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

Dear Internet: Let’s Demo The Slow Lane

feld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 201 posts

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

#161

Post by pdabbadabba »

ihsw wrote: 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…

There's a lot not to like about the FCC's proposal, but one of its virtues is that it does include, as a guiding principle, "no blocking." http://www.fcc.gov/guides/open-internet So, under whatever rules it comes up with, it seems quite unlikely that your assertion, "There is nothing preventing ISP gatekeepers from wholeheartedly denying access," will be true.

It is possible, of course, that this rule could corrode over time, or that the slow-lane might be so slow that it serves as a de-facto block. But I think we'll need to see the actual proposed rule before we can assess that risk realistically.

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

#162

Post by ertdfgcb »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #161
ihsw wrote: 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…

There's a lot not to like about the FCC's proposal, but one of its virtues is that it does include, as a guiding principle, "no blocking." http://www.fcc.gov/guides/open-internet So, under whatever rules it comes up with, it seems quite unlikely that your assertion, "There is nothing preventing ISP gatekeepers from wholeheartedly denying access," will be true. It is possible, of course, that this rule could corrode o…

I think blocking might already be possible. Comcast is known for intermittent service problems, it would probably be pretty easy for them to give "intermittent service problems" to anyone trying to access a blocked site. They couldn't stop them from accessing it forever, but they could make it really really annoying.

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

#163

Post by orthecreedence »

shubb wrote: 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?

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.

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

#165

Post by pdabbadabba »

ertdfgcb wrote: post #162
pdabbadabba wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot not to like about the FCC's proposal, but one of its virtues is that it does include, as a guiding principle, "no blocking." http://www.fcc.gov/guides/open-internet So, under whatever rules it comes up with, it seems quite unlikely that your assertion, "There is nothing preventing ISP gatekeepers from wholeheartedly denying access," will be true. It is possible, of course, that this rule could corrode o…

I think blocking might already be possible. Comcast is known for intermittent service problems, it would probably be pretty easy for them to give "intermittent service problems" to anyone trying to access a blocked site. They couldn't stop them from accessing it forever, but they could make it really really annoying.

That's true. But actually, on that score, it seems like the new rules are likely to be an improvement. (!!!) Now, if you think that Comcast is blocking content in the guise of "service problems," the most you can do, realistically, is call customer service. But if they do that with an explicit "no blocking" rule in place, they're just asking to get sued--either by a consumer, a state communications commission, or the FCC itself.

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

#166

Post by orthecreedence »

cddotdotslash wrote: post #109

Best idea I've heard so far is to intentionally slow traffic only for known government IP blocks. If we can convince Google, Wikipedia, and other big sites to do this, Washington would definitely notice. I'm thinking of writing a script that site owners could use to do just this.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7712345

You may want to get in touch with rubbingalcoholic/FFTF and see if you can help out!

I've demoed the widget they're working on and it's painfully awesome.

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

#167

Post by orthecreedence »

carlosvergara wrote: post #102

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…

"Dear customer 5281132821292,

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"

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

#168

Post by exelius »

orthecreedence wrote: post #159
exelius wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

> But more generally, slow-loading websites make the ISP's service look shitty Exactly, so people will just leave that ISP and sign up with one that doesn't throttle traffic. Except most people have only one ISP in their area. Yay free market!

Even in a truly free market, most areas would only have one ISP. See how Verizon and AT&T have dramatically scaled back or stopped their FiOS/U-Verse rollout plans. If a company with easements and existing infrastructure (and thus lower costs) has decided it can't justify the investment, how would anyone else?

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

#169

Post by tempestn »

a_c_s wrote: post #67
exelius wrote: 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"…

As it is Netflix pays for bandwidth and the end user pays for bandwidth. Why should Netflix pay disproportionately more for its bandwidth than a non-video streaming service?

Exactly! Netflix is already paying for the upload bandwidth they're using, and Comcast customers are already paying for their download bandwidth. That should be the end of it. The problem is, because of services like Netflix, more people are actually using the bandwidth they're paying for. Comcast takes issue with this because they can no longer massively oversell their infrastructure.

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

#170

Post by orthecreedence »

exelius wrote: post #168
orthecreedence wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But more generally, slow-loading websites make the ISP's service look shitty Exactly, so people will just leave that ISP and sign up with one that doesn't throttle traffic. Except most people have only one ISP in their area. Yay free market!

Even in a truly free market, most areas would only have one ISP. See how Verizon and AT&T have dramatically scaled back or stopped their FiOS/U-Verse rollout plans. If a company with easements and existing infrastructure (and thus lower costs) has decided it can't justify the investment, how would anyone else?

I was saying "Yay free market" as in "a truly free market is a bad idea as seen by local ISP monopolies," not as in "our free market has failed us and needs to be freer."

In a truly free market, there would be one company that owns everything, including infrastructure. Not a world I'd like to live in.

Post reply on HN