Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The web sucks if you have a slow connection

danluu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 622 posts

Re: The web sucks if you have a slow connection

#341

Post by ClassyJacket »

ashark wrote: post #193
EvilTerran wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incidentally, you may find GMail's "basic HTML view" works better when your connection's throttled: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/15049 And as for reddit, their old mobile view is still available at the "i." subdomain - it's so much lighter-weight than the dreadful JS-laden one they introduced a while back, it's the only way to use reddit on mobile IMO: https://i.reddit.com

I use gmail's Basic HTML interface all the time . AJAXy gmail and Inbox balloon to incredible levels of memory use pretty quickly, and are slower for most interactions than the full-page loads on Basic HTML, which means that someone somewhere lost track of WTF they were supposed to be doing all of this for. It's easily worth the loss of a couple features.

I just tried it. My GOD that's quick. I think I'll stick with the basic HTML version of Gmail.

Re: The web sucks if you have a slow connection

#342

Post by SwellJoe »

zanny wrote: post #321
SwellJoe wrote: post #40

I travel fulltime and my primary internet is 4G LTE. But, even though I spend $250 per month on data, I still run out, and end up throttled to 128kbps for the last couple days of the data cycle. The internet is pretty much unusable at that rate. I can leave my email downloading in Thunderbird for a couple of hours and that's usable (gmail, however is not very usable), and I can read Hacker News (but not the articles…

I thought Sprint and T-Mobile had unlimited plans in the $60-80 range for LTE?

Not really.

I have accounts with both. T-Mobile has "unlimited" for the phone, but for hotspots, there are no unlimited plans (this may not be true anymore; I think if you get the new One plan, and add the $25 international option, it includes unlimited 4G LTE data, even for hotspots). The unlimited plan for phones also de-prioritizes customers that use over a certain amount of data in a month; but it's never the device usage that is a problem for me.

Sprint is similar, only even more restrictive in their "unlimited" plans. After 28GB, they throttle the device. Hotspot usage is severely restricted (2GB in the default "unlimited" plan) unless it is specifically a plan for a hotspot (not a phone acting as a hotspot).

There was no unlimited hotspot plan on any carrier at the time I signed up for all of my plans.

Sprint was the best deal per-GB when I hit the road this time around, so I have a 40GB plan on a hotspot from Sprint, and 16GB from T-Mobile spread across two devices (a hotspot and a phone that can act as a hotspot). I end up using all 56GB most months. Each provider gets about $125/month from me.

T-Mobile further complicates things by offering Binge On, which allows me to watch Netflix without burning as much data (the video itself doesn't use data, but all of the meta data, and browsing Netflix does, so once I'm out of data, it's impossible to actually watch anything, even with Binge On).

Data over 3G/4G is complicated as hell, is what I'm trying to say, and it's going to cost a fortune if it's your primary method of getting on the internet. I need to actually confirm with the T-Mobile folks that the One plan plus the International add-on provides actual unlimited data. If it does, it'll allow me to shrink my Sprint plan by a bunch, and stop running out of data.

Also worth noting: T-Mobile used to have a smaller network than Sprint (so much so that when I was traveling in the past, even though I had a grandfathered in unlimited plan on T-Mobile, that they finally made me switch off of a few years ago, I had a Clear hotspot, as well, to fill in the coverage gaps). But, the reverse is true now. T-Mobile's network is also faster in most locations. With the new bands they've put online, T-Mobile reaches further into out-of-the-way places.

In short, "unlimited" is a lie (or was; T-Mobile may actually have an unlimited data plan, now, though I wouldn't be surprised if it still de-prioritizes heavy users...and if "heavy" means some ridiculously small number like 28GB in a month).

Edit: It used to be possible to use a tethering app on a rooted phone to work around such limits. Both networks detect hotspot usage (somehow), even with a rooted phone.

Re: The web sucks if you have a slow connection

#343

Post by Chyzwar »

gabemart wrote: post #158

Something I have had at the back of my mind for a long time: in 2017, what's the correct way to present optional resources that will improve the experience of users on fast/uncapped connections, but that user agents on slow/capped connections can safely ignore? Like hi-res hero images, or video backgrounds, etc. Every time a similar question is posed on HN, someone says "If the assets aren't needed, don't serve them…

Server side logs and sessions. You should be able to tell users devices/browser and what bandwidth they operate. Then calculate average speed they use. You could then create tiered service where media quality and JS features can be adjusted. You will periodically process logs to make sure that grouping is still correct. As additional feature users could choose in theirs setting what tier they want to use.

On client side, You can achieve some of this by heavy use of media queries. https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/hh4535... You can basically manipulate resolution/disable of assets based on screens quality. This is under assumption that someone with retina screen will have decent internet.

Re: The web sucks if you have a slow connection

#344

Post by wyc »

SilasX wrote: post #224
ikeboy wrote: post #74

>When I was at Google, someone told me a story about a time that “they” completed a big optimization push only to find that measured page load times increased. When they dug into the data, they found that the reason load times had increased was that they got a lot more traffic from Africa after doing the optimizations. The team’s product went from being unusable for people with slow connections to usable, which cause…

Hah! A Jevons Effect[1] in a web site's bandwidth! [1] When an increase in the efficiency with which a resource is used causes total usage to increase. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Wow, uncanny resemblance to Giffen goods:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffen_good

Re: The web sucks if you have a slow connection

#345

Post by throwaway91111 »

hueving wrote: post #237
SilasX wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hah! A Jevons Effect[1] in a web site's bandwidth! [1] When an increase in the efficiency with which a resource is used causes total usage to increase. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

I'm not sure why this gets a special term. It sounds like basic supply and demand. If you decrease the price of something by increasing the efficiency of production, you will obviously capture more of the demand curve. What am I missing?

To put it another way, marginal efficiency increased but total efficiency went down, which is (to some) unintuitive. It's certainly rare to observe!

Re: The web sucks if you have a slow connection

#346

Post by Tade0 »

Kudos to the author for making the post readable using a 32kbps connection.

My apartment does not have a landline, not to mention any other form of wired communication, so my internet connection is relegated to a Wi-Fi router that's separated by two walls(friendly neighbour) and a GSM modem that, after using the paltry 14GB of transfer it provides, falls back to a 32kbps connection.

Things that work in these circumstances:

- Mobile Facebook(Can't say I'm not surprised here).

- Google Hangouts.

- HN (obviously).

- A few other videoconferencing solutions(naturally in audio only mode).

Things that don't work, or barely work:

- Gmail.

- Slack(ok, this one sort of works, but is not consistent).

- Most Android apps.

- Github.

EDIT: added newlines.

Re: The web sucks if you have a slow connection

#347

Post by hnarn »

A lot of people here are talking about how 2G connections are "almost unusable" and how this should be optimized server-side and so on. I'd just like to point out that there are browser that cater to this specific demographic (slow connections).

Ever since the days of running Java applications on my old Sony Ericsson phone, Opera Mini has been my favorite. As far as the browser is concerned, the website can be as heavy as it wishes -- it will pass through Operas proxy and be compressed according to user preferences. This could include not loading any images (nothing new), or load all images with very low quality. You can also select whether you want things like external fonts and JS to load, or if you want to block that too. When I moved to a new country my first SIM card had one of those "unlimited but incredibly slow" plans. Opera Mini was a life saver.

I guess my point is that we shouldn't get stuck in optimization paralysis if there is no sound and standardized server-side way to solve this issue (and there doesn't seem to be). It would be nice if browsers had a way to tell web servers that they're operating under low bandwidth, like the do-not-track flag, but AFAIK this does not exist.

Until that exists, and I don't mean to suggest we go back to the days of "Made for IE9" here, maybe some responsibility needs to be shifted to the client side. As long as you design your websites in a sane way, they will pass through these low bandwidth proxies with flying colors. Maybe you don't need to spend hundreds or thousands of man-hours optimizing your page when you could insert a discrete indicator at the top of the screen for anyone taking longer than X seconds to load that there are many browsers available for low bandwidth connections, and that they might want to try them out?

Re: The web sucks if you have a slow connection

#348

Post by hinkley »

acdha wrote: post #143
antisthenes wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One wonders how a user that takes 2 minutes to load 98KB is actually able to watch a video. Even by the most optimistic estimations, a video that is a few minutes long at 480p will weigh in at 10 megabytes, meaning it'll take them OVER 3 HOURS to download the entire thing. You would probably be able to browse (slowly), read comments, but not actually do much else.

This was the baseline experience everywhere in the 90s: people would just do something else while they waited for things to download over dialup. Clients for things like email, Usenet, browsers, etc. commonly had batch modes where you could queue large downloads so you could basically see what's new, select a bunch of large things, and then let it download while you got a cup of coffee / dinner / slept.

There was a time when Netflix was young, and I had slow internet, that if you queued up a movie and then paused it, it would continue to load. So you'd pick a movie, queue it up (literally) and then go make snacks and get situated. When the bar looked long enough you'd start watching. Then if it stalled (which it would do like clockwork every evening around 8 pm) you'd take an intermission.

By the time I got stuck with slow internet again (boycotting Comcast), they had removed that feature and it really sucked. Now I have fiber and the only drama is around Netflix only allowing you to stream a couple movies at once.

Re: The web sucks if you have a slow connection

#349

Post by JustSomeNobody »

nindalf wrote: post #330
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But still should make sure low speed works. But try convincing some privileged 20 something developer of that.

It's really not about a privileged youngster, it's about business priorities. Most of the time the cost benefit ratio doesn't justify the effort to optimise for high latency high packet-loss connections. Let's say 1% of your potential users use such connections. It only makes sense to support them if your total userbase is a large enough number. For Google, it's a no-brainer. For other sites, it's something to consid…

I could, but I've worked with too many examples that only care about writing new code in whatever is the latest hotness and moving on. They[0] don't want to fix their bugs. They don't care about anything but "works on my machine." They certainly don't care about using bandwidth.

[0] The ones I've worked with

Re: The web sucks if you have a slow connection

#350

Post by CydeWeys »

hueving wrote: post #237
SilasX wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hah! A Jevons Effect[1] in a web site's bandwidth! [1] When an increase in the efficiency with which a resource is used causes total usage to increase. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

I'm not sure why this gets a special term. It sounds like basic supply and demand. If you decrease the price of something by increasing the efficiency of production, you will obviously capture more of the demand curve. What am I missing?

> I'm not sure why this gets a special term.

It gets a special term because it was coined in 1865, before most of modern economics was codified and this was a cutting edge finding. You may as well ask why Newton's laws get a special term, because they're all just obvious basic equations in physics that high school students are taught.

Post reply on HN