I don't think it's a coincidence that this change was announced shortly after the last normal contract ended. (June 28, 2012 is the last date people could get unlimited data contracts from VZW. There are, however, exceptions that people have discovered, which have been pretty limited)
Youtube, backed by Google, has more servers, redundancy, and bandwidth than you do. This is true no matter who you are (unless you are involved with Google)
While it is possible that this 1 video would be hosted only on overloaded servers, a much more likely scenario is that whatever caused the slowness, had cleared up by the time you ran the tests. It's also possible that there is a caching server that's faulty, but that would usually mean a transparent proxy, which would be operated by Comcast.
Those servers still use a considerable amount of bandwidth for the updates. Per Gizmodo (I know, I know, but it's the first link I found) it needs 7.5TB every day. For a small ISP, that may be more than the users are consuming. Or at least close enough to make it not worthwhile.
Assuming Verizon wanted the traffic to come in a different route (e.g. LimeLight, etc), I believe they can update the BGP route they advertise to change that.
Otherwise, if Verizon just asks nicely, I can promise that Netflix would adjust the routing tables on their end to send it through another link. Just like they can expand the link with Level 3.
It looks like you've stumbled onto one of the features of CDNs: Local copies. CDNs distribute content to a more local link, so that the same data isn't being re-transmitted through backbone links. Part of how this often works, is DNS. Each ISP operates their own DNS server, and has modified entries for CDN content. These point to the local CDN server, rather than the original source. The result is (supposed to be) a much faster and reliable connection.
When you use an independent or alternate DNS server, you do not connect to the local CDN. You get someone else's CDN, and the data still has to cross the internet again. It may, however, take a very different route, one that is not as congested.
While that is possible, there doesn't seem to be any reason why Netflix would do that. Netflix has nothing to gain by unsatisfied customers on Verizon.
Verizon, OTOH, has quite a bit to gain by making their customers unsatisfied with Netflix.
If I have overlooked something, please let me know.
If enough customers opt out of a channel/package, it raises the price of the package. Eventually, either it stops even being an option, or the price of the package drops.
It would actually be the power of the free market at its finest.
To this day, you can find a lot of encrypted movies (WMV) on P2P networks, which require you to purchase a license to play. Apparently, this has been sufficient.
Also, I'm absolutely certain that Netflix is not re-encrypting every stream for every user.
Netflix actually pays for multiple paths, including Akamai, LimeLight, and Cogent. Due to the way routing works, most, if not all, of the data from Netflix to Verizon goes via Level 3. I can promise that L3 (and the rest) charge Netflix accordingly for the volume of data they send.
As for charging extra depending on the destination, that would be even worse than the current discussions about net neutrality. Do you really want to have to figure which networks are between you and a customer? That sounds unbelievably awful.
Part of the confusion here is caused by vertical integration.
The claims, if they were simply made by Verizon FiOS (a tier-3 ISP), would be total bullshit. Tier-3 ISPs do not have peering arrangements. They buy bandwidth from 1 or more upstream providers.
Verizon Business is an old-school telecom company, and owns the former UUnet. This part of the company is a tier-1 network, as is Level 3. They do have peering arrangements.
Since they have the same name, and are at least partially the same company, this leads to a lot of mistaken conclusions. Naturally, FiOS buys most/all of their bandwidth from Verizon Business.
Point being, for Verizon/Netflix to make any arrangement, the benefits most flow both ways
It does. In exchange for hosting the box, Verizon only needs to transfer a fraction of the data. This saves on bandwidth costs (on both sides), as well as increases customer satisfaction with both companies.
The general consensus, however, is Verizon is holding out, expecting an even larger payout directly from Netflix, for doing the same thing.
While this may bypass claims of malice, it does place it firmly in the realms of incompetence. If Verizon's link to a peer is overloaded, it either needs more/different peers, or a bigger link. Getting a VPN is the end-user creating a different peer that Verizon doesn't already have.
Of course, this is all assuming that Verizon ISN'T trying to throttle Netflix, which doesn't seem like a safe assumption. BTW, no deep packet inspection needed, just a list of destination IPs. DPI is used to identify content, not end-points; it is easily beaten by decent encryption.
Unless it's changed recently, VZW has the same restrictions. They would not activate any CDMA phone that was not already in their system. Reports varied as to whether they would activate the same model, but with a different carrier's firmware.
The last time I checked, however, was before they went LTE and started using SIMs.
LTE is only used for data, not voice. Also, each carrier uses different frequencies for LTE, so that has been a source of carrier-locking. The iPhone does this as well.
First, this only applies to whomever is controlling the account in question (@SWA). In this case, I'm sure they have an entire team that handles this (also includes Facebook, etc) at the corporate level. No one at the airport would/should have this access. In my preferred app, it shows up as another tab (Mentions), and can be configured to give you various notifications.
If an account is public, anyone can view any tweets they made, and you can search for various terms (including, but not limited to, #Hashtags)
While the article doesn't say it, I'm guessing he later tweeted again with @SWA, with his complaint. That's when corporate noticed, and issued the apology.
Interestingly enough, @SWA is currently suspended by Twitter.
And apparently follows the Twitter feed like a hawk. Seriously, who (outside of the corporate social media team) follows their employer's Twitter feed closely enough to respond while he was still there?
I was going to post this exact idea. If these jobs are really in such high demand, the salaries will reflect that. It may not help the situation on the high end (e.g. H1B making $150k, instead of the industry average $200k for a given position) but it would certainly eliminate the problem on the cheap end
You have to focus on the upsides - these guys will handle almost all of the software development, for free. Also, it's easy enough to restrict who gets any meaningful IP, and who gets the same blobs available to all.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it's a coincidence that this change was announced shortly after the last normal contract ended.
(June 28, 2012 is the last date people could get unlimited data contracts from VZW. There are, however, exceptions that people have discovered, which have been pretty limited)
Not when measuring traffic speed. 10mbps is 10,000,000 bits per second.
Source
Youtube, backed by Google, has more servers, redundancy, and bandwidth than you do. This is true no matter who you are (unless you are involved with Google)
While it is possible that this 1 video would be hosted only on overloaded servers, a much more likely scenario is that whatever caused the slowness, had cleared up by the time you ran the tests. It's also possible that there is a caching server that's faulty, but that would usually mean a transparent proxy, which would be operated by Comcast.
If there's an image of this, we can retire this one
Those servers still use a considerable amount of bandwidth for the updates. Per Gizmodo (I know, I know, but it's the first link I found) it needs 7.5TB every day. For a small ISP, that may be more than the users are consuming. Or at least close enough to make it not worthwhile.
Assuming Verizon wanted the traffic to come in a different route (e.g. LimeLight, etc), I believe they can update the BGP route they advertise to change that.
Otherwise, if Verizon just asks nicely, I can promise that Netflix would adjust the routing tables on their end to send it through another link. Just like they can expand the link with Level 3.
It looks like you've stumbled onto one of the features of CDNs: Local copies. CDNs distribute content to a more local link, so that the same data isn't being re-transmitted through backbone links. Part of how this often works, is DNS. Each ISP operates their own DNS server, and has modified entries for CDN content. These point to the local CDN server, rather than the original source. The result is (supposed to be) a much faster and reliable connection.
When you use an independent or alternate DNS server, you do not connect to the local CDN. You get someone else's CDN, and the data still has to cross the internet again. It may, however, take a very different route, one that is not as congested.
While that is possible, there doesn't seem to be any reason why Netflix would do that. Netflix has nothing to gain by unsatisfied customers on Verizon.
Verizon, OTOH, has quite a bit to gain by making their customers unsatisfied with Netflix.
If I have overlooked something, please let me know.
If enough customers opt out of a channel/package, it raises the price of the package. Eventually, either it stops even being an option, or the price of the package drops.
It would actually be the power of the free market at its finest.
To this day, you can find a lot of encrypted movies (WMV) on P2P networks, which require you to purchase a license to play. Apparently, this has been sufficient.
Also, I'm absolutely certain that Netflix is not re-encrypting every stream for every user.
Netflix actually pays for multiple paths, including Akamai, LimeLight, and Cogent. Due to the way routing works, most, if not all, of the data from Netflix to Verizon goes via Level 3. I can promise that L3 (and the rest) charge Netflix accordingly for the volume of data they send.
As for charging extra depending on the destination, that would be even worse than the current discussions about net neutrality. Do you really want to have to figure which networks are between you and a customer? That sounds unbelievably awful.
Part of the confusion here is caused by vertical integration.
The claims, if they were simply made by Verizon FiOS (a tier-3 ISP), would be total bullshit. Tier-3 ISPs do not have peering arrangements. They buy bandwidth from 1 or more upstream providers.
Verizon Business is an old-school telecom company, and owns the former UUnet. This part of the company is a tier-1 network, as is Level 3. They do have peering arrangements.
Since they have the same name, and are at least partially the same company, this leads to a lot of mistaken conclusions. Naturally, FiOS buys most/all of their bandwidth from Verizon Business.
It does. In exchange for hosting the box, Verizon only needs to transfer a fraction of the data. This saves on bandwidth costs (on both sides), as well as increases customer satisfaction with both companies.
The general consensus, however, is Verizon is holding out, expecting an even larger payout directly from Netflix, for doing the same thing.
While this may bypass claims of malice, it does place it firmly in the realms of incompetence. If Verizon's link to a peer is overloaded, it either needs more/different peers, or a bigger link.
Getting a VPN is the end-user creating a different peer that Verizon doesn't already have.
Of course, this is all assuming that Verizon ISN'T trying to throttle Netflix, which doesn't seem like a safe assumption. BTW, no deep packet inspection needed, just a list of destination IPs. DPI is used to identify content, not end-points; it is easily beaten by decent encryption.
Do the prices change once you're done paying it off?
It doesn't really matter if the breakdown is (e.g.) /Phone subsidy: $30
Monthly access: $50
if it changes to
Monthly access: $80 / Phone subsidy: $0
when the contract ends.
Unless it's changed recently, VZW has the same restrictions. They would not activate any CDMA phone that was not already in their system. Reports varied as to whether they would activate the same model, but with a different carrier's firmware.
The last time I checked, however, was before they went LTE and started using SIMs.
LTE is only used for data, not voice. Also, each carrier uses different frequencies for LTE, so that has been a source of carrier-locking. The iPhone does this as well.
For more info: http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/iphone/iphone-faq/differences-between-iphone-5-models.html
While there may be limited fallback, it's not very useful when switching carriers.
Did he tweet her full name, or just Kimberly S, as the article says?
I find it interesting that everyone defending the airline thinks the issue is that the guy didn't get upgraded.
The actual issue is how they responded to his criticism.
First, this only applies to whomever is controlling the account in question (@SWA). In this case, I'm sure they have an entire team that handles this (also includes Facebook, etc) at the corporate level. No one at the airport would/should have this access. In my preferred app, it shows up as another tab (Mentions), and can be configured to give you various notifications.
If an account is public, anyone can view any tweets they made, and you can search for various terms (including, but not limited to, #Hashtags)
While the article doesn't say it, I'm guessing he later tweeted again with @SWA, with his complaint. That's when corporate noticed, and issued the apology.
Interestingly enough, @SWA is currently suspended by Twitter.
I wrote them off after the Kevin Smith incident. Yes, I do remember some of these things.
I need to start keeping an annotated blacklist though, because these things pop up frequently.
And apparently follows the Twitter feed like a hawk.
Seriously, who (outside of the corporate social media team) follows their employer's Twitter feed closely enough to respond while he was still there?
I was going to post this exact idea. If these jobs are really in such high demand, the salaries will reflect that.
It may not help the situation on the high end (e.g. H1B making $150k, instead of the industry average $200k for a given position) but it would certainly eliminate the problem on the cheap end
Most of them. I have installed a modified BIOS on many motherboards from many brands. (See BIOS-Mods.com for more info)
The challenge is finding a working replacement.
You have to focus on the upsides - these guys will handle almost all of the software development, for free.
Also, it's easy enough to restrict who gets any meaningful IP, and who gets the same blobs available to all.