Senators Ask Four Major Carriers About Video Slowdowns (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Three U.S. Senate Democrats today asked the four major wireless carriers about allegations they've been throttling video services and -- in the case of Sprint -- the senators asked about alleged throttling of Skype video calls. Sens. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) sent the letters to AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile, noting that recent research using the Wehe testing platform found indications of throttling by all four carriers.

"All online traffic should be treated equally, and Internet service providers should not discriminate against particular content or applications for competitive advantage purposes or otherwise," the senators wrote. Specifically, the Wehe tests "indicated throttling on AT&T for YouTube, Netflix, and NBC Sports... throttling on Verizon for Amazon Prime, YouTube, and Netflix... throttling on Sprint for YouTube, Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Skype Video calls... [and] delayed throttling, or boosting, on T-Mobile for Netflix, NBC Sports, and Amazon Prime by providing un-throttled streaming at the beginning of the connection, and then subsequently throttling the connection," the senators' letters said.

Comments

This is why NN is dumb.

[HornWumpus]

Listen to the senators.

They think QoS isn't a thing...'All online traffic should be treated equally'.

That's the idiot's definition of NN. NN means 'all network traffic of the same type, should be treated equally.'

Politicians want to break the net. Mandate that FTP gets the same priority/ping as gaming packets.

Re:This is why NN is dumb.

[Knightman]

The whole quote should be:

"All online traffic should be treated equally, and Internet service providers should not discriminate against particular content or applications for competitive advantage purposes or otherwise."

You can't just take something out of it's context and make a meaningful argument.

Re:This is why NN is dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

They think QoS isn't a thing...'All online traffic should be treated equally'.

Yeah, but your QoS doesn't trump our QoS.

Mandate that FTP gets the same priority/ping as gaming packets.

Why shouldn't it?

I'm paying the same amount for my connection, what the fuck do I care if your game is faster while my stuff is slower?

Net Neutrality doesn't mean all packets of the same type, you're just making up bullshit. Net Neutrality means it's agnostic to what kind of packet it is, and just handles them without trying to tune them to be faster.

Fuck your QoS you little snowflake, we don't give a fuck about you, and you clearly seem to think your stuff is more important than ours.

Sorry, but fuck you.

Re:This is why NN is dumb.

[DarkRookie2]

Net neutrality FTW.

Re: This is why NN is dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

All Democrats. But let's continue to hate on Ajit (for doing the right thing).

Re: This is why NN is dumb.

[DarkRookie2]

What exactly.
I have heard one, maybe two pieces of good news that have come from the FCC since he took over.
Most of the time it is him listening to the whispers of what the carriers want while getting fuck in the ass by the carrier without the reach around.
And enjoys every minute of it.

He is also cheap at $10 an hour.

Re:This is why NN is dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

When a requirement consists of two clauses joined together with an 'and', it's perfectly fine to argue against just of them.

Re:This is why NN is dumb.

[HornWumpus]

You are like the politicians. Starting from a lack of understanding, you say stupid things, thinking they are smart.

Re:This is why NN is dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since posting the above, I've had a bit of a change of heart and thought about QoS a bit more.

Really, I just want the appropriate bandwidth for my data types, no more, no less.

And I'm sorry I said fuck you.

Re:This is why NN is dumb.

[dgatwood]

Net Neutrality doesn't mean all packets of the same type, you're just making up bullshit. Net Neutrality means it's agnostic to what kind of packet it is, and just handles them without trying to tune them to be faster.

No, that is NOT what Net Neutrality advocates are asking for. Net Neutrality means that ISPs should be agnostic about the DESTINATION, i.e. that VoIP traffic to Skype should not be slower than VoIP traffic to Facebook Messenger or whatever.

No (sane) NN law should ever be written in a way that prevents differing prioritization of different classes of traffic, e.g. ensuring that latency-sensitive data, such as VoIP traffic gets sent without delay even if it means that non-latency-sensitive data, such as bulk downloads, are slower, even by a few seconds.

I'm paying the same amount for my connection, what the fuck do I care if your game is faster while my stuff is slower?

Because a five second difference in your download time could make the difference between somebody else's phone call being perfect and dropping out over and over. Services that require low latency should get priority, because if slowed down, they become unusable. Other services, if slowed down, do not become significantly less usable. The assumption is that every user will eventually do something for which latency matters, whether it is gaming, Skype, or even just video streaming, though the extent to which latency matters varies, obviously, depending on what you're doing.

Re:This is why NN is dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he's right. You're just trol(l)ing* and making up bullshit. A neutral net is nothing more than a dumb pipe, and that is what we are supposed to demand from all service providers. But since we don't, we will end up with the internet just being another channel on the TV. We can let you trol(l)* all you want, but we should not let you vote. Your fascism is harmful to society.

*Stupid Slashdot censorship filters won't let me say a bad word.

Re:This is why NN is dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

Walmart greeters!

Warlmart greeters, they're the greetest! Why? Because I'm telling you why, I know walmart greeters and I'm telling you they're the greetest. Everyone says how greet they are when they greet you and I greet that with greet appreciation. The greetest. I know walmart greeters.

CAPTCHA: denying

Re:This is why NN is dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

QoS only ever affects network traffic in any significant way when there is congestion. If there is congestion, the correct solution is to increase capacity, not to throttle some traffic. That traffic is paid for! You oversold your bandwidth too much and need to upgrade. QoS is fine on your own network with your own data. You can be as cheap as you want and use QoS to prioritize traffic that is important to you. An ISP however carries other people's paid for traffic and should absolutely treat it all equally. Yes, that means FTP gets the same priority as gaming packets. That is no problem at all unless you fail to upgrade the network to handle the traffic that your customers paid for. An ISP with regular bottlenecks on their network is doing it wrong.

Re: This is why NN is dumb.

[Highdude702]

I use sprint, I haven't noticed a difference since the end of the 2015 NN rule, well the service has gotten better.. And they recently upped my throttle cap(only in congested areas) to 50GB, and "mobile hotspot" to 50GB from 25 and 10 respectively. And I have been using my phone as home internet for the last 3 months exclusively.. I can play games just fine, watch youtube just fine with the exception of sometimes it will drop to 480p for a few minutes or at normal peak times when all the kids around where I live are on their phones. I have more problems with youtube being a prick than anything else because I use safescript.

Re:This is why NN is dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because a five second difference in your download time could make the difference between somebody else's phone call being perfect and dropping out over and over. Services that require low latency should get priority

No, they really shouldn't. If this kind of prioritization seems at all necessary, the traffic exceeds the capacity of the network. The only correct solutions are to increase the capacity or to reduce the traffic. Since an ISP can't really tell customers who paid for the bandwidth to not use it, the only real choice is to increase capacity.

Prioritization is also very subjective. What if you're mindlessly yapping about nothing on the phone, but if my download takes a minute more, I'll miss my flight? Is your phone call still more important? What if my important phone call is routed through a VPN and your game is not? NN is absolute. One user's priority is another user's throttling. You have no right to decide that my traffic is less important than someone else's.

Re:This is why NN is dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

No they shouldn't. If the carrier is offering a voice service, it is fine if they reserve bandwidth and make sure that voice server is low latency low jitter. If you are doing the VoIP yourself and are shoveling IP packets into the carrier network it is not the job of the carrier to do any QoS unless you or another 10T is maliciously overloading the network. You do your own QoS at the point of injection (your internet connection). The receiving party will do their own QoS at their point of connection. The carrier(s) in the middle have the job to transfer the packets you gave them to the other end, in the order you gave the packets, with consistent latency, jitter and packet loss, according to your contracted SLA. No more, no less.

Re:This is why NN is dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are like the politicians. Starting from a lack of understanding, you say stupid things, thinking they are smart.

And you are like a child, lacking the ability to add anything intelligent you lash out.

I bet you voted for Trump, didn't you puddin'?

Show us on the doll where the bad man touched you.

Idiot.

Re: This is why NN is dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent's argument is 100% correct. Your comment has no point. The argument used by the Politicians reveals an utter lack of understanding. There are many different types of traffic and they're not supposed to all be treated the same.

Re: This is why NN is dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. QoS is a used to control traffic within a network, it's not meant to be carried through or otherwise "honored" outside your network.

Re: This is why NN is dumb.

[c6gunner]

QoS only ever affects network traffic in any significant way when there is congestion. If there is congestion, the correct solution is to increase capacity, not to throttle some traffic

So you're arguing that QoS shouldn't exist because everyone can always just immediately increase capacity.

Good one.

Re: This is why NN is dumb.

[CaptQuark]

You read his post and know that isn't what he is arguing for. Why are you trying to twist his argument and confuse the issue?

Re: This is why NN is dumb.

[bn-7bc]

Because ftp is not as latency sensitive as gaming (well gaming is actually more jitter sensitive)

Re:This is why NN is dumb.

[Plus1Entropy]

The only correct solutions are to increase the capacity or to reduce the traffic.

Uhh, yeah, you're right. That's why they reduce the traffic by dropping packets, i.e. throttling...

Prioritization is also very subjective. What if you're mindlessly yapping about nothing on the phone, but if my download takes a minute more, I'll miss my flight?

If you miss a flight because a download took a minute longer, then you are to blame for incredibly poor planning. But aside from that, in order for this kind of QoS to impact a bulk download on the order of minutes requires it to be a download that is large enough to take many minutes. Over that kind of time, you would never be able to blame one particular person's usage on your delay. Now the question is no longer "my download vs. your phone call", but actually "my download vs. many other peoples' phone calls". Suddenly the prioritization isn't so subjective.

Re:This is why NN is dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

they reduce the traffic by dropping packets, i.e. throttling...

But not indiscriminately. Anyway, you carefully overlooked the next sentence: The customers paid for the bandwidth and throttling denies them what they paid for.

then you are to blame for incredibly poor planning.

Your mindless yapping on the phone causes my traffic to be throttled and without knowing why my download is time critical, you decide that I'm the one to blame? And you don't care that my VPN-tunneled phone call gets throttled for the benefit of your unimportant gaming? Well, I'm on an unthrottled gigabit fiber connection, so none of this is a problem here, but you go ahead and allow ISPs to not deliver what you paid for and hide it with QoS. We'll see how that works out.

Re:This is why NN is dumb.

[Dunbal]

But, but World of Warcraft is MUCH more important than those MRI images I'm sending!!! /sarcasm

Re:This is why NN is dumb.

[Dunbal]

So they can throttle everything coming OUT of Netflix and Skype, so long as they don't throttle my occasional request to change channel...

Re:This is why NN is dumb.

[HornWumpus]

Consumer bandwidth does not come with a SLA (Service Level Agreement). If you want that, you can get it. It ain't cheap.

Re:This is why NN is dumb.

[HornWumpus]

Vermin Supreme was the best candidate. Living in CA, my vote was wasted anyhow.

Moron.

Re:This is why NN is dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mine does. The ISP guarantees 100% of the advertised bandwidth. 80€/month, 500 Mbps up and down. You don't get it if you let ISPs get away with throttling.

Re:This is why NN is dumb.

[HornWumpus]

Link to the ISP and it's SLA.

I doubt it.

Re:This is why NN is dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

ISPs in Germany are required by law to specify maximum, minimum and normal bandwidth so that customers can know in advance what kind of throughput to expect. Deutsche Glasfaser specifies the full bandwidth as max, min and norm for their fiber to the home products. Some people report having transferred several terabytes per month without experiencing any throttling.

Re:This is why NN is dumb.

[Plus1Entropy]

Lol, let me tell you something. You cannot miss a flight by 1 minute. If you have flown significantly in your life, I'm sure you will remember waiting on the plane with everyone else until suddenly 2-3 people board and sit. And then the plane leaves. Of course you can miss a flight, but not by 1 minute.

That means that 1 minute was on top of the time they would have waited for you after everyone else boarded. If you said your download was delayed by 10 or 15 minutes, then maybe I would be more sympathetic. So yes, absolutely this is poor planning and nothing else.

And again, it isn't you vs. one person. This is not like when you had dial-up and your Mom was on the phone so you couldn't play Unreal Tournament. Network management doesn't work that way. For every one person "yapping" there could be another making a 911 call.

The customers paid for the bandwidth and throttling denies them what they paid for.

Yes, well this is an entirely different problem altogether. When ISPs give you a download/upload speed, that is your theoretical maximum. You will almost never get the speed you pay for. The problem is in the way ISPs sell and advertise their speeds, not in how QoS manages the network.

There is such a thing called the "over-subscription rate", which is how much the ISP oversells their bandwidth. I.e. let's say the ISP has a 1 TB pipe to a neighborhood to sell. What they actually do is sell 10 TB of bandwidth to customers in that area, i.e. an over-subscription rate of 10.

No system works the way you describe. If everyone tries to make a call, no one can make a call. If everyone tries to take their money out of the bank, there is not enough cash in existence to match actual wealth. If everyone was guaranteed their advertised speeds from their ISP, everyone would get shitty speeds. We design these systems with the amount of simultaneous usage in mind, and that way we can actually achieve higher performance.

Re:This is why NN is dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is that it is impossible to miss a flight. If you catch it now and one minute won't make you miss it, then you would catch it in a minute, but a delay of a minute would not make you miss the flight, so you would catch it in two minutes. By complete induction, it is impossible to miss a flight.

Can you not fathom that the time and necessity of a download is not under my control? It just has to be my fault, so you can have your pointless phone call prioritized. And you keep conveniently ignoring the other situation where selective throttling is not fair: A phone call which is routed through a VPN will be throttled, whereas some unimportant game won't be, because the former won't be recognized as real-time data, but the latter will be.

I am fully aware of contention ratios (which btw. is what that's called). A contention ratio above 1 does not mean that there will be congestion. Providers can and do take advantage of the fact that the total network utilization is much less than the average bandwidth sold multiplied by the number of users. Congestion is when a provider chooses too high a contention ratio by overselling the available bandwidth too much. That's neither necessary nor acceptable. I do get the bandwidth I pay for. If you don't, maybe you should stop shilling for cheapskate ISPs.

Re:This is why NN is dumb.

[HornWumpus]

ISPs only control your speed to the peering point, they _can't_ make that promise in general. Most servers can't support that speed.

Even with a SLA you have to traceroute and show the slowdown is on the ISPs network.

Re:This is why NN is dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's completely beside the point, isn't it. Obviously an ISP can't control what's happening on other networks, but they can't help there with QoS either.

After court, you'll see a REAL throttling....

[Anonymous Coward]

First we hang em, den we kill em!

Waste of government time and money

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrats and Republicans waste time and money with stupid shit like this. This is a meaningless bunch of posturing. They should not be running the place. But you fucking retards keep voting for them.

Re:Waste of government time and money

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, given that your slick politicians are demanding genocide against my culture, I'm voting for my lizards instead of your lizards.

Yes, your conservative lizards are demanding genocide against LGBQT cultures and your progressive lizards are demanding genocide against rural cultures.

Re:Waste of government time and money

[Anonymous Coward]

The only box left that would change things is the ammo box. Sure you want to go there?
The parties have made it impossible for a 3rd party to compete. When orange man slipped by the usual selection process, they and their MSM lackeys went nuts. Wouldn't matter even if orange man was actually good. "It's the principle of the thing" when those in power see it slipping away. The attempt to control the narrative is becoming a desperate failure. Citations:
https://phys.org/news/2011-10-... - please note the date on this one.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...

Re:Waste of government time and money

[HornWumpus]

Best bet is to get your two enemies to fight each other, especially if they've been holding vaults of dirt on each other for generations.

Trump is our best chance, not a good one, but better than any alternative. IMHO It all comes down to 'Hillary for Prison'. If that happens...the prison list gets long, fast.

Bets on the first round of Rs to go, right after Hillary (fingers crossed)?

How hard would the Ds come is the real question, they're all guilty. I'm thinking the Ds would go sort of parity...take out 2 or 3, old, used up, but personally powerful, public Rs (not the real powers nobody's heard of).

I'll take: Romney and Jeb?

The Rs will try to sac Trump instead, but the Ds will think that he's better as 'deadman walking'.

Re:Waste of government time and money

[Anonymous Coward]

The only box left that would change things is the ammo box.

You're full of shit.

On the other hand, if you point your gun at the people that reelect your crooked politicians, it just might work.

Re:Waste of government time and money

[Anonymous Coward]

Please cite examples of calls for genocide against LGBQT culture...

All online traffic CAN'T be treated equally

[Anonymous Coward]

All online traffic should be treated equally

Really? TCP video streams are the same as UDP text messages?

If you say yes, now you get to define "equally". Which means you want lawyers controlling the internet.

Re:All online traffic CAN'T be treated equally

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, I'll bite. "All traffic will be treated equally where traffic queued or routed will be FIFO (first in first out)". Can I have my million dollars now please?

Re:All online traffic CAN'T be treated equally

[Narcocide]

Right, this exactly. All the customers connected to the network should get a maximum bandwidth allotment of one portion of the total bandwidth divided by the amount of connected clients. Latency should not be fucked with, period. Traffic should not be prioritized, period, above everything getting the exact same priority.

Any counter-arguments to this are expressly for the purpose of allowing situations where carriers can overbook their networks and shift the blame around between the customers.

Re:All online traffic CAN'T be treated equally

[HornWumpus]

Limit everybody to worst case, throw away unused bandwidth.

That's a plan, not a good one, but at least it's a practical suggestion.

You can buy bandwidth that way BTW, not from your average consumer ISP.

Re:All online traffic CAN'T be treated equally

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, this exactly. All the customers connected to the network should get a maximum bandwidth allotment of one portion of the total bandwidth divided by the amount of connected clients. Latency should not be fucked with, period. Traffic should not be prioritized, period, above everything getting the exact same priority.

Any counter-arguments to this are expressly for the purpose of allowing situations where carriers can overbook their networks and shift the blame around between the customers.

Gawd, what a perfect example of Dunning-Kruger in action.

Because simplistic pie-in-the-sky bullshit like that just proves you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, AND you're too damn stupid to know that you're ignorant.

Define "available bandwidth"

Define "connected client".

Define what to do with another client "connects" and everyone has to give up a bit of bandwidth. How do you prioritize THAT. Oh wait, you have to do QoS at that point, don't you?

Oh fuck, your simple-minded bullshit just fell apart.

FFS, YOU'RE JUST A LOUDMOUTH WHO HAS NEVER RUN AN ACTUAL NETWORK.

Re:All online traffic CAN'T be treated equally

[Anonymous Coward]

TCP and UDP are payloads. Some middle boxes need to look at more than the IP header because NAT and shit, but other than that you shouldn't even look at the payload. Whether an IP packet carries TCP or UDP is irrelevant.

Re:All online traffic CAN'T be treated equally

[Anonymous Coward]

ISPs still get to take advantage of the fact that not all their customers use all their bandwidth all the time. They just can't run their network in a way that causes overload situations with any regularity. Congestion must be an exception. It it's anything but, they need to upgrade. Simple minds think that no congestion implies the bandwidth divided by users limit, but it does not.

Re: All online traffic CAN'T be treated equally

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to throw away unused bandwidth but damn, give people what they paid for. How hard is it to sell a package that lets someone use up spare bandwidth for something not critical that they'd like to speed up? Just to be honest about it.

Re:All online traffic CAN'T be treated equally

[Narcocide]

Limit everybody to worst case, throw away unused bandwidth.

You're right, that's not a good plan. But it's also not even remotely what I'm suggesting. Read it again until you can understand it, and until then shut the fuck up.

Re:All online traffic CAN'T be treated equally

[Narcocide]

Saying it doesn't make it true.

Re:All online traffic CAN'T be treated equally

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in the USA and I can get a 500/500 dedicated P2P fiber business connection with no contract, no install fee, no bundling for the lovely price of $100. Actually. Not only can I get this, but everyone in the city can get this, including farms. $100 too rich for your blood? That's fine. 150/150 dedicated connection for $65. Wait, there's more. No fees of any kind. $64.99 advertised price, actual bill, $68.24. You pay what they advertise, no hidden fees, and they don't advertise promo prices. They're actually a residential ISP, but they sell everyone a business connection.

100% Locally owned 100+ year old ISP. Telegraph much?

Called my ISP, talked to a manager. Asked him if my bandwidth was actually dedicated. He said that it truly is. If I ever experience any congestion or loss at all, they will fix it immediately.

I had to ask, what's the difference between a business "dedicated" and an enterprise "dedicated". From a bandwidth guarantee, they're identical. The vast price difference between the two is enterprise gets you schedule maintenance where you get dedicated hardware and they work around you. Business is just a general non-communicated maintenance that happens about 4 times a year around 2am-3am for about 5 minutes. Enterprise also gets you advanced features like multiple physical connections, 10Gig+, and multi-homing. But if all you want is a /29 static block and a 1Gb dedicated connection that works as well as an enterprise connection for $180/m with a 6ms ping to Chicago game servers, we got the connection for you.

How can they afford it? Well... Bandwidth really isn't that expensive, and neither is the infrastructure to support it. Hey Mr Network Manager, why won't you get Netflix OpenConnect? "Bandwidth is cheaper than playing whack-a-mole with congestion and customer complaints. Netflix could start streaming raw Bluray quality streams and we wouldn't care."

Re:All online traffic CAN'T be treated equally

[Anonymous Coward]

All online traffic should be treated equally

Really? TCP video streams are the same as UDP text messages?

If you say yes, now you get to define "equally". Which means you want lawyers controlling the internet.

Did you read the complete sentence, or you just want to pick and choose only a portion of a sentence to argue? If it is the latter, you have a problem because you don't really get the whole point of the message.

Re:All online traffic CAN'T be treated equally

[HornWumpus]

That's exactly what you propose. I suggest YOU reread your post with brain engaged. Everybody gets total bandwidth/connected users. 99% won't be using it at any given instant.

All the customers connected to the network should get a maximum bandwidth allotment of one portion of the total bandwidth divided by the amount of connected clients.

'Shut the fuck up' is not an argument...It's what you said when you realized you were wrong.

Re:All online traffic CAN'T be treated equally

[HornWumpus]

He lied to you ('If I ever experience any congestion or loss at all, they will fix it immediately.'), or at best told a half truth.

The backbones don't have infinite bandwidth. Your ISP doesn't have fiber to all servers.

I guarantee you they don't even have 500/customer to the nearest peering point.

NNN

[dohzer]

I'm confused. Isn't this simply non-net-neutrality?!

Re:NNN

[BringsApples]

There is no net-neutrality, there is no non-net-neutrality. There is only general misunderstanding mixed with lots of piss from a pissing contest that everyone just walked away from, yet was never officially ended.

Re:NNN

[Anonymous Coward]

Wireless carriers are still obligated under law to reveal services which they throttle (even after recent changes by our friends in the FCC. In many cases (like my case) where I have had the same unlimited plan for around a decade these companies are engaged in illegal and fraudulent activity.

Zach Patterson / ZIP "Greatest Hits" (lol, not)

[Anonymous Coward]

See how STUPID "ZIP" (Zach Patterson) the CHIMP is (tried to take credit for what I solved before him) https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... (he needs to LEARN TO READ)!

I even SHOW ways to do it YOURSELF https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... (he couldn't).

Delphi/FreePascal/ObjectPascal HAS no issue w/ null-term'd string bufferoverflows - C does, C++ can UNLESS you do what I said 1st loser.

Tell us about CODE SIGNING (which has been STOLEN & ABUSED) https://www.helpnetsecurity.co... MY METHOD CAN'T BE (upmodded +2 INTERESTING in CODING FOR DEFCON no less) https://it.slashdot.org/commen...

"I'm a much better programmer than APK" - by Anonymous Coward ZIP on Monday October 08, 2018 @11:27PM (#57449082) FROM https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

BIG TALK - Yet ZIP has nothing to show in programs. I can https://news.slashdot.org/comm... from registered /.ers liking/using/praising my work (& 100k users worldwide too). He can't.

LIAR ZIP says he has no account "I don't have an account, so I don't have mod points" https://news.slashdot.org/comm...

Yet LIAR ZIP says he downmods my posts (IMPOSSIBLE MINUS AN ACCOUNT on /.): "I down-modded a few of your post on other threads" - by Anonymous Coward "ZIP" on Thursday October 11, 2018 @11:31AM (#57461058) FROM https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

APK

P.S.=> KEEP IMPERSONATING ME CHIMP - this comes out every time EXPOSING your BLOWHARD incompetence... apk

ZIP = "better programmer" (lol, not)

[Anonymous Coward]

You said it ZIP: Where's your work everyone can see/use? It's not. It's HOTAIRWARE/NOTWARE (lol) "I'm a much better programmer than APK" - by Anonymous Coward ZIP on Monday October 08, 2018 @11:27PM (#57449082) FROM https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

The BETTER PROGRAMMER w/ no programs, lol - @ least you can say your "code" has NO BUGS - of course, it also does ZERO (like you) since it does nothing @ all, lol!

You hotair BLOWHARD talker, lol!

You f'd up ZIP https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...

Yet 100,000++ users of my ware & dozens of even REGISTERED /.ers like/use/praise MY work https://news.slashdot.org/comm... vs. your HOTAIR talk punk!

* LMAO!

(Let's see how YOU take it when I publicly SHIT ALL OVER YOU by letting FACTS of YOUR FUCKUPS vs. ME https://science.slashdot.org/c... do the job for me)

APK

P.S.=> You STUPID & LAZY all talk chimpanzee - KEEP IMPERSONATING me https://science.slashdot.org/c... - I'll expose your BLOWHARD INCOMPETENCE publicly, lol... apk

Yea, to a layman like me...

[Anonymous Coward]

...this sounds like the Senators expect the essence of Net Neutrality to be upheld, even though it is no longer a regulatory requirement.

The summary quotes the Senator as using the word "should." Is this "should" just, in that Senators opinion of what would be nice? Or is that "should" backed by some law we don't know about?

Re:Yea, to a layman like me...

[Narcocide]

Ajit Pai "should" have warned them all privately that everything he was saying publicly was a complete lie, and he knew it ahead of time.

Re:Yea, to a layman like me...

[Anonymous Coward]

...this sounds like the Senators expect the essence of Net Neutrality to be upheld, even though it is no longer a regulatory requirement.

It could probably be argued that it is part of being an ISP.
If you limit what you provide you are no longer an internet provider, you are a subnet provider.

When the customer pays for internet there is an expectation that data won't be throttled based on content and delivering something else isn't really OK.
If a customer buys a candy bar there is an expectation about the content too. If the seller where to sell kitkat with no chocolate and only the dry wafer part it would be considered fraudulent unless they can show that it was a mistake and they lacked intent.

Wrong

[markdavis]

>"All online traffic should be treated equally, and Internet service providers should not discriminate against particular content or applications for competitive advantage purposes or otherwise," the senators wrote.

Wrong. When there are cases of limited bandwidth, like there is on mobile networks, throttling of certain types or classes of network traffic makes perfect sense to prevent ALL customers' traffic from coming to a crawl or experiencing issues. Video is a perfect example of that, if it is done across-the-board or impartially. Video can consume a zillion times more bandwidth than anything else. And when we are talking about phones, it is unlikely that more than maybe and handful of users would even notice throttling that forces a 480P stream instead of 1080P on a 5" display held at a normal viewing distance. Another example would be once you go over your cap/plan data allowance- nobody will offer truly "unlimited" data with no throttling on mobile bandwidth, it would be a recipe for a disastrous user experience for most everyone.

What should be wrong is when the network operator does it to gain advantage over other companies, or to extort them or customers to pay something extra or force them to use certain alternative services owned by that company. But those magic words "or otherwise" in the quote, above, makes it sound like there could be no valid reason to throttle or apply quality of service, ever. There are services that also need to be real-time, like VOIP, compared to other traffic, like ftp, Email, or web downloads.

Re:Wrong

[DarkRookie2]

Why limit bandwidth over thru-put?
Never understood why they care so much about how much data is transfer over the speed of it.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

No. They need to upgrade their effin network then. Just like they pledged to do.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5839394.html

Re:Wrong

[Anubis IV]

QoS measures are one thing, but when there's no congestion, no slowdown, and no problem, should it be okay for them to impose arbitrary limits?

I was looking at Cricket's site last night (Cricket is an AT&T subsidiary) and noticed that all of their plans throttle video to 480p. Their limited plans allow users to opt-out of the 480p default (i.e. "It's your data to spend as you want, so it's fine with us if you blow it on HD video"), but their unlimited plans offer no ability to opt-out (i.e. "We're not going to let you blow our data on HD video"), and that's true regardless of network congestion or any other factors.

Now, cellular carriers have never been subject to Net Neutrality regulations in the US (wireless carriers have always been exempted, even before the recent NN repeal), so there's no question that what they're doing here is perfectly legal (at least with regards to NN), but there is a question of whether or not it should be allowed. So, if nothing else, I appreciate that some politicians are trying to shine a light on these practices and raise public awareness of them by making a bit of a stink.

Re:Wrong

[Narcocide]

You realize your argument is so obviously wrong it's hard to imagine you don't work for a phone company, right? There's absolutely no excuse whatsoever you can contrive that should allow them to charge you for a 1080p stream, tell you you're getting a 1080p stream, but then only actually give you a 480p stream "because most customers won't even notice the difference." In fact, especially if most people won't even notice the difference. That's straight up fraud, right there. That's fucking illegal. And don't even get me started on them throttling a 1080p stream that you're paying a completely different party for. That's theft.

Get fucked, you evil shareholding shill.

Re:Wrong

[markdavis]

>"QoS measures are one thing, but when there's no congestion, no slowdown, and no problem, should it be okay for them to impose arbitrary limits?"

On speed? Probably not.

Re:Wrong

[markdavis]

>"They need to upgrade their effin network then. Just like they pledged to do."

I agree. But no matter how much bandwidth is upgraded, people can quickly suck it all away. Now 4K video. Now 8K. Now 3D 8K with surround sound. Etc.

There is always a limit to bandwidth, which if hit, will affect other people on the network. It isn't evil to try and manage congestion to keep things working well. It *is* evil to try and manipulate the traffic for other "agendas".

Re:Wrong

[markdavis]

>"You realize your argument is so obviously wrong it's hard to imagine you don't work for a phone company, right?"

Not only is it not wrong, I do not work for a phone company or any ISP, and have no financial interest in them, whatsoever.

>"There's absolutely no excuse whatsoever you can contrive that should allow them to charge you for a 1080p stream, tell you you're getting a 1080p stream, but then only actually give you a 480p stream"

"Charge" you for a 1080p stream? There is no charge for a 1080p stream. There is a flat charge for X GB of data over a period of time (usually per month) on your device. And there is nothing about lying about the quality of the stream. In my example, I am talking about QOS limiting bandwidth when the pipe is full, which is cause the CLIENT application to drop to a lower resolution to continue the stream without stopping. There is nothing wrong with that. If the client app lies, it is broken, and not the fault of the network operator. If they don't impose any type of throttling or limiting, then all non-video traffic will suffer horribly when the bandwidth is saturated. So perhaps we are talking about two separate things.

>"Get fucked, you evil shareholding shill."

Just wow, and real intelligent conversation, there....

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

No. It's not OK to reduce Sally's download speed [from whats equitably been paid for where all users are equal] in order to ensure Bob's video stream plays without jitters during prime time. If Bob doesn't have a fast enough connection due to limited bandwidth being shared he shouldn't be able stream unjittery videos.

Maybe there is a solution that can work via reducing the quality of a video to fit within the available bandwidth that has been equally divided (or otherwise based on what is being paid for) based on the available bandwidth. That's reasonable.

Shared medium providers should be able to come up with a system that does not discriminate against certain types of traffic during prime time. Rather than focusing on reducing the quality of video streams of some video providers via force they should probably provide different numbers for prime time hours and streaming providers can adapt the video quality to whats actually available.

So for instance if they can only provide .5MBps to users during prime time and it's otherwise 50Mbps then don't advertise 50Mbps. Advertise .5Mbps with burst speeds up to 50Mbps during non-prime time hours. That would be honest advertising.

Re:Wrong

[rtb61]

Your comment at core is stupid. Ohh look i control the flow of water at the valve, we can all access the water equally until there is a shortage. Ohh look, I turned the valve halfway down, there is now shortage, pay fucking more or get a dribble instead of a flow.

Yout statement makes network bandwidth expansion, a cost with no benefit, more bandwidth charge less, less bandwidth charge more. So darknet will be all the range to reduce shortage to increase charges and of course lawyers and other corrupt practices to prevent competition. Everyone was told and most ignored it, well, suffer now fuck knuckles for years, they will fight changes to the law with off shore tax haven bribes and it will takes years to fix and never happen under Trump.

Re:Wrong

[jaa101]

Wrong. When there are cases of limited bandwidth, like there is on mobile networks, throttling of certain types or classes of network traffic makes perfect sense to prevent ALL customers' traffic from coming to a crawl or experiencing issues.

I think it makes more sense to share the bandwidth equally amongst customers rather than trying to pick on any protocol. If some part of the network becomes constrained, throttle down to some bandwidth ceiling per end-user. This will naturally throttle high-bandwidth applications like video, even if they're over a VPN, without affecting customers using low bandwidth.

If there's heavy NATting going on then it may be a problem mapping connexions to customers at some points on the network. IPv6 for the win, not that this is a current practical solution.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you are unaware that HugesNet transcodes streaming video to bring it down to whatever level you'll pay for. Seriously, go look at their plans.

Also, if you use a VPN, they throttle all other uses to 30% of your purchased speed. Straight from their customer service rep that I spoke to on the phone yesterday.

Re:Wrong

[markdavis]

>"I think it makes more sense to share the bandwidth equally amongst customers rather than trying to pick on any protocol."

Overall, I like your comments a lot. But I will say that certain protocols (services) really do need a certain amount of bandwidth to be of any value.... that is where QOS can be helpful. And on another hand, it doesn't seem unreasonable to limit some types of services, in "reasonable" ways such that it doesn't overly harm other users. The example I would use is that on limited bandwidth, it doesn't seem "fair" that users of less bandwidth doing simple browsing should have their experience ruined (postulate web sites being so slow to load that they can't reasonable tolerate browsing anymore) simply because a bunch of teenagers "have" to watch streaming video everywhere they go. I will acknowledge there isn't any perfect solution.... but that includes just saying that there is no room, ever, for traffic management of some type.

Personally, I have always loved the shaping model that will degrade service based on a moving "fairness" window when the bandwidth is saturated (but not otherwise). It works something like "speed boost" where users who are sipping data are assured higher priority and hogs start to get downgraded speed the longer they persist in being hogs. Eventually it then returns to "normal" as the usage changes. Those responsible with data usage get rewarded. Interestingly, the easiest way to have such a thing with no technology at all, is generally to do away with bundled data plan "tiers" and charge for whatever data the customer actually uses.... once users realize what they do (or don't do) has an affect on their wallet, there is incentive to play better :) When you tell someone something is "unlimited" (even though it really isn't on any mobile provider), behavior is not the same as when something is presented as limited or with cost. The negative outcome is further re-enforced by misleading advertising by the mobile industry using words like "super fast" and "50Mb/s speeds!!!" and "unlimited".

None of what I am saying means I don't think mobile data providers should continue to improve services or bandwidth. That, to me, is another issue.

Re:Wrong

[markdavis]

>"Perhaps you are unaware that HugesNet transcodes streaming video to bring it down to whatever level you'll pay for. Seriously, go look at their plans."

I am aware that some ISP's (mobile or not) do such things. And I agree that it is wrong and misleading. But my arguments in favor of having some network traffic management are not with the assumption that such secret-behind-the-scenes-transcoding is the norm. I would consider that a separate (and yet interesting) issue.

>"Also, if you use a VPN, they throttle all other uses to 30% of your purchased speed. Straight from their customer service rep that I spoke to on the phone yesterday."

I also think that is the wrong thing for an ISP to do. In such a case, they are assuming that the customer is either doing something wrong/illegal or just trying to work around the other QOS measures they have implemented. Often it is neither- it is just trying to protect privacy.

It would be far "fairer" to adjust speeds based on how much total bandwidth is available at that second compared to how much the user is potentially hogging at the time. Or to just charge for how much data passes though, period.... but as we have seen, consumers have rejected that model in favor of the golden but untrue "unlimited" ploy.

Re: Wrong

[houghi]

Sure the request will increase, so they must keep increasing thei bandwith. The time you put in a copperline and it is good fot 100 years is gone.

Perhaps competition could help.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

But there is no need to limit video explicitly. When there is congestion, all will loose some packets. It won't matter for file transfers, they simply slow down a bit. Video gets choppy, and then the client tries a lower bandwith arrangement because high bandwith clearly aren't available at the moment. In the end, video is throttled automatically in an IP network. (If the client sw don't try lower bandwith, the human watching video turns it off because it 'doesn't work'. This also reduces total bandwith used.)

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, if you use a VPN, they throttle all other uses to 30% of your purchased speed.

Time for a stealth VPN then. It looks like regular https, but actually is a vpn over https. Which they cannot detect, due to https being encrypted. Do normal https negotiation till the encryption is up and going - this part is observable. Then it is all vpn packets encapsulated inside https.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer, then, is to limit bandwidth by subscriber. If you want to transfer more data faster then you can pay more to do it.

It's only when the service is oversubscribed that one person's usage affects another. That ISPs have been built that way for a long time doesn't mean that they always must be.

Re:Wrong

[markdavis]

>"It's only when the service is oversubscribed that one person's usage affects another."

There is no real definition of "oversubscribed". On a land network, you could have 100Mb of bandwidth and tell 10 customers they all have 10Mb and partition it that way. But that won't work if you don't partition it and it becomes a shared network (like most are). All you can say in that example is "up to 100Mb", which is somewhat meaningless. And on mobile, there is no telling how many people will be in a cell, and what they will be doing at any moment. At what point is a shared network bandwidth with a variable number of people using it "oversubscribed"? Thus, regardless of your paid plan, if it is not dedicated bandwidth or partitioned down to just a handful of users, then your usage will affect others; sometimes more than others, but it will have an effect.

By many definitions I can think of, *ALL* networks are "oversubscribed." I am sure there are industry standards that read something like oversubscribed means that in a rolling 10 minute window, average peak usage is below 80% on that pipe/segment.

Now, I am not saying that ISP's shouldn't continuously upgrade their services and bandwidth when possible (and I am also not saying that all ISP's are doing what they should). But customers will suck away those upgrades pretty quickly as more and more data-hungry applications and users evolve over time... and they are usually not willing to pay more, either. Not that long ago, 2Mb/s average for mobile users might be fine for most users, and suddenly, it wasn't; rinse and repeat.

>"The answer, then, is to limit bandwidth by subscriber. If you want to transfer more data faster then you can pay more to do it."

I do agree that could help. But consumers want and demand so-called "unlimited" now. They can't be bothered with paying for what they use or want to use... they think limits are all just arbitrary... which is especially not true on mobile data. There are limits on the region, the backbone, the tower, and the radio waves.... none of which are cheap or easy to upgrade. And when it comes to density problems, adding just a single additional cell tower to a network can have an initial cost of $100,000 to $1,000,000 with lots of continuous upkeep cost "forever". It is mind-boggling.

Re:Wrong

[sabt-pestnu]

... if only it was congestion they were managing....

It wasn't. Vimeo wasn't throttled at all, and some services were throttled only after a certain number of bytes. See here

don't want me to watch too much TV -- I get it...

[AndrewFlagg]

seems when I am just surfing the Internet all is fine.. but if I go to YouTube and watch a 14 minute soccer game clip -- quality degradation to the highest and I switch networks to my business network on Allstream | Integra and all is fine. ;-) switch back to Charter and all is bad.. seems funny huh?? oh well, at least I can make out the ball and the players, and the grass is green.. No 1080 or 4K but at least the audio is ok, and the video(s) are jerky... blurry.... just started about 30 days ago... I have noticed... we'll keep an eye on them... they just don't want me to watch too much TV -- I get it...sounds like my parents.

Zach Patterson / ZIP "Greatest Hits" (lol, not)

[Anonymous Coward]

See how STUPID "ZIP" (Zach Patterson) the CHIMP is (tried to take credit for what I solved before him) https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... (he needs to LEARN TO READ)!

I even SHOW ways to do it YOURSELF https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... (he couldn't).

Delphi/FreePascal/ObjectPascal HAS no issue w/ null-term'd string bufferoverflows - C does, C++ can UNLESS you do what I said 1st loser.

Tell us about CODE SIGNING (which has been STOLEN & ABUSED) https://www.helpnetsecurity.co... MY METHOD CAN'T BE (upmodded +2 INTERESTING in CODING FOR DEFCON no less) https://it.slashdot.org/commen...

"I'm a much better programmer than APK" - by Anonymous Coward ZIP on Monday October 08, 2018 @11:27PM (#57449082) FROM https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

BIG TALK - Yet ZIP has nothing to show in programs. I can https://news.slashdot.org/comm... from registered /.ers liking/using/praising my work (& 100k users worldwide too). He can't.

LIAR ZIP says he has no account "I don't have an account, so I don't have mod points" https://news.slashdot.org/comm...

Yet LIAR ZIP says he downmods my posts (IMPOSSIBLE MINUS AN ACCOUNT on /.): "I down-modded a few of your post on other threads" - by Anonymous Coward "ZIP" on Thursday October 11, 2018 @11:31AM (#57461058) FROM https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

APK

P.S.=> KEEP IMPERSONATING ME CHIMP https://science.slashdot.org/c... - this comes out every time EXPOSING your BLOWHARD incompetence... apk

Is this significant?

[feenberg]

The Wehe web page is not clear on how significant the throttling is. For example, it seems the 22% of Sprint Skype calls are throttled at .5mbs, but it isn't clear that the unthrottled calls are much faster - they don't say anything about the unthrottled speed.

The response from the industry association is a little bit odd. They claim both that no throttling is going on, and that it is a good thing. I suppose it isn't supposed to be read carefully, so they provide all possible arguments, even at the risk of self-contradiction.

Also, I don't understand why only mobile is considered. We can no longer watch Netflix in the evening, because Comcast/Xfinity no longer provides enough bandwidth for Netflix to function. Why no test for wired connections?

Re:Is this significant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because it varies. Download the app yourself and it will show you the variance.

Re:Is this significant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Wow, cable sucks more than I realized. Thank god I have Fiber. Even my ADSL connection was never a problem.

GO FIGURE, LYING FAGGOT HORNY RUMP-WUSS LIES?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean it's like anyone should still be surprised that PERPETUALLY DISHONEST NAZI FAGGOT HORNY WUMPWUSS CONTINUES TO LIE? I'm really shocked that anyone would be shocked by this. HE'S A KNOWN LIAR.

It's like his fucking JOB to lie on slashdot, the ridiculous nazi faggot doesn't have ANYTHING ELSE GOING ON.

Fuck the Republicans

[AndyKron]

Fuck the Republicans

Re:Fuck the Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Ew gross why would I want to fuck a bunch of old dudes.

Re:Fuck the Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck the Democrats

Re:Fuck the Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans AND Democrats will fuck you. This whole Republicans bad, Democrats good thing is bullshit. Some are bad, some are good, the party doesn't matter. It's an oversimplification of a complex reality. We need both.

GO FIGURE, LYING FAGGOT HORNY RUMP-WUSS LIES AGAIN

[Anonymous Coward]

Should anyone here still be surprised that PERPETUALLY DISHONEST NAZI FAGGOT HORNY WUMPWUSS CONTINUES TO LIE? I'm really shocked that anyone would be shocked by this. HE'S A KNOWN LIAR.

It's like his fucking JOB to lie on slashdot, the ridiculous nazi faggot doesn't have ANYTHING ELSE GOING ON.

the XY problem

[PJ6]

Fix: Stop pretending infrastructure is, or can ever be, "free market". Stop allowing private wealth to extract rent from the privileged positions this misunderstanding creates. Utilities should not have any private stake in ownership.

Net Neutrality is not QOS

[Anonymous Coward]

Quality of service (QOS) prioritizes types of traffic. Time sensitive traffic such as VOIP gets priority over HTTP browsing.

ISPs that violate Net Neutrality prioritize traffic based on endpoint. Favoring one service, such as Xfinity over a competitor, like Netflix. When an ISP uses their position as intermediary to promote their own services or sponsored content over other services, they are abusing their abusing their position.

In many cases, as the lone landline provider, they are effectively using their monopoly power in one industry segment to affect another. In other cases, it appears that ISPs may be colluding to force companies to pay them to avoid throttling. Either way, these ISPs should lose their common carrier status and competitors should be allowed to enter these markets.

Conflating Net Neutrality with QOS is a deceptive practice of ISPs and their shills.

Re:Net Neutrality is not QOS

[Anubis IV]

Agreed all around. I just didn’t see a point in spelling all of that out, since I assumed my audience understood those distinctions already.

Re:don't want me to watch too much TV -- I get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Encrypt your traffic, then complain about service issues for bill credits if you don't get bandwidth.

And Spectrum aka Charter

[Anonymous Coward]

They are throttling youtube, among others.

#irc.trol7talk.com

[Anonymous Coward]

recruitment, but First, you have to Collect any spilled THEY ARE COMlE ON

Re:don't want me to watch too much TV -- I get it.

[tepples]

if I go to YouTube

Encrypt your traffic

YouTube has been HTTPS for years now. What sort of encryption did you have in mind beyond that?

There is a very simple fix for this

[nehumanuscrede]

Simply remove the ability for any company to be both a carrier AND a content distributor.

You can either:

1) Be an ISP ( you sell bandwidth. It requires #2 for it to be useful. )
or
2) Be in the content creation / distribution business ( you sell end content people want that requires #1 to experience it )

but not both.

This would effectively remove any financial incentive for a carrier to throttle competing services in an effort to promote their own.
( Because, come on. This IS what they're doing regardless if they admit to it publicly or not. They will stone-cold LIE to your face to protect it. )

Hell, a Congress with a spine ( we can dream right ? ) needs only threaten these folks with such a possibility and this silly behavior will cease as of yesterday.

Re:There is a very simple fix for this

[Anonymous Coward]

This would effectively remove any financial incentive for a carrier to throttle competing services in an effort to promote their own.

Won't help, because it does not remove the financial incentive for a carrier to throttle one service in an effort to promote a sponsored service. Such as, lets throttle youtube, because pornhub is paying us to set aside some bandwith for them.

I HATE /. BULLIES like ZIP & c6gunner... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: I'm so sick & tired of /. BULLIES. You shitweasels have nothing better to do than HARASS, STALK & IMPERSONATE little ol' me. I've done absolutely NOTHING wrong & just try to make everyone's lives better w/ my work that stops ads & malware.

* As soon as I post, I'm CENSORED to -1 w/ ABUSED downmodpoints by bullies like ZIP, who even admit to this. I caught c6gunner mocking then IMPERSONATING me when he forgot to log out. Zontar mailed me a postcard w/ THREATS on it, then LIES & STALKS me. All because you JEALOUS JOWIE "ne'er-do-wells" KNOW I'm World-Class & you're shit. It's why you hide behind FAKE names & UNIDENTIFIABLE ANONYMOUS.

I'm even improving my already GREAT PHYSIQUE by getting calf implants while you weezils sit around all day on /. STALKING & HARASSING your BETTERS. I repeatedly dust the no-mind bullshit blatherings you BULLIES post to attack me. Like always I WIN & YOU LOSE.

APK

P.S.=> This BULLYING of me is SO UNFAIR & is probably a HATE CRIME because I'm gay. GROW UP... apk

GO FIGURE, LYING FAGGOT HORNY RUMP-WUSS LIES AGAIN

[Anonymous Coward]

Should anyone here still be surprised that PERPETUALLY DISHONEST NAZI FAGGOT HORNY WUMPWUSS CONTINUES TO LIE? I'm really shocked that anyone would be shocked by this. HE'S A KNOWN LIAR.

It's like his fucking JOB to lie on slashdot, the ridiculous nazi faggot doesn't have ANYTHING ELSE GOING ON

Re:don't want me to watch too much TV -- I get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Use a vpn. (Preferably vpn over https, so they can't see that it is vpn traffic)

Youtube being on https won't help you. They can throttle because the endpoint is youtube - https doesn't hide that fact, but a vpn does.

Telecoms want their PAI and eat it to!

[Anonymous Coward]

All bluster and no muster!