A loooot of people are not going to understand what this means and just be annoyed and leave. I am for the general principle but this seems to miss the mark for non-savvy users.
Stop the Slow Lane
21–30 of 44 posts
Re: Stop the Slow Lane
#22Again, 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…
>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.
It's rhetorical. Slow lanes aren't being proposed, fast lanes are being proposed. It's exactly the same thing, but there's no proposal on the table that explicitly allows ISPs to have the power to leave people who fail to broker a deal with them in a special, non-prioritized "slow lane."
>"Let me be clear. If someone acts to divide the Internet between 'haves' and 'have-nots,'[...]"
This literally means nothing.
Re: Stop the Slow Lane
#23This site is unusable on a mobile device. An overlay appears which is much wider than the screen, and the close button is (presumably) offscreen, but since scrolling is inhibited too, I can't get to it.
Re: Stop the Slow Lane
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
… and yet in practice many people live in an area where they have only one option either at all or for greater than DSL (or even ISDN) speed. I'm not talking about rural areas, either, but places like New Haven, CT or Washington, DC.
Theoretically a new company could try to compete but the major companies tend to choose not to start price wars and it's a very expensive proposition to run competing cable out to houses, particularly since the incumbent will usually lower prices to make it more expensive for the new entrant. Around here, in the areas which have competition both Verizon and Comcast will cut and remove the other company's cables when they do a new install to maximize the cost and inconvenience of switching providers.
Re: Stop the Slow Lane
#25If 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 problem with this one is that the message is unclear. when I first read it 'we' sounded like the webmaster rather than Comcast. I got the point because I have context. they need clearer messaging. also on mobile chrome it is impossible to click the 'x'
Re: Stop the Slow Lane
#26Is 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 w…
Is your suggestion to support NN by violating it?
Re: Stop the Slow Lane
#27Again, 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…
Then once the law passes, the FCC chairmen steps down and a new puppet gets implanted.
Perhaps it's a step up when the resigning chair gets a new job that pays much more and requires less work?
Re: Stop the Slow Lane
#28Again, 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…
>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. It's rhetorical. Slow lanes aren't being proposed, fast lanes are being proposed. It's exactly the same thing, but there's no proposal on the table that explicitly allows ISPs to have the power to l…
Stated more clearly, fast lanes and slow lanes are the same thing. If they both use the same scarce bandwidth resource, then whoever didn't pay for the fast lane by definition ends up in the slower lane. Prioritizing fast lane traffic is the same thing as deprioritizing slow lane traffic, it's a zero sum game if bandwidth is saturated.
Re: Stop the Slow Lane
#29If 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.
It's even worse when you're not from the USA and you are asked to message congressmen in a different country.
Re: Stop the Slow Lane
#30We haven't had government mandated net "neutrality" for the past 20 years and I've yet to see anything like that pop up. Lets keep the government out of it and let the two sides duke it out. Seems like it would be a poor decision for the ISP to make, because they'd be purposefully pissing off their customers.