I was not even aware that that’s how it worked. Very interesting. Thanks.

Actually that makes sense.

I was just at a meeting with a client who was using dial up AOL and the site looked AWFUL and I couldn’t figure out why.

Usually the dialup companies will give users the “accelerated dialup” number as the default local connection and the regular dialup number as a kind of afterthought.

Here’s another number if that one doesn’t work, but it’s slower and you probably won’t like it.

I personally think that it has more to do with optimizing their own profits than it does with offering a “service” to their customers.

Think about it; by intercepting all of that content coming through their routers to their customers and cutting out anywhere from one-fourth to three-fourths of the total file size on each and every page, they can serve more customers and use less bandwidth. In aggregate (in terms of thousands or even millions of customers) that saves them massive amounts of total bandwidth. (Talk about maximizing profits.) The whole trick is to get customers to accept this low-quality alternative as if it were a wonderful extra service being offered to them.

It reminds me of that really super-cheap bread that you can buy in some stores. It’s cheap because it’s all air. If you pick up a smaller loaf of regular bread in one hand and a loaf of this bread in the other, you’ll know why it’s so much cheaper. That’s fine, because no one is pretending that this cheap bread is somehow better than the more expensive regular bread.

To reach the same low as the ISPs, you’d have to have a bakery that sells this cheap bread at the same price as regular bread, calls it “special diet bread,” and tells you that it’s better for you and you can eat twice as much. (Admittedly, bread isn’t the best example there, but it’s the best illustration I can think of quickly that almost anyone anywhere will understand.)

Anyway, I obviously haven’t got this rant out of my system yet. You’d think that I’d feel better after hearing that I’m not alone in dealing with this, but nooooooo…

My usual solution, BTW, is to check with the ISP myself, get a local connection number for their non-accelerated dialup, and show the person what they’ve been missing.

This is good to know. I knew that accelerated dialup systems were being promoted all over the place but I just assumed it was compression kind of like when a browser requests that all content coming from a web server be Gzipped compressed and the browser uncompresses it. I didn’t realize these ISP’s were actually reducing the quality of the images in a destructive fashion.

Now for the deep thinking. Can ISP’s legally alter the copyrighted material of websites? Almost all images and certainately the content of the site will be copyrighted by someone, probably the site owner. What the ISP’s are doing is altering that content then passing it off as the authors original work. This sounds very sketchy to me. Any legal precedents here?

I never even thought of that aspect of it. I don’t know anything about the legalities of it. I’m guessing that if it were illegal, then one of the big art- or photography-oriented sites would have been the first to sue. On the other hand, I can picture some little fledgling site giving it a try just to generate some buzz and get some quick traffic.

I think the “rage in the rant” is a bit misdirected here. I would consider myself a “power user” and I’ve used accelerated dial-up ever since we moved to an area where broadband of any type (save satellite) isn’t available. I, for one, love it - and hope that we’ll be able to find a way to apply the technology to SSL sessions soon!

I have several problems with the rant itself:

1. Misdirected Frustration
Yes, those who use accelerated dial-up yet don’t educate themselves about the process may criticize the website for the altered appearance. How is this different from the infinite other examples of user ignorance that we encounter everyday? For instance, those who fall victim to phishing and e-mail scams, download unsafe software, surf without virus protection and/or firewalls, etc? Many such users may blame the computer manufactures, the operating system programmers, and everyone else except themselves for their difficulties. How is this any different?

2. Images Front and Center? Not Exactly…
Accelerated dial-up doesn’t just accelerate images - in fact, out of everything that *is* accelerated, the images compression accounts for speed increases far less than other compressed data. Acceleration technology works not only via lossy compression (such as that used for images) but with lossless compression (such as that used for text and other data) as well. Watch the acceleration speed for content during an accelerated dial-up session and you’ll see the data/content acceleration in the following order (most to least):

A. Uploaded data streams
B. Text and lossless compression items
C. Graphics
D. Other

3. Compression is One of Three…
C’mon, accelerated dial-up doesn’t just rely on compression - it relies on filtering and caching technologies as well, both on the client and server side. All three methods - compression, filtering and caching - work in concert to use the available bandwidth more effectively.

4. Did You Read the Terms?
Speaking of ignorance-and I use that term in the spirit of lack of knowledge, not as a detrimental insult-this is also another example of consumers using a product or service without taking the time to fully understand it (see item one above). The terms of the service is normally *very* clearly spelled out - for example:

“Web Accelerator uses proprietary compression technology to accelerate certain web page text and graphics when compared to standard dial-up Internet service; however, actual results may vary and actual data transmission rates are not faster than standard dial-up Internet service. You agree and understand that the actual data speeds for downloading certain files, such as music or pictures, will not be faster using Web Accelerator than with standard dial-up service. Some web pages such as secure or encrypted web pages will not be accelerated. Web Accelerator may not be compatible with proxy based software or services such as content filters or firewalls.”

While the writers point is duly noted, I think the real issue is a lack of knowledge, not the service itself. Accelerated dial-up isn’t the perfect solution, but it *is* an option. Until broadband is widely available everywhere and not just in major urban centers, I think the service is a viable, and much welcomed, option indeed.

- and hope that we’ll be able to find a way to apply the technology to SSL sessions soon!

There are several problems with this. First and foremost the data would have to be decrypted in the middle of the route to apply the “acceleration.” This would either require both the server and client to supply their private encryption keys to the accelerator or the accelerator would have to break the cipher key which can be done on an almost real time basis but is VERY expensive. With either method major security holes are opened up and for liability reasons I couldn’t imagine an ISP even attempting this.

Another problem is our good old friend the checksum. If the transaction is tampered with in any way the checksum changes and both ends reject it. While it might be possible to use a man-in-the-middle attack knowing all the public and private keys involved in reality this type of attack is very difficult. It would require the accelerator in the middle to pretend to be both ends of the link and completely re-write the SSL transaction. This is not good for security and would almost certainly increase the amount of time it takes to load the page beyond that of unmodified dial-up.

In theory accelerator SSL might sound like a good idea but in reality it opens up a can of worms I suspect no one really wants opened. Just imagine, instead of users giving out their sensitive data to the phishers the phishers would just have to re-route the data from the ISP’s acceleration server to their machine in Russia. This may sound difficult but in a day and age when ISP’s are only about profit it actually happens more often than most people realize.

Matt -

My bad. I should have made it clear that I was jesting about SSL being accelerated. While it would be wonderful, I agree that with current encryption methods it is highly unlikely given the key system currently used.

The only reason I let the comment creep in to begin with was that secure connections are doggedly slow over our dial-up connection vs. accelerated surfing - not to mention the benefit of the adblock plugin I just installed in Firefox to further maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of our minimal bandwidth. With Firefox, adblock and acceleration web surfing isn’t as painful as it could be. However, going from that to an SSL session - ouch!

Your point is well taken however. I am interested in your opinion on the original piece and subsequent comments - what is your take on acceleration?

Ernie, thanks for dropping by and providing the extra info. The “rage in the rant” was a purely temporary state. As I said, I was letting off steam. It is the lack of knowledge that bugs me. People choose this option, then forget that they have it, and then wonder why the graphics look like they do. (I picked on the graphic aspects, because that’s the most noticeable and the one that I had been asked about–yet again.) In some ways it reminds me of the kind of people who buy SUVs and then wonder why they won’t drive straight uphill like they do in the commercials.