Don't Call it a Fast Lane
dontcallitafastlane.com
dontcallitafastlane.com
Something like, "Your cable company already charges you the world's highest price[1] to deliver data. Now they want to get paid twice for the same data, or they'll put you in the slow lane. Stop the monopoly toll collectors."
It might seem that way at first, but the most effective way of winning people to your side is usually not to come up with the most inflammatory language you can possibly justify.
"US cable companies want to turn their networks into toll roads." "They're already doing it sneakily, but they want the FCC to give them express written permission." "They installed a puppet as FCC chairman." "They see you as a product they can sell to companies." "They're playing a game of chicken with those companies." "Globally, they're the only ones playing this game of chicken." "The FCC should be labeling them "common carriers" so they play by the same rules as the phone companies." "Instead, their puppet, Tom Wheeler, is giving them what they want." "And he's threatening us with dire consequences if he doesn't do what they told him too." "Do you buy it?" "Neither do we." "Their plan will actually stifle innovation and drag the internet to a crawl for most Americans."
"Sure is a mighty nice website you got there, be a shame if our 50 million subscribers couldn't access it...."
The FCC explicitly said that kind of thing would not be allowed under their proposed regulatory plans. Do you have a reason to believe otherwise?
On the other hand, give an inch, give a mile. The ISPs want toll roads, and if they get the ability to charge other peering services and content providers to carry their traffic over non-congested pipes, I don't see why they won't get toll roads from some other patsy they buy off later.
I thought there was an explicit term to describe that. Protection racket.
In memory of the term "information superhighway", I wonder if it would also make sense to label the slow lane as information highway robbery?
Maybe try pointing out how manufacturers sell the same printer to homes and businesses at different price points, except that the home version is deliberately slowed down instead of the business version being any more advanced. I think that's the (legitimate) fear you are trying to express.
Was SOPA strictly censorship? Well, not precisely - but that would have been basically the result. You could go on for an hour about all the details of the bill's mechanisms and how it breaks this thing called DNS which is a really important system that assigns names to numbers and that's bad because DNSSEC is important and we really need to get internet security right... and by the end nobody is listening anymore. Calling it censorship was close enough, and it triggered an immediate and negative reaction strong enough to get people to listen and act.
Likewise with the FCC proposal. You could go on for an hour talking about how IP routing works through internet backbone providers and how when an ISP doesn't upgrade their interconnects you get congestion which causes dropped packets which increases TCP latency and that's bad for new websites that depend on backbone providers because that's how the internet is structured and it's super important and.... now nobody is listening.
"Slow Lane" achieves something similar to "censorship" - an immediate and negative reaction, hopefully strong enough to get people to act. Plus a visual demonstration for users already frustrated with the broadband they pay too much for really drives it home. Is the FCC explicitly creating a "slow lane"? Well, not precisely. But it's the result. So let's call it that.
Also, I think the closer analogy would be slowing down the printer based on where the document you are printing comes from (still not a perfect analogy). You analogy seems more like ISPs offering faster service to end-users who pay a higher price.
Processors with different clock frequencies roll off of the same assembly line but small variations in manufacturing change the quality of the yield quite a bit. This includes the side of the wafer a chip is on or how far the chip was from the center of the wafer. As a result, processor manufacturers test their ICs and sell them based on how each one performs
Similarly, device manufactures produce one line of a product, like a graphics card or a raid controller card, and through a combination of 0-ohm resisters, firmware, and/or drivers, produce a budget line product that doesn't have all the same features as the premium product or brand. Software vendors do the same. Windows NT 4 was notable in that you could change from the Workstation to a Server SKU by changing a couple of registry settings. There was a watchdog process that would actively monitor those settings and was to prevent that sort of modification, but it could be defeated. The IIS that shipped as the Option Pack for NT 4 would either give you a full IIS install or if installed on Windows 95/98, it would give you Personal Web Server.
The proposed FCC rules and what the likes of Comcast would like are different, but I can see why they might think it is a similar practice.
Comcast is an ISP. Upstream providers send traffic to their customers and if the customer has paid for the bandwidth, they receive the content at their subscriber rates. Level 3 is one of these backbone providers. Back in 2010, Netflix negotiated with Level 3 to put their servers on the backbone so that subscribers could get the content they were streaming. Instead of sending the traffic through, Comcast throttled the traffic and demanded that Netflix paid them as well to deliver the traffic. Essentially, Comcast wants to earn money on both sides of the data transaction and is essentially holding the network traffic for ransom. This was a significant change in how the Internet works and how providers are compensated. As a subscriber, there is nothing you can do. Netflix has reluctantly contracted with Comcast and magically overnight bandwidth improved. This is one way you know that it wasn't a technical problem and is instead extortion.
The FCC proposed rules are setting up a Government sanctioned extortion ring.
There are several significant problems with this type of throttling. For one, customers aren't receiving the full bandwidth they have paid for. Despite having the capacity to transmit data to the consumer they restrict the throughput. If the Comcast/Time-Warner merger goes through, they will own the majority of US subscribers. This would make it impossible for smaller ISPs to compete and negotiate similar terms, but CTW will have even more leverage. Furthermore, any other Internet service company that might want to compete with Netflix will be unable to pay the ransom and won't be able to deliver similar traffic. This locks out most startups and only the wealthiest companies with the greatest capital costs will be able to enter the market. In essence it stifles innovation. All the while, any NBCUniversal (a Comcast company) service likely won't see these same restrictions.
Comcast is in a very dangerous position in that they may be able to directly monitor most of the US Internet traffic, they will be able to control the services subscribers can access, and they will have a significant advantage over any competition. The question we should all be asking if either the merger succeeds or if these new rules are passed and implemented, is what does the US Government stand to gain?
[1] http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Nvidia-GTX-690-Quadro-K5000...
> We do know if the system sees the card as a Quadro K5000 card, but we cannot be sure about whether it actually performs like one or if it is entirely bug-free.
You change the Device ID and the OS thinks it's something else, sure, but you could do that with anything with comparable specification.
Your question needs a solid answer if someone tries to use it to argue for net neutrality.
Cloudflare should implement this for their clients to opt in to protest.
They identify IP ranges that are related to people who can threaten or influence net neutrality. E.g. Comcast, congress, any backers of this new bill, even Comcast customers, etc
When a user from one of these blacklisted IP ranges visits your site they get presented with the 'protest page'. It explains why they are about to be throttled and how they can join the protest (contact congress rep, etc). It also shows participating protest sites as a leaderboard - total throttled users (featuring Cloudflares biggest customers).
I don't even mind if they inject a banner onto the top if my website that announces me as a proud supporter of net neutrality.
Also inspired by Brad Feld's suggestion (I think it was) that we all just throttle our servers so we can give people a taste of what the slow lane feels like.
You're not giving the viewer any sort of meaningful reference point. Indeed, what you're showing them shouldn't feel like a fast lane, since you're not one of the established players paying for one!
A more effective narrative should throw into relief the gradual transformation of a non-neutral net. Visualize how when the big players can pay to get to you faster, everyone else gets (relatively) slower.
I see no reason why Comcast should need more money to deliver a 5mb HD video stream over my 50mb connection. Now if Comcast wants to charge extra to stream 5mb video over a 1mb subscriber line (increasing the BW for that video), then go for it.
"Net neutrality" and "open internet" sound as meaningless and confusing as "healthcare reform."
For example, Frank Luntz did lots of focus group studies to figure out how to persuade people, simply by choosing the right words. "Estate Tax" became "Death Tax" for example.
Rather than just "be creative", we should put those different creatives through the data-driven approaches (A/B tests & focus groups) to find what will resonate & persuade the audiences outside of the HN-insider / reddit-insider cohorts.
Plain-speaking and clear IMO.
I opened it in a new tab, and when I got to it it showed the text which made no sense at all. The subject is worth discussion, but this doesnt start discussion.
What is wrong with text????