
Stop the Slow Lane - bfeld
http://stoptheslowlane.com/
======
alialkhatib
I don't think this is the right approach. I realize that the principle is
fundamentally the same with SOPA protests (depriving users of content to
highlight the danger of this passing), but there's a more salient argument
that you could make here if you really wanted.

Why not implement a loading bar that actually progressed slowly and then put a
brief explanation underneath the loading bar describing the FCC "slow lane"
and how it would negatively impact users?

To add insult to injury, give the user 3 options:

\- pay the site owner to access the "fast lane" to your content

\- send an email (to FCC chair? maybe a representative?) to voice their anger

\- get used to waiting; that'll be the new norm if nobody prevents this,
right?

The first option would be incredibly controversial, but would underscore how
objectionable the "Slow Lane" idea even is. If anyone is stubborn enough to
pay, you could funnel that money into the EFF or some other relevant
organization.

The point is that just throwing people a loading screen (especially without a
good explanation) will leave the user confused. Once the content loads they'll
probably forget about that loading screen anyway (at least on a conscious
level), so don't wait until _afterward_ to explain what just happened.

As an aside, there was a comment that users will wait for a website that's
sufficiently highly trafficked, but I don't think that's true. I remember some
Google presentation[0] where an engineer explained that virtually any extra
loading time was enough to discourage users from returning. Maybe that's just
with search or other highly interactive sites (rather than reading a blog, for
example), but I wouldn't want to test that hypothesis with any site I cared
about and managed.

0:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il4swGfTOSM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il4swGfTOSM)
\- The "impact of slow sites" comes up early on.

~~~
holmesworcester
We're adding more explanation to the loading screen. Also, for folks who don't
want to interrupt users, here's an anigif to post.
[http://imgur.com/PQRaxNa](http://imgur.com/PQRaxNa) (putting this up on the
site now)

------
rubbingalcohol
What do you all think of this alternate version of the loader that rips on
Comcast?

[http://rubbingalcoholic.com/#ALWAYS_SHOW_SL_WIDGET_COMCAST](http://rubbingalcoholic.com/#ALWAYS_SHOW_SL_WIDGET_COMCAST)

If anyone wants to help out with this or give me feedback directly, please
email me jeff@rubbingalcoholic.com

~~~
danray
Be careful -- practically speaking, using Comcast's and TWC's names/logos is
more likely to attract their attention early, and will give their lawyers a
stronger argument (against Github or third-party sites) to have it taken down.

~~~
aroch

         will give their lawyers a stronger argument 
    

No it won't. Using the name and marks of the FCC to dicuss policy and actions
by the FCC is clearly fair use.

~~~
danray
I've edited to be clearer -- I'm referring to the use of Comcast's (and Time
Warner's) logos, not the FCC's.

I agree that there are fair use arguments, which is why I said "practically":
hosts take down fair-use content every day. A subset of that is eventually
restored, but only after the parties have argued it out (frequently through
their lawyers).

------
higherpurpose
Think about someone visiting your site for first time. They'll just think
something is wrong with your website. So it needs some context. It should say
somewhere that this is a form of protest against FCC's new Internet rules. Get
inspired by some of the SOPA blackout messages, like the one from Wikipedia
for example, to see how it should be done right, but instead of a "black
image" covering the screen, they could get the slow loading animation:

[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Wikipedia...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Wikipedia_SOPA_Blackout_Design.png)

There should absolutely be a _call to action_ to Congress representatives and
FCC, too.

------
bradleyjoyce
While I understand the sentiment, this seems more likely to just encourage
site visitors to hit the back button rather than take the desired action.

~~~
xwowsersx
I disagree. If the site is somewhat heavily trafficked already (which is the
kind of site that will actually have an impact), then they'll wait.

~~~
exelius
Heavily trafficked sites are already paying for a "fast lane" in the form of
CDNs that cache everything but dynamic content. These CDNs already have
interconnect agreements with the large ISPs (and have for years).

~~~
MichaelApproved
Interconnect agreements are different than "fast/slow lane". CDNs will need to
pay a premium so that their traffic will not be slowed down, regardless of the
peering agreement.

~~~
exelius
Interconnects are exactly what the "fast/slow lane" argument is about. Netflix
bought interconnects from Comcast and Verizon. Just through buying
interconnects to the ISPs, the CDNs ensure their traffic won't be slowed down
by an intermediary like Cogent.

They're not intending to provide higher QoS for sites that pay up -- that's
insane and it wouldn't work anyway.

~~~
MichaelApproved
It's my understanding that interconnect agreements solve congestion on the
network by having a larger connection to infrastructure.

Fast/slow lane practices throttle that connection, regardless of how large the
pipe is.

So, my small business website could be using a large internet connection that
technically has plenty of bandwidth to carry my traffic but, unless I pay
Comcast a premium, traffic from my website will be put in the slow lane and
throttled back.

~~~
exelius
Then your understanding is incorrect (sorry; not trying to be flippant).
Interconnects are the entire story here.

The media has framed a lot of the congestion issues in the context of
"fast/slow lane" but what they come down to are business disagreements between
the transit providers and the ISPs. The solution to these disagreements from
the viewpoint of a large service provider is to purchase an interconnect
directly to the ISPs. If you are a small service provider, the solution is to
purchase delivery through a CDN. Netflix used to purchase delivery through
CDNs until it got too expensive for their business model; so they started
building their own CDN that they called "OpenConnect". They used their
positive brand image in conjunction with the ISP's poor brand image to launch
a PR campaign with the goal of knocking down the price they would have to pay
for interconnect service. It worked; they knew they were always going to have
to pay the Comcasts and Verizons of the world but they were able to talk the
ISPs down a significant amount.

Strategically, it's a bad position to be in for a service provider because the
ISPs can raise the price at any time (which is why Netflix has continued
complaining about it). But realistically, the ISPs sit on such a strong market
control point that nothing can really stop them from setting prices (common
carrier status just means they have to offer the same price structure to
everyone; not that they can't arbitrarily raise prices).

------
nkozyra
For some reason this seems to be the go-to "show 'em" methodology. I think
people, in general, understand what slower means.

I mean this is cute but I think this might be the fourth or fifth
implementation I've seen and they all have better likelihood of just annoying
someone instead of educating them.

I realize a standardized alert message delivered via JS doesn't have the same
"share-able" impact, but it's probably more effective overall.

I'm imagining Wikipedia's fundraising drives and whether they'd do as well if
they just blurred out a large portion of every article to raise awareness
versus a prominent message.

~~~
bfeld
We are considering an option that blurs out the page instead. Also - we'll add
more context to the page.

~~~
nkozyra
I think you may have missed my point there.

~~~
holmesworcester
If we made a version that stripped out the slowdown effect and just had the
action ask, would you run that?

Our impression (and experience) is that people get more excited about doing
something symbolic.

Again, any direct recommendations about how to improve this, and we'll improve
it :)

~~~
nkozyra
You're asking about the efficacy of passive messaging - I don't think it would
work if you asked people. Likewise, I think simply _doing_ it is more likely
to annoy people than incite passion.

Visibility is the issue, not understanding the problem. I think the message of
"the internet could be slower without net neutrality" is the one that needs to
be delivered. People generally know what "slower" means.

As I mentioned, a standardized message would probably be more effective, but
it's also not something that would be particularly exciting to share on, say,
Hacker News.

~~~
Karunamon
I daresay annoying people is the whole point. Combine that with the logo
example given upthread, and you've got a very effective campaign going on.
What I see happening:

"Why do I keep getting this bloody message with Comcast's logo on it every
time I hit random websites? _readreadread_ Fucking Comcast at it again.."

------
rubbingalcohol
Please let me know if you have any problems or feedback on the widget. I've
also tried to set it up to be easy to remix and add your own slowdown
animations (more info coming soon!)

------
cr3ative
I'm not 100% sure that annoying your visitors is the best way to either retain
said visitors OR warm them to your cause.

~~~
billyarzt
Wasn't that the strategy prior to the SOPA vote when Wikipedia blacked out? It
seems the strategy is more to give everyday internet users an idea of what
life would be like if this was passed.

------
crzrcn
Another idea is to provide a banner with a good message and a "toggle" button
for the slow lane. So users can experiemnt it, but be in control as not to
harm the product experience. Maybe it's too passive?

------
mrcactu5
I don't think end-users will get the message. Can you illustrate to them how
much slower their service will be as a result of rising costs?

------
eastbayjake
I would have signed the petition if it weren't being done through MoveOn.org
-- really don't want to end up on their mailing list.

~~~
justizin
which petition site's mailing list do you want to end up on? ;)

------
swswsw
perhaps it should be a button on the website, like "experience the site with
FCC's Slow Lane".

That way, they can see what the site is like and if they choose to press the
button, they can see what it is like to be on the slow lane. Otherwise, the
first time visitor may not give the site a chance at all.

~~~
holmesworcester
If it's a site you visit regularly, it's likely to make you really curious,
right?

We're making a version that's just an anigif that people can embed. That
should be live really soon. So, that works for people who don't want to
interrupt visitors with a message.

------
level
The closing quote on the <script src"..."> tag in the "1\. Add slowlane.js to
Your Website" section is missing. Not really an issue, but it looks
unprofessional.

~~~
rubbingalcohol
Actually it was an issue. It would break entire websites >_<

Thanks for the heads up.

------
Istof
Do they define the "slow lane" as the speed you are paying for and the "fast
lane" as some "free" bandwidth (paid by companies)?

------
natzim
It would be nice if the user were able to disable it once they got the
message.

~~~
rubbingalcohol
It will only show up once per user, unless you throw in a URL parameter for it
to always show up.

------
CodeMage
Condescension is not exactly the best way to win people over to your cause.

~~~
area51org
I don't think this is condescension. It's more like a demonstration for the
policy makers.

~~~
exelius
How do you know this is what will happen?

~~~
area51org
The ISPs have been pretty clear about what they want: the ability to charge
for fast delivery. They already have money coming in from both ends (the home
subscribers as well as the companies like Netflix and Google). But hey, these
guys are making _money_ from their "pipes"! Don't they deserve a cut of that
money, because, hey, pipes!

This makes about as much sense as the power company getting more money to
power a PC than a lamp, or the government demanding a bigger toll if you're
crossing a bridge for a vacation.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The ISPs have been pretty clear about what they want: the ability to charge
> for fast delivery.

The big conglomerates that offer both internet and content services (which are
the largest broadband ISPs, but this interest _isn 't_ general to ISPs, its
specific to those dominant players) have been clear that they want the ability
to charge anyone for anything, even if they've already charged someone else
for it, but they haven't been clear about the real reason -- though the actual
places where they've chosen to do this make it very clear: what they want to
do is use their market power in the broadband market charge the content firms
that have already built businesses in content markets that threaten the
conglomerates markets a toll to compete that serves _both_ to limit the
outside content firms' ability to profit in the market _and_ subsidizes the
conglomerates own competing services. Its pure protectionism; that's the
reason that the cable companies (whose bigger business is often selling
consumer video services -- cable TV + premium VOD tied to cable TV and, in
many cases nascently though they are far behind the "pure internet" video
services, video-over-internet subscription services) main target for tolls is
Netflix.

Allow this, and the ISPs will start at the top and work their way down, until
they've used their tolls to take over every profitable business relying on
using the internet to connect to customers.

~~~
exelius
The big cable companies have had the technical capability to deliver video
over internet subscription services for years. They haven't released them
widely because if they did, it would melt the Internet. Netflix doesn't care
about such things because they don't own the infrastructure and aren't
responsible if their service overloads the last-mile.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The big cable companies have had the technical capability to deliver video
> over internet subscription services for years. They haven't released them
> widely because if they did, it would melt the Internet.

The big cable companies have had video-over-cable subscription services for
years, and well established customer bases for them, and charge very high
prices for them compared to any video-over-internet service. They haven't
offered video-over-internet services because they'd be competing _with
themselves_ , and only started offering some when people started moving to
third-party services. Still, they'd prefer to levy specific tolls on third
party video-over-internet services so they don't have to compete and, if they
decide to compete, can have their competitors foot the bill. Its a pretty
classical way of leveraging market power in one market to prevent free
competition in another, and it was one of the prime things that was
specifically called out as a targetted concern in every version of net
neutrality / open internet regulation that the FCC has issued.

~~~
exelius
I guarantee you that video-over-internet is a strategic priority for the cable
companies. Currently, Comcast is limited to selling video services to
customers who are connected to their cable network (about 30% of the US). They
would love to expand their addressable market for video services by 70%.
They've invested a ton of money into their online video platform for this
reason. They haven't released it because the customer experience would suck
unless there is a precedent and methodology in place for them to ensure
adequate interconnect bandwidth exists.

As someone who works in the industry, that's why this whole argument feels
false to me. Sure, the cable companies own the infrastructure for their
customers, but there's money to be made from selling services to other
customers as well. Big companies like Comcast aren't as stupid as you think:
their video distribution model will likely look a lot more like Netflix in 5
years, as will the other cable/telco video companies. They're not trying to
set up the rules so that Netflix fails; they're trying to set up the rules to
ensure they can sell their products in the marketplace as well. How do you
ensure your products don't suck? You ensure everyone in the value chain is
adequately compensated (at least until you can disintermediate them).

When Comcast enters the video-over-internet market, they will have to pay for
interconnects to the other ISPs. But that's fine with them; because it's a
marginal cost tied to revenue. You have to tie the fixed costs of expanding
infrastructure to increased revenue somehow or the economic model falls apart.
That means either charging service providers by the gigabyte or charging
consumers. Charging consumers would have a chilling effect on Internet
commerce (just look at aggregated mobile data usage stats) so they've opted to
go after the service providers.

