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

121–130 of 176 posts

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

#121

Post by stochastic_monk »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #72
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…

When I pay for a carrier, I want to know what I should be able to count on, and what I can't count on. I can't up vote this enough. I think false advertising really needs to be clamped down on across the board, but when it's something I understand the nuances of it really gets to me. Why do companies find it so difficult to just say what it is they are selling in clear concise language, without being purposely mislea…

When I pay for compute on AWS, I get an SLA with guarantees. Why are citizens afforded any less?

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

#122

Post by dmitrygr »

milankragujevic wrote: post #119
dmitrygr wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

DSL (VDSL2) can and does go over 100 Mbps.

Not available anywhere I've lived (Bay area, Chicago, SF). In fact I've only heard about it from Wikipedia. Never heard of anyone who knows anyone who claims to have even seen this in person.

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

#123

Post by jedberg »

criddell wrote: post #76
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.

Just ran it and I'm getting 44 Mbps. AFAIK, that's plenty of bandwidth from Netflix's perspective, so would complaining to my ISP make any sense? Should I be getting 300 Mbps with Netflix?

If you pay for 300 you should get close the that. The fact that you don’t means you’re being throttled. If you don’t notice a difference it doesn’t really matter, but that wouldn’t be enough to stream multiple TVs at 4K for example, even though you pay for a service that should support that.

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

#124

Post by mattnewton »

stochastic_monk wrote: post #121
dec0dedab0de wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I pay for a carrier, I want to know what I should be able to count on, and what I can't count on. I can't up vote this enough. I think false advertising really needs to be clamped down on across the board, but when it's something I understand the nuances of it really gets to me. Why do companies find it so difficult to just say what it is they are selling in clear concise language, without being purposely mislea…

When I pay for compute on AWS, I get an SLA with guarantees. Why are citizens afforded any less?

Because AWS is competing for savvy customers, and US telecoms increasing look like a cartel.

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

#125

Post by milankragujevic »

dmitrygr wrote: post #122
milankragujevic wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DSL (VDSL2) can and does go over 100 Mbps.

Not available anywhere I've lived (Bay area, Chicago, SF). In fact I've only heard about it from Wikipedia. Never heard of anyone who knows anyone who claims to have even seen this in person.

Oh. Sorry. It's quite prevalent in Europe...

https://i.imgur.com/zGSklKi.png - The local loop length is 2 km in this case.

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

#126

Post by rhino369 »

jedberg wrote: post #77
criddell wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if Netflix were sitting on the end of a lowly T1, Comcast should provide Netflix with a more appropriate connection that can fulfill the demands of Comcast customers?

That's not a fair analogy. Netflix had the bandwidth available and wanted to connect it, Comcast just refused.

That's not really accurate either. Netflix's ISP didn't have the bandwidth available. That was the whole dispute. Their ISP wanted a free peering agreement and Comcast just refused.

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

#127

Post by rhino369 »

QUFB wrote: post #55
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.

I really, really hate to defend mobile carriers, but... Congestion is a real thing. Mobile subscribers are now using significantly more data due to video streaming, and wireless carriers aren't expanding their capacity fast enough. 5G won't help for most of CONUS. Millimeter wave 5G, which will help, will only be deployed in urban areas. Mid-band and low-band 5G will only increase spectrum efficiency around 20%. For…

And 720p or even 480p looks pretty fine on small ass screen. I left Tmo's throttling on so I wouldn't blow through my 6gb too quickly.

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

#128

Post by rayiner »

stochastic_monk wrote: post #121
dec0dedab0de wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I pay for a carrier, I want to know what I should be able to count on, and what I can't count on. I can't up vote this enough. I think false advertising really needs to be clamped down on across the board, but when it's something I understand the nuances of it really gets to me. Why do companies find it so difficult to just say what it is they are selling in clear concise language, without being purposely mislea…

When I pay for compute on AWS, I get an SLA with guarantees. Why are citizens afforded any less?

You can pay for a fiber line with an SLA, etc. They cost hundreds to thousands of dollars a month, even in downtown areas with several business fiber providers to choose from.

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

#129

Post by makecheck »

I don’t necessarily want throttling at the ISP level but I do want rules on what is “reasonable” for web sites on wireless. Data is expensive.

A big one: I often do what should be simple things data-wise, like tapping a link to “view article”, and am punished. Is it my fault that the obnoxious target site decided on its own to download and auto-play a huge video with sound in a floating window, none of which was requested or required!?

I have the right to squash that crap to save my data plan and battery (and sanity). That has meant installing blockers, and it doesn’t look like I’ll ever be able to stop doing so.

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

#130

Post by casylum »

gruez wrote: post #108
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…

But then carriers would have a financial motivation to not upgrade tower capacity. The more congested - the more money they make.
Post reply on HN