This isn't much of a secret. As it says in the article Google are lobbying to change the initial window size in the RFC. A lot of people here at Yahoo! want to

This isn't much of a secret. As it says in the article Google are lobbying to change the initial window size in the RFC. A lot of people here at Yahoo! want to see that too, and personally I think we should be more aggressive with our initial window, RFC be damned. This topic was covered really well by Amazon's John Rauser at Velocity Conf: http://velocityconf.com/velocity2010/public/schedule/detail/11792 http://velocityconf.com/velocity2010/public/schedule/detail/... To address the points in the conclusion: 1. Fast is good. Fast is also profit. 2. The net-neutrality argument here is totally bogus, anyone that knows how can up their slow-start window today if they choose to. There doesn't really have anything to do with traffic shaping. 3. Google have been using their usual data driven approach to support their proposal for IETF. We need a lot more of that. It's great. The only way we can really find out how the Internet in general will react to changes like this is to test them in some real world environment. 4. I agree, slow-start is a good algorithm with a very valid purpose. The real problem here is that the magic numbers powering it aren't being kept inline with changes to connectivity technology and increases in consumer/commercial bandwidth.