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

Stop the Slow Lane

stoptheslowlane.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 52 posts

Re: Stop the Slow Lane

#41

Post by Karunamon »

nkozyra wrote: post #29
holmesworcester wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

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…

I daresay annoying people is the whole point. Combine that with the logo example given upthread, and you've got a very effective campaign going on. What I see happening:

"Why do I keep getting this bloody message with Comcast's logo on it every time I hit random websites? readreadread Fucking Comcast at it again.."

Re: Stop the Slow Lane

#43

Post by MichaelApproved »

exelius wrote: post #36
MichaelApproved wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Stop the Slow Lane

#45

Post by exelius »

MichaelApproved wrote: post #43
exelius wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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).

Re: Stop the Slow Lane

#46

Post by area51org »

exelius wrote: post #27
area51org wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is condescension. It's more like a demonstration for the policy makers.

How do you know this is what will happen?

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.

Re: Stop the Slow Lane

#47

Post by area51org »

CodeMage wrote: post #24
holmesworcester wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can you tell us more about why it feels condescending?

It feels condescending because people don't really need an exaggerated demonstration of what the word "slow" means. I agree that people need to be made aware that what FCC is doing is going to make things slower for regular users, but this is excessive.

I still don't think that means it's condescending, but it certainly would be egregious if a large number of popular web sites did it. As far as I know, however, they aren't doing it, not even on a short-term basis.

Re: Stop the Slow Lane

#48

Post by dragonwriter »

area51org wrote: post #46
exelius wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know this is what will happen?

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…

> 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.

Re: Stop the Slow Lane

#49

Post by exelius »

area51org wrote: post #46
exelius wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know this is what will happen?

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…

But what does charging for fast delivery look like? I get the distinct impression that people think the ISPs plan to throttle any site that doesn't pay up; which is a gross mischaracterization of the situation. Part of the beef with Netflix is that Netflix is building a business model that disproportionately taxes the infrastructure with long-form video content. You have one service that accounts for 30-50% of bandwidth usage. That level of traffic causes havoc on transit providers, ISPs, etc. From an engineering perspective, it's better to establish direct routes because you're removing bottlenecks.

Your last statement doesn't really help your argument since the situations you describe actually happen. The power company can't really do the first because they don't have the visibility, but they do charge more per kWh for residential power, since residential peak usage occurs in the evening. In many areas toll roads and bridges are more expensive if you don't have an EZ Pass (the EZ Pass basically flags you as a resident).

Re: Stop the Slow Lane

#50

Post by exelius »

dragonwriter wrote: post #48
area51org wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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…

The big cable companies have had the technical capability to deliver video over internet subscription services for years. They haven't released them widely because if they did, it would melt the Internet. Netflix doesn't care about such things because they don't own the infrastructure and aren't responsible if their service overloads the last-mile.
Post reply on HN