms·
FCC’s comment system targeted by DDoS during filing period for net neutrality
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- MBCook 9y agoI wonder if anyone else can confirm this somehow. This seems like it would be great cover if you're trying to hide the fact that people a lot of people really dislike what you're doing and are complaining so much your system couldn't take the load. "Oh, it wasn't because lots of people were complaining.... it was a DDOS".
- r00fus 9y agoSo what if it's an inside job? I mean, it'd be easy to cripple the server if you have network access/control.
- mmagin 9y agoEveryone knows a DDOS can't melt steel beams :P
- labster 9y agoDepends on whether or not the data center's A/C is working.
- mattnewton 9y agoI'd rather suspect incompetence. This form is getting some serious publicity, several workers of magnitude outside the normal traffic patterns I would imagine.
- lithos 9y agoBloomberg radio just reported on this. No mention of an attack. Though they did quote an FCC spiteful response that receiving so much traffic just means they can't look at the comments. I'm still hoping that they eventually bring in an analyst to value the new proposed FCC rules to last mile providers, and what it will do to their stock.
- cschep 9y agoAre we sure it's not just a lot of people trying to complain at once? :) (joke about they should have purchased fastlaneTM brand internet)
- mrfusion 9y agoThe FCC calls democracy DDoS.
- rocqua 9y agoI mean, civil disobedience is basically a physical DDoS against government.
- EGreg 9y agoOh yeah, like these comments really matter this time around. A certain sector of society elects Donald Trump, who appoints the new FCC chair, and they'll do whatever they want within legal possibilities. Do you really think the sector of society which most cares about this rule change will affect the outcome with comments? They will no more do so than scientists will affect the budget of the EPA with comments.
- dragonwriter 9y agoThe comments will affect the record which will potentially be relevant in subsequent proceedings, including lawsuits. It probably won't materially affect the initial policy outcome, sure.
- unityByFreedom 9y agoTrump is as much a politician as anyone. He's so worried about his rep, he's actually trying to build the wall. If people are against this en masse -- he won't touch it. My guess is he backs down or takes a neutral stance, just like Wheeler did on net neutrality, and like Obama did on encryption. I mean, you know behind the scenes they're trying like hell to get rid of net neutrality, but they can't do that in the face of a public outcry. This is one issue that is not red/blue. The hackery of Trump's campaign operated through the open internet, and I think the tech crowd on both sides of the aisle realize that removing net neutrality would just enrich the ISPs and would do nothing to improve our internet speeds or access to diverse content.
- tzs 9y ago> If people are against this en masse -- he won't touch it. My guess is he backs down or takes a neutral stance, just like Wheeler did on net neutrality, and like Obama did on encryption. Wheeler did not take a neutral stance. He was always for net neutrality. Some people were confused on that point because after the courts tossed out the Open Internet Order of 2010, Wheeler's first proposed replacement was weaker. In particular, it would have allowed paid "fast lanes". It was weaker not because he preferred weaker net neutrality, but rather because he wanted to try to save net neutrality using the same legal authority that the 2010 order used, if he could. That would be very likely to survive further judicial scrutiny, and also not to draw to much Congressional ire. But from the start he said he was open to reclassifying ISPs as Title II common carriers in order to make a new order that was stronger than the 2010. The public comments were overwhelmingly in favor of that, and that's what he went with. People also get confused about Wheeler's intentions because he was once head of the main cable trade association, and later head of the main cellular/wireless trade association. What is often overlooked is that at those times, those industries were young, small, and trying to compete against big established players (broadcast networks in the case of cable, the big telephone companies in the case of cellular/wireless). Fighting for cable and wireless was the pro-consumer, pro-competition side at the time. In Wheeler's own words: Wheeler> You have to think about what I was lobbying for. The cable industry at that point in time was fighting being put out of business by this agency at the request of the broadcasters. Broadcasters wanted to shut down the cable companies. They didn't want to give them access to programming because they didn’t want the content in the market, the competition in the market. And so I joined a crusade—we called it ‘plant a flower in the vast wasteland’—to have choice for Americans in what they see on television. See this interview if you want to understand Wheeler: https://arstechnica.com/business/2016/03/how-a-former-lobbyist-became-the-broadband-industrys-worst-nightmare/ https://arstechnica.com/business/2016/03/how-a-former-lobbyi...
- wcarron 9y agoReal confirmation of an attack would be a nice-to-have in this situation. I can see 3 probable realities: 1. The sheer volume of commenters and responses took down the system. They cover it by saying a DDoS attack was the cause. 2. They are intent on crippling Net Neutrality anyway, and either designed the system to insufficiently handle traffic and call it a DDos or even DDos themselves. 3. Since there are groups with vested interest in removing net neutrality, and they have deep pockets, I can easily see a few groups moving to protect their interests. In other words, a legitimate DDoS attack. All 3 seem equally likely to me, especially considering Ajit Pai's stance on NN. This is not encouraging as a citizen of the US.
- clusmore 9y agoIn 2016, Australia held its first online-first national census. Unsurprisingly it was a complete disaster, and the government told us the system was the victim of a DDoS attack right around dinner time for the east coast. They also told us they expected around 10 million participants and that during capacity planning they took the expected 1 million submissions per hour and doubled it to be safe, i.e. that a bunch of statisticians thought that 10 million people would form a uniform distribution over a day rather than spiking when they get home from work.
- duncan_bayne 9y agoYeah. The ineptitude there was staggering. I was actually going to refuse to fill out the census on principle, but my wife's sense of civic duty prevailed ;) Fortunately so did her risk analysis skills. She noticed those numbers being bandied about by the Government prior, and decided she'd log on the very moment the census opened, because it was likely to fail under load.
- ben_jones 9y ago1a. Incompetent IT failed to implement proper monitoring/logging and they honestly don't know if it was legitimate traffic or a DDOS attack.
- 9y ago
- JustSomeNobody 9y agoBesides the ISPs and the Government (rather, the part that wants this), who has anything to gain by this?
- binarymax 9y agoIf net neutrality goes away, then incumbent corporations with existing foothold and ISP partnerships may get a monopolistic-like advantage.
- JustSomeNobody 9y agoAh, good point. I wasn't thinking about the Corps with existing partnerships.
- ergothus 9y agoIt's also the corps with money: Pay for preferred treatment and raise the barrier to entry for any competitor. Given how Microsoft reacted when they saw their greatest enemy as "some kid in their garage brewing the next killer app", that's a very real concern.
- unityByFreedom 9y agoLarge content providers, for one. Basically, any business that uses the internet as a primary tool could spend to boost their priority with ISPs. That benefits basically any big company while screwing us because we can't choose a different ISP.
- throwaway91111 9y agoAnyone with cash to negotiate with multi-billion dollar ISPs for rates will like this move. They can buy top quality service (hypothetically).
- bearcobra 9y agoI know for consumer complaints the FCC runs everything through Zendesk, so in theory there is a 3rd party who could verify any claims like this. I wonder if the there's a vendor doing hosting for the comments system as well.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- callesgg 9y agoThe site works just fine for me. http://www.gofccyourself.com http://www.gofccyourself.com press the link "+ Express" I mean i have not posted anything as i am not a US citizen but the form loads and i can fill it in
- ep103 9y agoMight as well do so anyway, its still going to affect you :)
- ixwt 9y agoThere is a checkbox for International people. This could still potentially affect everyone outside of the US.
- throwaway91111 9y agoThis is especially true for foreign companies that still rely on equal access tk US infrastructure for both serving domestic needs and routing.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- sophyput 9y agoIf you destroy net neutrality I will cease all nonessential internet activity. Starting with Facebook. Forever
- CDCINLR 9y agoNET NEUTRALITY IS IMPORTANT TO OUR COMMUNICATIONS IN A FREE SOCIETY. IT MUST BE ENFORCEABLE. TO TRUST CORPORATIONS TO IGNORE OPPORTUNITIES TO INFLUENCE THE USE OF THEIR OWN PRODUCTS OVER OTHERS IS BEYOND FOOLISH, IT SUGGESTS ULTERIOR MOTIVE. TRUMP WAS ELECTED BECAUSE PEOPLE WANTED A CHANGE, LETS SEE THAT THE CHANGE IS TOWARD THE FREEDOMS THIS COUNTRY STANDS FOR NOT AWAY FROM THEM.
- CDCINLR 9y agoNET NEUTRALITY IS IMPORTANT TO THE FREE COMMUNICATION THAT UNDERPINS OUR FREE SOCIETY. IT MUST BE ENFORCEABLE. TO TRUST CORPORATIONS TO IGNORE OPPORTUNITIES TO EXERT IMPROPER INFLUENCE FOR THEIR PRODUCTS IS BEYOND FOOLISH, IT IS EITHER VERY STUPID OR DISHONEST. TRUMP WAS ELECTED BECAUSE PEOPLE WANTED A CHANGE. LETS SEE THAT THE CHANGE IS TOWARD THE FREEDOMS FOR WHICH THIS COUNTRY STANDS, NOT AWAY FROM THEM.
- AdmiralAsshat 9y agoSo which ISP has a botnet under its control, I wonder?
- ohazi 9y agoWell, ISPs control firmware updates to any cable modem attached to their network, so... all of them?
- mizchief2 9y agoUnder pure net neutrality ISP's would be required to give DDoS attacks equal access.
- mtgx 9y agoIt may be due to John Oliver (again): http://tumblr.fightforthefuture.org/post/160454924113/fccs-claim-that-site-was-hacked-during-john http://tumblr.fightforthefuture.org/post/160454924113/fccs-c... https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20170508/06200037314/john-oliver-net-neutrality-rant-has-crippled-fcc-website-second-time.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/2017050...
- bluetwo 9y agoOnce again: We screwed up by not making this a campaign issue. Many of the news stations here are affiliated with internet providers. The candidates both took money from the industry. No one was going to make this an issue, and we screwed up by not forcing it to be part of the conversation. Of course we also let the election happen without a major conversation about fracking.
- mattnewton 9y agoBut Emails! Locker room talk! I think this needs to be solved at the state-representative level anyways with legislation. This currently fickle flipping between administrations is bad for consumers and creates uncertainty in buisiness, which means they don't want to make long term investments. Why bother upgrading your wires for a long term profit if you are going to be regulated into the dust or if you are going to be more free to exploit monopoly power on your pricing? Just play wait-and-see forever.
- smkellat 9y agoMaybe this should never have been something implemented by mere regulation in the first place? The Commission generally disregards bulk comments that repeat the same boilerplate language, has done so for decades, and is looking for logical argument grounded in the law rather than emotional outbursts. How about getting a bill passed in Congress providing for this? There were opportunities. There can be again in the future. Laws are harder to repeal compared to regulations. Besides, I was there when the original ECFS was created. Events like this make me miss the days when paper filings were the norm. You had to think harder about what you were going to say compared to today's emails of rage provoked by a comedian. You had to reflect carefully way back when...prior to mid-1997, that is.
- elif 9y agoMaybe they had enough bandwidth, but it was QoS'd down for netflix
- mmanfrin 9y agoIf the government wants fast lanes, it has to pay for Xfinity® CustomerReach™; it's how the market moves to fit the needs of consumers!
- tomokasa 9y agoDid someone happen to save the John Oliver original video? It shows "This video is not available" for me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak EDIT: was blocked in Canada, thanks NegatioN
- NegatioN 9y agoThat link is accessible from Norway at least. Maybe it's blocked in your region?
- wonderwonder 9y agoInstructions say select your state from the dropdown. State is tagged required. State dropdown is empty and wont let me proceed :) Tried again an hour later and it worked.
- syphilis2 9y agoIn addition to complaining to the FCC individually, Mozilla is accepting signatures for an open letter: https://advocacy.mozilla.org/en-US/net-neutrality https://advocacy.mozilla.org/en-US/net-neutrality
- mnm1 9y agoStill doesn't work. They can't even keep their site up, yet they want to dictate policy for the whole Internet. Am I the only one who finds that absurd and beyond fucked up? EDIT: Site works, form submission doesn't. Doesn't sound like a DDoS to me.
- justforFranz 9y agoNot that legitimate comments matter. This administration is going to do what the business community wants, period.