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!

Netflix Trash-Talks Verizon's Network; Verizon Threatens To Sue

samzenpus posted about 5 months ago | from the paying-the-price dept.

The Courts 364

jfruh (300774) writes "If you're a Verizon broadband customer and you've tried streaming Netflix over the past few days, you might've seen a message telling you that the "Verizon network is crowded" and that your stream is being modified as a result. Verizon isn't taking this lying down, saying that there's no proof Verizon is responsible for Netflix's issues, and is threatening to sue over the warnings."

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

We are being bred for slavery (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195155)

They are dismantling the sleeping middle class. More and more people are becoming poor. We are their cattle. We are being bred for slavery.

They are dismantling the sleeping middle class. More and more people are becoming poor. We are their cattle. We are being bred for slavery.

They are dismantling the sleeping middle class. More and more people are becoming poor. We are their cattle. We are being bred for slavery.

Re:We are being bred for slavery (-1, Offtopic)

i kan reed (749298) | about 5 months ago | (#47195181)

True or false, that has very little to do with debate between two companies, one of whom has only the role of delivering passive entertainment.

If we're losing a middle class, there's probably more blame to be laid on our own watching of netflix marathons than this particular dispute over net neutrality. That isn't to say the dispute isn't important, but this is not where revolutionaries need to be laying their cards.

Re: We are being bred for slavery (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195299)

This has everything to do with these corporations. These corporations (and the government) are the one's enslaving us

Re:We are being bred for slavery (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195247)

I am here to chew bubblegum and kick ass.

And I can't afford bubblegum.

Re:We are being bred for slavery (3, Interesting)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 5 months ago | (#47195411)

Wrong.
Just a sample of median income over time,, race, etc (in 2004 dollars) (source [wikipedia.org] ):

1950 -- White men: $18000; White women: $ 7000; Black men: $ 9775; Black women: $ 3150
1980 -- White men: $28939; White women: $10741; Black men: $17390; Black women: $ 9944
2004 -- White men: $31335; White women: $17648; Black men: $22740; Black women: $18379

Not only has (inflation adjusted) median-- not mean! -- income risen, it looks to my casual eye like the disparity has massively dropped. It went from a 3:1 ratio for black men to women to 1.25:1; between blacks and whites it went from ~2:1 to ~1.5:1.

If you were to look at education over the past 100 years you would see the same trend. Im not sure where people are getting these "facts" about the dismantled middle class but theyre terribly wrong. All of this talk about class warfare can only be made by one completely oblivious to reality and history.

Re:We are being bred for slavery (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195489)

2004-2014 ?
A lot has happened in the last decade....

Re: We are being bred for slavery (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195655)

tahts great and all, but you ned to look at the class divisions not the mean income accross the board. you need to look at where the cutoff bwtween middle class and upperclass are taking place and how that shift has widened. yes the Middleclass has moved up but not near as fast as the upperclass.

Re: We are being bred for slavery (1, Informative)

VTBlue (600055) | about 5 months ago | (#47195663)

The flaw in your reason is is that inflation adjusted median income growth is a poor measure for purchasing power. You have adjust the median income growth with the expenditures side to get Purchasing Power Parity. Today, middle income people are feel poorer and are poorer than their 1950s 60s counterpart.

Re:We are being bred for slavery (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195669)

All of this talk about class warfare can only be made by one completely oblivious to reality and history.

The only part of your entire post that was worth anything.

Re:We are being bred for slavery (0)

Bengie (1121981) | about 5 months ago | (#47195749)

Im not sure where people are getting these "facts" about the dismantled middle class but theyre terribly wrong

$18k was middle class black in 1950, but once you adjust for inflation, that means in 2004, they should be making about $54k assuming a low 2% inflation, but they're only making $31k. So the median white man when from middle class in 1950 to "lower class" in 2004. The other demographics have gone up, and that's great, but we have fewer middle class.

Re:We are being bred for slavery (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195807)

You missed the "in 2004 dollars" part of the GPs post. In 1950s dollars, median income was below $5000.

Now, with income disparity increasing the middle class may well feel like they're worse off, but they really aren't. They are, however, relatively further behind the wealthiest.

Re:We are being bred for slavery (3, Informative)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 5 months ago | (#47195817)

$18k was middle class black in 1950, but once you adjust for inflation, that means in 2004, they should be making about $54k assuming a low 2% inflation,

Is your bias so thick that you didnt even bother to see if the number was already inflation adjusted? ..or are you so uneducated that you think $18K was a middle class income in the 1950's? Which is it? Disingenuous bias or tragic ignorance?

The unadjusted figure for white males for the 1950's is $2,709

..but here you are, claiming that it was $18K before adjusting for inflation... disingenuous? ignorance? both?

There is a reason that "the right" is doing better financially, and its not because they are holding you down. You are holding yourself down by not giving a fuck about things like facts.

Price Wars (5, Insightful)

imunfair (877689) | about 5 months ago | (#47195165)

Since Netflix already paid off Comcast I'd wager they're willing to do the same for Verizon. However, Verizon is probably trying to bleed them for more than they're willing to pay. In other words, this is just their way of negotiating the contract down to a "reasonable" amount. (as if they should even have to make payoffs to the cable companies in the first place)

Re:Price Wars (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195227)

Comcast > Verizon, they could leverage this to avoid paying anything because if it doesn't work ONLY for Verizon that looks bad.

Re:Price Wars (5, Insightful)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about 5 months ago | (#47195441)

This is why you don't negotiate with terrorists.

Re:Price Wars (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195477)

Not really terrorism...more like blackmail. Still shouldn't pay them though.

Re:Price Wars (5, Informative)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about 5 months ago | (#47195443)

They already HAS [time.com] paid Verizon for better service...and Verizon STILL isn't providing it...

Redbox Instant (5, Interesting)

corychristison (951993) | about 5 months ago | (#47195177)

Considering Verizon owns(?) Redbox Instant, why wouldn't they throttle Netflix?

Re:Redbox Instant (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195217)

Who actually uses Redbox Instant? Sorta kinda seriously asking.

Re:Redbox Instant (4, Funny)

jetkust (596906) | about 5 months ago | (#47195245)

They are expecting their first customer sometime in 2020.

Re:Redbox Instant (5, Informative)

JMJimmy (2036122) | about 5 months ago | (#47195683)

Netflix has already issued a clarification. http://www.dslreports.com/show... [dslreports.com]

Re:Redbox Instant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195263)

I'm both a Verizon and Netflix customer and I've never even heard of Redbox Instant.

Re:Redbox Instant (1)

rwv (1636355) | about 5 months ago | (#47195389)

As a policy Netflix doesn't promote or advertize Redbox Instant.

Re:Redbox Instant (4, Informative)

Wycliffe (116160) | about 5 months ago | (#47195439)

Who actually uses Redbox Instant? Sorta kinda seriously asking.

It's a pretty good deal for someone who mostly uses redbox and occasionally wants to stream.
It's $8 a month and gives you 4 rentals so comes out to $2-$3 per month for the streaming portion.
It's a way for redbox to lock in some customers and a way for verizon to test out it's own streaming service.

Re:Redbox Instant (2)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about 5 months ago | (#47195271)

Heh. I never heard of Redbox Instant before now. Big marketing failure there, chaps.

Re:Redbox Instant (2)

Wycliffe (116160) | about 5 months ago | (#47195451)

Heh. I never heard of Redbox Instant before now. Big marketing failure there, chaps.

It's only marketed to people who use redbox because that's it's only real value. It gives you 4 free rentals
per month plus streaming. If you rent from redbox you can't miss it.

Re:Redbox Instant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195767)

More like you prepay for 4 overnight rentals and get a crappy streaming service for a small fee.

Re:Redbox Instant (3, Insightful)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | about 5 months ago | (#47195361)

Because that would be abuse of monopoly, and they take that stuff seriously!

The current situation is unacceptable, and it makes me want to dump both Verizon and Netflix. There are alternatives for both.

Re:Redbox Instant (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195427)

Viable alternatives to Netflix or any other service routed over telecommunications? Yes. Viable alternatives to the telecommunications providers, whether they're treated as telecommunications providers or not? Very few if at all.

Re:Redbox Instant (3, Interesting)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about 5 months ago | (#47195455)

Verizon is playing favorites, Netflix is simply calling them out on it...how exactly is this a 'bad' attribute of Netflix? Hell Netflix has already paid Verizon for better access, and apparently Verizon still isn't providing it.

Re:Redbox Instant (4, Informative)

JWW (79176) | about 5 months ago | (#47195757)

I refuse to criticize Netflix for standing up to the ISP extortionists.

Re:Redbox Instant (4, Insightful)

Chalnoth (1334923) | about 5 months ago | (#47195531)

They don't actually need to throttle anything. They just have to fail to build the infrastructure required to support the bandwidth needs of their customers from a Netflix source. Basically, as video streaming has increased, it's created bottlenecks in existing internet infrastructure. If they don't keep up with the new bandwidth demands, they can't deliver the content.

Video streaming providers like YouTube and Netflix have been colocating cache servers at ISP's for a while now. These cache servers are actually cheaper for everybody: they're cheaper for the ISP because they don't need to build out as much new upstream bandwidth to keep their service going. They're cheaper for the content provider because the content provider doesn't get as many hits on its datacenters. And everybody else in between has a less-congested network.

So really it's a matter of ISP's like Verizon and Comcast refusing to allow Netflix/YouTube to build cache servers at the ISP's sites, despite the clear benefits to everybody.

Re:Redbox Instant (4, Insightful)

JWW (79176) | about 5 months ago | (#47195809)

The irony here is that Version will claim no one is paying them to expand their capacity to deal with the Netflix traffic.

But then there customers should be able to ask and sue for an answer to the question: "If you don't have enough bandwidth to handle sending us data from Netflix, did you lie when you told us you were selling us X amount of bandwidth?"

Re:Redbox Instant (2)

jellomizer (103300) | about 5 months ago | (#47195539)

Well Verizon FIOS is the only price competition competition to Cable Internet Access. Netflix streaming is the "Killer App" that makes people want to upgrade to a faster connection.
Most people already have Cable based internet and Verizon wants to get people to switch to theirs.

Re: Redbox Instant (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about 5 months ago | (#47195553)

Because of the fodder it would give Comcast and AT&T.

Commercials involving slow Netflix (which that and YT are the biggest uses of bandwidth for most people) and placing blame squarely on Verizon or a Verizon lookalike is pretty persuasive when people are alreadying frustrated by their service.

Re:Redbox Instant (5, Informative)

brxndxn (461473) | about 5 months ago | (#47195771)

I have Fios and I called about Netflix and Youtube issues. The customer service rep actually told me I should use Redbox Instant instead. I ended up saving the chat log because I was so incensed. I paid for the packets of data I request on the Internet. Verizon is trying to charge twice for those very same packets. The only reason I have Verizon is because it's one of two horrible choices I have for Internet access.

Further, I went ahead and flashed an old wireless access point to DD-WRT and set up an account with hidemyass.com (VPN provider) to see if that helped Netflix and Youtube. Sure enough, it did. Netflix was in HD every time after that and Youtube almost never had a hiccup or buffering issue in the middle of the video - as long as the traffic through the device was going to the VPN.

Netflix, please keep talking trash. Verizon, please go to hell.

Re:Redbox Instant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195829)

Because it's illegal to throttle ANY traffic, let alone a competitor's traffic.

If Verizon is found to be throttling (which it is), it can lead to sanctions, or the FCC making all of their infrastructure common carrier (I vote they do that with all the big players immediately).

I can't hear Verizon... (4, Funny)

magsol (1406749) | about 5 months ago | (#47195185)

...over the sound of all its whining.

No proof? (2)

B33rNinj4 (666756) | about 5 months ago | (#47195197)

I'll run a comparison with my current network (Verizon) and when Google Fiber finally drops in my area. I'm sure I'll find all the proof I need.

Re:No proof? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195277)

Easy to prove. Use a proxy, ssh tunnel, or VPN outside of Verizon's network, then access Netflix and compare it to not using one of those.

Re:No proof? (2)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | about 5 months ago | (#47195565)

This!
Anytime I have issues streaming with Netflix I just throw on my VPN(from private internet access) and problem solved. IF Verizon wants proof, I have it right here.

Re:No proof? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195381)

Not really. That tells you that all of the providers between Google and Netflix aren't congested. But the equation doesn't contain just two variables. In the case of Verizon specifically it contains three. Netflix hired Cogent to carry the content and Cogent peers with Verizon. Cogent underbid everyone else because they refuse to pay peering overages, which obviously something like Netflix would cause. Verizon is capping the connectivity between themselves and Cogent at the threshold ratio at which Cogent has been willing to pay.

This is not the first time that Cogent has been in this situation. Of the 13 examples of "de-peering" instances listed on Wikipedia Cogent is listed 6 times. Netflix went with the low bid fully knowing what they were getting into. Netflix could opt to pay for the ratio difference themselves, like they are with Comcast.

Now I am both a FiOS customer (not employee) and a Netflix customer. I tried, unsuccessfully, to watch several shows over the weekend. It does piss me off something fierce, but my anger is directed at both Netflix and Verizon as they both just bitch and moan rather than trying to solve the issue for their customers.

Re:No proof? (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about 5 months ago | (#47195471)

Then why aren't Cogent's other peers having the same issue? The issue here is Verizon, just as it was with Comcast.

Re:No proof? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195707)

You mean like Level 3? Sprint? AOL? Telia? Teleglobe? They have.

Others may choose to ignore the peering imbalance. That is their prerogative. Either way, Netflix is getting what they paid for. And now, since Netflix is covering the difference with Comcast, they get to pay more.

Re:No proof? (5, Interesting)

Bengie (1121981) | about 5 months ago | (#47195811)

Netflix stated that they had to hire Cogent because Verizon refused to accept Netflix traffic from any other CDN. Netflix stated that they were willing to pay the higher price of Level 3, but Verizon wouldn't accept it.

Maybe Verizon knew that Cogent was bad and wanted to try to cause Netflix into a "guilt by association" situation. Or maybe Verizon finds it easier to flex against Cogent than Level 3, who is many times larger than Verizon when it comes to transit.

Re:No proof? (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 5 months ago | (#47195461)

I'll run a comparison with my current network (Verizon) and when Google Fiber finally drops in my area. I'm sure I'll find all the proof I need.

Google Fiber serves a few thousand customers country wide. Don't hold your breath.

Any way for them both to lose? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195207)

How can we cheer for that?

FWIW (1)

Enry (630) | about 5 months ago | (#47195215)

I was doing a bit of streaming over the weekend (BSG) from my Tivo on FIOS and didn't get see any messages nor did I see performance problems.

Re:FWIW (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195269)

Verizon isn't limited to FiOS. The vast majority of their ISP services for customers is over DSL.

Re:FWIW (1)

alphatel (1450715) | about 5 months ago | (#47195335)

Verizon isn't limited to FiOS. The vast majority of their ISP services for customers is over DSL.

And the fact that they call that "broadband" [washingtonpost.com] is reprehensible. Verizon DSL is awful and never meets the speeds the customer pays for.

Re:FWIW (2)

alen (225700) | about 5 months ago | (#47195449)

i take it you don't know how DSL works

Re:FWIW (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195285)

FIOS - you've already been fleeced, so you wouldn't see a slowdown.

It's the poor folks still on their DSL service that they won't spend a dime to improve, nor will they bring FIOS in.

Re:FWIW (1)

Enry (630) | about 5 months ago | (#47195535)

Now sure how so. I've purchased their 50Mbps tier and regularly get 6MBps downloads from Steam and other locations. I'm quite satisfied with the network performance.

how can you sue for this? (0)

nimbius (983462) | about 5 months ago | (#47195253)

if (check_network_speed() == '-1'){
if (our_nets_check_ok() && systems_latency_ok()){
print "the $network is crowded";
}
}

Re:how can you sue for this? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195359)

Do you realize how fucking lame it is to post this pseudo code? But in this case, it's not pseudo code... It's just some dumb kid with no perspective on how complex networks work.

And it's formatted like a faggot. Only faggots cuddle their braces.

Re:how can you sue for this? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195385)

if (check_network_speed() == '-1'){

if (our_nets_check_ok() && systems_latency_ok()){

print "the $network is crowded";

}

}

They are in the United States. They can sue for that.

Re:how can you sue for this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195405)

This is the USA Mac... WE CAN SUE FOR ANYTHING!

Problem here is that I'm both a Netfilx and Verizon customer. Where I am miffed that I have difficulty streaming stuff from Netflix during the busy times, I'm not sure who I blame, Verizon of Netflix. In my view, it's both. This pissing contest is only getting the customers wet guys, and I for one am tired of both sides in this.

This "Stop blaming us or we will sue you!" tactic from Verizon just makes me mad. Come on guys, I pay you $$ for some high speed internet access, and where I took the "Blame Verizon for having a slow network" claims from Netflix with a grain of salt, your legal threats don't help your case. If you don't like customer complaints, then get talking to Netflix who gets a lot of them from your customers... Cut a deal before Netflix figures out a way to side step your bottle necked network and your chance for a deal vaporize.

Detect this sarcasm (5, Informative)

TheSpinningBrain (998202) | about 5 months ago | (#47195257)

Right. Verizon isn't artificially limiting network speeds. Just like Comcast wasn't. [washingtonpost.com]

Re:Detect this sarcasm (1)

gfxguy (98788) | about 5 months ago | (#47195331)

+1 Informative... too bad I have no mod points, but it's an incredibly interesting graph. As a Netflix/Comcast subscriber, with no viable alternative to high speed internet service, I've always argued against Netflix's caving into Comcast's extortion. Of course, the date is supplied by Netflix, but it echoes what we've experienced at home.... it used to work just fine, then suddenly it was terrible and we were always getting "rebuffering" messages, and often enough Netflix would just give up and not play.

I know people counter that this was a result of Netflix's service provider not having decent connections to the rest of the net, but the graph tells all...

Why Netflix caved.. (3, Interesting)

PortHaven (242123) | about 5 months ago | (#47195483)

Because now that they have paid Comcast. Netflix has the potential to claim actual financial damages, allowing them to bring a case all the up to the Supreme Court.

Re:Detect this sarcasm (2)

Talderas (1212466) | about 5 months ago | (#47195573)

What does it tell? It shows a simultaneous decline with numerous other providers during the timeframe when Netflix and Comcast were negotiation for direct transit rather than requiring transit through intermediaries like Cogent. Without knowing when the direct transit was initiated, it's hard to tell exactly what went on. Very likely it's was done shortly after the deal was concluded and if you will note that AT&T and Verizon, who were both declining, ceased declining at the same rate and also started improving. It is quite possible that by cutting Cogent out of the Netflix-Comcast route that also improved performance for AT&T/Verizon by removing traffic from Cogent's network.

Re:Detect this sarcasm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195413)

Now Verizon gonna sue your ass!!

Re:Detect this sarcasm (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 5 months ago | (#47195475)

SOURCE: Netflix

lol

Re:Detect this sarcasm (3, Interesting)

Ecuador (740021) | about 5 months ago | (#47195629)

Ok, so there are no rules in place that would make Comcast enforce net neutrality. But I don't understand, why wouldn't their customers have a good class-action case against them? I mean, I am paying a (decent in the case of Comcast customers) monthly service fee and I have a reasonable expectation of being able to access whatever I want at a reasonable speed. Why aren't Comcast/Verizon customers recruited for a good ol' class action, since they are essentially paying a monthly fee just to be added to the pool of Comcast/Verizon customers that those companies can "dangle" in front of the likes of Netflix in order to extract more fees. I am not in the US right now, but when I had a TWC (=another crap ISP) contract, it didn't say that TWC could decide what I could download at slow or fast speeds - is that no longer the case?

I want to see where this goes (1)

nine-times (778537) | about 5 months ago | (#47195303)

I'm really interested to see what evidence ends up being offered in this. Can Netflix prove that ISPs are at fault? Can Verizon prove that it's not their fault.

I find this part pretty interesting:

Citing the Internet Phenomena blog, Verizon said that instead of using its ability to connect directly to every broadband network in the country, Netflix has tried to cut costs by relying on a "panoply of content-distribution and other middle-man networks" to reach customers.

It seems like an awfully strange complaint. How is Netflix supposed to "connect directly", and are people not supposed to use content distribution networks? What's the argument exactly on Verizon's side. If Netflix is using a "panoply of content-distribution networks", I would think that'd imply that they should be able to get decent distribution without suffering bottlenecks on their end of things.

Re:I want to see where this goes (2)

Shados (741919) | about 5 months ago | (#47195341)

The evidence shouldn't be too hard to come by. For a while Youtube offered a page showing statistics for your ISP's streaming rate vs other ISPs in the same general area.

I was on FiOS at the time, and the streaming speed was pitiful (could barely stream 360p during peak hours on youtube), while the average in the area was significantly higher. Switched ISPs (yeah, I had a choice at the time), and sure enough, it was all better.

Re: I want to see where this goes (2)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about 5 months ago | (#47195599)

They did this because Google and VZN were butting heads over whose fault the slowdowns were in several areas around the country (my area, Northern VA, was one of them).

Google supplied pretty damning evidence that VZN had some faulty hardware or was throttling and causing the issues, but VZN was still trying to shift blame to Google. After enough complaints and people leaving FiOS, the problems magically went away.

Re: I want to see where this goes (1)

BorgDrone (64343) | about 5 months ago | (#47195371)

How is Netflix supposed to "connect directly"

By paying Verizon shitloads of money for 'fast lane' access, duh.

Re:I want to see where this goes (3, Insightful)

JeffOwl (2858633) | about 5 months ago | (#47195401)

I think what Verizon is saying is that instead of Netflix paying Verizon for a direct link between the Verizon (tier 1) network and the Netflix servers, Netflix is using a different Tier 1 provider which probably has a peering agreement with Verizon and therefore Verizon isn't making any money off the supply side, only the consumer side, which just isn't good enough for them.

Re:I want to see where this goes (5, Informative)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 5 months ago | (#47195579)

It's more complicated than that. Netflix's speeds on Verizon, or any other carriers, network are determined by peering agreements. There are multiple "Tier1" providers out there... these are the networks that interconnect all the ISPs. Random example: Level3

So you could have a 10gig agreement with AT&T and a 5gig agreement with Level3 and be doing fine. 30% of all peak traffic comes from Netflix. But Netflix has their peering agreement with AT&T so you're all good. Then, suddenly, Netflix switches peering hosts and goes to Level3.

In most cases the content provider would inform you ahead of time. You make peering agreements in concert with each other. "We'll both sign a peering agreement with AT&T for a period of 2 years" The big change with Netflix is they do not make agreements like this. They switch peers without notice.

So when Netflix switches peers they leave the ISP with a 10gig trunk to AT&T that's now severely underutilized. The ISP is reluctant to sign with Level3 because who says Netflix wont just switch peers again? The Tier1 providers are aware of this situation and are using it to their advantage. Particularly Level3. We've no idea what's going on here, but I wouldn't be surprised if Netflix is just as much to blaim her as Verizon.

Netflix has no financial incentive to be friendly with the ISPs and that's what this whole "Fast lane" is about. I don't like the plan but the ISPs concerns aren't just made up. There is a real and legitimate problem with Netflix and it's not just some conspiracy to prevent people from watching movies.

Re:I want to see where this goes (4, Informative)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 5 months ago | (#47195587)

If Verizon wanted to offer the best experience to their Netflix subscribing users they would allow Netflix to install a streaming server in their server farm. This would save Verizon money and prevent the throttling that happens at the peer junction.

To illustrate imagine 40% of Verizon ISP customers are streaming a movie from Netflix. Without the streaming server the entire 40% have to traverse the backbone which Verizon pays a tier A provider like Level 3 [level3.com] for. Now Verizon, like most USA ISPs oversells the capacity they can accommodate because they don't expect everybody to use their full bandwidth portion simultaneously so to save money they also under purchase back end peering connections so that 40% of traffic just slammed all the connection going from Verizon to their tier A provider slowing traffic for everyone trying to access a connection not on Verizon's network. If you add the streaming server inside Verizon's network that 40% of traffic never leaves Verizon's infrastructure thus negating the need to upgrade their back end connection to accommodate the load. Netflix simply sends any new content to the streaming server when it becomes available. Now this scenario SAVES Verizon/Comcast/etc. money but they insist Netflix pay for the privilege of putting the server inside their network. The only reason they would pass up the opportunity to save money is if they also had a streaming service that competes with Netflix which could potentially make them more than they would save. VOD (Video on Demand) and RedBox Instant are just such services. This is why ISPs should not be content providers.

TOECDN solves mostly all of your problems (0, Redundant)

fredan (54788) | about 5 months ago | (#47195313)

Since we are talking about static content, you can have it cached right next to the consumer, if you want.

BUT.

No one is interested in a solution which not only solve this, but also let anyone to use and cache their content, independent of the provider.

What everybody in the Internet industry is doing instead is trash-talking each other.

Re:TOECDN solves mostly all of your problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195649)

Personally I like to cache mine close. Very close. On the hard drive in fact.

Re:TOECDN solves mostly all of your problems (1)

fredan (54788) | about 5 months ago | (#47195795)

I prefer my router so that it can cache the content from all the device on my network. But that's just me.

Re:TOECDN solves mostly all of your problems (5, Insightful)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 5 months ago | (#47195695)

Netflix offers caching but Comcast/Verizon demand they pay for it despite the money they would save by hosting the cache. They're more interested in poaching Netflix's customers for their own streaming alternatives. This is what happens when Net Neutrality is not mandated.

Re:TOECDN solves mostly all of your problems (1)

oji-sama (1151023) | about 5 months ago | (#47195775)

However, I feel that "Netflix Trash-Talks" in the summary is an exaggeration..

I have both (2)

Thyamine (531612) | about 5 months ago | (#47195319)

I have both Verizon FIOS and Netflix. Here is what I, as a user/subscriber, expect. I pay Netflix to stream movies. I pay Verizon to provide me bandwidth and internet/web access. I don't pay either of them to throttle my connection or do what they want to quality. I pay for X amount, and expect to get it. If Verizon cannot hold up their end of the deal to provide me a pipe, then they aren't doing their job.

Re:I have both (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195339)

FIOS isn't where the problem is... Check for folks on Verizon DSL... woah are they that try to do much of anything on it.

Re:I have both (1, Redundant)

ilsaloving (1534307) | about 5 months ago | (#47195425)

Fine, it's not FIOS. That doesn't negate the GPs argument. You agree to pay X for a certain service, and expect them to give that to you. Period.

Re:I have both (2)

alen (225700) | about 5 months ago | (#47195487)

except DSL has always been a shitty tech
you have to be within range of the CO, have newer wiring, and the farther out you go the slower the speeds
they will advertise a max speed like LTE, which you will never see because of old and crappy wiring and people "far away" from the CO because the wiring twists and turns underground

Re:I have both (4, Informative)

unrtst (777550) | about 5 months ago | (#47195825)

except DSL has always been a shitty tech

... the tech isn't shitty, it just has limitations.

you have to be within range of the CO, have newer wiring, and the farther out you go the slower the speeds
they will advertise a max speed like LTE, which you will never see because of old and crappy wiring and people "far away" from the CO because the wiring twists and turns underground

While that's all true, it's also just the last mile, and it is easily and clearly testable**. This means you should be able to determine the speed of your connection from you to the CO (with the ISP's assistance), and it's not going to change based on congestion or time of day (though you could have a crappy copper line that is affected by water damage or other environmental factors... but not congestion).

What this means is that it's actually much more clear cut when there is an issue, as compared to something like cable (a shared medium). If your speeds over DSL vary depending on time of day (ex. congestion), then it's the network's fault, not your line, and it's most likely due to over subscribing the connection from the CO to ISP (after that, it's the same network that FiOS/etc uses).

** I have no idea if they actually disclose the line speed at signup, nor do I know if it's easy for a user to get a test scheduled, and I suspect it is an ugly mess of customer service reps to jump through, but it is technically very easy.

Re:I have both (4, Interesting)

bleh-of-the-huns (17740) | about 5 months ago | (#47195651)

I disagree, I do have FIOS, and I get shitty quality streaming for Netflix, HD streams keep buffering or falling back to SD quality.

When I change my fios gateway VPN connection to force all traffic over my VPS, suddenly everything works just peachy (except my xbox live since I do not run miniupnpd on my vpn gateway).

I have a perpetual VPN connection open, that only routes traffic to certain countries through my VPN, all other traffic defaults through my verizon connection (unless I change the config and disable split tunneling)

Re:I have both (1)

alen (225700) | about 5 months ago | (#47195717)

this doesn't prove anything

verizon and every other ISP will have multiple peering points with different network, with each one routing different kinds of traffic and having different rules
using a VPN just means your return traffic is being routed over a peer that isn't congested because netflix sends all their data over the congested peer

Re:I have both (0)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 5 months ago | (#47195737)

I have both Verizon FIOS and Netflix. Here is what I, as a user/subscriber, expect. I pay Netflix to stream movies. I pay Verizon to provide me bandwidth and internet/web access. I don't pay either of them to throttle my connection or do what they want to quality. I pay for X amount, and expect to get it. If Verizon cannot hold up their end of the deal to provide me a pipe, then they aren't doing their job.

You pay for X amount from Verizon down to you. As long as the content is on Verizon's network no problem. Netflix isn't on Verizon's network so Verizon has to get it from the network it is on. Verizon has paid for W not X to that tier A provider so you still get X just not from Netflix because Verizon is only allowed W from the network Netflix is on. you're still getting X from Verizon so you can watch Netflix at W and download something else until you reach X but you will never get X from Netflix as long as Verizon refuses to pay for X from their tier A.

Never going to happen. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195365)

Haha this suit is never coming, they sure as hell don't want to be in a courtroom over this topic too much risk in having netflix expose them and others.

Don't give in Netflix! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195383)

I can completely confirm Netflix''s claims. In the last month streaming over FIOS has become unbearable. Last week I couldn't take it and ordered Optimum. Streaming is back to normal and even latency and bandwidth to other services has improved. If you can, dump this bloated monopoly known as Verizon. Why did we break up AT&T to just to create a new monopoly 30 years later?

Re:Don't give in Netflix! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195659)

Just to add my .$02 worth: I *never* have a problem streaming netflix, from the US. I am in the Netherlands when I do this, using a proxy service in New York. Obviously netflix isn't getting congested at my proxy service which I pay for. I also use www.PlayOn.tv UPnP media streamer so I can access content via XBMC on Ubuntu, and PlayOn has a little bandwidth test. The test is to show if there's a minimum amount of bandwidth required and even though it says I'm only getting (about) between 1+ and 2 Mbps across The Atlantic, PlayOn rates it 'Max'. And it works really well. Can't speak for HD tho'.

Now compared to my experience, *anyone* paying all the money Verizon FIOS glass fiber costs monthly and still gets jittery Netflix, obviously Verizon isn't transporting traffic as efficiently as a competent and honest ISP could do. Given such facts, like jittery netflix, why even pay for glass fiber (from and honest and competent ISP) in the first place? What are they providing otherwise? Certainly not bandwidth. (Not to mention they often 'contractually' forbid you from running your own servers out of your house).

Re:Don't give in Netflix! (2)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | about 5 months ago | (#47195779)

YouTube performance over Verizon has been terrible for about a year now too. It's not a throughput problem, but the connection keeps stalling out at random intervals, requiring you to restart the video every minute or two.

solutiuon to non net neutrality.. (4, Insightful)

greywire (78262) | about 5 months ago | (#47195397)

Well this seems like a fine "solution" to companies that are trying to get rid of net neutrality.

What if every big content provider started popping up such messages? Let the user know directly that their content is being delivered slower because their net provider is throttling the data.

As long as the content provider can accurately determine this is happening, then what can anybody do to stop them from saying it? Verizon can huff and puff about it but if its provably true can they legally do anything to stop it?

I bet people start caring about net neutrality real fast..

Re:solutiuon to non net neutrality.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195515)

Take it a step further. Requiring the content providers to pay for high speed connections should be met with the content providers instead asking to being paid by the ISPs to offer quality service to their customers. What a lovely ingenious idea.

Re:solutiuon to non net neutrality.. (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 5 months ago | (#47195585)

Because they would never only pay the parent company's pet provider? Your effectively trying to reinvent aol/compuserve. Since the people do not have real options your stuck with whatever you choice of a handful of providers will offer you.

Re:solutiuon to non net neutrality.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195661)

The trick is doing it accurately. Having worked in network engineering, on many occassions the issue ends up being some intermediate network. Usually as a result of some carrier choosing the cheapest path possible, or knowingly sending traffic via a non-preferred path. For example, Cogent isn't as bad as they use to be. But, in the past they were well known for heavily overloading some of their POPs. We had a gig-e to them, which turned out to be fed from some POS switch that was oversubscribed 12 to 1. I've heard worse from others, that were on 10G ports, connected to a switch with only 10G of capacity. On the other hand, I've seen Tier 1s simply blackhole or take absurdly long routes for some net blocks. Some cases due to them not even being aware of an issue, or simply ignoring it, like the time I called a carrier about packet loss 3 days in a row, that turned out they had a bad line card.

All that said, I've rarely seen an instance of actual QoS throttling. Craptastic routes, yes. Overloaded peering, many times. These are all fixable issues, but are complicated. Some content networks want truely free open peering as their business is the actual data. Carriers like to keep with the old ways, and charge for peering and transit since their business is moving data. With the exception of, if you are a large enough carrier with equal traffic flow, you'll likely engage in an agreement. There are of course a few carriers that have open policies, HE for example being one. But typically the only networks with open policy are small networks which benefit more from peering, than their peer (if their peer is larger than them).

Use firefox banner (1)

Wycliffe (116160) | about 5 months ago | (#47195499)

How is this different than the "use firefox" or "we recommend internet explorer" or "we recommend chrome"
that many banks, websites, etc... have routinely shown. Many websites have gone so far as blocking you
if you didn't have an "approved" browser. I see no reason why netflix can't do the same. They could even
do something like "because we have detected that you will get a subpar experience, we currently don't allow
verizon customers to use our service".

Re:Use firefox banner (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195681)

One better would be to detect the user is using Verizon networks, and then whilst the 'buffering...' message is displayed, start pushing them towards providers that don't tamper with bandwidth, or provide a better service:

Buffering...*

* Tired of buffering? Why not switch from Verizon to network X - a network that supports (network neutrality|wont throttle your connection speed)

How is this news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195527)

No matter which side of the Net Neutrality debate you espouse, how is this newsworthy? *Of course* Verizon is threatening to sue. Look, this is not a case of some random stranger calling the person's baby ugly - this is straight up libel, until proven otherwise (and Verizon requested they prove otherwise, if you care to read the source material). I would expect nothing less of any publicly traded company whose key service was dissed by another publicly traded company in a very public way. I might have expected more professional behavior by Netflix, but given recent history, I should not and will not again.

FUCK YOUR GODDAMNED BETA REDIRECTS !!!!!!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195601)

Fuck you pieces of shit.

I hope you all die of cancer and that it hurts so badly you
plead with a god who doesn't even exist to bring death so your
suffering can end.

People DO NOT WANT to be redirected, what the FUCK is wrong
with you idiots ?!?!?!?

Buffer Bloat problem, maybe? (1)

haapi (16700) | about 5 months ago | (#47195645)

Is buffer bloat -- the over-buffering many ISPs do in the hopes of giving better last-mile performance, but which actually breaks TCP's internal throttling mechanisms -- part of what is at fault, here?

There's No Proof... (2)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | about 5 months ago | (#47195769)

In the US, it doesn't matter if there's no proof that Verizon is responsible for Netflix's issues. As the plaintiff, it would be Verizon's burden to show that there is proof that they aren't.

Mediacom with same message (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195783)

I've been getting this same message with Mediacom lately. I'd say it started a little over a month ago. ...other streaming services seem to work fine

Choice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47195801)

"The source of the buffering problem faced by Netflix customers is almost certainly not congestion in Verizon's network, but most likely congestion on the connection that Netflix has chosen to use to reach Verizon's network, David Young, Verizon's vice president for federal regulatory affairs, wrote in a blog post on Wednesday."

I.e. They didn't pay us enough to use our un-throttled connection, er fast-lane.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?