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.
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.
>>> But we already have such a slow lane. And it already made the internet less free and less useful.
I'm pretty sure you can still get ISDN lines from your local telecom provider. I know a long time ago there was talk of binding ISDN lines to together to increase upload and download speeds. This was right around the time DSL was blowing up so I'm sure it got lost in the wave of DSL hype.
Of course compared to DSL. GigaFiber, or any of the current technologies, it's downright pathetic.
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.
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...
How about something simpler - Make images load slowly using JS.
Or how about just using a webfont? I already get a reminder of what the 'slow lane' was like when I hit a site that uses one - it does layout so I can see where the text will eventually go and then I get to wait 5 seconds for it to load and do whatever else it needs to do with its fonts.
How about preloading (or rendering) placeholder images with a short message of what is up and a timer. The timer runs down from 4 to 0 seconds and all the images get loaded.
Remember the days before PNG, before JPEG, when GIFs loaded several times over? That sure was fun, watching the image get slightly clearer and clearer and then just stop, leaving you wondering about that final level of detail.
Back then of course you'd be opening an image that big & detailed in a separate window, but now we've got some image-heavy websites with dozens of these things. Retina screens don't make things easier, either. Loading 12 pseduo-GIFS in serial would be the mind-killer. My imgur? Facebook?
Serious question: would it be evil for Google to push out an 'educational patch' to Chrome? Firefox probably wouldn't.
> 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.
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?
> Can anyone think of any advantages to a non-neutral internet?
Yes. In the early days there was a competing networking technology called ATM. It provided quality of service (QoS) aspects in the protocol. So, you could prioritize packets, e.g. protocols affected by latency could be prioritized (e.g. VOIP, gaming), while those that weren't could be given a low priority (FTP, email).
The beauty of ATM was that on a relatively low bandwidth connection you could utilize all of your bandwidth and services like VOIP would still work beautifully. TCP/IP still today struggles with this.
So, as a consumer, I'd be happy to pay for QoS so that my VOIP packets had an expressway on my 2Mbps connection. However, that ship (for many) has sailed. With my largely under utilized 50Mbps connection there is no reason to pay for QoS because we've largely solved latency by throwing bandwidth at the problem.
However, with the approach that the FCC/comcast/et al are taking, I see no benefit.
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).
You are burning an artificial technical straw-man. There is no technical capacity limit at play here. Networking technology has leapfrogged the bandwidth available to consumers many times over, and to boot, it is pretty much infinitely scalable.
So when theres no problem transferring all of Netflix, Skype and BitTorrent simultaneously, why slow any of it? Sure, at times hardware fails, fiber is damaged, and ISPs can feel free to prioritize traffic at that time, we certainly have the technology to do that.
But what is certainly not ok is slowing traffic because you are not willing to invest into your connectivity, investing not even enough to actually deliver all of the meagre bandwidth (100 Mbit is 1995 vintage technology, where in the US can you even get that?) you have sold to consumers.
Traffic priority should be set by the users and the application developers, not by the ISP. Streaming video/audio should have a way to signal that they're high priority traffic (because latency is noticeable quality of service absolutely essential). BitTorrent should be able to signal that it's low priority (unless being used for streaming like Popcorn Time) since it's often used in the background as a way to get large files or file sets. HTTP traffic should be able to sit somewhere between the two, with some services announcing themselves as high priority (services that stream media over HTTP or games or whatever) and the rest announcing themselves as "Guarantee me decent latency, I need to be there in a few seconds, but under a second is overkill".
> 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?
I have 2 wired ISPs to choose from and several wireless (well, primarily via tethering with a cellphone) ISPs. My apartment has shitty wireless reception so Verizon, Sprint and AT&T are out. That leaves Cox Cable (who repeatedly disconnected me when they meant to disconnect a neighbor, costing me two days of leave to fix their fuckup) and Windstream (a DSL provider). So if both of my providers decide to play the non-neutral game, I, the consumer, am screwed. There are no options for me in your scenario. That's the reality of the ISP situation in the majority of the US.
They'll have a monopoly on "working better", thus thake "better" with a huge grain of salt.
> Most likely, we'd be able to pay for priority traffic
You (the customer of the ISP) can do that today. The difference is that they want to sell priority to the customer, and then only deliver it if the data provider pays it too.
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?
> Can anyone think of any advantages to a non-neutral internet?
Yes! People who are always crowing about how the free market will save us all and how regulation is the enemy will start bitching about their slow Netflix speeds. Some of them may even realize what a terrible idea an unregulated free market is.
> don't you expect consumers to choose ISPs and services that don't do it?
Most ISPs have a monopoly in their local area. Perhaps a state-run option would be a good alternative but it would probably eventually get completely weighed down with bureaucracy and red tape.
In other words, the free market can't save us and neither can our government. A healthy mix of the two seems to be a working solution.
QoS is perfectly fine if it's set by the user, not the ISP. This is a red.herring anyway, because the Netflix problem has nothing whatsoever to do with prioritization.
> Can anyone think of any advantages to a non-neutral internet?
It would give ISPs an incentive to spend the large sums of money required to upgrade their networks/infrastructure to offer significantly faster Internet speeds. I very much doubt that any amount of legislation/regulation is going to force ISPs into it otherwise.
Wouldn't prioritizing packets at routers create slower queues for low priority packets?
Murphy's Law tells me there's a good chance these low priority queues will slow down exponentially at random times. Routing nightmare if you consider DDoS and what not.
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
Are you arguing that no one saw and thus there was no impact when Wikipedia ran the anti-SOPA blackout?
Further your examples don't make sense. Youtube is owned by Google, which doesn't have a 100% support track record for net-neutrality, but is mostly supportive. Netflix is on the record as completely for net-neutrality -- they are one of the major services cited by ISPs as causing the need for an internet fast lane, which directly impacts Netflix and Netflix consumers (negatively, if that wasn't clear). I don't know about facebook off-hand, but frankly, who cares about facebook's leadership on the web? It would be great for them to join in, the exposure would be great, but I think more people distrust facebook and their support is the internet equivalent of being on the same side of an argument as the KKK.
How about instead of just slowing your sites down arbitrarily you do exactly what wikipedia did -- explain to the user what is going on, and at least force them to click through to the actual, full speed version of your site -- even better, let them see what your site would be like speed-capped and what your site is like now.
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 [email protected] or me directly at [email protected] ...
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.
>Companies like Comcast have no interest in slowing down web site traffic
Yeah? How about money?
As a comms engineer, I too think about the technical implications of this.
But you have to remember that the people who push for the abolition of net neutrality are mainly the finances guys, i.e the ones responsible for bringing as much money as possible to the company. And when you put yourself in their shoes, all of a sudden you get dreams of Comcast turning the Internet into the same kind of market it has in cable television. And you very quickly forget about QoS, bandwidth, latency and the job of "delivering the bits" and just think in terms of profits. You wouldn't know what most of those terms mean anyway...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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...
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.
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?
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."
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.
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.
[+] [-] loup-vaillant|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Timmmmbob|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mindslight|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] at-fates-hands|12 years ago|reply
I'm pretty sure you can still get ISDN lines from your local telecom provider. I know a long time ago there was talk of binding ISDN lines to together to increase upload and download speeds. This was right around the time DSL was blowing up so I'm sure it got lost in the wave of DSL hype.
Of course compared to DSL. GigaFiber, or any of the current technologies, it's downright pathetic.
[+] [-] alandarev|12 years ago|reply
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/
[+] [-] wiremine|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] addisonj|12 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] edoloughlin|12 years ago|reply
Or how about just using a webfont? I already get a reminder of what the 'slow lane' was like when I hit a site that uses one - it does layout so I can see where the text will eventually go and then I get to wait 5 seconds for it to load and do whatever else it needs to do with its fonts.
[+] [-] neals|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nandhp|12 years ago|reply
https://fiber.google.com/cities/kansascity/plans/
[+] [-] arh68|12 years ago|reply
Back then of course you'd be opening an image that big & detailed in a separate window, but now we've got some image-heavy websites with dozens of these things. Retina screens don't make things easier, either. Loading 12 pseduo-GIFS in serial would be the mind-killer. My imgur? Facebook?
Serious question: would it be evil for Google to push out an 'educational patch' to Chrome? Firefox probably wouldn't.
[+] [-] privong|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] iLoch|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RockyMcNuts|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shubb|12 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] josho|12 years ago|reply
Yes. In the early days there was a competing networking technology called ATM. It provided quality of service (QoS) aspects in the protocol. So, you could prioritize packets, e.g. protocols affected by latency could be prioritized (e.g. VOIP, gaming), while those that weren't could be given a low priority (FTP, email).
The beauty of ATM was that on a relatively low bandwidth connection you could utilize all of your bandwidth and services like VOIP would still work beautifully. TCP/IP still today struggles with this.
So, as a consumer, I'd be happy to pay for QoS so that my VOIP packets had an expressway on my 2Mbps connection. However, that ship (for many) has sailed. With my largely under utilized 50Mbps connection there is no reason to pay for QoS because we've largely solved latency by throwing bandwidth at the problem.
However, with the approach that the FCC/comcast/et al are taking, I see no benefit.
[+] [-] jonlucc|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] revelation|12 years ago|reply
So when theres no problem transferring all of Netflix, Skype and BitTorrent simultaneously, why slow any of it? Sure, at times hardware fails, fiber is damaged, and ISPs can feel free to prioritize traffic at that time, we certainly have the technology to do that.
But what is certainly not ok is slowing traffic because you are not willing to invest into your connectivity, investing not even enough to actually deliver all of the meagre bandwidth (100 Mbit is 1995 vintage technology, where in the US can you even get that?) you have sold to consumers.
[+] [-] Jtsummers|12 years ago|reply
> 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?
I have 2 wired ISPs to choose from and several wireless (well, primarily via tethering with a cellphone) ISPs. My apartment has shitty wireless reception so Verizon, Sprint and AT&T are out. That leaves Cox Cable (who repeatedly disconnected me when they meant to disconnect a neighbor, costing me two days of leave to fix their fuckup) and Windstream (a DSL provider). So if both of my providers decide to play the non-neutral game, I, the consumer, am screwed. There are no options for me in your scenario. That's the reality of the ISP situation in the majority of the US.
[+] [-] CamperBob2|12 years ago|reply
This question seems to be equivalent to "Can anyone think of any advantages to a centrally-planned economy?"
Yes, you can think of certain specific advantages, but the opportunity costs are enough to utterly dominate the long-term picture.
[+] [-] marcosdumay|12 years ago|reply
They'll have a monopoly on "working better", thus thake "better" with a huge grain of salt.
> Most likely, we'd be able to pay for priority traffic
You (the customer of the ISP) can do that today. The difference is that they want to sell priority to the customer, and then only deliver it if the data provider pays it too.
[+] [-] coldcode|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] orthecreedence|12 years ago|reply
Yes! People who are always crowing about how the free market will save us all and how regulation is the enemy will start bitching about their slow Netflix speeds. Some of them may even realize what a terrible idea an unregulated free market is.
> don't you expect consumers to choose ISPs and services that don't do it?
Most ISPs have a monopoly in their local area. Perhaps a state-run option would be a good alternative but it would probably eventually get completely weighed down with bureaucracy and red tape.
In other words, the free market can't save us and neither can our government. A healthy mix of the two seems to be a working solution.
[+] [-] nitrogen|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsz0|12 years ago|reply
It would give ISPs an incentive to spend the large sums of money required to upgrade their networks/infrastructure to offer significantly faster Internet speeds. I very much doubt that any amount of legislation/regulation is going to force ISPs into it otherwise.
[+] [-] hamai|12 years ago|reply
Murphy's Law tells me there's a good chance these low priority queues will slow down exponentially at random times. Routing nightmare if you consider DDoS and what not.
[+] [-] keerthiko|12 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] davvolun|12 years ago|reply
Further your examples don't make sense. Youtube is owned by Google, which doesn't have a 100% support track record for net-neutrality, but is mostly supportive. Netflix is on the record as completely for net-neutrality -- they are one of the major services cited by ISPs as causing the need for an internet fast lane, which directly impacts Netflix and Netflix consumers (negatively, if that wasn't clear). I don't know about facebook off-hand, but frankly, who cares about facebook's leadership on the web? It would be great for them to join in, the exposure would be great, but I think more people distrust facebook and their support is the internet equivalent of being on the same side of an argument as the KKK.
How about instead of just slowing your sites down arbitrarily you do exactly what wikipedia did -- explain to the user what is going on, and at least force them to click through to the actual, full speed version of your site -- even better, let them see what your site would be like speed-capped and what your site is like now.
[+] [-] scrabble|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rubbingalcohol|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] exelius|12 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] devcpp|12 years ago|reply
Yeah? How about money?
As a comms engineer, I too think about the technical implications of this.
But you have to remember that the people who push for the abolition of net neutrality are mainly the finances guys, i.e the ones responsible for bringing as much money as possible to the company. And when you put yourself in their shoes, all of a sudden you get dreams of Comcast turning the Internet into the same kind of market it has in cable television. And you very quickly forget about QoS, bandwidth, latency and the job of "delivering the bits" and just think in terms of profits. You wouldn't know what most of those terms mean anyway...
[+] [-] iLoch|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Killah911|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] bluedino|12 years ago|reply
https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Networ...
[+] [-] esquivalience|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] yodaiken|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zelphyr|12 years ago|reply
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|12 years ago|reply
Many of us already get a Slow Lane Demo every day during "prime time" evening hours.
[+] [-] sharemywin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] keithpeter|12 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] Zhenya|12 years ago|reply
/S
This is where we are heading.
[+] [-] TeMPOraL|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] k3liutZu|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fizzbar|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carlosvergara|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] orthecreedence|12 years ago|reply
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"
[+] [-] segmondy|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanBC|12 years ago|reply
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.