They can claim whatever they want, but when you tunnel Netflix traffic through a VPN so all the ISP see's is encrypted traffic and bandwidth issues disappear, it removes all mystery.
I've tried several VPN's to test out my theory, and with each one, as soon as the ISP couldn't inspect traffic, all throttling seem to magically vanish.
considering what we're paying for broadband, we should be getting what we pay for without resorting to obfuscating our data.
That's because your VPN providers are no doubt using a different transit provider than Netflix (Level 3) so your traffic is bypassing the congested peering points. The peering disputes are affecting not just Netflix traffic, but traffic between Verizon and any site using Level 3 for transit.
(Not to take the blame away from Verizon. I'd love to see them try to use their logic to explain why other, non-Netflix services work like crap from Verizion.)
They are not inventing reasons. Netflix is serving the content, Netflix pays for it to move. Simple as that. The issue is Layer 3 is not buying enough transit from Verizon to match the disparity in the traffic it wants to send beyond what is covered by settlement free peering.
If you look at the diagram on the Verizon post you can see the link is saturated in one direction and only at 30% utilization in the other direction.
This is the DEFINITION of transit. The fact Netflix is even blaming Verizon for this is ridiculous.
That's funny, I thought verizon's customers paid verizon nontrivial sums of money which happen to be many times of what netflix charges on a monthy basis to connect them to the internet, silly me.
The thing they colored red is not red. The wire is fine. The box inside Verizon's network has a network card in it that's oversubscribed. A slice of their box should be red.
Btw, the definition I'm familiar with for "transit" is crossing a network backbone, it's neither serving, nor consuming. The traffic "transits" your network, on its way from somewhere to somewhere.
Netflix could address the balance by streaming back video of people watching their movies. Would that mean Netflix should pay less? Balance of traffic is just a completely crazy metric.
No, it is how peering agreements work. None of you have ever negotiated a peering agreement which is exactly why you don't understand that Verizon is in the right here, L3 is just providing cheap (and inferior) transit and Netflix is just bitching because it bought a Ford and expects a Ferrari.
But don't people get the same results from free ones? And even if rnovak [1] was paying for it, that's still pretty cheap for the traffic to be shifted like that, with Netflix being aware of the costs, so it's still (AFAICT) hard to reconcile with the claim that Verizon isn't deliberately discriminating against Netflix.
Free VPN providers are almost definitely absorbing the cost as part of a freemium pricing model, and cheap VPN providers are probably overselling their bandwidth under the assumption that most of their customers won't use much.
The reason why routing Netflix via VPNs currently works so well is because not many people are doing it. If more people did, then 1.) VPN providers would start to charge more, and 2.) the peering points between Verizon and the VPN services' transit providers would become more congested.
rnovak's "proof" of deliberate discrimination against Netflix was that encrypting Netflix traffic caused Netflix to perform better. That's simply not the reason - the reason is that the VPN traffic avoids the congested Level 3/Verizion peering points. Netflix traffic is not the only traffic that's suffering - any traffic coming from Level 3 is. (In fact, this issue has affected me, even though I'm not a Netflix customer, because I regularly access servers which get their transit from Level 3.) It might be that Verizon is playing extra-hard ball in the negotiations because Netflix traffic is involved, but any discrimination is not exclusively against Netflix and it's not because of deliberate packet inspection. Not even Netflix claims it is.
Exactly. Verizon can try to spin this as "Netflix is pushing this traffic on us through inferior intermediate links," but what's really happening is that Verizon's customers are requesting the traffic. The standard response when one of their border links is congested is to work with the peer to upgrade it. Level3 is willing to do so. Verizon would rather try to squeeze money out of Netflix for an unnecessary "direct link". Hopefully people see through this PR.
Yep this is exactly the fast lane that we don't want. The lane is not any faster, just less traffic, says Verizon--really, that seems like a fast lane to me.
Couldn't it be that your VPN provider has better/less crowded connections to both Verizon and Netflix?
I can see how using a lower grade link to a main source of traffic outside a network can actually shape the traffic and reduce the workload on said network.
If that is not Verizon's doing and if there is some reason why Verizon is not connected to other Netflix's links then I can see it as being out of Verizon hands.
It is more probable, though that the limitations in interconnection between Verizon and Netflix are intentional so as to avoid high utilization of Verizon's network.
> I've tried several VPN's to test out my theory, and with each one, as soon as the ISP couldn't inspect traffic, all throttling seem to magically vanish.
That's not inconsistent with Verizon's statement. Verizon is saying, "we won't accept more traffic directly from Netflix (via their transit providers) until we get more money!". By using a VPN, you're avoiding that direct connection, and traversing a less-loaded link.
Exactly. They took Netflix's bait with the "congestion" message. They're demonstrating that their network isn't congested and now we're closer to seeing that they really are attempting to charge multiple customers for the same traffic.
Assuming you connected your Verizon IP to a VPN server that resides in a non-Verizon network, that test is insufficient to deduce that the ISP looks at the data. As Verizon is saying, Netflix does not pay enough for the data that they send. They don't need to inspect the data. By connecting your VPN to a non-Verizon network, Verizon sees the Netflix stream coming from that network (not Netflix).
That's really the key problem here. There is lack of choice in the US and Canada. Everyone loves to drum their chest about capitalism but in this case it isn't working, and ISPs have clearly colluded to divvy up the territories so they aren't directly competing.
The internet has become a public utility just like electricity, water, or the roads. Businesses and private citizens depend on it day to day, and economic growth is hampered by poor performance in this area (e.g. new types of businesses that depend on bandwidth, like a Netflix competitor, cannot exist if the pipes are slow).
In my view the raw cable and fibre should be confiscated from the big three by the government using eminent domain, and then rented out to competing ISPs (including the big three) on even footing. The rent would pay to maintain the cables/fibre and deploy more network, and the ISPs could add a premium before reselling it to end users to cover support costs and maintaining equipment (e.g. routers, edge connections, etc).
Basically make the final mile public property. It would make real competition as smaller ISPs can now compete with large ones, and there isn't regularly problems for these companies (e.g. getting permits to place new cables).
Capitalism as ideally defined is a period an economy often passes through extremely briefly; one of the exit paths is consolidation of enough power/wealth/influence in a handful of individuals or corporations to begin effectively purchasing government actions as desired.
Unless you would like to argue that no true Scotsman would ever abuse a position to make a buck...
>one of the exit paths is consolidation of enough power/wealth/influence in a handful of individuals or corporations to begin effectively purchasing government actions as desired.
The prerequisite to purchasing government actions is the government having the power/authority to take action. There's a reason lobbyists do not approach you or me.
The prerequisite to purchasing government actions instead of purchasing mercenaries to enforce ones' will directly is the government having the power/authority to take action.
Getting rid of government doesn't change the ability for the powerful to use money to apply coercive force against the powerless. You know that, right? It just means they have to do it themselves. Would you rather $EVIL_CORP own a Senator or own weapons of mass destruction?
The definition of government is a monopoly on violence/force. Furthermore, no monopoly can be sustained without the force of government.
Absent the government I'm not even certain there would be weapons of mass destruction. It is the state who demands these weapons to maintain its monopoly on force.
A business, on the other hand, is interested in making a profit. Absent government coercion, a business must provide a worthwhile good/service to make a profit, all while competing in the marketplace.
Anything an "$EVIL_CORP" might do pales in comparison to actions we know governments have done. One must only tally up the hundreds of millions of lives lost during the 20th century in senseless wars, democide, etc.
Capitalism is the free and willing exchange of goods.
Because the state has colluded with certain companies to remove the 'free' from the above statement, the US internet is no longer a capitalistic system.
Your statement about all capitalism eventual collapsing to fascism deserves more evidence. If you could truly prove your point, you'd win a nobel prize.
In SF, WebPass (and MonkeyBrains, from what I hear) are great alternative ISPs. Both do point-to-point wireless. My building shares a symmetric 100Mbps connection to WebPass, and I pretty reliably see 30-40Mbps on my wired network. And I pay significantly less than I had previously paid Comcast. (However, I never used the TV component of my Comcast offer, so the cost structure is presumably different for people who do want cable TV.)
I understand that point-to-point wireless is more realistic in an urban environment than in the suburbs or a more rural setting. Do other cities have good alternate ISPs, or are SF residents somewhat unique in their appetite to try alternate providers?
Point-to-Point (Fixed) Wireless is actually also an attractive solution in rural / semi-rural settings as well.
If the distances are moderate (with line-of-sight) but demand is too sparse to warrant the cost of running coaxial / fiber (and distances are too far for DSL), a common alternative on the high end is fixed microwave, and on the low end Verizon LTE.
A good example is the Ames, Iowa area, where an ISP has set up a tower with good line of sight, and a bunch of directional antennas both on the tower and at customers locations. This setup provides great service out to ~15 miles or so, enough to cover the outskirts of this small town.
Some issues with this setup: storms cause 'rain fade' which blocks the signal, and the wireless spectrum does not scale to too many users. Also, there's a finicky antenna on the roof that can become misaligned in storms.
I've tried several VPN's to test out my theory, and with each one, as soon as the ISP couldn't inspect traffic, all throttling seem to magically vanish.
considering what we're paying for broadband, we should be getting what we pay for without resorting to obfuscating our data.