Slashdot Mirror
Is Verizon a Network Hog?
pillageplunder wrote to mention a piece in BusinessWeek asking whether or not Verizon has the right to set aside bandwidth for its own projects. They're planning a television service, and have allocated a swath of their bandwidth (which could otherwise be used for net and phone traffic) to back this service. From the article: "Leading Net companies say that Verizon's actions could keep some rivals off the road. As consumers try to search Google, buy books on Amazon.com, or watch videos on Yahoo!, they'll all be trying to squeeze into the leftover lanes on Verizon's network. On Feb. 7 the Net companies plan to take their complaints about Verizon's plans to the Senate during a hearing on telecom reform."
Since Verizon's recent purchase of MCI, they have more bandwidth, both lit and unlit, than they know what to do with. Making the whole point of squeezing anything totally a non issue.
Why shouldn't they be able to do what they want with it?
Let's play devil's advocate. It is their network, why shouldn't they be able to do with it what they want? I mean we hear the I own the software I should be able to do anything I want with it all the time. How is this any different?
...asking whether or not Verizon has the right to set aside bandwidth for its own projects.
Verizon has the right to do whatever it wants with the bandwidth it pays for. If you don't like it, switch to another service. I'm sure they have a clause somewhere deep in their TOS that allows them to change the bandwidth available to their customers, otherwise they wouldn't be doing this. Anyone with conflicting info care to respond?
Isn't the IPTV which they're offering meant to be largely handled by their FIOS service? I understand at some point they have to connect to a larger pipe to serve that, but really, do you expect a company that serves so many users NOT to think of things like this beforehand?
I don't get it.
yahoo Finance: Notice the 5.92% return on assets and 22.19% return on equity.
I don't about you, but I think they're getting a real nice return. Unless, their management is comparing their returns to cocaine cartels, then they're doing pretty shitty.
It's simply a matter of competition. If Comcast or another local cable provider can provide better bandwidth for a similar price, then go with the competitor.
I'm supposed to get 768/128 throughput. I actually get more like 640/100 with my Verizon DSL. If Verizon can't maintain something close to this even with their pipe-grab, then I would simply switch to broadband from 1 or 2 of the other options available.
If it's a matter of shared phone lines and other DSL providers being choked out too, then that's a good reason to go with cable or over-air altogether.
I don't see this as THAT big of a deal. If Verizon is foolish enough to throttle their customers' bandwidth down noticeably, there are many other offerings in the ISP industry, and people will not put up with slow Internet, pretty video feeds or not.
So let them try.
Verizon's network. Verizon's decision. And when Google, Amazon, and eBay find their bottom lines impacted by Verizon's reduced network availability, Verizon will find their bottom lines affected.
Not unsurprisingly, people are already screaming for "big gubment" to step in...
There's a fundamental disconnect at Telco's with consumers. We think we pay our monthly DSL bill for 1.544Mbps down/ 384K up (depending on where you live). They think we're paying for a service that transfers packets, a byproduct of which involves our packets entering and leaving their network faster at some times than others. The reality is we share a single DSLAM with 250-500 of our neighbors that has a tiny little link to their core network, and at many times of the day, we cannot hope to achieve maximum throughput. Thus if they wish to saturate that link with video, they feel we have no say in the matter, as we're not actually paying for bandwidth.
In a better world, we'd of course shift our money from competitor to competitor, settling on the service that offers the best bang for the buck. Of course they know that in most parts of the country, there is only one competitor, and their service sucks in its own unique ways.
Now enter a big business friendly government. Let's not even say friendly, let's say that someone in the government has bent over and offered himself to the monopoly gods. As part of this relationship, the government uses the FCC to ensure that telco's and cable operators get their chance to make insane profits, while the rest of us bicker about Iraq, Intelligent Design, and whether the president has the authority to spy on citizens.
And? Why would this be a reason to sue? If you don't like Verizon's idea, and it bothers you enough, then use a different provider. Also, who's to say that Verizon would have used the additional bandwidth to fuel their web services?
Yes, of course! Those other companies are especially concerned about Verizon customers, and are willing to spend their own money to sue on the behalf of customers that aren't even theirs and don't make them any money!. So let me ask you - when was the last time you saw a company act so noble and unselfish? Its very rare, of course.
So basically, Verizon has an idea that they think is cool and will possibly make them a lot of money. Their competitors freaked out because they aren't to the point where they can offer the same thing, so they go on the offense and sue.
Seems like there are three ways to make money in America: work, sue, or steal. I think people who file frivolous lawsuits should have to pay the defendants attorney fees, extra court costs for wasting time, and a percentage of what they originally asked for in compensation to the defendant. This "sue everyone for everything" crap is terrible.
PS: I dont think they ever expect to win this case, either. They just want the bad PR to be out there.
So what choices does Verizon have?
a) build a cool idea on their network.
b) pay Sprint or someone to run their video traffic. (rofl)
c) abandon an idea they feel will make decent money.
Look, if their customers don't like it, they will leave Verizon, and Verizon will have wasted a huge amount of money building this thing out and promoting it. Let the freakin market decide what is good or crap - dont freakin sue over every single thing you disagree with. It's disgusting...
I was told that I could listen to the radio at a reasonable volume from nine to eleven...
It's their fiber, why can't they allocate it as they wish?
There seems to be a confusion in TFA about whether this applies to any backbones managed by Verizon versus the optical fiber that Verizon is supplying to people's homes via their FiOS service.
Regarding the backbones, as long as they are meeting their contractual commitments, why should anybody else have any say over how they allocate any additional bandwidth they may have.
Regarding fiber-to-the-home (FTTH), they are planning on allocating it as follows using three wavelengths (according to John Dix at Network World):
In the FTTH case, historically the Telcos have been required to provide fair access to their wires (thus you're not required to use Qwest as your ISP if you have Qwest DSL, for example), I would expect that the fair access rules would apply to FTTH.
The surest way to delay getting fiber bandwidth to your home or internet infrastructure is by taking away the incentives (read: profit) for the corporations involved. Verizon is currently making major investements in having a large share of the next generation networks, their competition is being caught flat-footed and behind the curve and will probably try to make legal challenges to slow their growth.
I don't believe this is about the long-haul backbones, this is probably about the local POP / loop, and the POP connection to the regional backbone. If a Verizon FIOS "hub" has a total of 1G bandwidth, and verizon is taking 800M of it, then all the other internet traffic can only use 200M split over who-knows-how-many end users. Furthermore, the POP to POP links may be allocated the same way. VOL will probably end up doing some massive video on demand system that will suck down most of the total bandwidth.
This would put any video on demand service that Google may (will) have at a severe disadvantage.
Even if a gob more dark fiber is available for all these pipes, it costs serious amounts of money to light them up. Obviously if VOL can "reserve" a big portion of bandwidth on the existing links to the point where they can offer all their value-add services, they don't have an incentive to light up more fiber.
And I'll do what I want with it.
Excuse me while I dig up the storm drain in my front yard, and cut down the telephone poles in the front and back.
You see, the free market only applies when the market was established via free conditions. If the government intervened in some fashion to create a monopoly (Verizon, you get to be the telephone carrier for this area), then the government MUST intervene to keep the market sane; market failures CAN be created by government, and when they are they should be checked by the government.
Geographic monopolies are often established by the state. I have no idea why one would want a geographic monopoly to run rampant and unregulated.
Otherwise, it's MY land. I want a cut of all the profits that the phone/cable/electrical companies get by stringing their lines on MY land.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
I agree.
As a large bandwidth customer, while nowhere near the levels of Verizon, I am constantly playing the game of deciding what is needed where. I have multiple GigE connections and many servers. I float things around to (hopefully) ensure that I don't run out of bandwidth in any particular spot.
I have places, where I have "essential" services, which I want to leave extra bandwidth available. Those are for my own purposes.
Just on my own scale, I put mail, DNS, and some other internal use machines on a higher priority than say a free hosting server.
Why can't Verizon allocate X for Internet, Y for phone calls, and Z for 'internal' use? Who's freakin' business is it on how they allocate their services. If X suffers because Y and Z get prefered treatment, it's their own business which will be hurt. Customers will get frustrated at slow speeds and high latency, and go somewhere else. Likewise, if they were forced to make X use all available bandwidth, obviously Y and Z will be hurt. Verizon without the ability to pass phone traffic would be interesting. How do you explain to a whole bunch of residential phone customers that they can't make phone calls (frequent all circuits busy tone), because the Internet traffic sucked it all up.
The article references Verizon's new fiber that they've spent a freaking fortune installing. Now that they've put it in, are they under some sort of obligation to allow that to be used for whatever they are told? That really screws with any sort of plans they may have. Ok, so they're going to offer television over IP. Great. Why should they be required to sublet that to me for my latest/greatest ISP venture, or dedicate it to Internet bandwidth. It's their lines. They installed them for a reason.
I know Tier 1 providers frequently sublet fiber as they have it available. It's not like Verizon will hold onto a bunch of dark fiber just for the sake of telling another provider to go screw themselves. Well, it may happen, but they're in the business of making money.
The whole "who gets priority" thing is kind of silly. Providers have been doing it for years anyways. It may not be obvious, but it happens. Here's an example. Like I said, we use lots of bandwidth, and we're frequently checking on how things look. If we aren't, one of our roughly 2 million daily viewers is. People like to complain, and I guarantee at least a few of those 2 million viewers can run a traceroute. If things are slow through a city, either we'll already know about it, or a viewer will complain. A few times, a provider has made the mistake of lowering our quality of service. Someone else was given the prefered routes, and we were left with the crap. A few phone calls to high places in the company, and we can see things start working better and we suddenly get calls from high ranking people in the company apologizing that the mistake ever happened. Sometimes they'll play it off as a simple mistake, but in the end, it's all the same. They changed something (QOS), we complained, they changed it back.
I guarantee, we'll get the prefered routes, over someone with a T1 or even a 10Mb cross connect. It's all in who pays more. Obviously, if we have equipment on the provider in question, we'll always appear faster than someone on another provider, especially across a bad peering. Are we "paying" for this service? Sure. We pay out the ass to have equipment in a facility and bandwidth to support them. Are you as a home DSL/cablemodem customer going to have the same influence with a provider that we have? No freakin' way. On the other hand, we only deal with Tier 1 providers, so you won't be dealing with them directly. Even as a Verizon DSL/cablemodem customer, you aren't talking to the Tier 1 part of the company.
With all that said, we're not Verizon customers. We have been on occasion for lesser services (backup DSL for offices, and the like), but not for our main services. They don't offer the killer deals that others do.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.