9 ms·

Dear Internet: Let’s Demo The Slow Lane

410 points by henryaym 12y ago

alexkiritz 12y ago
How about we block comcast and the fcc from accessing google. See how they like it.
esquivalience 12y ago
Seems to me that this protest would have a far higher impact than the blackout - or at least a far higher annoyance factor. The services it would impact most are high-bandwidth such as content streaming, but of course those may be reluctant to participate as it could realistically ruin their goodwill and quickly decimate their user base.
bitJericho 12y ago
Much more effective would be for operators to ban ISPs. Imagine the internet telling specific users that they have to get off comcast or whatever in order to use their service for a particular day out of every month. Do it maddox style with a nice middle finger. Make users want to switch instead of just pretend like there's no alternatives.
- colechristensen 12y ago
  Where I live I have three choices, 1.5 mbit DSL, whatever small number of GB/mo I can get for $50 on 4G, or Comcast. There's no pretending, there are no alternatives. ISP access has weight when I'm considering moving which is sad.
  - yaur 12y ago
    T-Mobile is selling unlimited data plans for $80/month.
    - colechristensen 12y ago
      >UNLIMITED 4G LTE data (includes up to 5 GB of Smartphone Mobile HotSpot (SMH) service) Not unlimited. Unlimited for 'phone usage' but not for legitimate usage outside your phone.
- jarrett 12y ago
  > Make users want to switch instead of just pretend like there's no alternatives. I absolutely want to switch and will as soon as an alternative is available. In my entire life, I've never lived in a place that had anything other than Comcast. And I've always lived in relatively dense areas.
- TheCraiggers 12y ago
  >Much more effective would be for operators to ban ISPs. I heartily disagree with this approach. Not only does it harken back to the days of Prodigy, AOL, CompuServe and the like where each service had its own content, but it's very anti-internet. >Make users want to switch That's great if there are alternatives to switch to. Yes, I could technically switch to dialup. It is technically internet. It's not going to allow me to do any work or any of my hobbies, however. So I don't consider it a valid option. Yes, I could also try out some kind of dish provider. If I wanted to chop down some trees. Besides, those also don't work for me (almost no upload bandwidth, and horrible latency issues). >instead of just pretend like there's no alternatives. I live in an area where Comcast literally is my only option for high-speed internet. I'm not pretending.
  - runako 12y ago
    > I live in an area where Comcast literally is my only option for high-speed internet. I'm not pretending. IIRC most of the country lives in areas where there are only 1 or 2 broadband options. The non-cable operator is likely to be a Baby Bell that's also spent heavily to lobby the FCC to kill net neutrality and so wouldn't be an effective protest switch.
    - filmgirlcw 12y ago
      Yes, this is true. The worst part is that most of the baby bell solutions are slow-ass DSL. For instance, in most of Metro-Atlanta, you can get Comcast or AT&T UVerse (AT&T being the name of what was a Baby Bell, Cingular). UVerse is simply slow-as-shit DSL and is awful. (Fun fact: AT&T tried to sell and promote UVerse as Fiber in the mid-2000s. My parents have fiber in their home but no way to get a fiber provider -- AT&T was over-selling them on a "fiber" solution that was literally just copper DSL wires. The whole telecom industry is full of crooks). In New York City, you basically have one provider. If you're very lucky and live in an area Verizon (another former baby bell) also services, you can get Fiber -- and that's awesome -- but the zoning for this stuff is often street by street. The building across the street from my apartment can get Verizon. My building can't -- for whatever reason. Verizon did tell me they could probably rig me access if I could get them access to the basement -- but I'm not the building owner and I don't have time to deal with what happens when the line gets cut accidentally. I'm very fortunate that my Internet/TV provider is relatively sane (Cablevision) -- if I lived three blocks further away, I'd be stuck in TWC hell. What most consumers also don't know is that in many areas, the cable provider can be chosen by the property management company (if you're in an apartment complex) or the condo association. So what happens is that operators will "bid" on that area - and the lowest bid wins. The problem is, even if you live in a Comcast or Verizon or whatever area, you still can't get that service. You're required to be with whoever your property management or co-op board chose. I actually didn't buy a condo that was in a great location and had a great floorplan because of their choice of ISP/cable provider. The whole system is fucked. It really is. And the net neutrality and fast-lane aspects are only a small part of a much more broken and corrupt system. That said, just because we can't fix the whole system -- and we can't -- doesn't mean we can't put pressure on companies to not fuck customers over even more, by making access-agreements for content. The system is already not in our favor -- no reason to make it even worse.
- bitJericho 12y ago
  The alternatives are to go without and enjoy the fresh air, pay up for the data cap and live with the low bandwidth (it sucks but it's not as sucky as Comcast), setup a mesh network, lobby your local government, move. Let me guess, if you all were naturalists, you would all live in the heart of New York and complain to your neighbors (but not your city) all day about the lack of green.
- CocaKoala 12y ago
  I take this to mean that you're setting up your own ISP which is going to service my area and provide better rates, faster connections, and better service than Comcast, so that I have an alternative for internet? That's great, I'm really excited to hear that! Let me know what number I can call to sign up!
  - bitJericho 12y ago
    Why should a competitor charge better rates and have faster connections in order for it to be an alternative? Are you looking for the cheapest provider or the most ethical?
    - CocaKoala 12y ago
      Well, I don't feel like getting to choose between two terrible options is really that much better than being stuck with one terrible option.
      - bitJericho 12y ago
        So you see no/little difference between an unethical ISP that's cheaper than a more expensive ethical one? I'm not sure what you think this debate is about.
        CocaKoala 12y ago
        I'd love to support a more ethical ISP, but as a practical matter, internet is already expensive and spending more for the same or less isn't really a workable option. Downgrading my connection is also not a great option; if I'm forced to choose between a fast expensive connection and a cheap slow connection, then yeah; it's great that Net Neutrality is a thing, but now I'm stuck in the shitty situation I was trying to prevent anyways.
        bitJericho 12y ago
        When money's the deciding factor, decisions are easy. There's more to life than money sometimes, though. I could shop at Walmart and have an extra 20 bucks for my internet bill. Instead, I choose the slower internet with the ethical provider so that I can shop not at Walmart. Not to say I'm perfect by any means, but this is just an example of the decisions I try to make every day. These decisions are hard sometimes.
addisonj 12y ago
How about something simpler - Make images load slowly using JS. A ton of popular consumer sites - facebook, instagram, reddit/imgur are hugely image based. A few lines of JS to make them slowly load (perhaps PNG artifacts for bonus points) and you could very effectively get the point across all while quickly serving a nice large banner. Offtopic: As a google fiber customer myself, his mention of not remembering the upload speed, made me think of how we need bandwidth to get to the point where it doesn't matter. CPU speed used to be something you quoted. For the last few computers, I don't care anymore, because its simply "enough". I fear the current telco/ISPs wouldn't agree with that idea...
- iLoch 12y ago
  Hah, I just posted an identical thought, and I completely agree.
- RockyMcNuts 12y ago
  exactly, with a clear alert/popup explaining what's going on and allowing you to switch it on/off.
- privong 12y ago
  > How about something simpler - Make images load slowly using JS. I do like this idea. However, as one of the minority of people who have disabled js by default, I'd hope this could be done in a way that doesn't break websites.
  - err4nt 12y ago
    I don't know how to say it without being blunt, but I mean no offense, I'm just curious. I've heard of this mythical type of user (no-JS) but never heard their side of the coin before. I dislike ad tracking, information culling, and I think that JavaScript underpins and makes possible many of the things I dislike about the modern web. We agree on that I'm sure. But so does a web browser. So does the operating system it runs on. Turning off JavaScript only protects you from the parts of the web you don't like by breaking all of the web so much that nothing runs as it's supposed to - but what's the point in browsing a shattered web? I am a front-end dev, and I've hit the extent that CSS will allow me to style and lay out pages. I need per-element @media queries, and the ability for elements to peek inside and count their contents so I can make it fit into the space better. JavaScript lets me to do that, but I'm afraid that if you disable JavaScript from today forward you're going to run into this a lot more. It doesn't take a whole ton of JavaScript to supercharge a CSS layout, but if you block all JS you're going to be looking at a broken page. I use text-mode browsers on the command-line, and for checking the source of pages from the command-line so I understand when there's a time and place for restricted browsing and it's less useful than a full browser to me because of it. Having said all that, would you mind explaining why you choose to break your exerience of the web by disabling JavaScript, and what gains you perceive from the exercise. I'm genuinely curious but can't find any of you no-JSers in person anywhere.
hmottestad 12y ago
This blog has now made it to my global blocking file for serving the entire post as an image file instead of as text.
- kevingadd 12y ago
  Is this a joke disguised as a comment? The post is text for me.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  That's strange. I got the text. Looks like a normal wordpress blog thing  <div class="post-body"> <p>Yesterday when we were having Comcast issues....
- davidbarker 12y ago
  I'm also seeing something strange on my iPhone. It looks like there's something off with the antialiasing, and the text isn't selectable. It looks like a scaled up image, though I don't think it is.
  - hmottestad 12y ago
    Yeah, seems to be something stupid they are doing when serving to mobile devices.
    - davidbarker 12y ago
      It also looks similar (like it's scaled-up) on my retina MBP, but the text is selectable.
iLoch 12y ago
I think simulated slowness is probably better than actual slowness. Something like a javascript file you could include that would hide all the content on the page and show each element at the same speed you'd see with a throttled network. That way you could still display a message about why it's happening, etc. and it's much easier for the average developer to implement.
alandarev 12y ago
Issue is severe, but the proposed solution does not sound efficient in any way. In comparison to blackout day: 1. Turning site off is a lot easier than installing apache module and configuring it. What if site admin does not even have root access? 2. Customer getting the slow site load might not get the message, but instead turn around for a competitor. [1] [1] 40% of people abandon a website that takes more than 3 seconds to load. - http://blog.kissmetrics.com/loading-time/ http://blog.kissmetrics.com/loading-time/
- wiremine 12y ago
  I don't think slowing the site down really helps convey the speed difference anyways, because they aren't seeing it apples-to-apples. Instead, I think you want to load two version of the site in to iFrames (or something) and throttle one. This would also be a good way to show a user how crappy their connection is compared to a _real_ high speed connection: The problem isn't just that they are creating a "fast" lane and a "slow" lane, but the fact that US-based "fast" lanes are actually fairly slow to begin with.
  - xdissent 12y ago
    Or you could allow certain elements like ads to load instantly for comparison.
  - 3rd3 12y ago
    The iframes idea is a really good one because it wouldn't require changes to the web server configuration. The throttle could simply be simulated with delayed loading using JavaScript.
keerthiko 12y ago
This would be great and informative and effective, except that the most visible sites* have no incentive to play along with this little song and dance, as they are the ones proliferating anti-net-neutrality for their own private gain. So it will basically just look to people like I'm running a shitty technical job serving my site, most people will think I'm stupid, they won't learn a damn thing about net neutrality or why it's important, and stop visiting my site in the process. =/ * that many people use exclusively with their internet-time, like Youtube, facebook, Netflix, etc
- scrabble 12y ago
  Netflix is "proliferating anti-net-neutrality"? They seem to be actively and publicly pushing for net neutrality.
  - pas 12y ago
    They want to maximize profits. So keeping costs down is important, but it's even more important to keep competitors out of the game. Currently they have no serious competitors, so they see the Comcast-tax as a pure added cost. But if this practice goes big and becomes an added cost to the market, barriers to enter it become higher, which keeps their position entrenched. Of course this would require a lot of formalisation (and quantization, estimating numbers, times and potential competition and market evolution) but still, most of the same questions are going through Netflix executives' heads.
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      >Currently they have no serious competitors Prime video. Hulu. >most of the same questions are going through Netflix executives' heads. Conjecture. Contrary to populist belief, not every corporation is a soulless, amoral entity. Netflix has yet to demonstrate in even the smallest way that they are for anything but complete neutrality.
      - Jtsummers 12y ago
coreymgilmore 12y ago
One main problem with any attempt by a site to slow down its service is that all similar/competitor sites must slow down equally. Otherwise we get the game of one site provider not slowing down (or slowing down as much) because of the incentive: if they are faster, they generate more visits than competitors.
- josho 12y ago
  The article, as I understand it, suggested a banner on the site stating why the site is slow, and to get out of the slow lane 'click here'.
DanBC 12y ago
Would users actually notice? And, really, users who have bought based on price per Mb download speed without any other metric are partly to blame for this. If users had been honestly buying based on bandwidth used we would not have ISPs offering "unlimited (until you hit the limits)" internet connectivity. (This is not to excuse the ISPs for their sleazy misleading advertising). Give people a price per GB and then tell them how many GB they download each month. Price that GB sensibly and route traffic fairly.
neals 12y ago
You slow down HN and Reddit and I'll be up in arms with a burning pitchfork and a sharp spiked cross.
demoncore 12y ago
A fine example of the naiveté of VC's who vicariously play business through unprofitable companies. Someone who's spent too much time in a play pen with children, dollars and matches. Are you mad? Brad? At the most basic level, I have a checkout on my website where I take actual cash from my customers and unless it's thousands of dollars every day, I'm going to have to close my doors. Yup, that's right. I have expenses that I need to pay: Staff, hosting costs, insurance, office rent. And if that money doesn't keep on coming every day at the rate I projected, I get to fire my staff. So, Brad. You idiot. You really think I'm going to slow down my website to play your flaccid little game of online pretend activism and put my staff and business at risk to do it? Hire a lobbyist. Get the job done. And grow up.
TeMPOraL 12y ago
Late to the discussion about the general issue; could someone please help me understand what's the difference between the "Fast Lane"/"Slow Lane" and good old QoS?
- k3liutZu 12y ago
  It basically is QoS. But out of your control. And in favor of the highest bidder.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    Was QoS ever under my control? I can manage things up to my router, but not upstream from it. (IANAS, I Am Not A Sysadmim)
- fizzbar 12y ago
  No difference. QoS can/will be used to implement the slow lane, that's all.
ihsw 12y ago
Why stop at the slow lane? There is nothing preventing ISP gatekeepers from wholeheartedly denying access. Slowness is just the beginning -- the end-goal is making the internet into multiple competing walled gardens where users are treated as silos that require permission to access. The global reach of the internet is at risk here. Imagine if Netflix wasn't accessible to Comcast users from the beginning because they wouldn't pay the toll. Would it have thrived and grown as quickly as it did, or would it have died in it's infancy? What about Skype? Skype stepped on the toes of incumbent ISPs' long-distance revenue streams, I wouldn't put it past AT&T to purposefully degrade the quality of Skype calls or even outright deny them from happening. Prior to being bought out by Microsoft, would they have had the revenue to pay for access to users? Would Microsoft have even bought Skype at all?
- chimeracoder 12y ago
  That would be politically trickier to pull off. It's much easier to say, "We're not censoring anything - we're just not giving them 'premium' speed.", and then redefine the status quo as the new 'premium'[0]. For Netflix, it doesn't matter - having the equivalent of dial-up speed is essentially the same as being blocked entirely, since their service depends on reasonably fast download speed. To illustrate another scenario, imagine two political candidates, one whose platform includes treating ISPs as a public utility, and one who doesn't. It would be very easy to slow the former's campaign website to a crawl (e.g., 30s or more load time per page). While this wouldn't prevent people from accessing the website, or him from getting his message out, it would seriously hamper it in very noticeable ways. This way, the ISP isn't censoring any political candidates (that would be bad!). They're "just" not giving him the "premium" speed. [0] This kind of redefinition happens all the time - notice that five years ago, mobile data plans were unlimited and texting was expensive for the carriers to offer. Suddenly, texting "became cheap" for them to offer, and data became limited. It's not that the costs dramatically changed (SMS always had literally zero marginal cost, since it piggybacks off of the packets already being sent), but fee structures and cost structures are oftentimes very different.
  - bitJericho 12y ago
    Not really. I and a lot of Netflix customers would be happy to wait a few minutes for it to buffer enough of the video to begin showing it in HD. I'm not given that option though. "Luckily" I choose to live in an area with an ethical service provider so I get HD Netflix at no extra charge to me or Netflix.
sharemywin 12y ago
I'm thinking this is a false advertising issue. they say they provide X speed and throttle it down. we need to get the attorney generals in on this issue. they should only be able to advertise the slowest speed they throttle down to.
shubb 12y ago
Can anyone think of any advantages to a non-neutral internet? I can think of a few - Netflix and Skype would work better. Most likely, we'd be able to pay for priority traffic, just like we pay for a large AWS instance. Non-priority traffic might be cheaper than current bandwidth. It would be crazy to suggest all sites be forced to use the same size AWS instance... Some types of traffic are bandwidth sensitive, like video. Others are cost sensitive, like Linux DVD images. If you think that an end to neutrality will 'ruin the internet', don't you expect consumers to choose ISPs and services that don't do it?
- jonlucc 12y ago
  The problem is that most places don't have choices. I have only one option (ATT) for ISP and when I move in a couple months, I will have 2 choices (Comcast and ATT).
  - lutorm 12y ago
    I feel so much better about my situation now: I have 3 choices: TWC, dialup, and some guys providing microwave links for $100/month. ;-)
- coldcode 12y ago
  You forget that the customer would be forced to choose what sites they could access as pay per site. The ISPs (generally a future Comcast monopoly) want to charge both ends to connect. You want Facebook at all - pay $5 per month. Facebook, pay us $1 per customer. You want some random blog, sorry they didn't pay us. Or maybe they will connect you at such a low rate as the site is unusable. The end result is that only huge wealthy companies can be accessed. Everyone else will be so backwater they may as well use smoke signals. The effect of monopoly (at least in the US) will make it impossible for their to be an alternative. I have two choices, AT&T and TWC. Both will do this sort of thing if they can. Then what do I do?
  - zacinbusiness 12y ago
    I wonder if this will have an effect on web design? Less JS, fewer images, no web fonts. I can see a website going back to plain text. I realize that even plain text can be throttled to the point of uselessness, but would it help at all?
Zelphyr 12y ago
I really like this idea except for one thing; it would show users a comparison of slow (what they get now) and really slow. But not what they would get if they lived in, say, Seoul. The problem is, most people don't realize that, all things considered, their internet really isn't as fast as it could be. They think it is because they have no basis for comparison. And the ISP's bank on this... literally.
- 6cxs2hd6 12y ago
  That's what burns me. We already pay ISPs to deliver the data that we request. They should take our money and improve their infrastructure. Instead, they want to get paid again, by e.g. Netflix, and the result would still be basically the same shitty third-world service we get in the US today. Many of us already get a Slow Lane Demo every day during "prime time" evening hours.
digikata 12y ago
I think a better demo would be a game where you're playing the ISP trying to maximize the profits from captive neighborhoods of customers. There could be activities such as offering a toll gate speed-up packages for popular websites, and placing your former lobbyist as a regulatory officer, and buying up more ISPs to get more captive neighborhoods.
bluedino 12y ago
Apple has included the Network Link Conditioner in the past few versions of Xcode. Works great for simulating slow network for your apps. https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/NetworkingInternetWeb/Conceptual/NetworkingOverview/WhyNetworkingIsHard/WhyNetworkingIsHard.html https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Networ...
mantrax5 12y ago
This whole net neutrality debate is bullshit, and both Netflix and the telcos know it. Let me lay it out for you: ---The ISPs--- ISPs want to advertise unlimited traffic, but don't want to raise the prices for all customers only to be able to sustain their Netflix users (which constitute their most bandwidth hungry users). So ISPs want to hit Netflix for the cost of the extra traffic, Netflix will in turn hit their customers back, in effect these customers will be paying their ISPs for that extra traffic they're using in the form of higher Netflix fees. However, the ISPs get to come with their hands clean, and keep advertising unlimited traffic (although they get customer-funded subsidies from their biggest traffic sources). ---Netflix--- They just want to lower their costs for intermediate parties and host CDN directly at every big ISP. But they don't want to pay a lot (or anything about it), so they play the Net neutrality card in attempt to pressure the ISPs into getting into unprofitable for them arrangements. ... So, did you notice me talking about net neutrality, fast lanes, slow lanes and so on? No. Because it's all bullshit demagoguery to cover up the basic issues of "who pays for that extra traffic": - The ISP customers don't want to pay for it (they want unmetered traffic). - The ISPs don't want to pay for it. - Netflix doesn't want to pay for it. But someone will have to, eventually. Customers will have to pay for the traffic they use, and Netflix will have to pay for their ISP CDN servers (as they're starting to, despite the whining). And in the end none of those three parties: ISP, Netflix, customers, are innocent. So save me the righteousness, all right?
ctdonath 12y ago
What if we did the same by Demoing the Slow Lane for a day. As someone who remembers using 110bps connections, this is amusing.
Killah911 12y ago
Disclosure: I'm a Feld fanboy. I think it's a brilliant idea. However, to actually coordinate it would take some doing. Blackouts are relatively easy technically. Slowdowns, not so much, given that most companies that give a crap work diligently to improve the user experience and speed things up. The financial impact could potentially be huge (as I'm sure blackout was as well). But what's even tougher about this idea is getting companies like Google and Netflix in on the "simulation". They're most likely not going to be on the slow lane. Now let's say some we get a whole bunch of startups who would get penalized by the slow lane to do this for a day. Would it make as much of a difference to the masses? The initial effects will be subtle, but the long term impact on economic activity and startups in general could be devastating. That being said... if this movement is to take hold we'll need some web server plugins and some JS magic to help it happen at a massive scale. Maybe some of my fellow geeks at the bigCo's can convince them to join in for a day too, for the sake of all of us.
exelius 12y ago
I don't know that this is the solution (or even that there's a problem). I know my opinion isn't very popular on HN on this issue; but I continue to share it because I feel it's important that people understand the view from the other side of the fence. I expect to get downvoted because people disagree with me, but then magical internet points never really mattered much to me. I think all this talk of the "slow lane" is a bit tinfoil-hat. Companies like Comcast have no interest in slowing down web site traffic; in fact they do a lot of QoS to make web browsing faster and more responsive. This type of traffic (DNS, HTTP requests, online gaming, etc.) tends to get put in a high-priority QoS class: the data transmitted is often small and it greatly improves the user's experience. ISPs have a huge incentive to make this type of traffic as responsive as possible; and given the low bandwidth requirements, this should definitely be possible. It makes their service "feel" faster to the customer and it's the right thing to do for the customer. Video streaming services are another story. They don't need to be responsive because they pre-cache a lot of data; in fact the right thing to do from a technical perspective is QoS them into the basement. Video can handle this; it's high bandwidth and low latency. The thing is, streaming video accounts for about 80% of peak Internet traffic. A small percentage of users (~30%) are starting to overload the ISP's last-mile networks with video traffic. The types of high-bandwidth scenarios that the ISPs will be pushing the "fast lane" on are going to be almost exclusively video streaming services. Video streamers have had to pay CDNs for years anyway if they wanted their videos to stream quickly. The idea is that because these services have such a disproportionate effect on bandwidth usage, they need to contribute economically to avoid a tragedy of the commons [1] situation. Your average website or app that's not pulling 1.5+ mbit/s over an extended period of time is likely going to be fast regardless because it's in the ISPs best interests to make it that way. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
- a_c_s 12y ago
  As it is Netflix pays for bandwidth and the end user pays for bandwidth. Why should Netflix pay disproportionately more for its bandwidth than a non-video streaming service?
  - tempestn 12y ago
solnyshok 12y ago
two can play this game. Netflix could serve B&W versions of movies to the clients of non-neutral providers. The official line could be something along "this movie have been optimized for the low bandwith connections by removing colors and stereo sound; contact your congressmen"
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
carlosvergara 12y ago
One quick, effective and probably not entirely illegal manner to raise the issue would simply be putting a sign on top of any comcast user's pageview saying something like, "Since your internet provider has forced us to pay X amount of money per GB to provide our service to your specific account, and we currently haven't figured out a cost scheme to account for that, your movie viewing experience is being adjusted to fit our current costs. (hyperlink)Tell Comcast how you feel about this."
- orthecreedence 12y ago
  "Dear customer 5281132821292, Thank you for writing to Comcast. At this time, your wishes are of no concern to us because we have a monopoly in your area. Best, Comcast Consumer Relations"
cddotdotslash 12y ago
Best idea I've heard so far is to intentionally slow traffic only for known government IP blocks. If we can convince Google, Wikipedia, and other big sites to do this, Washington would definitely notice. I'm thinking of writing a script that site owners could use to do just this.
- orthecreedence 12y ago
  See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7712345 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7712345 You may want to get in touch with rubbingalcoholic/FFTF and see if you can help out! I've demoed the widget they're working on and it's painfully awesome.
  - cddotdotslash 12y ago
    Thanks! I sent them an email. If anyone else is reading this later, my code is here: https://gist.github.com/matthewdfuller/69f990f58f1e0850443e https://gist.github.com/matthewdfuller/69f990f58f1e0850443e It's pure JS and simulates the old dial-up-style loading of pages.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
loup-vaillant 12y ago
But we already have such a slow lane. And it already made the internet less free and less useful. It's the upload bandwidth. Weak upload effectively killed peer to peer. File sharing is slower than it could be, and e-mail, chat, blogs… are all in the "Cloud". Very convenient, but also dangerous (insert random EFF or FSF argument here —they all apply). With a worthy upload bandwidth, all these things could use a server at home, with many advantages for choice, control, privacy… You could argue it's impractical for a lambda user (and it is), but that's not the problem. If someone try to sell a simple server with a fantastic UX that host e-mail, blog, vlog, social network, and distributed encrypted backup, all out of the box, it would still suck because of the damn bandwidth —and firewalls in some cases. So, this business model is dead in the water, which is why it is still so dammed difficult to install one's own mail server. You want net neutrality? Start with a neutral bandwidth. Stop treating users like consumers, and they may stop acting like ones. With any luck, it should kill YouTube, Blogger, Facebook, Twitter, Gmail, Skype… except the users will still do what these "services" offer.
- mindslight 12y ago
  I wholeheartedly disagree - more upload bandwidth would be nice, but it would only lessen my inconveniences, not actually solve them. The real problem is bad UX/software, fueled by underlying protocols that assume relatively stable and authoritative server hosts. I used to run email/dns/web/etc off of Speakeasy (and college before that, and dialup before that), but I switched to Linode (like 8 years ago) and haven't looked back. It really sucks when your home server has a hardware issue/power outage/changing things around/etc, and you feel like you need to fix it ASAFP lest your emails/etc start getting bounced/etc (yes, smtp is supposed to queue. no, that doesn't alleviate the concern). What I really want is my home server to act as the primary contact, but when that is down, Linode to serve on my behalf seamlessly, obvious to message contents. And of course I could set something like that up per-protocol (modulo incoming ports being firewalled, etc), but the more complex setup one makes for themselves, the more likely things are to just decay over time. We're not even at the point where having a distributed file store is straightforward. The best I've found is running Unison across multiple hosts/disks, and I still find myself spending way too much time dealing with administration and overcoming its limitations (cycle-intolerant topology, lack of access levels, etc). Anything else I've seen assumes a reliable central host, constant network connection, would need to be babied in different ways, or is just not robust enough to trust. Meanwhile with these centralized solutions, they just work out of the box. There are occasional or hidden issues like service outages, vendor dependence, lack of flexibility due to arbitrary restrictions, planned obsolescence, anti-features like ads, abdicating your computing to opaque code you don't control, supporting the destruction of the Internet (what prompted this slew of articles? Netflix setting a terrible precedent..), etc. But the effort required to initially get them working is basically nonexistent. I personally refuse to give in and support (hopefully) dead-end centralized technology. But you can't deny that their user experience is quite compelling, especially for people without preexisting sysadmin skills.
Zhenya 12y ago
I can't wait till I have to buy packages based on the type of content I want to consume : $10/month email $20/web $30/music $60/ video. Bonus Package - Add $5 for gaming $20 for large file download. /S This is where we are heading.
keithpeter 12y ago
"Algorithmically, all sites could slow themselves down dramatically, demonstrating what performance might look like over a 1/1 pipe. Or even a 0.5/0.5 pipe." If the former, it would make precisely no difference to me. Openreach (UK) provide adsl over copper via an older phone exchange in my immediate area. This is one mile from the centre of a major city. The local authority actually took Openreach to court and lost. To put this into perspective the government is about to spend around UKP60 Billions over 20 years to provide a high speed train link to London so the journey time drops from 1h30 to 45 min...
rubbingalcohol 12y ago
I am working with Fight for the Future on a JavaScript code snippet (called 'Slow Lane') to simulate a slow loading process + rip the FCC a new one. This project needs to launch next week to make the maximum impact and we need help to make it superb! If anyone with web skills is interested in helping out, please email team@fightforthefuture.org or me directly at jeff@rubbingalcoholic.com ...
yodaiken 12y ago
Here's v1 of slowlane.js, might be able to help: https://github.com/yodaiken/slowlane/ https://github.com/yodaiken/slowlane/
segmondy 12y ago
A class action lawsuit is overdue against these internet providers over selling. I feel like I'm on a 128k ISDN most days, it's literally that slow. When you call in, they say, well, "Up to 3Mps" doesn't mean you will get it. ISPs are charging us by possible speeds, they need to deliver or discount when they can't. if you promise me about 10-15 widgets an hour for $50 and all you can consistently deliver for a month is 2-3 widgets. You should not demand $50.

410 points by henryaym 12y ago

How about we block comcast and the fcc from accessing google. See how they like it.

Seems to me that this protest would have a far higher impact than the blackout - or at least a far higher annoyance factor. The services it would impact most are high-bandwidth such as content streaming, but of course those may be reluctant to participate as it could realistically ruin their goodwill and quickly decimate their user base.

bitJericho 12y ago

Much more effective would be for operators to ban ISPs. Imagine the internet telling specific users that they have to get off comcast or whatever in order to use their service for a particular day out of every month. Do it maddox style with a nice middle finger. Make users want to switch instead of just pretend like there's no alternatives.

colechristensen 12y ago
Where I live I have three choices, 1.5 mbit DSL, whatever small number of GB/mo I can get for $50 on 4G, or Comcast. There's no pretending, there are no alternatives. ISP access has weight when I'm considering moving which is sad.
- yaur 12y ago
  T-Mobile is selling unlimited data plans for $80/month.
  - colechristensen 12y ago
    >UNLIMITED 4G LTE data (includes up to 5 GB of Smartphone Mobile HotSpot (SMH) service) Not unlimited. Unlimited for 'phone usage' but not for legitimate usage outside your phone.
jarrett 12y ago
> Make users want to switch instead of just pretend like there's no alternatives. I absolutely want to switch and will as soon as an alternative is available. In my entire life, I've never lived in a place that had anything other than Comcast. And I've always lived in relatively dense areas.
TheCraiggers 12y ago
>Much more effective would be for operators to ban ISPs. I heartily disagree with this approach. Not only does it harken back to the days of Prodigy, AOL, CompuServe and the like where each service had its own content, but it's very anti-internet. >Make users want to switch That's great if there are alternatives to switch to. Yes, I could technically switch to dialup. It is technically internet. It's not going to allow me to do any work or any of my hobbies, however. So I don't consider it a valid option. Yes, I could also try out some kind of dish provider. If I wanted to chop down some trees. Besides, those also don't work for me (almost no upload bandwidth, and horrible latency issues). >instead of just pretend like there's no alternatives. I live in an area where Comcast literally is my only option for high-speed internet. I'm not pretending.
- runako 12y ago
  > I live in an area where Comcast literally is my only option for high-speed internet. I'm not pretending. IIRC most of the country lives in areas where there are only 1 or 2 broadband options. The non-cable operator is likely to be a Baby Bell that's also spent heavily to lobby the FCC to kill net neutrality and so wouldn't be an effective protest switch.
  - filmgirlcw 12y ago
    Yes, this is true. The worst part is that most of the baby bell solutions are slow-ass DSL. For instance, in most of Metro-Atlanta, you can get Comcast or AT&T UVerse (AT&T being the name of what was a Baby Bell, Cingular). UVerse is simply slow-as-shit DSL and is awful. (Fun fact: AT&T tried to sell and promote UVerse as Fiber in the mid-2000s. My parents have fiber in their home but no way to get a fiber provider -- AT&T was over-selling them on a "fiber" solution that was literally just copper DSL wires. The whole telecom industry is full of crooks). In New York City, you basically have one provider. If you're very lucky and live in an area Verizon (another former baby bell) also services, you can get Fiber -- and that's awesome -- but the zoning for this stuff is often street by street. The building across the street from my apartment can get Verizon. My building can't -- for whatever reason. Verizon did tell me they could probably rig me access if I could get them access to the basement -- but I'm not the building owner and I don't have time to deal with what happens when the line gets cut accidentally. I'm very fortunate that my Internet/TV provider is relatively sane (Cablevision) -- if I lived three blocks further away, I'd be stuck in TWC hell. What most consumers also don't know is that in many areas, the cable provider can be chosen by the property management company (if you're in an apartment complex) or the condo association. So what happens is that operators will "bid" on that area - and the lowest bid wins. The problem is, even if you live in a Comcast or Verizon or whatever area, you still can't get that service. You're required to be with whoever your property management or co-op board chose. I actually didn't buy a condo that was in a great location and had a great floorplan because of their choice of ISP/cable provider. The whole system is fucked. It really is. And the net neutrality and fast-lane aspects are only a small part of a much more broken and corrupt system. That said, just because we can't fix the whole system -- and we can't -- doesn't mean we can't put pressure on companies to not fuck customers over even more, by making access-agreements for content. The system is already not in our favor -- no reason to make it even worse.
bitJericho 12y ago
The alternatives are to go without and enjoy the fresh air, pay up for the data cap and live with the low bandwidth (it sucks but it's not as sucky as Comcast), setup a mesh network, lobby your local government, move. Let me guess, if you all were naturalists, you would all live in the heart of New York and complain to your neighbors (but not your city) all day about the lack of green.
CocaKoala 12y ago
I take this to mean that you're setting up your own ISP which is going to service my area and provide better rates, faster connections, and better service than Comcast, so that I have an alternative for internet? That's great, I'm really excited to hear that! Let me know what number I can call to sign up!
- bitJericho 12y ago
  Why should a competitor charge better rates and have faster connections in order for it to be an alternative? Are you looking for the cheapest provider or the most ethical?
  - CocaKoala 12y ago
    Well, I don't feel like getting to choose between two terrible options is really that much better than being stuck with one terrible option.
    - bitJericho 12y ago
      So you see no/little difference between an unethical ISP that's cheaper than a more expensive ethical one? I'm not sure what you think this debate is about.
      - CocaKoala 12y ago
        I'd love to support a more ethical ISP, but as a practical matter, internet is already expensive and spending more for the same or less isn't really a workable option. Downgrading my connection is also not a great option; if I'm forced to choose between a fast expensive connection and a cheap slow connection, then yeah; it's great that Net Neutrality is a thing, but now I'm stuck in the shitty situation I was trying to prevent anyways.
        bitJericho 12y ago
        When money's the deciding factor, decisions are easy. There's more to life than money sometimes, though. I could shop at Walmart and have an extra 20 bucks for my internet bill. Instead, I choose the slower internet with the ethical provider so that I can shop not at Walmart. Not to say I'm perfect by any means, but this is just an example of the decisions I try to make every day. These decisions are hard sometimes.

addisonj 12y ago

How about something simpler - Make images load slowly using JS. A ton of popular consumer sites - facebook, instagram, reddit/imgur are hugely image based. A few lines of JS to make them slowly load (perhaps PNG artifacts for bonus points) and you could very effectively get the point across all while quickly serving a nice large banner. Offtopic: As a google fiber customer myself, his mention of not remembering the upload speed, made me think of how we need bandwidth to get to the point where it doesn't matter. CPU speed used to be something you quoted. For the last few computers, I don't care anymore, because its simply "enough". I fear the current telco/ISPs wouldn't agree with that idea...

iLoch 12y ago
Hah, I just posted an identical thought, and I completely agree.
RockyMcNuts 12y ago
exactly, with a clear alert/popup explaining what's going on and allowing you to switch it on/off.
privong 12y ago
> How about something simpler - Make images load slowly using JS. I do like this idea. However, as one of the minority of people who have disabled js by default, I'd hope this could be done in a way that doesn't break websites.
- err4nt 12y ago
  I don't know how to say it without being blunt, but I mean no offense, I'm just curious. I've heard of this mythical type of user (no-JS) but never heard their side of the coin before. I dislike ad tracking, information culling, and I think that JavaScript underpins and makes possible many of the things I dislike about the modern web. We agree on that I'm sure. But so does a web browser. So does the operating system it runs on. Turning off JavaScript only protects you from the parts of the web you don't like by breaking all of the web so much that nothing runs as it's supposed to - but what's the point in browsing a shattered web? I am a front-end dev, and I've hit the extent that CSS will allow me to style and lay out pages. I need per-element @media queries, and the ability for elements to peek inside and count their contents so I can make it fit into the space better. JavaScript lets me to do that, but I'm afraid that if you disable JavaScript from today forward you're going to run into this a lot more. It doesn't take a whole ton of JavaScript to supercharge a CSS layout, but if you block all JS you're going to be looking at a broken page. I use text-mode browsers on the command-line, and for checking the source of pages from the command-line so I understand when there's a time and place for restricted browsing and it's less useful than a full browser to me because of it. Having said all that, would you mind explaining why you choose to break your exerience of the web by disabling JavaScript, and what gains you perceive from the exercise. I'm genuinely curious but can't find any of you no-JSers in person anywhere.

hmottestad 12y ago

This blog has now made it to my global blocking file for serving the entire post as an image file instead of as text.

kevingadd 12y ago
Is this a joke disguised as a comment? The post is text for me.
fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
That's strange. I got the text. Looks like a normal wordpress blog thing  <div class="post-body"> <p>Yesterday when we were having Comcast issues....
davidbarker 12y ago
I'm also seeing something strange on my iPhone. It looks like there's something off with the antialiasing, and the text isn't selectable. It looks like a scaled up image, though I don't think it is.
- hmottestad 12y ago
  Yeah, seems to be something stupid they are doing when serving to mobile devices.
  - davidbarker 12y ago
    It also looks similar (like it's scaled-up) on my retina MBP, but the text is selectable.

iLoch 12y ago

I think simulated slowness is probably better than actual slowness. Something like a javascript file you could include that would hide all the content on the page and show each element at the same speed you'd see with a throttled network. That way you could still display a message about why it's happening, etc. and it's much easier for the average developer to implement.

alandarev 12y ago

Issue is severe, but the proposed solution does not sound efficient in any way. In comparison to blackout day: 1. Turning site off is a lot easier than installing apache module and configuring it. What if site admin does not even have root access? 2. Customer getting the slow site load might not get the message, but instead turn around for a competitor. [1] [1] 40% of people abandon a website that takes more than 3 seconds to load. - http://blog.kissmetrics.com/loading-time/ http://blog.kissmetrics.com/loading-time/

wiremine 12y ago
I don't think slowing the site down really helps convey the speed difference anyways, because they aren't seeing it apples-to-apples. Instead, I think you want to load two version of the site in to iFrames (or something) and throttle one. This would also be a good way to show a user how crappy their connection is compared to a _real_ high speed connection: The problem isn't just that they are creating a "fast" lane and a "slow" lane, but the fact that US-based "fast" lanes are actually fairly slow to begin with.
- xdissent 12y ago
  Or you could allow certain elements like ads to load instantly for comparison.
- 3rd3 12y ago
  The iframes idea is a really good one because it wouldn't require changes to the web server configuration. The throttle could simply be simulated with delayed loading using JavaScript.

keerthiko 12y ago

This would be great and informative and effective, except that the most visible sites* have no incentive to play along with this little song and dance, as they are the ones proliferating anti-net-neutrality for their own private gain. So it will basically just look to people like I'm running a shitty technical job serving my site, most people will think I'm stupid, they won't learn a damn thing about net neutrality or why it's important, and stop visiting my site in the process. =/ * that many people use exclusively with their internet-time, like Youtube, facebook, Netflix, etc

scrabble 12y ago
Netflix is "proliferating anti-net-neutrality"? They seem to be actively and publicly pushing for net neutrality.
- pas 12y ago
  They want to maximize profits. So keeping costs down is important, but it's even more important to keep competitors out of the game. Currently they have no serious competitors, so they see the Comcast-tax as a pure added cost. But if this practice goes big and becomes an added cost to the market, barriers to enter it become higher, which keeps their position entrenched. Of course this would require a lot of formalisation (and quantization, estimating numbers, times and potential competition and market evolution) but still, most of the same questions are going through Netflix executives' heads.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    >Currently they have no serious competitors Prime video. Hulu. >most of the same questions are going through Netflix executives' heads. Conjecture. Contrary to populist belief, not every corporation is a soulless, amoral entity. Netflix has yet to demonstrate in even the smallest way that they are for anything but complete neutrality.
    - Jtsummers 12y ago

coreymgilmore 12y ago

One main problem with any attempt by a site to slow down its service is that all similar/competitor sites must slow down equally. Otherwise we get the game of one site provider not slowing down (or slowing down as much) because of the incentive: if they are faster, they generate more visits than competitors.

josho 12y ago
The article, as I understand it, suggested a banner on the site stating why the site is slow, and to get out of the slow lane 'click here'.

DanBC 12y ago

Would users actually notice? And, really, users who have bought based on price per Mb download speed without any other metric are partly to blame for this. If users had been honestly buying based on bandwidth used we would not have ISPs offering "unlimited (until you hit the limits)" internet connectivity. (This is not to excuse the ISPs for their sleazy misleading advertising). Give people a price per GB and then tell them how many GB they download each month. Price that GB sensibly and route traffic fairly.

neals 12y ago

You slow down HN and Reddit and I'll be up in arms with a burning pitchfork and a sharp spiked cross.

demoncore 12y ago

A fine example of the naiveté of VC's who vicariously play business through unprofitable companies. Someone who's spent too much time in a play pen with children, dollars and matches. Are you mad? Brad? At the most basic level, I have a checkout on my website where I take actual cash from my customers and unless it's thousands of dollars every day, I'm going to have to close my doors. Yup, that's right. I have expenses that I need to pay: Staff, hosting costs, insurance, office rent. And if that money doesn't keep on coming every day at the rate I projected, I get to fire my staff. So, Brad. You idiot. You really think I'm going to slow down my website to play your flaccid little game of online pretend activism and put my staff and business at risk to do it? Hire a lobbyist. Get the job done. And grow up.

TeMPOraL 12y ago

Late to the discussion about the general issue; could someone please help me understand what's the difference between the "Fast Lane"/"Slow Lane" and good old QoS?

k3liutZu 12y ago
It basically is QoS. But out of your control. And in favor of the highest bidder.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  Was QoS ever under my control? I can manage things up to my router, but not upstream from it. (IANAS, I Am Not A Sysadmim)
fizzbar 12y ago
No difference. QoS can/will be used to implement the slow lane, that's all.

ihsw 12y ago

Why stop at the slow lane? There is nothing preventing ISP gatekeepers from wholeheartedly denying access. Slowness is just the beginning -- the end-goal is making the internet into multiple competing walled gardens where users are treated as silos that require permission to access. The global reach of the internet is at risk here. Imagine if Netflix wasn't accessible to Comcast users from the beginning because they wouldn't pay the toll. Would it have thrived and grown as quickly as it did, or would it have died in it's infancy? What about Skype? Skype stepped on the toes of incumbent ISPs' long-distance revenue streams, I wouldn't put it past AT&T to purposefully degrade the quality of Skype calls or even outright deny them from happening. Prior to being bought out by Microsoft, would they have had the revenue to pay for access to users? Would Microsoft have even bought Skype at all?

chimeracoder 12y ago
That would be politically trickier to pull off. It's much easier to say, "We're not censoring anything - we're just not giving them 'premium' speed.", and then redefine the status quo as the new 'premium'[0]. For Netflix, it doesn't matter - having the equivalent of dial-up speed is essentially the same as being blocked entirely, since their service depends on reasonably fast download speed. To illustrate another scenario, imagine two political candidates, one whose platform includes treating ISPs as a public utility, and one who doesn't. It would be very easy to slow the former's campaign website to a crawl (e.g., 30s or more load time per page). While this wouldn't prevent people from accessing the website, or him from getting his message out, it would seriously hamper it in very noticeable ways. This way, the ISP isn't censoring any political candidates (that would be bad!). They're "just" not giving him the "premium" speed. [0] This kind of redefinition happens all the time - notice that five years ago, mobile data plans were unlimited and texting was expensive for the carriers to offer. Suddenly, texting "became cheap" for them to offer, and data became limited. It's not that the costs dramatically changed (SMS always had literally zero marginal cost, since it piggybacks off of the packets already being sent), but fee structures and cost structures are oftentimes very different.
- bitJericho 12y ago
  Not really. I and a lot of Netflix customers would be happy to wait a few minutes for it to buffer enough of the video to begin showing it in HD. I'm not given that option though. "Luckily" I choose to live in an area with an ethical service provider so I get HD Netflix at no extra charge to me or Netflix.

sharemywin 12y ago

I'm thinking this is a false advertising issue. they say they provide X speed and throttle it down. we need to get the attorney generals in on this issue. they should only be able to advertise the slowest speed they throttle down to.

shubb 12y ago

Can anyone think of any advantages to a non-neutral internet? I can think of a few - Netflix and Skype would work better. Most likely, we'd be able to pay for priority traffic, just like we pay for a large AWS instance. Non-priority traffic might be cheaper than current bandwidth. It would be crazy to suggest all sites be forced to use the same size AWS instance... Some types of traffic are bandwidth sensitive, like video. Others are cost sensitive, like Linux DVD images. If you think that an end to neutrality will 'ruin the internet', don't you expect consumers to choose ISPs and services that don't do it?

jonlucc 12y ago
The problem is that most places don't have choices. I have only one option (ATT) for ISP and when I move in a couple months, I will have 2 choices (Comcast and ATT).
- lutorm 12y ago
  I feel so much better about my situation now: I have 3 choices: TWC, dialup, and some guys providing microwave links for $100/month. ;-)
coldcode 12y ago
You forget that the customer would be forced to choose what sites they could access as pay per site. The ISPs (generally a future Comcast monopoly) want to charge both ends to connect. You want Facebook at all - pay $5 per month. Facebook, pay us $1 per customer. You want some random blog, sorry they didn't pay us. Or maybe they will connect you at such a low rate as the site is unusable. The end result is that only huge wealthy companies can be accessed. Everyone else will be so backwater they may as well use smoke signals. The effect of monopoly (at least in the US) will make it impossible for their to be an alternative. I have two choices, AT&T and TWC. Both will do this sort of thing if they can. Then what do I do?
- zacinbusiness 12y ago
  I wonder if this will have an effect on web design? Less JS, fewer images, no web fonts. I can see a website going back to plain text. I realize that even plain text can be throttled to the point of uselessness, but would it help at all?

Zelphyr 12y ago

I really like this idea except for one thing; it would show users a comparison of slow (what they get now) and really slow. But not what they would get if they lived in, say, Seoul. The problem is, most people don't realize that, all things considered, their internet really isn't as fast as it could be. They think it is because they have no basis for comparison. And the ISP's bank on this... literally.

6cxs2hd6 12y ago
That's what burns me. We already pay ISPs to deliver the data that we request. They should take our money and improve their infrastructure. Instead, they want to get paid again, by e.g. Netflix, and the result would still be basically the same shitty third-world service we get in the US today. Many of us already get a Slow Lane Demo every day during "prime time" evening hours.

digikata 12y ago

I think a better demo would be a game where you're playing the ISP trying to maximize the profits from captive neighborhoods of customers. There could be activities such as offering a toll gate speed-up packages for popular websites, and placing your former lobbyist as a regulatory officer, and buying up more ISPs to get more captive neighborhoods.

bluedino 12y ago

Apple has included the Network Link Conditioner in the past few versions of Xcode. Works great for simulating slow network for your apps. https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/NetworkingInternetWeb/Conceptual/NetworkingOverview/WhyNetworkingIsHard/WhyNetworkingIsHard.html https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Networ...

mantrax5 12y ago

This whole net neutrality debate is bullshit, and both Netflix and the telcos know it. Let me lay it out for you: ---The ISPs--- ISPs want to advertise unlimited traffic, but don't want to raise the prices for all customers only to be able to sustain their Netflix users (which constitute their most bandwidth hungry users). So ISPs want to hit Netflix for the cost of the extra traffic, Netflix will in turn hit their customers back, in effect these customers will be paying their ISPs for that extra traffic they're using in the form of higher Netflix fees. However, the ISPs get to come with their hands clean, and keep advertising unlimited traffic (although they get customer-funded subsidies from their biggest traffic sources). ---Netflix--- They just want to lower their costs for intermediate parties and host CDN directly at every big ISP. But they don't want to pay a lot (or anything about it), so they play the Net neutrality card in attempt to pressure the ISPs into getting into unprofitable for them arrangements. ... So, did you notice me talking about net neutrality, fast lanes, slow lanes and so on? No. Because it's all bullshit demagoguery to cover up the basic issues of "who pays for that extra traffic": - The ISP customers don't want to pay for it (they want unmetered traffic). - The ISPs don't want to pay for it. - Netflix doesn't want to pay for it. But someone will have to, eventually. Customers will have to pay for the traffic they use, and Netflix will have to pay for their ISP CDN servers (as they're starting to, despite the whining). And in the end none of those three parties: ISP, Netflix, customers, are innocent. So save me the righteousness, all right?

ctdonath 12y ago

What if we did the same by Demoing the Slow Lane for a day. As someone who remembers using 110bps connections, this is amusing.

Killah911 12y ago

Disclosure: I'm a Feld fanboy. I think it's a brilliant idea. However, to actually coordinate it would take some doing. Blackouts are relatively easy technically. Slowdowns, not so much, given that most companies that give a crap work diligently to improve the user experience and speed things up. The financial impact could potentially be huge (as I'm sure blackout was as well). But what's even tougher about this idea is getting companies like Google and Netflix in on the "simulation". They're most likely not going to be on the slow lane. Now let's say some we get a whole bunch of startups who would get penalized by the slow lane to do this for a day. Would it make as much of a difference to the masses? The initial effects will be subtle, but the long term impact on economic activity and startups in general could be devastating. That being said... if this movement is to take hold we'll need some web server plugins and some JS magic to help it happen at a massive scale. Maybe some of my fellow geeks at the bigCo's can convince them to join in for a day too, for the sake of all of us.

exelius 12y ago

I don't know that this is the solution (or even that there's a problem). I know my opinion isn't very popular on HN on this issue; but I continue to share it because I feel it's important that people understand the view from the other side of the fence. I expect to get downvoted because people disagree with me, but then magical internet points never really mattered much to me. I think all this talk of the "slow lane" is a bit tinfoil-hat. Companies like Comcast have no interest in slowing down web site traffic; in fact they do a lot of QoS to make web browsing faster and more responsive. This type of traffic (DNS, HTTP requests, online gaming, etc.) tends to get put in a high-priority QoS class: the data transmitted is often small and it greatly improves the user's experience. ISPs have a huge incentive to make this type of traffic as responsive as possible; and given the low bandwidth requirements, this should definitely be possible. It makes their service "feel" faster to the customer and it's the right thing to do for the customer. Video streaming services are another story. They don't need to be responsive because they pre-cache a lot of data; in fact the right thing to do from a technical perspective is QoS them into the basement. Video can handle this; it's high bandwidth and low latency. The thing is, streaming video accounts for about 80% of peak Internet traffic. A small percentage of users (~30%) are starting to overload the ISP's last-mile networks with video traffic. The types of high-bandwidth scenarios that the ISPs will be pushing the "fast lane" on are going to be almost exclusively video streaming services. Video streamers have had to pay CDNs for years anyway if they wanted their videos to stream quickly. The idea is that because these services have such a disproportionate effect on bandwidth usage, they need to contribute economically to avoid a tragedy of the commons [1] situation. Your average website or app that's not pulling 1.5+ mbit/s over an extended period of time is likely going to be fast regardless because it's in the ISPs best interests to make it that way. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

a_c_s 12y ago
As it is Netflix pays for bandwidth and the end user pays for bandwidth. Why should Netflix pay disproportionately more for its bandwidth than a non-video streaming service?
- tempestn 12y ago

solnyshok 12y ago

two can play this game. Netflix could serve B&W versions of movies to the clients of non-neutral providers. The official line could be something along "this movie have been optimized for the low bandwith connections by removing colors and stereo sound; contact your congressmen"

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

carlosvergara 12y ago

One quick, effective and probably not entirely illegal manner to raise the issue would simply be putting a sign on top of any comcast user's pageview saying something like, "Since your internet provider has forced us to pay X amount of money per GB to provide our service to your specific account, and we currently haven't figured out a cost scheme to account for that, your movie viewing experience is being adjusted to fit our current costs. (hyperlink)Tell Comcast how you feel about this."

orthecreedence 12y ago
"Dear customer 5281132821292, Thank you for writing to Comcast. At this time, your wishes are of no concern to us because we have a monopoly in your area. Best, Comcast Consumer Relations"

cddotdotslash 12y ago

Best idea I've heard so far is to intentionally slow traffic only for known government IP blocks. If we can convince Google, Wikipedia, and other big sites to do this, Washington would definitely notice. I'm thinking of writing a script that site owners could use to do just this.

orthecreedence 12y ago
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7712345 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7712345 You may want to get in touch with rubbingalcoholic/FFTF and see if you can help out! I've demoed the widget they're working on and it's painfully awesome.
- cddotdotslash 12y ago
  Thanks! I sent them an email. If anyone else is reading this later, my code is here: https://gist.github.com/matthewdfuller/69f990f58f1e0850443e https://gist.github.com/matthewdfuller/69f990f58f1e0850443e It's pure JS and simulates the old dial-up-style loading of pages.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

loup-vaillant 12y ago

But we already have such a slow lane. And it already made the internet less free and less useful. It's the upload bandwidth. Weak upload effectively killed peer to peer. File sharing is slower than it could be, and e-mail, chat, blogs… are all in the "Cloud". Very convenient, but also dangerous (insert random EFF or FSF argument here —they all apply). With a worthy upload bandwidth, all these things could use a server at home, with many advantages for choice, control, privacy… You could argue it's impractical for a lambda user (and it is), but that's not the problem. If someone try to sell a simple server with a fantastic UX that host e-mail, blog, vlog, social network, and distributed encrypted backup, all out of the box, it would still suck because of the damn bandwidth —and firewalls in some cases. So, this business model is dead in the water, which is why it is still so dammed difficult to install one's own mail server. You want net neutrality? Start with a neutral bandwidth. Stop treating users like consumers, and they may stop acting like ones. With any luck, it should kill YouTube, Blogger, Facebook, Twitter, Gmail, Skype… except the users will still do what these "services" offer.

mindslight 12y ago
I wholeheartedly disagree - more upload bandwidth would be nice, but it would only lessen my inconveniences, not actually solve them. The real problem is bad UX/software, fueled by underlying protocols that assume relatively stable and authoritative server hosts. I used to run email/dns/web/etc off of Speakeasy (and college before that, and dialup before that), but I switched to Linode (like 8 years ago) and haven't looked back. It really sucks when your home server has a hardware issue/power outage/changing things around/etc, and you feel like you need to fix it ASAFP lest your emails/etc start getting bounced/etc (yes, smtp is supposed to queue. no, that doesn't alleviate the concern). What I really want is my home server to act as the primary contact, but when that is down, Linode to serve on my behalf seamlessly, obvious to message contents. And of course I could set something like that up per-protocol (modulo incoming ports being firewalled, etc), but the more complex setup one makes for themselves, the more likely things are to just decay over time. We're not even at the point where having a distributed file store is straightforward. The best I've found is running Unison across multiple hosts/disks, and I still find myself spending way too much time dealing with administration and overcoming its limitations (cycle-intolerant topology, lack of access levels, etc). Anything else I've seen assumes a reliable central host, constant network connection, would need to be babied in different ways, or is just not robust enough to trust. Meanwhile with these centralized solutions, they just work out of the box. There are occasional or hidden issues like service outages, vendor dependence, lack of flexibility due to arbitrary restrictions, planned obsolescence, anti-features like ads, abdicating your computing to opaque code you don't control, supporting the destruction of the Internet (what prompted this slew of articles? Netflix setting a terrible precedent..), etc. But the effort required to initially get them working is basically nonexistent. I personally refuse to give in and support (hopefully) dead-end centralized technology. But you can't deny that their user experience is quite compelling, especially for people without preexisting sysadmin skills.

Zhenya 12y ago

I can't wait till I have to buy packages based on the type of content I want to consume : $10/month email $20/web $30/music $60/ video. Bonus Package - Add $5 for gaming $20 for large file download. /S This is where we are heading.

keithpeter 12y ago

"Algorithmically, all sites could slow themselves down dramatically, demonstrating what performance might look like over a 1/1 pipe. Or even a 0.5/0.5 pipe." If the former, it would make precisely no difference to me. Openreach (UK) provide adsl over copper via an older phone exchange in my immediate area. This is one mile from the centre of a major city. The local authority actually took Openreach to court and lost. To put this into perspective the government is about to spend around UKP60 Billions over 20 years to provide a high speed train link to London so the journey time drops from 1h30 to 45 min...

rubbingalcohol 12y ago

I am working with Fight for the Future on a JavaScript code snippet (called 'Slow Lane') to simulate a slow loading process + rip the FCC a new one. This project needs to launch next week to make the maximum impact and we need help to make it superb! If anyone with web skills is interested in helping out, please email team@fightforthefuture.org or me directly at jeff@rubbingalcoholic.com ...

yodaiken 12y ago

Here's v1 of slowlane.js, might be able to help: https://github.com/yodaiken/slowlane/ https://github.com/yodaiken/slowlane/

segmondy 12y ago

A class action lawsuit is overdue against these internet providers over selling. I feel like I'm on a 128k ISDN most days, it's literally that slow. When you call in, they say, well, "Up to 3Mps" doesn't mean you will get it. ISPs are charging us by possible speeds, they need to deliver or discount when they can't. if you promise me about 10-15 widgets an hour for $50 and all you can consistently deliver for a month is 2-3 widgets. You should not demand $50.