6 ms·

Cloudflare Might Be Exploring a Way to Slow Down Ajit Pai's Home Internet Speed

145 points by sus_007 9y ago

LeeHwang 9y ago
Hilarious. 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/fcc-publishes-full-text-of-net-neutrality-rules https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/03/12/392544534...
- dleslie 9y ago
  Is that not the EFF?
  - hprotagonist 9y ago
    Basically, but to copy the NRA model effectively, it would be pretty Pyrrhic. They would have to sell their souls to whatever the tech equivalent of springfield arms is, and then scare retired nerds into giving them bags of money.
  - jryan49 9y ago
    EFF isn't single issue.
- tzs 9y ago
  > 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.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - wdr1 9y ago
    Any chance you have a link handy?
    - tzs 9y ago
      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.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pd... https://www.scribd.com/document/258492433/Full-net-neutrality-rules 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.
laretluval 9y ago
Bad move. If this works it will show that preferential treatment is already possible, thus making the existing net neutrality meaningless.
- nerdponx 9y ago
  You'd think Cloudflare would have learned from the Stormfront incident
  - eeks 9y ago
    My sentiment exactly.
  - dleslie 9y ago
    How'd that resolve for them?
    - JshWright 9y ago
      The only net change is that there are fewer Nazis claiming Cloudflare supports them...
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    Indeed, somehow not surprising though.
  - SauciestGNU 9y ago
    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.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- tankenmate 9y ago
  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.
DArcMattr 9y ago
How petty of them.
gist 9y ago
What is his 'equally effective way'?
- hokkos 9y ago
  Find his ip and slow down everything cloudflare can when a packet they proxy go to his ip.
- _jomo 9y ago
  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/ https://www.cloudflare.com/insights/ 1: https://www.cloudflare.com/reliability/ https://www.cloudflare.com/reliability/ 2: https://www.cloudflare.com/ https://www.cloudflare.com/
kalev 9y ago
Lol, just a simple tweet. Move on people.
droopybuns 9y ago
this is really foolish.
_jomo 9y ago
Perhaps a naive question, but how are they going to figure out Pai's IP address without great-firewall-tier DPI?
- briffle 9y ago
  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.
- tyingq 9y ago
  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.
leifaffles 9y ago
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.
- Bud 9y ago
  They do when the entire Internet is threatened. At least, I would. Perhaps I'm not an adult?
  - leifaffles 9y ago
    "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.
    - Bud 9y ago
      I respect your opinion. I disagree.
      - hitekker 9y ago
        On the plus side, you got him to reveal his distaste for net nuetrality, veiled in his “concern” over childishness. And now he’s suggesting violence. Ooph.
- splitrocket 9y ago
  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.
- Bud 9y ago
stephenr 9y ago
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.
tyingq 9y ago
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.
- libeclipse 9y ago
  Anonymous are a bunch of skids.
- vidarh 9y ago
  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.
eganist 9y ago
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-law-trump/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/03/technology/internet-privacy-...): Just buy the information from all land and wireless providers.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ploggingdev 9y ago
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.
- iuguy 9y ago
  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.
  - vidarh 9y ago
    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.
  - kazagistar 9y ago
    > 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.
awalton 9y ago
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.
- heurist 9y ago
  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.
promanescu 9y ago
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.
- kazagistar 9y ago
  > 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.
- dreamcompiler 9y ago
  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.
- vidarh 9y ago
  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.
leifaffles 9y ago
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!"
- AlexandrB 9y ago
  > "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-comcast-your-2014-worst-company-in-america/ https://consumerist.com/2014/04/08/congratulations-to-comcas...
  - calvano915 9y ago
    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 :(
- kazagistar 9y ago
  This isnt a first resort. This is after piles of evidence of against "people [sic] seem nice" has been ignored and dismissed.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
loganabbott 9y ago
Prince responded to Slashdot here https://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/11/23/149208/cloudflare-might-be-exploring-a-way-to-slow-down-fcc-chairman-ajit-pais-home-internet-speeds 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.

145 points by sus_007 9y ago

Hilarious. 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/fcc-publishes-full-text-of-net-neutrality-rules https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/03/12/392544534...

dleslie 9y ago
Is that not the EFF?
- hprotagonist 9y ago
  Basically, but to copy the NRA model effectively, it would be pretty Pyrrhic. They would have to sell their souls to whatever the tech equivalent of springfield arms is, and then scare retired nerds into giving them bags of money.
- jryan49 9y ago
  EFF isn't single issue.
tzs 9y ago
> 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.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- wdr1 9y ago
  Any chance you have a link handy?
  - tzs 9y ago
    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.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pd... https://www.scribd.com/document/258492433/Full-net-neutrality-rules 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.

laretluval 9y ago

Bad move. If this works it will show that preferential treatment is already possible, thus making the existing net neutrality meaningless.

nerdponx 9y ago
You'd think Cloudflare would have learned from the Stormfront incident
- eeks 9y ago
  My sentiment exactly.
- dleslie 9y ago
  How'd that resolve for them?
  - JshWright 9y ago
    The only net change is that there are fewer Nazis claiming Cloudflare supports them...
- bogomipz 9y ago
  Indeed, somehow not surprising though.
- SauciestGNU 9y ago
  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.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tankenmate 9y ago
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.

DArcMattr 9y ago

How petty of them.

gist 9y ago

What is his 'equally effective way'?

hokkos 9y ago
Find his ip and slow down everything cloudflare can when a packet they proxy go to his ip.
_jomo 9y ago
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/ https://www.cloudflare.com/insights/ 1: https://www.cloudflare.com/reliability/ https://www.cloudflare.com/reliability/ 2: https://www.cloudflare.com/ https://www.cloudflare.com/

kalev 9y ago

Lol, just a simple tweet. Move on people.

droopybuns 9y ago

this is really foolish.

_jomo 9y ago

Perhaps a naive question, but how are they going to figure out Pai's IP address without great-firewall-tier DPI?

briffle 9y ago
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.
tyingq 9y ago
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.

leifaffles 9y ago

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.

Bud 9y ago
They do when the entire Internet is threatened. At least, I would. Perhaps I'm not an adult?
- leifaffles 9y ago
  "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.
  - Bud 9y ago
    I respect your opinion. I disagree.
    - hitekker 9y ago
      On the plus side, you got him to reveal his distaste for net nuetrality, veiled in his “concern” over childishness. And now he’s suggesting violence. Ooph.
splitrocket 9y ago
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.
Bud 9y ago

stephenr 9y ago

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.

tyingq 9y ago

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.

libeclipse 9y ago
Anonymous are a bunch of skids.
vidarh 9y ago
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.

eganist 9y ago

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-law-trump/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/03/technology/internet-privacy-...): Just buy the information from all land and wireless providers.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ploggingdev 9y ago

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.

iuguy 9y ago
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.
- vidarh 9y ago
  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.
- kazagistar 9y ago
  > 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.

awalton 9y ago

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.

heurist 9y ago
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.

promanescu 9y ago

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.

kazagistar 9y ago
> 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.
dreamcompiler 9y ago
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.
vidarh 9y ago
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.

leifaffles 9y ago

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!"

AlexandrB 9y ago
> "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-comcast-your-2014-worst-company-in-america/ https://consumerist.com/2014/04/08/congratulations-to-comcas...
- calvano915 9y ago
  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 :(
kazagistar 9y ago
This isnt a first resort. This is after piles of evidence of against "people [sic] seem nice" has been ignored and dismissed.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

loganabbott 9y ago

Prince responded to Slashdot here https://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/11/23/149208/cloudflare-might-be-exploring-a-way-to-slow-down-fcc-chairman-ajit-pais-home-internet-speeds 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.