All the carriers say straight on their website they are throttling you. Want HD video? Have to pay for the upgraded super version or whatever.
Sprint Is Throttling Skype, Study Finds
141–150 of 163 posts
Re: Sprint Is Throttling Skype, Study Finds
#142Sprint is legit garbage, but it is worth noting that even under Wheeler, Net Neutrality rules have never applied to mobile networks. It’s a big reason many of us were disappointed with the legislation even when it was passed. I’d rather have something than nothing, but mobile carriers have always been expent from NN.
Should it though? Throttling sites on wired connections because your too cheap to replace your customer's copper lines is one thing, but mobile networks have limited bandwidth by nature. The last thing mobile networks want is a tragedy of the commons scenario causing customers to jump ship, because they don't have the "advantage" of guaranteed income from the local monoplies that come with cable-type infrastructure.
Re: Sprint Is Throttling Skype, Study Finds
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you compared IPv4 versus IPv6 performance? Centurylink seems to have much better peering via IPv6 (still a bit slow to certain destinations though), in part because they only peer with Hurricane Electric and other non-Tier 1's for IPv6.
Nope. I’ll try that out. My modem is only getting a ipv4 address right now, but maybe I can configure it.
Shucks. No ipv6 support in my area.
Re: Sprint Is Throttling Skype, Study Finds
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fwiw Google voice has free US calling and pretty decent reache rates
I can't get my phone to ring with Google Voice / Google Hangouts incoming calls. Tried every setting possible: always goes to voicemail.
Really? That's exactly how I have it set up. In Google voice, attach your cell phone number (verify the text etc), then go to settings-calls-incoming calls and enable it.
Re: Sprint Is Throttling Skype, Study Finds
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't get my phone to ring with Google Voice / Google Hangouts incoming calls. Tried every setting possible: always goes to voicemail.
Really? That's exactly how I have it set up. In Google voice, attach your cell phone number (verify the text etc), then go to settings-calls-incoming calls and enable it.
Ah, my current location/phone number is not in the USA/Canada, so I can't link it.
Re: Sprint Is Throttling Skype, Study Finds
#146Using a SIM card on a recent trip to Mexico, where net neutrality was never a thing, was really interesting. Cell service plans come with separate tariffs for regular data and "social" data, which works only in the walled garden of Facebook, WhatsApp, Snapchat, Insta, etc., and the "social" data is much cheaper. Even though the positive reinforcement was not as draconian as stuff like this, where they're obviously tr…
Eh, it's mostly unlimited WhatsApp and Facebook included with the plan, all other data is metered. It's a freebie or perk on certain rather than a limitation.
They are clear about the amount of metered data you get too. Not that it's great but it's not as bad as it could be.
Re: Sprint Is Throttling Skype, Study Finds
#147Tip of the iceberg. Carriers see communication services as their turf, and they go to byzantine lengths to protect that. Politically it can get funny. If you work at a handset manufacturer, and sit in on sales calls, and one of your team members brings up anything remotely related to this or VOIP, you might see the carrier buyers get visibly upset and literally walk out of the room. I could never tell if they were 'a…
You know what upsets me is that I can call people on my phone and the audio quality is terrible if they're not on the same carrier (T-Mobile in the USA). I had to tell my friend to just call me on Skype the next time cause it's always a struggle to hear them clearly over the phone. I can't believe that my carrier has "HD Calling" but everyone else sounds like the calls being patched through a sewage pipe.
Even on the same carrier, the call quality can be terrible. I've had this problem with Verizon for years now. (No, it's not the phone since it gets upgraded every 2 years or less)
Re: Sprint Is Throttling Skype, Study Finds
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's highly debated in the EU, some providers have tried it but they spark a lot of debate about it.
In France it was actually the norm for cellular data, and the hellish nightmare of favoring one own service was even advertised ("with universal mobile, you get unlimited data for universal music service!!!"). We also had service tiering, such as pop/imap being priced differently than http, etc... Free mobile then came in and used the same tactic they used on adsl, single pricing, large amount of data, no differentia…
>In France it was actually the norm for cellular data, and the hellish nightmare of favoring one own service was even advertised ("with universal mobile, you get unlimited data for universal music service!!!").
Took me a minute to parse, since I didn't realize that universal was the name of a content company, rather than a service plan's name and access to all music.
Kind of reminds me of the (also French) company Total, who seems like they were invented to make tabulation charts about the oil industry hard to read.
Re: Sprint Is Throttling Skype, Study Finds
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think zero rating is considered a violation of net neutrality by most people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating
I think that this is one of the main reasons that it is harder than it should be to convince average people in the US, especially on the political right, that we need net neutrality. Take the plan I'm on with T-Mobile. I pay a fixed monthly amount and get 3 GB of data per month. If I go over 3 GB, T-Mobile reserves the right to give me lower speed for the rest of the month. T-Mobile has a thing called "Music Freedom"…
> We can use that to distinguish between the kind of zero rating this is probably good for consumers (Music Freedom) and the kind that is not (ISP zero rating just their own streaming service).
Those two are indistinguishable and certainly not good for the consumer.
Zero rating just their own service and a bunch of competitors still has the same overall effect of raising the barrier to entry and thus prices with absolutely no benefit to the consumer.
The "benefit" of "free traffic on top" is an illusion, there is no free traffic. You are buying a 20 GB/month package (or whatever the actual value is) of which 17 GB are limited to particular services, it's just that it is framed as a "3 GB traffic with music free" package in order to manipulate the public into objection to network neutrality by then claiming that network neutrality would make it illegal to offer the "free traffic", which is absurd as any carrier is free to offer a "3 GB/month with 17GB/month free on top" package--which is exactly what we would see if net neutrality were a thing, except that it would be labeled as a "20 GB/month" package. The price they are asking obviously is paying for the 20 GB plus their margin anyway, and the price obviously is not the price that the market is willing to pay for "3 GB/month", but for "as much traffic as I actually use per month", which isn't 3 GB but 20 GB.
All of this zero rating stuff is marketing bullshit to make you believe they are on your side when they limit your freedom. There is zero reason why I shouldn't be able to buy a 20 GB/month package at the same price as the current "3 GB plus music free", except that I could stream music from my own server instead of having to pay yet another service from a number of winners chosen by my carrier.
Re: Sprint Is Throttling Skype, Study Finds
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think zero rating is considered a violation of net neutrality by most people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating
One problem is that “zero-rating” isn't as well defined as network neutrality and there are two forms of service we see: 1. Network operators exempting an entire class of service, such as T-Mobile's “Music Freedom” which has the same terms for everyone who applies 2. Network operators accepting money from specific service providers to exempt only those services, such as the Facebook-only service offered in some parts…
> 1. Network operators exempting an entire class of service, such as T-Mobile's “Music Freedom” which has the same terms for everyone who applies
Which is irrelevant as the terms themselves are discriminatory, plus the mere fact of having to apply is a major barrier to entry.
If you want to build a new streaming service of any kind (a niche radio station, say?) in a world with network neutrality, you need a server with an internet connection, so the barrier to entry is ten bucks a month or so and you can start streaming to a few hundred listeners. If you need to apply for zero rating, you now have to read and understand the requirements of a few hundred carriers around the globe, adapt your software so it can meet all those varying requirements ...
Also, it is inherently incompatible with many use cases. I have my own server, and I can stream my own music. What are my chances of success if I tried to get T-Mobile to zero rate traffic from my own streaming server? Do I have to allow them to listen into the connection?
And then, what if I wanted to sell a device for people to do the same, say? A home NAS that allows people to stream music to their smartphone? How do I get T-Mobile to zero-rate that?
> but I think it's alienated a lot of people who really don't see a problem with the first form (at least as long as it's really open)
But the problem is that if you don't fight the first, you effectively get the same result as the second. The long-term effect on innovation and prices is the same, as it is inherently not "really open". Also, carriers offering these packages is not an accident, it is intentional manipulation by choosing a misleading framing. But choosing not to fight the framing doesn't help you--while you might have more allies then, you would effectively also not have anything left that is worth fighting for. The idea of selling 20 GB/month packages to the public as "3 GB/month plus music traffic free on top" in order to then be able to correctly claim that "this would be illegal with net neutrality" in order to make people incorrectly think "with net neutrality I would only get 3 GB for the same price" is genius, but you really shouldn't fall for it.