Dear Internet: Let’s Demo The Slow Lane

That's what burns me. We already pay ISPs to deliver the data that we request. They should take our money and improve their infrastructure. Instead, they want to get paid again, by e.g. Netflix, and the result would still be basically the same shitty third-world service we get in the US today.

Many of us already get a Slow Lane Demo every day during "prime time" evening hours.

It looks like a bunch of the other replies to your query have touched on most of the points I would make, but I thought it might still be worth my response.

The majority of the content I consume online doesn't _need_ js. In the sense that it's easily possible to design websites to display text and writings without needing js. So from a practical standpoint, I think js is mostly unnecessary. There are obviously services which wouldn't be possible without js (e.g., openstreetmaps), and I do un-block js for those sites.

You are of course correct that js is not the only way users can be tracked, however it is one of major components in tracking.

Looking at the EFF's panopticlick [0], with js blocked: > Within our dataset of several million visitors, only one in 57,814 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours. Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys 15.82 bits of identifying information.

With js enabled: > Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 4,104,774 tested so far. Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at least 21.97 bits of identifying information.

So even something as simple as disabling javascript turns my online fingerprint from being unique to being one of 5% of users who have used that site. So while disabling js doesn't make one immune to tracking, it does make it more diffuclt.

In summary, for most of my use of the web, js is unnecessary and does more harm (tracking) than good (it's not needed for consuming text). I enable it on a case-by-case basis for some websites, if it's needed. But unless the js is truly critical to the presentation of the information, I won't enable it and I'll likely leave the site. Because, yes, much of the web is broken without js; but that's frequently due to (in my opinion) poor site design which doesn't fail gracefully in the absense of (usually unnecessary) js.

You are burning an artificial technical straw-man. There is no technical capacity limit at play here. Networking technology has leapfrogged the bandwidth available to consumers many times over, and to boot, it is pretty much infinitely scalable.

So when theres no problem transferring all of Netflix, Skype and BitTorrent simultaneously, why slow any of it? Sure, at times hardware fails, fiber is damaged, and ISPs can feel free to prioritize traffic at that time, we certainly have the technology to do that.

But what is certainly not ok is slowing traffic because you are not willing to invest into your connectivity, investing not even enough to actually deliver all of the meagre bandwidth (100 Mbit is 1995 vintage technology, where in the US can you even get that?) you have sold to consumers.

Mining bitcoins in javascript on someone else's computer. Surely it would be quicker to get the 386 computers out of the landfill and use them than to mine bitcoins in javascript remotely in some botnet of sorts.

I am intrigued. Can you send me a URL of somewhere that will mine bitcoins on my computer?

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, which directly impacts Netflix and Netflix consumers (negatively, if that wasn't clear). I don't know about facebook off-hand, but frankly, who cares about facebook's leadership on the web? It would be great for them to join in, the exposure would be great, but I think more people distrust facebook and their support is the internet equivalent of being on the same side of an argument as the KKK.

How about instead of just slowing your sites down arbitrarily you do exactly what wikipedia did -- 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 -- even better, let them see what your site would be like speed-capped and what your site is like now.