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.

Comments

Cause or effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the sites mentioned are the most popular then it stands to reason to effectively "share" the bandwidth they would be throttled. No?

Re:Cause or effect?

[llamalad]

Found the astroturfer.

Re:Cause or effect?

[jd]

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.

Re:Cause or effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Cause or effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Cause or effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Cause or effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

1/6th
5 connections plus one more equals 6 connections. 6 connections shared equally means each gets 1/6th share....

Re:Cause or effect?

[rickb928]

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.

Re:Cause or effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

you sound like you just finished reading a ccna book....

Re: Cause or effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Cause or effect?

[sabri]

You don't even understand that you don't understand it.

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.

Re:Cause or effect?

[fish_in_the_c]

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.

Re:Cause or effect?

[jd]

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?

Re:Cause or effect?

[TheSync]

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]

Re:Cause or effect?

[sjames]

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.

Re:Cause or effect?

[Anubis IV]

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.

Re:Cause or effect?

[mOzone]

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

Re:Cause or effect?

[sjames]

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.

Re: Cause or effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good catch, glad to see someone actually read my post.

Re:Cause or effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

7. What is the capital of Assyria?

Re:Cause or effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

How delightfully socialist of you :)

Re:Cause or effect?

[sabri]

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.

Re:Cause or effect?

[jd]

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.

Re:Cause or effect?

[jd]

That's easy. A.

Now, what is the airspeed of an unladen swallow?

Re:Cause or effect?

[torkus]

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.

Re:Cause or effect?

[torkus]

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.

Re:Cause or effect?

[Agripa]

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.

Re:Cause or effect?

[Agripa]

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.

Re:Cause or effect?

[Agripa]

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.

So hammer the FTC with complaints.

[jellomizer]

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.

Re:So hammer the FTC with complaints.

[Jason Levine]

Meanwhile, the ISPs are trying to claim that the FTC doesn't have jurisdiction. They pushed for the FCC to push it off to the FTC and now are trying to push the FTC off. They also want the FCC to rule that states can't make their own rules. If the ISPs succeed, then they'll be immune to any regulatory agency.

Re:So hammer the FTC with complaints.

[Anonymous Coward]

The telco's doesn't have there own "services" even AT&T's big network (LTE) does not control the DirectTVNow company and the other 3 carriers doesn't even have that much.

More than likely these supposed "researcher's" have no idea how to add LTE bottle-necking into there very limited study. There's a reason why streaming services gets throttled on LTE verses a wired home/office connection. Regular Mimo (LTE) just doesn't have the density on the front end radio's to handle modern heavy streaming services hence the need for a Massive Mimo (5g) rollout.

Re:So hammer the FTC with complaints.

[jd]

According to Ars Technica, ISPs like Comcast have no problem destroying the equipment of rival ISPs. And I don't mean figuratively.

In that case, they already see themselves as above the law.

Re:So hammer the FTC with complaints.

[GregMmm]

You think this was "different" during Net Neutrality? Service throttling has been happening for a long time, and is needed for certain applications to functions properly. Traffic is being shaped all the time.

Re:So hammer the FTC with complaints.

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially if you can point out that they are not throttling their own services such as the Direct TV app.

I'm a Spectrum (nee TimeWarner Cable) customer in LA and I find Spectrum flunking on their own streaming app, it throttles all the time and often is inaccessible right in the midst of watching a program. I've noticed some throttling too on various OTT apps that I get on Roku, highly degraded video quality, and buffering. I typically don't assign this to conspiracy as much as to incompetent bungling of their infrastructure. While it sounds interesting to think they are Machiavellians bent on screwing the customer, why then would Spectrum screw up their own OTT app?
For all those who will say "just drop Spectrum", well I own a condo where the HOA has an agreement with Spectrum (TWC) for basic service, so I use it since I already pay for it in my monthly fee. The biggest problem is the archaelogically ancient wiring from the curb all the way to my townhouse, it is still the old coax from 1970s. One day I'll move...

Re:So hammer the FTC with complaints.

[markdavis]

>"You think this was "different" during Net Neutrality? Service throttling has been happening for a long time, and is needed for certain applications to functions properly. Traffic is being shaped all the time."

Indeed it is/was. But people are desperate to somehow make these things "Net Neutrality" issues because it fits with their agenda to show how the world is now ending.

Net neutrality had to do with slowing down traffic to or from specific places based on paid or other agreements with those sites or competitors. This is just about throttling video so as not to saturate the network. Streaming video is 1,000 times more network traffic than just about anything else- texting, browsing the web, looking at maps, sending Email, etc. Mobile carriers were also messing with "transcoding" the video to be lower resolution and lower quality bit-rates to better match "mobile" (AKA "small screen where res isn't as important) devices. But shaping/throttling has the same effect- the video site will drop to a lower res/bitrate automatically to prevent pausing/buffering.

I don't like video site throttling/shaping, but I can understand why they are doing it. There isn't an unlimited amount of bandwidth. Not on their interconnect swith the rest of the Internet, not on their internal networks, not in their sub-stations, not to the towers, and not across the wireless spectrum. People want zero throttling, unlimited data, and no caps (and low prices with no overage fees and no premium fees). That isn't going to happen. If it did, then everyone will have connectivity and speed problems as the network is swamped by people watching 4K cat videos all day long...

Re:So hammer the FTC with complaints.

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to provide a link to that? No I'm not going to google it myself, I stopped doing other people's homework after graduating high school.

Re:So hammer the FTC with complaints.

[Cederic]

He did. How many 'Ars Technica' are out there?

Re:So hammer the FTC with complaints.

[Cederic]

The telco's doesn't have there own

Read this far, burst into tears, closed the browser.

Re:So hammer the FTC with complaints.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite Ars Technica but engadget isn't Fake News either.

https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/22/local-isp-claims-comcast-sabotaged-it-into-shutting-down/

Re:So hammer the FTC with complaints.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Except t he FCC actively supports this behavior; and doesn't give a fuck what you think.

Re:So hammer the FTC with complaints.

[Anonymous Coward]

He asked for a link to the specific story being referenced, which may have been this one, but we'll never be sure.

Oh no

[Anonymous Coward]

So I can't just host some videos and become a billionaire anymore?

Huh! No one saw this coming!

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re: Huh! No one saw this coming!

[Anonymous Coward]

"And they had no plans for paid prioritization."

Well now, this isn't paid prioritization (that comes later), this is throttling to avoid wasting money on upgrades that could be better spent on executive bonuses and handouts to stockholders.

Re: Huh! No one saw this coming!

[kenh]

Curious what exactly the trump admin has to with your lack of choice with regard to ISPs in your community? This is a problem that not only predates Trump, it likely predates Obama, Bush'43, and maybe even Clinton...

Re:Huh! No one saw this coming!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right its not rape if its voluntary. Blame your local governments for creating local monopolies not capitalism. Government is the problem not the solution. Internet was around long before Trump. Same Internet was here when Obama was in office.

Re: Huh! No one saw this coming!

[Anonymous Coward]

Government is the "problem" yet you are begging them to regulate telecom giants? Both savior and villian, you must have some tolerance to commit that level of cognitive dissonance. Please seek a support group.

Re: Huh! No one saw this coming!

[Anonymous Coward]

Remind me, when was Net Neutrality rescinded?

Re:Huh! No one saw this coming!

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

You think we have free markets? Go try to start a competing ISP. I hope you have a few hundred thousand in seed money. It has nothing to do with Trump. It's been this way since the 80s...

Re: Huh! No one saw this coming!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is "handouts to stockholders" what you think dividends are? How exactly do you think a shareholder should be compensated for risking their capital?

Re: Huh! No one saw this coming!

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting rid of the regulations that forbid all the purchasing of the media companies/ISPs also causes more monopolies.

Re: Huh! No one saw this coming!

[Anonymous Coward]

Remind me what Net Neutrality has to do with paying $50/mo. for 1.5/0.25 Mbps service?

Re:Huh! No one saw this coming!

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump! Making America Hate Again!

Fixed that for you.

Re:Huh! No one saw this coming!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait till they move all voting online and then "throttle" or "drop" connections to online voting systems in areas they don't agree with politically.

I guess they want us watching Over-the-Air TV, paying bills with checks via the mail, renting DVD/Blu-rays from a resurrected Blockbuster, and going back to libraries to look stuff up! Maybe they'll start charging us for long-distance phone calls again.

Wireless vs. wired

[PuddleBoy]

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.)

Won't the FCC respond

[rsilvergun]

by saying that it's both legal and allowed? After all, we ended Net Neutrality.

FCC vs FTC

[bigpat]

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.

Re:FCC vs FTC

[Solandri]

that telecoms which have regional monopoly power are not using that power to extend their monopolies or colluding to restrain trad

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.

Re: FCC vs FTC

[kenh]

But because they're not called a utility, they're not regulated by the PUCs.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but PUCs *do* regulate cable companies, telcos and their ISP arms - the PUCs approve rate increases, for example.

Re: FCC vs FTC

[Anonymous Coward]

But because they're not called a utility, they're not regulated by the PUCs.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but PUCs *do* regulate cable companies, telcos and their ISP arms - the PUCs approve rate increases, for example.

In WA state, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (https://www.utc.wa.gov/) doesn't have jurisdiction over the ISP 'divisions' of telcos.

Re: FCC vs FTC

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes the states should be regulating against companies throttling content to customers in their states.

Re: FCC vs FTC

[Known Nutter]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but PUCs *do* regulate cable companies, telcos and their ISP arms - the PUCs approve rate increases, for example.

In California, for example, the CPUC only regulates the video services provided by cable companies. They have nothing whatsoever to say about data.

Ok it is slowed down but is it degraded

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Ok it is slowed down but is it degraded

[Anonymous Coward]

I really want this question answered

The answers are in the article and you could have read them with just a click and a few seconds of skimming through the article for numbers. Instead of doing that you took a longer time coming up with and posting reasons to doubt what the summary said.

Fucking astroturfer.

Re: Ok it is slowed down but is it degraded

[that this is not und]

Fucking astroturfer.

If you'll log in, you won't have to type your signature at the bottom of each post.

Re:Ok it is slowed down but is it degraded

[Anonymous Coward]

My 4 year old phone is 2560p, not 1080p.
Before you say I can't see the pixels - try 360 streaming in VR, you need every pixel.

Re:Ok it is slowed down but is it degraded

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Try this answer. You will not like it but it's true because I "lived it" by working for one of the major US cell phone carriers that did it.

Most Telco-based ISPs like AT&T, Verizon, and even T-Mobile started implementing "video optimization" a few years ago. Remember that?

What does "video optimization" typically do?

It transcodes a video stream from a higher video resolution, like 1080p, down to a lower video resolution, like 480p. Sometimes that transcoding includes reducing the aggregate speed of the video stream to a lower rate. Let's face it, 480p at 5 Mbps looks little different from 480p at 1 Mbps. I don't care how good you think your eyes really are, they are not as good as you think; computers with video sensors for "eyes" can see better than human beings!

That's a simplistic way of putting it, but it is more detailed than that if you dive into the complexities of video streaming.

There is an arbitrary value called "Q" or "Qf" or "QF", the "quality factor" of a video. I call it "arbitrary" since it is just a number that has no "dimension" to it unlike "bits per second" or "kilometers per hour". Look it up on the Interwebs.

What you should find out is this: For any video stream where the "quality factor" is "0.10" or larger, the typical human eye & human mind cannot discern the difference in the quality of the stream.

Of course there is going to be some blithering idiot out there that says, "But I can tell the difference on my HUMONGEOUS Chinese-import digital TV."

I doubt it. To make any video stream look "flawless" on large dimension screens the "quality factor" has to be so high that the resulting video becomes YUGE! I think it's called "the IMAX factor". If you plan to project a movie on a 5 story screen and plan to represent "real life" video quality, you will need to shoot thousands upon thousands upon thousand upon thousands of feet of film at extremely high frame rates, AND PLAY THEM BACK at extremely high frame rates to demonstrate any discernable quality differences in the video on such a large screen.

So how does all of this go together?

People are more and more using their mobile phones for everything in their lives. When they watch videos they sometimes connect their phones to their TVs and playback the video on a big screen. Ok, 480p video looks crappy on a 60 inch TV so people started to demand higher and higher quality video streams. Consumer-grade cameras have caught up and you are seeing posters on YT present videos in 2K and 4K resolution for playback on YUGE screens. To get really good video quality those videos will need lots of bandwidth; that's the poster's argument about 1080p at 5Mbps.

Cell phone carriers only have so much radio spectrum, RF bandwidth, to work with. Lots of people don't understand that because they can get all sorts of Mbps from their home Wi-Fi routers, so they figure the cell phone carriers are just jerking them around.

Sorry to tell you this, but there is a a BIG BIG difference between "licensed" and "unlicensed

Re:Ok it is slowed down but is it degraded

[Anonymous Coward]

... Let's face it, 480p at 5 Mbps looks little different from 480p at 1 Mbps.

That is largely true, with good compression and at most 5.1 DD sound, you can get a pretty decent PQ 480p stream at 1Mbps.

There is an arbitrary value called "Q" or "Qf" or "QF", the "quality factor" of a video. I call it "arbitrary" since it is just a number that has no "dimension" to it unlike "bits per second" or "kilometers per hour". Look it up on the Interwebs.

What you should find out is this: For any video stream where the "quality factor" is "0.10" or larger, the typical human eye & human mind cannot discern the difference in the quality of the stream.

Actually, the number is dependent upon 2 things - the resolution of the source and the resolution / size of the display viewed. For phones, I'll grant you that a QF of 0.1 is probably fine, for 65" high end TVs, that number might need to be closer to 0.2, but only if the quality of the source was "good enough". I love watching people go on about how they captured a 5Mbps episode of GoT and compressed it down to a 500MB file with H.265, not realizing that their original source was already horribly compressed and shitty. For comparison, a BD at roughly 35Mbps compressed down via H.265 with an appropriate QF factor will result in about an 7GB file. Any more, and you'll start seeing compression artifacts and softening of the picture Now, on anything under 47", like a phone, this is irrelevant, because you won't be able to see it. In fact, on a 47" screen, you can increase compression and get down to maybe 5GB files before PQ deteriorates to an extent that it becomes bothersome.

Cell phone carriers only have so much radio spectrum, RF bandwidth, to work with. Lots of people don't understand that because they can get all sorts of Mbps from their home Wi-Fi routers, so they figure the cell phone carriers are just jerking them around.

Which is why streaming across cellular networks is not a scalable solution. The bandwidth requirements for adequate PQ for even regular 1080P TVs is just too high. Btw, that minimum bandwidth turns out to be somewhere north of 8 Mbps including DD PLII sound on average, with cartoons being as low as 4Mbps and panning large image movies being as high as 14Mbps.

Extensive testing has shown that most users cannot tell the difference between 1080p video and 480p video on a 5 inch handheld cell phone screen.

That is true, but you need to see the above. I think this is a discussion more in context with the overall approach and the suitability of LTE for unqualified "broadband" use, which I don't think anyone knowledgeable really believes. You can't squeeze an elephant through a drainhole without damaging the elephant. Streaming is one of those continuous high bandwidth uses that just doesn't work well for LTE in dense populations.

No surprise

[Fly Swatter]

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.

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Phone systems have to place priority on phone and emergency services

*cough* https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...

Re:No surprise

[jd]

The Internet is being run on wired land lines. That's how it works.

There's a difference between setting up dedicated bandwidth (say, via a protocol like RSVP) for an emergency phone call or telerobotic surgery (and, yes, space has been cleared for the latter on the public Internet) and confiscating bandwidth you've bought because you're successful.

Not confiscating because someone else needs it (I've pointed out elsewhere how to do weighted round robin and other fair service management) but because you're seen as a problem.

Re: No surprise

[bestweasel]

Oh you really think it's the emergency services that are causing this throttling? Too many forest fires perhaps?

It would have to be a really thin pipe in the first place for that to be true.

Re:No surprise

[MobyDisk]

Creating a rule like "All services are lower priority than phone and emergency services" is quite reasonably and is a good neutral QOS rule. If this is all they've done they we are in good shape. Hopefully we will not see rules like "My competitors streaming services are throttled but mine aren't."

Re:No surprise

[CWCheese]

Yeah, like they placed a priority on the California firefighters during the forest fires in Mendocino last month. I don't believe Verizon was throttling in violation of net neutrality, I think it was stupid customer service and ancient billing systems that led to that idiotic tragic situation. Full disclosure, I once worked for a former telecom that is now part of VZ, and I know about the disparate disconnected nature of telco billing systems. It doesn't surprise me that they goofed up supporting the firemen, telling the firefighter to just upgrade his service agreement. If they can't understand the priority of a 200,000 acre forest firestorm, that's not net neutrality, that's idiocy.

throttled or down converting?

[the_skywise]

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?

Re:throttled or down converting?

[mOzone]

I have at&t fiber at the house and 3 at&t phones and only apps that slow down or go into SD mode are the at&t app for direct TV .. youtube netflix and pornhub i can open 4 HD streams and get 0 buffer or slow downs .. but god help me if i try and bring up a direct tv movie on tv or any device

Great job ISPs

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

"terresrtial"

[the_skywise]

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.

Re:"terresrtial"

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, then they're using wifi. Which is all many people know. They don't really care how the router works.

Re:"terresrtial"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

As silly as it is (and I still chuckle at it too), it's not any worse than when people say things like, "the internet is down", when referring to a temporary issue with their connectivity at home (or any particular place). We (as stewards of the tech community) didn't really give them many good options for non-specific access issues.

Re:"terresrtial"

[mtmra70]

"internet access is down".....there is an option. Non-existent problem solved ;)

att has TV and owns content. Verizon has cable

[Joe_Dragon]

att has TV and owns content. Verizon has cable tv.

Re:att has TV and owns content. Verizon has cable

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post is completely pointless.

Throttling or bad peering?

[thule]

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.

Re:Throttling or bad peering?

[YuppieScum]

Unless they're deliberately routing certain traffic through a narrow peering pipe...

Re:Throttling or bad peering?

[thule]

Well, yeah, that's my point. The traffic could be treated exactly the same, but the peering might be constrained. This is not a violation of NN.

Weren't wireless companies allowed to exempt some services from NN? From what I have read about T-Mobile's technique is that because they peer with Netflix, etc, they limit the per customer rate over that peering connection. This is shaping, but it provides better overall performance on their network. The customers were able to get the videos they wanted, but the video was limited in resolution (due to lower bandwidth for the stream). The easy way around this is to download the video over WiFi at the higher quality. This is a win-win. Let strain on the cell networks and better quality for the people who care about that.

Since the title of the article makes it clear they are talking about wireless carriers, then they are allowed to do this. This was even allowed under the old NN rules for special exemptions for wireless carriers.

Re:Throttling or bad peering?

[Anonymous Coward]

The way they test is to stream the same data from their own server multiple times but sometime mimic different video providers; for example, the first run will be a straight test from their server to get a baseline and the second time the tool spoofs a something.youtube.com name in the SSL handshake and compare the results. So, in the general case, all of the testing follows the same circuits.

Re:Throttling or bad peering?

[Agripa]

Well, yeah, that's my point. The traffic could be treated exactly the same, but the peering might be constrained. This is not a violation of NN.

It is a distinction without a difference when the ISP controls the routing. It is an old peering strategy to deliberately route selected traffic through or away from a specific peering or transit connection to achieve a desired result.

So?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want faster access, pay for faster access. Why should telcos subsidize your access to services? This kind of anti-free-market bias is why no one goes to Slashdot.Org any longer.

Re:So?

[YuppieScum]

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?

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:So?

[thule]

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.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: So?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because capitalism!

Re: So?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Not Buying It

[sycodon]

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.

Re:Not Buying It

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo.

Not to mention all this shit is on somebody else's computer. Sorry, but AWS performance is dogshit compared to bare metal. Cheaper in the long run and at massive scale, of course, but you get what you pay for.

Re:Not Buying It

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, Pornhub.com isn't being throttled. Kind of a large gap in your reasoning there. Remember, YOU aren't being throttled. The web site is.

Re:Not Buying It

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd think that that's the first sites they'd go after. But if you become a repeat offender, I guess they could throttle you AND the web site. Win-win strikes again!

Re:Not Buying It

[farble1670]

More likely, YouTube's servers can't keep up and instead of investing in their infrastructure, they blame the providers.

This was a university study.

Re:Not Buying It

[hawguy]

Bingo.

Not to mention all this shit is on somebody else's computer. Sorry, but AWS performance is dogshit compared to bare metal. Cheaper in the long run and at massive scale, of course, but you get what you pay for.

If you want bare metal at AWS, you can have it. But with nvme drives and ehhanced networking that gives the VM nearly direct disk and network hardware access, there's not a whole lot of overhead in an AWS VM.

Re:Not Buying It

[Anne Thwacks]

This was a university study.

And the students were not watching pornhub?

Fake news, I tell you!

Re:Not Buying It

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about?
Youtube is owned by GOOGLE and uses GOOGLE's CDN (googlevideocontent)
Furthermore since you mentioned AWS, Amazon prime video is handled by a purpose built and tuned network stack. So though I know you're not talking about prime video (I think), their video delivery product is arguably barer-metal than most.
8, 9th, 10th points:
Pretty sure pornhub is on a hosting provider or at least their datacenter is virtualized. CDNs are faster than bare metal because the edge node is closer to you than the origin would probably be, bare metal or not plus a portion of the TCP handshake is simulated and never actually built up or torn down at the host node side.
Many major providers are running bare metal nodes with no virtualization though they can manage and provision the nodes similar to how you might administer a vmware cluster.

I mean I could go on and on and on.

Re:Not Buying It

[sjames]

Or youtube is being throttled and pornhub isn't.

Re: Not Buying It

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really because I'd bet the average user probably watches pornhub or just a few min. Someone watching Netflix or YouTube could spend hours watching.

Hell I know Comcast started throttling every service (1 at a time) right after the repeal. At least in my area they did. They did the same before the rules went into effect. I remember a period of 6 weeks where I couldn't watch anything on YouTube above 480p on a 300Mbps connection

Re:Not Buying It

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Try switching away from AT&T's dns server and using a VPN, bam suddenly YT works great.

Re:Not Buying It

[Ol Olsoc]

I mean I could go on and on and on.

You kinda already did.

Re: Not Buying It

[Anonymous Coward]

Not much overhead sure, but you have to compete with other VMs on the node for CPU and network.

Net Neutralitards

[Anonymous Coward]

They think bandwidth is unlimited.

reading minds

[Anonymous Coward]

Technical reason or illegal act? Lets bring out a crystal ball. Can WeHe read minds?

Article is dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

>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.

Re:Article is dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you're on Sprint wireless, and then you can just about use ssh, if you logged in before moving to the wireless network. I typically got 128k after reaching my data cap...

Exactly.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

So I Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Fuck all y'all

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm turning the shit off. Kill your internet.

Get your speed back (security too) via... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: 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

Re:Get your speed back (security too) via... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, it defeats throttling too!? That's almost unbelievable

Registered /.ers review of the Win64 model

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Tower capacity issues not a conspiracy.

[Anonymous Coward]

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 are a paid shill

[Anonymous Coward]

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:

Re:You are a paid shill

[Fly Swatter]

You make some nice points, but what happens when a cell tower or two in the area become saturated? Just maybe the data hogs get throttled first? Why would they care if you burn through your quota, they can just charge you for the overage without a care in the world. Someone sounds grumpy as hell.

I never mentioned latency, only priority content. So whose confused now? You think that just because you want streaming 'low latency' content, they will give that data priority over other web traffic? haha.

Re:You are a paid shill

[Anonymous Coward]

You misunderstand. VoIP phone needs low latency because you have a limited time between when the words are spoken to when they come out of the phone on the other side. Video doesn't require low latency until it become interactive like a phone conversation. I personally would prioritize web content over video content if it was up to me and I had the means. I would also configure all my bundled apps to stream at low quality and leave it up to the user to turn them up to high.

Going over quota doesn't result in charges for most customers. It typically results in getting throttled down to a livable 100kbps.

Most recently when I was throttled however the network was so fucked I could get a fast connection one way and then the other way would be 0kbps. Which way was blocked was seemingly up to jesus though I can think of some plausible schemes that would produce this behavior.

The end result was that my throttled service was absolutely useless and I wasn't able to hail a lyft in time to get to my Amazon interview. Thankfully I was able to steal a bike from a homeless child and get there just in time.

After a hypothetical user goes over quota watching a single high def video on their tiny screen they're going to call tech support, which isn't fun and isn't free for the carrier. Tech support will tell them shit they don't want to hear. They'll switch carriers.

So sure I can make excuses for phone carriers, I'll remember that other places in the world people get 100gb phone plans for the same money I pay and not let them gaslight me into accepting shit service for big bucks. If we accept their excuses service providers will move us back to the 80s.

Let's not forget that all these fuckers had networks not too different from the internet for decades before the internet was mainstream and yet the average joe consumer was paying big bucks by the minute for both online services and long distance and it was crushed as soon as the commercial internet became accessible.

It was these guys who delayed the information revolution for a decade in order to preserve their comfy business models and to this day their wildest fantasies are to take consumers back there and fuck them good like the old days.

Re:You are a paid shill

[Anonymous Coward]

Just maybe the data hogs get throttled first?

Just what would you consider a "data hog"? Someone who is attempting to utilize the service for which they paid?

Why would they care if you burn through your quota, they can just charge you for the overage without a care in the world.

And this is where things got bad. We've become accustomed to having quotas on what was supposed to be unlimited connections. We've been conditioned or forced to accept these since, in many cases, a person has no other choice if they wish to retain access to the Internet.

T-Mobile's Binge On is throttling

[tepples]

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.

Re:T-Mobile's Binge On is throttling

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it isn't the video provider rather than the app running on your phone. Video streams come in packets optimized for about 10 seconds, in a .ts file. A 1080p stream is usually about 4 to 5Mb. If the app detects that the packet isn't finished downloading by the time specified, usually 10 seconds, the app will start switching to a stream with a lower bit rate. It will settle on what ever bitrate stream can be downloaded in that time slot. Occasionally it will check if it can switch to a higher bit rate if the current stream finishes within a certain percent of that timeslot and start switching up.

You can actually search on this in the browser by looking for the .M3U8 file. It will have a first line of #EXTM3U8. There are usually 6 to 7 different bitrate streams included in that file.

My package doesn't include Bloomberg News

[tepples]

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.

Over The Top

[Anonymous Coward]

OTT. That's what it stands for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-top_media_services

Re:Over The Top

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks.

#MAGA

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama! Hillary! TDS! NANANAN I'm not listening! #MAGA!

Like Robin Hood? I take from the rich

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Wrong tense

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Meanwhile, the ISPs are trying to claim that the FTC doesn't have jurisdiction. They pushed for the FCC to push it off to the FTC and now are trying to push the FTC off.

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

Re:Wrong tense

[Jane Q. Public]

Most people have no real idea about the actual history of Net Neutrality.

We had de facto net neutrality regulations for 6 of about the last 7 1/2 years. And not was so bad that hardly anybody even noticed.

We also had Title II coverage when the internet was all done over phone landlines.

Which means that actually, during the majority of the history of the Internet in the United States, it was covered by one or another version of Net Neutrality.

When cable companies started offering Internet services, the FCC agreed to not try to regulate them as long as they voluntarily agreed to certain Net Neutrality rules. So while it wasn't a matter of law, there were conditions for FCC keeping its hands off.

But over a period of about 15 years or so, the cable company lobbyists chipped and chipped and chipped away at these provisions until by 2015, there wasn't much left.

That's why a separate Net Neutrality regulation was passed in 2015.

And it should have stayed there. This notion that they will all play like nice competitive capitalists given lack of regulation is demonstrable BS. They cheated on the rules even when they were regulated.

EFF has a very good history of Net Neutrality on their website.

But they said dont worry...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lies, as always.

Think of the firefighters

[mi]

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

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...

Re:Think of the firefighters

[Agripa]

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

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...

What if the firefighters are using YouTube to distribute real time video coverage of the fire to themselves?

There are ways for traffic shaping to handle situations like these and give the customers exactly what they purchased.

Re:Think of the firefighters

[mi]

There are ways for traffic shaping to handle situations like these and give the customers exactly what they purchased.

If there is not enough bandwidth at a particular tower, somebody is going to get throttled no matter how the victim is chosen or how you "shape" the traffic.

Starting with those, who stream from YouTube, seems like a no-brainer — and the firefighters and other public service/emergency customers have special plans available to let them have priority.

Re:Think of the firefighters

[Aqualung812]

Is all traffic really "created equal"? What if the firefighters [slashdot.org] or police need to send a video of something they are working on â" 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.

There are two solutions here.

The first is that emergency services can, should, and have been building a separate cellular network called FirstNet. It has its own frequencies, so no need for prioritization at layer 2 or higher when we've already given them their own exclusive layer 1.

The second is that those that need higher performance can pay for a higher CIR. This is how it has been done with business for years, and I really don't see why this can't happen with residential services.

Sure, we'll give you "up to" 100mb, but when everyone is streaming at 7pm, you'll only promised 1mb. If you want more, pay more.

This is FAR better than data caps, that pretend bits are a consumable resource. Peak throughput is, but not the total bis.

Re:Think of the firefighters

[mi]

The first is that emergency services can, should, and have been building a separate cellular network called FirstNet

As you know — or should know — resource-dedication means resource-wastage. That is to say, this "FirstNet" thing should never have been created.

But that's not relevant, because, as we know from that earlier article I linked to already, for whatever reasons, firefighters do use private cellular networks.

This is FAR better than [...]

That's the advantage of it being run by a private company — we, the people who do not own shares, don't need to decide, what's "better". The competition already does...

Re:Think of the firefighters

[Aqualung812]

The competition already does...

You seem to be under the false assumption that there is competition in wired high-speed Internet service.

Re:Think of the firefighters

[mi]

You seem to be under the false assumption that there is competition in wired high-speed Internet service.

You are under the false assumption that this article is about wired Internet service.

How embarrassing... Remember to logout.

OTT?

[Gravis Zero]

What the fuck does OTT stand for?
Over The Top?
Object Type Translator?
Off the Truck?

Serously, what the fuck? https://www.acronymfinder.com/...

Re:OTT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Over The Top - It's riding "over the top" of their infrastructure and therefore not an inhouse streaming service.

Re:OTT?

[Anonymous Coward]

On The Telephone? :/

Re:OTT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Order of The Trapezoid? (My favorite)

WTF, indeed. It's not mentioned in the referenced article. Poster can't be bothered to define it. Damned lazy, IMHO.

Re:OTT?

[Anonymous Coward]

This comment is the only reason I came here, and nobody has an answer yet. :(

Also, neither "over the top" (OtT) nor "on the telephone" (otT) suggested by siblings fit the acronym.

Re:OTT?

[Anonymous Coward]

I like this one from your link: Our Toxic Times (newsletter of the Chemical Injury Information Network)

Re:OTT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Other Techie's Telephones. "You down with OTT? Yeah you know me!"

Re:OTT?

[sysrammer]

Over The Tubez, natch.

Re:OTT?

[sysrammer]

Over The Top - It's riding "over the top" of their infrastructure and therefore not an inhouse streaming service.

That may be all well and good, but that's not funny at all!

Know the source of earth's trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

"Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

Adam Schiff (gosh s

VPN report

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:VPN report

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you tried to fist yourself yet? You should.

Re:VPN report

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you tried to fist yourself yet?

Well, he did say he was using VZW...

Unlimited wireless data has catches

[Anonymous Coward]

'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.

Re:Unlimited wireless data has catches

[Anonymous Coward]

'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.

You are actually absolutely correct.

If the "all you can eat buffet" charged you an additional 2 USD for the 2nd trip, then an additional 3 USD for the 3rd trip and an additional 4 USD for the 4th trip, most human beings are likely to change their eating habits in such a situation.

When "all you can eat" literally means "all you can eat", then human beings throw out their "self control" and eat until they are so stuffed they have to be winched out of the place or rolled out to the ambulance that takes them over the A&E Casualty Intake for a stomach pumping.

The "all you can use" wireless plans are not exactly "all you can use" ... and people are starting to see that and the fact that the "all you can use" aspect of the plan is really marketing, an enticement/inducement to get you to buy that plan over a competitor, when the plan has a "cap" (a limit on how much of "all you can use" you can really use).

Some "all you can use" plans let you run at whatever the wireless carrier will support up to a limit and then they throttle you down. Some people whine about those plans not actually being "all you can use", but if the only impact of exceeding the limit of the umlimited portion of the plan is throttling, then the plan is still technically "unlimited" in the view of most laws.

Of course some legal wankers out there will say, "But when you limit the speed to a certain limit, and then there are only so many minutes in a day, the net effect is effectively a cap". Notice the fancy wording that the legal wankers like to use to convince you that their argument makes sense.

In fact human beings have artifically limited time to "so many minutes a year" just because the human mind cannot fully grasp the concept of unlimited.

So what have I just said?

- The word "unlimited" is "marketing talk". So don't get hung up on that word; READ THE ENTIRE CONTRACT you wankers!

- Most legal wankers make arguments to convince you of something, not actually tell you the truth. So don't try playing stupid with the public you wankers!

- Most human beings need artificial limits imposed upon them or else they totally forget their own "self control" and overdue the "unlimited" to their own "self injury".

dafuq is OTT

[Snotnose]

I'm savvy on tech terms, yet this is the first I've heard of OTT. One True Turd?

its not hard to legally retaliate

[Anonymous Coward]

there are like 3 things one can do...

FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

SURPRISE!

[Anonymous Coward]

oh wait..

No, just more lies from Alexander Peter Kowalski

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Get your speed & security back via... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Registered /.ers review of the Win64 model

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Aw, poor little Juden shekelboy, lol... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

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