Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Verizon already slowing down Netflix...Follow

#1 Feb 05 2014 at 10:08 PM Rating: Decent
**
562 posts
Not really a surprise of any kind ( well, to anyone but Gbaji )

It is interesting how easily the guy on chat admitted this. Just few months ago when I talked to a Clear (tm ) rep about potential change he would not dream of telling me what they throttle.

Times change, Verizon, ATT, Comcast officially do not have to care whether they block their content competitor. Hurray for free markets. Hurray, I says.Hip hip

Edited, Feb 5th 2014 11:09pm by angrymnk

Edited, Feb 5th 2014 11:09pm by angrymnk

Edited, Feb 5th 2014 11:14pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#2 Feb 05 2014 at 10:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,875 posts
Oh boy, That individual is going to be meeting lots of new and interesting web packets in the next few days. Nice of him to let the bad guys know what cloud service packets to look for too.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#3 Feb 05 2014 at 10:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
1) Be jerk to customer service rep

2) Post IP address on internet

3) ??????

4) Internet cooties! Smiley: yippee
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#4 Feb 06 2014 at 8:51 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
And the bar for average drops another point.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5 Feb 06 2014 at 12:15 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts
Classic Dave.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#6 Feb 06 2014 at 10:00 PM Rating: Decent
**
562 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
And the bar for average drops another point.


Well, in the defense of the bar, it was always low to begin with.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#7 Feb 07 2014 at 8:09 AM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
The question is why. What does Verizon get out of waging this war? I understand Comcast and cable providers, because Netflix, Hulu and Amazon are competing products, but why Verizon? In fact, I kind of expected people to start jumping ship from cable companies entirely and moving to Verizon to escape the heavy-handed BS. I was going to be one of them. Right now I'm with local Blue Ridge cable but you can bet that if they start throttling my speeds, to ANYWHERE, I'll switch to DSL until I can move somewhere there's FIOs.

I already dropped cable TV entirely because the prices are out of control. The cable companies did this to themselves, and I really hope that Verizon is going to come down on the right side of this issue. Otherwise, we're not going to have ANY choices.

Edited, Feb 7th 2014 9:12am by Torrence
#8 Feb 07 2014 at 8:28 AM Rating: Good
****
9,499 posts
Comcast is sending out notices that they will charge for going over 300 gb per month in the areas that they are allowed to do so. I'm OK with that, so long as they don't throttle anything.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#9 Feb 07 2014 at 8:37 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,771 posts
Why would you be okay with that? Smiley: dubious
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#10 Feb 07 2014 at 8:43 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Why would you be okay with that? Smiley: dubious


I agree - content is getting larger, and if the cable companies are going to charge more (which they have been) they need to invest in better infrastructure. America is pretty far behind some other countries we claim to be superior to, and it's because companies get away with giving less service for more money and not putting any of their profits back into the infrastructure.
#11 Feb 07 2014 at 8:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Why would you be okay with that? Smiley: dubious

Presumably because he doesn't come near to 300gb a month.

Actually, Comcast's services do have a theoretical cap (well below 300gb), Comcast just hasn't enforced it except in a few select markets.

Edited, Feb 7th 2014 9:00am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Feb 07 2014 at 9:21 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
I have FiOS and it's quite amazing.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#13 Feb 07 2014 at 9:25 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts
The question is why. What does Verizon get out of waging this war?

Money from Netflix, stupid. Were you repeatedly dropped as a child or something?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#14 Feb 07 2014 at 10:21 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,580 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
The question is why. What does Verizon get out of waging this war?

Money from Netflix, stupid. Were you repeatedly dropped as a child or something?


It's because Verizon owns redbox, a netflix competitor.
____________________________
"What doesn't kill you can only make you stronger.............or cripple you for life." - Accari
#15 Feb 07 2014 at 10:24 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts
It's because Verizon owns redbox, a netflix competitor.

Yeah, no. Verizon is also a TV provider around here, also not the reason (assuming this even happening at all at this point). It's just a potential revenue stream, that's all.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#16 Feb 07 2014 at 7:23 PM Rating: Decent
**
562 posts
Torrence wrote:
The question is why. What does Verizon get out of waging this war? I understand Comcast and cable providers, because Netflix, Hulu and Amazon are competing products, but why Verizon? In fact, I kind of expected people to start jumping ship from cable companies entirely and moving to Verizon to escape the heavy-handed BS. I was going to be one of them. Right now I'm with local Blue Ridge cable but you can bet that if they start throttling my speeds, to ANYWHERE, I'll switch to DSL until I can move somewhere there's FIOs.

I already dropped cable TV entirely because the prices are out of control. The cable companies did this to themselves, and I really hope that Verizon is going to come down on the right side of this issue. Otherwise, we're not going to have ANY choices.

Edited, Feb 7th 2014 9:12am by Torrence


To use Gbaji's argument: the function of the corporation is to make money if they can. Verizon found another means to make money. Or at least save it for now. In short, because there is nothing stopping them.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#17 Feb 07 2014 at 7:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Sigh...

linked article wrote:
I’m not a networking expert...


This guy honestly doesn't understand why he's getting better network performance from business to a remote site than from his home? Really? Maybe it's because he's not a networking expert. Because if he was, he would have understood exactly why this is and why the "tests" he performed don't actually support the cart before the horse explanation he's trying to sell to people on his blog.

Did he test his network bandwidth from his home to other remote sites? Did he compare that to the network bandwidth from his business to those same remote sites? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it'll be faster in every single case. Not because of some nefarious action, but because the business account pays like 10 times more money for its internet access. If he wants to have high speed to everywhere on the internet, he can choose to pay more for it, just like his work does.

Um... duh.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#18 Feb 07 2014 at 7:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Torrence wrote:
The question is why. What does Verizon get out of waging this war?


They don't. Which is the first hint that this is people who start with a political agenda and then look for false signs they can use to convince people to agree with them. There is no unfair business practices involved. And if you can't noodle out why your home network might just suddenly get slower after 4PM, maybe you need to actually grow a few brain cells.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#19 Feb 07 2014 at 7:58 PM Rating: Decent
**
562 posts
Sigh...

gbaji wrote:
Sigh...

linked article wrote:
I’m not a networking expert...


This guy honestly doesn't understand why he's getting better network performance from business to a remote site than from his home? Really? Maybe it's because he's not a networking expert. Because if he was, he would have understood exactly why this is and why the "tests" he performed don't actually support the cart before the horse explanation he's trying to sell to people on his blog.

Did he test his network bandwidth from his home to other remote sites? Did he compare that to the network bandwidth from his business to those same remote sites? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it'll be faster in every single case. Not because of some nefarious action, but because the business account pays like 10 times more money for its internet access. If he wants to have high speed to everywhere on the internet, he can choose to pay more for it, just like his work does.

Um... duh.


The reason he is complaining is not that it is slower than the business account has faster internet, but because his is not exactly slow ( in theory 75 Mb/s -- it helps to read the entire thing ) and yet it would appear it is not sufficient. Surely, a networking expert such as yourself can explain to us, internet peons, how we should be grateful that VZ even ALLOWS us on their network.

I think even such an expert like you would agree that there is something wrong with fios doing 40kb/s; even if it is just a lowly pedestrian fios?

Edited, Feb 7th 2014 9:01pm by angrymnk

Edited, Feb 7th 2014 9:05pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#20 Feb 07 2014 at 8:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
angrymnk wrote:
I think even such an expert like you would agree that there is something wrong with fios doing 40kb/s; even if it is just a lowly pedestrian fios?


Because he shares a loop with like 1000 other home users. Seriously. Want to think again about why his performance suddenly slows down after 4PM everyday?

None of the tests he performed support the conclusion he's arguing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#21 Feb 07 2014 at 8:23 PM Rating: Good
**
562 posts
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
I think even such an expert like you would agree that there is something wrong with fios doing 40kb/s; even if it is just a lowly pedestrian fios?


Because he shares a loop with like 1000 other home users. Seriously. Want to think again about why his performance suddenly slows down after 4PM everyday?

None of the tests he performed support the conclusion he's arguing.


Was it 4pm? And even if it was, do you not think that when you pay for ADVERTISED speed, you should actually get what you pay for?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#22 Feb 07 2014 at 8:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
I'll give you a hint: It's the same reason why you can't drive the posted speed limit on your local highway after say 4PM each day.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Feb 07 2014 at 8:28 PM Rating: Decent
**
562 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'll give you a hint: It's the same reason why you can't drive the posted speed limit on your local highway after say 4PM each day.


Yes, the difference is NTHSA does not advertise traffic flows leading you to believe that you will fly over the continent at exorbitant speeds ( all while doing other things too ). Apples to apples, please.

Maybe some company should invest in infrastructure if they advertise the speeds they can't deliver?

I cut the insults. I am trying to be kosher.

Edited, Feb 7th 2014 9:30pm by angrymnk

Edited, Feb 7th 2014 9:32pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#24 Feb 07 2014 at 8:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Was it 4pm?


Did you read the article beyond "rar! Net neutrality!!!"? He specifically stated this:

Quote:
I’ve since tested this almost every day for the last couple of weeks. During the day – the bandwidth is normal to AWS. However, after 4pm or so – things get slow.


He get's "normal" performance from his home network. Until 4PM rolls around, then it gets "slow". Gee. We can assume that Verizon has decided to engage in a nefarious plot in which they throttle network speed to AWS, but only after 4PM for some reason *or* we can make the vastly more reasonable assumption that after 4PM, a ton more people hop on their home internet and it makes it slow for him.

Which could it be! It's just so hard to do this whole "critical thinking" thing.

Quote:
And even if it was, do you not think that when you pay for ADVERTISED speed, you should actually get what you pay for?


Dunno. What was the advertised speed? Nowhere in the article does he mention that he paid for a contract with his ISP which guaranteed him any specific speed. Do you see that? I don't. He does, however, say that he gets "normal" speed during the day. So...?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#25 Feb 07 2014 at 8:37 PM Rating: Decent
**
562 posts
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Was it 4pm?


Did you read the article beyond "rar! Net neutrality!!!"? He specifically stated this:

Quote:
I’ve since tested this almost every day for the last couple of weeks. During the day – the bandwidth is normal to AWS. However, after 4pm or so – things get slow.


He get's "normal" performance from his home network. Until 4PM rolls around, then it gets "slow". Gee. We can assume that Verizon has decided to engage in a nefarious plot in which they throttle network speed to AWS, but only after 4PM for some reason *or* we can make the vastly more reasonable assumption that after 4PM, a ton more people hop on their home internet and it makes it slow for him.

Which could it be! It's just so hard to do this whole "critical thinking" thing.

Quote:
And even if it was, do you not think that when you pay for ADVERTISED speed, you should actually get what you pay for?


Dunno. What was the advertised speed? Nowhere in the article does he mention that he paid for a contract with his ISP which guaranteed him any specific speed. Do you see that? I don't. He does, however, say that he gets "normal" speed during the day. So...?


So are you telling me that 40 kb/s is acceptable speed from fios?

Quick breakdown from their own website.

Edited, Feb 7th 2014 9:38pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#26 Feb 07 2014 at 8:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
angrymnk wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'll give you a hint: It's the same reason why you can't drive the posted speed limit on your local highway after say 4PM each day.


Yes, the difference is NTHSA does not advertise traffic flows leading you to believe that you will fly over the continent at exorbitant speeds ( all while doing other things too ).


Sure they do. They post these signs on the side of the **** road every mile telling me how fast I can go. That's the "advertised speed" of the highway, right? So how dare they lie to me! I should be able to drive that fast every day at any time of the day, no matter what! Road neutrality man! Power to the people!

Seriously though, how is a speed limit sign any different than paying for an ISP connection which advertises "up to 100mbs bandwidth!". It's the same **** thing. And it's the "up to" part that you need to pay attention to. See, when businesses pay through the nose for guaranteed bandwidth. They pay that vastly higher rate because they are actually paying for "guaranteed bandwidth".

Guess what? It takes like 100 times longer for me to just load up the google front page at home than at work (seriously, I get frustrated at how slow my home network is compared to work). Clearly that must be the result of my ISP engaging in unfair network throttling practices. Oh wait! It's not. It's slower cause... wait for it... it's a home network. I'm free to pay a few thousand dollars a month to get some high speed guaranteed bandwidth, but it's not worth that much just to make google load faster.

FIOS just means that's the hardware layer type. Says nothing about how much bandwidth you actually get and you're a fool if you think otherwise.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#27 Feb 07 2014 at 8:41 PM Rating: Decent
**
562 posts
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'll give you a hint: It's the same reason why you can't drive the posted speed limit on your local highway after say 4PM each day.


Yes, the difference is NTHSA does not advertise traffic flows leading you to believe that you will fly over the continent at exorbitant speeds ( all while doing other things too ).


Sure they do. They post these signs on the side of the **** road every mile telling me how fast I can go. That's the "advertised speed" of the highway, right? So how dare they lie to me! I should be able to drive that fast every day at any time of the day, no matter what! Road neutrality man! Power to the people!

Seriously though, how is a speed limit sign any different than paying for an ISP connection which advertises "up to 100mbs bandwidth!". It's the same **** thing. And it's the "up to" part that you need to pay attention to. See, when businesses pay through the nose for guaranteed bandwidth. They pay that vastly higher rate because they are actually paying for "guaranteed bandwidth".

Guess what? It takes like 100 times longer for me to just load up the google front page at home than at work (seriously, I get frustrated at how slow my home network is compared to work). Clearly that must be the result of my ISP engaging in unfair network throttling practices. Oh wait! It's not. It's slower cause... wait for it... it's a home network. I'm free to pay a few thousand dollars a month to get some high speed guaranteed bandwidth, but it's not worth that much just to make google load faster.

FIOS just means that's the hardware layer type. Says nothing about how much bandwidth you actually get and you're a fool if you think otherwise.


I might have mentioned it before but analogies, especially car analogies, tend to be useless, because they are open to interpretation.

Yes, but it also happens to be advertised as FIOS and since it is branded as such, it is expected to perform in the way indicated.

VZ website

Note how ,on their site, they state:

"The gold standard in computing speeds. Perfect for households that enjoy streaming content on the Internet on multiple devices at the same time."

Kinda hard to do at 40kb/s.


Edited, Feb 7th 2014 9:43pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#28 Feb 07 2014 at 8:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
angrymnk wrote:
So are you telling me that 40 kb/s is acceptable speed from fios?


My comments are about the cause of the slowness. I'm making no assessment of the performance of his network. Get it? I'm questioning his explanation. I don't care what is "normal" or "slow" to some random person on the internet. I do care about him projecting his own assumptions about the cause of his performance woes.

I'll say again: None of his "tests" support the claim he's making. None of the symptoms he's seeing do either. Note what's missing from his blog? Any tests of performance to other remote sites. He's assuming it's Verizon targeting Netflix, but fails to actually determine if he gets the same performance hit going anywhere else. One would think that might be a critical thing to test right? I mean, if I were trying to figure out if my ISP was deliberately targeting Netflix for throttling, the first and most obvious test to do would be to test my network speed to somewhere else, right?

Strange that he writes up a whole blog thingie and yet fails to do the most obvious test, isn't it?

He even includes a pair of traceroutes, but also doesn't actually test his theory with them. In fact, I'm not sure what he thinks those traceroutes say at all. It almost looks like he just included them to have some "data" that he knows most people reading wont understand either. He doesn't say anything about them. Just tosses them in, like "oh! And I have data!!!". Great dude. It doesn't mean anything, but here's a cookie, I guess.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Feb 07 2014 at 8:53 PM Rating: Decent
**
562 posts
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
So are you telling me that 40 kb/s is acceptable speed from fios?


My comments are about the cause of the slowness. I'm making no assessment of the performance of his network. Get it? I'm questioning his explanation. I don't care what is "normal" or "slow" to some random person on the internet. I do care about him projecting his own assumptions about the cause of his performance woes.

I'll say again: None of his "tests" support the claim he's making. None of the symptoms he's seeing do either. Note what's missing from his blog? Any tests of performance to other remote sites. He's assuming it's Verizon targeting Netflix, but fails to actually determine if he gets the same performance hit going anywhere else. One would think that might be a critical thing to test right? I mean, if I were trying to figure out if my ISP was deliberately targeting Netflix for throttling, the first and most obvious test to do would be to test my network speed to somewhere else, right?

Strange that he writes up a whole blog thingie and yet fails to do the most obvious test, isn't it?

He even includes a pair of traceroutes, but also doesn't actually test his theory with them. In fact, I'm not sure what he thinks those traceroutes say at all. It almost looks like he just included them to have some "data" that he knows most people reading wont understand either. He doesn't say anything about them. Just tosses them in, like "oh! And I have data!!!". Great dude. It doesn't mean anything, but here's a cookie, I guess.


Fine, one swallow does not spring make and data is incomplete at this time. We can wait for more; as I am relatively certain there will be more.

Now, back to the heart of the matter, given that his tests with the rep apparently went well, should it not mean that VZ should be able to deliver over 40kb/s after 4pm?:>
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#30 Feb 07 2014 at 8:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
/shrug

I don't have a copy of the contract agreement and terms, so I can't say what speed he should expect, or what is guaranteed, or expected. Again, that's not the point. He's claiming that the fact that his network speed slows down a lot after 4PM means that Verizon is taking advantage of the recent net neutrality ruling to throttle speed to/from Netflix.

None of the data he provides actually supports that claim though. Does his network slow down after 4PM to unacceptable levels? Sure. I guess so. And he's free to complain to them about it. Is that because of his ISP? Or is it because of some other usage bottleneck? I have no freaking clue. I don't have access to his network right at the moment. But I can tell you that if I were trying to determine what was going on, I would have performed a whole different set of tests than the ones he did.

What he's done is not actually test his theory at all, but write about it anyway and count on most people not realizing this fact and going "OMG! Rar! Net neutrality man!". Which is precisely what happened, so I guess he's a good student of human nature.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Feb 07 2014 at 9:02 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Fine, one swallow does not spring make and data is incomplete at this time. We can wait for more; as I am relatively certain there will be more.


Oh. I'm sure there will be a ton more of the same sorts of "doesn't actually prove what you're claiming" sort of data.

Quote:
Now, back to the heart of the matter, given that his tests with the rep apparently went well, should it not mean that VZ should be able to deliver over 40kb/s after 4pm?:>


That's not the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is whether VZ is taking advantage of the recent net neutrality ruling to throttle Netflix. I don't really care if this guy has network problems, or whether VZ is totally **** over their customers by not giving them the bandwidth they promised. I'm responding to the claim that this is done deliberately to throttle specific remote services (like Netflix in this case).


But if you were to ask, I'd go out on a limb and guess that there's some kind of usage sensitive network problem in his area (cause yeah, 40kbs is pretty crappy). Almost certainly the result of someone flipping the wrong duplex setting on a switch somewhere. It's the kind of problem that isn't visible when total usage is "low", but when usage goes up, causes all sorts of really horrific network performance problems. VZ will figure this out in a week or so, the problem will go away, but the blogger will almost certainly never write a blog about how his network problems have been solved.

But hey, there's that whole "learning from the past" thing I've got that gives me an advantage when predicting how these things will pan out.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#32 Feb 07 2014 at 9:04 PM Rating: Decent
**
562 posts
gbaji wrote:
/shrug

I don't have a copy of the contract agreement and terms, so I can't say what speed he should expect, or what is guaranteed, or expected. Again, that's not the point. He's claiming that the fact that his network speed slows down a lot after 4PM means that Verizon is taking advantage of the recent net neutrality ruling to throttle speed to/from Netflix.

None of the data he provides actually supports that claim though. Does his network slow down after 4PM to unacceptable levels? Sure. I guess so. And he's free to complain to them about it. Is that because of his ISP? Or is it because of some other usage bottleneck? I have no freaking clue. I don't have access to his network right at the moment. But I can tell you that if I were trying to determine what was going on, I would have performed a whole different set of tests than the ones he did.

What he's done is not actually test his theory at all, but write about it anyway and count on most people not realizing this fact and going "OMG! Rar! Net neutrality man!". Which is precisely what happened, so I guess he's a good student of human nature.


I am not sure if you are joking or not so I will make an attempt at explaining it. Standardized contract of adhesion, or so called standard contract, is called standard for a reason. Think about it as I post linky pinky to VZ site yet again. It is not a small company that negotiates each contract with each customer. Unacceptable starts when VZ FIOS can't deliver speeds that ATT cheap DSL can.

Btw. whether it is a bottleneck or other ISP issue should be of no concern of the customer who is already paying for the service. All the customer cares about is that his Netflix plays.

Ok, what would you do?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#33 Feb 07 2014 at 9:07 PM Rating: Decent
**
562 posts
Sigh,

gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Fine, one swallow does not spring make and data is incomplete at this time. We can wait for more; as I am relatively certain there will be more.


Oh. I'm sure there will be a ton more of the same sorts of "doesn't actually prove what you're claiming" sort of data.

Quote:
Now, back to the heart of the matter, given that his tests with the rep apparently went well, should it not mean that VZ should be able to deliver over 40kb/s after 4pm?:>


That's not the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is whether VZ is taking advantage of the recent net neutrality ruling to throttle Netflix. I don't really care if this guy has network problems, or whether VZ is totally **** over their customers by not giving them the bandwidth they promised. I'm responding to the claim that this is done deliberately to throttle specific remote services (like Netflix in this case).


But if you were to ask, I'd go out on a limb and guess that there's some kind of usage sensitive network problem in his area (cause yeah, 40kbs is pretty crappy). Almost certainly the result of someone flipping the wrong duplex setting on a switch somewhere. It's the kind of problem that isn't visible when total usage is "low", but when usage goes up, causes all sorts of really horrific network performance problems. VZ will figure this out in a week or so, the problem will go away, but the blogger will almost certainly never write a blog about how his network problems have been solved.

But hey, there's that whole "learning from the past" thing I've got that gives me an advantage when predicting how these things will pan out.


No, the regular user would not give a flying **** about net neutrality if the ISPs actually delivered on what they promised. Net neutrality is something like a political warning. If you will not start behaving, you will be regulated.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#34 Feb 07 2014 at 9:13 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
490 posts
Has someone suggested to gbaji that he should read the article which states his bandwidth to amazon's aws was 40 kbps, and at the same time, his bandwidth from non-amazon aws servers was 75 mbps yet?

The problem isn't that the entire world is sharing a single line. Because they're not. Verizon clearly has no problem delivering speeds they are supposed to be, even at 4 pm. They just choose not to.

Edited, Feb 7th 2014 10:15pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#35 Feb 07 2014 at 9:22 PM Rating: Decent
**
562 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Has someone suggested to gbaji that he should read the article which states his bandwidth to amazon's aws was 40 kbps, and at the same time, his bandwidth from non-amazon aws servers was 75 mbps yet?

The problem isn't that the entire world is sharing a single line. Because they're not. Verizon clearly has no problem delivering speeds they are supposed to be, even at 4 pm. They just choose not to.

Edited, Feb 7th 2014 10:15pm by Rachel9


Yes, to which he responded. @#%^ those users, business can do whatever they want and if those poor @#%^s want speeds over 40kb/s they can go and suck a wet noodle; alternatively they can pool together for a business line and use it.

Edited, Feb 7th 2014 10:23pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#36 Feb 07 2014 at 9:31 PM Rating: Good
angrymnk wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
Has someone suggested to gbaji that he should read the article which states his bandwidth to amazon's aws was 40 kbps, and at the same time, his bandwidth from non-amazon aws servers was 75 mbps yet?

The problem isn't that the entire world is sharing a single line. Because they're not. Verizon clearly has no problem delivering speeds they are supposed to be, even at 4 pm. They just choose not to.
Yes, to which he responded. @#%^ those users, business can do whatever they want and if those poor @#%^s want speeds over 40kb/s they can go and suck a wet noodle; alternatively they can pool together for a business line and use it.
In gbajiland, a business providing a fraction of the service for the same price = freedom...or something.


Edited, Feb 7th 2014 8:51pm by Bijou
____________________________
Sandinmygum wrote:
VorxDargo1 wrote:
who the h3ll do you think you are anyway?
According to your logic, I'm like an FFXIV God. You can call me Sand. I want sand, buckets of it. And Everclear..lots and lots of everclear.
#37 Feb 07 2014 at 9:42 PM Rating: Decent
**
562 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
Has someone suggested to gbaji that he should read the article which states his bandwidth to amazon's aws was 40 kbps, and at the same time, his bandwidth from non-amazon aws servers was 75 mbps yet?

The problem isn't that the entire world is sharing a single line. Because they're not. Verizon clearly has no problem delivering speeds they are supposed to be, even at 4 pm. They just choose not to.
Yes, to which he responded. @#%^ those users, business can do whatever they want and if those poor @#%^s want speeds over 40kb/s they can go and suck a wet noodle; alternatively they can pool together for a business line and use it.
In gbajiland, a business prividing a fraction of the service for the same price = freedom...or something.


I suppose those users could incorporate and become real humans; not just a mere shell of flesh and bone.. I guess people are people too. They are just worse people than corporations.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#38 Feb 07 2014 at 9:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Has someone suggested to gbaji that he should read the article which states his bandwidth to amazon's aws was 40 kbps, and at the same time, his bandwidth from non-amazon aws servers was 75 mbps yet?


Um... The bandwidth test they performed and which got 75Mbps was almost certainly to VZs own router(s). If you want to test whether VZ is throttling network traffic from/to AWS, you kinda need to try connecting to other remote sites, and see if you get the same problem.

If you do, that still doesn't mean that VZ is throttling it. The problem could be at AWS, or anywhere in between. You now need to go test connectivity from other home users that aren't using VZ, both in the same geographical area and outside that area. Once you've done that, and only once you've done that, you can actually begin to narrow down where the problem is.

This guy did one test (and a crappy one at that), and leaped to the conclusion he wanted to come to (gonna go out on a limb and assume he was a net neutrality proponent long before this happened).

There are literally 100 other far more likely explanations for what he's experiencing than the one he decided to assume must be the case. That's the problem with what he did.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#39 Feb 07 2014 at 9:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Yes, to which he responded. @#%^ those users, business can do whatever they want and if those poor @#%^s want speeds over 40kb/s they can go and suck a wet noodle; alternatively they can pool together for a business line and use it.


And for like the 5th time. I am not making any judgement about the quality of the network performance. Whether it's good, bad, whatever. Not the point.

I am only commenting on his claim that this must be because of Verizon taking advantage of the net neutrality ruling to throttle Netflix.

How many freaking times do I have to keep saying this?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Feb 07 2014 at 10:18 PM Rating: Decent
**
562 posts
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Yes, to which he responded. @#%^ those users, business can do whatever they want and if those poor @#%^s want speeds over 40kb/s they can go and suck a wet noodle; alternatively they can pool together for a business line and use it.


And for like the 5th time. I am not making any judgement about the quality of the network performance. Whether it's good, bad, whatever. Not the point.

I am only commenting on his claim that this must be because of Verizon taking advantage of the net neutrality ruling to throttle Netflix.

How many freaking times do I have to keep saying this?


Pretty much until you understand that even though you claim it is not the point, it is very much the point. We would not be having this conversation if the user was not judging the network's performance.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#41 Feb 07 2014 at 10:55 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,952 posts
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
I think even such an expert like you would agree that there is something wrong with fios doing 40kb/s; even if it is just a lowly pedestrian fios?


Because he shares a loop with like 1000 other home users. Seriously. Want to think again about why his performance suddenly slows down after 4PM everyday?

None of the tests he performed support the conclusion he's arguing.


Verizon advertises no such slowdowns on their Fios product. It was sort of one of the drivers behind the fiber build-out.

Edit: This is irrespective of slowdowns caused by the distributor being overloaded, this is purely in response to the old shared loop model.

Edited, Feb 7th 2014 11:57pm by Timelordwho
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#42 Feb 07 2014 at 11:09 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
490 posts
gbaji wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
Has someone suggested to gbaji that he should read the article which states his bandwidth to amazon's aws was 40 kbps, and at the same time, his bandwidth from non-amazon aws servers was 75 mbps yet?


Um... The bandwidth test they performed and which got 75Mbps was almost certainly to VZs own router(s). If you want to test whether VZ is throttling network traffic from/to AWS, you kinda need to try connecting to other remote sites, and see if you get the same problem.

If you do, that still doesn't mean that VZ is throttling it. The problem could be at AWS, or anywhere in between. You now need to go test connectivity from other home users that aren't using VZ, both in the same geographical area and outside that area. Once you've done that, and only once you've done that, you can actually begin to narrow down where the problem is.

This guy did one test (and a crappy one at that), and leaped to the conclusion he wanted to come to (gonna go out on a limb and assume he was a net neutrality proponent long before this happened).

There are literally 100 other far more likely explanations for what he's experiencing than the one he decided to assume must be the case. That's the problem with what he did.
He did test on multiple connections. I'm fairly certain amazon doesn't prioritize Verizon's business users over home users, so his business connection is just as good as any other to make sure aws isn't completely broken.
____________________________
#43 Feb 08 2014 at 6:46 PM Rating: Decent
Hahaha I love when Gbaji talks out of his rear end.

LITERALLY 100 EXPLANATIONS!

But im not even going state one...



Edited, Feb 8th 2014 7:47pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#44 Feb 08 2014 at 9:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts

Because he shares a loop with like 1000 other home users.


Nope. Awesome guess from your time machine, but it's still not 1987 here in our reality. The service in question is dedicated last mile fiber. That said, guy does seem like a know it all fuck up who doesn't know what he's talking about, so we probably shouldn't assume any of his post is accurate.

Enough about Gbaji, though, the guy with the blog also seems sketchy.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#45 Feb 12 2014 at 8:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
He did test on multiple connections.


He tested two home users in the same geographical area with the same ISP. He contrasted that to the service from a business in the same geographical area. What he didn't do was test home users with a different ISP both in the same and different geographical area. Because that would tell him if it was something localized to the home VZ network, or something unrelated.

His tests don't actually tell us anything other than that during the same time period, two different home users, in the same geographical area, and using the same ISP, had similar network performance.

Most significantly, is that he didn't perform any tests at all to other remote sites. If one were to test whether this was VZ throttling network speed from/to a single specific remote service provider, you'd think that would be the very first test you'd do. Gee. I'm getting super slow network to AWS. Let me test the bandwidth to somewhere else. If it's slow *everywhere* then we can conclude that his internet speed sucks, but that it has nothing to do with targeted throttling.

But he didn't do that test, did he?

Quote:
I'm fairly certain amazon doesn't prioritize Verizon's business users over home users...


I could spend a significant amount of post time explaining how various internet companies do actually respect the others business agreements and pass them along (for a fee, of course), but it's a far more complex subject than you probably want to read about. However, in this case it's probably not necessary as the most likely explanation is that VZ prioritizes the traffic of their business accounts. Again, the red herring here is the assumption that this has anything at all to do with VZ to AWS. That's the connection he tested. But, as I pointed out earlier, he failed to test to anywhere else, so we have no way to know if his claim about throttling by VZ of traffic from/to AWS is true.

Quote:
...so his business connection is just as good as any other to make sure aws isn't completely broken.


Again though, that's not the question. He showed that the VZ business account got better performance than a VZ home account. To which most sane people would respond with "duh!'. The difference in the time it takes google to load up on my computer at home versus here at work is massive and very noticeable, yet I've never once concluded that this means that my home ISP must be throttling google.


Smasharoo wrote:

Because he shares a loop with like 1000 other home users.


Nope. Awesome guess from your time machine, but it's still not 1987 here in our reality. The service in question is dedicated last mile fiber.


Uh... Which is meaningless (and honestly a waste of money). I can wire direct fiber to 1000 homes, and plug them all into one set of switches, and guess what? They're not going to get any more performance out of their fiber than they would have with cat5. What matters is not the bandwidth of the wire from your house to the switch, but how many homes are wired into the same cloud of switches and routers before they fork into a backbone. Well, that and a host of considerations based on the layout of said cloud, of course, but that's a whole different ball of wax.

Having "direct fiber to your home" is the latest marketing scheme, but doesn't at all guarantee any increase in real connection speed to the internet as a whole. Oh. And you do get that the term "last mile" doesn't actually refer to a physical mile of distance, right? Also, it's not "dedicated last mile" at all. If it were, we'd be talking about wiring fiber directly from just your home right into the providers backbone. No one does that. Not for home users, at least, because it's massively expensive. Home users are clustered into a local switch cloud, which ultimately pipes into their backbone, but it's always going to be a balance between the cost of providing the pipe and the number of subscribers in the area.


Um... They do do this for business users, if they pay enough money, or sometime just because of where they are located. There's usually a much higher bandwidth capability and fewer bottlenecks between the physical wires laid out to commercial parks than to housing areas. If your business is in a commercial area with a ton of other businesses which have paid over time to have very fat pipe running right next to their offices, even the cheapest business account in that physical location will get excellent performance relative to a home user.

Edited, Feb 12th 2014 6:32pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#46 Feb 12 2014 at 10:23 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts
Uh... Which is meaningless (and honestly a waste of money). I can wire direct fiber to 1000 homes, and plug them all into one set of switches, and guess what? They're not going to get any more performance out of their fiber than they would have with cat5. What matters is not the bandwidth of the wire from your house to the switch, but how many homes are wired into the same cloud of switches and routers before they fork into a backbone

Yeah, no, that's not how that works. I don't want to get into a technical argument I don't really care about, but headroom back to the CO matters a great deal to consumer internet performance. Are there other potential bottlenecks, sure. Having used both residential and business versions of the produce in question for the last 10 to 15 years, I've never seen congestion on the Verizon side, ever. Also never seen throttling of any kind. Sample size of 1 and all that.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#47 Feb 13 2014 at 10:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
Just because I didn't see it posted here. Or if it was, it was posted buried in something I wasn't going to read. In that case, here's my +1.

Quote:
"J.P. Morgan analyst Doug Anmuth...says he has been talking to Netflix CEO Reed Hastings and CFO David Wells, and they told him they don’t think cable and telco companies are hampering the company’s video streams. Anmuth doesn’t have much to report on the topic, so here are his comments in their entirety: "Netflix does not seem overly concerned regarding Net Neutrality, and continues to believe that violations would be escalated quickly. Netflix also indicated that it has no evidence or belief that its service is being throttled
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#48 Feb 13 2014 at 11:34 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Evidence is that stuff that gets in the way of people's theories, right?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#49 Feb 13 2014 at 11:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
Yup, but you can usually mention something like "scientists are paid by the government" and we all get to go back to name calling and posturing.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#50 Feb 13 2014 at 5:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Uh... Which is meaningless (and honestly a waste of money). I can wire direct fiber to 1000 homes, and plug them all into one set of switches, and guess what? They're not going to get any more performance out of their fiber than they would have with cat5. What matters is not the bandwidth of the wire from your house to the switch, but how many homes are wired into the same cloud of switches and routers before they fork into a backbone

Yeah, no, that's not how that works.


Yeah, yeah., that's exactly how that works. In a typical large area distributed network model (such as those we'd see in a residential network), density at the IDF/MDF level is where the core bottlenecks are going to occur. It is the point where each individual wire connected to an individual network device all come together for the first time. It's also where the cost/performance break points for any network are going to lie. Building in sufficient capacity at that level to provide high bandwidth to all devices will typically require pricing outside that which every home user is willing to pay (or "enough" users to avoid runaway price inflation). Not doing so (which is more or less universal in the home ISP market) means that X number of users are always sharing Y amount of total bandwidth, where Y is significantly less than the bandwidth between each users device and the switch(es).

It's really not rocket science to noodle out that if a fiber switch has say 128 gbit connections downstream to the customer devices, and 10 gbit upstream to the next switch layer in the cloud, that each user isn't actually getting their full gbit bandwidth. This gets more complex when you start looking at redundant network paths within a given switch cloud, but that doesn't usually (almost never actually) increase the total bandwidth through the cloud.

What happens with networks is precisely what happens with road systems. It doesn't matter how wide your street is from your house to the freeway, or how many streets there are, or even if we run a separate street from each persons house to the freeway. The bottleneck will always be the onramp that you and all the folks traveling along all the roads leading to that onramp all have to share. You're doing the equivalent of wondering why it takes you an hour to commute to work since you paid for a really wide driveway. Um... It's not the driveway that's the problem.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#51 Feb 13 2014 at 8:19 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts
What happens with networks is precisely what happens with road systems. It doesn't matter how wide your street is from your house to the freeway, or how many streets there are, or even if we run a separate street from each persons house to the freeway. The bottleneck will always be the onramp that you and all the folks traveling along all the roads leading to that onramp all have to share. You're doing the equivalent of wondering why it takes you an hour to commute to work since you paid for a really wide driveway. Um... It's not the driveway that's the problem.

Yeah, again, no. Bandwidth costs virtually nothing, maintaining fiber costs virtually nothing. You can run it 100 miles to the CO and plug it into a blade in a backbone switch without any additional overhead. Verizon is a Tier 1 carrier, they have no incentive to oversubscribe FIOS, and really given the economics, it'd be hard for them to even manage it. I guess they could intentionally degrade end user connections for absolutely no reason, but, amazingly they don't. Fiber goes from my ONT to a passive splitter to the CO, to a backbone switch. That's it. Why so simple? Because it's not fucking copper. Because there doesn't need to be an elaborate system of repeaters overlaid on existing analog infrastructure to support it. There's no trunk involved, you just plug it in.

It's amazing how little you actually seem to understand about ANYTHING, What the **** you actually do for a living, install MS Office?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 27 All times are in CDT
Demea, Anonymous Guests (26)