• YouTube, Netflix Videos Found to Be Slowed by Wireless Carriers
    26 replies, posted
"-b-b-but what's wrong with the Internet going back to how it was in 2015?!?" https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-04/youtube-and-netflix-throttled-by-carriers-research-finds
Wasn't Netflix throttling literally one of the reasons Obama's FCC instated Net Neutrality?
In recent months, Choffnes has become a new kind of net-neutrality watchdog since the FCC vote in 2017. He’s been retained by the French government to use the Wehe app to audit for net-neutrality violations. State and local governments in the U.S. have come calling, too. Choffnes said he also shared his findings with the Federal Trade Commission, which took over the job of policing U.S. internet service providers from the FCC. That's really interesting. The FTC also ruled warranty stickers unconstitutional earlier this year (or last year). I didn't know they could also take over jobs either.
I believe that was part of the FCC ruling that got rid of Net Neutrality, that the FTC would handle fair access complaints instead of the FCC.
So much corruption.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/441/e94f80c4-c77d-4f6f-a718-6773ff77a000/image.png thanks ajit
I'm just gonna play devil's advocate here but YouTube and Netflix both are extremely popular and by extension use up huge amounts of bandwidth, and I feel like this might be a ploy by ISP's to force Google and Netflix to start paying up, rather than a direct "fuck you" to consumers.
It doesn't matter what the reason is, it's against net neutrality and the spirit of the internet. Not only that but if the targeted business refuses to play ball the consumers are the ones that get hurt.
So it doesn't matter if a monopoly uses up a disproportionately huge amount of bandwidth and gets to pay the same amount as a small business or the like? This is where I feel like any kind of competition is good competition. Milking the home consumer for money would be a waste of time and just force people to downgrade to slower speeds, with only marginal increases in profits. The real money to be made would be charging the huge silicon valley monopolies for all the bandwidth they use, possibly even providing extra money for ISP's to use in improving infrastructure and cutting costs for the home consumer.
Businesses do pay more when they use more upstream bandwidth, and when you pay for 100mbit of internet, you should get 100mbit of internet, not Comcast TurboMegaSpeed® Certified Businesses only
Teehee. Oh you, you're such a card. ISPs improving infrastructure? Pppppffft, why would they need to? Most people have exactly one choice in either cable or DSL at best in their area. "Pay our exorbitant fees or go somewhere else! Oh wait, you can't El oh el."
I don't know about the rest of the US, but when you pay for an advertised amount of bandwidth, you literally never get that kind of speed unless you're downloading from a server in a nearby city. Otherwise your bandwidth is about half of whats advertised. I'm not saying thats a good thing, but I have a feeling its more of an infrastructure problem more than a "fuck you pay us" problem. Streaming HD or UHD video can saturate even the highest of bandwidth connections, especially if the population of an entire city is doing it. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but throttling speeds to make your consumer base pissed off at the content providers isn't an *entirely* insane idea.
I do because my ISP actually gives a shit about their customers. I had a tech come over once because I was getting 150/300 mbps and he spent all day refusing to leave until he tested that it got 300/300. speed will of course be faster in a city, but that's because most cities have subsidized the installation of fiber except NYC where they got scammed by verizon. whoops! the point is that filtering based on content is extremely anti-competitive and harmful. verizon for example has their own streaming service... so I'm sure you'd agree that them charging more to Netflix gives them an unfair advantage, right? and I'm sure we can agree that monopolies -- and the actions that lead to one -- are not good for consumers.
It doesn't matter. The customers are paying a price for a speed. It shouldn't matter what they're accessing.
We all knew that they were going to start slowly and small, I'm actually surprised that it's happening this soon.
So you're making it super obvious you don't actually know how the internet works, which is great because I can approach this differently and try to help teach you. Companies already pay a traffic fee commensurate with their usage. No company pays a flat fee. Just like internet service providers don't charge customers a flat fee. Just like with home internet, business internet has different tiers, and a company pays for a higher tier based on their projected or actual traffic. i.e. Netflix's servers, obviously, use a HUGE amount of bandwidth. So they're already paying a larger bill than, say, 101.9 "The Bee FM" Radio Station's daily concert ticket giveaway website. While, obviously, I'm not gonna know prices or tier structure, it would look something like this. 101.9 "The Bee FM" Website: Actual Usage: 310gb/mo Data Plan: 400gb/mo Cost: $129.99 Netflix: Actual Usage: 5098tb/mo Data Plan: 6,000tb/mo Cost: $499.99 What's happening NOW, is ISPs are looking at this data, and saying "hey you know what, there's a LOT of people on our service using Netflix. We could probably increase profit by slowing down their traffic and either getting customers to upgrade to a higher tier, or forcing the company to pay an extra fee" 'BUT WAIT' says Conscious Carl, the least liked boardmember at "Go Fuck Yourself Cable, Internet, and Phone Service bundled no matter whether you want it all or not LLC" 'They're already paying $499.99/mo for our service, and haven't gone over their monthly allotment of data in over a year! That's wrong!' and then everyone laughed at Carl and they throttled the shit out of traffic between their users and Netflix because Ajit Pai made sure it was legal because his buddies in Verizon shoved a whole lot of money up his ass to do it. Look at it this way. It's kind of like if you were driving down the freeway in your hot new Ford F350 Double Extended Crew Cab with 8' Bed and Duallies pulling a trailer full of whatever the fuck you want cruising along at 65mph, the posted speed limit, and a cop pulled you over and gave you a ticket for speeding, and when you said "But sir I didn't exceed the speed limit!" he goes "Yeah but you're using more road than the other cars, so I'm lowering your speed limit to 55mph until you pay this fine." In this analogy, the highway is the internet, you're a streaming service, the other drivers are other services, and the cop is the ISP.
Ah, that makes sense. Like I said I just wanted to play devil's advocate because there's multiple sides to any argument, and the one I made is what usually made the most sense to me when I read about this.
Interesting, AT&T actually markets this as a data saving feature on their prepaid service. Its an opt-in/out toggle. At least they are transparent about it and its optional.
tdrl, they do, Netflix spends a metric ton of cash each year building out distribution systems, its the ISPs at the end that throttle the speeds by selectively limiting how well this infrastructure passes through their networks.
Ha Ha Ha ha You mean like when the government gave them a shitload of money to improve their infrastructure and they didn't?
I know it's really hard to understand how mass communication systems work, but trust me. With how much data we can pack through fiber optic cables, and how cheap it's become to run them. We don't really need to worry about bandwidth anywhere that has infrastructure that's been updated at least once since the year 2000. You can pack many hundreds of fibers into a conduit that could maybe only properly hold a couple tens of copper cables. Shit, we broke the terabit barrier like 8 years ago or something. That's 1 Tb/s, and tech has been getting better since, I think the record now for transmission is like ~40Tb/s? It's ISP greed and the crumbling infrastructure of the US that's the problem here, not technology lol.
But Net Neutrality stifles innovation*! *innovation in ways to fleece money off of people
The problem with you playing devil's avocado in favor of big corporations is that you're assuming something motivates them other than greed. The bigger the corporation the more greedy they tend to be, and ISP's are about as greedy as they come. All they care about is lining their pockets and spending money lobbying to prevent them having to spend more money on things like new fiber lines or reliable service.
i think this is kind of a false premise because the corporation isn't using a disproportionately huge amount of bandwidth. the consumers are. The corporation is just delivering a product that people want to use. and consumers are choosing to use the service they pay for to access another service they pay for.
They should "pay up" for the data that they use. They already are charged more than other services, because they use more bandwidth. They shouldn't have to worry about being extorted by monopolistic ISPs. We are nowhere near using all the throughput that could and should be delivered to customers. US citizens paid 400 billion to telecom companies (that have subsequently bought out ISPs) to roll out fiber that never came. If they really are reaching their upper limit, maybe it's time to actually do what they were paid for. Shit, there's even dark fiber in major cities like Los Angeles, which was installed by the city and then was left unused. They could start there.
Not to mention that the infrastructure is already there. Consumers and taxpayers have paid for the current infrastructure multiple times over yet the ISP aren't utilizing it fully and pretending it's not adequate. Our existing copper coax lines can support an absurd amount of bandwidth but ultimately it comes down to the service providers trying to squeeze as much cash out of their customers as possible.
https://puu.sh/BqjE3.png https://puu.sh/BqjEe.png http://memes.ucoz.com/_nw/44/48049829.jpg
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.