Dear Internet: Let’s Demo The Slow Lane • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by nobleach » Wed, May 07, 2014, 8:55 PM UTC

exelius wrote: post #139

at-fates-hands wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> 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 som…

I used to know this stuff back in my Net+ certification days.... like 15 years ago. Now I can't remember what BRI and PRI are - Basic Rate something?

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

#172

Post by arh68 » Wed, May 07, 2014, 8:57 PM UTC

davvolun wrote: post #99

keerthiko wrote: post #15

This would be great and informative and effective, except that the most visible sites* have no incentive to play along with this little song and dance, as they are the ones proliferating anti-net-neutrality for their own private gain. So it will basically just look to people like I'm running a shitty technical job serving my site, most people will think I'm stupid, they won't learn a damn thing about net neutrality o…

Are you arguing that no one saw and thus there was no impact when Wikipedia ran the anti-SOPA blackout? Further your examples don't make sense. Youtube is owned by Google, which doesn't have a 100% support track record for net-neutrality, but is mostly supportive. Netflix is on the record as completely for net-neutrality -- they are one of the major services cited by ISPs as causing the need for an internet fast lane…

> Are you arguing that no one saw and thus there was no impact when Wikipedia ran the anti-SOPA blackout?

Wikipedia was a notable exception, sure, but OP's got a point: does this have a hope on the Alexa topsites?

Comcast's monopoly seems to be the problem. If a Comcast user in NY can't watch netflix past 5PM, wouldn't they, I don't know, look for a better ISP? After all, their ISP just ain't getting it done. The only missing piece is the market competitor that is supposed to balance out Comcast's dickheadedness. Why, after decades of 'free market', do we have customers that are stuck? I think this is worth mentioning to users.

> explain to the user what is going on, and at least force them to click through to the actual, full speed version of your site

That sounds like the plan. I just can't think who's all on board.

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

#173

Post by segmondy » Wed, May 07, 2014, 9:07 PM UTC

A class action lawsuit is overdue against these internet providers over selling. I feel like I'm on a 128k ISDN most days, it's literally that slow. When you call in, they say, well, "Up to 3Mps" doesn't mean you will get it. ISPs are charging us by possible speeds, they need to deliver or discount when they can't. if you promise me about 10-15 widgets an hour for $50 and all you can consistently deliver for a month is 2-3 widgets. You should not demand $50.

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

#174

Post by danellis » Wed, May 07, 2014, 9:08 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #74

chimeracoder wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be politically trickier to pull off. It's much easier to say, "We're not censoring anything - we're just not giving them 'premium' speed.", and then redefine the status quo as the new 'premium'[0]. For Netflix, it doesn't matter - having the equivalent of dial-up speed is essentially the same as being blocked entirely, since their service depends on reasonably fast download speed. To illustrate another sce…

Texting never cost anything at all for the carriers to offer. It uses a sideband data stream that's always present whether it carries a payload or not.

People say that a lot, because they've heard it somewhere, but do you actually have the facts to back it up? I'd have to check my books to be sure, but I think you're talking about SMS delivery over the SACCH. That's an associated channel, meaning it goes along with a traffic channel, so that would apply if you were in a call. If you were not in a call, it would have to go over a standalone control channel SDCCH -- in other words, that channel would be being specifically used for the SMS transfer.

And, of course, there's the cost of running the SMSC.

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

#175

Post by ep103 » Wed, May 07, 2014, 9:08 PM UTC

pdabbadabba wrote: post #165

ertdfgcb wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It doesn't matter if its no-blocking, if they allow their current service to degrade to the point that it is unusable. That's exactly the same as blocking for everything, except a few specific services that paid for the 'fast lane'. And its already happening

http://bgr.com/2014/05/06/comcast-internet-service-criticism...

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

#176

Post by logfromblammo » Wed, May 07, 2014, 9:13 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #138

logfromblammo wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I have to pick just one? Windows, Android, Linux, iOS, Wii, Xbox 360, etcetera.

I don't consider Microsoft, Google, Debian, Apple, Nintendo et al to be complete strangers. I don't trust them unconditionally (hence all the rooted, modded, and jailbroken devices in my home), but I do trust that if I do discover malfeasance, that I have some well-established path to seek redress, and that they have the bank accounts, insurance policies, and reputations necessary to make me whole again.

I'm not nearly as trustless as RMS, but I am at least aware enough of the problem to be skeptical even of the software I have actually paid for, and downright paranoid towards everything else. Even the stuff I write myself could be subverted by a compromised compiler or OS. But like the two friends fleeing from the tiger, you don't have to run faster than the tiger to escape; you just have to run faster than your friend.

If someone is likely to be more damaged by breaching public trust and getting caught at it than you are likely to be damaged by trusting them when you should not, you're probably safe to trust them. But then again, even Sony can install a rootkit. You can trust, but remember to verify.

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

#177

Post by arh68 » Wed, May 07, 2014, 9:28 PM UTC

addisonj wrote: post #6

How about something simpler - Make images load slowly using JS. A ton of popular consumer sites - facebook, instagram, reddit/imgur are hugely image based. A few lines of JS to make them slowly load (perhaps PNG artifacts for bonus points) and you could very effectively get the point across all while quickly serving a nice large banner. Offtopic: As a google fiber customer myself, his mention of not remembering the u…

Remember the days before PNG, before JPEG, when GIFs loaded several times over? That sure was fun, watching the image get slightly clearer and clearer and then just stop, leaving you wondering about that final level of detail.

Back then of course you'd be opening an image that big & detailed in a separate window, but now we've got some image-heavy websites with dozens of these things. Retina screens don't make things easier, either. Loading 12 pseduo-GIFS in serial would be the mind-killer. My imgur? Facebook?

Serious question: would it be evil for Google to push out an 'educational patch' to Chrome? Firefox probably wouldn't.

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

#178

Post by sp332 » Wed, May 07, 2014, 9:56 PM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #176

sp332 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

trust a complete stranger to execute unknown code locally on their own computer So, what OS do you run, exactly?

I have to pick just one? Windows, Android, Linux, iOS, Wii, Xbox 360, etcetera. I don't consider Microsoft, Google, Debian, Apple, Nintendo et al to be complete strangers. I don't trust them unconditionally (hence all the rooted, modded, and jailbroken devices in my home), but I do trust that if I do discover malfeasance, that I have some well-established path to seek redress, and that they have the bank accounts, in…

Would you run JS in a sandbox, like Chrome's? Would you run JS from a "trusted" source, like Google's web font loader? Would you run code from a "stranger" that had been vouched for by Google, like angular.js served from Google's mirror?

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

#179

Post by AnthonyMouse » Wed, May 07, 2014, 10:09 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #160

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Latency isn't really the problem. Latency has three causes in practice: The speed of light, router packet buffers, and (generally congestion-related) packet loss. The first isn't usually a problem and there is nothing to be done about it anyway. The second and third aren't actually latency issues at all, they're latency as a side effect of a bandwidth shortfall. The only way to actually fix that is to add more bandwi…

Latency is the issue in routers when they categorize traffic, that was the idea. They don't simply prioritize packets; they age them and sort to try and ensure latency constraints. So its more complicated than priority.

> Latency is the issue in routers when they categorize traffic, that was the idea.

That's what I'm contesting.

Suppose you have a router which is receiving data to be sent over a 1Gbps link. Over a one hour period there is an average of 600Mbps of streaming video, 400Mbps HTTP traffic and 300Mbps of FTP/BitTorrent/etc. traffic. There is more data than there is link to put it in; you are screwed. The streaming video is going to stutter or degrade to lower quality, web pages will be slow to load, people waiting for downloads to finish will have to wait longer, because there is not enough bandwidth. The latency will also be poor, if router buffers are set too large and create a large queue in front of new packets (bufferbloat), but that's the least of your worries in that situation. Fixing the latency wouldn't clear things up because you still have users trying to play video with a bitrate of 6Mbps through a connection with a 4Mbps throughput. And categorizing the traffic only changes who gets screwed -- if you put downloads at the bottom of the heap then you might make the streaming video and HTTP customers happier but the customer who paid for a 6Mbps connection and would have at least been downloading at 4Mbps is now waiting for a download which getting only 0.2Mbps. That's not a solution, it's triage.

Now suppose you have the same amount of traffic on average but the link is upgraded to 2Gbps. Now there is no packet loss. You might have short bursts where the traffic level exceeds the capacity of the link, but they get smoothed out by the router's buffers, which never get full so the queue length is never more than a few milliseconds. Solving the bandwidth problem solves the latency problem.

The point is, if you're trying to fix the latency that occurs as a result of router buffers getting full or dropping packets in the core of the internet, you're rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The underlying problem is that router buffers are getting full or dropping packets in the core of the internet.

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

#180

Post by josho » Wed, May 07, 2014, 10:12 PM UTC

Jtsummers wrote: post #101

josho wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can anyone think of any advantages to a non-neutral internet? Yes. In the early days there was a competing networking technology called ATM. It provided quality of service (QoS) aspects in the protocol. So, you could prioritize packets, e.g. protocols affected by latency could be prioritized (e.g. VOIP, gaming), while those that weren't could be given a low priority (FTP, email). The beauty of ATM was that on a rel…

But QoS at the protocol level is different than non-neutral. Non-neutral is a way for someone, not the user or application developer, to reprioritize content. You're not using Comcast VOIP? Fine, we'll slow down your Facetime chat. Don't want to use Mediacom Streaming Movies? Fine, we'll slow down Netflix. That's what non-neutral means. QoS is different, that's applications behaving themselves. BitTorrent, for instan…

I understand the difference, my point was simply acknowledging that not all traffic is equal, so I have no problem to pay extra to ensure that the traffic that is important to me is given a priority. I do that today by paying for more bandwidth than I need. Alternatively, if bandwidth were a limited resource, then I'd consider paying to shape my traffic (either by paying for a better router to apply QoS rules in my own network or pay my ISP to take care of that on my behalf).

Comcast, however, wants to flip this around, so that even if I have bandwidth to spare they seem to be purposefully slowing down traffic (or under provisioning their own bandwidth) to force the Youtube's, Netflix's of the world to pay more.

TL;DR: all data is not equal; traffic shaping is 'ok' in theory; Comcast is evil, so please god don't let them artificially create slow lanes to force those willing to pay into the fast lanes.