Live data from Hacker News

Dear Internet: Let’s Demo The Slow Lane

feld.com

131–140 of 201 posts

Re: Dear Internet: Let’s Demo The Slow Lane

#131
post #119
post #36

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…

> 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.

How is it going to give them such incentive? If any, I think it will give them more incentive NOT to do so.

Why would they upgrade the infrastructure if they can just rise the prices until the demand for higher speeds either dies down or is enough at that higher price point that it will be cost-effective?

Re: Dear Internet: Let’s Demo The Slow Lane

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if Netflix wasn't accessible to Comcast users from the beginning because they wouldn't pay the toll. Would it have thrived and grown as quickly as it did, or would it have died in it's infancy? If I was building a bandwidth-intensive startup in the US at the moment, I'd be seriously looking at using port-hopping p2p as my distribution mechanism with some randomisation of the payload to make profiling/identifi…

p2p is a terrible distribution mechanism; it's pretty flaky and it destroys battery life on mobile devices which is where most of the growth in the tech sector is right now. Also there are issues with DRM in p2p. Yeah I know, DRM isn't popular, but video content owners insist on it and distributors can't do anything about that.

> Also there are issues with DRM in p2p.

I never actually understood this. DRM is already largely ineffective, but how would P2P distribution make it any more ineffective? It would be trivial to distribute encrypted content using P2P and then DRM the decryption.

Re: Dear Internet: Let’s Demo The Slow Lane

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if Netflix wasn't accessible to Comcast users from the beginning because they wouldn't pay the toll. Would it have thrived and grown as quickly as it did, or would it have died in it's infancy? If I was building a bandwidth-intensive startup in the US at the moment, I'd be seriously looking at using port-hopping p2p as my distribution mechanism with some randomisation of the payload to make profiling/identifi…

Then Comcast will simply charge out the nose for the ability to send more than a trivial amount of data.

They effectively already do this by selling highly asymmetric connections. They can't do much more than they already are because you have to have enough upload bandwidth to acknowledge all the packets you receive when downloading. And too many customers (and large companies) would complain to Congress if uploading a picture to InstaGram or a clip to YouTube took several minutes or cost a lot of money.

Re: Dear Internet: Let’s Demo The Slow Lane

#135
post #27

Why stop at the slow lane? There is nothing preventing ISP gatekeepers from wholeheartedly denying access. Slowness is just the beginning -- the end-goal is making the internet into multiple competing walled gardens where users are treated as silos that require permission to access. The global reach of the internet is at risk here. Imagine if Netflix wasn't accessible to Comcast users from the beginning because they…

I live in Belize and until a few months ago skype was blocked by the government granted monopoly telecom. Welcome to the future!

Re: Dear Internet: Let’s Demo The Slow Lane

#136
post #122
post #64

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"…

>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 s…

Well, in short, any web site with any money to pay the ISPs is likely already running on a CDN that's been paying the ISPs for a decade. The portion of that market that's not yet monetized is likely very small. Besides, slowing down general-purpose web traffic makes it look like your service just totally sucks ass.

But more generally, slow-loading websites make the ISP's service look shitty. There's almost no cost for them to just QoS the low-bandwidth stuff up and it makes people think their service is better.

Re: Dear Internet: Let’s Demo The Slow Lane

#137
post #13
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Much more effective would be for operators to ban ISPs. I heartily disagree with this approach. Not only does it harken back to the days of Prodigy, AOL, CompuServe and the like where each service had its own content, but it's very anti-internet. >Make users want to switch That's great if there are alternatives to switch to. Yes, I could technically switch to dialup. It is technically internet. It's not going to all…

> I live in an area where Comcast literally is my only option for high-speed internet. I'm not pretending. IIRC most of the country lives in areas where there are only 1 or 2 broadband options. The non-cable operator is likely to be a Baby Bell that's also spent heavily to lobby the FCC to kill net neutrality and so wouldn't be an effective protest switch.

Yes, this is true. The worst part is that most of the baby bell solutions are slow-ass DSL.

For instance, in most of Metro-Atlanta, you can get Comcast or AT&T UVerse (AT&T being the name of what was a Baby Bell, Cingular). UVerse is simply slow-as-shit DSL and is awful. (Fun fact: AT&T tried to sell and promote UVerse as Fiber in the mid-2000s. My parents have fiber in their home but no way to get a fiber provider -- AT&T was over-selling them on a "fiber" solution that was literally just copper DSL wires. The whole telecom industry is full of crooks).

In New York City, you basically have one provider. If you're very lucky and live in an area Verizon (another former baby bell) also services, you can get Fiber -- and that's awesome -- but the zoning for this stuff is often street by street. The building across the street from my apartment can get Verizon. My building can't -- for whatever reason. Verizon did tell me they could probably rig me access if I could get them access to the basement -- but I'm not the building owner and I don't have time to deal with what happens when the line gets cut accidentally.

I'm very fortunate that my Internet/TV provider is relatively sane (Cablevision) -- if I lived three blocks further away, I'd be stuck in TWC hell.

What most consumers also don't know is that in many areas, the cable provider can be chosen by the property management company (if you're in an apartment complex) or the condo association. So what happens is that operators will "bid" on that area - and the lowest bid wins. The problem is, even if you live in a Comcast or Verizon or whatever area, you still can't get that service. You're required to be with whoever your property management or co-op board chose. I actually didn't buy a condo that was in a great location and had a great floorplan because of their choice of ISP/cable provider.

The whole system is fucked. It really is. And the net neutrality and fast-lane aspects are only a small part of a much more broken and corrupt system.

That said, just because we can't fix the whole system -- and we can't -- doesn't mean we can't put pressure on companies to not fuck customers over even more, by making access-agreements for content. The system is already not in our favor -- no reason to make it even worse.

Re: Dear Internet: Let’s Demo The Slow Lane

#138
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how to say it without being blunt, but I mean no offense, I'm just curious. I've heard of this mythical type of user (no-JS) but never heard their side of the coin before. I dislike ad tracking, information culling, and I think that JavaScript underpins and makes possible many of the things I dislike about the modern web. We agree on that I'm sure. But so does a web browser. So does the operating system…

All of the web is broken by default, because it is filled with black-hats trying to collect your personally-identifiable information and steal your passwords. If your web page doesn't work without javascript, you are no longer publishing to the entire world. You are publishing to the subset of everybody who will trust a complete stranger to execute unknown code locally on their own computer--otherwise known as the gu…

trust a complete stranger to execute unknown code locally on their own computer

So, what OS do you run, exactly?

Re: Dear Internet: Let’s Demo The Slow Lane

#139

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 serve…

>>> 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. G…

Bonded ISDN lines are called a PRI (also known as a T1). A normal ISDN BRI consists of one D-channel and two B-channels. A T1 was one D-channel and 24 B-channels. You could also bond multiple T1s together; it was effectively a long-distance serial link that operated off the telephone network.

Technically you could also bond multiple BRIs together, but pretty quickly it made more sense to just provision a PRI with some of the B-channels disabled (also known as a fractional T1).

Re: Dear Internet: Let’s Demo The Slow Lane

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

p2p is a terrible distribution mechanism; it's pretty flaky and it destroys battery life on mobile devices which is where most of the growth in the tech sector is right now. Also there are issues with DRM in p2p. Yeah I know, DRM isn't popular, but video content owners insist on it and distributors can't do anything about that.

> Also there are issues with DRM in p2p. I never actually understood this. DRM is already largely ineffective, but how would P2P distribution make it any more ineffective? It would be trivial to distribute encrypted content using P2P and then DRM the decryption.

Modern DRM schemes use one-time keys. E.g. you can pull down a video stream, but you have to respond with your session ID and a login token which they then verify against subscriber information.

And the whole point of DRM is to allow content providers to enforce the restrictions they place on content distribution contracts. For example, if there is a flag that says "this content can only be played on cell-phones and tablets" they want to ensure that any player that can play the content honors that restriction and doesn't allow output via HDMI.

Naturally some people will be able to defeat them, but they're not meant to be ironclad. They are effective for the majority of people out there who aren't hackers/nerds.

Post reply on HN