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

101–110 of 176 posts

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

#101

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

tcxgy wrote: post #44
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because in case of congestion the user watching video is abusing the system. Why do you think that a user that is using exactly the same amount of bandwidth as any other users (i.e., their fair share) is abusing the system? What would you say if some user was watching a video stream that used only half as much bandwidth as their fair share? Would that still be abusive?

Because in case of congestion (let's say everybody gets allotted 50 KB/s) you can't even watch video. Dozens of users trying to watch video at 50 KB/s aren't even watching video; they're just launching a DDoS attack. I'd be very happy to throttle them to 1 KB/s so I don't have to wait 10 seconds to receive a picture through Whatsapp. You're arguing against the laws of physics here, and you're arguing that stupid user…

> Because in case of congestion (let's say everybody gets allotted 50 KB/s) you can't even watch video.

You can watch video at 500 kbps perfectly fine.

> Dozens of users trying to watch video at 50 KB/s aren't even watching video; they're just launching a DDoS attack.

So, you are saying the problem is with people who can't watch video, but do watch video anyway, despite the impossibility? Or are you saying that people who can't watch video, and therefore don't watch video, are congesting the network by not watching video? I can't really figure out what your claim even is.

> I'd be very happy to throttle them to 1 KB/s so I don't have to wait 10 seconds to receive a picture through Whatsapp.

OK, I understand that you would like to get preferential treatment. That's fine, but does not particularly convince me.

> You're arguing against the laws of physics here,

Which law of physics exactly?

> and you're arguing that stupid users should be able to screw everybody else. No thanks.

How is getting the same amount of resources as everybody else for paying the same price as everybody else "screwing everybody else"?

Really, it seems to me like you are simply repeating a completely unjustified claim over and over in different wording ... you might want to consider that repeating a claim does not make it more convincing, especially if you don't address objections.

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

#102

Post by big_chungus »

There is an actual problem here, but wireless carriers use the actual problem of how to balance traffic as a fake cover for charging more.

However, assuming we bypass the garbage tiering, there is a legitimate reason to do this. Page-loads are simple and fast. Every one loading pages is not much of an issue, as they typically load at different times for a brief moment and then are done. This means for a rated connection speed, you don't need as much actual capacity.

Video streaming (or other downloads) are constant. To stream video at rated speeds, you must build to provide most users that speed at the same time. Problem two here is that in cases of high traffic, video streaming is greedy. If it's not going at full resolution, it will suck up all available bandwidth it is given. If more is given, it will raise quality (by default settings, at least).

A sensible solution to this is to stream video and audio over UDP and have the router just drop UDP when TCP needs bandwidth (to a point). The point is, requirements are different. People sending e-mails shouldn't have to wait a minute to send because you really want to stream your netflix every where you go and in 4k.

Which reminds me, I thought mobile connections were for simple stuff. Light browsing, email, what-have-you. Even with "unlimited" plans, you're throttled after twenty-odd gigabytes of data per month. Why can't people just download netflix in advance? Failing that, I'm not sure why people expect to use a wireless internet connection in the same way as a wired one.

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

#103

Post by liability »

jerkstate wrote: post #90
jedberg wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had sufficient bandwidth. Netflix paid their ISP for sufficient bandwidth. Comcast just refused to connect to it, to the detriment of Comcast's customers.

Cogent (Netflix's ISP) and Comcast had a peering agreement which spelled out costs and ratios; Cogent sold Netflix bandwidth (probably very cheaply) that they could not provide without breaching their peering agreement. Cogent was unwilling to fulfill the financial terms of their peering agreement in order to provide the product that they had sold to Netflix. Somehow, people think this is Comcast's fault?

Netflix is a very popular company and Comcast is a deeply unpopular company. Consequently people take Netflix's statements at face value while assuming that Comcast always lies, even in situations where the facts suggest otherwise.

But who's fault is any of this? I say you reap what you sow. Comcast has only themselves to blame when consumers are skeptical of them.

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

#104

Post by usrusr »

14 wrote: post #83
crazygringo wrote: post #57

For both wired and wireless, it's time for legislation to address exactly what it and isn't permitted with regard to advertised speeds, throttling, and total usage -- both with respect to users, and with respect to peering. It's not just an issue of policy, but one of transparency too. It's a fact of life that more people will want to consume data than a network can support. So where are we going to make the cut? Dim…

It's a fact of life that more people will want to consume data than a network can support. Is this actually true or is it just a matter of the isp not building the needed infrastructure required? Because if it is just an infrastructure issue then I would question why they choose to not expand to a better service. Is it because they can get away with providing crappy service as many people only have a single choice of…

Take any public space. Now imagine it at it's peak density, when it is as crowded as it gets, maybe due to a once-a-decade event. Now imagine installing cells in sufficient density to avoid any oversubscription on that day. This density will never happen.

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

#105

Post by dmitrygr »

mikepurvis wrote: post #13
zacharycohn wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people do not have another reasonable option to switch to.

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?

DSL is a joke. What are you going to do with 5 Mbps down in the modern world or 30MB+ websites?

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

#107

Post by andybak »

tcxgy wrote: post #44
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because in case of congestion the user watching video is abusing the system. Why do you think that a user that is using exactly the same amount of bandwidth as any other users (i.e., their fair share) is abusing the system? What would you say if some user was watching a video stream that used only half as much bandwidth as their fair share? Would that still be abusive?

Because in case of congestion (let's say everybody gets allotted 50 KB/s) you can't even watch video. Dozens of users trying to watch video at 50 KB/s aren't even watching video; they're just launching a DDoS attack. I'd be very happy to throttle them to 1 KB/s so I don't have to wait 10 seconds to receive a picture through Whatsapp. You're arguing against the laws of physics here, and you're arguing that stupid user…

> You're arguing against the laws of physics here

And you seem to be confusing physics for economics. It's the latter that determines available bandwidth in most cases.

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

#108

Post by gruez »

crazygringo wrote: post #57

For both wired and wireless, it's time for legislation to address exactly what it and isn't permitted with regard to advertised speeds, throttling, and total usage -- both with respect to users, and with respect to peering. It's not just an issue of policy, but one of transparency too. It's a fact of life that more people will want to consume data than a network can support. So where are we going to make the cut? Dim…

>Diminish everyone's usage proportionally? Provide a guaranteed minimum? A minimum per minute, per hour, or per day? Prioritize traffic based on type? Implement caps? Allow people to pay for more speed, higher caps, or both?

In the case of limited bandwidth, the "fairest" way would be to enforce a moving average cap. The most economically efficient way would be some sort of dynamic price system[1].

>But since people often have little or no choice over which carrier or ISP they use and switching can be expensive

In the context of this thread (wireless carriers), isn't this moot? I get how there are local ISP monopolies for residential internet, but the whole country has good access to all the major carriers.

[1] instead of getting 5GB, you get 5,000,000 "bandwidth credits". If a cell tower is below capacity, each megabyte of transfer only costs a nominal amount of credits (200). But as capacity approaches 100%, it costs more and more (up to 10000, or more). We could even have a total free market similar to bitcoin network fees where customers can enter a bid. If your bid isn't high enough you're limited to 2g speeds, or get no data at all.

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

#109

Post by FireBeyond »

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"

Okay, let's go the other route then. BackBlaze, CrashPlan. These are companies where Comcast/other ISP customers are sending THEM huge amounts of data and getting nearly nothing in return.

So these ISPs should be bearing the costs of peering to backup providers, correct, by your logic? Or would that be the backup providers holding ISPs to "ransom"?

Apropos of anything else, ISPs (generally) provide massively asymmetric pipes. You can't provide an asymmetric pipe and then complain that data use on that pipe is, well, asymmetric.

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

#110

Post by [deleted] »

alyandon wrote: post #100
lotsofpulp wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At least in my area Spectrum/TWC service has 400 mbps down and 20 mbps up. Still not great but far better than the old days.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN