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!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Verizon Boosts FiOS Uploads To Match Downloads

samzenpus posted about 3 months ago | from the greased-lightning dept.

Verizon 234

An anonymous reader writes Verizon is boosting the upload speeds of nearly all its FiOS connections to match the download speeds, greatly shortening the time it takes to send videos and back up files online. All new subscribers will get "symmetrical" connections. If you previously were getting 15 Mbps down and 5 Mbps up, you'll be automatically upgraded for no extra cost to 15/15. Same goes if you were on their 50/25 plan: You'll now be upgraded to 50/50. And if you had 75/35? You guessed it: Now it'll be 75 down, and 75 up.

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

What about (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47501585)

The 150/75 plan? What will my upload speed be???

Re:What about (4, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 3 months ago | (#47501657)

Advertised: 150/150
Actual: 112/112

Re:What about (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47501681)

Advertised: 150/150

Actual: 112/112

Sounds like you only have 100mbit interfaces there sir.

Re:What about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47501801)

We will need you to reboot your computer to confirm

Re:What about (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 3 months ago | (#47501847)

Yeah, and it makes this odd "whooshing" sound.

Re:What about (5, Funny)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 3 months ago | (#47502009)

Unless you have netflix.

Then it's the 400k/112MB plan.

Re:What about (2, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 3 months ago | (#47502085)

This is fiber. I don't have Verizon myself, but in general everything people complain about in regards to ISPs goes away once you're fiber. They'd have to have some pretty serious congestion issues for FiOS to start having trouble.

Along that same line though, I've no idea why they had asymmetric on fiber to begin with. The point to ADSL (Asymmetric DSL) has to do with crosstalk on the copper lines in the DSLAM. This isn't an issue, at all, for Fiber. So it makes little sense to have asymmetric fiber service other than for marketing purposes.

Re:What about (4, Informative)

CreatureComfort (741652) | about 3 months ago | (#47502165)

The biggest issue I have with Verizon Fios is the TV service. All of the video channels are so compressed that you inevitably get pixelation and tearing. This is particularly infuriating when it happens during playback for video on demand shows that you are paying extra for.

And Verizon customer service is a complete joke. They don't even understand that it is their compression causing the problems, and their only solution when you call to complain is to reboot the cable box. After never less than 35 minutes on hold, then 30-50 minutes working with the idiot in Mumbai, then getting "accidentally" disconnected... makes me want to scream.

But the 75/35 is pretty flash.

Re:What about (4, Informative)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 3 months ago | (#47502213)

This is fiber. I don't have Verizon myself, but in general everything people complain about in regards to ISPs goes away once you're fiber. They'd have to have some pretty serious congestion issues for FiOS to start having trouble.

It matters not how fast your download speed from your ISP is if said ISP's connection to the content [level3.com] you are requesting isn't able to deliver it.

Along that same line though, I've no idea why they had asymmetric on fiber to begin with. The point to ADSL (Asymmetric DSL) has to do with crosstalk on the copper lines in the DSLAM. This isn't an issue, at all, for Fiber. So it makes little sense to have asymmetric fiber service other than for marketing purposes.

Consumer ISP's are all about getting content to you. They don't want you throwing up a server at your house to stream data to the ethers. They want you to stream media from them. So much so most have U NO RUN SERVER clauses in their TOS. An asynchronous connection allows them to advertise higher bandwidth "download" speeds and keeps those nasty server runners with paltry pipes to get their filth up to the internet.

Re:What about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47502267)

This is fiber. I don't have Verizon myself, but in general everything people complain about in regards to ISPs goes away once you're fiber. They'd have to have some pretty serious congestion issues for FiOS to start having trouble.

And yet, my co-worker lives in Northern VA & has FiOS - she and her neighbors have a lot of slowness, to the point where she will stop her kids watching Netflix and YouTube if she needs to do some work online. Netflix buffering galore. With a nominal 20mbps down speed, there's no way that should be an issue. And yet somehow it is.

Re:What about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47502331)

and I wonder how many p2p clients the kids have running and what kind of crapware is installed on the PC. Plus what kind of work she's doing that make major demands of bandwidth like that. I've run multiple RDP sessions while streaming crap from Netflix and hosting a few active gaming servers with teamspeak and not had an issue.

Hell, I saturated a friend's link because he wanted to pull some Ubuntu install DVDs from me because his UVerse uplink was throttling the shit out of bittorrent... I didn't realize he was downloading until he called to let me know I could shut off the FTP server because he was done.

Re:What about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47502401)

I live in a rural area of Northern VA. Somehow I am lucky enough to have a choice between Comcast and as of a few months ago, Verizon Fios. I can say my Comcast has been rock solid for years. Even at 8-11pm on a weeknight I can still average 70-100 down on my 100 connection. No Netflix drops that I've noticed and it is pretty much up 24x7 for months at a time. I am very happy with it, I only have Comcast internet, not phone or cable, their cable service and equipment sucked and I got rid of it.

Verizon sales people are walking around the neighborhood door to door and trying to get people to drop Comcast and get Fios. It is funny to hear the claims they are making. One even said if I was getting tired of seeing connection issues with Netflix and Amazon like my "other neighbors mentioned" to her on Comcast, I should go with Fios which "will not do that" because Fios is not a shared network.

I'm a network manger and deal with these exact Verizon peering issues with other carriers at work so I could argue with her and make a point but I act dumb and just keep saying no thanks, I'll stick to Comcast for now, my wife makes those decisions and she is not here now.
   

Re:What about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47502577)

it is inevitable that you will eventually rue the day you let comcast into your life. they are not repeatedly voted the worst company in america without good reason...

Re:What about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47502411)

Nic Spec?

Symmetrical? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47501599)

But they'll throttle my uploads to Netflix, right?

Re:Symmetrical? (5, Interesting)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | about 3 months ago | (#47501629)

Yeah. Wouldn't be awesome of Netflix enabled a P2P client on the Verizon network? They should do it. The technology exists. It would be glorious.

Re:Symmetrical? (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 3 months ago | (#47501817)

Yeah. Wouldn't be awesome of Netflix enabled a P2P client on the Verizon network? They should do it. The technology exists. It would be glorious.

If Netflix won't do it, the hackerites will do it for them sooner or later. They should get on it.

Re:Symmetrical? (4, Interesting)

laird (2705) | about 3 months ago | (#47502607)

I built that network (Pando Networks) a few years ago. The content companies were generally pretty slow to adopt p2p technology, but game companies are all over it. One pleasant aspect was that the advantage of p2p wasn't just economics, though those were great, it was performance. Because downloading from dozens of sources is much more resilient, and on good networks more performant, than downloading from one source. And, with an intelligent network, it could connect you with peers that are close to you in the network, reducing network congestion at the interconnects by 80%. When we ran a large scale test across all the major ISPs, we in fact saw that p2p clients were able to reduce inter-ISP data exchanges (for the p2p network) by 80%, simply through intelligent peer selection, which ISPs loved, and download performance was better, which downloaders loved.

And symmetric fiber networks are awesome at p2p.

Re:Symmetrical? (1)

magsol (1406749) | about 3 months ago | (#47501631)

Pretty much. This guy nailed it [arstechnica.com] .

Thank Google, not Verizon (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47501607)

They still have a long way to go to catch up to gigabit up/down though.

Re:Thank Google, not Verizon (0)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 3 months ago | (#47502465)

I personally don't see what the point of Gigabit speeds at home are. I have 30 Mbit/s internet, and that's fast enough to do at least 3 or 4 video streams at the same time. I don't really see many reasons I would need my internet connection to be 33 times faster than it already is. I think 100 would be the most I could ever forsee needing at home. At that rate, you can stream 5 Blu-Ray quality streams using h264. There's other uses such as downloading games, but the servers hosting the games aren't likely to be able to dedicate 1 Gbit to a single downloaded. Maybe in a decade some new thing will come along and I'll need a gigabit connection, but as it stands now, there isn't really any content on the internet that would benefit from having such a fast connection. At least not where I'd be hosting it out of my house.

Re:Thank Google, not Verizon (1)

heypete (60671) | about 3 months ago | (#47502503)

I don't know about gigabit, but Steam has no problems maxing out my 150Mbps downstream link when I'm downloading games from a nearby server here in Switzerland.

Re:Thank Google, not Verizon (1)

laird (2705) | about 3 months ago | (#47502611)

Start watching movies in HD (Apple TV, Netflix, Amazon Instant Video) and it'll consume any connection. Then have each of your kids watch their own video streams in their rooms...

Re:Thank Google, not Verizon (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 3 months ago | (#47502617)

>I personally don't see what the point of Gigabit speeds at home are.

Moving data. When I'm moving a 1TB file of binary data, I would prefer I didn't have to leave it running overnight.
I do this every few weeks. As it stands I usually end up using walknet with a hard disk, but that doesn't work when the onward journey is to the other side of the county.

So who pays who? (2)

alen (225700) | about 3 months ago | (#47501615)

biggest problem with upload is you send it over free links with Tier 1 networks, or you pay them to take your traffic. with all the user generated stuff now like Twitch, flickr, video calling and other services where you want a fast upload speed that's a lot of data to be paying for.

with the current L3/Verizon dispute i wonder if they struck a deal where verizon will allow the connections to be upgraded for netflix to work on their network in exchange for L3 taking all their uploaded data for free.

Re:So who pays who? (3, Interesting)

TemporalBeing (803363) | about 3 months ago | (#47501815)

biggest problem with upload is you send it over free links with Tier 1 networks, or you pay them to take your traffic. with all the user generated stuff now like Twitch, flickr, video calling and other services where you want a fast upload speed that's a lot of data to be paying for.

with the current L3/Verizon dispute i wonder if they struck a deal where verizon will allow the connections to be upgraded for netflix to work on their network in exchange for L3 taking all their uploaded data for free.

Hmm...that actually makes for an interesting case.

So Level3 basically pointed out the issue with User focused ISP's - that they're asymetric and would never provide the ability for those ISPs to compete in the peering arrangements that back-bone providers have. So now if they go to being symetric, it would allow the users to do more and possibly try to combat what the ISP (e.g Verizon) thinks is a fallacy but they can only prove if they make all their links symetric.

Problem for the ISP is users don't really upload a whole lot any way. So it's not going to change anything for a while. It may get Level3 to drop the "symetric vs asymetric" part of their argument, but it won't change the amount of traffic going from the ISP to back-bone provider.

What will be telling is if they do the same to the DSL customers in the near future as well. Otherwise they are still primarily an asymetric provider as they have more DSL than FiOS customers.

Question is: Will Verizon only do this temporarily as part of an argument with Level3? If so, expect a change in the future when their plan doesn't work out. If not, then hopefully other ISPs will follow in order to "compete".

Re:So who pays who? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47502321)

> It may get Level3 to drop the "symetric vs asymetric" part of their argument, but it won't change the amount of traffic going from the ISP to back-bone provider.

FWIW, that is only sort-of L3's argument.

They have this concept of "bit-miles" which wasn't obvious to me at first. The idea is that instead of pricing by the bit that crosses the exchange point the metric should be bits multiplied by the distance the bit moves. Here's a cut-n-paste from a recent L3 posting: [level3.com]

if the traffic flow through that Los Angeles router is 40Gbps from Level 3s customer to Verizons customer and 10Gbps in the opposite direction then both networks carry 50Gbps. What matters then is how far we each carry it. If Level 3 carries it 800 miles and Verizon carries it 80 miles then Level 3 incurs a higher burden of cost – ten times in this example. If the direction of traffic then reverses our respective costs are unchanged as we both still carry 50Gbps, and Level 3 still carries it 800 miles and Verizon still carries it 80 miles. If the distance reverses, however, then our respective costs do change. So bits multiplied by distance (bit miles) determine costs. Level 3 is more than happy to incur its share of that cost. I appreciate that traffic ratios were used as a proxy for cost equality between backbone network peers historically. And that can work well because both networks are synchronous and likely have the same business model. But it completely fails to work as a proxy for shared costs when a synchronous backbone like Level 3 connects to an asynchronous broadband consumer network like Verizon. It simply isnt possible to get in balance even if balance was a measure of cost equality – and it isnt. Enforcing balance in these circumstances is, in our view, a way of arbitrarily raising a toll.

(sorry the apostrophes are missing, they are using a 16-bit character for a superscript 1 as apostrophes and slashdot eats that)

Re:So who pays who? (0)

alen (225700) | about 3 months ago | (#47502391)

yeah, lets see how much L3 cries now that things might get a little more balanced. i bet they will suddenly want to be paid a lot more

Re:So who pays who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47502379)

I think they are trying to get out ahead of an optics problem here. ATM they are selling 5:1 connections and then going to T1 providers and saying "guys you are sending us 5x as much data as we are sending you so you owe us money." which is a bit inane. Superficially upgrading everything to be symmetric solves that but is unlikely to do much for the traffic asymmetry on the L3 links... hopefully this back fires and undermines their extortion of tier 1 providers.

Re:So who pays who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47502469)

I'm guessing you didn't actually read the comments in the Level 3 blog post.

The Level 3 guy flat out said that Verizon and Level 3 have settlement free peering. Verizon doesn't pay Level 3 a dime for traffic they send out, and vice versa.

So Verizon actually are being dicks and leaving the links congested to try and force Netflix to pay for direct peering links. This is not surprising, since Netflix ponied up the cash to buy direct links with AT&T and Comcast

This is in contrast to the Comcast situation. Comcast *does* pay Level 3 for transit, so turning up new links to accomodate Netflix would cost Comcast money, which is why they insisted Netflix just buy direct links with them instead.

AT&T, I have no idea what their peering arrangements with Level 3 are like

Re:So who pays who? (0)

alen (225700) | about 3 months ago | (#47502547)

yeah they have settlement free peering, but it's L3 sending most of the data now. and they want verizon to upgrade because they send so much data.

wait till verizon will start to send a lot more data back to L3 to see what their reaction is going to be. with all the cloud services starting to have very nice free levels of service give it another year where a lot of people will auto upload a lot of data and edit it in the cloud.

No More Limited Upload Globally (1)

ramorim (1257654) | about 3 months ago | (#47501645)

I hope all Internet service company in the world to adopt this fair service to all their customers. No more upload limit :)

Re:No More Limited Upload Globally (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47501953)

That's not going to happen for anyone on DSL (unless they are running slow ass SDSL) due to the way the technology works.

Re:No More Limited Upload Globally (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 3 months ago | (#47501955)

How about working on latency as well to enable truly responsive HD video conferencing? That, could storage, and external VPN connectivity are the key areas of benefit.

Re:No More Limited Upload Globally (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about 3 months ago | (#47502103)

Who said anything about removing usage limits? If past experience is any indication, this will just let people reach their limits faster. Does Verizon even have limits on uploads, or is it up and down all lumped together?

Re:No More Limited Upload Globally (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 3 months ago | (#47502449)

No monthly bandwidth limit on FiOS, up or down. It has been that way for years.

Re:No More Limited Upload Globally (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 3 months ago | (#47502189)

I hope all Internet service company in the world to adopt this fair service to all their customers. No more upload limit :)

"Fair" is a very subjective word. Who says it is fair to have everyone paying for service that they wont' use? Most people don't need the same upstream speed as they need down. Not even those who are using Netflix or downloading large Linux distributions need the same up as down. Only those sending out large amounts of data will see any difference, and that's only if the transmission is monitored in real-time and not just a background task.

As someone else pointed out, this change will make very little difference in the load imbalance at the peering points since most people aren't hitting an upload limit to start with.

Re:No More Limited Upload Globally (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about 3 months ago | (#47502263)

I went to Verizon's site to check on this for my account. Here's what I got:

My Rewards+

SHARING ONLINE JUST GOT FASTER!

Great news, you are eligible for an upload speed to equal your current download speed, at no additional cost to you! Simply click here and enroll in our My Rewards+ program - it’s easy and free. Just our way of thanking you for being a loyal Verizon customer. Faster upload speed means better sharing experiences. That’s Powerful! Join Now

Re:No More Limited Upload Globally (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | about 3 months ago | (#47502363)

So essentially Verizon tells you to share movies and music to hurt Netflix that way.

Consumer plans only? (3, Interesting)

amaiman (103647) | about 3 months ago | (#47501667)

Will this only apply to consumer FiOS plans, or are they rolling this out to Business FiOS, as well?

Re:Consumer plans only? (3, Informative)

Raxxon (6291) | about 3 months ago | (#47502067)

That's my big question.... I went with a business acct so I could get static IP's instead of playing silly games with dynamic dns hosting crap....

I'm gonna be so pissed if they say "residential only"...

Re:Consumer plans only? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47502135)

See the press release here:
http://newscenter.verizon.com/corporate/news-articles/2014/07-21-fios-upload-speed-upgrade/

Short answer: new and existing business customers will be getting it too "later this year".

Re:Consumer plans only? (1)

Raxxon (6291) | about 3 months ago | (#47502193)

That's a useful and informative link and it's being modded down?

Sucks that I get it "later this year" with no real specification on when. Also makes me irritated that I can't upgrade past the 75mbit plan currently. ;)

Can't complain... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47501669)

This makes services like Amazon's Glacier (and other cloud storage in general) more appealing.

Glacier specifically, because I tend to shovel data that is important, but I likely won't access much (last year's tax records, for example) onto there.

Of course, I end up "packaging" the records, first with WinRAR, then PGP/gpg for encryption, then WinRAR again for the added error correction, and then upload that and a separate PGP signature file. That way, I have fairly decent protection against damage, tampering, and snooping. Even if the outer WinRAR archive gets some damage, if the inner PGP file's signature validates, all is well.

Advertising (1)

Iconoc (2646179) | about 3 months ago | (#47501683)

So I'm a Verizon customer, etc. How is this anything more than free advertising? What is the compelling need for this to be all over the media, etc?

Re:Advertising (2)

Iconoc (2646179) | about 3 months ago | (#47501695)

And for the record, I noticed I was getting semi-symetrical service close to a year ago.

P2P (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47502225)

So I'm a Verizon customer, etc. How is this anything more than free advertising? What is the compelling need for this to be all over the media, etc?

I think it's because here in America at least, asymmetric is very common. So common that a lot of us think of it as "normal" and it has programmed people to think of Internet as something they "consume." Even in "ordinary times" this would be somewhat noteworthy development, though maybe not front-page news in non-nerd circles.

What makes it possibly extra interesting right now, is Verizon's recent drama with L3/Netflix about their limited connection to L3. Verizon users having good upload speeds could end up essentially solving the problem, by giving those users some better tools to cache data on their side of the limited Verizon/L3 gateway. Imagine if those peoples' Netflix client said "The Verizon gateway to L3 seems congested. Enable P2P?" Verizon customers could cooperate to solve their problems (all nice and efficiently on Verizon's under-utilized network), without Verizon having to spend money to improve the gateway to L3. Everybody wins.

And then another way to look at it, would be that if you're a Verizon user, this might improve your seed ratio on your private trackers, so that you have to rely less on streaming services such as Netflix.

Helps you get to the usage cap quicker (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47501707)

It is great to have a symmetrical connection, finally. It is bs not to. Just watch those monthly caps. Cloud backups of any substance and regularity will, along with your throttled Netflix, speed you toward the limit pretty quickly.

As a FiOS customer, this would matter to me ... (4, Interesting)

LordKaT (619540) | about 3 months ago | (#47501715)

As a FiOS customer this would matter to me if Verizon wasn't actively trying to extort money from Tier 1 providers.

Re:As a FiOS customer, this would matter to me ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47502031)

If you use your new found speed to upload as much as you can, you can get the packets inbound to and outbound from from Verizon more in balance and end their stupid "but you send me more data than I send you" crap on the peering agreements. So upload, upload, upload. Encourage everyone on Verizon to upload. Get those bits in balance!

Re:As a FiOS customer, this would matter to me ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47502479)

You're not understanding the situation.

Verizon is not trying to extort money from Level 3. Verizon doesn't pay Level 3. Level 3 doesn't pay Verizon. They exchange traffic without cost. This was admitted by Level 3.

What Verizon is doing is trying to extort money from Netflix, who is *not* a Tier 1 provider. They're basically trying to cut out the middleman so they can make some money off traffic they're going to deliver anyway.

Re:As a FiOS customer, this would matter to me ... (1)

LordKaT (619540) | about 3 months ago | (#47502581)

Then why keep the L3 pipes flooded?

Oh right, money.

We would have had this ten... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47501765)

years ago if Bush hadn't been elected. Republicans hate the Internet, and if they had their way, they would have left it as a noncommercial network. That is how much their kind hates us. I bet Cruz is working hard to try to find a way to kill this plan like he did with the bandwidth upgrade in my town.

you're retarded (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47501877)

Who brought us the DMCA, the 1996 telecom act and other such assaults on the internet?

Hint, it wasn't Bush.

Re:you're retarded (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47502075)

It was introduced by Republican party member Howard Coble of North Carolina.
It was passed unanimously by the senate.

So, whats your point?

Re:you're retarded (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47502471)

But who acted on their animalistic instincts and passed this violent bill in the senate.

People need to read comment threads (2)

CRCulver (715279) | about 3 months ago | (#47502217)

It's a shame that this "Republican poster" gets so many replies when it is clear even to casual followers of Slashdot that he is a troll who posts the same thing ("Republicans hate X", "Republicans took away Y") in various thread on a daily basis.

For me, a real sign of the death of Slashdot is the predictability of the trolls. The Republican troll and the Space Nutter troll (who may be one and the same, though I've never counted), offer only this invariable single-issue shtick instead of making things wacky and unpredictable like classic trolls of yore.

Re:We would have had this ten... (0)

macromorgan (2020426) | about 3 months ago | (#47502595)

After having written numerous letters to him, I can assure you Ted Cruz is looking for any and all available means to allow TWC and AT&T to bend you over and give you the business. At best, the man is ignorant when it comes to technology policy; his stance on Net Neutrality is "the internet has always worked fine, leave it alone" which ignores the fact that from its inception until 2005 providers were common carriers, and from 2005 through January of this year providers were under open internet rules from the FCC. At worst, and what I think is the case, is that the man is corrupt and receives a great deal of money from companies to do or not do specific things in the senate. His #1 donor by industry is the oil and gas industry, which I'm sure influences heavily in his refusal to accept global warming as the solid science it is. He gets plenty of money from telcoms too to do their bidding.

P2P reinassance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47501771)

No doubt about it, if other ISPs will do the same. Obviously I promise this upload-bandwidth increase will serve only legal and mpaa-approved purposes, and right now there's an UFO outside my house, it has 2 huge boobs.

great (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47501785)

Also: The brothers are now giving reach-arounds when they prison rape you. So you get an orgasm when they get an orgasm!

What? You just wanted to watch netflix?

aaargh! pinheads in the IT. (0)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 3 months ago | (#47501829)

One of my friends was complaining about his VPN. Fellow has 50 Mbps/25 Mbps FiOS set up. But the corporate official VPN uses some strange protocol. Once the VPN is connected ALL the traffic from the local machine will go the corporate VPN host. The host sends the packet out. And the corporate VPN host connection is something similar 100/100 Mbps. But that connection is divvied up into fixed slices per VPN connection. Between 50 and 75 users at a time. So each connection gets 1 Mbps or 2. But the site is drawing ALL the traffic from all the VPN users. The damned thing crawls to snails place. So his pricey 50/25 connection is useless as far as the VPN is concerned.

Symmetric upload/download will help him a lot because he runs OpenGL 3D graphics clients displaying CAD/CAM geometry over this connection. So this automatic upgrade to 50/50 should be a great news for him. Except he is in ISP giveth IT taketh away situation. Should call him, send this link and rub some salt into his wounds. Schadenfreude never felt this delicious.

Re:aaargh! pinheads in the IT. (1)

jlv (5619) | about 3 months ago | (#47501927)

He should run the VPN in a VM and not on his main host, to avoid this dumb VPN client from hijacking his traffic.

Re:aaargh! pinheads in the IT. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47501959)

All the companies I've worked for didn't allow a split-tunnel VPN from corporate laptops.

Re:aaargh! pinheads in the IT. (1)

Scutter (18425) | about 3 months ago | (#47501977)

All the companies I've worked for didn't allow a split-tunnel VPN from corporate laptops.

Split-tunnel pretty much kills the whole point of using a VPN.

Re:aaargh! pinheads in the IT. (1)

jittles (1613415) | about 3 months ago | (#47502105)

All the companies I've worked for didn't allow a split-tunnel VPN from corporate laptops.

Split-tunnel pretty much kills the whole point of using a VPN.

Depends on what you're doing. I allow a split-tunnel into my home VPN because I use that VPN connection strictly to access internal resources remotely. I have no need to route all my web traffic through my home connection when all I want to do is SSH into a box, or copy a file off a network share or something like that. When I am on the road and on an untrusted connection, I just VPN into the home network and run RDP and use the remote machine to access online banking, email, or other services.

Re:aaargh! pinheads in the IT. (1)

Scutter (18425) | about 3 months ago | (#47502163)

All the companies I've worked for didn't allow a split-tunnel VPN from corporate laptops.

Split-tunnel pretty much kills the whole point of using a VPN.

Depends on what you're doing. I allow a split-tunnel into my home VPN because I use that VPN connection strictly to access internal resources remotely. I have no need to route all my web traffic through my home connection when all I want to do is SSH into a box, or copy a file off a network share or something like that. When I am on the road and on an untrusted connection, I just VPN into the home network and run RDP and use the remote machine to access online banking, email, or other services.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about corporate networks and didn't think it was necessary to describe all the different ways in which a VPN might be used.

Re:aaargh! pinheads in the IT. (1)

jittles (1613415) | about 3 months ago | (#47502235)

All the companies I've worked for didn't allow a split-tunnel VPN from corporate laptops.

Split-tunnel pretty much kills the whole point of using a VPN.

Depends on what you're doing. I allow a split-tunnel into my home VPN because I use that VPN connection strictly to access internal resources remotely. I have no need to route all my web traffic through my home connection when all I want to do is SSH into a box, or copy a file off a network share or something like that. When I am on the road and on an untrusted connection, I just VPN into the home network and run RDP and use the remote machine to access online banking, email, or other services.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about corporate networks and didn't think it was necessary to describe all the different ways in which a VPN might be used.

Well, I suppose the point I am trying to make is there may be corporate edge cases where they want split tunnel. In general, most employees aren't smart enough to realize when to use what, and so the best policy from an IT perspective is to keep the user from shooting themselves in the foot with the VPN. Hell I've known IT people who weren't smart enough to configure the VPN properly to force traffic through the connection, and then failed to properly test whether traffic was leaking out of the tunnel.

Re:aaargh! pinheads in the IT. (1)

Scutter (18425) | about 3 months ago | (#47502317)

Which is why "split-tunnel pretty much kills the whole point of using a VPN".

Re:aaargh! pinheads in the IT. (2)

jlv (5619) | about 3 months ago | (#47502337)

All the companies I've worked for didn't allow a split-tunnel VPN from corporate laptops.

Split-tunnel pretty much kills the whole point of using a VPN.

That's from the corporate IT point of view.

From my own machine point of view, having all my traffic routed to my employer kills the whole point of having a fast Internet connection.

Re:aaargh! pinheads in the IT. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47501973)

But the corporate official VPN uses some strange protocol. Once the VPN is connected ALL the traffic from the local machine will go the corporate VPN host.

It's not the VPN protocol, his VPN software changes the default route. He should change it back to the Verizon IP after connecting to the VPN and set an explicit route for the VPN lan (making a script with the settings would be easiest)

Re:aaargh! pinheads in the IT. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47502095)

most corporate VPN software wants to be the default route and will actively drop the connection if the route is changed. They have route monitoring built into the software. Recently they have actually been actively checking the signatures on their software too so that when you go mod the route monitor so that it no longer works - it will fail to connect due to a bad signature. They really are trying hard to lock it down and many of the corporate security people have "split tunnel = bad" as a mantra. They would rather pay for the additional cost of handling the user requests for external sites through the corporate VPN, back out through the corporate proxy (where it can be filtered for "inappropriate" stuff) and then back through the VPN to the user than allow those packets to be from the raw internet.

Re:aaargh! pinheads in the IT. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47502029)

What strange protocol is it using? OpenVPN?

We use OpenVPN at my work and any of our users that have FiOS have issues with it. It'll be super slow and they'll get disconnected.

It's actually a known issue though and has to do with the crappy Actiontec routers Verizon uses. When you connect to OpenVPN the routing table gets screwy. Guess it's got a limited size or something.

It's easily fixable by changed the IP of the Actiontec router and then connecting a new router with the original IP.

Articles on doing so:
http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Verizon_FiOS_-_Using_Your_Own_Router [dd-wrt.com]
http://www.jaredlog.com/?p=1042 [jaredlog.com]

However we don't offer this to our users since they wouldn't now how to do it and we won't do it for them.

Re:aaargh! pinheads in the IT. (1)

Aqualung812 (959532) | about 3 months ago | (#47502117)

But the corporate official VPN uses some strange protocol. Once the VPN is connected ALL the traffic from the local machine will go the corporate VPN host.

This isn't strange, it is considering SOP for most corporations to ban "split-tunneling", where only traffic to the corporate network are sent over VPN.
It also isn't a protocol, it is just a default route to send all traffic over the VPN.

The theory is that by allowing someone to have unfiltered access at the same time as they are connected to the internal corporate network, they are creating a security risk.

The reality is that the "crunchy outside, warm gooey inside" security model as been broken for some time, and modern security is to use a zero-trust network model.

TL;DR: It is quite common but agree it is quite stupid.

Good for Netflix (5, Funny)

colfer (619105) | about 3 months ago | (#47501837)

Now all Netflix needs to do is get a FiOS account at their house.

Re:Good for Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47502041)

They only get Comcast in their area.

Re:Good for Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47502091)

I would be totally unsurprised if 67 150Mbit/s connections were cheaper than the price they want for another 10Gbit/s so-called-transit port to reach their eyeballs. However I think in general these ISPs find a way to cut you off if you actually keep a consumer port full 24/7: no "servers", 250GByte/mo caps, claims of abuse, etc. It is the usual story: isolate the troublesome 0.01%, find some way to call them "hackers" or whatever, and just get rid of them. Normal people don't care what happens to them and neither should you---the only goal is to get rid of them so you can get on with what you were doing with the 99.99% as is your fucking entitlement.

These guys are addicted to the model of selling you things and then not allowing you to use them.

Even GFiber which allows servers, only allows "non-commercial" servers, so it would probably exclude Google themselves from hosting on GFiber when they were starting out and running from campus or a residential garage or whatever.

They're losing customers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47501843)

Many of my neighbors have gone back to BrightHouse, despite their Internet service being slow and flaky compared to FiOS. Why? Price. Verizon turn the screw over and over, and try to force you into bundles and contracts you don't want. When I finally canceled, I was paying $93/month for a 50/25mbps net service with no other services. That was 6 months ago. They offer come-back deals, but they're all limited periods or require me to have TV with STB rental and phone. No thanks.

Re:They're losing customers (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about 3 months ago | (#47502047)

$30/month is enough to get me not only a uncapped 100/100mb line, but a dedicated server/seedbox running at high utilization 24/7 too.

"The last mile is expensive", yadda yadda, sure, but there has to be more than a bit of price gouging here.

Symantics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47501873)

"you'll be automatically upgraded for no extra cost"
That's funny, because my bill just went up with no notice. How exactly is that "no extra cost". Oh right, the two are completely unrelated, I'm sure.

TOR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47501889)

Now you can all run TOR exit nodes!

15/5 becomes 25/25 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47501899)

According to this page the 15 got upped to 25 at no extra cost. Pretty sweet deal and I wish it were available where I live

http://www.verizon.com/home/fios-fastest-internet/

Oh no (1)

jlv (5619) | about 3 months ago | (#47501905)

When my FiOS went from 25/25 to 50/25, my measured rate went from 25/25 to 60/40! I hope that with this "update", I don't end up being downgraded to 50/50.

Our great new feature! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47501917)

Our great new feature, the service that we shouldve been selling you all along!

Verizon, now with 10% less lying.

While I welcome any increase in bandwidth... (1, Interesting)

BUL2294 (1081735) | about 3 months ago | (#47501957)

Uploading is still a fraction of what downloading is... Most home consumers, even those with IoT devices or heavy P2P users, are still net consumers of online information. (Think Netflix, Windows Updates, VPN, remote desktop, etc.) I see it as a gift I didn't care to receive but one that I wouldn't pass up. So, I have to ask, what's the point?

A more valuable gift would be continue the lack of symmetry, and bump existing download & upload speeds by some percentage. Until Netflix becomes P2P, most people wouldn't see much of a benefit from this... (e.g. Netflix streaming still sucks but my uploads to YouTube are 40% faster!)

As it should be (1)

Arker (91948) | about 3 months ago | (#47501965)

Asymmetrical connections were always BS.

Now if only they would roll out FIOS to the rest of the country like they have already been paid to do... ah well.

Re:As it should be (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47502141)

Asymmetrical connections were always BS.

No they weren't. Sacrificing upload to gain extra download makes perfect sense when the person at the end of the line does far more downloading than uploading. Even in today's world where people post every little thing that happens to them online this is still predominantly the case.

BTW, I stripped out that pretentious little font of yours. No need to thank me, just take a hint will you?

Re:As it should be (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47502499)

Asymetrical connections are BS when you're talking fiber.

When you're talking DSL or Cable, it's a different ballgame, due to the frequencies in use.

happy users! (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | about 3 months ago | (#47502005)

Both Verizon FIOS users were reportedly very happy (other than their experience using Netflix).

Re:happy users! (1)

dave562 (969951) | about 3 months ago | (#47502173)

This...

Last I heard, Verizon was scaling back / had stopped expanding their FiOS network. Is that still the case?

While this is great news for current FiOS subscribers, it means fuck all to the rest of us who do not, and likely will not ever have, FiOS.

ISPs in Canada? (1)

umdesch4 (3036737) | about 3 months ago | (#47502065)

Where I live, in a suburb of Vancouver, BC. I have no options even remotely like this. I have 100/10 cable internet right now, and that's the best I can get. Uploading anything is almost an exercise in futility.

Re:ISPs in Canada? (1)

umdesch4 (3036737) | about 3 months ago | (#47502115)

Sorry, I just double checked, and it's actually 100/5. Worse even than I remembered. I checked all available plans from Telus, Rogers, Shaw...and there's nothing better that's available anywhere near me. Remember this when the MP/RIAA makes a stink about those damned dirty Canadian pirates. Sure, if I pirate a movie, maybe I can seed it on a torrent site, and you'll get it in about 3 weeks. :P

Comcast? Where Are You Comcast? (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 3 months ago | (#47502177)

I thought Comcast, with its self-proclaimed (yet widely disproven) focus on customer happiness, had the fastest internet access speed in the US.

.
Will Comcast catch up to Verizon? If so, when?

OMG! Competition?! (1)

mi (197448) | about 3 months ago | (#47502291)

Will Comcast catch up to Verizon?

Wow, I wonder, if my fellow citizens of the command-and-control persuasion still think, the government mandating the higher speeds would've been more effective in delivering the bandwidth to consumers...

Re:Comcast? Where Are You Comcast? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47502549)

Comcast actually does beat Verizon on residential services, at least when it comes to download speeds. The top FiOS residential plan is 75 down, the top Comcast plan is 100 down. Comcast is also testing 1 gig down for residential.

Business class is a whole other ball game, as both sides can pretty much match each other with their Metro-E services.

As far as symmetrical, Verizon FiOS will always win there, now. DOCSIS technology (at least currently) isn't built for symmetrical services. The upstream RF channels have a much smaller bandwidth than the downstream channels, and you can only bond so many.

kinda off topic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47502301)

interesting to see how fast internet connections are. I remember the days of 56 kbps modems that connected at about 48 kbps. I watched Real Video using the player. There was no flash video plugin that I remember. My dad's friend was lucky enough to have an 128 kbps ISDN line. lol

I just checked my wireless 2.4 GHz connection. It is connected to the router at 130 Mbps. I don't think I have download a file that fast from the world wide web. I may have download a file fast from the local area network though.

What about extending FIOS to us DSL users? (2)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 3 months ago | (#47502347)

Call me when I can get more than 3 Mbps. Bastards.

Do we want to know why this change breaks Fark? (1)

zephvark (1812804) | about 3 months ago | (#47502385)

I'm on Verizon. Fark has been unreachable all day. This appears to be Verizon's problem, not Fark's, so... the fark is going on here? How does a major ISP lose connectivity to a major news-like site?

Still won't play Netflix (3, Informative)

scorp1us (235526) | about 3 months ago | (#47502429)

The problem isn't in the upstream, it's in the downstream. Specifically their L3 interconnects.

Verizon Wireless & Verizon Broadband Both Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47502451)

Verizon Broadband is evil because

1. They manipulate the public and competitors into thinking the issues with slow speed are the result of competing ISPs for which video services are using when in fact the reality is Verizon has a self-serving interest in reducing competition. so while there is some legitimacy to the claim it's inadequate to fully justify the demands.
2. policies on use of service (ie no servers, and, I get that the competition is also got similar policies, including Google, but none-the-less)
3. support for legislation that eliminates or puts up hurdles for potential competition (however little that is, or in markets which the company doesn't even service due to inadequate opportunities to profit)

Others may exist... but these are the ones I know about.

Though Comcast worse provider because:

1. interfering with and impersonating you or others your communicating with in order to disconnect traffic
2. false and severely misleadingly advertising about the speds being sold to consumers (forced to change advertising to 'up to' and still not really honest as you can't get those speeds during prime time hours when most people are actually on, bandwidth caps, X times faster than ADSL, when they only utilize the slowest speeds from competing providers, etc)
3. responsible for and/or support for legislation that limits competition
4. terrible service (have you ever called them or tried to cancel?)
5. compression on many TV channels reduces quality below that of even over the air reception
6. imposed increased costs on analog cable subscribers during the analog to digital switch and lied saying lower costs/better service/etc. to gain additional bandwidth, channels, etc and profit from such services users now have to pay for a cable box as they only provided 'free' boxes for 3 TVs
7. non-optional digital boxes add significant costs to electric bill
8. digital restrictions on premium channels (DRM is unethical)
9. digital restrictions on non-premium channels (channels which you can get over the air can't even be viewed in many areas and the imposition is totally optional on Comcast's part, it's not being imposed by somebody else on Comcast)
10. they force non-free software on you (all cable boxes and all cable internet boxes are dependent on non-free software)
11. support for bad legislation that limits competition
12. merging issues with other companies that would further entrench the company as a monopoly/duopoly/etc which would give it leverage over other companies even in areas for which it does not serve
13. bad policies for use of service (ie no servers, etc)
14. hi-jacking DNS, email, etc
15. blocking of certain ports. they are not providing a true internet connection. this is fraud if you ask me. they shouldn't be able to advertise it as they do. if I provided email service only it wouldn't be reasonable for me to advertise it as internet access now would it? while your able to send email via servers connected to the internet your not honestly providing internet service even if you are providing internet services. the difference between the two being the one is 100% open internet and the other is providing a service utilizing the internet/over the internet.

Other companies are also awful in some ways, but better in some regards. CenturyLink offers ADSL and while seemingly honest about services provided (that is you can actually get the service sold even during peak hours within the confines of your phone line and distance from provider) they hi-jack at least DNS.

ready-made DDoS Attack farms (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47502569)

I oppose giving consumers huge upload speeds such as this, for the reason that it's going to seriously amplify the DDoS attack capabilities of bot-armies which depend on compromised windows pc's organized. This problem is growing and is not just a problem for the end-user target of such attacks, but also for providers themselves which have to carry 1gbps+ attacks over network connections that are 'only' 1gbps to start with, serving aggregate end user traffic which normally may be 500mbps or less. What do we tell our customers? We can't necessarily block the traffic, because by the time the DoS gets to us, it's already done the damage. The attack traffic has to be stopped before it gets into the network to begin with.

I would advocate seriously the creation of 'risk zones', where high risk (and low accountabillity) users - such as dumbshit home users - are restricted by default and prevented by policy from being ABLE to be sources of DoS traffic in the first place, by filtering them down to 'consumer' access, no server protocols by default, effective 'rate limits', MANDATORY BCP38 (spoofed packet filtering), and WORKING ABUSE CONTACTS at the providers to identify and SHUT DOWN UNTIL FIXED any offenders no matter how loud they complain about being 'off'.

What kind of rate limits? Well... is it a working necessity for any end user connection to be able to emit more than 32kbps of dns queries? You know their routers mostly cache anyways. Same goes for NTP on the rate. And what about SYN floods, is it really necessary to be able to make more than say 10 connections per second? And direct to smtp, although the RBL's are doing a fair job, should end users be able to connect to smtp servers directly....? HELL no. Only viruses and such on consumer PC's want to do that.

Im just pissed that we have so few effective tools. The trust that the Internet was built on, is misplaced. Today it's a hostile cesspool of punk bitch motherfucker script kiddies without a single original talent that needs my boot put in their ass. FUCK!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?