5 ms·

Stop the Slow Lane

186 points by bfeld 12y ago

rubbingalcohol 12y ago
Please let me know if you have any problems or feedback on the widget. I've also tried to set it up to be easy to remix and add your own slowdown animations (more info coming soon!)
cr3ative 12y ago
I'm not 100% sure that annoying your visitors is the best way to either retain said visitors OR warm them to your cause.
- billyarzt 12y ago
  Wasn't that the strategy prior to the SOPA vote when Wikipedia blacked out? It seems the strategy is more to give everyday internet users an idea of what life would be like if this was passed.
- bfeld 12y ago
  We are going to add more context to the splash page.
bradleyjoyce 12y ago
While I understand the sentiment, this seems more likely to just encourage site visitors to hit the back button rather than take the desired action.
- xwowsersx 12y ago
  I disagree. If the site is somewhat heavily trafficked already (which is the kind of site that will actually have an impact), then they'll wait.
  - exelius 12y ago
    Heavily trafficked sites are already paying for a "fast lane" in the form of CDNs that cache everything but dynamic content. These CDNs already have interconnect agreements with the large ISPs (and have for years).
    - MichaelApproved 12y ago
      Interconnect agreements are different than "fast/slow lane". CDNs will need to pay a premium so that their traffic will not be slowed down, regardless of the peering agreement.
      - exelius 12y ago
        Interconnects are exactly what the "fast/slow lane" argument is about. Netflix bought interconnects from Comcast and Verizon. Just through buying interconnects to the ISPs, the CDNs ensure their traffic won't be slowed down by an intermediary like Cogent. They're not intending to provide higher QoS for sites that pay up -- that's insane and it wouldn't work anyway.
        MichaelApproved 12y ago
        It's my understanding that interconnect agreements solve congestion on the network by having a larger connection to infrastructure. Fast/slow lane practices throttle that connection, regardless of how large the pipe is. So, my small business website could be using a large internet connection that technically has plenty of bandwidth to carry my traffic but, unless I pay Comcast a premium, traffic from my website will be put in the slow lane and throttled back.
        exelius 12y ago
        Then your understanding is incorrect (sorry; not trying to be flippant). Interconnects are the entire story here. The media has framed a lot of the congestion issues in the context of "fast/slow lane" but what they come down to are business disagreements between the transit providers and the ISPs. The solution to these disagreements from the viewpoint of a large service provider is to purchase an interconnect directly to the ISPs. If you are a small service provider, the solution is to purchase delivery through a CDN. Netflix used to purchase delivery through CDNs until it got too expensive for their business model; so they started building their own CDN that they called "OpenConnect". They used their positive brand image in conjunction with the ISP's poor brand image to launch a PR campaign with the goal of knocking down the price they would have to pay for interconnect service. It worked; they knew they were always going to have to pay the Comcasts and Verizons of the world but they were able to talk the ISPs down a significant amount. Strategically, it's a bad position to be in for a service provider because the ISPs can raise the price at any time (which is why Netflix has continued complaining about it). But realistically, the ISPs sit on such a strong market control point that nothing can really stop them from setting prices (common carrier status just means they have to offer the same price structure to everyone; not that they can't arbitrarily raise prices).
higherpurpose 12y ago
Think about someone visiting your site for first time. They'll just think something is wrong with your website. So it needs some context. It should say somewhere that this is a form of protest against FCC's new Internet rules. Get inspired by some of the SOPA blackout messages, like the one from Wikipedia for example, to see how it should be done right, but instead of a "black image" covering the screen, they could get the slow loading animation: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Wikipedia_SOPA_Blackout_Design.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Wikipedia... There should absolutely be a call to action to Congress representatives and FCC, too.
level 12y ago
The closing quote on the <script src"..."> tag in the "1. Add slowlane.js to Your Website" section is missing. Not really an issue, but it looks unprofessional.
- rubbingalcohol 12y ago
  Actually it was an issue. It would break entire websites >_< Thanks for the heads up.
nkozyra 12y ago
For some reason this seems to be the go-to "show 'em" methodology. I think people, in general, understand what slower means. I mean this is cute but I think this might be the fourth or fifth implementation I've seen and they all have better likelihood of just annoying someone instead of educating them. I realize a standardized alert message delivered via JS doesn't have the same "share-able" impact, but it's probably more effective overall. I'm imagining Wikipedia's fundraising drives and whether they'd do as well if they just blurred out a large portion of every article to raise awareness versus a prominent message.
- bfeld 12y ago
  We are considering an option that blurs out the page instead. Also - we'll add more context to the page.
  - nkozyra 12y ago
    I think you may have missed my point there.
    - holmesworcester 12y ago
      If we made a version that stripped out the slowdown effect and just had the action ask, would you run that? Our impression (and experience) is that people get more excited about doing something symbolic. Again, any direct recommendations about how to improve this, and we'll improve it :)
      - nkozyra 12y ago
        You're asking about the efficacy of passive messaging - I don't think it would work if you asked people. Likewise, I think simply doing it is more likely to annoy people than incite passion. Visibility is the issue, not understanding the problem. I think the message of "the internet could be slower without net neutrality" is the one that needs to be delivered. People generally know what "slower" means. As I mentioned, a standardized message would probably be more effective, but it's also not something that would be particularly exciting to share on, say, Hacker News.
natzim 12y ago
It would be nice if the user were able to disable it once they got the message.
- rubbingalcohol 12y ago
  It will only show up once per user, unless you throw in a URL parameter for it to always show up.
CodeMage 12y ago
Condescension is not exactly the best way to win people over to your cause.
- area51org 12y ago
  I don't think this is condescension. It's more like a demonstration for the policy makers.
  - exelius 12y ago
    How do you know this is what will happen?
    - area51org 12y ago
      The ISPs have been pretty clear about what they want: the ability to charge for fast delivery. They already have money coming in from both ends (the home subscribers as well as the companies like Netflix and Google). But hey, these guys are making money from their "pipes"! Don't they deserve a cut of that money, because, hey, pipes! This makes about as much sense as the power company getting more money to power a PC than a lamp, or the government demanding a bigger toll if you're crossing a bridge for a vacation.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > The ISPs have been pretty clear about what they want: the ability to charge for fast delivery. The big conglomerates that offer both internet and content services (which are the largest broadband ISPs, but this interest isn't general to ISPs, its specific to those dominant players) have been clear that they want the ability to charge anyone for anything, even if they've already charged someone else for it, but they haven't been clear about the real reason -- though the actual places where they've chosen to do this make it very clear: what they want to do is use their market power in the broadband market charge the content firms that have already built businesses in content markets that threaten the conglomerates markets a toll to compete that serves both to limit the outside content firms' ability to profit in the market and subsidizes the conglomerates own competing services. Its pure protectionism; that's the reason that the cable companies (whose bigger business is often selling consumer video services -- cable TV + premium VOD tied to cable TV and, in many cases nascently though they are far behind the "pure internet" video services, video-over-internet subscription services) main target for tolls is Netflix. Allow this, and the ISPs will start at the top and work their way down, until they've used their tolls to take over every profitable business relying on using the internet to connect to customers.
Istof 12y ago
Do they define the "slow lane" as the speed you are paying for and the "fast lane" as some "free" bandwidth (paid by companies)?
swswsw 12y ago
perhaps it should be a button on the website, like "experience the site with FCC's Slow Lane". That way, they can see what the site is like and if they choose to press the button, they can see what it is like to be on the slow lane. Otherwise, the first time visitor may not give the site a chance at all.
- holmesworcester 12y ago
  If it's a site you visit regularly, it's likely to make you really curious, right? We're making a version that's just an anigif that people can embed. That should be live really soon. So, that works for people who don't want to interrupt visitors with a message.
eastbayjake 12y ago
I would have signed the petition if it weren't being done through MoveOn.org -- really don't want to end up on their mailing list.
- justizin 12y ago
  which petition site's mailing list do you want to end up on? ;)
rubbingalcohol 12y ago
What do you all think of this alternate version of the loader that rips on Comcast? http://rubbingalcoholic.com/#ALWAYS_SHOW_SL_WIDGET_COMCAST http://rubbingalcoholic.com/#ALWAYS_SHOW_SL_WIDGET_COMCAST If anyone wants to help out with this or give me feedback directly, please email me jeff@rubbingalcoholic.com
- danray 12y ago
  Be careful -- practically speaking, using Comcast's and TWC's names/logos is more likely to attract their attention early, and will give their lawyers a stronger argument (against Github or third-party sites) to have it taken down.
  - aroch 12y ago
    will give their lawyers a stronger argument No it won't. Using the name and marks of the FCC to dicuss policy and actions by the FCC is clearly fair use.
    - danray 12y ago
      I've edited to be clearer -- I'm referring to the use of Comcast's (and Time Warner's) logos, not the FCC's. I agree that there are fair use arguments, which is why I said "practically": hosts take down fair-use content every day. A subset of that is eventually restored, but only after the parties have argued it out (frequently through their lawyers).
- orthecreedence 12y ago
  I think this gets the point across more clearly, and I'd be much more likely to install this on my sites. The fact that you're immediately giving at least some context would make me a lot less confused as a user, and the site loading in the background makes it obvious that I'm in the right place to begin with. While you guys obviously have a message to get out (a great message), you may want to consider adding a link someone could click to get rid of the widget and load the site immediately. Imagine that you saw four sites with the widget, then emailed your congresspeople, and now you have to keep dealing with them all throughout the day even if you already took action...it'd be annoying. Thanks for all the work on this!
crzrcn 12y ago
Another idea is to provide a banner with a good message and a "toggle" button for the slow lane. So users can experiemnt it, but be in control as not to harm the product experience. Maybe it's too passive?
alialkhatib 12y ago
I don't think this is the right approach. I realize that the principle is fundamentally the same with SOPA protests (depriving users of content to highlight the danger of this passing), but there's a more salient argument that you could make here if you really wanted. Why not implement a loading bar that actually progressed slowly and then put a brief explanation underneath the loading bar describing the FCC "slow lane" and how it would negatively impact users? To add insult to injury, give the user 3 options: - pay the site owner to access the "fast lane" to your content - send an email (to FCC chair? maybe a representative?) to voice their anger - get used to waiting; that'll be the new norm if nobody prevents this, right? The first option would be incredibly controversial, but would underscore how objectionable the "Slow Lane" idea even is. If anyone is stubborn enough to pay, you could funnel that money into the EFF or some other relevant organization. The point is that just throwing people a loading screen (especially without a good explanation) will leave the user confused. Once the content loads they'll probably forget about that loading screen anyway (at least on a conscious level), so don't wait until afterward to explain what just happened. As an aside, there was a comment that users will wait for a website that's sufficiently highly trafficked, but I don't think that's true. I remember some Google presentation[0] where an engineer explained that virtually any extra loading time was enough to discourage users from returning. Maybe that's just with search or other highly interactive sites (rather than reading a blog, for example), but I wouldn't want to test that hypothesis with any site I cared about and managed. 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il4swGfTOSM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il4swGfTOSM - The "impact of slow sites" comes up early on.
- holmesworcester 12y ago
  We're adding more explanation to the loading screen. Also, for folks who don't want to interrupt users, here's an anigif to post. http://imgur.com/PQRaxNa http://imgur.com/PQRaxNa (putting this up on the site now)
mrcactu5 12y ago
I don't think end-users will get the message. Can you illustrate to them how much slower their service will be as a result of rising costs?
brucefancher 12y ago
"Net neutrality" is a bad idea: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304885404579551981681149954 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230488540...

186 points by bfeld 12y ago

Please let me know if you have any problems or feedback on the widget. I've also tried to set it up to be easy to remix and add your own slowdown animations (more info coming soon!)

cr3ative 12y ago

I'm not 100% sure that annoying your visitors is the best way to either retain said visitors OR warm them to your cause.

billyarzt 12y ago
Wasn't that the strategy prior to the SOPA vote when Wikipedia blacked out? It seems the strategy is more to give everyday internet users an idea of what life would be like if this was passed.
bfeld 12y ago
We are going to add more context to the splash page.

bradleyjoyce 12y ago

While I understand the sentiment, this seems more likely to just encourage site visitors to hit the back button rather than take the desired action.

xwowsersx 12y ago
I disagree. If the site is somewhat heavily trafficked already (which is the kind of site that will actually have an impact), then they'll wait.
- exelius 12y ago
  Heavily trafficked sites are already paying for a "fast lane" in the form of CDNs that cache everything but dynamic content. These CDNs already have interconnect agreements with the large ISPs (and have for years).
  - MichaelApproved 12y ago
    Interconnect agreements are different than "fast/slow lane". CDNs will need to pay a premium so that their traffic will not be slowed down, regardless of the peering agreement.
    - exelius 12y ago
      Interconnects are exactly what the "fast/slow lane" argument is about. Netflix bought interconnects from Comcast and Verizon. Just through buying interconnects to the ISPs, the CDNs ensure their traffic won't be slowed down by an intermediary like Cogent. They're not intending to provide higher QoS for sites that pay up -- that's insane and it wouldn't work anyway.
      - MichaelApproved 12y ago
        It's my understanding that interconnect agreements solve congestion on the network by having a larger connection to infrastructure. Fast/slow lane practices throttle that connection, regardless of how large the pipe is. So, my small business website could be using a large internet connection that technically has plenty of bandwidth to carry my traffic but, unless I pay Comcast a premium, traffic from my website will be put in the slow lane and throttled back.
        exelius 12y ago
        Then your understanding is incorrect (sorry; not trying to be flippant). Interconnects are the entire story here. The media has framed a lot of the congestion issues in the context of "fast/slow lane" but what they come down to are business disagreements between the transit providers and the ISPs. The solution to these disagreements from the viewpoint of a large service provider is to purchase an interconnect directly to the ISPs. If you are a small service provider, the solution is to purchase delivery through a CDN. Netflix used to purchase delivery through CDNs until it got too expensive for their business model; so they started building their own CDN that they called "OpenConnect". They used their positive brand image in conjunction with the ISP's poor brand image to launch a PR campaign with the goal of knocking down the price they would have to pay for interconnect service. It worked; they knew they were always going to have to pay the Comcasts and Verizons of the world but they were able to talk the ISPs down a significant amount. Strategically, it's a bad position to be in for a service provider because the ISPs can raise the price at any time (which is why Netflix has continued complaining about it). But realistically, the ISPs sit on such a strong market control point that nothing can really stop them from setting prices (common carrier status just means they have to offer the same price structure to everyone; not that they can't arbitrarily raise prices).

higherpurpose 12y ago

Think about someone visiting your site for first time. They'll just think something is wrong with your website. So it needs some context. It should say somewhere that this is a form of protest against FCC's new Internet rules. Get inspired by some of the SOPA blackout messages, like the one from Wikipedia for example, to see how it should be done right, but instead of a "black image" covering the screen, they could get the slow loading animation: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Wikipedia_SOPA_Blackout_Design.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Wikipedia... There should absolutely be a call to action to Congress representatives and FCC, too.

level 12y ago

The closing quote on the <script src"..."> tag in the "1. Add slowlane.js to Your Website" section is missing. Not really an issue, but it looks unprofessional.

rubbingalcohol 12y ago
Actually it was an issue. It would break entire websites >_< Thanks for the heads up.

nkozyra 12y ago

For some reason this seems to be the go-to "show 'em" methodology. I think people, in general, understand what slower means. I mean this is cute but I think this might be the fourth or fifth implementation I've seen and they all have better likelihood of just annoying someone instead of educating them. I realize a standardized alert message delivered via JS doesn't have the same "share-able" impact, but it's probably more effective overall. I'm imagining Wikipedia's fundraising drives and whether they'd do as well if they just blurred out a large portion of every article to raise awareness versus a prominent message.

bfeld 12y ago
We are considering an option that blurs out the page instead. Also - we'll add more context to the page.
- nkozyra 12y ago
  I think you may have missed my point there.
  - holmesworcester 12y ago
    If we made a version that stripped out the slowdown effect and just had the action ask, would you run that? Our impression (and experience) is that people get more excited about doing something symbolic. Again, any direct recommendations about how to improve this, and we'll improve it :)
    - nkozyra 12y ago
      You're asking about the efficacy of passive messaging - I don't think it would work if you asked people. Likewise, I think simply doing it is more likely to annoy people than incite passion. Visibility is the issue, not understanding the problem. I think the message of "the internet could be slower without net neutrality" is the one that needs to be delivered. People generally know what "slower" means. As I mentioned, a standardized message would probably be more effective, but it's also not something that would be particularly exciting to share on, say, Hacker News.

natzim 12y ago

It would be nice if the user were able to disable it once they got the message.

rubbingalcohol 12y ago
It will only show up once per user, unless you throw in a URL parameter for it to always show up.

CodeMage 12y ago

Condescension is not exactly the best way to win people over to your cause.

area51org 12y ago
I don't think this is condescension. It's more like a demonstration for the policy makers.
- exelius 12y ago
  How do you know this is what will happen?
  - area51org 12y ago
    The ISPs have been pretty clear about what they want: the ability to charge for fast delivery. They already have money coming in from both ends (the home subscribers as well as the companies like Netflix and Google). But hey, these guys are making money from their "pipes"! Don't they deserve a cut of that money, because, hey, pipes! This makes about as much sense as the power company getting more money to power a PC than a lamp, or the government demanding a bigger toll if you're crossing a bridge for a vacation.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > The ISPs have been pretty clear about what they want: the ability to charge for fast delivery. The big conglomerates that offer both internet and content services (which are the largest broadband ISPs, but this interest isn't general to ISPs, its specific to those dominant players) have been clear that they want the ability to charge anyone for anything, even if they've already charged someone else for it, but they haven't been clear about the real reason -- though the actual places where they've chosen to do this make it very clear: what they want to do is use their market power in the broadband market charge the content firms that have already built businesses in content markets that threaten the conglomerates markets a toll to compete that serves both to limit the outside content firms' ability to profit in the market and subsidizes the conglomerates own competing services. Its pure protectionism; that's the reason that the cable companies (whose bigger business is often selling consumer video services -- cable TV + premium VOD tied to cable TV and, in many cases nascently though they are far behind the "pure internet" video services, video-over-internet subscription services) main target for tolls is Netflix. Allow this, and the ISPs will start at the top and work their way down, until they've used their tolls to take over every profitable business relying on using the internet to connect to customers.

Istof 12y ago

Do they define the "slow lane" as the speed you are paying for and the "fast lane" as some "free" bandwidth (paid by companies)?

swswsw 12y ago

perhaps it should be a button on the website, like "experience the site with FCC's Slow Lane". That way, they can see what the site is like and if they choose to press the button, they can see what it is like to be on the slow lane. Otherwise, the first time visitor may not give the site a chance at all.

holmesworcester 12y ago
If it's a site you visit regularly, it's likely to make you really curious, right? We're making a version that's just an anigif that people can embed. That should be live really soon. So, that works for people who don't want to interrupt visitors with a message.

eastbayjake 12y ago

I would have signed the petition if it weren't being done through MoveOn.org -- really don't want to end up on their mailing list.

justizin 12y ago
which petition site's mailing list do you want to end up on? ;)

rubbingalcohol 12y ago

What do you all think of this alternate version of the loader that rips on Comcast? http://rubbingalcoholic.com/#ALWAYS_SHOW_SL_WIDGET_COMCAST http://rubbingalcoholic.com/#ALWAYS_SHOW_SL_WIDGET_COMCAST If anyone wants to help out with this or give me feedback directly, please email me jeff@rubbingalcoholic.com

danray 12y ago
Be careful -- practically speaking, using Comcast's and TWC's names/logos is more likely to attract their attention early, and will give their lawyers a stronger argument (against Github or third-party sites) to have it taken down.
- aroch 12y ago
  will give their lawyers a stronger argument No it won't. Using the name and marks of the FCC to dicuss policy and actions by the FCC is clearly fair use.
  - danray 12y ago
    I've edited to be clearer -- I'm referring to the use of Comcast's (and Time Warner's) logos, not the FCC's. I agree that there are fair use arguments, which is why I said "practically": hosts take down fair-use content every day. A subset of that is eventually restored, but only after the parties have argued it out (frequently through their lawyers).
orthecreedence 12y ago
I think this gets the point across more clearly, and I'd be much more likely to install this on my sites. The fact that you're immediately giving at least some context would make me a lot less confused as a user, and the site loading in the background makes it obvious that I'm in the right place to begin with. While you guys obviously have a message to get out (a great message), you may want to consider adding a link someone could click to get rid of the widget and load the site immediately. Imagine that you saw four sites with the widget, then emailed your congresspeople, and now you have to keep dealing with them all throughout the day even if you already took action...it'd be annoying. Thanks for all the work on this!

crzrcn 12y ago

Another idea is to provide a banner with a good message and a "toggle" button for the slow lane. So users can experiemnt it, but be in control as not to harm the product experience. Maybe it's too passive?

alialkhatib 12y ago

I don't think this is the right approach. I realize that the principle is fundamentally the same with SOPA protests (depriving users of content to highlight the danger of this passing), but there's a more salient argument that you could make here if you really wanted. Why not implement a loading bar that actually progressed slowly and then put a brief explanation underneath the loading bar describing the FCC "slow lane" and how it would negatively impact users? To add insult to injury, give the user 3 options: - pay the site owner to access the "fast lane" to your content - send an email (to FCC chair? maybe a representative?) to voice their anger - get used to waiting; that'll be the new norm if nobody prevents this, right? The first option would be incredibly controversial, but would underscore how objectionable the "Slow Lane" idea even is. If anyone is stubborn enough to pay, you could funnel that money into the EFF or some other relevant organization. The point is that just throwing people a loading screen (especially without a good explanation) will leave the user confused. Once the content loads they'll probably forget about that loading screen anyway (at least on a conscious level), so don't wait until afterward to explain what just happened. As an aside, there was a comment that users will wait for a website that's sufficiently highly trafficked, but I don't think that's true. I remember some Google presentation[0] where an engineer explained that virtually any extra loading time was enough to discourage users from returning. Maybe that's just with search or other highly interactive sites (rather than reading a blog, for example), but I wouldn't want to test that hypothesis with any site I cared about and managed. 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il4swGfTOSM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il4swGfTOSM - The "impact of slow sites" comes up early on.

holmesworcester 12y ago
We're adding more explanation to the loading screen. Also, for folks who don't want to interrupt users, here's an anigif to post. http://imgur.com/PQRaxNa http://imgur.com/PQRaxNa (putting this up on the site now)

mrcactu5 12y ago

I don't think end-users will get the message. Can you illustrate to them how much slower their service will be as a result of rising costs?

brucefancher 12y ago

"Net neutrality" is a bad idea: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304885404579551981681149954 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230488540...