5 ms·

What exactly is a slow lane? Does the Internet work in a slowlane? What speeds are we supposed to envision when we think of a slow lane? Dial-up? 10mbps? 2

What exactly is a slow lane? Does the Internet work in a slowlane? What speeds are we supposed to envision when we think of a slow lane? Dial-up? 10mbps? 20?

Brakenshire 12y ago
The slower the speed, the greater the price an ISP can charge websites for access at normal speeds, so it would be a balance between slowing down more, and maximizing revenue from content providers, and keeping speeds high enough not to lose customers. The customer would be both a subscriber, and an extra member of an audience which could be sold to a website. If you're talking about a situation where the ISPs are monopolies within a particular geographical area (at least for wired internet) that balance could mean very significant speed reductions. If the revenues from content providers reduced subscription costs by a meaningful amount, it would probably mean quite a significant slow-down even when there's competition, because I suspect many consumers would pick the lowest cost subscription regardless of other factors.
- diminoten 12y ago
  So what you're saying is below 56kbps? How long do you think a "slow lane" website will take to load? What would viewing resolutions be for something like Netflix in the "slow lane"? Give me something more concrete.
  - bitJericho 12y ago
    It would be enough for you to notice or else it wouldn't be an effective sales tool. It hasn't happened yet because the FCC has not ruled on it yet.
    - diminoten 12y ago
      So we're talking, what, no HD from YouTube or Netflix? Is this just about video? Are my pings going to be artificially inflated in Starcraft? If they throttle based on service, can't I circumvent this by just using a VPN and buying a fast enough base service? Isn't this mostly a, "but the police man could shoot me whenever he wants if he gets to carry a gun!" argument?
      - bitJericho 12y ago
        Yes except the gun is used to kill anybody who doesn't pay up. I think the general idea is that yes, all your services will degrade in quality except for the services that pay the ransom. Sure your VPN will make everything equal, except eventually if the QoS scheme works well for the ISPs they could also move to datacaps that don't get used up by the services that pay the ransom.
        diminoten 12y ago
        So you'd arrest these ISPs for pre-crime then? Every gun owner could shoot you in the face if they wanted to, therefore they're all guilty?
        bitJericho 12y ago
        I don't think I ever said that all ISPs are going to do this. I also don't think any ISP needs to charge customers twice for accessing the internet (eg, own the gun in the first place). I think this is where the gun simile breaks down because while a gun may have valid uses relating to protection, internet non-neutrality has no uses except to line the pockets of monopolies.
        diminoten 12y ago
        The whole point of the gun analogy is to illustrate how terrible the, "just because they can, means they will" argument is. That's it. Think no more of it beyond that.
        bitJericho 12y ago
        They already are with Netflix. And it has been noticable by the users.
        diminoten 12y ago
        Currently? No, they're not. There is no "Netflix" option from Comcast that a consumer can purchase to increase their Netflix streaming speed.
pessimizer 12y ago
Slower than the other lane.
rhino369 12y ago
FCC proponents will say what you have now. The rule says “sufficiently robust, fast, and dynamic for effective use by end users and edge providers.” Opponents say that it will kill innovation. I think the opponents have a point, but I'm actually okay with a "fast lane" approach. Some degree of traffic shaping is probably a good thing. It doesn't make sense to equally prioritize by dropbox update and my VOIP traffic. I want that VOIP to have low latency and high enough bandwidth. Dropbox update can wait. I'd rather have my FPS game have a low latency connection than my neighbors bittorrent connection. I'd propose a fast lane but also ensure the slow lane isn't intentionally slowed down for no reason. Punitive throttling shouldn't be allowed. It might be more effective if the tech community made thoughtful input in the rulemaking process instead of pure rage and outlandish demands.
- diminoten 12y ago
  That's what I mean, aren't there already "fast lanes" in the sense that Netflix doesn't have to use the "slow lane" we call the greater Internet to get its content to the Comcast network? Peering is a "fast lane" approach, isn't it?
  - hack_edu 12y ago
    Yes, and it is exactly what folks here are in opposition to.
    - diminoten 12y ago
      If folks here are in opposition to peering, they're attempting to literally destroy the Internet. If we abolished peering agreements (setting aside the legal nightmare that'd cause, telling people what they can and can't do with their private networks), the subsequent Internet traffic that'd be generated would literally destroy the current Internet infrastructure.
  - rhino369 12y ago
    Yes. This isn't something many net neutrality proponents want to talk about, but allowing netflix to have sweetheart peering deals or offering rack space for caching at no cost inside ISP locations IS treating traffic differently.

What exactly is a slow lane? Does the Internet work in a slowlane? What speeds are we supposed to envision when we think of a slow lane? Dial-up? 10mbps? 20?

Brakenshire 12y ago

The slower the speed, the greater the price an ISP can charge websites for access at normal speeds, so it would be a balance between slowing down more, and maximizing revenue from content providers, and keeping speeds high enough not to lose customers. The customer would be both a subscriber, and an extra member of an audience which could be sold to a website. If you're talking about a situation where the ISPs are monopolies within a particular geographical area (at least for wired internet) that balance could mean very significant speed reductions. If the revenues from content providers reduced subscription costs by a meaningful amount, it would probably mean quite a significant slow-down even when there's competition, because I suspect many consumers would pick the lowest cost subscription regardless of other factors.

diminoten 12y ago
So what you're saying is below 56kbps? How long do you think a "slow lane" website will take to load? What would viewing resolutions be for something like Netflix in the "slow lane"? Give me something more concrete.
- bitJericho 12y ago
  It would be enough for you to notice or else it wouldn't be an effective sales tool. It hasn't happened yet because the FCC has not ruled on it yet.
  - diminoten 12y ago
    So we're talking, what, no HD from YouTube or Netflix? Is this just about video? Are my pings going to be artificially inflated in Starcraft? If they throttle based on service, can't I circumvent this by just using a VPN and buying a fast enough base service? Isn't this mostly a, "but the police man could shoot me whenever he wants if he gets to carry a gun!" argument?
    - bitJericho 12y ago
      Yes except the gun is used to kill anybody who doesn't pay up. I think the general idea is that yes, all your services will degrade in quality except for the services that pay the ransom. Sure your VPN will make everything equal, except eventually if the QoS scheme works well for the ISPs they could also move to datacaps that don't get used up by the services that pay the ransom.
      - diminoten 12y ago
        So you'd arrest these ISPs for pre-crime then? Every gun owner could shoot you in the face if they wanted to, therefore they're all guilty?
        bitJericho 12y ago
        I don't think I ever said that all ISPs are going to do this. I also don't think any ISP needs to charge customers twice for accessing the internet (eg, own the gun in the first place). I think this is where the gun simile breaks down because while a gun may have valid uses relating to protection, internet non-neutrality has no uses except to line the pockets of monopolies.
        diminoten 12y ago
        The whole point of the gun analogy is to illustrate how terrible the, "just because they can, means they will" argument is. That's it. Think no more of it beyond that.
        bitJericho 12y ago
        They already are with Netflix. And it has been noticable by the users.
        diminoten 12y ago
        Currently? No, they're not. There is no "Netflix" option from Comcast that a consumer can purchase to increase their Netflix streaming speed.

pessimizer 12y ago

Slower than the other lane.

rhino369 12y ago

FCC proponents will say what you have now. The rule says “sufficiently robust, fast, and dynamic for effective use by end users and edge providers.” Opponents say that it will kill innovation. I think the opponents have a point, but I'm actually okay with a "fast lane" approach. Some degree of traffic shaping is probably a good thing. It doesn't make sense to equally prioritize by dropbox update and my VOIP traffic. I want that VOIP to have low latency and high enough bandwidth. Dropbox update can wait. I'd rather have my FPS game have a low latency connection than my neighbors bittorrent connection. I'd propose a fast lane but also ensure the slow lane isn't intentionally slowed down for no reason. Punitive throttling shouldn't be allowed. It might be more effective if the tech community made thoughtful input in the rulemaking process instead of pure rage and outlandish demands.

diminoten 12y ago
That's what I mean, aren't there already "fast lanes" in the sense that Netflix doesn't have to use the "slow lane" we call the greater Internet to get its content to the Comcast network? Peering is a "fast lane" approach, isn't it?
- hack_edu 12y ago
  Yes, and it is exactly what folks here are in opposition to.
  - diminoten 12y ago
    If folks here are in opposition to peering, they're attempting to literally destroy the Internet. If we abolished peering agreements (setting aside the legal nightmare that'd cause, telling people what they can and can't do with their private networks), the subsequent Internet traffic that'd be generated would literally destroy the current Internet infrastructure.
- rhino369 12y ago
  Yes. This isn't something many net neutrality proponents want to talk about, but allowing netflix to have sweetheart peering deals or offering rack space for caching at no cost inside ISP locations IS treating traffic differently.