Verizon To Start Throttling All Smartphone Videos To 480p or 720p (arstechnica.com)

Verizon Wireless will start throttling video streams to resolutions as low as 480p on smartphones this week. Most data plans will get 720p video on smartphones, but customers won't have any option to completely un-throttle video. From a report: 1080p will be the highest resolution provided on tablets, effectively ruling out 4K video on Verizon's mobile network. Anything identified as a video will not be given more than 10Mbps worth of bandwidth. This limit will affect mobile hotspot usage as well. Verizon started selling unlimited smartphone data plans in February of this year, and the carrier said at the time that it would deliver video to customers at the same resolution used by streaming video companies. "We deliver whatever the content provider gives us. We don't manipulate the data," Verizon told Ars in February. That changes beginning on Wednesday, both for existing customers and new ones. The changes were detailed today in an announcement of new unlimited data plans. Starting August 23, Verizon's cheapest single-line unlimited smartphone data plan will cost $75 a month, which is $5 less than it cost before. The plan will include only "DVD-quality streaming" of 480p on phones and 720p on tablets.The new Verizon cell phone plans can be compare side by side here, along with all of Verizon's existing plans.

Comments

Net neutrality anyone?

[courteaudotbiz]

Isn't this 100% against Net Neutrality??

Re:Net neutrality anyone?

[Penguinisto]

Surprisingly, not really. Put this way: they're throttling "video", not "Netflix".

Now if they pushed their own (or a paying partner's) video service and throttled everyone else's, then you'd see a violation of net neutrality.

Re:Net neutrality anyone?

[beelsebob]

On the contrary - it is against net neutrality since it is treating some internet traffic (videos) differently to all other internet traffic (not videos). It is applying some kind of filter in the middle if and only if the ISP deems the data to look a certain way. That means that it becomes impossible for me to download certain types of data over this connection.

This is almost the exact case that net neutrality hopes to prevent.

Re:Net neutrality anyone?

[beelsebob]

Net Neutrality is not only about throttling one particular company. It's about applying any filter that causes some data to be treated differently to another.

If I suddenly can't download certain files as they're hosted on the server, because the ISP deemed them filter worthy, that certainly is a violation of net neutrality.

Re:Net neutrality anyone?

[Penguinisto]

Blackholing http-based DDoS packets would violate your definition of net neutrality, so maybe you shouldn't try to be so absolutist? Sometimes throttling *types* of packets is a good thing (now in TFA's case, that's up for debate.)

Also, NN is based on not discriminating based on source, as opposed to based on type. For instance, Coho.net (a local Pacific NW Fixed-wireless ISP) specifically filters out and blocks as much BitTorrent traffic as it can detect, and says as much in their policy. They've done this for years now, through various FCC Net Neutrality pronouncements and rulesets, and have yet to see any issues with the FCC over it.

Re:Net neutrality anyone?

[beelsebob]

"This ISP does it, therefore it doesn't violate net neutrality" is a strange argument to make. The bottom line is that it prevents you downloading certain types of data. That's EXACTLY what net neutrality is meant to prevent.

To be network neutral, an ISP is meant to act as a dumb pipe. It's then up to me to discard packets that I'm not interested in.

Re:Net neutrality anyone?

[Holi]

So Net Neutrality does not allow for QoS?

Re:Net neutrality anyone?

[squiggleslash]

No, this is network management. Network Neutrality is normally, and usefully, described as discrimination against the source (or destination) of data.

What Verizon is doing is not discriminating against source, it's managing data under a particular protocol. The battle for all protocols to be treated equally was lost a long time ago when most ISPs stopped allowing customers to receive data on port 25.

Re:Net neutrality anyone?

[Aqualung812]

Net Neutrality is not only about throttling one particular company. It's about applying any filter that causes some data to be treated differently to another.

The "Net" refers to networks. As in, I'm neutral as to how I treat packets from network A and network B.

You may want ISPs to be neutral about how they treat packets on criteria other than their source and destination, but that isn't Net Neutrality. That's something else entirely.

ISPs can throttle and apply QoS polices to traffic and maintain network neutrality as long as the selection criteria isn't based on src or dst.

Re:Net neutrality anyone?

[TheRaven64]

That definition of Network Neutrality is the one that's pushed by ISPs, not by NN advocates. Typical NN definitions allow differentiating based on traffic type, but with some tight constraints (e.g. you can put things into latency-sensitive, jitter-sensitive, and bandwidth-sensitive buckets, but you can't treat one latency-sensitive protocol differently from another). QoS explicitly is allowed by all except for the straw-man NN definition used by ISPs.

Re:Net neutrality anyone?

[courteaudotbiz]

For a good definition of net neutrality, what better reference than a good Wiki article about Net Neutrality

The first paragraph goes like this:

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet must treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.[1] The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003, as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier, which was used to describe the role of telephone systems.

So I tend to agree with beelsebob.

Re:Net neutrality anyone?

[Ramze]

You are correct, but the current Net Neutrality rules for the USA do allow for this sort of thing to prevent network congestion.

Net neutrality =/= net neutrality rules, so this creates some confusion.

Cell phone networks have always been given more leeway with net neutrality rules to begin with, and targeting streaming video (a huge bandwidth hog) over the cell network is an obvious choice for preventing network congestion. As long as they treat all streaming video equally regardless of the source, It's not that big of an issue. Sure, I'd like better descriptions of the rate limits in the naming of the packages they're offering, but it's a reasonable measure. I'm betting it's easy to circumvent with an encrypted VPN as well -- at least until they start throttling all VPN connections if that becomes a popular solution.

Remember one of the reasons they're allowed these exceptions is that they are also an e-911 service, and those 911 calls must be routed quickly and get priority over all other traffic. Sure, a simple phone call doesn't take up much bandwidth, but there can be hundreds at any time in an area & if the network is congested with 4K video, that'd be a problem.

Re:Net neutrality anyone?

[Aqualung812]

Try again. This is the document that coined the phrase "Network Neutrality".

http://www.jthtl.org/content/a...

What you're talking about is "Application Neutrality", which is also discussed.

There may be good reasons to have Application Neutrality, but you don't get to re-define Network Neutrality because you have your own misunderstanding of the phrase.

I'd say this kills wireless replacing broadband

[QuietLagoon]

So long as the wireless vendors continue to stick it to their customers with artificial constrainst and service downgrades, wireless is not going to be the replacement for fixed-line Internet access that many have been predicting.

Re:Makes sense

[CastrTroy]

Up until a few months ago I was using Netflix at the lowest setting on my 10 inch table (1080p resolution) due to bandwidth concerns and to tell you the truth I really didn't notice much of a difference once I got unlimited internet and started using high quality streams. I mean, there was a difference, but for stuff I watch on my tablet I really couldn't care. I had a separate profile for the TV where I used high quality for the small number of movies I really wanted to experience in HD.

Why is this a bad thing?

[Nkwe]

As long as Verizon or its "select partners" don't get a pass and are not allowed to stream video faster, it's not a net neutrality thing. Prioritization by protocol (as long as the rules are the same for all endpoints) does not violate the concept of net neutrality. There is a physical limit on the bandwidth available in any radio based system and it is the responsibility of a network provider to manage that bandwidth properly for the health of the network itself. Why is it unreasonable to put limits protocols that are known to use lots of bandwidth (eg video) as long as those limits are applied universally? And from the summary, they are talking about 10Mbs video streaming bandwidth limit - that is sufficient for a high definition stream on a 70 inch television (with multi-channel surround sound), certainly it is enough for the screen size of a phone or tablet being listened to in stereo at best.

Re:Why is this a bad thing?

[mark-t]

Exactly,,,, they may say it's "unlimited" because they don't directly try to limit the *amount* of data you can download, but in fact by imposing an limitation on the *speed* of the download, they are effectively creating a data limit as well anyways, as there is only so much data that you can download in a given time at a given speed. Of course, on any given physical infrastructure that latter point would be true even if the company didn't impose any limitations on bandwidth at all, but when it is the company that makes a policy choice to impose a "limit" on the rate at which data may be received, they are still indirectly imposing a limit on the amount of data that can be downloaded as well, so they cannot call such a plan "unlimited" when they are, in fact, limiting it in ways beyond those that might be imposed by virtue of the underlying physical communications infrastructure.

This was inevitable...

[toonces33]

Any time you have a resource where usage is unchecked, people will consume more and more of it until it is unusable for everyone. If there were no limits, then what's the downside to people streaming more and more? Nothing. Expanding bandwidth costs real money, and in some cases there are spectrum limits which prevent them from expanding much more. Ever used the free WiFi in an airport - the dopey kids sitting across from you are streaming some mind-rot and killing the bandwidth for everyone else. So the kids get the lolz, and you can barely get your work emails.

Re: Prevaricating

[gfxguy]

True. But I can tell when I'm using my phone as a hotspot for my laptop, and I can tell when I'm outputting directly from my phone using a slimport adapter. So the issue is, unlike T-Mobile's plan, you can't opt out.... AND they were selling their unlimited service stating that the video wouldn't be altered, so anybody who got a contract up until now should be able to freely cancel their plans.

how is this progress?

[tatman]

I dont use Verizon. Every time I try to send a picture to someone I know using Verizon, I get a message that the image is too big to send because Verizon has image size caps. Now they are going to cap video resolution. This is not progress. This is a step backwards.

I suppose they (Verizon) will make the argument about screen size and perceived quality. But it should not be their decision but left at the hands of consumer.

Re:Trump voters

[Archangel Michael]

No, you voted for this, when you signed up for Verizon. You have the complete ability to switch to any number of different providers, any time you want. Vote with your dollars, and leave government out of it.

Spectrum is not a free market

[tepples]

If all lessees of suitable FCC-owned spectrum do this, it's not a free market.

Re:Offtopic

[Ryanrule]

like "thanks obama"?

* Unlimited data plan

[Dunbal]

* Except for the limits.

Re:it's probably all lies, I'll explain why.

[unrtst]

THIS. Thank you.

If you're streaming video over https and Verizon throttles it, then that throttling decision was made based on very limited data:
* source (youtube/etc)
* destination (you)
* port (443 / HTTPS, which does not signify "video")
* connection age (how long the connection has been established... but this would actually be easy to work around by just re-establishing the connection every few minutes)
* usage (how much has been transferred in how much time)

I take issue with anyone saying they throttle video streams. They're guessing, and how they make that decision should be made known because it's not because it is "video". They're (almost certainly) throttling based on bandwidth, but they don't want to say, "Unlimited high speed, except when you use it for more than a minute, then we throttle it down to 3g speeds".

On the off chance they're not throttling if the traffic is over HTTPS, then that should be a big bold phrase in the summary, cause it makes this nearly a non-issue :-)

Does VZ throttle VPNs?

[Anonymous Coward]

If VZ doesn't throttle VPNs, then just get a VPN account which averages a few bucks a month if you buy a year of access up front, then stream all your video though the VPN, they'll have no way to identify the video traffic to throttle it.