Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wireless Carrier Throttling of Online Video Is Pervasive: Study

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 176 posts

Re: Wireless Carrier Throttling of Online Video Is Pervasive: Study

#61

Post by jerkstate »

jedberg wrote: post #39
briffle wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention, they can now go and ask that provider to pay them for the right to 'upgrade' their connection, to enable their customers to get what they are paying the ISP for.

Yup, and in Comcast's case, when Netflix finally paid Comcast's ransom, the problem was suddenly fixed a few minutes later, because Comcast literally just had to reconfigure the router and plug in a second cable.

In those days it was typical for the costs of peering to be borne by the sender, relative to the traffic ratio. This changed when Netflix and Youtube decided to use their PR and lobbying strength to bring the negotiation to the court of public opinion - and normal people started referring to typical peering cost-sharing agreements using emotionally loaded words like "ransom"

Re: Wireless Carrier Throttling of Online Video Is Pervasive: Study

#62

Post by eeZah7Ux »

psim1 wrote: post #36
jedberg wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check out https://fast.com from Netflix. It's a speed test based off of Netflix's servers, so it will tell you your bandwidth to Netflix at any given time. Then complain to your ISP if that doesn't match your advertised speed.

When the advertised speed is "up to XX Mbps" and you occasionally do get those speeds, then what is the proper complaint? They are providing "up to" the speed purchased. It works very well in the provider's favor.

> what is the proper complaint

There is no way to complain, but if we had some open, trusted services similar to speedtest.net to publish the effective speed it would allow people to make informed choices when selecting an ISP.

Re: Wireless Carrier Throttling of Online Video Is Pervasive: Study

#63

Post by jrockway »

jerkstate wrote: post #61
jedberg wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, and in Comcast's case, when Netflix finally paid Comcast's ransom, the problem was suddenly fixed a few minutes later, because Comcast literally just had to reconfigure the router and plug in a second cable.

In those days it was typical for the costs of peering to be borne by the sender, relative to the traffic ratio. This changed when Netflix and Youtube decided to use their PR and lobbying strength to bring the negotiation to the court of public opinion - and normal people started referring to typical peering cost-sharing agreements using emotionally loaded words like "ransom"

Peering has traditionally been free.

Re: Wireless Carrier Throttling of Online Video Is Pervasive: Study

#64

Post by hanklazard »

mikepurvis wrote: post #58
glitcher wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a large US city and have one cable provider as my only viable high speed option. The dsl provider which I would have preferred hasn't upgraded the last 50 meters of lines going to my house, and said they had no plans to. The top speed they could offer me was 3Mbps. EDIT: In comparison, the same dsl provider on streets that have had their lines upgraded offers 100Mbps plans for about $30 less per month than…

You'd think there might be a business opportunity in this kind of situation for an ultra low cost, short range WISP. Like, if you could identify a bunch of scenarios like this where last mile issues have left behind neighbourhoods where there might be a few dozen potential customers (identify using speedtest.net data or something?), it would be possible to plug in a box on a utility pole at the edge of the existing c…

https://starry.com/internet

These guys are doing that around the Boston area. They aren't in my area yet but I have friends who have signed up and had good experiences.

Re: Wireless Carrier Throttling of Online Video Is Pervasive: Study

#65

Post by jerkstate »

jrockway wrote: post #63
jerkstate wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In those days it was typical for the costs of peering to be borne by the sender, relative to the traffic ratio. This changed when Netflix and Youtube decided to use their PR and lobbying strength to bring the negotiation to the court of public opinion - and normal people started referring to typical peering cost-sharing agreements using emotionally loaded words like "ransom"

Peering has traditionally been free.

Subject to ratio requirements. Go have a look at peeringdb - there is a field for "Ratio Requirement" and it is common for that field to be "Yes"

Re: Wireless Carrier Throttling of Online Video Is Pervasive: Study

#66

Post by Ensorceled »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #53
Ensorceled wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a monopoly or duopoly, transparency doesn't really help. Your only service provider transparently screwing you doesn't give you an option to switch ...

This article is about wireless carriers, not wired ones. In all but the most remote areas, all 4 major carriers are acceptable. Wireless also does truly have true limits.

Many areas in Canada are served by one or two providers only.

Re: Wireless Carrier Throttling of Online Video Is Pervasive: Study

#67

Post by vorpalhex »

jerkstate wrote: post #61
jedberg wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, and in Comcast's case, when Netflix finally paid Comcast's ransom, the problem was suddenly fixed a few minutes later, because Comcast literally just had to reconfigure the router and plug in a second cable.

In those days it was typical for the costs of peering to be borne by the sender, relative to the traffic ratio. This changed when Netflix and Youtube decided to use their PR and lobbying strength to bring the negotiation to the court of public opinion - and normal people started referring to typical peering cost-sharing agreements using emotionally loaded words like "ransom"

And if Netflix and Youtube were being charged the actual charge for a tech to walk down and plug in another cable or pop together another interconnect, that would be fine.

Instead companies like Comcast are seeking to make profit from this.

Re: Wireless Carrier Throttling of Online Video Is Pervasive: Study

#68

Post by bigdubs »

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #60
dehrmann wrote: post #38

Congestion is a real thing for LTE networks, so you have to throttle. There's only so much bandwidth over a shared medium.

> so you have to throttle Not at all. TCP already does its own rate limiting without external throttling.

tcp doesn't work well for wireless because packet drops due to signal interference look like collisions

Re: Wireless Carrier Throttling of Online Video Is Pervasive: Study

#69

Post by ummonk »

jerkstate wrote: post #61
jedberg wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, and in Comcast's case, when Netflix finally paid Comcast's ransom, the problem was suddenly fixed a few minutes later, because Comcast literally just had to reconfigure the router and plug in a second cable.

In those days it was typical for the costs of peering to be borne by the sender, relative to the traffic ratio. This changed when Netflix and Youtube decided to use their PR and lobbying strength to bring the negotiation to the court of public opinion - and normal people started referring to typical peering cost-sharing agreements using emotionally loaded words like "ransom"

Netflix provides boxes it can plugin to local exchange points so all the ISP has to do is carry the last mile. How is that not sender pays?

Re: Wireless Carrier Throttling of Online Video Is Pervasive: Study

#70

Post by lotsofpulp »

xur17 wrote: post #14
mikepurvis wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It surprises me that most people in the US wouldn't have at least one cable and one DSL option. After all, cable TV is available most places, and everyone has a phone line (or is at least wired for one). Or is the issue rural locations which were never wired for cable because they all just got satellite dishes?

I live 3 miles from downtown Austin, which has numerous internet options (Google Fiber, Spectrum, AT&T, and Grande), but the options in my apartment complex are: * Spectrum (up to 400mbps) * AT&T (5mbps dsl) I technically do have some choice, but given that one of these is close to 100x faster than the other, and the pricing is fairly similar... I think wireless isps and 5g are our best chance at disrupting this.

Even that spectrum connection is garbage because the upload will only be 2 or 3 mbps, barely enough for one FaceTime call. Anything short of symmetric fiber is a sham in this day and age.
Post reply on HN