Net Neutrality Campaign To Show What the Web Would Be Like With a "Slow Lane"

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Net Neutrality Campaign To Show What the Web Would Be Like With a "Slow Lane"

Posted by samzenpus on Monday September 1, 2014 @10:04AM from the not-so-fast dept.

blottsie writes In a move out of the anti-SOPA campaign playbook, Fight for the Future and other net neutrality activist groups have set up the Battle for the Net coalition, which plans to launch an "Internet slowdown day" later this month. No actual traffic will be slowed down. Instead, participating sites will display embeddable modules that include a spinning "loading" symbol and information about contacting the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the White House, and members of Congress.

50 of 91 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Add a little abrasive language by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 10:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

"If you thought comcast was slow now, wait until they're allowed to decide which websites will work"
1. Re:Add a little abrasive language by Kohath · 2014-09-01 12:58 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If you thought Comcast was powerful now, wait until the government you're trusting to enforce "net neutrality" against them lets them merge with NBC Universal.
  Oh wait, that was 2 years ago. Wait until the government you're trusting to enforce "net neutrality" lets them merge with Time Warner.
2. Re:Add a little abrasive language by HappyPsycho · 2014-09-01 19:43 · Score: 1
  
  Given that "net neutrality" doesn't officially exist how would the US government enforce it?
3. Re:Add a little abrasive language by sasquatch989 · 2014-09-02 19:01 · Score: 1
  
  i think it's the idea that net neutrality as policy gives bad decisions the full force of the government
Slashdot ahead of the game by redshirt · 2014-09-01 10:29 · Score: 5, Funny

Using the beta slashdot instead of classic is all the slow lane experience I need.
1. Re:Slashdot ahead of the game by Xaemyl · 2014-09-01 15:57 · Score: 1
  
  Where are my mod points (for upmodding) when I need 'em!?
Headline vs Summary by ohnocitizen · 2014-09-01 10:42 · Score: 2

"Net Neutrality Campaign To Show What the Web Would Be Like With a "Slow Lane"" vs "No actual traffic will be slowed down".

It's a newsworthy and important topic that deserves a headline both inviting and accurate.
Boycott by CrzyP · 2014-09-01 10:47 · Score: 2

It's becoming very obvious that traditional methods of protest don't work as quickly as we need on this topic. Why not just do a mass cancellation of service and show these corps that we have that control over them? We all have internet on our phones, if there were more than enough Comcast or TWC customers calling in to cancel their service that would really show those corp-o-thugs who owns who.
1. Re:Boycott by anthony_greer · 2014-09-01 11:05 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That sounds great until you consider that for some our job demands that we have internet access...the system goes down in the middle of the weekend or something? guess who is getting that call, and for many Comcast is the only choice. Some places may have an alternative of DSL but that is usually 2Mbps at best in my experience and not very reliable on VPN connections in recent years - again that is just my experience.
  We need to regulate internet at the state level like power...I dont have a choice in electric utility providers but I pay a reasonable price for a good quality of service because the PUC looks out for the people. lets do that with cable internet
2. Re:Boycott by Kohath · 2014-09-01 11:10 · Score: 2
  
  Boycotts work?
3. Re:Boycott by tysonedwards · 2014-09-01 11:44 · Score: 2
  
  Plus, they'd probably be pretty happy about the mass ETFs that they receive due to said cancelations, followed shortly thereafter by a mass influx of the same customers returning to say "I am so sorry, baby... I'll never leave you again!" when they realize that there are no other options or that said options are in fact worse (Sold 20Mbps, got 12Mbps service on a "sorry, it's not available, here's this instead" that is usually only 3).
  
  --
  Thirty four characters live here.
4. Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  It erks me to no end peoples claims of ADSL. Cable sucks and you bought into Comcast's propaganda. While ADSL might suck if your too far from the CO it's great for the rest of us.
  Everybody who thinks cable is faster is fooling themselves. Cable companies play all sorts of games to trick users into thinking its super fast. It's not. Those speeds are 'burst', etc or only available at 4AM if your lucky. Even the advertisements compare the lowest tier ADSL packages against the fastest cable offers (ohh and that is 'in theory', but obviously you'll never get it cause its a shared medium).
  I pay for 10mbps ADSL and I get 10mbps no matter what time of day or night I'm on and my torrent traffic isn't reset, my bandwidth isn't capped or throttled, etc. If I wasn't so far out I'd even be able to get 25mbps. And this is just outside a small town, so your supposed 30-100mbps connection in the city isn't comparable. You'll never get the fastest connections in more sparsely populated areas. Comparing what I can get here with cable against ADSL I'd never go with cable.
5. Re:Boycott by gunnnnslinger · 2014-09-01 13:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  But this is America. Where any attempt to regulate or otherwise hold corporations accountable is met with a hyperbolic "ERMAGAWD, SOCIALISM!' Imagine what kind of reaction you'd get from "AW MA GAWD, GUBMINT INNERNET!" Americans have been well trained to completely disregard their own self-interests for fairy-tales shilled by corporate owned media.
6. Re:Boycott by Neil+Boekend · 2014-09-01 17:35 · Score: 1
  
  woho, I'm moving to XS4all 50 mbit Fiber next month. Including Spotify, a simcard with 200mb/month mobile and KPN Hotspots acces!
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
7. Re:Boycott by gewalker · 2014-09-01 17:52 · Score: 1
  
  Socialism is usually used as a pejorative term by those on the right, e.g, Obama is a socialist. Philosophically, I generally agree with the Libertarians. I would not be inclined at all to say the adding some regulations or holding Comcast, etc. is in any way socialism. The problem is that broadband providers are generally running a protected monopoly already, this is a form of corporate socialism already a.k.a. crony capitalism.
  So, one problem is already a result of government interference in the market, resulting in Comcast, etc. having too much advantage over the consumer. Given that a broadband provider may well be a natural monopoly or oligarchy in many if not most marketplaces, some sort of regulation is probably needed in these markets as a free-market approach may not support enough competition or even with competition prices are still high as a result of duplication of infrastructure. A conservative approach would prefer the minimal government interference that still allows and encourages competition, but given the natural monopoly for an broadband provider, a municipal utility may well be the best solution.
  So a well-informed economic conservative has not problem with this at all. Unfortunately many conservatives (and others) are not well-informed on any variety of topics, but this often does not prevent the expressing of a opinion, usually in conformance with a priori viewpoints on how things should work in the abstract.
  Feel free to extrapolate that regulation, etc. is often needed with respect to other aspects of corporations. We will likely draw the line at different locations re: the best level of regulation. I would prefer these lines to be drawn based on evidence, and I believe it is very likely you share this view. Unfortunately for Comcast, etc. the current regulations seems clearly against the interest of the typical consumer as the US today.
  Evidence is not always available, and corporations have a vested interest in pushing their interests via lobbying in various forms. I.e., policy making is hard. Facts are hard to obtain, they may change over time, and everybody has a vested interest in the decisions. I fail to see how condemning one side or the other is useful in actually discussing policy.
8. Re: Boycott by Neil+Boekend · 2014-09-01 23:12 · Score: 1
  
  That is a free add on that I don't really need. I will probably use it one day when I get a tablet, but for now that SIM card will be thrown into a drawer to collect dust.
  For my normal mobile internet I currently have a 1,5 GB cap. I usually don't cross the 1 GB mark in a month. Uncapped mobile internet seems nice but not really essential. I don't use it for Netflix, that's what the home connection is for.
  It's the home internet + spotify + access to the KPN Hotspots that I really want. The simcard with 200 MB mobile is nice for when I will use it.
  I am not a yank. They seem to get the shitty end of the Internet stick.
  I am Dutch. We have competition in our ISP's.
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
9. Re:Boycott by pnutjam · 2014-09-02 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  I've had better success with vpn's over dsl then cable, just my experience.
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
10. Re:Boycott by Krojack · 2014-09-02 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  My company offers VDSL up to 60mbit/sec depending on your distance. You can bond those in 2, 4 or 8 channels giving you up to 480mbit/sec. The cost for 4+ channels is pretty high though and more for businesses.
  Now I'm not a fan of cable but I will admit that Charter has been good to me over the years. Just a month ago they increased my speeds from 15 to 60. I put this to a test by downloading various games and it held at 60 for 1.5 hours. I got a steady 7.6MB/second download through Steam. I just wish I could get a little more up speed so I can stream game play at 1080. Right now I got 4.5 up and 1080 will use most of that.
11. Re:Boycott by EvilJoker · 2014-09-02 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  The issue isn't the technology involved. Cable and DSL can each be great, awful, or somewhere in between. What matters is who's running it, and how.
  While it's generally acknowledged that Comcast is awful, the DSL alternatives are also usually bad. AT&T, Verizon DSL, CenturyLink, etc aren't exactly known for their quality. You apparently have good service, which is the exception, not the norm.
12. Re:Boycott by orgelspieler · 2014-09-02 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  Why not just do a mass cancellation of service and show these corps that we have that control over them? We all have internet on our phones
  Do I really need to spell this out for you? I'll give you a hint. It rhymes with corn. It is also the most common answer to any question having to do with the internet.
13. Re:Boycott by k6mfw · 2014-09-02 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  I still have comcast but only watch a few channels (I pay for hundreds I don't watch which is like paying monthly payments for a car I only drive 3 days a month). Talking with a friend who said there is about 100 OTA TV channels here in SF bay area. Not that all those channels interest me, but when he said OTA HD looks much better than Comcast which compresses the video (gotta fit all those channels through the coax pipe). He further described watching KQED OTA HD channel on oceanic life on a big screen (it was spectacular), then switched to same channel from Comcast. It was not as good. Then my comcast bill is a few dollars more (it seems to keep going up and promoting more football which I don't watch at all. was it the Cleveland Lakers that won the Superbowl?).
  Maybe it's time to cut the cord from Comcast, my last month!
  
  --
  mfwright@batnet.com
"Net neutrality", my ass. by jcr · 2014-09-01 10:57 · Score: 1, Interesting

It's a buzzword for demanding federal control of the internet, to remedy the government-caused problem of last mile providers who are protected from competition by local cable monopoly privileges.
All we need to solve the problem of the Comcasts and the Time-warners of the world is to expose them to competition.
-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
1. Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by MtHuurne · 2014-09-01 11:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's a buzzword for demanding federal control of the internet, to remedy the government-caused problem of last mile providers who are protected from competition by local cable monopoly privileges.
  What kind of additional control would net neutrality give the government over the internet besides the enforcing net neutrality itself?
  Besides, I doubt any possible negative side effects of net neutrality would come close to the problem of ongoing massive warrantless spying, so if you're worried about government control over the internet, this seems like the wrong battle to pick.
  
  All we need to solve the problem of the Comcasts and the Time-warners of the world is to expose them to competition.
  That may not be easy... The big telcos lobby for laws protecting them from municipal broadband, but as far as I know they are not protected from commercial rivals, yet few are challenging them.
  Here in the Netherlands when it comes to broadband competition, on ADSL there is a lot of competition because the government forced the leading telco (KPN, the former state telco) to share their telephone lines with other ISPs, since those lines were laid with public money. On cable, for some reason such a line sharing wasn't enforced, so two big companies (UPC and Ziggo) bought all the local cable networks and are now trying to merge, meaning there will be one giant cable company for the entire country (*). On fiber, there used to be a lot of different ISPs, but KPN bought most of them and a few other failed (probably because of mismanagement), so there is very little competition left there as well.
  (*) I do agree with the cable companies' reasoning that they are not competing against each other anyway, since they don't operate in the same areas: every house has at most one cable connection. But in my opinion the line sharing should have been enforced for cable too, since those networks were also built with public money. But they were owned by local governments and sold for a lot of money during the dot-com boom (unlike KPN, which was owned by the state and then privatized), so I guess it would be unfair to change the conditions for network use after selling them.
  My point is that mergers and acquisitions will reduce competition, even in situations where there are no corrupt laws blocking healthy competition. So I think it's wishful thinking that if you allow competition it will automatically come into existence, regardless of properties of the specific market.
  There is also a practical aspect: it is inefficient to have to run several cables to each house. In my opinion, ideally each house would be connected to a single fiber optic cable, over which an unlimited number of ISPs could offer their services. The last mile is not a good place to look for competition; the rest of the service is.
2. Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by NotSanguine · 2014-09-01 13:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's a buzzword for demanding federal control of the internet, to remedy the government-caused problem of last mile providers who are protected from competition by local cable monopoly privileges.
  All we need to solve the problem of the Comcasts and the Time-warners of the world is to expose them to competition.
  -jcr
  And how, exactly, do you propose to "expose them to competition"? Do you invite multiple last mile providers to install new infrastructure? Good luck getting them all the rights-of-way and access to the poles, tunnels and other access-ways currently in use.
  Do you use eminent domain to take the local monopoly's infrastructure and install a not-for-profit organization to manage, maintain and upgrade the last-mile, while selling access to the infrastructure to independent ISPs who compete on price and features?
  Do you build out (paid for with municipal bonds) a new high-speed last mile infrastructure, with a not-for-profit organization to manage, maintain and upgrade the infrastructure, paid for by selling access to independent ISPs?
  Please do share with the group.
  
  --
  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
3. Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by SirAudioMan · 2014-09-01 13:56 · Score: 1
  
  It is a similar situation here in Canada. You have the historic "ma bell" aka Bell Canada who installed all the POTS lines, and build their DSL infrastructure. Then along came the cable companies who build up their old coax to hybrid fiber/coax about 15 years ago. In Ontario, now sure about other provinces, you have exactly one choice of which cable company you want. There are almost zero overbuilds so depending on where you live you either have Rogers, Cogeco, Shaw or some other small company. About 5-10 years ago the CRTC (our regulating body similar to the FCC) decided that the telcos/cableco's must lease their services to 3rd parties who act a resellers. I believe the CRTC also has to approve the rates at which the lines and access are leased for. So as a consumer you do have choices between either ONE big telco or ONE big cable co, or many small resellers who just lease the lines from the big guys.
4. Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by Bob9113 · 2014-09-01 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  All we need to solve the problem of the Comcasts and the Time-warners of the world is to expose them to competition.
  If that were true, we wouldn't need common carrier regulation for shipping companies. That's where common carrier started (hence the term "carrier"). It was put in place to keep carriage networks, which are naturally limited in the efficient number of competitors, from exploiting their natural n-opolies by making preferred carrier deals with incumbent manufacturers.
  In the case of wired data carriage networks, once there is one set of cables in the ground, the cost of putting each subseqent set in the ground faces an barrier-to-entry that rises more quickly than the natural barriers on, for example, retail stores. In the case of wireless, the limits on frequency band interference do the same thing.
  Practical reality does not match the idealistic theories we wish were true, whether those be socialism, anarchy, or anything in between. Give up the -isms and consider observable reality. Learn from history, not religion-peddling pundits.
  
  --
  Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
5. Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by ediron2 · 2014-09-01 15:32 · Score: 1
  
  I pick **D** -- Any or all of the above, as deemed appropriate by a Public Utilities Commission and economists / engineers they supervise.
  We do this. A LOT. Public Utility regulatory bodies have MORE THAN A CENTURY OF PRACTICE IN NEARLY EVERY STATE, in multiple similar infrastructure types. Stop pretending this is impossible. It's a shitty straw man invented by the same deregulatory wonks that got us into this mess in the first place.
  I'm neither Socialist nor Libertarian. Both are false utopias with no shining example. I like REGULATED MARKETS. CUZ THAT SHIT JUST WORKS.
6. Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by NotSanguine · 2014-09-01 16:27 · Score: 1
  
  I pick **D** -- Any or all of the above, as deemed appropriate by a Public Utilities Commission and economists / engineers they supervise.
  We do this. A LOT. Public Utility regulatory bodies have MORE THAN A CENTURY OF PRACTICE IN NEARLY EVERY STATE, in multiple similar infrastructure types. Stop pretending this is impossible. It's a shitty straw man invented by the same deregulatory wonks that got us into this mess in the first place.
  I'm neither Socialist nor Libertarian. Both are false utopias with no shining example. I like REGULATED MARKETS. CUZ THAT SHIT JUST WORKS.
  I hate to break it to you friend, but you're yelling at the wrong guy.
  I have repeatedly suggested the third option (along with the same comment that this is how public works projects are successfully done). I gave our "herp derp Gub'mint bad" GP several choices as to how to introduce competition, not because I think they won't work (with the caveat that multiple last mile providers with duplicated infrastructure is a really dumb idea), but because GP obviously hadn't thought through his "All we need to solve the problem of the Comcasts and the Time-warners of the world is to expose them to competition." trope. Or tripe. Actually, it's both.
  So save your bile for someone else, please. Thanks, and have a lovely evening!
  
  --
  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
7. Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by NotSanguine · 2014-09-01 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  You're joking, right? Most lines were laid with government subsidies. Here's what you do:
  You revoke the monopoly agreements to giving those pipes to the cable provider and allow any provider to provide access over it.
  Ummm...That was the second option that I offered. Are we having issues with reading comprehension, or are you just ignorant of eminent domain, friend?
  
  --
  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
8. Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by Feces's+Edge · 2014-09-01 19:08 · Score: 1
  
  The FCC has no inherent right to regulate the internet whatsoever.
  Governments have powers, not rights, so this sentence is correct. Whether or not they have the legitimate authority to regulate the Internet is determined by our laws, which can change.
9. Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by jmac_the_man · 2014-09-01 23:10 · Score: 1
  
  You're obscuring the issue. The FCC tried to enforce Net Neutrality on the Internet, and the courts said that they can only enforce it if Congress grants them the power to do so. The FCC then went to Congress and asked them for the power to regulate the Internet, and Congress told them that they are not allowed to do so.
  Under current law, the FCC does NOT have the POWER to regulate the Internet.
  The FCC's job is to make sure nobody broadcasts on a frequency other than the one they are allotted. Somebody has to do this, because the RF spectrum is limited in capacity by the laws of physics. The Internet does not have a similar limitation. You can add capacity to it by running additional lines. Since they wouldn't be helping everyone not interfere with each other on the radio spectrum, regulating the Internet would be out of scope.
10. Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by Feces's+Edge · 2014-09-01 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  You're obscuring the issue.
  Nope. I just stated facts. I actually agree with what you said, but I do think that people need to stop referring to government powers as "rights."
11. Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by MobyDisk · 2014-09-02 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  And how, exactly, do you propose to "expose them to competition"? Do you invite multiple last mile providers to install new infrastructure?
  The answer to your question is to have one "last-mile" company provide the wires, while other companies act as ISPs. So under that system, Comcast and Verizon can run a wire to my house, but they cannot provide service. Other companies such as AOL, Earthlink, and Netzero provide the service. About 20 years ago these two things were called "telephone companies" and "internet service providers" but a foolish regulatory framework allowed the telephone companies to either buyout the ISPs, or limit/deny their access to the wires until they went out of business. That created the problem we have today. But it is so entrenched that people can't even imagine such a world, even though we already had it. Nobody complained about network neutrality when they could switch ISPs with a 5-minute phone call and a credit card.
  The last true ISP I know of was Cavtel, and they stopped accepting new customers in 2011. Does anyone know any others? It could still be done, albeit inefficiently, with a VPN. Not quite the same though.
12. Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by NotSanguine · 2014-09-02 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  And how, exactly, do you propose to "expose them to competition"? Do you invite multiple last mile providers to install new infrastructure?
  The answer to your question is to have one "last-mile" company provide the wires, while other companies act as ISPs. So under that system, Comcast and Verizon can run a wire to my house, but they cannot provide service. Other companies such as AOL, Earthlink, and Netzero provide the service. About 20 years ago these two things were called "telephone companies" and "internet service providers" but a foolish regulatory framework allowed the telephone companies to either buyout the ISPs, or limit/deny their access to the wires until they went out of business. That created the problem we have today. But it is so entrenched that people can't even imagine such a world, even though we already had it. Nobody complained about network neutrality when they could switch ISPs with a 5-minute phone call and a credit card.
  The last true ISP I know of was Cavtel, and they stopped accepting new customers in 2011. Does anyone know any others? It could still be done, albeit inefficiently, with a VPN. Not quite the same though.
  Geez. I can understand why folks don't read TFA. I even get why some might not read TFS. But why have three of you replied to my post without actually reading it? You repeated, pretty much exactly what I wrote, along with (correct) references to the aftermath of the 1984 AT&T consent decree. Yes, I was there. Yes, I remember. Had you actually bothered to read beyond the first sentence of my post you would have realized that. Sigh.
  
  --
  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
13. Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by jmac_the_man · 2014-09-07 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  If that's the only line you're drawing, I agree with you on governments having specific, limited powers rather than rights. What you said was still confusing.
high/free/motorway analogy by mjwx · 2014-09-01 12:16 · Score: 4, Funny

If it's anything like a real highway, the slow lane will actually be the fast lane as everyone immediately goes to the passing lane and clogs it up, meaning people with half a brain end up undertaking everyone else using the slow lane.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
1. Re:high/free/motorway analogy by mjwx · 2014-09-01 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  Welcome to Auckland!
  Please, god... no.
  
  it's like Perth... but worse.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
2. Re:high/free/motorway analogy by martin-boundary · 2014-09-01 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  If it's anything like a real highway, the slow lane will actually be the fast lane as everyone immediately goes to the passing lane and clogs it up, meaning people with half a brain end up undertaking everyone else using the slow lane.
  
  HRM, NO. THAT'S MY JOB.
Dammit! by Tablizer · 2014-09-01 12:32 · Score: 1

They used my Comcast simulator without paying!

--
Table-ized A.I.
1. Re:Dammit! by k6mfw · 2014-09-02 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  reminds me of "free Comcast" of leaky cable boxes. Some years ago when Comcast had analog, and when watching amateur television on 421.25 MHz and 427.25 MHz I find certain parts of town being able to see Fox CNN on cable these freq (which are CATV Ch 57 and 58). Though all digital now but there are still lots of leaky boxes around though not sure if stations worth watching.
  
  --
  mfwright@batnet.com
Not a slow lane, a fast lane by SuperKendall · 2014-09-01 13:39 · Score: 1

It's really annoying from a technical standpoint to see the twisting of terminology that is going around.
What would come to pass if some companies pay for higher levels of access sis not a slow lane - it's the lane we've always had, with he addition of a fast lane for some prioritized traffic.
If you think Net Neutrality is going to deliver you from crappy basic internet you are dreaming. It will just make the crappy basic internet more expensive.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Not a slow lane, a fast lane by Phoenixhunter · 2014-09-01 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  I've got a great real-world example of why fast lanes won't work. I spent a night at a 'hip' hotel in West Hollywood. Room, with tax, was $308. I thought I'd catch up on some episodes of House MD on Netflix and had utterly horrid quality. I did some speed tests (testmy.net) and saw I was being shaped down to 500kbps. I had better speeds while stay at some backwoods motor lodge in Minnesota recently. I called reception and they informed me that they offer "super fast internet" for only $14.95 more. Effectively they are capping their internet and offering to uncap it for a premium. That's why fast lanes don't work.
2. Re:Not a slow lane, a fast lane by AvitarX · 2014-09-01 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  Presumably, it will allow other people that prefer certain services to get priority over me if the services I like are not preferred.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
3. Re:Not a slow lane, a fast lane by diamondmagic · 2014-09-01 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  When I buy a dedicated pipe at a data center, and they bill per Mbps, what do you think is happening? They're limiting the connection speed (i.e. dropping packets above a certain rate, which is how the Internet signals congestion).
  
  --
  Wonder what the public key field is for?
4. Re:Not a slow lane, a fast lane by SuperKendall · 2014-09-01 20:28 · Score: 1
  
  The mistake you make is in assuming that without the $14.95 option you'd have any faster speeds. Wrong; you'd have the option to use the hotels entertainment system to get movies instead. Is the option for a faster internet connection you must pay a small amount for ($14.95 being nothing compared to the nightly rate) truly worse than that awful fate?
  You aren't grasping the reality that you cannot let everyone have video streaming quality internet for the a low price.
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
5. Re:Not a slow lane, a fast lane by Qzukk · 2014-09-02 04:24 · Score: 2
  
  with the addition of a fast lane
  So "they" say, but "they" have been promising infrastructure upgrades for years, even taking subsidies from the government for a fiber rollout that never delivered. This time it's different?
  What everyone expects is the same thing that happened when they installed a toll lane on the freeway here. They didn't add any new lanes, instead they walled off the left lane, narrowed the remaining lanes to make room for the wall and new shoulder, then kept the toll lane speed limit the same. The only difference is that when I drive on the freeway *I* have to pay more to go the same speed I always had before, while the cablcos/telcos expect the *sites I visit* to pay up so that I can use the "fast" lane and get the same speeds I was paying for.
  
  --
  If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
6. Re:Not a slow lane, a fast lane by sjames · 2014-09-02 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  But what will really happen is that resources will be yanked from the 'normal' internet to provision the fast lane. If that doesn't get enough sign-ups, they'll further cripple the 'normal' service until the pain is sufficioent to get large content providers to pay for the 'fast lane' which will be about as fast as the old internet while the 'normal' internet will resemble dial-up.
  Have you never gone grocery shopping?
Lucky me by Archfeld · 2014-09-01 14:56 · Score: 1

I live in an area that is serviced by several cable providers as well as at least 2 *DSL providers.
We have chose to go with Astound http://www.astound.com/ , but Comcast and TWC are also available. On the *DSL side we can get Pac-Bell or CenturyLink. I've previously used SDSL with Pac-Bell and had good results but at a steep cost. About 2 years ago we decided to try Astound due to price issues and have been relatively happy with their performance, though customer service does lack a little in the technical skills area.

--
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
To get government action on an internet issue by cmptrs4now · 2014-09-02 01:35 · Score: 1

To get any government action on an internet issue, the best method is to show the government the direct effects of the problem. In other words: Slow down all government websites to a crawl. Especially the ones that the elected officials use regularly and expect to be speedy. Most likely the problem will be solved by throwing more tax payer money at the problem, but some conscientious politician will see the problem and start campaigning to get rid of the issue through a law.
My Cable Internet is Already Throttled... by mrfatmann · 2014-09-02 05:22 · Score: 1

Or so I thought. It has something to do with my router setup. Whatever.
But my point is it sucks!
Its not like its always slow. Instead I'll be surfing the net, and without warning a link will throw up my cable company's Could Not Find URL error page. If I look at the ping, there are these crazy large time lags. Rather than it taking a long time for the page to load, its as if the internet became SMALLER. The I have to WORK slower. And then, just everything is back to normal.