
Verizon Throttles Netflix Subscribers in Test It Doesn't Inform Customers About - sharkweek
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20170722/03252237838/verizon-throttles-netflix-subscribers-test-it-doesnt-inform-customers-about.shtml
======
cprayingmantis
They're going to keep doing this too until customers start treating internet
as a right and utility until then it's just seen as a commodity.

If your local grocery monopoly started rationing out milk to 250ml sold per
day there would be protests, investigations, and 10 minute time blocks for it
on the nightly news because the people would demand it. The internet just
hasn't had this moment yet and it sucks because the momentum for this moment
is building but it hasn't reached critical mass. I don't think this moment
will happen for another decade at least.

~~~
rayiner
How is Verizon _wireless_ a utility? None of the usual arguments (natural
monopoly) apply. And there are four major competitors in the market (more than
in say search or social media).

Also, data caps are just price discrimination, which is pervasive even in
highly competitive markets (and not necessarily a bad thing):
[http://else.econ.ucl.ac.uk/papers/uploaded/222.pdf](http://else.econ.ucl.ac.uk/papers/uploaded/222.pdf).
You walk into Home Depot and they charge you twice as much for the "Best"
paint rollers versus the "Good" paint rollers. It's not because there isn't
competition in the paint roller market, or because it costs twice as much to
make one paint roller versus the other.

~~~
reeddavid
Wireless does have some features of a natural monopoly. In order to compete
with Verizon Wireless, you need access to a finite amount of wireless
spectrum. The FCC auctions off exclusive access to the wireless spectrum, so
you can't just start competing with Verizon on the same spectrum.

This is pretty similar to how you can't just freely add your own fiber to a
utility pole, or freely build your own utility poles.

~~~
icebraining
How is it "natural" when it's a governmental allocation? The point of the
expression "natural monopoly" was to distinguish them for State-granted
monopolies like those.

~~~
Kluny
It's natural because there's only so much bandwidth and you can't make more.

~~~
icebraining
That describes any hard commodity, no matter how common. Is water a "natural
monopoly"?

~~~
ionised
Yes.

It is a utility.

~~~
icebraining
No, that's water pipes to your home. You can buy water in many, many, _many_
other ways.

~~~
ionised
I assumed you meant water piped to a home as broadband is cabled to a home.

I can't go out and buy a bottle of WiFi to use how I see fit.

~~~
Spivak
Sure, but you can buy alternative methods of accessing the internet to keep
this metaphor going. They're expensive and aren't as convenient but that's
true of having to go to the store to buy bottles of water as well.

------
supercanuck
And Netflix is blocking VPN's. The original reason was it didn't have licenses
for certain regions, but then what of original content?

I'm tired of being used as a pawn in this bullshit game.

~~~
Bjartr
Just because they created the content doesn't mean they have ownership of all
IP involved. Music especially can be a PITA, see the videogame Alan Wake being
unsellable because the licensing for the music used in the game ran out.

~~~
cobythedog
That's very true. I can't stream one of my favorite shows, Northern Exposure,
because of the music licensing. They even had to change some music in order to
release the DVDs.
[http://actsofvolition.com/2005/03/musiclicensing/](http://actsofvolition.com/2005/03/musiclicensing/)

~~~
thanksgiving
I immediately thought of Married... with Children

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married..._with_Children](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married..._with_Children)

> Its theme song is "Love and Marriage" by Sammy Cahn and Jimmy Van Heusen,
> performed by Frank Sinatra from the 1955 television production Our Town.

...

> The Sony DVD box sets from season 3 onward do not feature the original "Love
> and Marriage" theme song in the opening sequence. This was done because Sony
> was unable to obtain the licensing rights to the song for later sets.
> Despite this, the end credits on the DVDs for season 3 still include a
> credit for "Love and Marriage."

~~~
rhizome
"WKRP In Cincinnati" is the archetype for this problem.

~~~
CWuestefeld
And yet another demonstration of how recordings of questionable provenance are
superior in many ways to the properly authorized ones.

------
Androider
I'd swear Verizon FIOS is throttling YouTube recently for me, the quality is
getting worse and worse. Constant buffering even at 720p. Forget 4K these
days, which used to be perfectly fine a year ago. With the current FCC I'm
afraid it's just going to get worse.

~~~
NathanKP
In NYC Verizon has an issue where they haven't purchased enough bandwidth into
NYC from the Youtube servers.

I just turn on my VPN (VyperVPN) which has great bandwidth to the YouTube
servers and I get crystal clear 4K streaming. It's kind of pathetic. I don't
think they are deliberately throttling, its just that Verizon is being cheap
and there is plenty of local bandwidth between VyperVPN's servers and my home,
but not enough bandwidth between YouTube's servers and FIOS network in NYC.

~~~
tw04
You've got that backwards. Verizon is trying to extort Google by getting them
to pay for interconnects and Google wants nothing to do with it. It's the
exact same thing that was going on with Comcast and Netflix. It's complete and
utter garbage that they continually double dip, and is the EXACT reason ISPs
shouldn't be allowed to own _ANY_ content. It's a direct conflict of interest.

~~~
mrkrabo
Why shouldn't Verizon and Google split the bill?

~~~
raisedbyninjas
In a way, they used to. Peering agreements between large networks allow
unbilled traffic from either party with the understanding that both would be
serving and consuming similar amounts of traffic. With the emergence of the
network neutrality debate ISPs have claimed that peering agreements are not
appropriate because content providers "send" more traffic than they receive.
This of course ignores the fact that their customers are requesting the
traffic and their whole business model is designed on asymetric traffic.

~~~
toast0
Peering disputes have _always_ been when the party wanting to peer had an
unbalanced traffic ratio, and the other party didn't want to peer (possibly
for other reasons), and they started much earlier than the network neutrality
debates.

The recent changes are more around who is involved in the peering disputes. It
used to be smaller ISPs trying to get peering with larger ISPs, such as Cogent
trying to get peering with [name your favorite, or PSINet vs Cable and
Wireless; and most often the ISP refusing to peer didn't have residential
customers themselves. Now it's more often the content providers themselves
trying to peer with the residential isps directly. A major factor here is the
huge consolidation of residential ISPs, but also the consolidation of content
providers.

Consolidation of residential ISPs means each ISP is big enough to run their
own backbone, and as a result they can credibly have strict peering
requirements. Smaller, regional ISPs will tend to want to peer, because
otherwise the traffic will come through on paid transit connections. Large
ISPs may not care; because of their size, they may not be paying anyone for
transit, and because of the common asymmetric nature of residential
connections, there's not likely to be many networks where the large ISP is on
the wrong side of the ratio.

If I were one of these content providers, I would spend a lot more time
messing with the large ISPs. Figure out how to make the traffic cost them
money, so they'll want to peer. Provide transit to data backup services to try
to make the ratios less unbalanced. Run campaigns suggesting that residential
ISPs should be paying their customers, given that the traffic is unbalanced.
Etc.

~~~
thanksgiving
> Peering disputes have always been when the party wanting to peer had an
> unbalanced traffic ratio, and the other party didn't want to peer (possibly
> for other reasons), and they started much earlier than the network
> neutrality debates. The recent changes are more around who is involved in
> the peering disputes. It used to be smaller ISPs trying to get peering with
> larger ISPs, such as Cogent trying to get peering with [name your favorite,
> or PSINet vs Cable and Wireless; and most often the ISP refusing to peer
> didn't have residential customers themselves. Now it's more often the
> content providers themselves trying to peer with the residential isps
> directly. A major factor here is the huge consolidation of residential ISPs,
> but also the consolidation of content providers.

> Consolidation of residential ISPs means each ISP is big enough to run their
> own backbone, and as a result they can credibly have strict peering
> requirements. Smaller, regional ISPs will tend to want to peer, because
> otherwise the traffic will come through on paid transit connections. Large
> ISPs may not care; because of their size, they may not be paying anyone for
> transit, and because of the common asymmetric nature of residential
> connections, there's not likely to be many networks where the large ISP is
> on the wrong side of the ratio.

> If I were one of these content providers, I would spend a lot more time
> messing with the large ISPs. Figure out how to make the traffic cost them
> money, so they'll want to peer. Provide transit to data backup services to
> try to make the ratios less unbalanced. Run campaigns suggesting that
> residential ISPs should be paying their customers, given that the traffic is
> unbalanced. Etc.

I can upload all my files to Google Drive and all my photos and videos to
Google Photos if you think it helps the ratio...

~~~
jessaustin
I've long thought the Netflix app should simply upload random noise, to
"balance out" the tremendous download/upload difference with which some poor
ISPs struggle so.

------
brainfire
Note this is Verizon Wireless, the cell service company - not Verizon Fios,
the home ISP company. They are both under Verizon Communications, but as far
as I can tell this "test" only affected wireless customers.

~~~
thebiglebrewski
I have gigabit Fios and my Netflix connection is always throttled down to 150
Mbps. I wish there was something I could do about it because I actually do
watch 4K content.

But really...it's still pretty good so I don't care enough? This is probably
why they do it.

~~~
bb611
Netflix's recommended connection speed for 4k is 25 Mb/s.

So what exactly does "do something about it" mean in this circumstance? Is
your download rate actually saturating your throttled connection?

~~~
thebiglebrewski
Yeah you're probably right that it doesn't affect me, I guess I'm just
pointing it out.

------
kyle-rb
It was really a great move on Netflix's part to make their own speedtest site,
allowing their customers to audit their providers specifically on their
Netflix connection.

~~~
Buttons840
Why don't we have smart routers doing this? I wish my router could tell me
"the fastest connection I have observed this month is 10mbps". Basically doing
a non stop speed test. Im sure I could set it up myself, but I'd like an easy
to use package.

~~~
wmf
Google Wifi does this.

------
dsmithatx
They throttled users to 10Mbps to Netflix. The article states this shouldn't
be an issue streaming a show at x resolution. I have 5 people and four TV's in
my family. It is common to have 4 different shows going on Netflix. We all
have different schedules and can't always watch the new OITNB on the same day.

If I'm paying Netflix and paying Verizon for 40+ Mbps wouldn't this impact us?
Shouldn't I be able to watch four shows at once if I pay my bill on time?

~~~
ben174
This is Verizon Wireless.

~~~
beambot
Changing "Verizon" with "Verizon Wireless" doesn't change the argument:

> If I'm paying Netflix and paying Verizon _Wireless_ for 40+ Mbps wouldn't
> this impact us? Shouldn't I be able to watch four shows at once if I pay my
> bill on time?

~~~
ec109685
Nope:

> We are implementing optimization and transcoding technologies in our network
> to transmit data files in a more efficient manner to allow available network
> capacity to benefit the greatest number of users. These techniques include
> caching less data, using less capacity, and sizing the video more
> appropriately for the device. The optimization process is agnostic to the
> content itself and to the website that provides it. While we invest much
> effort to avoid changing text, image, and video files in the compression
> process and while any change to the file is likely to be indiscernible, the
> optimization process may minimally impact the appearance of the file as
> displayed on your device. For a further, more detailed explanation of these
> techniques, please visit www.verizonwireless.com/vzwoptimization.

~~~
beambot
Yep.

Resizing the data, changing the video compression, and potentially changing
the text(!!) is not the data that I, the customer, asked them to deliver nor
is it what I'm paying them for. Let me and my device worry about requesting
the bits... And Verizon wireless can worry about sending me those bits at
40Mbps without worrying about how our why I want them and certainly (!)
without modifying what the server sends to my end application. That's exactly
what net neutrality is fighting for!

I perfectly understand the argument they're making (the link you provided is
superfluous). It's just total BS; a red herring.

------
festizio
I am more sad reading that T-Mobile and Sprint are potentially merging.

~~~
jrs95
Why? I'd understand not wanting AT&T or Verizon to buy either of them, but I
don't see how a T-Mobile & Sprint merger would make things much worse. Seems
like that would make them a more viable 3rd alternative to the big two, which
is something I'd really appreciate. I just went back to Verizon because the
service I was getting from T-Mobile just wasn't good enough.

~~~
Chardok
I can't think of a time where customer experience, user experience or overall
quality of a company _improves_ after a large merger like this. Less choices
for the consumer typically translate to more power for the companies.

------
coverband
If the test is "At what point will customers notice and start complaining?",
it makes sense... :)

------
nwatson
I'm working from Copenhagen right now. A valid-for-one-month 30GB data + 600
unlimited minutes on Lebara SIM card is $15 (and that includes free
international calling to, e.g., USA or Brazil or wherever), and I can re-up at
any time. I've been using SIM Card + mobile hot-spot to access the internet,
web, VPN, AWS, etc. from a number of places. Speed is very good. I wish it
were like this in the US.

Coverage in my home area of North Carolina (the Triad != Triangle) is quite
good, Verizon is kind of expensive. It's a lot better than coverage I had
living in the SF Bay Area -- whenever I go there I still find so many dead
zones.

~~~
grecy
Do you know if you can roam with that SIM to other countries?

Outside the EU?

~~~
nwatson
Just found out today ... came to Amsterdam from Copenhagen, and no, the data
plan and phone both do not transfer without the additional setup I think is
described in a sibling comment here.

Still, I used a lot of data, was well worth it. I'm not sure what Amsterdam
Lebara / Lyca prices will be or what kinds of data packages they'll have,
didn't seem as promising when I look briefly online. So perhaps Copanhagen was
a one-off great deal, I'll see tomorrow a.m. when the SIM card stores open
again.

------
pxeboot
What were they testing? If users would notice the throttling?

~~~
caspianrunner
I have worked at a mobile ISP before. I don't know what VZW is doing here, but
there are a few reasons you might run an experiment. Most often for me it was
to troubleshoot a technical issue.

To try to get an idea of user behavior we would run "experiments" on
previously collected data, i.e. rely on natural experiments - not change
things and then see what happened.

In every case the experiments I was part of were to see if we could _improve_
user throughput, not degrade it.

------
knowaveragejoe
Silence from the opponents to NN.

~~~
falcolas
Not to say this is good - but mobile traffic has always been exempted from the
proposed NN rules from the FCC.

~~~
knowaveragejoe
That's a fair point. In a larger sense I don't see what difference it makes,
but has less to do with NN than I thought.

~~~
callalex
The main difference is the lack of a natural monopoly for wireless isps.
Switching providers is actually possible so if you disagree with your
providers throttling you have other options, unlike in the cable industry.

------
peteretep

        > while Wall Street cries about this
        > rise in competition hurting earnings
        > at least once a week
    

They link that to a particularly shitty article which really doesn't make the
case at all. This has thrown my confidence in the rest of the article.

------
wallstquant
I get upset when they call it unlimited data and then cap the rate you can
download. if you can only download 1 unit an hour, you are effectively capped
at 744 Units per month.

------
menzoic
"Test"

------
mrkrabo
People streaming HD video from cell towers is simply crazy. I'm sure that even
supporters of net neutrality understand that a solution must be found.

Caps can't help with that in highly populated areas. The radio spectrum is
simply finite. It's physics.

~~~
s73ver
"People streaming HD video from cell towers is simply crazy."

Why?

~~~
shuntress
Just want to point out to sibling comments that "The cell towers cannot
support the requested bandwidth" was the argument used to prevent companies
from making phones with full web browsers.

------
holtalanm
and so it begins.

~~~
egwynn
Begins? Wasn’t Comcast’s throttling of BitTorrent connections ten years ago
more like the “beginning”?

~~~
holtalanm
Well, yeah. But that ended with Net Neutrality. Now we will see a while new
wave of companies either secretly or openly defying Net Neutrality while the
FCC's power is gutted by our government.

Oh, but our elected representatives totally have our best interest at heart /s

------
timmaah
I might be all for it if it frees up some bandwidth for the rest of us.

I travel full-time and quite a few places lately the Verizon tower is
obviously at capacity. (Strong signal.. slow speeds)

~~~
MichaelGG
Limiting Netflix is a poor way to approach that; they should instead be
limiting users on the tower, dividing up the bandwidth there, regardless of
what you're accessing. If capping flows at 10M helps, then they should apply
it to everyone.

~~~
tedunangst
It's a little more complicated than that. If I click a link to an article on
medium, I want 100Mbps to download it, but then I'm going to spend some time
reading it, freeing bandwidth for others. There are all sorts of token bucket
algorithms one can use, but like I said, a little more complicated.
Identifying popular streaming services and ratelimiting them might be easier
than tracking traffic usage per user per minute. And sometimes it's ok to let
users download at peak speeds for more than a web page or two at a time. Maybe
I download a new ubuntu ISO, which is a couple gigs and takes a while. I don't
do that everyday, so the impact is minimal. It's not just that streaming video
is high bandwidth, it's also very popular, and frequent, and long duration.

Ideally, we might offer users a baseline of 10Mbps all the time, and some
quota of 100GB at 100Mbps regardless of source, and then people can choose
what they want to download fast, but I think this would be a UX disaster.

~~~
ant6n
I don't get how 10mb/s is so much more complicated than 100mb/10s.

~~~
tedunangst
In the particular case of something like Netflix, starting an HD stream then
stalling and re buffering an SD stream might be a shittier user experience.
How much data does Netflix download to measure bandwidth and for how long?

~~~
ant6n
I assume they load a large buffer, adjusting bit rate to keep it full.

But I don't see the topical connection with throttling people to use a certain
amount of data each 10s.

