FCC Comment Page Buckles To Its Knees After John Oliver Asks Everyone To Comment

from the coincidence-or-not... dept

Tue, Jun 3rd 2014 3:34am — Mike Masnick

On Monday morning, we wrote about John Oliver's brilliant report on net neutrality, which ended with a stirring "call to action" for internet commenters to tell the FCC why it should preserve a free and open internet. If you somehow missed it, here's the clip again: Many of our commenters noted that the FCC comment page that Oliver pointed to, FCC.gov/comments, appeared to be down for most of the day, either suggesting wonderful irony or that Oliver's call to action has been monumentally successful. The FCC has put up some tweets in which it apologizes for technical difficulties, without explaining why they were occurring beyond "heavy traffic."

We’ve been experiencing technical difficulties with our comment system due to heavy traffic. We’re working to resolve these issues quickly.
— The FCC (@FCC) June 2, 2014

We’re still experiencing technical difficulties with our comment system. Thanks for your patience as we work to resolve the issues.
— The FCC (@FCC) June 2, 2014

Some of us quickly speculated that the two things were related, while some publications have simply assumed without question that it was Oliver's pleas that brought the system down. To some extent I hope that's the case, though I do fear a bit the kinds of comments people might be leaving.

Either way, the irony of the FCC having trouble under heavy loads concerning net neutrality was not lost on many people, who didn't miss the opportunity to tweet some replies mocking the whole net neutrality proposal.

.@FCC can I haz priority access?
— Falk Steiner (@flueke) June 2, 2014

@FCC Don't worry. If you pay $8M more to Comcast you might get a better connection. They might even throw in a $4M/m server lease agreement.
— Richard Risner (@Kowder) June 2, 2014

@FCC Maybe because you servers are running on the "slow lane" internet? Since when do you read comments that dont include cash bribes?
— Mark Rodgers ツ (@KC8GRQ) June 2, 2014

.@FCC You didn't save the "fast lane" for yourself? How sweet. https://t.co/BCSSbwhV1H #NetNeutrality
— Daniel Wallen (@TheWallenWay) June 2, 2014

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: comments, fcc, john oliver, net neutrality, web hosting

110 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Tom Hart, 3 Jun 2014 @ 3:57am

FCC website
Comments seem to be accepted, but the FCC has set up a special email address for comments on an open internet. From fcc.gov:

FCC Establishes New Inbox for Open Internet Comments - openinternet@fcc.gov
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Andrew (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 11:22am
  
  Re: FCC website
  According to the rules, the FCC does not have to (and will not) take into account, consider or read any emails related to net neutrality. On comments made through the official comment channels will be represented for consideration. This is my understanding and given past actions (think hanging chads) it's best to do exactly what is stated in the rules, despite what anyone says.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John, 3 Jun 2014 @ 11:32am
  
  Re: FCC website
  "due to heavy traffic"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 4:22am

Misinformed jokes
But net neutrality has nothing to do with their own servers performance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Whatever, 3 Jun 2014 @ 4:35am
  
  Re: Misinformed jokes
  Their server performance has nothing to do with net neutrality, those joking about it pretty much make it clear they don't have a clue.
  
  I am not sure that this accomplishes anything. Oliver's report, while entertaining, contained some pretty big factual errors. As an example, Comcast did not downgrade or block connections that would have allowed more Netflix onto their network (as one of their peering providers suggested) but rather stopping ADDING extra bandwidth to support Netflix business model, which is incredibly expensive for an ISP to support. The alternative would be high customer rates for service, which everyone would yell about.
  
  Doing what amounts of a very distributed denial of service on the FCC website as a publicity stunt really doesn't advance things.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeremy Lyman (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 4:50am
    
    Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
    The alternative to leveraging localized Content Delivery Networks is to actually build out infrastructure that can deliver the speeds you advertise and your customers pay for.
    
    Comcast has mystically (read: Monopoly) found a third option whereby Netflix builds the CDN that improves service that Comcast is supposed to be providing its customers, AND CHARGES Netflix for the privilege of delivering content that competes with Comcast's offerings.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 4:55am
    
    Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
    Jokes aside...
    
    Really, you are going to use a Technicality to absolve Comcast? Comcast collects fees from the customers using their services. Those services were advertised with a certain bandwidth in mind.
    
    They do not owe anything to Netflix, but they do owe it to their PAYING customers to provide the bandwidth they are PAYING for!!! If they need to raise rates then so be it, that is the competition in the market that should be there!
    
    We are moving to a future where we will consume even more bandwidth for content only being slowed by the MafiAA's. You need a reality check because you simply do not understand this yourself! Comcast either needs to keep up or get out of the game and stop BUYING the legislative process to legislate a better business model for themselves!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 5:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
      Indeed. Comcast, or any provider, should not be advertising unlimited bandwidth when they cannot provide it.
      
      To blame the website owners is disingenuous.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 5:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
      Increasing rates to add to the infrastructure needed to provide the service they are selling to their customers is still not acceptable when you consider that the want to spend $45 billion to buy TWC.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 8:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
        that is for the TWC customers to decide, not us!
        
        We need the FCC to get out of the way of competition and let them compete, not carve out little monopolies here and there.
        
        I want the choice between Verizon, Comcast, TWC, AT&T... that way I can switch when necessary.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 8:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
        I was responding to this part of your comment...
        
        "If they need to raise rates then so be it"
        
        My point is any claim that they need to raise rates to improve infrastructure is bullshit when they are asking the public to allow them to spend $45 billion on buying TWC.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
      Really, you are going to use a Technicality to absolve Comcast?
      
      Whatever just has to disagree with everything written here. He's kind of the latest version of The Anti-Mike.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
        I took the bait didn't I?
        
        *hangs head in shame*
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 5:17am
    
    Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
    I'm not choking you ... I'm just not allowing additional air to pass into your lungs.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - beech, 3 Jun 2014 @ 5:29am
    
    Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
    Its not that Comcast stopped "building roads" to use a metaphor, its that they purposely let the traffic lights go to fuck up traffic.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Whatever, 3 Jun 2014 @ 5:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
      Not the case at all. It's much more like Netflix built a mega, mega, mega mall and drive thru which has driven traffic well beyond what the road passing by their new mall can handle. There is plenty of demand to get to the new mall, but all you get is traffic jams.
      
      So the city / county says we can build new roads, but we will have to increase taxes. Nobody wants a tax increase. The solution is for the mall operator to pay for shuttle buses to get people to it's mall, or to pay to help build out the roads.
      
      Comcast didn't do anything bad - they just didn't build a whole bunch new network to try to support someone else's high demand product.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 6:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
        "Not the case at all."
        
        It is absolutely the case.
        
        "It's much more like Netflix built a mega, mega, mega mall and drive thru which has driven traffic well beyond what the road passing by their new mall can handle."
        
        Each customer is paying for a set connection. So if each customer pays for a 10Mb/sec connection and comcast has 100 customers and each customer is using 10Mb/Sec comcast will have to transfer 10Mb/sec * 100 customers = 1000Mb/sec = 1Gb/sec of data through it's network. Now when it comes to nodes not in its network it doesn't matter where that information comes from, be it from Netflix or Youtube or a combination of Netflix and Youtube. The amount of data being transferred is the same and shouldn't matter to comcast. If Comcast can't transfer the necessary data then that is false advertising to the customer. They could either upgrade their system or advertise a lower speed.
        
        But the real problem here, as pointed out in the video, is a complete lack of competition. The ISP's have rigged the system to avoid multiple ISP's from competing in the same areas as even they have admit to when they claimed that the merger won't affect competition any because we're already in a state where the system is rigged to avoid any competition. This should violate some anti-trust laws if politicians and regulators weren't so bought and paid for.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 6:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
        its network *
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Andrew (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 11:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
        On top of all of this, should an individual municipality decide that internet access is a utility that people need to achieve modern living standards and that the ISP is not providing adequate service they can't stand up a municipal ISP without being sued by the likes of TWC. The grounds of those law suits are usually along the lines of "we cannot compete with an at cost competitor." The reality is they cannot compete with any competitor that will provide the same service for cheaper or a better service for a little more, yet alone a better service for cheaper. Don't claim they need any more money to do anything of they have done nothing with the money they already collect. Man, I feel like a I seeing a lot of astroturfing going on here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - RD, 3 Jun 2014 @ 7:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
        "Not the case at all. It's much more like Netflix built a mega, mega, mega mall and drive thru which has driven traffic well beyond what the road passing by their new mall can handle. There is plenty of demand to get to the new mall, but all you get is traffic jams. "
        
        Dammit to hell CAR METAPHORS DO NOT WORK ON THE INTERNET!
        
        Geezus.
        
        The Internet is a series of lanes now? REALLY?
        
        Comcast is ALREADY PAID to get people to the "mall." It doesn't matter how popular or busy the "mall" is, you pay for connection at X speed. PERIOD. It is up to COMCAST to ensure their infrastructure is sufficient to get people to the wherever they want to go on the internet at X speed. PERIOD. But noooooo, Comshit has decided to oversell their lines, NOT upgrade their capacity, and instead spend money on lobbyists for favorable laws, attempting to buy Time Warner, and pay their CEO and executives obscene amounts of money INSTEAD OF REINVESTING IN THE CORE NEEDS AND SERVICES OF THE COMPANY.
        
        Come back when you understand how things actually work.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 12:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
        "CAR METAPHORS DO NOT WORK ON THE INTERNET"
        
        This is because everyone knows that roads are flat and tubes are round.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 1:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
        You have it all wrong...the internet is a series of tubes.
        
        - Ted Stevens
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Whatever, 3 Jun 2014 @ 4:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
        you pay for connection at X speed. PERIOD.
        
        You pay for a given connection speed to the ISP network. It is in no way a promise to deliver that much bandwidth 24/7 to every site on the net all the time without any delays. It is only your connection speed to your ISP network.
        
        There are assumptions and calculations made when it comes to network connectivity at the ISP level, from the number of people who can connect to a given "head end" to the speed of the connection of that head end to the core, and so on. One of those calculations is how much outgoing or peered connectivity you need to serve those customers. The entire business model of an ISP is based on those things. There is not a single ISP I can think of that provides 100% throughput on it's entire network for each connection it sells.
        
        It's why when they talk caps, they talk about 250 gig a month on a 10 meg connection example. The 10 meg connection in theory could push about 3000 gig in each direction (up and down) if you ran it 100% of the time. The average user (based on all data seen) uses much less than the cap data.
        
        Equating your connection speed to "how much bandwidth you bought" is silly. It is your burst speed, not your constant allocation of bandwidth.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 7:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
        It still makes no difference to the ISP where traffic that's not on its network originated from. When I pay for traffic I am paying for it to be delivered to me no matter where it is originating from. If the ISP can't deliver either advertise slower speeds or upgrade your infrastructure.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 4 Jun 2014 @ 8:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
        "Equating your connection speed to "how much bandwidth you bought" is silly."
        
        It depends on the plan. If you've bought (like I have) a plan that promises you "unlimited" internet access at a given speed, then your connection speed does indeed determine how much bandwidth you've purchased.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Wanderer (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 8:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
        The solution is for the mall operator to pay for shuttle buses to get people to it's mall
        
        Which, under that analogy, would seem to be roughly what Netflix's paying to put their servers in Comcast facilities (to avoid having to pull the data across the broader backbone) would constitute.
        
        As I understand matters, there are potentially four entities involved here: Netflix, its ISP, the end user, and the end user's ISP.
        
        In the case being considered, the end user's ISP is Comcast. (Netflix's ISP may also be Comcast, in which case we have only three entities and things are somewhat simplified, but that isn't remotely guaranteed to apply.)
        
        The end user pays the end user's ISP for access.
        
        Netflix pays Netflix's ISP for access.
        
        The reason data sent by Netflix through Netflix's ISP can reach the end user through the end user's ISP is that Netflix's ISP and the end user's ISP have a peering agreement with one another.
        
        Under the terms of that peering agreement, every time Netflix's ISP sends data to the end user's ISP, Netflix's ISP pays the end user's ISP X dollars for every Y gigabytes of data sent.
        
        The end user pays Comcast for access, meaning Comcast gets paid. Netflix pays their ISP for access, who pays Comcast for peering, meaning Comcast gets paid.
        
        If Comcast thinks the money they get paid for incoming Netflix data isn't enough, they need to renegotiate their peering agreement with Netflix's ISP. If Netflix's ISP can't pay more at their current income levels, they can increase the amount they charge Netflix.
        
        What they can't do is charge an extra fee directly to Netflix. Their costs for carrying the incoming Netflix data are supposed to be covered by what they get paid under the peering agreement. If theose costs aren't covered by that, then the problem is with the peering agreement, not with Netflix.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 1:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
      its that they took taxpayer money to build the network/"Roads", to which they are now randomly closing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 5:33am
    
    Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
    You claim pretty big factual errors ... and only provide one silly opinion. Then you say that Level 3 is a liar. Oh my! Who am I to believe ... a nutty commenter on a blog or a tier 1 Internet service provider.
    
    Publicity stunt? Really?
    Let me guess ... when you comment you are expressing your rights. But when others make comments you disagree with, then it is a publicity stunt and a denial of service attack.
    Brilliant!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rich Kulawiec, 3 Jun 2014 @ 5:33am
    
    Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
    "[...] but rather stopping ADDING extra bandwidth to support Netflix business model [...]"
    
    No. Stop. Wrong.
    
    What Comcast is refusing to do is to support its OWN business model, which includes "delivering advertised bandwidth to the customers who have already paid for it".
    
    Comcast has been paid. In fact, they've been drastically OVERPAID, given their miserably slow service and insanely high prices and appalling customer "support" when compared to the rest of the world. They're now refusing to deliver the service that they've been paid for unless their extortion demands are met.
    
    Maybe if Comcast didn't pay their lying dirtbag CEO so much, or pay its lying dirtbag lobbyists so much, or spend money on sports arenas, idiotic rebranding efforts (the lame "Xfinity" because everyone hates Comcast), or on self-promoting commercials and print ads, maybe they could take some of those hundreds of millions of dollars and provide the services that their customers are entitled to.
    
    But I doubt that will ever happen. That would be responsible and ethical, thus completely out of sync with Comcast's corporate culture.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 5:39am
    
    Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
    This isn't DDOS. If it was, they would have said it was down due to an attack. An overwhelming response to a call for action is not DDOS. DDOS is flooding a site with illegitimate traffic so it cannot handle the legitimate traffic. All of this traffic appears to be legitimate. It just appears to be more than they were prepared to handle.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 5:46am
    
    Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
    Then maybe the FCC should have better infrastructure!
    
    Oh, wait, no, they don't. Because Comcast et al have consistently refused to maintain the infrastructure in order to move people onto higher-priced options (see, for example, the disgusting way that baseline copper lines ar ebeing treated in San Diego, to name one place, which directly puts lives in danger because the 911 network primarily operates over the same copper wires in the vast majority of the country).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ed the Engineer, 3 Jun 2014 @ 5:55am
    
    Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
    Whatever wrote:
    Comcast did not downgrade or block connections that would have allowed more Netflix onto their network (as one of their peering providers suggested) but rather stopping ADDING extra bandwidth to support Netflix business model, which is incredibly expensive for an ISP to support.
    
    I keep hearing how Netflix is causing problems for the ISPs. This is a lie. Netflix provides a service to the ISP customers. Netflix does no use ISP bandwidth, the ISP customers do. The fact that those customers are accessing Netflix, using the bandwidth they paid the ISP for, is not Netflix problem.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 5:58am
    
    Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
    "Their server performance has nothing to do with net neutrality, those joking about it pretty much make it clear they don't have a clue."
    
    It's a joke, it's not supposed to be taken seriously. I'm sure those joking about it are aware that the servers aren't down due to reasons related to net neutrality but the joke is still funny. Lighten up.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 6:11am
    
    Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
    "As an example, Comcast did not downgrade or block connections that would have allowed more Netflix onto their network (as one of their peering providers suggested) but rather stopping ADDING extra bandwidth to support Netflix business model"
    
    Same thing, you're just playing semantics. It's like the difference between us saying there is a 'fast lane' and a 'slow lane' and the ISP's saying "No no no no, there is a fast lane and a super fast lane". If the ISP's can't deliver the advertised speed to the customers they need to either upgrade their systems or advertise a different speed. When I pay for 10 Mb/sec I want 10 Mb/sec regardless of where it comes from. That's what I, the customer, paid for.
    
    but, again, the real problem here as pointed out is a lack of competition.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Scott Yates (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 6:27am
    
    Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
    Comcast actually WAS throttling Netflix. This was proven when people tested with direct connections to Netflix and saw issues, then used a VPN (still on top of their Comcast connection) to access Netflix, and saw no issues at all.
    
    That is the clearest indication of direct interference with traffic as far as I am concerned. Remember, VPN traffic is encrypted, so Comcast can't tell what the termination point is.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 6:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
      FCC should have a very specific and clear rule that ISP's CANNOT throttle certain type of traffic. If caught doing that (and should be pretty easy to do), they should be forced to pay big fines (in the millions), each time.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 7:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
        That's a dangerous premise because it concedes the argument and changes debate to be about what traffic should be allowed to be throttled and what traffic shouldn't be. Net Neutrality is about treating all traffic the same.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 1:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
        seriously...when was the last time a big company did wrong and got fined.
        
        we the people would be wasting our ammunition on small things.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 2:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
        Financial institutions get fined all the time. They just factor it in as a cost of doing business. And if they don't get caught and the fines don't happen, then it's just extra profit they give out to the executives as bonuses.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 2:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
        True, but those fines tend to be so small (relatively speaking) that they don't really count.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 2:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
        Some of them are quite large from the layman's perspective, but really just a drop in the bucket with regards to the amount of money the company is making off of the crap they are pulling.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 8:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
        If by certain you mean all I agree with you completely.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 6:48am
    
    Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
    As an example, Comcast did not downgrade or block connections that would have allowed more Netflix onto their network (as one of their peering providers suggested) but rather stopping ADDING extra bandwidth to support Netflix business model, which is incredibly expensive for an ISP to support.
    
    Thank you for openly admitting that Comcast changed longstanding business practices to specifically force Netflix to pay for access to Comcast subscribers. I think I win now, right?
    
    The alternative would be high customer rates for service, which everyone would yell about.
    
    Since you're claiming to be the expert on Comcast pricing, I'm curious if you know what Comcast's rate of return for broadband services is?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - arkiel (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 7:34am
    
    Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
    "I am not sure that this accomplishes anything. Oliver's report, while entertaining, contained some pretty big factual errors. As an example, Comcast did not downgrade or block connections that would have allowed more Netflix onto their network (as one of their peering providers suggested) but rather stopping ADDING extra bandwidth to support Netflix business model, which is incredibly expensive for an ISP to support. The alternative would be high customer rates for service, which everyone would yell about."
    
    The equipment required to expand Netflix support was offered by Netflix itself for free. Your 'incredibly expensive' claim is uncited and unsupported in fact. Comcast declined to receive free hardware from Netflix until they reached a monetary agreement because Comcast is shit.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 8:06am
    
    Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
    "but rather stopping ADDING extra bandwidth to support Netflix business model, which is incredibly expensive for an ISP to support."
    
    This is the extortion. First, Comcast is getting paid to "add the extra bandwidth" (that's not quite the right way to characterize it, but close enough). Claiming that it's "incredibly expensive" is a bit bogus because of that. Besides, they didn't have to even pay -- Netflix offered them a solution that wouldn't have cost them a dime.
    
    This wasn't about Comcast being unable to foot their bills. This was about Comcast wanting to steal.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 8:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
      And if Comcast is having trouble paying for the necessary infrastructure upgrades, how do they have $45 billion to spend to buy TWC?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nicholas Basso, 3 Jun 2014 @ 8:21am
    
    Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
    So, you didn't at all pay attention to the report, including the graph published by Netflix showing the DRAMATIC drop in bandwidth allowed to Netflix by Comcast, or the fact that about a week into the problem, in response to Netflix stating they were investigating speed issues in connection to Comcast customers, Comcast openly admitted they were throttling Netflix bandwidth in a blatant ransom maneuver. Good to know.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - cole, 3 Jun 2014 @ 8:54am
    
    Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
    nice try fcc. I dont think Oliver said that comcast downgraded or blocked connections. He just showed an accurate mapping of monitored average connection speed. What you are trying to say is that as long as comcast doesnt actively block connections they can throttle as much as they want. Boo freaking Hoo that it might have been expensive for Comcast. I am sure they can pay for it with the gold coins that explode out of my body when they fuck me in the ass every month.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:59am
    
    Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
    I think you're mistaken on your wording. Comcast wouldn't add extra bandwidth to support their home customers requests from outside of their own network. Who the customers requested matters not.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Naivety is so cute, 3 Jun 2014 @ 11:04am
    
    Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
    If you think that Comcast won't raise rates on its customers anyway, you are incredibly naive. Comcast could give 2 shits about its customers, as evidenced by their incredibly horrid customer service.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John, 3 Jun 2014 @ 11:26am
    
    Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
    Bullshit Mr. Whatever. Comcast customers have paid 100% of the cost of the bandwidth for anything those customers use, including netflix.. I pay comcast a monthly fee that pays for 100% of the netflix data I request as a customer to be delivered to me, comcast is extorting netflix to pay for same exact datastream I already paid them for.
    
    And they want it to be legal to do that with EVERY datastream any of their customers use.
    
    It is past time for the cable giants to be reclassified as common carriers. This is what should be done, not privatizing data priority by how much is extorted by blackmail as comcast has done to netflix.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 12:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
      Since when does it matter if you paid Comcast for the service?
      
      http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/06/comcast-charged-2000-for-alarm-system-that-didnt-wor k-for-7-years/
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 11:30am
    
    Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
    Go away Comcast comment troll
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Doug, 3 Jun 2014 @ 12:14pm
    
    Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
    You sound like a corporate shill. There should be more competition, period. If there is not, then they should not be able to change the Internet into 'lanes'. In England, users have as many as 15 providers to choose from. In England, they have significantly faster Internet speeds. In England, they are not even contemplating 'slow lanes' because people would just switch providers.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Sol Invictus, 3 Jun 2014 @ 12:39pm
    
    Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
    What do you mean adding extra bandwidth to support Netflix? I pay Comcast for 105mb/s connection. To watch Netflix I need around 5-10mb/s. If Comcast can't properly supply that bandwidth to me from Netflix it is their fault for promising to supply me content at a rate they can't supply. There is no adding extra bandwidth. Mainly because that isn't how bandwidth works. If I request 10mb/s for some data that isn't Netflix they should still be able to provide said service...
    
    Your comment is full of wat?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - troll, 3 Jun 2014 @ 1:52pm
    
    Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
    well fuck you
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - roark, 3 Jun 2014 @ 7:33pm
    
    Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
    I suppose you glazed over the monopoly part of Oliver's report?
    
    Give users more options and let these guys compete and I'm sure the so called expensive bandwidth issues will go away.
    
    Just read up on what's happening where google fiber is showing up. Suddenly the ISP's there have more bandwidth available and at best costs.
    
    Btw, turning off the extra bandwidth they were providing is in fact downgrading the service that was being provided.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 4:35am
  
  Re: Misinformed jokes
  Unless they run their comment system on a 386 it can only be bandwidth limited.
  
  But anyway get a sense of humour!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 11:51am
    
    Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
    Don't feed the troll. If you feed a monster, you are complicit in its crimes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 5:36am
  
  Re: Misinformed jokes
  It's called a joke.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 6:17am
    
    Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
    a misinformed joke ;)
    
    (where do these shills come up with these terms?)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dude, 3 Jun 2014 @ 10:06am
  
  Re: Misinformed jokes
  we know that. they don't know that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
andypandy, 3 Jun 2014 @ 4:25am

lol
This is not due to the site being unable to support the traffic, this is about them shutting the site down so they do not get too many negative comments, and i could almost guarantee this is the case. Imagine the mllions of comments they would have had to acknowledge if their site was not conveniently down, we are talking about people(FCC) who have been bribed to privatise the internet, you dont honestly think they would allow oposition forces to show how everyone with a little common sense understand what they have done and why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Techdude154, 3 Jun 2014 @ 5:29pm
  
  Re: lol
  They don't actually read these comments. I sent them a blank email by accident because google messed up and I still got a reply
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Techdude154, 3 Jun 2014 @ 5:29pm
  
  Re: lol
  They don't actually read these comments. I sent them a blank email by accident because google messed up and I still got a reply
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Liam, 3 Jun 2014 @ 5:33pm
  
  Re: lol
  You can access it, just go to their website, but start the address with "https://" instead of "http://"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 4:39am

I had a read of a few of the comments and of my random sample they all seem well written and to the point, not the sort of trollish comments that may be expected.

But it does look like someone is manually filtering these so possibly there is a spam filter at play?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 5:47am
  
  Re:
  You mean a Comcast filter, surely?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Oizo, 3 Jun 2014 @ 4:49am

Let's slow down that net a bit, then our servers can handle the traffic
The FCC could equally be convinced that 'faster lanes' would have made their problem even worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 4:50am

So would this be the John Oliver equivalent to the Colbert bump?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill Jackson (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 5:11am

Who wants to throttle the volume of incoming comments?
Who controls the pipes?

I have a suspicion that Comcast and their ilk have 'encumbered' traffic to the comment site(Technically easy) in the mistaken belief that this will cause many people to give up and go away = fweer comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 5:27am
  
  Re: Who wants to throttle the volume of incoming comments?
  It is really easy to detect that sort of thing. A simple traceroute will tell you where the bottleneck occurs and if that were the case, the FCC would be denying that there is any problem with their site instead of apologizing for it not working properly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 8:08am
    
    Re: Re: Who wants to throttle the volume of incoming comments?
    Unless Comcast "fast tracks" ICMP packets.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 8:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Who wants to throttle the volume of incoming comments?
      Sure but wouldn't that kind of defeat the entire purpose of ICMP?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 8:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Who wants to throttle the volume of incoming comments?
        Yes, but why would Comcast care? (Also, they could just fast track ICMP pings, not other ICMP packets.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 8:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who wants to throttle the volume of incoming comments?
        Still if that were happening, the FCC wouldn't be apologizing for their site not working.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rich Kulawiec, 3 Jun 2014 @ 1:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who wants to throttle the volume of incoming comments?
        See "tcptraceroute" for a piece of (open-source) software that performs roughly the same function as an ICMP-based traceroute, but does so by using TCP SYN packets. This is not useful for discovering if someone is playing games with ICMP traffic handling but it's also useful for doing traceroutes on networks whose keepers did not pay attention to http://www.cymru.com/Documents/icmp-messages.html -- which unfortunately some people didn't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 5:22am

This could be the beginning of internet voting. But it will be swept under the rug with claims of vigilantism. Why listen to what your fellow citizens have to say when you have convinced yourself that it is you who tell them what to think and say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 5:23am

A key thing to note. This didn't happen Sunday night when the show aired. This happened Monday afternoon after sites like this one carried the story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill Jackson (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 5:35am

Re: Traceroute.
So if the FCC really wants to know, they will perform the traceroutes? If they do not = complicity.
Do the ISPs have enough capabilities to make the blockage hop around to mimic real traffic?

On the other hand, it might be real traffic, and they are not well served by their ISPs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 5:47am
  
  Re: Re: Traceroute.
  No. If you are having trouble getting the site to load. You do a trace. It will tell you what the response time of every hop between you and that site is. At the point where the response skyrockets is where the bottleneck is. If it jumps before it leaves Comcast's network, then the issue is there. If it doesn't jump until it gets to the FCC site then Comcast has nothing to do with it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:23am
  
  Re: Re: Traceroute.
  On the other hand, it might be real traffic, and they are not well served by their ISPs
  
  Or it's real traffic, and they're well served, and their servers can't handle the load.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 5:47am

Got in but what it shows is odd. Or I just dont understand
First 10 are below:
-------------------
Retrieved the 10,000 most recent records.
To view older records narrow your search criteria.
Displaying 1 to 10 of 10,000. Modify Search Page Size: View:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . Last
Proceeding Number Name of Filer Lawfirm Name Date Received Date Posted Sorted by Date Posted in descending order Exparte Type of Filing
14-28 Detailed Information Jay Lambert View (1) 06/02/2014 06/02/2014 No COMMENT
14-28 Detailed Information Javier Ruiz View (1) 06/02/2014 06/02/2014 No COMMENT
14-28 Detailed Information Jason haynes View (1) 06/02/2014 06/02/2014 No COMMENT
14-28 Detailed Information Jason Wilson View (1) 06/02/2014 06/02/2014 No COMMENT
14-28 Detailed Information Jason Vail View (1) 06/02/2014 06/02/2014 No COMMENT
14-28 Detailed Information Jason Toth View (1) 06/02/2014 06/02/2014 No COMMENT
14-28 Detailed Information Jason Taub View (1) 06/02/2014 06/02/2014 No COMMENT
14-28 Detailed Information Jason Spiewak View (1) 06/02/2014 06/02/2014 No COMMENT
14-28 Detailed Information Jason Snyder View (1) 06/02/2014 06/02/2014 No COMMENT
14-28 Detailed Information Jason Self View (1) 06/02/2014 06/02/2014 No COMMENT
-------------------
Final 10 are below:
--------------------

Search for Filings Results

Retrieved the 10,000 most recent records.
To view older records narrow your search criteria.
Displaying 9991 to 10000 of 10,000. Modify Search Page Size: View:
First . . 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000
Proceeding Number Name of Filer Lawfirm Name Date Received Date Posted Sorted by Date Posted in descending order Exparte Type of Filing
14-28 Detailed Information Shannon Stonebraker View (1) 05/16/2014 05/20/2014 No COMMENT
14-28 Detailed Information Shannon Reddy View (1) 05/16/2014 05/20/2014 No COMMENT
14-28 Detailed Information Shannon Quishenberry View (1) 05/15/2014 05/20/2014 No COMMENT
14-28 Detailed Information Shannon Morrison View (1) 05/16/2014 05/20/2014 No COMMENT
14-28 Detailed Information Shannon McDermott View (1) 05/16/2014 05/20/2014 No COMMENT
14-28 Detailed Information Shannon Leigh Broughton-Smith View (1) 05/16/2014 05/20/2014 No COMMENT
14-28 Detailed Information Shannon Lee View (1) 05/16/2014 05/20/2014 No COMMENT
14-28 Detailed Information Shannon Gagnon View (1) 05/16/2014 05/20/2014 No COMMENT
14-28 Detailed Information Shannon Coen View (1) 05/16/2014 05/20/2014 No COMMENT
14-28 Detailed Information Shannan Oldham View (1) 05/16/2014 05/20/2014 No COMMENT

Why would it claim that the list starts with "J" and ends with "S"?

Im not familiar enough with databases. Is this how it would slice up the info?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:02am
  
  Re: Got in but what it shows is odd. Or I just dont understand
  It's sorting by Date Posted (Newest to oldest) first then in alphabetical order after that (first name then last). If someone named Alfred posted a cooment today, they would show up at the beginning of the list.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 5:54am

poetic justice, do you think? so good to see!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
txpatriot, 3 Jun 2014 @ 6:26am

Conspiracy theories
I tweeted the FCC to restore their electronic comment filing system (ECFS) before the conspiracy theorists got wind of the outage. Looks like I was too late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 8:55am

It is really simple.
Comcast couldn't raise prices for customers without causing an uproar and they couldn't just lower the bandwidth and charge the same price since that would be the same thing. Instead they lowered the bandwidth in the other end (unless companies pay) where the bill will get sent to the customers one way or the other.
Essentially they just raised the price on bandwidth for their customers without the huge resistance. If prices suddenly rose on the internet bill, we wouldn't need to make people aware... they would burn down Comcast all by themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:25am
  
  Re: It is really simple.
  Comcast couldn't raise prices for customers without causing an uproar
  
  Don't they raise prices pretty often? There's very little competition, and they've never shown any sign of caring about customer uproar before, so I don't see why that would be an issue for them. I think it's more likely that they saw this route as the more profitable one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:55am
    
    Re: Re: It is really simple.
    They certainly didn't get the rankings they did in customer service by caring very much.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gaming_Geek (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:44am

Bandwidth usage
So, I want to help out.

All ISPs purposely oversubscribe their peering connections. They do this to make money. This used to work really well for them prior to things like Netflix, Hulu, Pandora, etc. Before those things, the only people likely to heavily use their internet service were business users, people running p2p programs, and gamers. Everyone else just mainly checked email, browsed websites, and that was about it. That type of traffic is minimal and is mainly a burst style of communication. With the rise of Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, Pandora, and other such streaming services, more and more users are actually using the bandwidth they are paying for. This leads to a massive increase in traffic for the ISP.Many cannot afford to not oversubscribe the line. So they do things like install NetEqualizer boxes, which purposely delay users identified as heavy bandwidth users, or bandwidth hogs on the peering link; or an Allot box, which inspects packets and lets them see the type of traffic users are sending and receiving and throttle certain types of traffic.

Im not defending the ISPs. I just wanted to give you guys reasons why they now want to charge sites for access to their customers and impose data caps and such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 10:02am
  
  Re: Bandwidth usage
  The problem isn't with small ISPs operating on a tighter budget like you are describing. We are talking about Comcast here that in the same breath wants you to tell them that it is okay for them to spend $45 billion (with a "b" mind you) to make their monopolistic monstrosity even more monstrous. Yet you want to argue that they can't afford to upgrade their network so that they can actually the supply the service that they are selling now that people are actually using it and they can't get away with overselling it? Yeah right.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gaming_Geek (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 1:05pm
    
    Re: Re: Bandwidth usage
    I am not arguing that they cannot. I am telling you why the situation is how it is. That is all. I dislike the situation as well. I am all for true net neutrality.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 11:59am
  
  Re: Bandwidth usage
  All ISPs purposely oversubscribe their peering connections. They do this to make money.
  
  You listed both the problem and the solution in the first sentence there. If their networks are having so much trouble because people are actually using the speeds/capacity they paid for, rather than the amount the ISP's were hoping they would, then the blame lays entirely on the ISP's for overselling, promising one thing but only being able or willing to deliver a lesser version of it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gaming_Geek (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 1:06pm
    
    Re: Re: Bandwidth usage
    I agree. The solution is to provide what is needed for your customers and not oversubscribe the peering link.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 12:17pm
  
  Re: Bandwidth usage
  In other words, the ISPs can't actually provide the service that they sold us -- which is fraud -- and so they want to extort money from others to make up the difference?
  
  That's horseshit. If the ISPs can't be honest and raise their rates, and they can't meet their commitments to customers, then they fully need to go out of business rather than steal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:45am

Interesting...
In the video, it is shared that Comcast is #2 in lobbying, Northrop Grumman is #1.

What's strange is that Northrop Grumman CEO, Ronald Sugar, is also a board member over at Apple. Apple would also would greatly benefit from changes in the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 9:53am

By all means I think we should let the FCC completely regulate our internet. This has never turned out poorly before, like with their terrible job with phone regulation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 12:03pm
  
  Re:
  The terrible regulation that left us with near constant connectivity and heavy fines for downtime of critical infrastructure? Oh the horror! People could be calling ambulances on there and expect to get a response even on days when everyone is calling each other!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 12:20pm
  
  Re:
  If the internet operates as badly as the phone network, I would rejoice! Because the POTS network works a whole lot better, for more people, at a reasonable cost, than the internet does in the US.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
SoonerBourne (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 11:53am

FCC having SQL issues
Looks like it still isn't working right:

Hibernate operation: could not execute query; uncategorized SQLException for SQL [select this_.id_submission as y0_ from SUBMISSION this_ where this_.id_proceeding=? and this_.id_submission_status>=? order by this_.date_disseminated desc]; SQL state [ZZZZZ]; error code [701]; There is not enough procedure cache to run this procedure, trigger, or SQL batch. Retry later, or ask your SA to reconfigure SQL Server with more procedure cache. ; nested exception is com.sybase.jdbc3.jdbc.SybSQLException: There is not enough procedure cache to run this procedure, trigger, or SQL batch. Retry later, or ask your SA to reconfigure SQL Server with more procedure cache.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ECA (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 11:55am

iV SUGGESTED A SENERIO TO FRINEDS..
Consider a stadium to hold 15,000 people and the biggest show of the year is about to happen..
15,000 people get seats, and 1,000,000 are TRYING to get in.

The internet is the same. The ONLY people that understand this idea are the GAME makers, and youtube..

When you SUGGEST a group goto a site, EXPECT 1,000,000 hits, INSTANTLY..(thats less then .4% of the USA population).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 2:06pm
  
  Re: iV SUGGESTED A SENERIO TO FRINEDS..
  Um...you mean like this?
  
  "And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material."
  
  In other words, the tube is only big enough to hold 15,000 people, and 1,000,000 people are trying to squeeze through, right? Which is what only game makers and Youtube (apparently Youtube is it's own entity) understand?
  
  Out of curiousity, did any of your friends laugh at you? I'm serious. Because they should have.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ECA (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 4:01pm
    
    Re: Re: iV SUGGESTED A SENERIO TO FRINEDS..
    Dear AC,
    (I love your name)
    
    You are talking to a person that has delt with Computers and the internet for 30+ years..
    
    How many Sites that you know of, can handle over 1,000,000 Instant hits? I dont know of many.. And REALLY doubt that the Gov. sites can handle it..ASK them about the HEALTH CARE site, that went down for 3 days..
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2014 @ 6:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: iV SUGGESTED A SENERIO TO FRINEDS..
      You didn't say sites. You said "The internet is the same." The "internet" does not have a (meaningful) population cap. And bandwidth does not equal "capacity" in the way your description implies.
      
      I assumed you were talking about bandwidth limitations of the internet because I figured nobody would be dumb enough to assume that only "GAME makers, and youtube" understand the (extremely basic) concept of excessive network traffic. I mean, really? If you flood a server with connections it's going to run out of room for those connections? No wai! /s
      
      By the way, there's a significant amount of irony involved when someone claims to have 30+ years of 'internet experience' but doesn't realize that claiming 'expertise' online is a waste of time (also see "logical fallacy").
      
      Maybe if you explained your actual point...?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Erin, 3 Jun 2014 @ 6:50pm

Comcast is slowing the FCC page on purpose
I suspect that Comcast is purposely slowing down the FCC site!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2014 @ 9:30am
  
  Re: Comcast is slowing the FCC page on purpose
  Unless Comcast is hosting the FCC site, how is that possible?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul Keating (profile), 4 Jun 2014 @ 3:47am

ViaCom to the rescue!
None of this would have happened if they had had Viacom's superfast connections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2014 @ 10:13am

john oliver is great!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Luke A, 8 Jun 2014 @ 8:43pm

The Oliver rant video has 2.8 million views. The FCC page has 47,600 comments.

Crap.

Did people not watch the video?
Where are the comments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kneeandshoulderindia (profile), 23 May 2019 @ 5:04am

Are you really looking for best knee replacement in chennai??
The knee replacement surgery can help to eliminate your knee pain and restore the function in severely diseased knee joints, correct leg deformities, and improve walking speed and style. We provide the best Knee Replacement Surgery at affordable costs. All you have to do is send us your query, our assistant will contact you within 24 hours for interaction. The rest will be taken care of, so you only have to sit back and relax! Visit:- http://www.kneeandshoulderindia.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]