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.
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.
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)
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.
The states already have an agency which does exactly this. When the government awards a monopoly contract for some type of service, its operation and rates are monitored by a public utilities commission. The PUC makes sure the monopoly company cannot abuse the monopoly by providing subpar services or charging excessive rates.
Because cable ISPs are awarded government monopolies, they are for all intents and purposes a utility. But because they're not called a utility, they're not regulated by the PUCs.
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!
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.