Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Is Verizon Already Slowing Netflix Down?

Soulskill posted about 8 months ago | from the didn't-take-long dept.

Verizon 298

hondo77 points out a blog post by Dave Raphael, who noticed some odd discrepancies between two different Verizon broadband connections he has access to. His personal residential plan and his company's business plan both went through the same Verizon routers, but his residential plan is getting unusably slow speeds to places like AWS. He suggests that Verizon is already waging a war on high-bandwidth services like Netflix after the recent court decision against net neutrality. His discussion with a Verizon service representative seems to confirm this, though it's uncertain whether such an employee would have access to that information.

cancel ×

298 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops this (5, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#46165183)

Most people support Net Neutrality because they think things like this will not happen.

So then, under the net neutrality rules you need to explain why what Verizion is doing would not happen.

What will stop Verizon from doing this? My canceling my phone service and telling them I'm switching to T-Mobile because of cloud throttling.

Re:Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops thi (4, Funny)

timeOday (582209) | about 8 months ago | (#46165209)

What will stop Verizon from doing this? My canceling my phone service and telling them I'm switching to T-Mobile because of cloud throttling.

I almost admire your optimism.

Re:Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops thi (2)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 8 months ago | (#46165793)

For what it's worth, we just did this with our Family plan (ditch V for Tmo) - and, can verify, 2 weeks of normal 4G data usage on TMo totalled about 20 Meg, setup as a mobile hotspot and give the kids tablets with Netflix - ran through 480 Meg of data in like 5 minutes - I don't think there's any throttling going on there...

Re:Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops thi (5, Insightful)

Tumbleweed (3706) | about 8 months ago | (#46165227)

Because it would be illegal, and they would be subject to legal repercussions, unlike now. What part of this do you find confusing?

Re:Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops thi (5, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 8 months ago | (#46165277)

They're confused by the part that conflicts with their ideology.

Re:Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops thi (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165647)

Fuck Beta Slashdot.

Oh sorry.

Re:Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops thi (2)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 8 months ago | (#46165357)

Because it would be illegal, and they would be subject to legal repercussions, unlike now. What part of this do you find confusing?

The part where Verizon is demonstrably doing something to cause this. "slow speeds to netflix" can be explained a lot of ways that don't involve content based throttling. Short of a subpoena for exactly the right router configuration (good luck, they have about 20,000) you can't.

Re:Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops thi (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165507)

But they would have to perjure themselves by denying it. And in an organization that large, does anyone think there will never be a whistle-blower who comes out with documentation showing that they were doing it? The risk of getting caught would very likely be sufficient deterrent (if the penalties are severe enough), which is the whole point of making something illegal.

Re:Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops thi (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about 8 months ago | (#46166055)

I'm sorry, did you just mention a major corporation and the phrase (sufficient deterrent) in regards to penalties in the same sentence?

Where's my ROFLcopter?

Re:Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops thi (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165629)

Because it would be illegal, and they would be subject to legal repercussions, unlike now. What part of this do you find confusing?

The part where Verizon is demonstrably doing something to cause this. "slow speeds to netflix" can be explained a lot of ways that don't involve content based throttling. Short of a subpoena for exactly the right router configuration (good luck, they have about 20,000) you can't.

Yes, you can obtain this evidence.

You don't go searching through 20,000 routers to figure this out.

Instead, you ask and obtain the network speed results from 2,000,000 Verizon customers through a public crowdsourcing campaign.

Either the hard evidence will clearly show that speeds are being throttled, or the public backlash alone with a campaign like this will force Verizon to "fix" it, else they lose customers. A lot of customers.

Either way, we can get the evidence. You just have to think outside the box.

Re:Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops thi (1)

maharvey (785540) | about 8 months ago | (#46165731)

There should be an app for that...

Re:Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops thi (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about 8 months ago | (#46165403)

Throttling can be done passive aggressively and there is no law against that, that I know of. Just let links degrade, then give business users higher priority.

Re:Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops thi (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165497)

If your problem with a law is simply that there are law breakers, then you're simply fundamentally averse to a law-and-order society.

Our legal system is no stranger to passive-aggressive and underhanded law breaking. And in an organization as large as Verizon, it's kind of hard to do something illegal on a massive scale and not be found out eventually. And the penalties could be staggering. No investor would encourage Verizon to break the rules; otherwise that's what they'd have been doing all along. D'uh.

Re:Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops thi (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about 8 months ago | (#46165601)

Letting links degrade isn't illegal. Throttling is. If links getting degraded was illegal, then getting congestion would be illegal. A link is degraded when it can no longer handle its peak load, yet you see this happen all the time. Verizon is just a bit more ballsy about doing it with high profile routes in an attempt to get more money out of other companies.

Illegal HOW EXACTLY (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#46165515)

Because it would be illegal

Why?

What was the rule or regulation or law from Net Neutrality that made what Verizon is doing illegal?

I want someone to be specific because my point is this Verizon action has NOTHING to do with Net Neutrality, and would not be stopped by any Net Neutrality rules that the FCC put forth before they were told to stop.

So I repeat; HOW WOULD VERSION NOT BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY ARE DOING?

Because it is. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165651)

Net Neutrality states that all data must be treated equally. That means if I purchase a 20Mb connection, I should be able to allocate that 20Mb connection to any service I want without the ISP throttling it down. If Netflix lets me stream at 20Mb, but for some reason I can only get 10Mb because it is throttled by Verizon, well then that breaks Net Neutrality. Obviously there is a lot of things to take in, like router, modem, and infrastructure, but if there is obvious evidence showing my connections to a particular service is treated differently, it would be illegal under Net Neutrality.

Re: Because it is. (5, Interesting)

Scowler (667000) | about 8 months ago | (#46165801)

That is an over broad definition, one that would preclude common sense QoS during times when ISP is approaching capacity limits. Common sense QoS would include, for example, putting torrents or FTP on low priority tier, voice communication on high tier, etc. What is bad is discriminating between two similar types of traffic, like Netflix vs YouTube.

Re:Illegal HOW EXACTLY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165665)

Net Neutrality at its core says: "you may not treat traffic from one location/company/program differently than you treat data from all other locations/companies/programs."

So Verizon can slow down a single customer's connection to the internet when they use too much bandwidth, but they would be legally prevented from slowing down that customer's connection just to Netflix.

Closest so far (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#46165881)

Net Neutrality at its core says: "you may not treat traffic from one location/company/program differently than you treat data from all other locations/companies/programs."

Verizon (allegedly) is not; they are treating all Cloud Providers equally.

They are not throttling any one company. They are simply allowing a bottleneck in the network to exist to "cloud providers".

Which would happen to impact Netflix, yes, but also impacted the guy that wrote the article who is not Netflix - he's just being treated equally.

Re:Illegal HOW EXACTLY (1)

The_Wilschon (782534) | about 8 months ago | (#46165813)

Quit shouting. Calm down.

Re:Illegal HOW EXACTLY (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#46165855)

I refuse to be calm while otherwise intelligent people keep pretending Net Neutrality helps anyone.

Re:Illegal HOW EXACTLY (2)

lgw (121541) | about 8 months ago | (#46165947)

Well, it could be worse: it could have continued long enough for regulatory capture [smbc-comics.com] to set in.

Re:Illegal HOW EXACTLY (4, Informative)

Tumbleweed (3706) | about 8 months ago | (#46165819)

Because it would be illegal

Why?

What was the rule or regulation or law from Net Neutrality that made what Verizon is doing illegal?

I want someone to be specific because my point is this Verizon action has NOTHING to do with Net Neutrality, and would not be stopped by any Net Neutrality rules that the FCC put forth before they were told to stop.

So I repeat; HOW WOULD VERSION NOT BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY ARE DOING?

There is no current authority by the FCC (which they recently admitted) that allows them to enforce net neutrality. Even before that admission, what they had in place would not have worked as net neutrality, and was certainly never legally challenged and upheld in any court to cement it. Until ISPs are classified as common carriers, the FCC will not have the authority to enforce any level of net neutrality - which a former FCC chairman has recently stated. I have not said, and do not believe, that we have ever had any level of net neutrality. I am advocating FOR true net neutrality. That doesn't mean that what Verizon is supposedly doing doesn't violate the spirit of what people want net neutrality protection against, however.

Exactly, Spirit != Reality (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#46165911)

That doesn't mean that what Verizon is supposedly doing doesn't violate the spirit of what people want net neutrality protection against, however.

That's exactly my point. What people want is this.

But it's not what they are getting, it was never what the FCC proposed, it's not what they will ever do. And yet people are all up in arms because the FCC is not allowed to control ISP's even though it will do nothing in the SPIRIT of why people want Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality is a hollow label simply used to sell a bad product.

Re:Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops thi (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 8 months ago | (#46165615)

Because it would be illegal, and they would be subject to legal repercussions, unlike now.

You are clearly suffering from the disjoint definition of "Net Neutrality" -- There is the version that you think would be right, and then there is the version that the FCC adopted. You've already been told that there is a difference, but you continue to choose to ignore reality due to some blind hope that the FCC is there to protect you. The FCC is there to generate campaign contributions by selling policy to companies like AT&T and Verizon. As a matter of fact, these companies were the people consulted when drafting the FCC's Net Neutrality rules. You were told about that too. You chose to also ignore that due to that same blind hope.

Nothing the FCC adopted would prevent Verizon from limiting bandwidth to such an extent that services like Netflix become pixelated junk during peek usage periods. That is the real Net Neutrality as adopted. You were told what the real Net neutrality was, and you ignored it while cheering it on. Welcome to the internet that you cheered for.

Re: Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops th (1)

Scowler (667000) | about 8 months ago | (#46165719)

I RTFA. Nowhere does this blogger compare Netflix traffic to similar service from someone like YouTube. Illegality under the normal understanding of "Net Neutrality" would require showing a bias between two similar sources of traffic.

Re:Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops thi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165997)

Because it would be illegal, and they would be subject to legal repercussions, unlike now. What part of this do you find confusing?

Oh, right.

And so would extending Obamacare deadlines by Presidential fiat.

As if our government cares about legality...

Re:Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops thi (1)

mozumder (178398) | about 8 months ago | (#46165273)

You're making the n00b mistake of thinking competition causes service quality to go up.

The only thing competition does is to create monopolies, since the whole point of competition is to eliminate competitors.

That is something all you freedom-loving libertarians seem to conveniently ignore.

I guess if you love monopolies, and the profit it brings to your company, then a free-market is a good thing.

Otherwise, we socialists would prefer more government intervention to prevent competition from happening.

Either that, or completely nationalize that service and take it away from private shareholders, who have no interest in providing a better services.

Remember, capitalism is the LEAST profitable way to run a business, and monopolies are the most profitable.

Re:Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops thi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165413)

The only thing competition does is to create monopolies, since the whole point of competition is to eliminate competitors.

There is no "point" to competition - nature invented it long before we were here.

That is something all you freedom-loving libertarians seem to conveniently ignore [...] we socialists would prefer more government intervention to prevent competition from happening.

I'm a freedom-loving libertarian and I honestly don't believe you're really a socialist. I've met plenty of socialists who understand what competition is and why it's useful. I can only guess that you think you're helping by making the opposition look dumber, but no one believes you. Might I suggest you sit down with a real-life socialist and try to understand them before wasting everyone's time on unconvincing strawman arguments?

Re: Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops th (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165657)

Hint: Socialism is the politically correct way to say communist onthis side of the pond.

Competition eliminate Competition (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 8 months ago | (#46165529)

So, your whole premise is that competition eliminates competition, but you support government intervention to eliminate competition because competition eliminates competition.

Wow. 420 much?

Re:Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops thi (2)

Shoten (260439) | about 8 months ago | (#46165709)

The only thing competition does is to create monopolies, since the whole point of competition is to eliminate competitors.

"This word you keep using...I do not think it means what you think it means" -Inigo Montoya

Competition does not lead to monopolies. Competition and monopoly are literally antonyms; they are the opposite of one another. So let me ask you this...if not competition, what would you propose to prevent a monopoly?

Re:Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops thi (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165329)

Proper net neutrality legislation would require (under penalty of fines) an ISP to not throttle one service for another.

That is traffic to verizion.com would not get higher bandwidth than those to netflix or t-mobile.

Re:Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops thi (1)

alen (225700) | about 8 months ago | (#46165451)

and verizon isn't throttling anything, they are simply not upgrading their circuit after a huge spike in traffic

Verizon is not throttling a service (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#46165487)

Proper net neutrality legislation would require (under penalty of fines) an ISP to not throttle one service for another.

Verizon is not throttling A service. They are throttling "cloud providers", which means no specific service is throttled, just anyone pushing data through Amazon - that's the whole point of the article, that his data rate is also impacted because he uses AWS.

There is no way you can write a law that will stop Verizon from doing what they are doing.

Laws (5, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 8 months ago | (#46165559)

Sure you can stop them. You can revoke their Incorporation Charter.

One thing we seem to have forgotten is that Corporations are creations of the state, and thus subservient to the state (ostensibly).

The problem is, that when HARM is done, we have never simply revoked Corporate Charters. If we start doing that, then CxOs and boards will take their fiduciary responsibility a little more seriously.

UNDER WHAT LAW (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#46165605)

Sure you can stop them. You can revoke their Incorporation Charter.

Come on, under what law can you do that? Again, what law lets you do anything to Verizon for what they are doing?

This is what you are not grasping, Net Neutrality is not designed to stop actions like this. The government does not care about this. They will not act against this.

Re:UNDER WHAT LAW (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about 8 months ago | (#46165661)

Under what law are we required to continue to allow a charter?

Re:UNDER WHAT LAW (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#46165837)

Under the law that grants them the charter. There are all kinds of laws around a company being able to exist, that are already in place.

What there is not and has never been and never will be, is any law or regulation to stop what Verizon supposedly is doing.

Re:UNDER WHAT LAW (2)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 8 months ago | (#46165679)

I didn't say there was a law. I said it was possible to have a law like this. The problem is, we have gutless Republicrats and Demicans in office, who get a large chunk of campaign funds from non-person entities.

I'm a libertarian, and the greatest threat to our democratic republic has been from campaign contributions by people/entities ineligible to vote for a candidate / Proposition. My solution for this would be to require ALL campaign contributions be from ONLY people eligible to vote for said candidate/ballot measure. I wouldn't prevent XYZ Corp or ABC Union from campaigning, just not directly giving money to the candidate. I would also make campaign contributions unlimited if they are by eligible voters in the election.

Re:UNDER WHAT LAW (3, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | about 8 months ago | (#46165769)

Net Neutrality is not designed to stop actions like this.

If it's directed towards Netflix, yes it was.

The government does not care about this. They will not act against this.

Only because the FCC is hindered by Congress and can't put ISPs in the common carrier category they belong in. So Verizon looks at traffic and says "oh, sorry about Netflix being slow, have you seen our TV deals?!"

But please, be more enraged on behalf of abusive corporations. I'm sure they appreciate it.

Not directed towards Netflix, that's the point (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#46165815)

If it's directed towards Netflix, yes it was.

Which we know it wasn't; the whole point of the article was that HIS services were being impacted because supposedly "cloud providers" IP addresses were rate throttled. So it's not Netflix, it's everyone, which is uniform and thus OK under any definition of Net Neutrality.

But please, be more enraged on behalf of abusive corporations.

Fuck you. I'm trying to point out that Net Neutrality exists as a tool of complacency to make you THINK the government cares at all about what corporations do to you. If you are to dense to see that, and you apparently are, then I hope you enjoy living in the hell you promoted.

Re:Laws (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 8 months ago | (#46165821)

we have never simply revoked Corporate Charters.

Same reason "we" rarely take away drivers' licenses. Sure they're liable to slaughter innocent people if we let them back on the road, but if we take their license away they won't be able to earn money (and pay taxes.)

Re:Verizon is not throttling a service (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165611)

Verizon is not throttling A service. They are throttling "cloud providers" ...which are a service...

which means no specific service is throttled, just anyone pushing data through Amazon ...which is a service.

So, um... yeah.

Nope, not a service to consumers (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#46165715)

They are throttling "cloud providers" ...which are a service...

Wrong, "Cloud Providers" are multiple sets of IP's to Verizon, nothing more or less. To a company AWS is a service, but not to the consumer of the data.

Given any ACTUAL service - say Netflix - why Netflix is free to send stuff directly to consumers instead of storing it on a cloud provider.

Thus no SERVICE is impacted by Verizon simply letting the natural bottleneck that happens around cloud providers because they have a lot of data people access exist without addressing...

Re: Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops th (1)

Scowler (667000) | about 8 months ago | (#46165609)

Proper net neutrality legislation would define suitable actions for an ISP near or at capacity during peak usage. Because in that situation, stuff is getting throttled, and I sure hope my http or SMTP request has higher priority than somebody's torrent or video stream. QoS is a good thing.

Re:Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops thi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165683)

I believe it would require not to throttle one host/network/server for another.

They should still be allowed to prioritize services with latency issues (such as VoIP/Skype/Etc) over ones without them (buffered streaming video).

They should not be able to prioritize one streaming video service over another, just because one involves them getting payed (HBO go for example).

Re:Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops thi (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 8 months ago | (#46165391)

Well if you have Vios and your Netflix is considered noticeable slow, or choppy. And say TWC plays netflix at faster speed. You just go, I am switching because my Netflix is too slow. It is faster with the competition.

Re:Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops thi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165397)

Yes, because the wireless and fios branches of the business give a fuck about each other.

And if you cancel fios, your alternative is essentially Comcast, who everyone already knows does this shit. There is virtually no competition when it comes to broadband access.

Re:Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops thi (2)

briancox2 (2417470) | about 8 months ago | (#46165771)

I also am a libertarian/conservative-leaning voter who, I believe, has to have a similar view to you. But on Net Neutrality, the freedom of the people cannot be protected by giving freedom to an oligarchy. In the modern day, the people are not only subject to the limitations of law. More and more, they are subject to the rules set by corporate oligarchies. In the US, unlike in Korea, there is a gentlemen's agreement amongst internet providers to limit the speeds that we should expect. The capitalist idea of personal property has been perverted over the last 30 years by the use of EULA's that is prevelant, which teach people that they only own their computers to the degree that MicrosoftApple tells them they can.

If you would prefer a company that provides freer computing or freer internet service, there's really no where to run.

Unless you exercise your free-market right to go shopping for a new government. Brazil is looking pretty good to me.

Re:Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops thi (1)

Qzukk (229616) | about 8 months ago | (#46165949)

l100.dllstx-vfttp-93.verizon-gni.net

My canceling my phone service and telling them I'm switching to T-Mobile because of cloud throttling.

Wake me when T-Mobile offers FTTP, until then keep pretending you have a clue what you're going on about.

Re:Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops thi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165979)

Because Net Neutrality requires them to treat all packets equally. If they throttle AWS they have to throttle packets from their own FiOS TV also. That's what stops them. Hope that answers your question.

WTF why would I get fios now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165185)

I was thinking about getting FIOS. But what the hell is the point of such a high-bandwidth lien when they throttle the shit that uses a lot of bandwidth...

Is Verizon Already Slowing Netflix Down? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165187)

Is Verizon Already Slowing Netflix Down?

Yes. Verizon throttles lots of stuff. Why? Because they can. They want to you pay for "fast, fast, fast!" but they don't like it if you use the data or the speed you're paying for.

Re:Is Verizon Already Slowing Netflix Down? (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | about 8 months ago | (#46165619)

Yes. Verizon throttles lots of stuff.

The question, though, is: is Verizon slowing down *some* services more than others?

Yes, we know that Verizon's overall incompetence slows down the internet.... but that slows down all sites equally (which has always been legal). Here the contention is that they are slowing down Netflix *more* than other sites.

Verizon is denying it: (5, Informative)

bobstreo (1320787) | about 8 months ago | (#46165189)

http://bgr.com/2014/02/05/veri... [bgr.com]

“We treat all traffic equally, and that has not changed,” a Verizon spokesperson told BGR in an emailed statement. “Many factors can affect the speed a customer’s experiences for a specific site, including, that site’s servers, the way the traffic is routed over the Internet, and other considerations. We are looking into this specific matter, but the company representative was mistaken. We’re going to redouble our representative education efforts on this topic.”

It is still unclear exactly what was causing the issues that Raphael described, but it’s apparently not any form of bandwidth prioritization. Instead, the issue may relate to congestion specific to the Amazon servers or connections that Raphael was testing, but nothing has been confirmed by Amazon.

Re:Verizon is denying it: (4, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | about 8 months ago | (#46165257)

And from TFA:

During the day â" the bandwidth is normal to AWS. However, after 4pm or so â" things get slow.

That is when the home usage increases.

And he's using wireless.

He really needs to contact someone who knows more about networking in order to collect more useful data. Right now it is impossible to say what is really happening.

Re:Verizon is denying it: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165887)

Whenever I called Verizon about issues their answers appeared to be good enough to compete for the year's stupid answer award.
Once time I purchased a Verizon cell phone with bluetooth to use it to connect to my car sound system. I found they had it shutoff.
  I called Verizon and had a tech tell me they disabled it for security because if another person in another car had bluetooth they could rip my personal info.
That call almost broke my bull-shit meter!
I dropped Verizon, dumped the phone got another carrier and bluetooth so-far hasn't caused any personal info to hop to another car.
Another time... had network issues with DSL (before fios was available).
I knew it was an external problem at their exchange but had to go through the stupid onion layers of tech.
Was it plugged in? Reboot computer, Check wires, update this, read that, screw this, ... let me connect you to my supervisor...
Supervisor... sorry lets get you going..
Is it plugged in? Did you reboot computer, check wires, update this, read that, piss on this, ... let me connect you to my supervisor...
and on.. an on..
Six months later got hold of a VP and they found a faulty board at their exchange!
How the fuck are they still in business?

Basically never believe what CSRs say (4, Insightful)

langelgjm (860756) | about 8 months ago | (#46165279)

Why would anyone believe what a low-level CSR tells them in a chat session? This is like when an eBay CSR [cnet.com] claimed that eBay did not allow the sale of Bitcoin mining rigs a few weeks ago. The person didn't know what they were talking about.

Not to mention this is Verizon, who can't tell $0.002 from 0.002 cents. Engaging them on a topic of any complexity is sure to lead to hilarity and/or frustration.

Re:Basically never believe what CSRs say (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165381)

NASA had a well known problem [wikipedia.org] with unit conversion... Maybe we shouldn't give them funding either? Or how about USPS? The military? Barack Obama? I'm sure all these entities have fumbled the ball too.

Re:Basically never believe what CSRs say (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165655)

I had an install tech (for a diff ISP) tell me there wasn't a modem rental fee...

Re:Verizon is denying it: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165319)

They may be denying it, but it happens. Here in the UK (I work for VM) I can categorically state that Business users get exactly what it says on the tin. If they are paying for 100meg down 20 up, they get just that and are unrestricted. Domestic connections, on the same CMTS, are severely rate limited at busy times.

There is a caveat though, domestic subscribers pay around $70-80 per month, businesses considerably more.

Anon - natch.

Re:Verizon is denying it: (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 8 months ago | (#46165337)

We are looking into this specific matter, but the company representative was mistaken. We’re going to redouble our representative education efforts on this topic.

Meaning, representatives will be beaten until they learn they may only reiterate the official company message (which may or may not be the actual truth). [Rule #1 about network throttling: You do not talk about network throttling. (I'm sure the other Fight Club inspired rules will be just as interesting...)]

Fox guarding the hen house (2)

Stealth Dave (189726) | about 8 months ago | (#46165359)

"Confirmation" from a Verizon spokesperson that Verizon isn't throttling access is more than a little like the fox guarding the hen house and asking the fox to "confirm" that the hens are all present and accounted for. That's not to say that Mr. Raphael's assertion is necessarily correct either, but he does provide additional evidence to support his claim, whereas Verizon is merely providing "assurances", as far as I can tell since the BGR article provides no details beyond the brief spokesperson statement.

Re:Fox guarding the hen house (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165635)

Soooo... anecdotal evidence is to be taken as the word of god but anything from an evil corporation but a single user's misfortunes are "evidence"? LOL... keep it going, Slashtards... Somehow I'm not surprised by this kind of jaw wagging.
 
Science and proof are firmly defined terms until they're not. Right?

We’re going to redouble our efforts! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165631)

I hope so, Commander, for your sake. The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am.

Re:Verizon is denying it: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165847)

We treat all traffic equally, and that has not changed

Sounds like they are avoiding the issue to me. They didn't say no, they just said they treat everything the same. Who is to say that their policy for all traffic isn't something like we apply heavy QOS to any services that are using more than x% of all of our bandwidth. Where x is some percentage that only Netflix would be capable of hitting.

Re:Verizon is denying it: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46166051)

It could just be the usual practice of overselling. I know when I first got provisioned they had my on a circuit that was so saturated that I could barely get 5 kBps. Luckily I was able to contact somebody with the ability to change my provisioning and it was fine. Even with FiOS and Netflix set to the lowest picture quality I'm still getting problems streaming even though I can traceroute to another Web site like Google with 20 ms pings all the way along the route.

Sample size of 1? MUST BE TRUE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165237)

Verizon is evil enough for this, obviously. But they're a large, slow, lumbering company. It'll probably take em at least a couple of weeks to put something like this together.

Something doesn't add up (1, Interesting)

EMG at MU (1194965) | about 8 months ago | (#46165291)

ISPs say that they don't have enough bandwidth for everything, and that they must throttle traffic.

Then, ISPs say they want to have your residential AP also broadcast a public wifi hotspot.

To me, those two things are in contradiction. If there isn't enough bandwidth then why are they adding public hotspots to residential plans?

Re:Something doesn't add up (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 8 months ago | (#46165395)

ISPs say that they don't have enough bandwidth for everything, and that they must throttle traffic.

Because, ISPs have long worked on a model of oversubscription in order to rake in huge amounts of money, while not giving a damn if you get anything resembling the claimed performance.

They just want more and more subscribers paying a monthly bill, but they've mostly all failed to invest in any new capacity in a long time.

In the real world, this would be analagous to going to a hotel and discovering they've got more people than rooms and have therefore installed rows of bunk beds like a military barracks.

Services like Netflix are just highlighting that they're selling more than they have, and leaving the customers short-changed.

They were the ones telling us about all the multimedia experiences we could get on the interwebs, and then the first to start bitching about how much bandwidth the stuff they used in their advertising actually costs.

And, since many ISPs are also cable companies these days, they also want to ensure you use their premium services to watch anything -- this way they can get more money out of you, starve out a competitor, and if they're really lucky charge both you and Netflix for the bandwidth.

Telecoms are largely a pyramid scheme these days in terms of actual capacity, and they know it.

Re:Something doesn't add up (1)

dj245 (732906) | about 8 months ago | (#46165509)

Telecoms are largely a pyramid scheme these days in terms of actual capacity, and they know it.

Only if you divert excess revenues into upper management's pocket. If they actually invested in infrastructure there wouldn't be a problem.

Re:Something doesn't add up (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 8 months ago | (#46165543)

But since they do, and they haven't ... we're left with ISPs who have been increasing profits and failing to invest in capacity, and they are now whining they can't afford more capacity.

The way they have been advertising it and expanding the subscriber base, you'd think someone would have clued in to the fact that they also needed to be investing in infrastructure.

But it mostly seems like they've been forgetting about that part.

Re:Something doesn't add up (1)

alen (225700) | about 8 months ago | (#46165423)

netflix has never been transmitted across the internet, they have always used a content delivery network to stage content close to the users. like every other big internet company for the last 20-30 years.
a few years ago netflix got a sweet deal from a CDN provider looking to get into the business who tried to pass off netflix CDN traffic as peered traffic
now that the contracts have expired netflix is trying to lower its costs since CDN's can be expensive and netflix is all about being CHEAP. and pushing its own CDN under the condition they don't pay any fees like every other CDN company out there

Not just traffic - those reverse DNS on traceroute (1)

dirkx (540136) | about 8 months ago | (#46165313)

May be a bit more complex - as the reverse lookups shown in the traceroute have subtle differences (including case). One would wonder if there is also some split DNS as well. Dw.

Re:Not just traffic - those reverse DNS on tracero (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165471)

There is! Verizon has what they call a "DNS assistance" program, where any mistyped URL gets you a search page.

Here's how to opt-out: http://www.verizon.com/support/residential/internet/fiosinternet/troubleshooting/network/questionsone/99147.htm

I found that when I used to be on Verizon they seemed to have the opt-out DNS working much more fluidly than the "normal" DNS. Was never sure if this was just load, or if they knew the kind of people who would be trusted when telling their friends and family to use Verizon would be on the secondary DNS.

The traceroutes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165335)

Random spikes in latency on the affected path, probably saturation of a circuit somewhere right?

rumor is netflix is pushing its own CDN (1, Informative)

alen (225700) | about 8 months ago | (#46165345)

if you search on the internet, netflix is pushing it's own CDN with the condition that they don't pay the regular CDN fees. most of the big ISP's haven't signed on which is why netflix is slow on their networks. the pipes to the CDN provider are probably maxed out like the issue with Cogent a few years ago

business scuffle with two companies trying to lower their costs of business. not like netflix is the angel here either.

Re:rumor is netflix is pushing its own CDN (1)

Shatrat (855151) | about 8 months ago | (#46165587)

You mean this? https://signup.netflix.com/ope... [netflix.com] This is already live and any ISP that wants to reduce their Internet drain costs is participating.

Re:rumor is netflix is pushing its own CDN (1)

alen (225700) | about 8 months ago | (#46165617)

yeah, but for the last 20 years or so CDN's have paid the ISP's money for the traffic they send. Netflix is saying they don't want to pay anything if you sign up for Open Connect

Re:rumor is netflix is pushing its own CDN (3, Informative)

Shatrat (855151) | about 8 months ago | (#46165733)

I know there's a precedent, but it's a silly one. An ISP participating in Open Connect improves the product of both companies. The ISP reduces the traffic on their network and Netflix performance is better for that ISPs customers. Charging for caching the content would be like trying to charge for peering, the revenue it might be worth is nothing compared to the savings from reducing the load on the network.

Re:rumor is netflix is pushing its own CDN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165907)

* Any ISP willing to hand Netflix their own 10gbit pipe

That's not "any ISP".

Re:rumor is netflix is pushing its own CDN (5, Informative)

sexconker (1179573) | about 8 months ago | (#46165673)

if you search on the internet, netflix is pushing it's own CDN with the condition that they don't pay the regular CDN fees. most of the big ISP's haven't signed on which is why netflix is slow on their networks. the pipes to the CDN provider are probably maxed out like the issue with Cogent a few years ago

business scuffle with two companies trying to lower their costs of business. not like netflix is the angel here either.

This is the second time you've posted about this here as if you have some sort of inside information.
It's not a rumor, and it's not newsworthy. Netflix announced this shit a year ago when they started touting "Super HD". https://signup.netflix.com/ope... [netflix.com]

Netflix gave ISPs 3 options:

A: Peer with us at favorable rates and we'll allow your users to access our higher quality streams and help make sure shit is routing efficiently.
B: Drop our content boxes directly on your network and we'll allow your users to access our higher quality streams and pay you fair rates.
C: Don't peer with us at lower rates or let us store content on your network, and we'll name and shame you as not fully supporting Netflix.

Once all the major ISPs agreed with A or B, Netflix opened up "Super HD" to (almost) everyone. They now have a lot of those distributed content boxes and favorable agreements, and are effectively a CDN.

Netflix Throttling (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165377)

I am on FIOS and have issues streaming Netflix for months.

How does the Rep know this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165379)

Simple, he talks to a hundred or so Verizon users a day. He often gets word of problems before the network engineers even recognizes they exist. Thus he's talking to home user after home user who's Netflix is suddenly pixelated and buffering more and more often. Within a few such calls he recognizes a pattern and when asked about the possibility by a customer he honestly states that it matches a pattern he's been seeing and may be the cause. Is the rep right? Maybe, maybe not.

Of course the company will deny it. How long did Comcast deny throttling bit-torrent before it was undeniably proven that they were doing so?

Should he have stated specifically that the company was doing so? No, that could cost him his job, if he actually made that statement. But now the company will make sure all the phone drones are properly retrained on how not to admit any possible wrong doing by the company.

A bit of a parsing error I think (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165421)

I think the CS representative was trying to say "Amazon might have trouble streaming to you because their bandwidth is limited" when he said "it is limited bandwidth to cloud providers." I don't think he was confirming that Verizon limited their bandwidth to cloud providers.

That being said I don't know what to think about it. I'm pretty sure these shenanigans will become common, and the issue with net neutrality is that it's pretty much impossible to tell who is causing the slowdown. I think Comcast/Xfinity is likely going to be the first to fire volleys in the slowly hurting bandwidth game, and use it to extort more expensive plans out of their users.

Don't understand the drama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165469)

I am using FIOS and Netflix is working perfectly fine. Streaming HD shows with it- no problem at all. Hulu on the other hand is sometimes unusable. Constant interruptions and buffering, even in SD. Verizon keeps pushing me to pay more for a faster connection- why would I do that if streaming services can't even deliver a fraction of what I'm paying for now ? What else would I need huge bandwidth for if not for streaming ? Verizon would be shooting itself into the foot.

traces are diff at first 2 hops. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165491)

The first 2 hops in his traces don't match up...

Re:traces are diff at first 2 hops. (2)

bobbied (2522392) | about 8 months ago | (#46165613)

The first 2 hops in his traces don't match up...

This AC is correct. IF you read the fine article behind the article referenced in this story it is CLEAR that the guy's home connection has at least one more hop. I would assume that after 4PM, many home users would be showing up and cranking up Netflix (or other online activities) and putting stress on the first router which is NOT involved in the business connection.

So, this is apples and oranges... Or at least just congestion on the home connection that doesn't exist in the business one.

The New Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165511)

is slowing me down.

Time's almost up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165541)

I saw this on the main page:

MOVINâ(TM) ON UP. You are on Slashdot Classic. We are starting to move into new digs in February by automatically redirecting greater numbers of you. The new site is a work in progress so Classic Slashdot will be available from the footer for several more months. As we migrate our audience, we want to hear from you to make sure that the redesigned page has all the features you expect. Find out more.

Has anyone made any overrides for this (custom css files or javascript-fu)?

I've only stayed on slashdot because there's an option to use slash-v1 style comments. I don't think I'll be staying around if slash-v3 style becomes mandatory.

All traffic is equal except "Special" traffic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165553)

What Comcast does (AFAIK) is to have slow connections to the general internet.
Then if a company wants to pay them extra, they can setup a faster connection to that company's servers.
So no the aren't "slowing down" anyone, but yes they provide worst than common service to any company that does not pay them extra.

This is not a suitable way to run a utility.

Ummm QOS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165633)

Of course the business service is faster, they're paying a higher price and get a higher priority. Non-story, but that's what I've come to expect on Slashdot now.

This Seems To Be What I Am Seeing As Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46165667)

I was frustrated that Netflix was stuttering on my 25/25 FiOS connection. Netflix should only be taking a very small percentage of that bandwidth (~2-3 Mb).

As FiOS was getting expensive in my area ($90 for 25/25), I switched to Cablevision. The experience is like night and day.
Cablevision smokes FiOS for Netflix, YouTube and other video sites in general.

Re:This Seems To Be What I Am Seeing As Well (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 8 months ago | (#46165875)

I moved from DSL to cable because Netflix was spending too long buffering. Supposed to be about 10x faster on the downstream but still that little spinning circle is a way-too-frequent experience. Keeping the cable though as it help with the "fallback" viewing method.

How long before I have to buy Internet "channels"? (5, Insightful)

Gordo_1 (256312) | about 8 months ago | (#46165749)

"The Premium package gives you access to all your streaming favorites like YouTube, Hulu Plus, Netflix along with dozens of foreign movie sites you've never heard of.
The Friends & Family package gives you access to the people you want to keep in touch with, when you want to keep in touch with them, over your favorite NSA-sponsored proprietary social networking site: FacePalmSpace.
Our Adults-Only package allows you to stream all your favorite German Scheiße porn tube sites!"

Don't think so? Bookmark me, wait a couple years, then come back and mod me "Insightful".

Poor english (1)

Yaur (1069446) | about 8 months ago | (#46165751)

The key line from the transcript is "yes, it is limited bandwidth to cloud providers". You can translate that bad English into : "Verizon is limiting bandwidth to cloud providers" and get incensed or "Verizon has limited bandwidth to cloud providers" and have a complete non-issue. Given how unlikely it is that a low level CSR is going to know about Verizon's super secret throttling system I'm going with the latter.

Astound cable in CA/MN (1)

Archfeld (6757) | about 8 months ago | (#46165767)

My cable company has been metering us for several weeks now following a slight overage in our data limit. They charged us 15 bucks for exceeding 100 GB in a calendar month, thanks to a Tera-Online download and a busy month with Netflix. The corporate media companies are going to finally succeed in their dream of channelizing the net and making it just another TV medium dominated by commercial adds and controlled by the media oligarchy. Welcome to the future...it is a place of dim hopes, shattered dreams and corporate citizenship. The Idiocracy lives...

Apple, meet Orange (2)

mcmonkey (96054) | about 8 months ago | (#46166049)

Comparing a residential account and a business account? I don't see a story here.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?