Domain: battleforthenet.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to battleforthenet.com.
Comments · 4
-
Even my web host provider got involved...
I got a pop-up message when I visited my web host provider, DreamHost, this morning.
Please upgrade your plan to proceed.
Just kidding. You can still get to this site *for now*. But if the FCC ends net neutrality, your cable company could charge you extra fees just to use the websites and apps you want. We can stop them and keep the Internet open, fast, and awesome if we all contact the U.S. Congress and the FCC, but we only have a few days left. Learn more.
-
Even my web host provider got involved...
I got a pop-up message when I visited my web host provider, DreamHost, this morning.
Please upgrade your plan to proceed.
Just kidding. You can still get to this site *for now*. But if the FCC ends net neutrality, your cable company could charge you extra fees just to use the websites and apps you want. We can stop them and keep the Internet open, fast, and awesome if we all contact the U.S. Congress and the FCC, but we only have a few days left. Learn more.
-
The link
Not sure why it's buried, but here's the link:
https://www.battleforthenet.co... -
Links to the actual study
Yes, the article referenced doesn't point to the actual study directly, a but with a bit of goggling I found:
- Some results here: http://www.measurementlab.net/observatory.
- You can add to the measurements by clicking this link: https://www.battleforthenet.com/internethealthtest/, which says:
The battleground — where this degradation takes place — is at ISP interconnection points. These are the places where traffic requested by ISP customers crosses between the ISP’s network and another network on which content and application providers host their services.
This test measures whether interconnection points are experiencing problems. It runs speed measurements from your (the test user’s) ISP, across multiple interconnection points, thus detecting degraded performance.
What I don't understand is why people assume congestion is intentional throttling by ISPs for them to profit later with imagined fast lanes. Isn't the simpler assumption that it costs ISPs money to add interconnection capacity. And since their customers don't/can't choose ISPs based on the quality of their connection all the way to the popular content providers, the ISPs don't spend money on those upgrades? Usually the only thing customers have to go on and promised is the maximum download/upload speeds quoted by the ISP for the last mile.