Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Reason To Hope Carriers Won't Win the War On Netflix

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the but-the-skirmishing-will-continue dept.

The Internet 213

Nemo the Magnificent writes "A few days ago we talked over a post by David Raphael accusing Verizon of slowing down Netflix, by way of throttling Amazon AWS. Now Jonathan Feldman gives us reason to believe that the carriers won't win the war on Netflix, because tools for monitoring the performance of carriers will emerge nd we'll catch them if they try. I just now exercised one such tool, NetNeutralityTest.com from Speedchedker Ltd. My carrier is Verizon (FiOS), and the test showed my download speed at the moment to be 12 Mbps. It was the same to Linode in NJ but only 3 Mbps to AWS East. Hmm."

cancel ×

213 comments

Beta. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205253)

Why isn't the Japanese Slashdot afflicted with Beta? We all need to learn Japanese.

Re:Beta. (-1, Offtopic)

JMJimmy (2036122) | about 6 months ago | (#46205285)

switch back to classic... as to the article... these tools (and better ones) are already around: www.measurementlab.net

You can't switch back forever. (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205679)

Admins have already said Beta will be the only choice when it goes live.

Re:You can't switch back forever. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46206027)

Fuck Beta

Re:Beta. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205759)

Dice doesn't own slashdot.jp? wikipedia: "currently owned by OSDN-Japan, Inc."

Re:Beta. (4, Informative)

arth1 (260657) | about 6 months ago | (#46206897)

Dice doesn't own slashdot.jp? wikipedia: "currently owned by OSDN-Japan, Inc."

Correct, Dice Holdings does not own the Japanese Slashdot and Sourceforge brands or sites. These were split out and sold by VA Linux in 2007, before the sale of the American subsidiaries to Geek.net, and thus not part of the deal. That the buyers chose to call themselves OSDN is going back to the roots - by that time, OSDN had become OSDG.
As it is, Japanese Slashdot buys advertising space on Slashdot.org for Japanese customers from Dice Holding, and translate articles into Japanese. That's about as far as the cooperation goes.

Anyhow, at this time, slashdot.jp appears to be the bigger brother, with more traffic than slasdot.org.
Perhaps they can buy out slashdot.org too. I for one would welcome our new Japanese overlords.

if anything... (-1, Redundant)

dmbasso (1052166) | about 6 months ago | (#46205257)

... the beta flaming improved the number of posts on Sunday.

Frosty Fuck Beta Post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205265)

I'd fuck beta. Actually, I'd fuck anything with a hole at this point. So sad that my life has come down to this :(

Sure, Netflix is safe, what about the rest? (5, Insightful)

deconfliction (3458895) | about 6 months ago | (#46205273)

Sure, one extremely popular destination on the internet is safe, because throngs of angry users will raise a stink. But what about all the small players who get throttled into oblivion before their innovations get a chance to have the kind of army of defensive consumers that Netflix has?

This is an information warfare[1] campaign where the Establishment is trying to make sure they stay there indefinitely, safe from all new comers.

[1] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4766259&cid=46193879 [slashdot.org]

Re:Sure, Netflix is safe, what about the rest? (3, Insightful)

Sique (173459) | about 6 months ago | (#46205557)

The reason being that those small players aren't interesting enough to design specific net traffic rules for them. And if they grow big enough to appear on the provider's radar, they are so wellknown, it will be noticed if they get throttled.

His point is that we are not a free market (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205713)

Natural monopolies need to be regulated.

Re:Sure, Netflix is safe, what about the rest? (1)

deconfliction (3458895) | about 6 months ago | (#46205901)

And if they grow big enough to appear on the provider's radar, they are so wellknown, it will be noticed if they get throttled.

I'm not sure you understood my point. My point was that without Network Neutrality, and with throttling, the Establishment can keep them from growing in the first place. Or did you understand that? If so, please clarify your point.

Re:Sure, Netflix is safe, what about the rest? (5, Interesting)

alostpacket (1972110) | about 6 months ago | (#46206129)

if (trafficSource != VerzionOnDemand && trafficSource != Netflix) {

degradePerformance(); //slightly and randomly degrades performance

}

Seems relatively easy from a logic point of view.

Would anyone notice if they randomly started dropping UDP packets? Your average web user would see pages load just as fast. Statistical analysis would have to be very large scale and long term to notice a trend that couldn't be attributed to the normal fluctuations of speed and reliability of the internet. But home users could get a subtle difference in viewing experience for video from their ISP and a competitor.

In reality, ISPs simply need to slack on peering arrangements so their competitors are hammered during peak usage. Something Verizon has already been accused of.

This all leads me to think the real problem is the vertical monopoly/integration of ISP and content provider. If the government doesnt step in, we'll continue to see this war over and over just with ever shifting battlefields. Even with common carrier, we would likely still have ISPs pulling these tricks. regardless of whether they can charge Netflix more.

*obviously it's more complicated than the pseudo code above

Re:Sure, Netflix is safe, what about the rest? (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 6 months ago | (#46206295)

... If the video was delivered via UDP.
UDP for video calling, good idea. Nice and real-time.
For anything else, pointless. You'll need to deal with the dropped/out-of-order packets with no benefit, except maybe less RAM usage for buffering. I'd rather have quality video thanks.

Re:Sure, Netflix is safe, what about the rest? (1)

alostpacket (1972110) | about 6 months ago | (#46206893)

You're right, looks like most video services use a form of TCP with different strategies for chunking and ack'ing. Not sure why I thought video streaming was done using UDP. [pdf source [arxiv.org] ]

Thanks for the correction.

Re:Sure, Netflix is safe, what about the rest? (1)

pepty (1976012) | about 6 months ago | (#46206817)

With Verizon it's not necessarily about Netflix - they now offer cloud computing services that compete directly with AWS.

Verizon signs-up Oracle to tackle Amazon in the cloud

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2014/011014-verizon-oracle-277603.html

Verizon Plays Catch Up with Cloud Computing, Storage Offerings

http://cloudtimes.org/2013/12/18/verizon-plays-catch-up-with-cloud-computing-storage-offerings/

Re:Sure, Netflix is safe, what about the rest? (3, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 6 months ago | (#46205863)

Sure, one extremely popular destination on the internet is safe, because throngs of angry users will raise a stink.

Well, I wouldn't say that. For example, P2P was throttled because of its bandwidth consumption... and was rescued by the "user community", even though there was no large corporate interest behind it. But your point is taken: this could represent a huge barrier-to-entry for startups.

Folks, there is a simple solution to all this: pressure the government to classify ISPs as Title II Common Carriers, as they should have in the very beginning. (Corporate lobbying prevented it.)

Make them common carriers, and a huge set of problems essentially goes away overnight. Net Neutrality is built-in. Snooping (including government and corporate snooping) is prohibited. Etc. It may not be perfect, but it's just a vastly better world, all around.

Assasination politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205279)

Kill those who trespass against the free flow of information.

Fuck Beta (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205289)

10 minus 1 until logoff for one week.

Re:Fuck Beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205607)

Who the fuck modded this down?

Re:Fuck Beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205967)

so, 9?

Fucks everyone else on AWS too (5, Insightful)

hsmith (818216) | about 6 months ago | (#46205315)

Even bigger issue is, if you are hosting your infrastructure on AWS, your customers will get slower service.

In the end, I am unsure how the FCC lets this occur. I pay GOOD money to my shitbag carrier to get access to my content. If I pay for 50MBPS download, I don't give a fuck what content it is, I want 50MBPS.

Re:Fucks everyone else on AWS too (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about 6 months ago | (#46205347)

If I pay for 50MBPS download, I don't give a fuck what content it is, I want 50MBPS.

Your "shitbag carrier" only controls their own network. The internet is a collection of networks. The "shitbag carriers" ability to influence your speeds ends at their network edge.

Re:Fucks everyone else on AWS too (2)

Bengie (1121981) | about 6 months ago | (#46205515)

And your ISP's shit-bag provider should be providing full speed on their network also, and so and and so forth. While a single server with a 1gb connection can only handle at most 10x connections at 100mb/s, but as long as that connection is not at full utilization, you should get it.

Nutshell. While your ISP can't control anything beyond their edge, your ISP or any of its links should NEVER be the reason, and your ISP should make sure the same is also true for anyone they link with. The core network should never be a limitation and only the end-points should be.

Wrong Design (1)

Etherwalk (681268) | about 6 months ago | (#46206645)

Nutshell. While your ISP can't control anything beyond their edge, your ISP or any of its links should NEVER be the reason, and your ISP should make sure the same is also true for anyone they link with. The core network should never be a limitation and only the end-points should be.

This would be a really bad way to design a network--it would result in building for tremendous overcapacity. Realistically, it is exceptionally rare that a customer will use his entire pipe for the entire month. Designing for that would be like designing a house with the assumption that one sumo wrestler will be living on each square foot of flooring.

Providers should be able to rely on certain historically tested assumptions when they size their pipes--like what is peak load for a suburban community with x-thousand-users?

Put another way, everyone in NYC does not use 12 MBps at the same time. In fact, if they do, the RIGHT response is to not let it all through--because it means there's a *massive* DDOS going on.

Re:Wrong Design (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about 6 months ago | (#46206831)

This would be a really bad way to design a network--it would result in building for tremendous overcapacity.

Most of the Internet is built this way already. The Internet backbone is mostly idle and under-utilized. About 80% of the fiber that was installed for the backbone has gone unused as technology keeps pushing data transfers faster and faster.

Re:Fucks everyone else on AWS too (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about 6 months ago | (#46206783)

You're arguing in favor of a 1 to 1 contention ratio. You can get such a connection today if you'd like it, you'll just have to pay a lot more for it.

Re:Fucks everyone else on AWS too (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about 6 months ago | (#46206885)

You're arguing in favor of a 1 to 1 contention ratio. You can get such a connection today if you'd like it, you'll just have to pay a lot more for it.

I already have that and I pay $100 for 50/50. I get those speeds to every IX in the USA and Europe at all times of the day. I get less than 1ms std-dev of jitter from Chicago to LA during 8p-11p, ditto to Dallas and NYC, and about 3ms of jitter to almost all of Europe(London, Paris, Munich IXs) along with my 50/50. It's quite normal for me to be seeding 30mb/s to a single IP in the faster cities in Europe, that have 100mb/s connections as standard. I average 10GB-15GB/hour seeding during peak hours, and I can still play video games with sub 10ms pings and I don't even use QOS or traffic shaping.

I can even stream 4k YouTube from Europe Datacenters without buffering.

What does my trace route looks like? My ISP, Level 3, Level 3, Level 3, Level 3, Level 3, IX, Destination.

I am unsure how the FCC lets this occur. (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 6 months ago | (#46205411)

They are letting far too many things happen, they are either asleep at the wheel, or have been paid off. Either way, us consumers are the ones that are going to lose in the long run. The ones they are supposed to be protecting.

Wait. what? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205831)

The FCC wrote the Net Neutrality rules in the first place. It was the federal courts that struck them down, declaring the FCC doesn't have the authority to enforce net neutrality.

We're blaming the FCC now for...reasons? I realize "fuck beta" and all, but at least target your hate on a reasonable target. The FCC charged up this hill for us, and got shot down in flames.

What exactly do you expect they could be doing differently that would help?

Re:Wait. what? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46206623)

The FCC made the decision on how to classify internet service providers which lead to this being an option. When they tried to take back just part of their decision the courts said it they didn't have the authority due to how they classified ISPs. They still have the option of going back and reclassifying ISPs to give themselves the authority to enforce neutrality.

So yes we are blaming the FCC because they made the mess and thus far has refused to do what they have to (and the courts say need to and are legally able to) do to fix the problem for good.

Re:Wait. what? (5, Informative)

AnontheDestroyer (3500983) | about 6 months ago | (#46206667)

The court said the FCC DOES have the authority to enforce network neutrality, just not under its (the FCC's) current classification of ISPs. That is, the FCC has ISPs classified as "information services," rather than "common carriers." The court ruling says the FCC does have the power to enforce net neutrality against "common carriers," but does not against "information services." The court, but all reasonable interpretations I've see, is right. What needs to happen is ISPs need to be reclassified as "common carriers," or something very similar, but right now all of our politicians and the FCC head in particular are bought up by those same ISPs. There is a reason net neutrality did not last very long after the Citizen's United ruling.

Re:I am unsure how the FCC lets this occur. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46206969)

How did the FCC let this occur? The FCC is the poster child for regulatory capture, that's how.

Re:Fucks everyone else on AWS too (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205687)

I wish I had a provider good enough to be called shitbag. :(

Re:Fucks everyone else on AWS too (2)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 6 months ago | (#46205787)

In the end, I am unsure how the FCC lets this occur.

They tried but a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down their rules [reuters.com] .

Two judges, with partial support from a third, said the commission has the authority to regulate broadband access but had failed to show that it has a mandate to impose the anti-discrimination rules on broadband providers.

Re:Fucks everyone else on AWS too (5, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 6 months ago | (#46205905)

I don't know if it's a "bigger issue". It's certainly part of the issue.

ISPs want to charge big content providers (like AWS and Netflix) for using more bandwidth.

But everybody has seemed to keep forgetting that bandwidth is already paid for by the end-users. This is just a way for the big ISPs to double-dip. That very definitely should be prevented.

And please, nobody give me guff about how people pay for "average data rates" and how Netflix saturates the infrastructure. U.S. customers already pay among the highest rates for some of the slowest service in the Western world. All because of the ISP oligopoly. U.S. cable companies have made record profits almost every year, and haven't been re-investing those profits in infrastructure in proportion.

Make them Common Carriers under Title II, and end the insanity.

Re:Fucks everyone else on AWS too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46206751)

My fear is that they'll be made Common Carriers under Title II, but under an amended and fine print clause which states they're not subject to 'certain' broad rules. Don't think it can happen? Have you not been following politics for the last 3 decades???

Just how much backbone does the FCC and Congress have? If it's anything to like we've seen lately, not much!

Re:Fucks everyone else on AWS too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46206461)

In the end, I am unsure how the FCC lets this occur.

The courts ruled that the FCC's rules exceeded their jurisdiction. So, they "let it occur" because they don't currently have the Legal Authority to stop it.
It's important to know that this is not actually occurring, it's just people speculating and making Doom and Gloom predictions. Any Carrier blocking/throttling Netflix or Amazon is going to sign their own death warrant when their customers find out the service they PAY for is being blocked because their ISP are a bunch of fucking retards.

I pay GOOD money to my shitbag carrier to get access to my content.

No, you pay money to get access to the internet, so that you can reach whoever is actually providing the content. If your ISP had the content, you wouldn't need internet at all. For example, cable TV.

If I pay for 50MBPS download, I don't give a fuck what content it is, I want 50MBPS.

Well then you'd better go purchase a dedicated bandwidth connection, because your "buffet style all you can eat" internet is not guaranteed to give you connectivity at all, let alone for any guaranteed speed/bandwidth.

Net Neutrality (1, Funny)

nurb432 (527695) | about 6 months ago | (#46205323)

Has already been abandoned by the FCC, so better get used to it.. Its only going to get worse.

Re:Net Neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205511)

What a worthless post. Basically, all you have done is say "Is not!" to an "Is too!" statement. Completely content-free and lacking absolutely anything of value... much like the rest of your life, I suspect.

Re:Net Neutrality (2)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 6 months ago | (#46205805)

The FCC tried [reuters.com] .

Two judges, with partial support from a third, said the commission has the authority to regulate broadband access but had failed to show that it has a mandate to impose the anti-discrimination rules on broadband providers.

Re:Net Neutrality (2)

deconfliction (3458895) | about 6 months ago | (#46206031)

The FCC tried [reuters.com] .

Two judges, with partial support from a third, said the commission has the authority to regulate broadband access but had failed to show that it has a mandate to impose the anti-discrimination rules on broadband providers.

You forgot to mention (if I'm not mistaken) how the court practically invited the FCC simply to invoke common carrier regulation as the legally proper way to achieve it's Net Neutrality anti-discrimination rules. While the "FCC tried", the FCC also _has not tried_ to reinstate Net Neutrality via its legal authority to regulate common carriers that way (vs 'information services'). The FCC, also, after a year and a lot of press, has never given me a single sentence of analysis of my 53 page Net Neutrality complaint I filed with them, via the Kansas Attorney General's Office, over GoogleFiber's (terms of service) blocking of residential servers. (after my cause inspired some protesters in Utah, Google backed down and narrowed the blockage to 'commercial servers', whatever that means. I.e. a Quake3 server is a commercial server making money for Id Software. Somehow that is OK, but god forbid any innovator in their own home makes a profit)

Re:Net Neutrality (2)

nurb432 (527695) | about 6 months ago | (#46206165)

Right, the court told them how to do it in no uncertain terms, and they effectively looked the other way.

So it sort of proves our point.

Re:Net Neutrality (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 6 months ago | (#46206439)

Congress said don't do that [broadcastingcable.com] .

Re:Net Neutrality (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 6 months ago | (#46206323)

The classification is the main issue [arstechnica.com] :

In the court case, the FCC said its rules aren't common carrier regulations because "Verizon is free to offer or decline to sell broadband Internet access service to any end user. Verizon need not hold itself out to offer service indifferently to anyone.

Re-classifying them as common carrier would open up a whole different can of worms. The FCC is waiting for Congress to change the rules [broadcastingcable.com] .

Somehow that is OK, but god forbid any innovator in their own home makes a profit

They are only prohibiting commercial use of consumer grade contracts. There is no prohibition for the innovator getting a business line contract and making money at home.

Re:Net Neutrality (1)

deconfliction (3458895) | about 6 months ago | (#46206549)

They are only prohibiting commercial use of consumer grade contracts. There is no prohibition for the innovator getting a business line contract and making money at home.

"commercial use of..." huh?? Are people who sell knick knacks on Ebay engaging in "commercial use of consumer grade contracts"? (yes, they are). Are people who agree to view advertisements on gmail in exchange for 'free' use of a service that costs money to run engaging in "commercial use of consumer grade contracts" (yes, they are). Network Neutrality was intented to prevent giving ISPs arbitrary power over such things. Without it, ISPs can charge consumers extra to visit, e.g. Netflix, or FoxNews, or PlannedParenthood. ISPs *should not have* that arbitrary ability to discriminate amongst traffic. It should be none of their business whether or not the primary profiteer of my used bandwidth is Microsoft via Skype, or myself personally.

Faster to AWS than Linode (5, Informative)

Enry (630) | about 6 months ago | (#46205337)

I'm on FIOS with their 50 down/25 up plan. Linode in Newark is 48Mbps, AWS East is 60Mbps. Just saying that a particular path is slow doesn't mean that it's Verizon interfering - it's more likely something else that's causing the problem.

Re:Faster to AWS than Linode (5, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | about 6 months ago | (#46205401)

Just saying that a particular path is slow doesn't mean that it's Verizon interfering - it's more likely something else that's causing the problem.

Dude, you're forgetting the talking points of the modern internet crowd. Any and all unexplained slowdown is the result of ill intention by ones ISP. The fact that the network is a broad collection of networks that your ISP has no control over is irrelevant. Congestion at a peering site two networks removed from your ISP? That's Verizon's fault! Google doesn't give Youtube the money to upgrade their infrastructure? Verizon's fault!

Re: Faster to AWS than Linode (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205541)

Well and who's fault is that?
It is the ISPs which HAS been doing throttling and bandwidth shaping.
It is not like it comes out of the blue.

Re:Faster to AWS than Linode (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 6 months ago | (#46206545)

You're out of date. it's not the ISP.
The slowdown is caused by NSA packet inspection.

Re:Faster to AWS than Linode (1)

swillden (191260) | about 6 months ago | (#46206765)

Google doesn't give Youtube the money to upgrade their infrastructure? Verizon's fault!

If YouTube is slow for you, it's not because it's slow at Google's end. This is why Google is starting to rate carriers by video performance, because they're tired of being blamed for what carriers are doing (or not doing). The rating project is so far only rolled out in Canada: http://business.financialpost.... [financialpost.com]

Re:Faster to AWS than Linode (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205737)

I got similar results and I watched Netflix last night and had 1080p for most of the movie with a few hiccups here and there. Sometimes it's worse if I'm trying to watch during peak hours, but for the most part I don't have many issues.

Please learn about IXP (1)

macpacheco (1764378) | about 6 months ago | (#46205769)

Internet Exchange Points.
If you are a customer of a large nationwide ISP accessing a large content provider present in the same country, you aren't going to have to go through any 3rd parties, as your ISP will exchange traffic at the closest IXP (directly). There around 50 IXPs in the USA alone. Many Hundreds worldwide.
So the theory that the problem is elsewhere doesn't sound very credible.
If they have trouble connecting to the closest IXP, in all likelyhood you'll see a broad slowdown.
I know a thing or two about this. I'm an expert on this stuff.
In all likelyhood, it is Verizon throttling AWS so they can charge a premium to keep their traffic unthrottled.
To be pessimistic 80% of US ISP bandwidth is the result of direct peering between two ISPs or and ISP and the data center where content is hosted (or mirrored). The fiber cable where data passes might be leased (extremely likely), worst case having a large L2 ethernet switch from the IXP between the two side's border routers.

Re:Please learn about IXP (1)

Enry (630) | about 6 months ago | (#46205921)

Please learn about traceroute.

I don't have specific sites to go to (the site linked doesn't tell you what they're connecting to to test) but I have to go on the assumption that both AWS and Linode are eating their own dogfood. Going to Linode takes me through Level3 whereas going to Amazon takes me through Qwest. As soon as I've gone two hops (my local router, the other end of my FIOS link) I'm on divergent paths. By hop #5 (out of ~18 hops) I'm off the Verizon network.

But you're the expert.

Re:Please learn about IXP (1)

macpacheco (1764378) | about 6 months ago | (#46206325)

Verizon uses Level 3 or Qwest to get to AWS ?
Insane. Get off Verizon. Don't go back, ever. I know, impossible. Sorry.
I'm from Brazil. I thought Verizon was a nationwide carrier, are they ? Only small/medium ISPs do that.
The possibility is AWS isn't large enough to have carrier status. So Verizon don't want to peer (they want AWS to buy bandwidth) but they might have peering agreements with L3 and/or Qwest. And L3 and Qwest certainly have peering status with Verizon. So they follow the cheapest route.
But a carrier as large as Verizon should have tens of Gbps of bandwidth to exchange with AWS (considering just netflix being hosted at AWS). More than enough to peer.

Anyhow, this just shows that Verizon is punishing their customers by not doing direct peering. That part I can say without further information. They are bartering their customer bandwidth demand for ransom with AWS / Netflix. There might not be explicit throttling, they just throw that bandwidth through an already congested link.

I'm sure Netflix would be willing to pay fair backbone costs. But Verizon wants to profit from it instead. This has been extremely well documented between Netflix and Comcast. Netflix offered to peer at Comcast regional centers. But Comcast considers Netflix revenues made using Comcast customers to be something they are entitled to profit from as well (directly from Netflix).

Re:Please learn about IXP (1)

macpacheco (1764378) | about 6 months ago | (#46206417)

In Brazil the three largest national backbone carriers reject peering from anyone but the 10 largest other backbone carriers (not an exact number, but a list of rules that reject all but the pretty big ones). Foreign backbones also reject peering, but that makes a little more sense (I'll peer with you in Miami, but not in Brazil, otherwise I'm giving you a free link to my customers abroad, in Brazil I sell links).

Their strategy is if they reject peering (as a cartel), chances are fifty/fifty the other side will have to buy a link from one of them. But in practice the other large carriers that do peer openly end up getting that business.

We have a huge IXP in Sao Paulo (the largest metroplex in the country). Most medium ISPs and almost all content providers are present at the Sao Paulo IXP and peer. Its not really a single IXP, but rather 10 points of presence connected directly by 10 or 100 Gbps links. Connect to one POP and you're connected to everybody.

Maybe the USA is regressing to a cartel of the largest boys peer, but anyone a bit smaller is left out. Troubling.

Re:Please learn about IXP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46206517)

Please learn about traceroute.

Different expert here. Traceroute shows you only the routers which are set to respond. You won't see layer 1 equipment, switches, or a large variety of other network appliances. Traces CAN give you some good information, but there is often MUCH more to the story than a trace will ever tell you.

As for how your traffic gets wherever it's going, that depends on how your ISP peers, and how the owner of the IP's peer, and how they announce their BGP routes.

Also, I see a lot of people talking about Direct Peering. Yes, that helps. BUT direct peering actually violates Net Neutrality because that is technically giving preference to a specific provider, since traffic to/from them does not go through the outside internet, but DOES still use the "internet" marked circuits internal to the Carrier's network.

So the test (1)

CTU (1844100) | about 6 months ago | (#46205345)

I got comcrap(comcast) and I guess I am not being throttled? AWS East test gave me the speeds I was signed up for tho Linode, Atlanta, GA shown a higher speed (like 20MB higher) So guessing ether AWS was just bogged down or something cause it be silly to think it is working in reverse :P

Re:So the test (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205367)

> I got comcrap(comcast)

Dear Witless Wonder,

If you have to explain the joke or allusion, don't tell it.

HTH

Re:So the test (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205459)

How can someone devise a test for the "throttling" of currency (including bitcoins) and commodities to and from THE WEST BANK AND GAZA?

  Factors include a complicit Mubarak Govt, complicit Morsi Govt, and a Complicit SiSi Govt, all of which received technical and material support from the usa and israeli military.

Flip the (byte) coin, and it becomes clear that your phones, gprs, wifi, facebooger, and iphone sensors are effectively sensors for the isreeli military apparatus.

Hey YANX, ever hurt of "don`t tread on me?"

AKAMAI, AMDOCS, PrimeSense, ONAVO, those packets are on FULL THROTTLE!

Comcast still net neutral (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205469)

As part of the agreement made for Comcast to purchase NBC, they have to follow the FCC's net neutrality rules for 7 years regardless of what may come from court cases.

Re:Comcast still net neutral (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46206971)

As part of the agreement made for Comcast to purchase NBC, they have to follow the FCC's net neutrality rules for 7 years regardless of what may come from court cases.

If Net Neutrality was struck down, how can the FCC enforce something that is illegal in the view of the courts?

You can write anything you want into a contract, and good for you if you can get someone to sign it, but if the contract has provisions that violate current law, which do you think wins in court? I hope the standing law at the time wins in court and not the contract.

FYI - I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

Re:So the test (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about 6 months ago | (#46205731)

I got a 50mb connection and got 48mb-50mb to all of those servers. I also did "speedtest.net" and got 38mb-45mb to London, Paris, and Germany. Your ISP may want some better routes.

Re:So the test (1)

CTU (1844100) | about 6 months ago | (#46206709)

Maybe, but only paying for a 25MB connection and so getting more then I am paying for is a good thing

Lawyers are the best hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205355)

Most likely the lawyers will ban someone from using such tools.

Telus hates Netflix (1)

Buck Feta (3531099) | about 6 months ago | (#46205387)

Here in Canada, Telus is one of the Big 3 service providers. I toured their central office, and their chief network technician showed me the new transmission infrastructure they were planning "because of Netflix". The increased traffic because of Netflix alone is costing the ISPs money, no doubt about it. It will end up costing us, as consumers. No reason to throttle if they're investing in bandwidth instead, just raise the cost.

Re:Telus hates Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205517)

In marxist manitoba,
You goys still have to smoke outside the bar in sub-zero temperature?

Incredible to thing the ails of your southern neighbor are effecting the everyday life of Canucks everywhere.
Surely theres a law preventing extreme and counterproductive (read "backward") policies from infesting the good Canadian company and govt policies??
It seems not only has the aipac-lobby corrupted the usa through-and-through, but it`s (the aipac-lobby`s) vile and sinister totalitarian agenda seems to be permeating through the walls of Parliament! Must be stopped.......

=) Cold Cracker

Re: Telus hates Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205573)

Cost them money? Or cost you money paying top price for shit tier? They skipped along fine banking billions. Time to spend that.money you stole and improved your own infrastructure

Bittorrent cost them more than Netflix (1)

macpacheco (1764378) | about 6 months ago | (#46205829)

The reality is today's routers and fiber networks are one thousand times faster than 1995 at the same cost (from 155Mbps to 100Gbps). And price is dropping constantly.
They can save more money by dropping Cisco/Juniper and going open source than trying to throttle anything.
Trying to throttle 100Gbps backbone links is like trying to drink from a firehose. They should only throttle bandwidth they pay per Gbps (international links).

Re:Telus hates Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205853)

Of course their preferred business model is raise costs and NOT invest in bandwidth. Without network neutrality they will do just that. Remember, they will increase costs no matter what as Wall Street is expecting a minimum of 10% profit growth per year.

Re:Telus hates Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205919)

They oversold, not predicting that people might eventually actually start using those stupid big pipes. Then they started to. And still the ISPs sat on their asses until it started to get close to tipping.

Reasons to hope Dice won't win the war (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205389)

Fuck Beta. We must unite and boycott this site next week.

I'm with you buddy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205425)

Goodbye Slashdot. I'll remember you as you were, and not what you've become.

Re: I'm with you buddy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205499)

Were all going to boycott Slashdot, together as one. Time to unite. Fuck Beta.

Re: I'm with you buddy (1)

zippthorne (748122) | about 6 months ago | (#46205639)

Boycott? Really? Is that really necessary? Isn't it enough to point out the flaws, and, if the new site becomes inevitable and is no good, just leave then?

Re: I'm with you buddy (1)

ZenMatrix (1299517) | about 6 months ago | (#46205875)

Thank you.... you don't have to use the beta, leave constructive criticism and if they don't listen leave. So sick of the beta comments.

Re: I'm with you buddy (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 6 months ago | (#46205927)

Maybe it is necessary. I don't want Slashdot to die, but unless the beta site undergoes radical changes that is what will happen. I'd rather the decision to scrap it or do a major re-write to make it more similar to the classic site was committed to before taking the pressure off and risking having the site die when one day without warning classic is gone.

Reason To Hope Dice Won't Win the War On Beta (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205391)

Absolutely none whatsoever!

What time does the slashcott start, is it 12:00 AM GMT or some other time zone?

Not evidence (2)

Rick Zeman (15628) | about 6 months ago | (#46205479)

You can't make a trend from one data point, nor are all routes created equally.

I do believed that Verizon would do something sleazy like this, but this certainly isn't proof of that.

Re:Not evidence (1)

The Good Reverend (84440) | about 6 months ago | (#46205659)

Exactly. The vast majority of internet users (even those that can network their own houses and fix their friend's computers) don't know what a "hop" is or that there are usually a dozen+ computers between them and their internet destination. And if any of these links is slow, for whatever reason, there's going to a general slowdown. That makes it very difficult to determine if you're being throttled, if you're the victim of bad DNS routing, or if there's some random problem that you can't solve from your end.

Re:Not evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46206371)

What's DNS routing? Do you mean DNS caching, or DNS proxies? Or do you mean "...if you're the victim of bad DNS or bad routing..."?

Re:Not evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46206079)

You can't make a trend from one data point, nor are all routes created equally.

I do believed that Verizon would do something sleazy like this, but this certainly isn't proof of that.

Agreed. It's like saying, "Let's increase road taxes sky high because my commute home this afternoon took 15 minutes longer than usual."

In the David Raphael blog post he made a comment that he seemed to avoid analyzing.He noticed that some hours of the day his speed was good and some hours of the day his speed was slow. he failed to make "the short leap in logic" to realize that even the Internet has a "rush hour".

If anyone truly understood ISP peering, links & billing between them, and the concept of "Internet rush hour", they would realize that adding bandwidth just to handle peak loads is too costly. I would take the bet that most if not all major ISPs have detailed graphs (maybe even every 5 minutes data points) that show their upstream and downstream traffic loads "by link", "by carrier", "by protocol", "by destination", etc. Those ISPs can easily "slice and dice" that data to learn where the real loads are coming from and when they occur.

What I can't stand is Netflix not paying the cost of the bandwidth they use. For $8 USD per month (or whatever it is nowadays), they get the end user "hooked"...like a drug addict. End users figure for $8 USD they can stream whatever and whenever they like; a reasonable asusmption and not unlike the days of "unlimited Internet".

What part of $8 USD is contributed to disverse bandwdith on Netflix part? If Netflix were so whiny about it's users getting throttled, why don't they ask Verizon and all the other ISPs which "Tier 1" ("Internet transit carrier...and the last I heard Netflix primarily uses Cogent...and Cogent ranted about ISPs throttling Netflix...Google it!) is best to peer witht hat ISP? Why does Netflix take the "me me" attitude like a spoiled "tweener" kid? Why should Netflix care so long as they get their $8 USD (or whatever) every month from each subscriber?

I don't think Netflix cares about it's subscribers. Really. If Netflix really cared about it's subscribers Netflix would work with ISPs to add bandwidth and Tier 1 carriers and peering points. Oh, and Netflix should "return to reality" and admit the Internet has a "rush hour"...many due to Netflix's addictive product.

I think Netflix should be regulated, just like other "addictive products" such as drugs, alcohol, and tobacco.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
As for /. Beta. No thanks. Ugly UI. Wasted space. Way too radical a change. And Timothy down-modding everyone that complains only proves his/her job performance/review/bonus must be tied to /. Beta success. So F-beta and Cott-Slash.

Slashcott starting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205509)

Remember: Slashcott 10 - 17 February.

During that period, no "fuck beta" comments anymore, just stay away from the site completely.

Low Standards (4, Funny)

tom229 (1640685) | about 6 months ago | (#46205665)

How do these articles with multiple spelling mistakes and typos keep making the front page?

Re:Low Standards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205777)

Because Beta.

captcha: recall

Re:Low Standards (1)

Arker (91948) | about 6 months ago | (#46206041)

The submitter typically dashes it off in a hurry, afraid someone else will get it in first. He figures the 'editors' can fix an odd typo or whatnot before posting. He has not been here very long, or he would realize they never do. They just pick one of the two dozen nearly identical submissions at random and post it, maybe with a snide editorial comment added, but they never proofread anything.

Re:Low Standards (1)

Rick Zeman (15628) | about 6 months ago | (#46206237)

The submitter typically dashes it off in a hurry, afraid someone else will get it in first. He figures the 'editors' can fix an odd typo or whatnot before posting. He has not been here very long, or he would realize they never do. They just pick one of the two dozen nearly identical submissions at random and post it, maybe with a snide editorial comment added, but they never proofread anything.

Generalizations usually fall down. I've had submissions reorganized before, and in one case had an additional clarifying link added. Just because something's mostly true doesn't make it always true ("never").

Buck Feta (0)

turkeydance (1266624) | about 6 months ago | (#46205681)

isn't he a Star Wars bounty hunter? or something like that. even she said: Fuck Beta.

Who gives a crap about monitoring tools? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46205723)

The whole point is that this throttling is LEGAL. They can do it if they want, and (especially if you have a limited choice in providers), you're stuck with it. You want your NetFlix? Pay up. You want to switch providers? Good luck - it's still Comcast's (or Verizon's or AT&T's or...) network. They can just charge resellers to unthrottle. Who are you going to complain to?

It's like when someone comes up with a piece of crap Beta site to replace something you've always loved having. You can complain all day long, but they don't have to listen. They're within their rights to shove it down your throat. Don't like it? Tough sh*t.

Not a large enough sample size (1)

killhour (3468583) | about 6 months ago | (#46205985)

I also have Fios, and I actually get faster download speeds from AWS east than I pay for (75/35). I'm getting 85.83mpbs according to netneutralitytest.com. Now I'm not saying that Verizon isn't doing this for anybody, but they certainly aren't for me.

Re:Not a large enough sample size (1)

TuballoyThunder (534063) | about 6 months ago | (#46206483)

Same here. I'm on FIOS and I'm getting about 70 MBPS to AWS East.

This is getting old (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46206033)

As a network engineer at a rural ISP I can tell you it isn't as easy as you think. Websites that try to tell you your speed to see if your provider is throttling you in some way are flat out wrong the majority of the time. You'd be surprised as to how many emails/calls we receive from customers who constantly do speed tests that show mixed results and constantly challenge us on it, claiming they aren't getting their full speed. They go use sites like Speakeasy or some of the other popular ones, do a test to Chicago and get only 2mbps, then get 8mbps from Atlanta, then 6.5mbps from San Francisco then the next day the results are completely different and it's our fault somehow even though they have their full speed to our network edge and have available bandwidth. Sometimes they call up and say they aren't getting their full speed and it's because we're slowing them down or scamming them only to enable monitoring on their equipment and see that they have a computer doing Windows updates in the background and some other device is connected doing some downloading as well. We try to educate them as to what is going on and be helpful, try to have them turn off the offending device or process and try again. Do they listen? Nope. We're evil because the Internet said we were. Everyone is out to get them. Complaints come in from customers who pay for 3mbps but get 2.9mbps on speed test and we need to fix it now!! As far as getting what you're paying for, that's never completely possible even when paying for a dedicated connection. It's a very large gray area with too many variables. Most connections are "up to" X speed. Yes, you pay for 50mbps down, but does the site you're transferring from and every node along the way have 50mbps available upload speed in your direction so you can achieve that? Is there sufficient upload latency and enough available upload speed to make sure the TCP ACKs are being received in a timely manner so that the window size can be increased and download speed can be boosted? There are too many variables to consider and end users just aren't willing to listen because it's so easy for them to just claim we're lying to them. They prefer this conclusion for some reason. At our ISP, we do not throttle any protocol or service, nor do we treat any website differently and that includes our direct competitors. As far as oversubscribing goes, unless you're in an area where bandwidth is absolutely dirt cheap it's impossible not to. Hint: We pay over $5,000 per month for a 100mb/100mb connection because we're in BFE. Do you think that we can compete cost wise with the cable company and phone company who are giving away bandwidth for next to nothing without oversubscribing? Give me a break. Personally, I don't mind the arguments that all traffic should be treated equally, because it should be, but these "click here to see if your provider is throttling you" websites have to stop because they're just too inaccurate and told tell the whole story. The calls always end up on my desk when there isn't a problem in the first place because a website they saw convinced them something is black and white when it just isn't. Stop. Stop. Stop. Thank you.

- ISP Guy

Re:This is getting old (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46206939)

Amen brother.....

Better way to spend money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46206045)

Rather than pay a per-customer fee/bribe to Verizon spend the money on an ad campaign: "How fast is Verizon (r) "15 Mbps" Internet?" "We tested actual download speeds for 12 Verzon customers in [your area]; here are the results.

When Verizon sues you over the ad campaign start your counter-suit for $3x

Won't work... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46206199)

To me it looks like comcast is already giving prefrential treatment to the speed test sites.

I can get some amazing results from most of the speed tests out there.

And my real world actual results hardly ever come anywhere close to those results.

In practice i get about half the speed that i'm paying for. And the speed tests say i'm getting.

The system is already being gamed to make comcast look better than it really is.

-oh yeah. fuck beta too. 10th to the 17. slashdot dies. zero traffic.

Small sample/Bad methodology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46206207)

http://www.internetphenomena.com/2014/02/evaluating-netneutralitytest-com/

Public Exposure (1)

ExecutorElassus (1202245) | about 6 months ago | (#46206209)

Right. Because citizen activists publicizing how big powerful entities do horrible things when the government is too chickenshit to stop them really worked wonders in the case of the NSA's mass-surveillance program. Not to mention extraordinary renditions, offshore torture, firing DAs for not investigating bullshit "voter fraud," lying to Congress, lying to the UN, to the American public, etc etc.

fios outperforming expectations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46206253)

I have the 15 down 5 up fios package (standard) for about 5 or so years now, and for some reason i get >20 down and ~5 up for all of the servers on the website.
Some (eg the ones closest to me) get almost 25 down.
Heck, even the linode one all the way on the other side of the country got 25 down.
So far fios has gone well beyond my expectations.

Comcast not throttling? (1)

Zephiris (788562) | about 6 months ago | (#46206821)

Someone else mentioned that Comcast has to follow net neutrality rules for a few years regardless of court rulings. It's getting full speed to AWS during Primetime for me (single data point, but people keep saying it's an issue during prime time).

There's been much discussion lately about how to prove whether Comcast is throttling Netflix, or if Netflix is simply vastly over capacity and throttling everyone.
Netflix using and depending on AWS is quite the opposite of their claims lately (toward the end of 2013), that they have a separate distributed network and offer to put netflix servers on-premesis with ISPs (as long as the ISP drops peering charges).

Given that Amazon has enough bandwidth to cover them, and given that Amazon isn't being throttled (at least by Comcast), then it appears pretty definitive that Netflix simply isn't increasing its AWS scaling as demand increases, despite posting record profits. Shock of shock, Netflix likes extra money rather than ensuring reasonable service for all of its paying customers.

Even if Verizon is throttling it any, Netflix is probably throttling it considerably harder based on recent reports and local tests.

Also, if the submitter is paying for FiOS and only getting 12mbit max... A( I'd better hope that's on the 15/5 plan, B( dear god, why is that as expensive as Comcast Blast! and only 15/5? Comcast is in the process of making the same tier 105/12 (currently 50/10). (I got 60mbit on all of the 'net neutrality' tests linked.)

Really? This again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46206909)

In case you missed it the first time (and the submitter obviously did), there is little objective evidence to support Verizon or other carriers are intentionally throttling AWS, Netflix, or any other content provider. What is happening is that the Internet service providers and the Internet content providers are in a showdown, waiting to see who will blink first and absorb the costs of more bandwidth (power, pipe, and ping) required for high-quality streaming video. The result may seem like the "action" of throttling, but it really is the "inaction" of both the service providers not increasing bandwidth and content providers not paying for more bandwidth.

This dispute will probably get resolved within the next six months once enough people complain and/or discontinue service(s). But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of planting FUD on the front page, okay?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...