Verizon has been throttling Netflix and YouTube speeds, but they have an excuse

Cal Jeffrey

Posts: 4,152   +1,416
Staff member

Right on the heels of the Net Neutrality Day of Action protest, Verizon users started noticing that their download speeds were significantly lower when viewing Netflix videos. Users began complaining about it on Reddit, and a megathread was created on the /r/Verizon subreddit to monitor and confirm that the throttling was indeed happening and how widespread it was. Visitors were asked to test and report what they found there.

Testing was primarily conducted using Fast.com, which is powered by Netflix servers and then comparing that speed with a test on neutral servers (usually Ookla Speed Test). Users were finding that on Fast.com they were consistently getting download speeds of around 10 Mbps, while on neutral servers their speeds were anywhere from 60-80 Mbps. Users on Howard Forums were reporting similar results on YouTube.

"The customer video experience was not affected."

Verizon, like every other mobile provider, does downgrade network speeds for unlimited plan users who exceed 22 GB of data usage in a month. According to the telecom’s FAQs, this only happens if the cap is exceeded and the cell site that is currently being used is busy. Most users who had reported slower speeds were not over their limit. Plus the fact that the slow down only appeared to be on Netflix and YouTube servers indicated that throttling of the domains, not the users, was occurring.

After several news outlets had reported on the apparent capping of the streaming sites yesterday, Verizon issued a statement today addressing the issue. A representative told Benzinga that it has been conducting tests on video streaming. The spokesperson insisted that the testing should not disrupt video viewing.

“We've been doing network testing over the past few days to optimize the performance of video applications on our network. The testing should be completed shortly. The customer video experience was not affected.”

The mobile carrier declined to comment on allegations of speed manipulation.

Image credit: Forbes

Permalink to story.

 
Netflix reaped what is sows. It did nothing to add into the day of protest. No message on their homepage, no notification to their users. I guess they thought they were too big to fail, well they though wrong. Same thing for google too. Both of these companies did nothing other than lipservice. Typical American companies, a lot of bullshit words and more money grubbing.
 
Netflix reaped what is sows. It did nothing to add into the day of protest. No message on their homepage, no notification to their users. I guess they thought they were too big to fail, well they though wrong. Same thing for google too. Both of these companies did nothing other than lipservice. Typical American companies, a lot of bullshit words and more money grubbing.

Of course, because Netflix, Google and the other handful of big players can afford pay to play while their competition can't. If you can freeze your cheaper competition out of the market then passing higher bandwidth expenses on to your customers has little risk. Except that it does, because piracy will simply explode.
 
I thought this has been shown to just be dodgy practice by providers and that big unlimited user plans don't cause any congestion on networks at all.

Agree that piracy will just increase based on providers playing games like this, it will also cause clients to just use someone else.

Everyone seems to think they are untouchable or that people will not notice.
 
I thought this has been shown to just be dodgy practice by providers and that big unlimited user plans don't cause any congestion on networks at all.

Agree that piracy will just increase based on providers playing games like this, it will also cause clients to just use someone else.

Everyone seems to think they are untouchable or that people will not notice.

Network congestion is only really an issue for mobile services simply because you can only saturate the air waves so much. ISPs on the other hand have zero excuses for the wired networks. If you look at their excuses, they will state that it's unfair that people are getting internet for "free" and compare it to water usage. Well, unlike water, internet isn't consumer when you use it. Data can be copied infinite times. Not to mention, the ISPs aren't even the ones making the "water", they simply provide a pipe, a vehicle of transportation to get it to you. It's the content companies and video websites actually doing all the hard work.

It should be inherently obvious the dangers of having a privatized necessity like internet access. Especially like in America, where ISPs are granted regional monopolies. It's essentially a right to extort.
 
Oversaturation on mobile is definitely a real thing. Ever tried using your phone in Vegas for anything but a phone call?
 
I thought this has been shown to just be dodgy practice by providers and that big unlimited user plans don't cause any congestion on networks at all.

Agree that piracy will just increase based on providers playing games like this, it will also cause clients to just use someone else.

Everyone seems to think they are untouchable or that people will not notice.

Network congestion is only really an issue for mobile services simply because you can only saturate the air waves so much. ISPs on the other hand have zero excuses for the wired networks. If you look at their excuses, they will state that it's unfair that people are getting internet for "free" and compare it to water usage. Well, unlike water, internet isn't consumer when you use it. Data can be copied infinite times. Not to mention, the ISPs aren't even the ones making the "water", they simply provide a pipe, a vehicle of transportation to get it to you. It's the content companies and video websites actually doing all the hard work.

It should be inherently obvious the dangers of having a privatized necessity like internet access. Especially like in America, where ISPs are granted regional monopolies. It's essentially a right to extort.
The pipes have capacity limits.

The bit that O object to however is this. You pay the internet provider for however many GB of data. You have the reasonable expectation you can use the service and that data however you choose.

One reason ISPs try all these data schenanigans is because they failed to properly plan for bottlenecks etc when higher % usage of data plans has occurred and caused congestion. Rather than fix the bottlenecks, they squeeze you instead. That way no infrastructure spend, more profit.

I say our contracts give us the reasonable expectation we can use our data in peak to watch Netflix. It's not our problem they didn't provision properly for peak. They made the contract terms and now they don't like what they offered everyone and are trying to scam the customer.
 
The pipes have capacity limits.

The bit that O object to however is this. You pay the internet provider for however many GB of data. You have the reasonable expectation you can use the service and that data however you choose.

One reason ISPs try all these data schenanigans is because they failed to properly plan for bottlenecks etc when higher % usage of data plans has occurred and caused congestion. Rather than fix the bottlenecks, they squeeze you instead. That way no infrastructure spend, more profit.

I say our contracts give us the reasonable expectation we can use our data in peak to watch Netflix. It's not our problem they didn't provision properly for peak. They made the contract terms and now they don't like what they offered everyone and are trying to scam the customer.

My point wasn't that wired has infinite capacity, it was that it costs them a fraction of the effort to provide high bandwidth over wired vs wireless.

"One reason ISPs try all these data schenanigans is because they failed to properly plan for bottlenecks etc when higher % usage of data plans has occurred and caused congestion. Rather than fix the bottlenecks, they squeeze you instead. That way no infrastructure spend, more profit."

That's only true for wireless data. There is actually an exceptional amount of untapped "Dark Fiber" in the united states. How do you think Comcast simply doubles everyone's internet speed every time google fiber moves into town? Just a heads up, most of the time these companies are getting public money to build out their networks and often even fail to do that, just look what happened in NY, where Verizon is being sued for failing to expand it's network.

"You pay the internet provider for however many GB of data. You have the reasonable expectation you can use the service and that data however you choose."

In most countries you pay for a speed, not a capacity. It makes zero sense to charge by capacity because it doesn't solve the network congestion issue ISPs and phones companies claim. If you limit a person's GB, they are still most likely going to be using it during prime time like everyone else. Limiting GB is just going to force them into using it less during off hours.
 
Well, you only need so much speed to stream a video. If it still plays seamlessly then it really doesn't matter. By doing so may improve performance for everyone on that network segment. If you have network monitoring at home watch how the data is transferred when streaming video. It will download chucks at full bandwidth and then drop, then back to 100% and 0%. Many peaks and valleys, these peaks will effect other devices on the network, especially noticeable when gaming on another machine. By limiting the bandwidth of streaming devices and not letting them ever use 100% of the available bandwidth you avoid issues with other devices. It's surprising how little speed you need to steam video, I've had success at 6Mbs streaming from amazing prime.
 
That's only true for wireless data. There is actually an exceptional amount of untapped "Dark Fiber" in the united states. How do you think Comcast simply doubles everyone's internet speed every time google fiber moves into town? Just a heads up, most of the time these companies are getting public money to build out their networks and often even fail to do that, just look what happened in NY, where Verizon is being sued for failing to expand it's network.
Dark fiber does not solve overseas or out of network bottlenecks. Usually this is a direct cost based on bandwidth required.

Also dark fiber requires work to bring online including hardware costs. A 10gbit line over fiber costs more in initial hardware than a 1gbit link. Why? Because the hardware endpoints are not the same price and usually it will blow out in cost as you increase speed (I.e. at high end of speed spectrum you start paying a LOT more per gbit of hardware capacity). Sure a great chunk of the cost is already in the ground. That's good but it is also not the case everywhere.

In theory the network can provide uncapped data and max speeds for consumers but it is not the commercial reality. I want them to pay for the network we are paying them for so I don't think they should have any ground to say between 5pm - 10pm you only get 5% of your normal data rate. That's garbage - I want my data available when I'm home and awake. That's their problem.
 
Dark fiber does not solve overseas or out of network bottlenecks. Usually this is a direct cost based on bandwidth required.

Also dark fiber requires work to bring online including hardware costs. A 10gbit line over fiber costs more in initial hardware than a 1gbit link. Why? Because the hardware endpoints are not the same price and usually it will blow out in cost as you increase speed (I.e. at high end of speed spectrum you start paying a LOT more per gbit of hardware capacity). Sure a great chunk of the cost is already in the ground. That's good but it is also not the case everywhere.

In theory the network can provide uncapped data and max speeds for consumers but it is not the commercial reality. I want them to pay for the network we are paying them for so I don't think they should have any ground to say between 5pm - 10pm you only get 5% of your normal data rate. That's garbage - I want my data available when I'm home and awake. That's their problem.

First, Oversea networks and out of network bottlenecks are off topic, irregardless that companies like Netflix already pay companies like Level3 networks to solve just that problem.

"Usually this is a direct cost based on bandwidth required."

Like I repeated in my earlier post, obvious. It's sad that I have to state it again but my point was never that it was free or infinite, just that wired connections are much cheaper.

"Also dark fiber requires work to bring online including hardware costs. A 10gbit line over fiber costs more in initial hardware than a 1gbit link. Why? Because the hardware endpoints are not the same price and usually it will blow out in cost as you increase speed (I.e. at high end of speed spectrum you start paying a LOT more per gbit of hardware capacity)."

Um no. You do realize that fiber on poles is hung in multiple strands right? There are only a few places where higher speed strands are required, otherwise 99% of fiber is going to be lower speed multi-strand. Not to mention, the taxpayer is already footing the bill for many of these network build outs.
 
This is the same with Fios!! I did the speed test on Fast.com as I prefer it over speedtest.net. I am on a 50 Mbs Connection. I got 13 with Fast.com and 50 with Speedtest.net :( GRR Feakin Fios I thought it was owned by Frontier in my area!! I mean that is the name on my bill. This Throttling is Taking place in a Global hub for Verizon not just phones.
 
Well, you only need so much speed to stream a video. If it still plays seamlessly then it really doesn't matter. By doing so may improve performance for everyone on that network segment. If you have network monitoring at home watch how the data is transferred when streaming video. It will download chucks at full bandwidth and then drop, then back to 100% and 0%. Many peaks and valleys, these peaks will effect other devices on the network, especially noticeable when gaming on another machine. By limiting the bandwidth of streaming devices and not letting them ever use 100% of the available bandwidth you avoid issues with other devices. It's surprising how little speed you need to steam video, I've had success at 6Mbs streaming from amazing prime.

Many routers already have this capability. Unfortunately 6 Mbps is only good for lower quality videos and that's only taking into consideration a single device. A typical family of two adults and 2-3 children will each have phones and at least one other device.
 
Back