How can they do this if the connection is over TLS? Or is this regardig real time UDP video?
other side's IPs? They are usually well known
I suppose without a CDN that makes sense
Wireless Carrier Throttling of Online Video Is Pervasive: Study
131–140 of 176 posts
Re: Wireless Carrier Throttling of Online Video Is Pervasive: Study
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
It's a matter of economics. An ISP could build the required infrastructure to support everyone's peak desired simultaneous usage... but then they'd probably have to quadruple (or worse) what people are paying for it just to break even, which the market wouldn't support, so they'd go out of business. The same way restaurants could invest in enough space to handle all demand for Friday nights and Valentine's Day... but…
Didn't we already give the ISPs money to upgrade their infrastructure? Something like $400 billion.
Re: Wireless Carrier Throttling of Online Video Is Pervasive: Study
#133Earlier 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.
It's not quite 100, but I get 75 Mbps on VDSL in Dallas.
Re: Wireless Carrier Throttling of Online Video Is Pervasive: Study
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
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"
Yeah, but these consumer ISPs self-inflicted the ratio imbalance. They literally don't let their customers upload at the same speed they download at; of course their peering ratios are going to be imbalanced.
I checked several of the largest ASNs and several smaller NYC-area ISPs on peeringdb and they are all "No" to the ratio requirement. Google doesn't care. Amazon doesn't care. Cloudflare doesn't care. There's half the Internet.
Demanding money to peer with Netflix is just trying to charge customers twice because they can. It's not normal, conventional, or good for the Internet. Netflix might be able to pay, but will your startup be able to pay? Probably not. And that's not the future we want.
Re: Wireless Carrier Throttling of Online Video Is Pervasive: Study
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
True, but only if they hold an monopoly. If there's a competitor, customers would switch to the cheapest option and they'd lose all their bushiness. If they're a monopoly, well... you're already hosed because they could also infinitely raise prices and there's nothing you can do.
Re: Wireless Carrier Throttling of Online Video Is Pervasive: Study
#136Earlier 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?
[deleted]
Re: Wireless Carrier Throttling of Online Video Is Pervasive: Study
#137Earlier 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"
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 asymmetr…
Certainly your ingress/egress ratio affects what kind of peering deals you can get. Peering can be something of a wild west. If you can charge the other party, you do. Otherwise you don't.
Re: Wireless Carrier Throttling of Online Video Is Pervasive: Study
#138For 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…
What false advertising? The ad clearly reads "up to 50mbps" and the 1.1mbps the copper in your neighbourhood allows is indeed positively in the 0-50 range!
Damn I hate consumer ISPs, with a few small exceptions.
Re: Wireless Carrier Throttling of Online Video Is Pervasive: Study
#139If these streaming providers would actually provide consumers with effective tooling to determine if throttling is taking place, this would get a lot more traction. I fought with CenturyLink for 18 months collecting stats on overall network performance vs. throughput to YouTube because it was clear something was going on. It was a giant pain in the ass trying to come up with figures for YouTube.
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.
I find that fast.com is often inaccurate as in showing impossibly high values. Like, speedtest.net shows 120/10 Mb and fast.com shows 190/77 Mb.
Re: Wireless Carrier Throttling of Online Video Is Pervasive: Study
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ratio requirements are a red herring. If your ISP says you get a certain bandwidth, it is on them to provide the appropriate pipes to get to where their customers want to go. How can the ISP on the other side of Comcast be responsible for maintaining ratios if Comcast's customers are the ones that are requesting the data?
>appropriate pipes to get to where their customers want to go. This idea is nonsensical. What if I want to go to somewhere that is three times removed from my ISP. Comcast has zero capability to force some South Korean ISP that is providing services to some website to increase their bandwidth with their upstream who is peered with whoever owns the undersea cable that is peered with the company that peers with Comcast…
If everyone up to the network edge is willing to pay for the equipment to get the packets there, and your customers are asking for the data, then yes, you have an obligation to deliver what you promised to your customer.