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!

Enraged Verizon FiOS Customer Seemingly Demonstrates Netflix Throttling

timothy posted about 2 months ago | from the choking-hard dept.

Media 398

MojoKid (1002251) writes The ongoing battle between Netflix and ISPs that can't seem to handle the streaming video service's traffic, boiled over to an infuriating level for Colin Nederkoon, a startup CEO who resides in New York City. Rather than accept excuses and finger pointing from either side, Nederkoon did a little investigating into why he was receiving such slow Netflix streams on his Verizon FiOS connection. What he discovered is that there appears to be a clear culprit. Nederkoon pays for Internet service that promises 75Mbps downstream and 35Mbps upstream through his FiOS connection. However, his Netflix video streams were limping along at just 375kbps (0.375mbps), equivalent to 0.5 percent of the speed he's paying for. On a hunch, he decided to connect to a VPN service, which in theory should actually make things slower since it's adding extra hops. Speeds didn't get slower, they got much faster. After connecting to VyprVPN, his Netflix connection suddenly jumped to 3000kbps, the fastest the streaming service allows and around 10 times faster than when connecting directly with Verizon. Verizon may have a different explanation as to why Nederkoon's Netflix streams suddenly sped up, but in the meantime, it would appear that throttling shenanigans are taking place. It seems that by using a VPN, Verizon simply doesn't know which packets to throttle, hence the gross disparity in speed.

cancel ×

398 comments

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

Thanks (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47537815)

Now they'll just throttle VPN traffic too.

Re:Thanks (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 2 months ago | (#47537879)

Someone should invent SSL!

Re:Thanks (5, Insightful)

Casualposter (572489) | about 2 months ago | (#47537881)

SO when you pay for that service it says something like "up to 75mbps" which in reality means that the speed test and google's home page could see that much speed and everyone else will look like dial up from the 1990's.

It would be much better if the services had to advertise their average speed across the most popular sites. That way if they throttle Netflix to .375mpbs, they have to inform customers that while they are paying $125/month for "blazing fast speed" they are actually getting blazingly fast dial up speeds.

What the hell kind of dialup did you have? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538311)

375k!?

No, I get your point... just...

Re:Thanks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47537891)

Now they'll just throttle VPN traffic too.

That takes this whole thing out of context. Automatically throttling VPN Traffic would risk breaking peering arrangements Verizon has made.

Re:Thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538361)

...this was on ars many days back... /. yet again underscoring it's current state of irrelevance...

Could be a different route involved for the VPN (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47537825)

It is also possible the the VPN packets are transiting a different upstream peer from Verizon and bypassing the peering bottleneck at issue. Assuming that Verizon is performing inspection of packets and throttling only Netflix packets is quite a leap.

Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (2, Insightful)

knightghost (861069) | about 2 months ago | (#47537867)

Not so much of a leap since Verizon and Comcast have admitted to such.

Wouldn't a simple tracert show the route (and any differences)?

Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (5, Insightful)

pla (258480) | about 2 months ago | (#47537877)

It is also possible the the VPN packets are transiting a different upstream peer from Verizon and bypassing the peering bottleneck at issue. Assuming that Verizon is performing inspection of packets and throttling only Netflix packets is quite a leap.

Failing to have peerage agreements in place to honor your downstream sales commitments is a form of throttling - Or, I would daresay, a form of outright fraud.

If I offer to sell you "unlimited" beers from my fridge for $50 a month, but I only resupply it at a rate of one six-pack per week, I have intentionally cheated you. That basic relationship doesn't magically change because of some hand-waving technobabble about peerage agreements and network congestion.

(Yes, I know those don't strictly count as technobabble, and what they really mean - But they effectively reduce to Verizon having zero interest in upgrading its infrastructure to support its commitments to their customers as long as the FCC and FTC will allow them to outright lie)

Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (-1)

alen (225700) | about 2 months ago | (#47537905)

i can say why netflix and everyone will lose any lawsuit, but i'm tired of repeating myself to retarts on the internet who can only parrot what BGR and other tech blogs tell them
netflix did some things last year that directly resulted in their service being degraded

Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (1)

Aqualung812 (959532) | about 2 months ago | (#47538085)

Perhaps you could just link to the article or a particularly insightful comment you made instead of making a post that adds nothing to the conversation.

Not all of us read every comment on /.

I'm very curious as to why Netflix would degrade their own service and why Comcast and Verizon wouldn't point to this smoking gun every time they're accused of throttling.

Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (2, Informative)

alen (225700) | about 2 months ago | (#47538195)

there are a dozen video providers i can name who stream video with no problems. Hulu, HBO Go, Amazon, Vudu, Cinemanow, Apple itunes, ABC, History Channel, Disney, Lifetime, PBS, Fox, ESPN, NBC and others. most of this is video on demand, but they have some live video they stream as well.
only netflix is having these issues. difference is that everyone uses a CDN to host their content inside the ISP's network or close to. there are at least a half dozen CDN's that do most of the hosting
the way it has worked for 15 years since Akamai made the first CDN because people figured out a long time ago you can't send large files over the internet. the way it works is the CDN pays the ISP for hosting and bandwidth and the customer pays the CDN
netflix used to use one of these CDN's, forgot exactly who but they let the contract expire last year
instead netflix came up with a cool CDN box but they demand ISP's host it for free and give them free bandwidth as well. i guess netflix got so big they think they can extract payment from everyone

and if there is a lawsuit it will be brought up that this is only a netflix issue and there would be lots of discovery on netflix's business for the last 5 years

Re: Could be a different route involved for the VP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538231)

The netflix cdn box is worth tens of thousands depending on spec and the isp has to set aside around 8tb for sync. This had in places reduced netflix traffic beyond the isp to below 10% in some cases. PROVIDERS can't have it both ways. Capping fibre to 300k is beyond being cuntish, round here you'd get stabbed for cheating someone as hard

Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538247)

A CDN is just one way of delivering the data. If Netflix has the outbound bandwidth and is willing to peer settlement free, then what difference does it make to the ISP whether the data comes in through a network cable from outside the data center or from inside the data center? Oh right, they could charge Netflix for hosting the machines.

Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (0)

alen (225700) | about 2 months ago | (#47538357)

that link is dedicated netflix and it limits them to the amount of data they send. last year super hd was for a few selected ISP's but then netflix started sending it to everyone over Level 3 and screwed up everyone's service

the point is netflix is trying to increase costs on their business partners who will then have to increase prices of their customers. customers will hate the ISP but like netflix. same strategy as TV companies have used with cable TV and forcing them to sell bundled channels, intel has done this, a lot of companies have done this. customer hates the company they do business with for high prices, but it's really because they are being forced to provide services some may not want

current system is not perfect but it ensures that people who use the service pay the costs and not everyone pays

Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (4, Informative)

itsenrique (846636) | about 2 months ago | (#47538283)

"i guess netflix got so big they think they can extract payment from everyone" Now there's a good one. In reverse shill-logic world perhaps. For those interested in what's really happening I'll point you here ( http://www.extremetech.com/com... [extremetech.com] ). Headline: Verizon caught throttling Netflix traffic even after its pays for more bandwidth. And that is basically what they are doing, artificially restricting Netflix not going through VPN to (arguably) criminally low speeds by means of not upgrading hardware on purpose to thwart who they view as "competition. Although I'm not sure Verizon will sell you anything remotely useful for $8 a month. I quit Verizon for this reason although I never told the CS rep because they try to make it hard to quit anyway. Verizon seems to be trying to fool everyone with (what seems to most people) lots of mumbo jumbo and outright deception, I for one hope they don't continue to get away with this attempt to make there "competitors" look bad.

Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (1)

mrzaph0d (25646) | about 2 months ago | (#47537915)

If I offer to sell you "unlimited" beers from my fridge for $50 a month,

uh. that's not a car analogy. where's my freakin' car analogy?!

Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (1)

guises (2423402) | about 2 months ago | (#47537983)

I... offer to rent you a car with a premium agreement for unlimited mileage and free gas at participating gas stations*.

* Gas allotment limited to one gallon per week.

Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (1)

Wdomburg (141264) | about 2 months ago | (#47538019)

I would think the more apt analogy is that you sold me unlimited access to your fridge (bandwidth) but Netflix (content provider) is only restocking at a rate of one six-pack per week. IOW, Netflix is the one failing to have peerage agreements in place to honor their downstream sales commitments.

Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (4, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 2 months ago | (#47538113)

If I offer to sell you "unlimited" beers from my fridge for $50 a month, but I only resupply it at a rate of one six-pack per week, I have intentionally cheated you. That basic relationship doesn't magically change because of some hand-waving technobabble about peerage agreements and network congestion.

This analogy is a little flawed. Let me correct it. Let us say the local municipality has granted pla (258480) a local monopoly in selling beer to its residents. And you sell beer at different service level all unlimited number of trips to the fridge, but at 1 trip/hr, 1trip/6 hours, 1 trip/min, 1 trip/sec etc. And you stock it with brewed-by-your-local-sewage-company beer all the time, and stock Buds, Coors and Coronas one bottle a month. Then your analogy is complete.

What is really insidious is, pla is NOT buying any beer. All the beer companies come stock the fridge for free. Pla's only cost is keeping the beer cool. And it does not cost any more to cool a bottle of Corona than to cool a bottle of brew-from-sewer. Just because pla noticed people are drinking Corona more, pla wants Corona to pay him more money. Remember it is a monopoly. Corona has no other way of selling its beer without going through pla's fridge. Now you get the idea.

Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (2)

InvalidError (771317) | about 2 months ago | (#47538269)

Failing to have peerage agreements in place to honor your downstream sales commitments is a form of throttling - Or, I would daresay, a form of outright fraud.

Only problem with that is Verizon has TONS of under-used transit capacity with other networks - when Verizon posted their thing about peering points with Netflix's partners, they also mentioned that their transit to other networks at times where Netflix was hitting 100% was only ~40% on average.

So, Verizon would have plenty of transit capacity if it was spread more evenly across all the peering Verizon has.

Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47537889)

How hard is it to inject BGP Routes into your autonomous system to force the data to for known netflix ip blocks to go over the slowest links possible?

Yeah, ISP's can't decide which routes go out what wires and when....

Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (2, Informative)

Drakonblayde (871676) | about 2 months ago | (#47538031)

You do not understand how BGP works.

The problem isn't the data that verizon is sending to netflix, it's the data netflix is sending to verizon. Verizon messing with routing policy on netflix's announced prefix's wouldn't have an effect on verizon's streaming speeds. The traffic flows from Netflix to Verizon.

Therefore, in order to influence streaming speeds, Verizon would have to change their routing policy on how they announce their own routes in order to influence which links netflix traffic can come in on. The problem is, there's no way within BGP for Verizon to say I want Netflix traffic to only come in over these specific links. It would influence *all* traffic from that peer. Routing policy is destination based, not source based, and not source-destination based. By simply announcing the routes are more preferable over Level 3 saturated links, that forces traffic Level3 delivers for those prefixes to come in over those links.

Sure, Level3 could do some traffic engineering of their own and ignore or mutate some parts of Verizon's route announcements, and force that traffic in over unsaturated links Verizon may have with Level 3 (if there are any), but Level3 is a middleman. Doing so would take them out of their middleman status and put them firmly on Netflix's side. Verizon's likely response would be to immediately de-peer Level3.

The only folks who can effectively change how the traffic reaches Verizon's network is Netflix. They determine their outbound routing policy, but only up until their own border. Once it transits to another AS, it will be forwarded according to the upstream AS's routing policy. If Netflix wants to avoid saturated Verizon-L3 interconnects, the only thing they can do is not send traffic to Level3 for Verizon prefixes. They could easily modify their inbound route policy to send traffic for Verizon's prefixes via another peer. This is something that Level3 does not want, because it effects their revenue, hence their seeming to take sides with Netflix on the matter. It's one thing for Level3 to have an opinion on what Verizon is doing, that doesn't really effect operations. The second you change operations to try and force that opinion, well, you're likely to invoke the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Now, for whatever reason, Netflix has decided to go ahead and keep sending Verizon traffic to Level3. The reality is that if Verizon has decided to be douchebags about this, then they can do the same thing for whatever peer the traffic is ingressing through. Maybe all of Netflix's other peers ultimately transit to Verizon via Level3 anyway, which would make any change of forwarding policy moot.

About the only way for Netflix to solve this is to go ahead and cut out the middleman and just pay Verizon directly for interconnects into their network. This is what Verizon wants: another revenue source for traffic their going to deliver anyway. This is what Level 3 does not want: When you cut out the middleman, the middleman makes no money.

Netflix has already done it with Comcast and AT&T, so it's not surprising that Verizon wants in on this action as well, and will continue to be douchebags about it.

In the meantime, savvy customers can come up with their own solutions in order to avoid having netflix traffic destined for them coming in over saturated links. VPN and tunneling are two perfectly valid solutions.

Do they deserve the benefit of the doubt? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47537893)

Let's say that there's a mentally disturbed feminist who goes around breaking into people's houses at night. If she finds a man sleeping in such a house, she proceeds to hit his groin repeatdly with a hammer until his genitalia are ruined.

And let's say that these sorts of incidents become common for her. They happen quite often. She gets a reputation for breaking penises and scrotums with a hammer.

So as somebody who is widely known for having crushed over eighty groins with a hammer, should we still give her the benefit of the doubt when she's found holding a hammer in a man's bedroom, and his penis spout is bent and his testes are mush?

Those with an academic or idealistic background may say "yes", but those grounded in the real world, when confronted with the evidence and her reputation, would be very much inclined to say a very emphatic "NO!"

Re: Do they deserve the benefit of the doubt? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538201)

You win the most absurd analogy ever award.

Re: Do they deserve the benefit of the doubt? (1)

jc42 (318812) | about 2 months ago | (#47538279)

You win the most absurd analogy ever award.

Hey, nobody told me this was a contest ...

Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (4, Informative)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | about 2 months ago | (#47537941)

It is also possible the the VPN packets are transiting a different upstream peer from Verizon and bypassing the peering bottleneck at issue. Assuming that Verizon is performing inspection of packets and throttling only Netflix packets is quite a leap.

This is exactly what's happening. I do the same thing for a specific server I use. Standard routing via FiOS results in consistent 1mb download speeds. I set up a GRE tunnel to my VPS host and I get consistent 10mb download speeds. The culprit appears to be a shitty peering connection between so-4-1-0-0.LAX01-BB-RTR1.verizon-gni.net (130.81.151.246) and 0.ae2.XL3.CHI13.ALTER.NET (140.222.225.187).

Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538191)

Except verizon-gni.net == alter.net so not really a peering connection in the same fashion as is being generally kicked around between Verizon, Level 3, Netflix, et. al.

Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about 2 months ago | (#47538347)

Wow alternet, there's a name I haven't heard in a while. Maybe they just never upgraded their T1 line.

Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (1)

Andrio (2580551) | about 2 months ago | (#47538043)

If only magical boxes existed that could intelligently and automatically find the fastest route for traffic.

But what would we call these magical routing boxes?

Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (1)

InvalidError (771317) | about 2 months ago | (#47538317)

The problem with the 'fastest' route is that it may not be the CHEAPEST route.

If L3 really wanted to relieve pressure on their bottlenecked links to Verizon instead of trying to turn this into a PR exercise to make Verizon cave in, they could re-route traffic through Verizon's other peers with under-loaded links but that could cost L3 more money and possibly cause peering disputes with those other peers.

Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538375)

The problem with the 'fastest' route is that it may not be the CHEAPEST route.

Fine. Let's tax slower routes until the fastest route is the cheapest route.

Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 2 months ago | (#47538133)

I would even say, it's quite a Quantum Leap, unfortunately it's unavailable to stream on Netflix Canada. Which is funny because it's probably available on Netflix USA which I could access via VPN too.

Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (2)

mjm1231 (751545) | about 2 months ago | (#47538141)

This doesn't change the fact that the customer paid for 75Mbps and got... a lot less.

Alternative explanation (5, Insightful)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | about 2 months ago | (#47537829)

Routing traffic via the VPN changes the path the traffic flows over, possibly avoiding routes that are saturated and (who knows) pending upgrade.

It's tempting to imagine the internet as a giant blob of fungible bandwidth, but in reality it's just a big mess of cables some of which are higher capacity than others. Assuming malice is fun, but there isn't enough data here to say one way or another.

Re:Alternative explanation (2)

Ecuador (740021) | about 2 months ago | (#47537847)

Except Verizon here lets just some "low capacity" cables connect them to Netflix's provider on purpose (as illustrated in a recent /. article), so there can be no other reason apart from extorting money. And for the speed to actually going down with time it probably means that instead of "upgrading" capacity they are probably doing the opposite to force Netflix. And they are lowering the speed slowly otherwise their customers would figure it out and start rioting (but many don't have any recourse as in, alternative ISP).
Remember, Netflix actually offers installing their servers within the ISP's network for free, which would mean no interconnection.
And, finally, this is 1 week old "news for nerds". I have read about it in so many tech sites, I was certain it would be a dupe (but a quick search seems to indicate it is not).

Re:Alternative explanation (-1, Troll)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 2 months ago | (#47537895)

Except Verizon here lets just some "low capacity" cables connect them to Netflix's provider on purpose

...because Netflix's provider (which is Level3) isnt paying for the bandwidth disparity between Level3 and Verizon on purpose.

Thats how the internet is paid for. The sending provider pays the receiving provider for the bandwidth, and this is the only rational way it can be.

You do know that Netflix uses Level3 because Level3 offered the best deal, and the only way they could offer the best deal is to skimp on their responsibility to pay for the packets originating on their network.

Re:Alternative explanation (4, Informative)

amorsen (7485) | about 2 months ago | (#47537927)

Thats how the internet is paid for. The sending provider pays the receiving provider for the bandwidth, and this is the only rational way it can be.

No. That is not how it works. The truth is that the smaller provider pays the larger provider, no matter which direction the traffic flows. Some companies, like Netflix, are nice enough to not use their size as an excuse to charge people -- they offer free peering at internet exchanges. Other companies are maximally greedy.

Re:Alternative explanation (1)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | about 2 months ago | (#47538153)

Thats how the internet is paid for. The sending provider pays the receiving provider for the bandwidth, and this is the only rational way it can be.

No. That is not how it works. The truth is that the smaller provider pays the larger provider, no matter which direction the traffic flows. Some companies, like Netflix, are nice enough to not use their size as an excuse to charge people -- they offer free peering at internet exchanges. Other companies are maximally greedy.

That's not how it works, either. A peering arrangement is an interconnection between two providers in which neither pays the other for traffic. Verizon would like to change this model and receive payment.

Re:Alternative explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538243)

Thats how the internet is paid for. The sending provider pays the receiving provider for the bandwidth, and this is the only rational way it can be.

No. That is not how it works. The truth is that the smaller provider pays the larger provider, no matter which direction the traffic flows. Some companies, like Netflix, are nice enough to not use their size as an excuse to charge people -- they offer free peering at internet exchanges. Other companies are maximally greedy.

That's not how it works, either. A peering arrangement is an interconnection between two providers in which neither pays the other for traffic. Verizon would like to change this model and receive payment.

You're referring to "settlement-free peering". Peering (in general) can be either paid or settlement-free.

Peering provides you routes to just the other provider's network (and vice versa), this can be provided via settlement-free (no money exchanged) or via an agreed price. Transit services provides full routes from that said provider's blend of connectivity (providing you routes to the networks that send them routes).

Re:Alternative explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538003)

With your logic (aka "the only rational way"), if I pay my ISP and request a file from another provider X, then I cannot get my file unless provider X pays my ISP (because I requested something)? Hey! I know how to become instantly rich, I will be an ISP that starts requesting random files from everybody else and CHARGE them if they are dumb enough to send them!!! So, what are you, a shill or a complete moron?

Re:Alternative explanation (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 2 months ago | (#47538349)

I will be an ISP that starts requesting random files from everybody else and CHARGE them if they are dumb enough to send them!!!

Thats better than the alternative, where you can just send unrequested data out to arbitrary IP addresses and then expect payment. In the scenario you suggest, the sender can at least opt out and stop sending if someone is abusing them.

This is the same reason that the sender pays the postage on snail mail and that it really cannot rationally be any other way except in rare circumstances that cannot be the general case.

Netflix pays Level3 a fee to send data to you. Verizon wants to be paid for handing data that originates from Level3's customers that is destined for its customers. In real terms Level3 should be charging Netflix a premium for destinations such as Verizons network so that Verizon can be reimbursed the expenses associated with handling the volume of traffic originating from Level3.

Well in the case of snail mail, thats exactly what happens. If you want to send a letter from Canada to the United States (or vise-versa) the regular local postage fee isnt enough. The sender has to pay a premium so that the other countries postal service can be reimbursed even in the case where the person its destined for requested the letter.

The exception is when its postage due, but we already know that everyone is against Verizon charging customers that use Netflix more than the customers that do not use Netflix.. "Net Neutrality" and all that.

Re:Alternative explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538029)

Thats how the internet is paid for. The sending provider pays the receiving provider for the bandwidth, and this is the only rational way it can be.

LOL wut? Are you actually saying that settlement-free peering agreements are irrational? That's the dumbest thing I've read on the internet all day.

Irrational or not, peering agreements are made with zero payments to/from either party all the time, and unless YOU know the terms of the peering agreement between L3 and Verizon, you have no idea if L3 is "skimping" on their contractual responsibilities.

Re:Alternative explanation (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 2 months ago | (#47538049)

But that is not how the internet has traditionally worked. Teir 1 providers (those that pay nobody for bandwidth) which L3 and Verizon are do not pay each other ever. L3 is more than happy to increase port capacity/count and Verizon is refusing to do so. Put more simply Verizon is refusing to increase capacity in hopes to get the Comcast deal with Netflix. Netflix is also happy to give Verizon CDN gear to deploy on their network again a common practice.

Verizon is a teir 1 but pretty much an eyeball network, they send very little traffic compared to what they consume. They are effectively gaming the settlement free peering that has made the internet work to date in attempt to extort netflix and the like to buy their more expansive bandwidth to use their CDN etc etc. If you extend that logically we fall back to the walled garden days of compuserve aol etc which seems to what Verizon wants people paying to consume the things they are getting payed to send them.

For the obligatorily car analogy it's the car dealership making the factory pay them to take the cars and making the consumer pay for the car irregardless if it's the one they want coupled with the government only allowing a couple car dealerships sell to people in a given area, effectively take what they offer or get nothing.

Re:Alternative explanation (4, Interesting)

kqs (1038910) | about 2 months ago | (#47538087)

...because Netflix's provider (which is Level3) isnt paying for the bandwidth disparity between Level3 and Verizon on purpose.

The bandwidth disparity argument is bunk. I've love if Netflix or Level 3 would set up some data sinks in their network so I could use my FIOS to send them random data 24/7 and help even the disparity.

Thats how the internet is paid for. The sending provider pays the receiving provider for the bandwidth, and this is the only rational way it can be.

So... you're saying that Verizon should be paying me! I mean, they send me ALL THIS DATA (much of it sourced from Netflix), but I hardly send them anything. This makes me both a selfish person and someone who deserves a large monthly Verizon cheque.

Note that if Verizon doesn't want to pay a few grand for a few more 10GE ports and some short cables, they could pay even less and accept the caching servers that Netflix offers to all large ISPs; those cost just a few rack units and watts of power.

But Verizon would rather limit Netflix so that they can push their own video products.

Re:Alternative explanation (1)

anegg (1390659) | about 2 months ago | (#47538097)

I had responsibility for a corporate data network a number of years ago, when cross-country link speeds were substantially lower than they are now. About 80 sites distributed across the US. We charged a flat rate based on number of "subscribers" (network users) at each location to put a location on the network as part of our cost-recovery strategy. The CIO asked me to develop a traffic-based charge instead/in addition to the subscriber charge. We analyzed the situation as follows:

If the source of traffic is charged for providing data to the network, it will limit the services that the source chooses to provide, even if those services are very beneficial to the rest of the network.

If the sink for the traffic is charged for the data it receives from the network, it can cause the sink to be charged for data it didn't request or cause that site to stop using services that create a better overall result for the corporation as a whole.

Locations subscribe to the network because they want access to services and because they want to be able to provide services. Charging by traffic would force providers and consumers into a level of analysis and complexity that would ultimately limit the usefulness of the network, and stifle creativity and growth. On top of that, adding cost-accounting to the network based on traffic would add about 30% to the cost of operating the network.

All kinds of "unfairness" exist in the network world. Our more distant locations thought it very unfair that they had to pay big bucks for a lower speed connection than our customers located at a corporate hub site, even though our actual cost to connect those customers was several times what we charged them, for example. Because we were a corporation, we could decide that the cost of the network was a pooled cost that benefited everyone, and that the best cost-model for the corporation's benefit was the flat-rate subscriber cost regardless of distance.

The commercial world is a little bit different than the corporate world, because the sources/sinks are more polarized (I'm suspect NetFlix puts more traffic onto the network than they pull off of the network). But the arguments seem similar in nature. Consumers on the network are there specifically because they expect to get traffic from providers. Verizon would have a much harder time selling Verizon's services (especially higher download rates) if the rest of the Internet didn't have other firms providing data that Verizon's consumer customers wanted to download. The value of the network is in both the sourcing and sinking of the traffic flows combined. Focusing the accounting on just one direction of flow ignores that value.

Re:Alternative explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538221)

Cool story, but much accounting FAIL. Your CIO at that job shouldn't have ventured outside of his area of expertise. The exercise you describe was a complete waste of time for someone in IT.

Re:Alternative explanation (1)

johnw (3725) | about 2 months ago | (#47538101)

Thats how the internet is paid for. The sending provider pays the receiving provider for the bandwidth, and this is the only rational way it can be.

Really? I'm only an end user, but my experience is that the charging is the other way round. Traffic to me is metered (and I pay for) whilst traffic which I originate is un-metered.

Re:Alternative explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538115)

...because Netflix's provider (which is Level3) isnt paying for the bandwidth disparity between Level3 and Verizon on purpose.

Thats how the internet is paid for. The sending provider pays the receiving provider for the bandwidth, and this is the only rational way it can be.

You do know that Netflix uses Level3 because Level3 offered the best deal, and the only way they could offer the best deal is to skimp on their responsibility to pay for the packets originating on their network.

HAHAHAHA! Next time you post, consider these words of wisdom:

"Dont open your mouth when ignorant unless its to ask questions to reduce your level of ignorance"

Re:Alternative explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538355)

Except Verizon here lets just some "low capacity" cables connect them to Netflix's provider on purpose (as illustrated in a recent /. article)

The article: http://tech.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]

I wonder how long until Level 3 figures out that the way to fix this is to use different connections. Verizon can "throttle" by this method only because Level 3 always routes through the same path. If Level 3 uses more paths, then Verizon would have to throttle each one. Since this seems to be as much accidental as deliberate (Verizon seems to be intentionally refusing to upgrade the connection rather than have downgraded the connection). The speed drops over time because it's being spread over more customers.

Alternatively, Netflix could just pay Verizon. The advantage to that would be that then someone would actually be paying for the expensive part of the service. That would help make the current system work. Currently everyone has "unlimited" bandwidth which means that no residential customer actually pays for the bandwidth that they use. Unsurprisingly, this leads companies to try to discourage their biggest users.

I'm actually sort of surprised that existing edge caches don't cover this. If most of the streaming came from inside the Verizon network, they wouldn't be able to throttle it at the edge connections. They'd have to throttle their internal traffic which has its own set of problems.

Re:Alternative explanation (2)

jaseuk (217780) | about 2 months ago | (#47537849)

This has been rather done to death (http://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth) , but Verizon doesn't appear to be throttling or shaping Netflix. They are running their peered links to Layer 3 at 100% capacity. Traffic that doesn't go via Layer 3 does not suffer. So if you find an alternative route that doesn't use Netflix's Layer 3 peering connections (such as a VPN) then things run well.

For this to be resolved, people really need to find non-Netflix services that are equally impacted and bring this up. It may well be that 90% of Verizon's Layer 3 pipe is for Netflix, but there are bound to be other services suffering. If this can be demonstrated this puts other parties into the equation and should encourage Verizon to take up Layer-3s offer of additional free peering capacity.

I suspect that Verizon would rather that Netflix isn't running at full-speed as it quietens down their overall network usage and can somewhat claim they are not capping or throttling. Perhaps Layer-3 should shut down these peering points for maintenance and let the Verizon find a way through another peer / transit, it might melt the whole of Verizon's network that way and encourage them to solve it.

Jason.

Re:Alternative explanation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47537903)

Here's the thing: If I'm a customer of a given ISP, I DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK IF THEIR PEERED LINK TO LAYER 3 IS AT 100% CAPACITY!

If they're having capacity problems, even with thousands or even millions of customers paying hundreds of dollars a month for service, then there's only one thing they can do: BUILD OR ACQUIRE MORE PEERING CAPACITY WITH LAYER 3!

Re:Alternative explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47537973)

Here's the thing: If I'm a customer of a given ISP, I DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK IF THEIR PEERED LINK TO LAYER 3 IS AT 100% CAPACITY!

If they're having capacity problems, even with thousands or even millions of customers paying hundreds of dollars a month for service, then there's only one thing they can do: BUILD OR ACQUIRE MORE PEERING CAPACITY WITH LAYER 3!

Here's the thing: If I'm an ISP, I DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK IF A LINK IS AT 100% CAPACITY!

If the customer is having capacity problems, even with thousands or even millions of customers paying hundreds of dollars a month for service, then there's only one thing they can do: GET SOMEONE ELSE TO PAY FOR MORE PEERING CAPACITY!

Fixed that for you.

Re: Alternative explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538239)

Level 3 offered, Verizon declined. They'd only have to connect a dozen cables or so.

Re: Alternative explanation (1)

alen (225700) | about 2 months ago | (#47537995)

It's up to Netflix to buy cdn hosting to improve their speeds. ISP is just a dumb pipe, remember?

Everyone buys cdn hosting for their content except Netflix

Re: Alternative explanation (5, Informative)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about 2 months ago | (#47538053)

You obviously missed the article where Netflix supplies a tower-pc sized box with all of netflix on it to ISPs for free:

Netflix Boxes [gizmodo.com]

Re: Alternative explanation (4, Insightful)

kqs (1038910) | about 2 months ago | (#47538121)

No, Netflix (and Youtube and some others large ones) don't buy CDN hosting; they offer it. They offer free CDN servers which large ISPs can put in their datacenters. Doesn't matter how much Netflix offered to pay, I doubt if any existing CDN could handle Netflix's traffic along with their other customers.

Many ISPs take advantage of this, but Verizon would rather degrade Netflix's products so they can push their own products.

Re: Alternative explanation (1)

oobayly (1056050) | about 2 months ago | (#47538295)

Have they started naming and shaming the ISPs who refuse to host a Netflix Open Connect box in their data centres?

Re:Alternative explanation (2)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | about 2 months ago | (#47537993)

It's not just Level3 (not Layer 3), it's also Alternet and possibly others. Peering has gotten tough. It's supposed to be hey, let's connect our stuff together because I want to send you a bunch of stuff and you want to send me a bunch of stuff and we both win. The Internet has evolved and that has resulted in asymmetric traffic flows where one party carries more (sometimes far more) of the burden than the other, but the cost models have remained the same.

In Verizon's mind, they receive no benefit from increasing peering capacity in cases where they receive far more traffic than they can send. They forgot one thing, though; their residential customers. They are the ones who need the additional capacity, and without it their service will continue to degrade.

Re:Alternative explanation (2)

jedidiah (1196) | about 2 months ago | (#47538015)

That is true perhaps.

However, this is all entirely Verizon's fault. They are the entity in this arrangement that has actively encouraged assymetric use of the net by offering assymeteric service. It's really rich to see ISPs complain that they are getting too much traffic all in one direction then that's how they f*cking design their service.

Verizon is selling massive downloads. So is every other consumer ISP.

Re:Alternative explanation (1)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | about 2 months ago | (#47538083)

They are the entity in this arrangement that has actively encouraged assymetric use of the net by offering assymeteric service.

This is half true. Verizon is selling asymmetric services (although they are changing most FiOS plans to symmetric [fiercetelecom.com] ).

What is not true is that asymmetric connections encourages asymmetric usage. It's the other way around, and has been since the days of dialup.

Re:Alternative explanation (1)

module0000 (882745) | about 2 months ago | (#47538149)

You say "Layer 3"(a step in the OSI model), do you mean "Level 3"(an ISP)? They are the ISP and backbone provider that has owns the CDN appliances caching and delivering the [majority of] Netflix streams in the USA.

Re: Alternative explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47537855)

As someone who does networking for a living I can say this is a Verizon problem. If there are many paths to a node their system should be choosing the fastest path.Verizon obviously is not doing that and deliberately allowing congestion.

Re: Alternative explanation (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 2 months ago | (#47537883)

If there are many paths to a node their system should be choosing the fastest path.Verizon obviously is not doing that and deliberately allowing congestion.

And Netflix would happily give them OpenConnect appliances too, to avoid _their_ bandwidth costs as well. But Netflix competes with Verizon's VoD services - this isn't hard to figure out.

There are at least three underlying problems for the congestion issue - one is the DMCA and related copyright laws that prevent any sort of sane caching, the general fear of multicast that everybody on the Internet still seems to have (half a million unicast streams of the same show is insane - where are the global warming people on this?), and the grants of monopolies and/or prohibitions on competition that prevent local competition.

Label me shocked if the Netflix app on mobile devices does not have a P2P mode working in the lab right now, as a workaround for us running a sub-par Internet.

Re: Alternative explanation (1)

amorsen (7485) | about 2 months ago | (#47537943)

Multicast is not a viable technology for truly large scale deployments (more than a few hundred thousand hosts perhaps). Routers and switches do not have the required resources to maintain multicast routing/switching tables for millions of multicast sessions.

The correct way to solve the problem is to push it to the end nodes. They have much more CPU power and memory than routers and switches. The technology to do so has existed for a long time: P2P.

Re: Alternative explanation (2)

Drakonblayde (871676) | about 2 months ago | (#47538143)

There are at least three underlying problems for the congestion issue - one is the DMCA and related copyright laws that prevent any sort of sane caching, the general fear of multicast that everybody on the Internet still seems to have (half a million unicast streams of the same show is insane - where are the global warming people on this?), and the grants of monopolies and/or prohibitions on competition that prevent local competition.

I agree with you that half a million unicast streams can be nuts, when it comes to on demand content, multicast is a non-starter (we'll ignore the fact that multicast is sorely lacking in security features and would require some serious re-engineering on many networks to work... there's a very big reason why inter-domain multicast routing is not seriously employed, and it has nothing to do with fear).

Think about how this traffic flows -

Sub1 wants show A and starts playing it on Netflix.

10 minutes later, Sub2 wants show A as well.

What happens if this stream is multicast? Well, Sub2 gets the show 10 minutes later, assuming he's joining the same multicast group as Sub1. Sub2 is not happy, he wanted to watch the entire show.

How to get around this? Well, ok, so Netflix could just mux the feed for Sub2 inside the feed for Sub1, and presumably, the client would be able to tell which parts of the feed were for which sub. However, the problem is that the data for Sub2 would still be delivered to sub1, sub1 would just throw it away and pay attention to it's own data. However the data for both feeds have to transit the same backbone, which drives capacity usage up. This is also unsustainable, as eventually, as more subscribers joined, the feed would grow so large that it would saturate the downstream of all the subscribers receiving it and eventually lead to packet loss.... which would lead to loss of video, stuttering, etc. All the same shit thats going on now.

Ok, so muxing different streams into the same feed for the same show isn't going to work.

So Sub2 could just start getting the feed over a different multicast group, that would solve the ever growing feed problem!

Except that if you do that, there is functionally no difference between sending the traffic to a multicast destination and a unicast destination.

So sure, while sending half a billion unicast streams seems insane, especially since alot of those will be watching the same show, the fact is that a very small percentage are going to be watching the same show at the exact point in the show. For the most part, they will all be at different parts. Multicast is a solution when the data for the given event is live, or when it's linear (ie, this is the point we're at, and there's no going back). On Demand services does not fit either of those profiles.

Multicast has it's place in the on demand world, but only on the backend. It's wonderful for things like distributing a new asset to all of the streaming sources, or for filling caching servers that will the streaming boxes will need to pull from, but multicast is simply not a workable or superior implementation when it comes to delivery of content to subscribers.

Re: Alternative explanation (1)

Drakonblayde (871676) | about 2 months ago | (#47538051)

You do not do networking for a living very well then.

The problem isn't how Verizon is egressing traffic to Netflix, it's in how Verizon is allowing traffic from Netflix to ingress to their network. Once the Netflix traffic makes it into their network, I have no doubt it is being delivered over the most efficient route.... which means jack shit when the ingress point is such a tight bottleneck. Inbound traffic engineering is a very different animal from outbound traffic engineering.

You're not incorrect in that the fault lies with Verizon, but I seriously doubt you actually understand why or how.

Re:Alternative explanation (1)

dfghjk (711126) | about 2 months ago | (#47537863)

"It's tempting to imagine the internet as a giant blob of fungible bandwidth, but in reality it's just a big mess of cables some of which are higher capacity than others."

No, it's a giant blob of fungible bandwidth when you are talking about large ISPs and major media sites. It's not the dark ages.

Re:Alternative explanation (1, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 months ago | (#47537865)

Routing traffic via the VPN changes the path the traffic flows over, possibly avoiding routes that are saturated and (who knows) pending upgrade.

It's tempting to imagine the internet as a giant blob of fungible bandwidth, but in reality it's just a big mess of cables some of which are higher capacity than others. Assuming malice is fun, but there isn't enough data here to say one way or another.

I suspect that whats going on is that Netflix put the majority of their traffic on Level3 and Level3 is trying to charge Verizon an exorbitant rate for enough bandwidth to handle that peer. Verizon said "No" and told Netflix to go with another peer. So Verizon has plenty of bandwidth, Netflix has plenty of bandwidth... it's where those peers are located that's the problem. Level3 has been giving Netflix huge discounts to try and force ISPs into unfriendly peer agreements.

So yes, if you VPN'd out to somewhere else... somewhere that's not an ISP and place where Level3 isn't trying to screw people, then yes, you'd avoid the route in question and get great service. Move all of Verizons traffic that way and see what happens. Ignoring saturation of the peers... It would work until that VPN services peering agreements ran out and then they'd be getting the same treatment.

The FCC, ISPs and Netflix need to stop screwing with net neutrality and fix the god damn peering agreement process. I've been involved with them peripherally and they're like the wild west when the 2 sides can't agree on something.

Re:Alternative explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47537967)

> I suspect that whats going on is that Netflix put the majority of their traffic on Level3 and Level3 is trying to charge Verizon

ISP's large enough to have real network engineers edit the 'BGP' tables, the information that tells the routers how to best route traffic. They especially raise the "price" of the links to other ISP's, because they have to pay the other ISP's for that bandwidth, and especially for bandwidth _from_ that ISP as opposed to bandwidth _to_ that ISP, because they'd rather be paind _for_ bandwidth than pay, themselves. The result is what you describe. Routes that are "cheaper" to Verizon's routing tables are much more expensive in customer time and inconvenience.

This does not mean Verizon does not do deep packet inspection and service throttling: The larger scale, higher end equipment _all_ has this as a matter of course, precisely to preserve bandwidth for services the ISP cares to favor such as VOIP or their own company's streaming services.

Re:Alternative explanation (1)

guises (2423402) | about 2 months ago | (#47538011)

I suspect that whats going on is that Netflix put the majority of their traffic on Level3 and Level3 is trying to charge Verizon an exorbitant rate for enough bandwidth to handle that peer.

It's Verizon who is trying to charge for access to their customers (who have already payed for the service that they're not getting), not the other way around.

Re:Alternative explanation (4, Insightful)

Drakonblayde (871676) | about 2 months ago | (#47538167)

I suspect that whats going on is that Netflix put the majority of their traffic on Level3 and Level3 is trying to charge Verizon an exorbitant rate for enough bandwidth to handle that peer. Verizon said "No" and told Netflix to go with another peer. So Verizon has plenty of bandwidth, Netflix has plenty of bandwidth... it's where those peers are located that's the problem.

Ok, but you're wrong.

Level3 has admitted they have settlement free peering with Verizon. Level3 does not pay Verizon anything. Verizon does not pay Level3 anything.

Netflix pays Level3. This is why Level3 gives a shit about this situation.

What's going on is that Verizon is trying to cut out the middleman. Verizon wants Netflix to pay them to get traffic into their network instead of paying Level3 to deliver traffic into the Verizon network. Why? Because they don't make any money from Level3.

Naturally, Level3 is all in a huff about Verizon trying to fuck with their revenue stream.

Re:Alternative explanation (1)

GNious (953874) | about 2 months ago | (#47537929)

Wouldn't a trace-route serve to show whether traffic is flowing over a distinctly different route?

Re:Alternative explanation (1)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about 2 months ago | (#47538161)

No, the traceroute wouldn't show the hops between your PC and the VPN server, so that part of path could not be compared. So the point the VPN packets leave the ISP network also couldn't be compared.

You could probably compare an unencrypted proxy with a direct route to Netflix.

Re:Alternative explanation (1)

oobayly (1056050) | about 2 months ago | (#47538305)

Surely what you'd do is traceroute to the VPN server, which will show you where the packets leave the ISP network (as long as the VPN is outside of it), and then traceroute to Netflix via the VPN. The compare it do the route taken directly to Netflix.

Re:Alternative explanation (1)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about 2 months ago | (#47538353)

Good point, I didn't think of that doh.

Re:Alternative explanation (2)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 2 months ago | (#47538159)

People assume that the Internet is a strict connection from server to client. But actually from a non-linear, non-connected viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, streamey-wimey... bits.

More likely (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47537835)

The VPN traffic isn't routed over the congested link to Netflix. Which of course is something Verizon could fix if they wanted to.

Providers refuse to buy transit and refuse to peer (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47537837)

Without enough transit from the backbone providers and without direct peering, there's going to be congestion. Providers want to get paid by both sides. Unfortunately Netflix has foolishly given in once. Now everybody wants a piece of the pie. Anyone who has a lot of data that users want should refuse to pay for peering with anyone who has the users who want the data, and vice versa. If they can't reach a peering agreement, both need to buy sufficient transit from third parties, so there's the incentive.

Also faster on VZW 4G (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47537839)

You can also see this between FIOS and VerizonWireless 4G--Fios is slower for Netflix connections. So they don't throttle uniformly.

Role reversal (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47537851)

I have to wonder, what would happen if customers were to start throttling the payment of ISP's?
"You will get your payment when you actually fulfil your end of our contract, but not before."

Re:Role reversal (2)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | about 2 months ago | (#47537861)

You really have to wonder? Late payment fees is all they will get.

Re:Role reversal (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47537909)

Oh you didn't get the full amount sent?

Must be a problem on your end.

Re:Role reversal (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47537963)

Oh you didn't get the full amount sent?

Must be a problem on your end.

Oh, your service completely stopped working? Must be your modem. Try turning it off and on again. *click*

Re:Role reversal (2)

Omeganon (104525) | about 2 months ago | (#47537957)

(*) actual speeds not guaranteed.

It's in every agreement so to them, they _are_ providing the service they claim.

Why not the otherway around? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47537875)

Couldn't the same data be interpreted as Netflix penalises Verizon IPs, and the vpn connection could not be identified by Netflix as a Verizon IP on the server side.

Enraged Customer doesn't bother to research (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47537907)

Both Verizon(http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/why-is-netflix-buffering-dispelling-the-congestion-myth) and Level3(blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/verizons-accidental-mea-culpa/) have documented that their peering links are flooded. Verizon wants paid peering. Level3 wants unpaid peering.

Obviously no amount of encryption is going to speed up a flooded link. So obviously the traffic through the VPN is taking a different path.

Re:Enraged Customer doesn't bother to research (1)

Khyber (864651) | about 2 months ago | (#47537985)

"So obviously the traffic through the VPN is taking a different path."

Oh? Funny, my VPN tracert shows it taking pretty much the same path across Verizon's networks before hitting Level3 and Netflix.

Re:Enraged Customer doesn't bother to research (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538041)

Paste the traceroutes. You will see the level3 entry point is different.

Re:Enraged Customer doesn't bother to research (1)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about 2 months ago | (#47538189)

If the start point of your VPN is not the VPN server IP address then your VPN is not working. Or your VPN exits within the same network as it starts which could render it pointless.

Re:Enraged Customer doesn't bother to research (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538023)

But if the traffic is taking "a different path", that means that there exists a non-congested path between Netflix and the Verizon customer. If that is the case, then why isn't some of the traffic being redirected through that route instead?

Dupe (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47537921)

This is a dupe of Verizon's Accidental Mea Culpa [slashdot.org] .

It's based on the same blog post by Colin Nederkoon [iamnotaprogrammer.com] . The explanation in the earlier story seemed much more convincing.

The Answer is Violence (1)

LordKaT (619540) | about 2 months ago | (#47538063)

Verizon is too big, and our government does not care.

The only answer is to actively work to destroy Verizon until they acquiesce or no longer exist.

Class action lawsuit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538127)

Might you consider a civil action instead?

Shame on you Verizon! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538069)

This is VERY stupid for Verizon. For a company that advertises a great network, and Fios as a premier very high speed internet connection.

Throttling Netflix is acceptable for a cheap DSL connection, from ATT. When someone chooses to sign up for Fios, they are choosing to pay lots of money for a premium internet connection, and EVERYTHING the internet has to offer, including Netflix. Throttling Netflix devalues the Fios brand. Very stupid from a marketing standpoint.

well now that cat's out of the bag (1)

MrKaos (858439) | about 2 months ago | (#47538109)

vpn throttling, here we come

Re:well now that cat's out of the bag (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 2 months ago | (#47538171)

I was going to say that. They'll just play whack-a-mole and start throttling that traffic next.

Throttling no, bandwith games, yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47538181)

Verizon isn't throttling packets, but rather, it is deliberately limiting the number of channels (and therefore bandwidth) at the routers that interconnect between Verizon's network and ISP that serve Netflix such as Level 3 Communications. That way they can say they are not "throttling", but they are accomplishing the same thing. There is a nice explanation of this by the CEO of Level 3 floating around on the net somewhere. Google it.

Too bad it won't do any good. (2)

DewDude (537374) | about 2 months ago | (#47538199)

Verizon doesn't care. They own RedBox Instant; they last thing they want is customers using Netflix. We're not gonna get net neutrality out of the FCC (the public comments are a sham; the FCC only care about the businesses involved in the decision); so this is not going to get fixed. If Netflix uses Level3; they were cripple all level3 connectivity.

Funny thing is (1)

smartin (942) | about 2 months ago | (#47538207)

I recently upgraded my FIOS service and they used Netflix streaming as one of the reasons that I should do it. After going from 25/5 to 50/25 I still get downgraded quality when watching flix.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>