[keerthiko]

This would be great and informative and effective, except that the most visible sites* have no incentive to play along with this little song and dance, as they are the ones proliferating anti-net-neutrality for their own private gain.

So it will basically just look to people like I'm running a shitty technical job serving my site, most people will think I'm stupid, they won't learn a damn thing about net neutrality or why it's important, and stop visiting my site in the process. =/

* that many people use exclusively with their internet-time, like Youtube, facebook, Netflix, etc

[davvolun]

Are you arguing that no one saw and thus there was no impact when Wikipedia ran the anti-SOPA blackout?

Further your examples don't make sense. Youtube is owned by Google, which doesn't have a 100% support track record for net-neutrality, but is mostly supportive. Netflix is on the record as completely for net-neutrality -- they are one of the major services cited by ISPs as causing the need for an internet fast lane, which directly impacts Netflix and Netflix consumers (negatively, if that wasn't clear). I don't know about facebook off-hand, but frankly, who cares about facebook's leadership on the web? It would be great for them to join in, the exposure would be great, but I think more people distrust facebook and their support is the internet equivalent of being on the same side of an argument as the KKK.

How about instead of just slowing your sites down arbitrarily you do exactly what wikipedia did -- explain to the user what is going on, and at least force them to click through to the actual, full speed version of your site -- even better, let them see what your site would be like speed-capped and what your site is like now.

[arh68]

> Are you arguing that no one saw and thus there was no impact when Wikipedia ran the anti-SOPA blackout?

Wikipedia was a notable exception, sure, but OP's got a point: does this have a hope on the Alexa topsites?

Comcast's monopoly seems to be the problem. If a Comcast user in NY can't watch netflix past 5PM, wouldn't they, I don't know, look for a better ISP? After all, their ISP just ain't getting it done. The only missing piece is the market competitor that is supposed to balance out Comcast's dickheadedness. Why, after decades of 'free market', do we have customers that are stuck? I think this is worth mentioning to users.

> explain to the user what is going on, and at least force them to click through to the actual, full speed version of your site

That sounds like the plan. I just can't think who's all on board.

[scrabble]

Netflix is "proliferating anti-net-neutrality"? They seem to be actively and publicly pushing for net neutrality.

[pas]

They want to maximize profits. So keeping costs down is important, but it's even more important to keep competitors out of the game.

Currently they have no serious competitors, so they see the Comcast-tax as a pure added cost. But if this practice goes big and becomes an added cost to the market, barriers to enter it become higher, which keeps their position entrenched.

Of course this would require a lot of formalisation (and quantization, estimating numbers, times and potential competition and market evolution) but still, most of the same questions are going through Netflix executives' heads.

[Karunamon]

>Currently they have no serious competitors

Prime video. Hulu.

>most of the same questions are going through Netflix executives' heads.

Conjecture. Contrary to populist belief, not every corporation is a soulless, amoral entity. Netflix has yet to demonstrate in even the smallest way that they are for anything but complete neutrality.

[Jtsummers]

Indeed, it's hugely to their benefit to be for net neutrality these days. A non-neutral internet would drive up costs for them and/or their customers for the data connection. If it drives up their costs it eats into their profit margin and they either soak it or raise prices. If it raises customer costs as a general increase on broadband cost, then customers have less money to spend on Netflix and other services. If it drives up customer costs because they now have to pay a Netflix prioritization fee, then they might not choose Netflix at all when Mediacom/TWC/Cox/whoever is offering a cheaper streaming media service.