Slashdot Mirror
US Telcos Are Slowing Internet Traffic To and From Popular OTT Apps Like YouTube, Netflix, and Amazon Prime Video, New Research Finds (bloomberg.com)
The largest U.S. telecom companies are slowing internet traffic to and from popular apps like YouTube and Netflix, according to new research from Northeastern University and the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Bloomberg: The researchers used a smartphone app called Wehe, downloaded by about 100,000 consumers, to monitor which mobile services are being throttled when and by whom, in what likely is the single largest running study of its kind. Among U.S. wireless carriers, YouTube is the No. 1 target of throttling, where data speeds are slowed, according to the data. Netflix's video streaming service, Amazon.com's Prime Video and the NBC Sports app have been degraded in similar ways, according to David Choffnes, one of the study's authors who developed the Wehe app. From January through early May, the app detected "differentiation" by Verizon Communications Inc. more than 11,100 times, according to the study. This is when a type of traffic on a network is treated differently than other types of traffic. Most of this activity is throttling. AT&T Inc. did this 8,398 times and it was spotted almost 3,900 times on the network of T-Mobile US and 339 times on Sprint's network, the study found.
Especially if you can point out that they are not throttling their own services such as the Direct TV app.
The reason for Net Neutrality was at the time all the Media Companies were forming ISP's before that ISP were separate entities.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
So I can't just host some videos and become a billionaire anymore?
Found the astroturfer.
And they had no plans for paid prioritization.
I'm so glad that the ISPs and the Administration didn't lie to us. And I'm glad that this all benefits me, the consumer, and allows me to get my money's worth.
After all, paying $50 a month for 1.5 Mbps down/.25 up at AT&T and having people in Third World shithole countries laugh at my connection let's me know that America and our Capitalist system is the best in the World!
I can just vote with my dollars and have no internet connection. Because of our free markets, I have the same number of choices as a communist country - and the privilege of paying more for less service.
Trump! Making America Great Again!
Interesting that when the summary says "U.S. telecom companies", it assumes that we will all think wireless, rather than terrestrial. I wonder how the throttling compares on the two media....
(I do the bulk of my surfing on a terrestrial circuit.)
by saying that it's both legal and allowed? After all, we ended Net Neutrality.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
FCC should be regulating to make sure that the telecoms are providing enough bandwidth and interconnection to meet the demand. Those are technical issues.
FTC should be regulating the business practices to make sure that telecoms which have regional monopoly power are not using that power to extend their monopolies or colluding to restrain trade in violation of the law.
That's the real question. A 1080 HD stream on Netflix needs about 5Mpbs. It can either constantly such 5mbps, or do peaks of 40mbps every 35-40 seconds. I've profiled that on my routers. If the carries are not slowing down beyond 5mbps which still deliveries the same full HD quality there is no problem - they are just optimizing their wifi spectrum. For all I know LTE likes steady traffic much more than peaks and then nothing in order to manage latency a bit better. Remember, when on LTE your voice calls are IP too. You need to manage your outbound bufferers and reorder packets to give the voice traffic smooth steady rate. If you are going that for voice traffic it makes sense to smooth out peak traffic too, as it allows smaller buffers and much better interactivity of the traffic (less reordering needed compared to when a huge peak hits the node)
Otherwise, I hate telcos as much as the next guy, but I really want this question answered.
Phone systems have to place priority on phone and emergency services, that means sometimes entertainment data gets throttled to preserve space for those priority services. Thems the breaks. Now if this was happening on a wired land line then I would consider this news. I still think the whole smartphone thing is ridiculous, everywhere you go someone has their eyes addicted to that little screen.
AT&T has the "bandwidth economy" setting where they "save" you data when you stream videos by downconverting the stream to 480. Is this actual throttling or a side effect of the conversion process?
No.
The correct approach is to divide bandwidth rationally. If you've bought N% of the total downstream pipe, you are guaranteed to be able to use up to N% of the upstream pipe. What you don't use should be made available to those with extra demand. Apply at each router/switch. It's not an expensive algorithm.
No throttling, just a fair division of resources.
Throttling means providing a site with less than that N%. Throttling when popular means seeking to make a site unpopular. That's why you would do this. It does not mean sharing, it means confining. What I described would be sharing, but it isn't throttling. Even if you added RED.
In the case of video sharing sites, I have no sympathy at all with ISPs or with MPAA. They created this mess by blocking multicast and web caching to the home because they couldn't bill it. If multicast had been widely available then multiple people streaming the same thing at more or less the same time would not occupy any more of the net than one. If caching had remained in place, the bulk of the Internet would have remained clear.
This is a self-inflicted problem and the ISPs should sit down with the MPAA to figure out how to undo their mistakes.
Unusually for them, the vendors are almost innocent.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
It's almost like services using the most bandwith should be proportionally throttled so that everyone with an IQ above room temperature who isn't watching the new ster werz can have usable internet.
lol. What ever happened to a simple "land line"?! (or hard line as it was called in the Matrix...) Heck some of my friends have started calling their cable internet service (which is absolutely "terrestrial") "wifi" because they have no hard connections to the router.
att has TV and owns content. Verizon has cable tv.
There is a difference between throttling and overloaded peering connections. Does this testing make this distinction? A choke point along the path is not throttling.
I agree with most of this except this:
This is a self-inflicted problem and the ISPs should sit down with the MPAA to figure out how to undo their mistakes.
The ISPs are no less scummy than the MPAA, so your suggestion will not lead to anything of benefit for the general consumer. If anything, it would lead to some new profit-sharing scheme.
No. Each TCP connection has it's own congestion control and the TCP algorithm for each connection is responsible for throttling itself.
So if I have 5 active connections from my machine to www.slashdot.org and one connection to tacotime.com; tacotime only gets 1/5th of the pie, not 1/2 of the pie.
Given the stupid arguments I hear on all sides of net neutrality and how hard it is to explain networking to even otherwise bright software engineers. Well I don't know but I anticipate it's a battle that will be won by the the dishonest and greedy or the loud and ignorant. The loud and ignorant will serve us best but nobody with a clue has any hope of providing any input how we should go about this.
You're correct! It's totally normal and acceptable that the 95% traffic gets throttled to leave some room for the 5%. The internet should have more than 3-4 content providers.
Every time a YouTube starts spinning and then they show the message about your provider slowing things down, I switch to Porn Hub...runs sooth as a new shaven pussy, even at HD resolution.
More likely, YouTube's servers can't keep up and instead of investing in their infrastructure, they blame the providers.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Technical reason or illegal act? Lets bring out a crystal ball. Can WeHe read minds?
>Terms-of-service agreements tell customers when speeds will be slowed, like when they exceed data allotments. And people probably don’t notice because the video still streams at DVD quality levels.
HAHAHA NO! If you're throttled you can expect to maybe get enough bandwidth to sustain a VoIP connection.
1/6th
5 connections plus one more equals 6 connections. 6 connections shared equally means each gets 1/6th share....
This is SJW centrel, so don't expect much high IQ thinking on Slashdot.Org! Smart guys know truth is nut nutrality is SJW agenda to impose athiestic values on all of society.
Someone once told me they overturned net neutrality. Also they seem to state in their service agreements that they can throttle users. So I guess the article can be summed up with "telco companies are legally doing what they told you they would be doing." Very cool.
If I pay an ISP for 20Mb/s, where do they get off by limiting my connection to some services to 5Mb/s and not others?
This sig left unintentionally blank.
No. Where is this throttling occurring?
If at the tower, well, these are the choke points to users. There's only so much capability. Stuck on an Interstate yesterday in a terrible traffic slowdown (due to an accident) I saw my data crippled from time to time. The density of users was several times more than designed for. Towers have only so much bandwidth.
If at the ISP gateway level, well, they are choosing how much to invest in peering.
How did this throttling manifest itself to users? Were YouTube videos delivered at 720p or lower resolutions? If that was by design, do the ISPs disclose this? I know T-Mobile offers me unlimited stuff if I accept lower resolution. I think I've declined those options. And I know of several places and certain times where my service is terrible, due to demand.
But the idea of 'dividing bandwidth rationally', or equally, implied that we as users 'bought' some fraction of bandwidth, and that's just stupid. We bought access to whatever is available. If none, we get 'no service', and we make complaints and refuse to pay. If what's available is almost, but not quite, enough to do what we want, we suffer, complain, and probably get the standard 'just not enough' speech.
We have to vote with our feet. And if we find there is no mobile carrier, for instance, that will deliver to us what we want, we've learned that they are not yet sufficiently motivated to do so, for whatever price. Competition could fix that, but spectrum is the first and immutable constraint. Yea, we're not going to make more of that. So we're left with clever technology, more towers, and blah blah blah that isn't being done now. It's a balancing act, for mobile carriers, how little they can deliver for how much they can charge.
Fixed services, well, I bet most of that is the Google dilemma. How to get access to right of way to get the pipes up and deliver service. Money.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I'm turning the shit off. Kill your internet.
Well um you see....there was this little known thing that happened when the FCC said they could throttle. I think it was called net neutrality that they repealed. Then you know your service agreement says so too.....along with advertising (that little star next to unlimited). So I guess that's how they "get off". The question is how do you "get off" to that 144p constantly buffered porn you have to watch because you signed up for the cheap plan?
Your software is just fine - well written, functional... I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine by mmell February 17, 2017
Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising and malvertising is quite valid - by JazzLad April 20, 2016
his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant August 10 2015
his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg September 25 2015
I like your host file system by Karmashock September 09 2015
that APK guy, I use his host file by rogoshen1 Tuesday March 03, 2015
I personally use a HOSTS file blocker produced from a genius called APK by 110010001000 October 27 2017
* Linux model = faster/more efficient
APK
P.S.=> APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-1 32/64-bit for Windows https://www.google.comsearch?s...
Well some towers can't handle the amount of traffic in certain areas so they are forced to throttle so you get reasonable performance.
You have no idea what the hell you're talking about just go away.
The phone system is configured, and has been configured for ages so that if you're making an emergency call you're prioritized using entirely different means.
You're given access to all towers that your phone can talk to regardless of carrier, you're moved to the top of the access queue waiting for the tower , then finally some towers will prioritize you at the Physical and Data Link layers.
They're not going to bother throttling your internet usage from there because it's dirt cheap compared to the cost of tying up time and band on a cell tower.
Finally you seem to be confused about how low latency content gets prioritized. I will explain this the way that you deserve. It gets moved to the head of the queue for the purposes of reducing latency, not increasing available bandwidth like a throttle. That is if data is a big truck moving through tubes, your low priority dick pics will get loaded off the truck after my hilarious prank calls to 911 which it will recognize as being important by inspecting the header and seeing my holy name has been placed in all fields. But your dick doesn't have to wait for the next truck.
More likely they don't want people griping when their entire high speed allocation gets burned up watching a single 1080p video on their 5.5inch cell phone when they'd have been perfectly ok at SD. Not that providers won't be happy to engage in totally anticonsumer bullshit if we give them so much an an inch so fuck them and fuck you too.
Attached:
If the AT&T feature you describe is anything like T-Mobile's "Binge On" feature, then it's throttling video to 1.5 Mbps, and the video provider is expected to detect that and switch the viewer to the SD stream.
The answers are in the article and you could have read them with just a click
I could if my subscription package included Bloomberg News. But I don't feel willing to add yet another monthly fee for Bloomberg News just to participate in one Slashdot discussion.
OTT. That's what it stands for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-top_media_services
you sound like you just finished reading a ccna book....
Yes we need someone who knows networking, but also common sense may be important. If only 1 connection send packets over a given period, guess how much of the bandwidth it gets, minus collisions, other packets, MTU margin etc.
They created this mess by blocking multicast and web caching to the home because they couldn't bill it. If multicast had been widely available then multiple people streaming the same thing at more or less the same time would not occupy any more of the net than one.
Nobody blocks multicast. Multicast simply doesn't work like that: it doesn't mean that people can simultaneously stream Youtube or Netflix. That would only work if two or more subscribers would start the same video at the same quality at the same time.
Furthermore, multicast addresses are limited to 224.0.0.0/4, or 268,435,454 addresses. Not to mention that there is no global multicast infrastructure in place.
If caching had remained in place, the bulk of the Internet would have remained clear.
And who do you think is blocking caching? Hint: it's not the ISP. The ISP wants to cache, but in order to do so the content must be clear-text. Oh wait: everyone is moving to HTTPS, which cannot easily be broken.
Back in 2013 I was working for a large telecom equipment provider on a joint project with a large CDN provider to build a CDN/TIC solution. Youtube, Netflix and all major streaming sites were supported and cached. Until [b]they[/b] decided to break caching by switching to HTTPS.
Your ignorance in this matter cannot be understated.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
Wow, it defeats throttling too!? That's almost unbelievable
Yeah, your ISP can give you a 20Mb/s link, but that doesn't mean that you get a perfect 20mb/s link to every hop along to way to every point on the Internet. You are at the mercy of many peering connections. This is one of the reasons BitTorrent was invented.
No, If I want to use netflix there is no reason the ISP should get to denigrate it's performance vs youtube or any other video service. I the customer paid for the bandwidth and by treating different service differently they are no delivering what they sell. Of coarse they bury terms somewhere deep in their contract that basically say , we can do whatever we want but that doesn't change the perception they create. Nor does it change what I want, which is , access to the service I decide to access at the data rate I paid for, regardless of which service it is. Throttling internet traffic based on the data provider rather then the consumer is unnecessary , disingenuous and nothing more then an attempt to manipulate markets. It should be illegal.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Obama! Hillary! TDS! NANANAN I'm not listening! #MAGA!
You see it's 20Mb/s of ISP approved content. They have tests that prove you have a speed of 20Mb/s of approved content. #MAGA
Like Robin Hood? I take from the rich & give back to the poor: What it saves you on ad/script etc. bandwidth + hardcoded favorite sites @ TOP of hosts GETTING YOU BACK SPEED? It works...
* NO QUESTIONS ASKED...
APK
P.S.=> To quote Tony Stark regarding his "Arc Reactor" from IRON MAN #1? "IT WORKS" & his Dad Howard Stark from Capt. America #1 too "It's as STRONG AS STEEL (better vs. other security issue or inefficiency riddled non-native 'solution') & 1/3rd the WEIGHT" (in resources expended in messagepass overheads, CPU/RAM etc.), natively w/ what you ALREADY have in kernelmode efficiency in the IP stack itself... apk
The ISPs already got the Supreme Court to agree that the FTC couldn't regulate NN, and that only the FCC did. Unsurprsingly, they took advantage of this to start fucking with sites, including blocking mobile payment systems they didn't own. Surprsiingly, a few months later, the FCC did put NN regulations in place. Note, this all happened several years ago.
See also, why all the "things weren't so bad pre-FCC NN" comments were bullshit. Because the FTC was allowed to regulate them for a while, and it trended hellish when neither agency did
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Lies, as always.
Is all traffic really "created equal"? What if the firefighters or police need to send a video of something they are working on — and the local tower is faced with the dilemma of whether to drop your or their packets? They can't analyze the stream's content (even if it weren't encrypted), but they do know the endpoints.
YouTube, being pure entertainment, loses...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Ok, a pop quiz
1. What's the multicast address range for IPv6?
2. What were the years the mbone and 6bone went native on the backbone?
3. What is the relationship between the TTL and hop count on a multicast group?
4. What happens when you switch off multicast routing on an interface?
5. Who had the first IPv6 hub in the United Kingdom?
6. Who are the various authors of the major multicast how-tos?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
What the fuck does OTT stand for?
Over The Top?
Object Type Translator?
Off the Truck?
Serously, what the fuck? https://www.acronymfinder.com/...
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Nobody blocks multicast.
To be clear, every ISP blocks multicast transport between Internet AS's except in a very few special circumstances, and typically it is not routed within networks as well. It isn't that you can't bill for it, it is the inherent danger of multicast, and also multicast routing doesn't scale well.
Some end-user ISPs are considering using highly controlled multicast ABR to efficiently deliver live content to their own subscribers, but it is unlikely that multicast will ever be distributed across the Internet.
Multicast can be used to efficiently deliver popular non-live content as well (for example, see this paper).
[FWIW I was involved in a multicast ABR trial]
Netflix has offered to colocate a cache box for various ISPs many times which would reduce their upstream traffic for popular movies to zero. Every time the ISP has demanded impractically massive payments for that rather than reducing their upstream costs. Apparently they only have congestion on their upstream when they want to use it as an excuse to demand more money or push their customers to a subsidiary.
That's not at all what throttling means, which I suspect you already know full well and are intentionally misusing in an attempt to confuse the issue. To "throttle" is to "suppress" or to "reduce the speed of" or to "decrease the flow of". It's an imposition on something that is capable of more.
To use some car analogies, when I press a car's accelerator to the floor so that it can't go any faster, that isn't throttling. That's simply the fastest the car can go. Nothing more. When too many cars are on the road and we're forced to slow down, that isn't throttling. That's simply a bottleneck resulting from there being more traffic than the road can handle. Nothing more. When a Corolla loses to a Corvette in a drag race, that isn't throttling. That's simply different products performing to their different limits. Nothing more.
But when your car is capable of X and traffic conditions allow for X, yet you're intentionally using the accelerator to drive it at less than X, that's you throttling your car.
Likewise, when a site is serving content as fast as it can and can't go any faster, that isn't throttling. That's simply the fastest the site can go. Nothing more. When too much traffic hits a link along the route and the traffic can't be routed at full speed, that isn't throttling. That's simply a bottleneck resulting from there being more traffic than the link can handle. Nothing more. When a 50 Mbps plan is slower than a 1 Gbps plan in a speed test, that isn't throttling. That's simply different products performing to their different limits. Nothing more.
But when you and the site are capable of X and traffic conditions allow for X, yet an ISP is intentionally forwarding packets at less than X, that's the ISP throttling your connection.
All analogies break down at some point if you stretch them too far, so this is by no means an exhaustive list of the ways that ISPs may engage in throttling or other shady behavior (e.g. ISPs intentionally divert traffic for some sites to links that are constrained as a way to throttle those sites, which would be like a cop always diverting you back onto surface streets every time you tried to get on the highway; or ISPs may intentionally throttle certain types of traffic, which would be like manufacturers installing devices that limit your top speed based on the contents of your car when you started it), but they at least hit the high points.
most turned down the offer due to Netflix was also hosting other providers content with the boxes and geting payed for it
whole " ITS FREE TO ISPS ETC" was a joke i believe slashdot even carried the story about it 2 years ago
And that would harm the ISPs how? They would still be getting a break on the upstream that they claimed was oh so very expensive and congested.
Good catch, glad to see someone actually read my post.
Just tried open VZW vs. VPNed using Wehe. As expected, traffic to Netflix is not degraded via VPN, but degraded otherwise. However, all transfers over VPN appear to stream at about the same rate as the rate experienced with the non-VPN Netflix. Hum... might they be degrading all unrecognized traffic as well?
Are you retarded? Because other companies need to pay for the bandwidth they use. Not all of them pay up so your speed has to be limited to preserve the fair access of all who do pay. If you had an ounce of knoweldge about how internet works you'd understand why this is how must be.
'Unlimited' wireless data plans are nuts. It costs a lot more to send data over the cell phone network, than by DSL. If the companies make incremental cost of data zero, people are going to use that data inefficiently.
I'm savvy on tech terms, yet this is the first I've heard of OTT. One True Turd?
there are like 3 things one can do...
You assume I'm not personally rate-limiting you at my site. Maybe I do not want you saturating my throughput and denying services to my other visitors.
7. What is the capital of Assyria?
You might as well sell a phone with sparkles embedded in the case to attract women. All this gimmick crap has run it's course.
Because capitalism!
And there it is the nee jerk anti-Trump comments. Yet more reason why none go to Slashdot.Org any more for real technical content that understands technology and free market basics.
oh wait..
How delightfully socialist of you :)
No, just more lies from Alexander Peter Kowalski
Like how he claims the Chinese copied him but can't produce any evidence.
How about when he states that hosts does port filtering but again can't backup his statement which was shown to be false.
There is also his list of "experts" who support him but it turns out they don't say what he is claiming.
This also ignores his out of context quotes he uses to lie by omission.
The problem with APK is that his entire reputation is built upon the lie he told years ago that hosts is an effective security solution. It has been exposed numerous times as being a lie and when exposed APK fails to argue logically and instead will try to deflect criticism, change the subject, move the goal posts, return to a previously disproven statement, demand you prove you did better than his file concatenator, or just call people names. Expect that he will used these tactics to try to deflect from these criticisms because he is a loser and can't let the lie die. He will continue to lie by stating that he won or "dusted" you while failing to refute anything you said, will never provide real evidence, and generally try to dodge the issue.
The truth is APK is one of the most detested individuals here for good reason. When ever his poor behavior, awful logic, over statements, and horrendous writing are called out he has a fit and has done so for years across the internet. He is a spammer, and is an abusive insecure little man who is washed up and never amounted to anything. Until he produces actual verifiable facts supporting his case nothing he says should be taken seriously.
APK Hosts File Engine 2.0++ 64-bit for Linux/BSD h t t p : / / a p k . i t - m a t e . c o . u k / A P K H o s t s F i l e E n g i n e F o r L i n u x . z i p
Yields more security/speed/reliability/anonymity vs. any 1 solution (99% of threats use hostnames vs. IP address most firewalls use) more efficiently/FASTER + NATIVELY 4 less!
Vs. "Bolt on 'MoAr' illogic-logic" slowing you hosts speed u up 2 ways: Adblocks + Hardcode fav. sites u spend most time @ vs. competition loaded w/ security bugs (DNS/AntiVir) + overheads slowing u (messagepass 'souled-out' to advertisers easily detected & blocked addons + firewall filtering drivers) & their complexity leads to exploitation!
* ONLY 1 of its kind in GUI 4 Linux/BSD!
(Better vs. Windows model in speed/efficiency/merge)
APK
P.S.=> Protects vs. script trackers/ads/DNS request tracking + redirect poisoned or downed DNS/botnets/malware downloads/malcript/email malicious payloads... apk
Your software is just fine - well written, functional... I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine by mmell February 17, 2017
Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising and malvertising is quite valid - by JazzLad April 20, 2016
his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant August 10 2015
his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg September 25 2015
I like your host file system by Karmashock September 09 2015
that APK guy, I use his host file by rogoshen1 Tuesday March 03, 2015
I personally use a HOSTS file blocker produced from a genius called APK by 110010001000 October 27 2017
* Linux model = faster/more efficient
APK
P.S.=> APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-1 32/64-bit for Windows https://www.google.comsearch?s...
Alexander Peter Kowalski is hiding now and not claiming his work. A sure sign that he has been thoroughly stomped. Expect more mindless rage for a a few days from him.
See subject: Don't worry - the "Golden Calf" of your shekels dries up! I give folks what they want vs. your machinations, lol & THUS I always will win... & you KNOW it.
* Heck - you're PROVING IT via your EASILY NULLIFIED "Bitch Tactics 'efforts'" which I easily prove are you in seconds by posting your PUNY threats... lmao!
(You really ARE too STUPID to live... time to FIRE UP THE OVENS again & Zyklon B showers).
Ever see Dr, Strange? Keep it up, that's EXACTLY what I want "JudenMammu" - you're MY prisoner.
LASTLY Don't speak for "Everyone" JUDE - you're the HATED minority ALL THRU HISTORY only fooling YOURSELVES, lol - self deluded morons & thieves.
APK
P.S.=> Dance little Jude, dance - to MY TUNE as I see you lose all that STOLEN GOLD/SHEKELS, lol - slowly (oh, SO slowly, painfully, as your kind fell into your OWN trap of debt, lol)... apk
To be clear, every ISP blocks multicast transport between Internet AS's except in a very few special circumstances
Wrong. Multicast needs to be explicitly enabled and configured to function properly. What you're saying is similar to saying that all ISPs block MPLS at their borders.
It's not blocked. It's simply not configured.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
If I pay an ISP for 20Mb/s, where do they get off by limiting my connection to some services to 5Mb/s and not others?
You're paying for up to 20Mb/s, not 20Mb/s.
So far, no evidence the alleged ISP net tech is either working for an ISP or a network engineer. Still, plenty of time. The questions are carefully selected to examine the range of understanding in the specific area under dispute as well as the history of network engineering.
I'll add a few more. If there's no response by the claimant, then I might turn these into a drinking game.
7. Name the congestion control schemes relating to UDP that are also names of colours? (This is fair. If you're into drinking games, you'll know why.)
8. Name the author of the Multicast section in LARTC.
9. Name the predecessor to VIC.
10. What is the command to enable ECN on Cisco routers?
11. What is PIM-BiDi?
12. What are the current RFCs for IGMPv3 and MLD?
These aren't intended to be derogatory or insulting, I genuinely want a clear picture of who is debating this. An unquestionable demonstration of the level of understanding they have. How they interpret this is their problem, I'm interested and I follow the SOP of any geek who is interested, I ask questions.
There are no trick questions, there are no traps, these are simple, honest questions.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
That's easy. A.
Now, what is the airspeed of an unladen swallow?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
You're arguing semantics. My car doesn't support HDMI. Is it blocked or not enabled? (yes, it's intentionally a stupid analogy to go along with the stupid point)
Multicast can be supported on almost anything but it isn't, on purpose, because multicast is a great way to break far more than you're fixing most of the time. Plus it typically cannot be routed between subnets, on purpose again, because it's a great way to break far more than you're fixing. Again.
Plus multicast simply doesn't align with the use case for the majority of streaming services except live TV/radio anyway.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
And that would harm the ISPs how? They would still be getting a break on the upstream that they claimed was oh so very expensive and congested.
Yup, this. They made such a huge complaint about peering agreements and cost as the focus.
Even if they had other content on the box, it still greatly limited upstream bandwidth (including for that other content!) and reduced those magical peering costs. It's not like the demand for that other 'scary' data goes away either...ISPs need to stop trying to play favorites and actually deliver the experience their customers are seeking.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Some end-user ISPs are considering using highly controlled multicast ABR to efficiently deliver live content to their own subscribers, but it is unlikely that multicast will ever be distributed across the Internet.
As I recall, AT&T U-Verse uses multicast to deliver U-Verse TV content to their subscribers.
Yup, this. They made such a huge complaint about peering agreements and cost as the focus.
Even if they had other content on the box, it still greatly limited upstream bandwidth (including for that other content!) and reduced those magical peering costs. It's not like the demand for that other 'scary' data goes away either...ISPs need to stop trying to play favorites and actually deliver the experience their customers are seeking.
I have always assumed that ISPs want to limit upstream bandwidth of their consumer users to sell it to customers that provide content but there are other reasons for consumer customers to prefer asymmetrical upload and download speeds.
For what it is worth, my best home internet experiences were with symmetrical low latency technologies like SDSL even if I was not taking advantage of the higher upload speeds.
No. Each TCP connection has it's own congestion control and the TCP algorithm for each connection is responsible for throttling itself.
So if I have 5 active connections from my machine to www.slashdot.org and one connection to tacotime.com; tacotime only gets 1/5th of the pie, not 1/2 of the pie.
There is no reason other than complexity that traffic shaping cannot aggregate separate connections to the same IP.