PDA

View Full Version : Verizon Denies Throttling Netflix, Amazon AWS



Teh One Who Knocks
02-07-2014, 12:42 PM
By Chloe Albanesius - PC Magazine


http://i.imgur.com/60cVg3Q.jpg

Verizon this week denied taking advantage of its recent net neutrality victory to throttle traffic and punish bandwidth-heavy services like Netflix.

"We treat all traffic equally, and that has not changed," Verizon Communications said in a statement.

At issue is a blog post from David Raphael, a developer with iScan, who said that he and his boss had been experiencing significant service slowdowns with their Verizon FiOS Internet service. Raphael did a speed test at home and compared that to speeds while hooked up to VPN, and his home connection was much slower (40kB/s vs. 5000kB/s).

Raphael contacted Verizon support and after a lengthy trouble-shooting session, he asked the rep if Verizon was "limiting bandwidth to cloud providers like Amazon's AWS service?" The rep replied: "Yes, it is limited bandwidth to cloud providers."

Netflix and a number of other popular Web-based services use Amazon AWS, so Raphael concluded that the move is "Verizon waging war against Netflix."

"Unfortunately, a lot of infrastructure is hosted on AWS. That means a lot of services are going to be impacted by this," he wrote.

Verizon, however, denied that this was the case. "Many factors can affect the speed a customer experiences for a specific site, including, that site's servers, the way the traffic is routed over the Internet, and other considerations," the company said. "We are looking into this specific matter, but the company representative was mistaken. We are going to redouble our representative education efforts on this topic."

A Netflix spokesman declined to comment. Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The news comes shortly after an appeals court ruled in Verizon's favor and struck down the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules. Those rules banned ISPs from discriminating against specific apps or services in order to boost service to others. If Verizon was experiencing a traffic surge, it could slow down its traffic overhaul, for example, but could not cut off access to Netflix or BitTorrent, for example, to ease traffic woes.

Though this whole debate started when Comcast was accused of blocking access to BitTorrent back in 2007, the ISPs claim that competition keeps them from nefarious blocking policies and that the FCC's net neutrality rules serve only as an impediment to innovation. Basically, they agree with the what the rules say, but do not believe the FCC has the authority to regulate the issue. When they were put in place, Verizon sued on that point, and the court agreed.

Supporters of the net neutrality rules argue that it's needed to keep ISPs in check, and to provide consumers - like Raphael - with the means to complain if they believe they are being treated unfairly.

Right now, the FCC is weighing its options as to the future of its rules. But several Democratic members of Congress have introduced a bill that would reinstate the rules while the FCC decides what to do.

PorkChopSandwiches
02-07-2014, 04:32 PM
This is going to be a disaster if it isnt overturned

Acid Trip
02-07-2014, 05:50 PM
Verizon owns their lines/fiber so Verizon should be able to do whatever the heck they want with them. If you don't like it then don't use Verizon.

Teh One Who Knocks
02-07-2014, 06:02 PM
Verizon owns their lines/fiber so Verizon should be able to do whatever the heck they want with them. If you don't like it then don't use Verizon.

Some people have no choice when it comes to utilities, hence the Net Neutrality legislation.

FBD
02-07-2014, 06:13 PM
QoS has been around for quite a while. There is no reason a carrier should be prevented by law from having a particular service overwhelm their bandwidth capacities. They have an obligation to all of their users and the obligation is NOT unlimited bandwidth for whatever.

The government pulls all kinds of shit in the very same name of "keeping services at a higher level for everyone across the board"

Teh One Who Knocks
02-07-2014, 06:22 PM
They have an obligation to all of their users and the obligation is NOT unlimited bandwidth for whatever.

And a lot of ISP's have that in place, you are allowed so much bandwidth per month (Comcast used to be 250 gigs/month, but they suspended the cap awhile ago and have yet to reinstate it). If you as a business decide to allow unlimited bandwidth to your customers, then that's your fault. As a consumer, if your only option is "ISP X" and that's what your stuck with, then you shouldn't also be forced to use what ISP X thinks you should have (i.e. ISP X's movie service instead of Netflix).

PorkChopSandwiches
02-07-2014, 08:48 PM
I pay verizon for 50 gig connection, I should be able to have 50 gb dedicated to netflix if I decide I want to watch a movie and nothing else. All this is, is a way for these internet providers who are also your cable providers to end up screwing you. They are losing their asses do to people moving from traditional TV to internet content and since they are aren't providing the content you want, like netflix does they lose money. So they will use this law to force netflix to pay them a premium to not be throttled, even though the consumer has already paid for a "big pipe", which will then be handed back down to the customer of netflix.

FBD
02-08-2014, 03:35 PM
So in other words, what that's telling you is that netflix is so cheap that it is not really accounting for how much bandwidth it could potentially use and what that is going to cost them as a company. When you go over your allocated bandwitdh...no problem charging you more or throttling the speed back, because that's what you paid for...but a company that provides a service that happens to be popular should have no additional obligation if its service takes up a significant percentage of an ISP's bandwidth? And the ISP is expected to eat that charge and still provide the same quality of service to its other users?

Sorry, not getting your guys point here. All I'm getting is wahhhh, I shouldnt have to pay any more for netflix and if it gets too big and the government doesnt force the ISPs to eat the loss then wahhh its going to be users of netflix that wind up paying for it? Somebody's gotta be the loser in this situation and the laws of supply and demand are generally better for the end user rather than government laws telling the businesses how to run their shops and what they may charge people.

:-k Am I missing something?