Well maybe there's room for mass action along these lines.
If, some ISP, say, "Bombcast", decides to throttle some website, say "Slacker News" as part of an extortion plan, can't we have every other content-providing internet service - be it Wikipedia, reddit, AirBnB, Facebook, maybe even google, if they're on this side of the fight - throttle all of Bombcast's customers right back.
Suddenly half of Bombcast's customers find their favourite sites moving at unacceptable speeds, with a black border around the edges and an annoying black popup window telling them exactly why their website access is being throttled, and recommending they switch to some less heinous ISP instead. Naturally, hit the FCC, any part of the US legislature that voted against Net Neutrality and so forth into the bargain. Force customers to choose between the faceless drones who laid the cable to their door ten years ago and send them a bill every month, or the guys who provide all the shiny internet stuffs that they enjoy for more or less free.
Might some sort of content provider's union be quite powerful? Because of who they are, they have a head start at winning hearts and minds so they'd have leeway when it comes to taking action that might alienate their public.
The problem with this plan is that Bombcast couldn't care less. They have a monopoly so what are their customers going to do? Switch to a non-existent ISP? And thanks to the death of Net Neutrality Bombcast can even go as far as to say "Hey Netflix, see this competitor of ours? Your rate just went up 250% if their customers are allowed on your site." (and for those thinking this would run afoul of anti-trust regulations you are 100% correct and I would LOVE to live in a universe where the government cared enough to do something about it, but I just can't believe that that would actually happen).
ISPs have proven time and time again that they can't be bothered to care about their customers. So while I would like to see your idea come to fruition the only people who really lose are the customers. The ISP doesn't care, the FCC doesn't care, the rest of the government doesn't care, even the people don't care enough to do anything substantial.
I agree that this would make a lot of sense. Unless I misunderstood the OP, Neocities seems to be advocating for specifically throttling the FCC, not consumers in general. What you are describing seems to be more along the lines of Brad Feld's post[1] from the other day.
The only options in my area are Comcast and satellite internet with its lag and small bandwidth limits and high prices. If people's favorite sites start annoying them, most people are likely going to blame the site and either stop visiting them or worse yet, try to switch to competing sites that offer the same/similar sites.
If, some ISP, say, "Bombcast", decides to throttle some website, say "Slacker News" as part of an extortion plan, can't we have every other content-providing internet service - be it Wikipedia, reddit, AirBnB, Facebook, maybe even google, if they're on this side of the fight - throttle all of Bombcast's customers right back.
Suddenly half of Bombcast's customers find their favourite sites moving at unacceptable speeds, with a black border around the edges and an annoying black popup window telling them exactly why their website access is being throttled, and recommending they switch to some less heinous ISP instead. Naturally, hit the FCC, any part of the US legislature that voted against Net Neutrality and so forth into the bargain. Force customers to choose between the faceless drones who laid the cable to their door ten years ago and send them a bill every month, or the guys who provide all the shiny internet stuffs that they enjoy for more or less free.
Might some sort of content provider's union be quite powerful? Because of who they are, they have a head start at winning hearts and minds so they'd have leeway when it comes to taking action that might alienate their public.