Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Charter Launches Mobile Service, Throttles All Video To 480p (arstechnica.com)

Posted by msmash on from the closer-look dept.

Charter Communications launched its mobile broadband service on June 30, and it's throttling all video streams to DVD quality. From a report: "DVD-quality video streaming is supported. Video typically streams at 480p," Charter notes in the "Pricing & Other Info" section of its mobile sign-up page. The quality limit is similar to one just imposed by Comcast, which previously did not impose any video quality limits on its mobile service. Comcast is letting existing customers get 720p video streams "on an interim basis at no charge," and the company announced plans to charge extra for longer-term access to HD quality. But Charter hasn't announced any plans to let customers stream in HD over its mobile service, for free or otherwise. HD video "is not currently an option for Spectrum Mobile," a Charter spokesperson told Ars. Wirefly has a Spectrum Mobile review.

57 of 101 comments (clear)

  1. I'm shocked! Shocked! Well, not that shocked. by RevDisk · · Score: 1

    Was anyone expecting otherwise?

    1. Re:I'm shocked! Shocked! Well, not that shocked. by luther349 · · Score: 1

      do you relly care watching your video on a 5 to 6 inch screen. putting these 4k displays in these phones has to be the biggest wast of money ever,

    2. Re:I'm shocked! Shocked! Well, not that shocked. by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Who the fuck can watch TV on those tiny screens? WTF?!

    3. Re:I'm shocked! Shocked! Well, not that shocked. by Dinatius · · Score: 1

      do you relly care watching your video on a 5 to 6 inch screen. putting these 4k displays in these phones has to be the biggest wast of money ever,

      Remember, this is a generic internet service. While it may mostly be used by mobile devices a lot of rural areas are forced to use these connections for their home internet connections and that includes providing service to the 70" UHD internet connected, voice activated television that knows when you're fridge ran out of beer.

    4. Re:I'm shocked! Shocked! Well, not that shocked. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well..

      mobile should just be data. if it's metered you're getting fucked up the ass.

      and yes I regularly stream 1080p over mobile connections.. both in finland and in thailand. it's not that I "need" to, it's just that it's 2018 and it was something to be expected in 2010 already.

      somehow yanks are still believing the crap about their being so unique market? well it's unique only in that people are willing to pay up the ass for inferior service - while living in the most money per square km market. and fyi I could go into deep lalpand and still stream hd so it's not really about population densities either. it's just about tradition that american market was trained into - paying upwards of 100 bucks per month for joke of a service not worth 10 bucks.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  2. Not network neutrality issue. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They are throttling all video. So perfectly compliant with NN.

    Get off your pulpits.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re:Not network neutrality issue. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      They are throttling all video. So perfectly compliant with NN.

      Get off your pulpits.

      That's debatable... At the very least it probably would have been cause for a lawsuit; and Charter might not have risked a potentially expensive legal defence for this.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Not network neutrality issue. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Debate it then. You're wrong BTW.

      Anybody can sue anybody else for anything at any time. Means nothing.

      The fact remains NN put the government in charge of the definition of QoS. What could go wrong, putting such a group of competent, trustworthy, freedom loving people in charge of a technical definition that has the potential to break the internet?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Not network neutrality issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Network neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally

      In this case, video traffic is not being treated equal to other traffic, failing the NN test

      It is considered "discrimination by protocol"

      Discrimination by protocol is the favoring or blocking of information based on aspects of the communications protocol that the computers are using to communicate

      I'll refer you to Comcast's intentional throttling of BitTorrent traffic for another example.

    4. Re:Not network neutrality issue. by mlyle · · Score: 1

      They are throttling all video. So perfectly compliant with NN.

      Whaaaaat?

      As Wikipedia puts it:

      > Network neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally. Internet traffic includes all of the different messages, files and data sent over the Internet, including, for example, emails, digital audio files, digital video files, etc. According to Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu, the best way to explain network neutrality is that a public information network will end up being most useful if all content, websites, and platforms (e.g., mobile devices, video game consoles, etc.) are treated equally

      Nor would your assertion "They are throttling all video. So perfectly compliant with NN." be compliant with the 2014 FCC Open Internet NPRM or the 2015 FCC Open Internet ("network neutrality") order.

      Which is it? Are you being dishonest about what network neutrality has meant in the past (and means in the present), or are you deeply opposed to it despite not being familiar with its provisions?

    5. Re:Not network neutrality issue. by MasseKid · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Video data is treated differently than data. Treating any data differently than any other data violates the principle of net neutrality.

    6. Re:Not network neutrality issue. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Debate it then. You're wrong BTW.

      Well, a legal case could easily be made that by restricting only certain types of data that they are not treating all data equal. They would not be treating video content providers with the same full access as they are other content providers.

      It would be up to the courts to decide; I happen to think they would most likely rule against the company trying to throttle HD video stream if net neutrality were still in place.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    7. Re:Not network neutrality issue. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      And... in addition; Charter being a cable company and throttling video, the clear motive behind their actions would be to act in a way to deny access to competing services. This would help push the decision in favour of ruling that Charter was acting against net neutrality.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    8. Re:Not network neutrality issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If I paid for the bandwidth, then how I decide to use it should be up to me. If an ISP overprovisioned their network, then its up to them to make it right by upgrading their equipment. I personally don't have issues with a blanketed throttling of all video services, as long as their upfront about what I'm paying for. The problem is, in a year time, they'll probably come back and say you can now get HD quality video on selected services.

    9. Re:Not network neutrality issue. by plague911 · · Score: 1

      Actually throttling all video is still a violation of NN concepts.

    10. Re:Not network neutrality issue. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Video data is treated differently than data. Treating any data differently than any other data violates the principle of net neutrality.

      Not when you throttle only your own data.

    11. Re:Not network neutrality issue. by mlyle · · Score: 2

      The text of the standard was:

      > A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management

      So, your reading would be --- you can't throttle traffic based on content/type ... except you can for network management. Which in turn neuters the entire standard. In turn, the order has dozens of pages breaking down what was argued in the 2010-2015 to be reasonable network traffic management and how administrative law judges had found.

      So no, just because *you* can call it reasonable network management doesn't mean it was for the purpose of the rule.

    12. Re:Not network neutrality issue. by luther349 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      watching 480p on your 6 inch phone your not going to see the difference.

    13. Re:Not network neutrality issue. by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      The "2015 FCC Open Internet" thing has this under their clear bright-line rules:

      "A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such
      person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful
      devices, subject to reasonable network management."

      The question, then, is whether throttling video- which is a very high bandwidth application- counts as "reasonable network management". That seems very likely. A web page is a large burst of transfer, but with a small amount of total transfer. A video game is a small number of packets that are each pretty damned important and need low latency, but are not much bandwidth. A torrent wants as much bandwidth as possible but isn't a high priority. A video needs a certain amount of bandwidth and doesn't care about latency.

      So no, even under net neutrality as it existed in the USA, videos could be slammed by ISPs under network management, or at least, they'd have a case in doing so.

      The conflict comes from the fact that there's no solidly excellent way to enforce or discover what a given ISP is providing, and as such every ISP lies, and doesn't want to be accountable. Conversely, if two consumbers want to purchase 50 mbs down and 10 mbs up, and one of them streams netflix constantly and the other plays games and does web stuff, these two are going to look completely different from the perspective of the provider- the former is going to be angry if he doesn't get his advertised speeds 24/7, the latter is going to be angry if he doesn't have his comparably few packets privileged over the technology that can buffer, but for each of those who understands that, plenty don't.

      The "correct" thing would be to get better educated consumers while simultaneously forcing the ISPs to be completely honest, giving none the ability to float bullshit and testing them in hard to circumvent ways. The first may be out of our power, the second should not be- but given regulatory capture, it may well be.

    14. Re: Not network neutrality issue. by bobmagicii · · Score: 1

      wouldnâ(TM)t streaming over an encrypted means break their ability to do anything about it? short of just not allowing more than x mbit/s

    15. Re:Not network neutrality issue. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      ISPs have been blocking port 25 since the late 1990s and nobody's thought to demand they open that port for network neutrality reasons despite it having far more pernicious and negative consequences (I'm not saying it's not done for good reasons, just that there are also very serious privacy issues with having to route all your email via your ISP) than throttling video to a reasonable rate to ensure a network remains usable for all other users.

      If that's what Wikipedia is claiming, then Wikipedia is just wrong on this issue.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    16. Re:Not network neutrality issue. by mlyle · · Score: 1

      You're ignoring the whole next 3 pages which talk about what is "reasonable network management", and the cited rulings that occurred under the previous 2010 regime. You're further ignoring the enforcement actions that the FCC undertook against mobile operators for treatment of video, which the mobile operators settled...

    17. Re:Not network neutrality issue. by Solandri · · Score: 4, Informative

      How did this get modded up? Net neutrality is the principle of treating data equally regardless of originating source on the Internet. e.g. You can't throttle Netflix while prioritizing your own video streaming service.

      What you're proposing is content neutrality - treating all data the same regardless of the type of data. If we mandated content neutrality, the Internet would die a horrible death as filesharing, spam, and DDoS attacks got equal priority to video streaming, web browsing, and online game traffic. The only reason the Internet is able to function despite the terabytes of illegitimate traffic being dumped on it is because ISPs and backbones are allowed to lower its priority via traffic shaping to give legitimate traffic first crack at the available bandwidth.

    18. Re:Not network neutrality issue. by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      What could go wrong, putting such a group of competent, trustworthy, freedom loving people in charge of a technical definition that has the potential to break the internet?

      At least we can all agree that the USA has some of the best, and cheapest, internet in the western world, and has the most options when it comes to service providers, right?

      Thank god NN was repealed. That means by this time next year I'm going to have 5 ISPs knocking down my door, begging me use their gigabit fiber. I mean, they haven't done it over the last 10 years, but I'm sure it's coming. We just need to let the free market sort it out.

    19. Re:Not network neutrality issue. by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      So they are throttling their home users video too? Because the article says mobile users, of their new cell service (which is really Verizon that they are reselling).

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    20. Re:Not network neutrality issue. by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      They are throttling all video. So perfectly compliant with NN.

      Get off your pulpits.

      That's debatable... At the very least it probably would have been cause for a lawsuit; and Charter might not have risked a potentially expensive legal defence for this.

      Pretty sure mobile networks (and please don't forget that's what we are talking about here, Charter's new mobile service, not their home service) were exempted from certain provisions to allow for network management. Video throttling was happening under NN rules in the US before they were repealed.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    21. Re:Not network neutrality issue. by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      Nope. If they were throttling all data of any sort, you might have an argument. But throttling a particular type of data is very much against the Net Neutrality principle of treating all data the same, regardless of what that data comprises.

    22. Re:Not network neutrality issue. by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers treat all data on the Internet equally, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication."

    23. Re:Not network neutrality issue. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Throttle phone video to make people use cable instead. If you only get crappy video on your phone then you're more likely to break and spring for cable.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    24. Re:Not network neutrality issue. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      This is why we don't want the government in charge of NN.

      Morons like MasseKid don't understand that without QoS the internet breaks, thinks he 'knows'.

      The government is _full_ of technically clueless twits like MasseKid. They would have fucked it all up.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    25. Re:Not network neutrality issue. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      All that shows is what's wrong with Wikipedia. Never trust it for anything remotely controversial.

      Wikipedia just broke the net. QoS is _required_ for the net to function.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    26. Re:Not network neutrality issue. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Good argument against government regulation of NN. They are too clueless. Want to ban QoS.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    27. Re:Not network neutrality issue. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Do you even want your gaming packets treated the same as your video streaming or FTP packets?

      Just in case you ARE that clueless, no you don't. Ping matters for gaming packets, doesn't for streaming video.

      It's called QoS, break it and you break the net. It has never been illegal.

      Your personal definition of NN is broken, simplistic and childish.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    28. Re:Not network neutrality issue. by mlyle · · Score: 1

      If the government has effectively given a vendor a last-mile monopoly--- as has historically been the case with franchise agreements and city street easements--- the last thing in the world I want them to be doing is to decide what kinds of traffic are "more important." I have one choice of vendor. If they decide I'm not going to have a great time streaming video and I need to buy TV service from them, too, that's "not cool."

      You can still implement QOS to ensure that every customer has a certain amount of traffic at specified latencies/losses-- not that anyone does. Service providers mostly like QOS to advantage their own services-- using leverage from the state-granted monopoly they have to sell you other things.

  3. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is good. Small mobile screens with higher than perceivable resolutions are fucking retarded and the average phoneposter is on average more cancerous than laptop and computer posters, there's also a higher prevalence of underage on phones than on laptops and desktops.
    All in all, limiting phoneposters from Internet features not only helps websites and servers but also helps the quality of the Internet because phoneposters are worthless scum and need to be put down. Phoneposting is a sin, and i hope Charter Communications continues limiting the abilities of phonecancer and all other companies take up its philosophy as well.

    1. Re:Good by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      VPN. That should do it.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  4. Is this a Net Neutrality thing? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    In the previous article reporting on the downfall of the internet, I asked a simple question: Would the Net Neutrality rules in place before the recent rollback have prevented this?

    I got both "yes" and "no" (*) answers.

    So let me ask the question once again: would the Net Neutrality rules put in place during the Obama administration have prevented this?

    (*) Answer phrased as "probably not"

    1. Re:Is this a Net Neutrality thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For Comcast, yes, NN would thwart what they are doing. Their plans include services stream HD at an additional charge to customers, which in itself doesn't violate NN but the selectiveness on which service providers are permitted to stream HD under that plan is what violates NN.

      But the people have spoken, they'd prefer an demagoguery over consumer protection. We have a broadly supported pro-oligarchy contingent that works hard to paint the opposing centrists are far-left Marxists. Propaganda obscures truth, and a culture of identity politics thwarts reason.

      We're making our bed and we will soon lie in it.

    2. Re:Is this a Net Neutrality thing? by luther349 · · Score: 1

      nn never covered the mobile space.

  5. Meh by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

    If my provider, AT&T, reduced video streaming to my phone to 480p I wouldn't care. I don't see HD on mobile as an essential service. Though I imagine there may be cases where it is.

  6. Some people use mobile for home internet. by TomBauserman · · Score: 2

    That's where this becomes an issue. There's areas near me where the only provider available is a shitty dsl provider whose service isn't much better than dialup. People are paying for 4Mb but get closer to 1 or less. So people use their cell phones for internet. Would this include streaming video going through a hotspot? If so that's a problem.

  7. Re:Citizen protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It has been proposed several times that congress should pass a net neutrality law, and it has been proposed that tech companies could come up with a draft bill (*) to submit to congress, and it has been proposed that whining and moaning efforts could be better spent by taking these simple actions.

    True.

    Congress, however, wasn't going to take action due to lobbying efforts. While the U.S. Senate is more prone to political party levers and controls, they occasionally get things right. The other, lesser branch of Congress is bought and paid for because reps have to constantly campaign and get run out every two years.

    A possible solution is to lengthen House member terms to three or four years. That could weaken the wield of political parties on the reps and other special interests a little and allow them to vote more freely before they're sent back daily to their "campaign funding caves" to beg for more money all afternoon.

  8. Re:It's just one way to get mobile internet. by mystik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google + Netflix do not get "free" internet.

    They pay handsomely for their interconnects, infrastructure, caching edger servers + what not.

    Consumer ISPs do not get to charge them twice for connections + data customers are requesting.

    --
    Why aren't you encrypting your e-mail?
  9. Oh no by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    Can you even tell 480p video from 720p on a four inch phone screen?

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Oh no by luther349 · · Score: 1

      no sir you cant. its like buying a 19 inch 4k display you just threw your money away.

    2. Re:Oh no by SmaryJerry · · Score: 1

      If you tether your phone you could use the extra pixels. People shouldn't have to be forced a certain quality when they can chose their GB limit also. Is charter say "unlimited internet, as long as we tailor it to minimize data" That's just silly. Charge for what people need, don't limit everyone's quality.

  10. Re:It's just one way to get mobile internet. by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    Citations on Google and Netflix getting free internet access please.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  11. Re:It's just one way to get mobile internet. by luther349 · · Score: 1

    most mobile providers do the same. relly nobody throws a fit because its easy to get around and on your 6 inch phone 480p looks just fine.

  12. Re:It's just one way to get mobile internet. by thule · · Score: 2

    Actually......

    Back in the days when Yahoo! was the biggest thing on the Internet, there was an article talking about how Yahoo! was only paying for around half of the cost of their total bandwidth usage. How? Instead of sending all of their data over transit, around half of their data went over links directly connected to large ISPs (peering links). At the time, transit was common. Only large telecom (backbone) providers were well peered across the nation. More and more content providers started doing this. For example, AOL bought a national network from IBM so they could do the same thing. Peering. Peering was the thing that saved the Internet. Robert Metcalfe's famous prediction that the Internet would collapse due to all the traffic on the backbone networks didn't happen because of the growing popularity of peering.

    A lot has changed since then. Peering very common and the business of peering has changed. A important part of a CDN is peering. Peering went from something that is a win-win for a content provider-ISP to a service a last mile can charge for (last mile networks are valuable). Note the fee for peering is still cheaper than transit. That is what makes it attractive to companies like Netflix. I can't imaging what Netflix's bandwidth bill would be if they were ONLY using transit. Peering saves them a TON of money.

    The reason Net Neutrality is brought up in the context of peering is that NN first started as a discussion of traffic shaping/filtering/blocking. Then the Netflix issue with their CDN (Cogent) hit the news and everyone seemed to treat it as a NN issue. It wasn't a NN issue, it was a peering issue. My fear is that NN would encompass peering. When all this was going down the FCC make a statement that they were watching the Netflix situation, but didn't consider peering part of NN. Unfortunately, some people disagreed (IMHO, mainly due to ignorance). If peering were to be part of NN, then, yeah, large content providers (e.g. Netflix, Google) could demand cut rate deals on peering. Or, like the initial post argues, "free bandwidth", which has NOTHING to do with the ORIGINAL intent of NN.

  13. Re:It's just one way to get mobile internet. by Tighe_L · · Score: 1

    Exactly, a friend of mine worked for a local ISP and they had Netflix CDN boxes in their datacenter.

  14. Re:It's just one way to get mobile internet. by Tighe_L · · Score: 1

    If said entity is consuming most of the bandwidth they really should share the costs.

  15. Not about data usage by ddtmm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is definitely not about data usage because if it was then they would be restricting bit rates. But they're instead restricting resolution.

    1. Re:Not about data usage by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Do you not understand how video streaming works?

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  16. Re:It's just one way to get mobile internet. by AvitarX · · Score: 3, Informative

    And here I thought I was paying for the wires to my house.

    I should pay for my heavy peak use, sure, but it shouldn't matter what I'm doing with it, be it Netflix, Youtube, Hulu, some other on demand.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  17. Re:It's just one way to get mobile internet. by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    First don't answer a question with a question. Answer ,mine then i will answer YOURS. So again Citations on Netflix,Google getting free internet access..

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  18. Re:It's just one way to get mobile internet. by SNRatio · · Score: 1

    Google + Netflix do not get "free" internet.

    They pay handsomely for their interconnects, infrastructure, caching edger servers + what not.

    Consumer ISPs do not get to charge them twice for connections + data customers are requesting.

    I think consumer ISPs get to try to do that. What I am really hoping for is the day Comcast or one of the others tries to charge their own customers more for access to Youtube and then Alphabet announces "In the future, we will only work with neutral platforms. Google's products and services -all of them, from Android to Youtube-, will no longer be available via Comcast."

  19. Re:It's just one way to get mobile internet. by SNRatio · · Score: 1

    Said entity is providing the content and is already paying the costs necessary to get it to the ISP's.network.The ISP's customers are the ones consuming the ISP's bandwidth by requesting that said content be delivered to them. If the ISP doesn't want their bandwidth consumed, they should get different customers who don't consume so much of it.