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

Stop the Slow Lane

feld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 44 posts

Re: Stop the Slow Lane

#11

Post by salgernon »

jqm wrote: post #5
dahart wrote: post #2

Again, are we certain about the FCC's intentions? I dont know the gory details of this issue, and I dont want a slow lane, but I'm only seeing vague accusations and little evidence. OTOH, the FCC said clearly and explicitly, and directly to the face of big-ISP that slow lanes are not being proposed and will not under any circumstance be allowed. In the chairman's latest speech, to the NCTA , he said "Put away the par…

When a political figure prefaces with "let me be clear" (why do so many feel a need to use that phrase?) I get the feeling of an attempt to deceive. "we will use every power at our disposal to stop it". Great Tom. Why don't you do so now, rather than playing wack-a-mole later? Common Carrier is the answer.

I'm not sure if this is implied by the phrase "common carrier" - but does the presence of a "last lane" imply that the carrier is no longer able to claim "common carrier" status and is therefore liable for the content delivered over their infrastructure? Currently, US ISPs can claim they don't filter based on, eg, obscenity or content that may be illegal in some jurisdiction. If they give up net neutrality, can they be found liable for content?

Re: Stop the Slow Lane

#12

Post by jqm »

salgernon wrote: post #11
jqm wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a political figure prefaces with "let me be clear" (why do so many feel a need to use that phrase?) I get the feeling of an attempt to deceive. "we will use every power at our disposal to stop it". Great Tom. Why don't you do so now, rather than playing wack-a-mole later? Common Carrier is the answer.

I'm not sure if this is implied by the phrase "common carrier" - but does the presence of a "last lane" imply that the carrier is no longer able to claim "common carrier" status and is therefore liable for the content delivered over their infrastructure? Currently, US ISPs can claim they don't filter based on, eg, obscenity or content that may be illegal in some jurisdiction. If they give up net neutrality, can they…

That's a good point. "Liability" may be an excuse for them to do further packet inspection and traffic shaping.

Sometimes the conspiracist in me wonders if this really isn't about regaining some measure of control over what people can look.

Re: Stop the Slow Lane

#14

Post by rubbingalcohol »

cr3ative wrote: post #3

If I saw this more than once (i.e, if it was on multiple websites) I would get quite angry at the webmasters, not at the FCC/Comcast/whoever you want me to be angry about. Un-dismissable twenty second delays to people reading your website will only serve to upset your audience, and in my opinion, shows a lack of respect for your readers time.

I would be more angry if the government allows monopolies to throttle our Internet speeds and discriminate content delivery towards major players who can afford to pay extortion money.. To me it's worth a few annoyances over the next few days if it helps raise popular awareness of this important issue.

Re: Stop the Slow Lane

#15

Post by mmahemoff »

"Your website is important to us" is addressing the site owner, which is the point in some respects, but doesn't gel with the experience of opening the site and seeing this dialog.

Should be more like "We value your experience on this website".

Re: Stop the Slow Lane

#16

Post by thehme »

I've been seeing a lot of back and forth about this issue and it seems to me the one thing we should be concerned about is not so much the user experience, but the experience of those with new ideas, which rely on access to an open internet. Today we have these massive companies making enough money to buy the access they need/want to run their businesses, but small shops don't have that capital, and from what I have read/seen, this law does not help to level the playing field. Furthermore, as commentators have stated, as users, we already get changed more by the internet ISPs, for faster speeds, so exactly what else do they want, other than the users' $$? We are still discussing what this law does in a tech blog, so what makes anyone think the FCC actually knows that it is doing, long term?

Re: Stop the Slow Lane

#17

Post by [deleted] »

mmahemoff wrote: post #15

"Your website is important to us" is addressing the site owner, which is the point in some respects, but doesn't gel with the experience of opening the site and seeing this dialog. Should be more like "We value your experience on this website".

[deleted]

Re: Stop the Slow Lane

#18

Post by dspillett »

Is there anywhere a curated list of ISPs who have actively spoken in favour of net neutrality (AAISP in the UK is the only one that springs quickly to mind, but I assume they aren't the only ones) and those who are apparently working against it? Perhaps with the IP ranges those ISPs are assigned? That way those of us who don't rely on any income from our sites could give those using the good guys speedier access (I wouldn't block or directly slow down the others: some of them are getting screwed enough by an ISP they can't leave without me kicking them too, but giving "good guy" ISPs priority where possible feels OK especially in the UK where there is at least a smidgen of genuine competition in many areas).

Re: Stop the Slow Lane

#19

Post by danielweber »

rubbingalcohol wrote: post #14
cr3ative wrote: post #3

If I saw this more than once (i.e, if it was on multiple websites) I would get quite angry at the webmasters, not at the FCC/Comcast/whoever you want me to be angry about. Un-dismissable twenty second delays to people reading your website will only serve to upset your audience, and in my opinion, shows a lack of respect for your readers time.

I would be more angry if the government allows monopolies to throttle our Internet speeds and discriminate content delivery towards major players who can afford to pay extortion money.. To me it's worth a few annoyances over the next few days if it helps raise popular awareness of this important issue.

The monopolies haven't been allowed since 1992. http://articles.philly.com/1992-10-19/business/26000502_1_ca...

Re: Stop the Slow Lane

#20

Post by pessimizer »

leorocky wrote: post #9

ISP already provide variable speed plans to consumers. You already have to pay more to get a faster connection, at least with Comcast. Very disingenuous and incorrect. I doubt anyone will see dial up speeds. They're not threatening to inject popups into web sites. So take the ridiculous dramaticized slow speeds away and the silly modal you're still left with an incorrect premise. The threat is not that consumers will…

Why wouldn't my peer-to-peer traffic be throttled down to dialup speeds? Or traffic from any site with less than a million dollars to spend, assuming that all of the top 100 sites sign up, and Wikipedia gets a discount or a pass?

>I doubt anyone will see dial up speeds.

I'm not reassured in any way by your doubts.

Post reply on HN