
Stop the Slow Lane - bfeld
http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2014/05/stop-slow-lane.html
======
dspillett
Is 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 wouldn't block or directly slow down the others:
some of them are getting screwed enough by an ISP they can't leave without me
kicking them too, but giving "good guy" ISPs priority where possible feels OK
especially in the UK where there is at least a smidgen of genuine competition
in many areas).

~~~
jessaustin
Is your suggestion to support NN by violating it?

~~~
dspillett
Essentially, when you boil it down, yes. Ish.

The difference being that I'd not be holding anyone to ransom for money, which
is what those calling for an end to what neutrality still exists essentially
want, I'm instead suggesting that we give the people who _aren 't_ doing that
a "thankyou for not being a dick".

------
cr3ative
If 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.

~~~
rubbingalcohol
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.

~~~
danielweber
The monopolies haven't been allowed since 1992.
[http://articles.philly.com/1992-10-19/business/26000502_1_ca...](http://articles.philly.com/1992-10-19/business/26000502_1_cable-
rates-cable-television-consumer-protection-premium-channels)

~~~
acdha
… 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.

~~~
exelius
> 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.

I have no idea where you heard this fairy tale. Comcast and Verizon sub out
almost all their installs and line work to local contractors -- and most of
these contractors have contracts with multiple telcos and cable companies. If
the contractors are maliciously cutting wires, it's to get more work for
themselves.

~~~
acdha
> I have no idea where you heard this fairy tale.

4 friends and coworkers who had it happen, mentioned separately and on several
occasions this happened in a group setting and was immediately confirmed by
other people who had the same experience.

You'll forgive me for finding them more convincing than your argument from
incredulity. It's entirely possible that this a grassroots thing but the
people affected spanned ~100 miles and multiple states.

~~~
exelius
I don't doubt that it happens; just not for the reasons you ascribe to it.
It's probably just the fact that the wiring boxes are usually a complete mess
and totally inconsistent from job to job. The contractors get paid by the job,
so their attitude tends to be "fuck it, rip it all out and make it work so I
can get to the next job".

~~~
acdha
Perhaps but they're doing it in a Comcast/Verizon truck, wearing their
uniform, talking about that as their company with no mention of being a
contractor, and in at least two of those cases they specifically went to extra
work to remove the cable even though it didn't come in the same box / conduit
as the new fiber. That was actually why I first heard about it: a coworker
mentioned his surprise that the FIOS installer spent the extra time removing
Comcast's cabling all the way out to the street after finishing their install.

------
viggity
We 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.

------
thehme
I've been seeing a lot of back and forth about this issue and it seems to me
the one thing we should be concerned about is not so much the user experience,
but the experience of those with new ideas, which rely on access to an open
internet. Today we have these massive companies making enough money to buy the
access they need/want to run their businesses, but small shops don't have that
capital, and from what I have read/seen, this law does not help to level the
playing field. Furthermore, as commentators have stated, as users, we already
get changed more by the internet ISPs, for faster speeds, so exactly what else
do they want, other than the users' $$? We are still discussing what this law
does in a tech blog, so what makes anyone think the FCC actually knows that it
is doing, long term?

~~~
thehme
To support my view, here you go [https://stripe.com/blog/network-
neutrality](https://stripe.com/blog/network-neutrality)

------
dahart
Again, 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 party hats"... and "Let me be clear. If
someone acts to divide the Internet between “haves” and “have-nots,” we will
use every power at our disposal to stop it. I consider that to include Title
II."

Edit: [http://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-tom-wheeler-remarks-
nct...](http://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-tom-wheeler-remarks-ncta)

~~~
pessimizer
>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.

~~~
T-hawk
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.

------
leorocky
ISP already provide variable speed plans to consumers. You already have to pay
more to get a faster connection, at least with Comcast. Very disingenuous and
incorrect. I doubt anyone will see dial up speeds. They're not threatening to
inject popups into web sites.

So take the ridiculous dramaticized slow speeds away and the silly modal
you're still left with an incorrect premise. The threat is not that consumers
will have to pay for faster internet, it's that that website companies will
have to pay the consumer's ISP. The consumer will have no recourse to improve
speeds for slow loading new video startups that don't have deals with their
ISP for example.

~~~
pessimizer
Why wouldn't my peer-to-peer traffic be throttled down to dialup speeds? Or
traffic from any site with less than a million dollars to spend, assuming that
all of the top 100 sites sign up, and Wikipedia gets a discount or a pass?

>I doubt anyone will see dial up speeds.

I'm not reassured in any way by your doubts.

~~~
leorocky
They can already do this. They can already make your default speeds slow, and
they don't. Slow lane vs fast lane is not about this.

------
vidar
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.

------
madeofpalk
Just an aside, but why is the article text all blurry and low res? It's text!
It should be properly crisp on hidpi displays

------
sbhere
Ironically, I would have contacted my representative/senator already if the
"Contact Congress" button took me to a chart/table/list of senators by
district - or other way for me to do the contacting myself. I don't need any
correspondence from FreePress.

------
mmahemoff
"Your website is important to us" is addressing the site owner, which is the
point in some respects, but doesn't gel with the experience of opening the
site and seeing this dialog.

Should be more like "We value your experience on this website".

------
raldi
This 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.

~~~
goldenkey
If you refresh, the ad won't show up again. But the site still doesn't display
on mobile. What a piece of garbage, it's 2014!

------
JimmaDaRustla
Awesome!

I tweeted yesterday: [You must be subscribed to Twitter with your internet
provider to read this tweet.] #FCCNetNeutrality

There should be a fast lane, it should also be the only lane.

