FCC Chairman Rejects Verizon's Throttling Defense

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
This just keeps getting better and better. Too bad we'll have to wait until Monday for a response from Verizon.

Verizon's justification that it should be able to slow down its most active unlimited data customers doesn't fly with Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler. "'All the kids do it' is something that never worked with me when I was growing up, and it didn't work my kids," Wheeler said, a reference to Verizon's argument that its policy was consistent with the other wireless carriers.
Click to expand...
 
In other words, Tom means to say "Guys, c'mon, I really want to help you here, but you can't give me childish responses. Go back and draft something more responsible sounding so I can clearly support your stance."

I fully expect Verizon to still get their way here.
 
I think you're right too. But, what will fix this? Data isn't going to go away, probably just be even more consumer heavy 10 years from now. What happens then? Cell bills of $300 or more?
 
Verizon has argued that it doesn't "throttle" its customers because even if it slows down a connection, it is for a temporary period to help alleviate a specific bandwidth problem. That differs from the policy that a company like T-Mobile has, which will slow down the connection of a customer once they hit their allotted amount of data.
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. T-Mobile slows down a connection when the data a customer has paid for is used up. In the same situation, Verizon will charge ridiculous overage fees. T-Mobile customers have the option to upgrade to a larger block of data at any time (and then change back the next month if they want). Ask people which model they would prefer and the results won't be surprising.
 
Shotglass01 said:
I think you're right too. But, what will fix this? Data isn't going to go away, probably just be even more consumer heavy 10 years from now. What happens then? Cell bills of $300 or more?
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. The congestion is artificial, so Verizon can extort a payoff from Netflix
 
Not really, I know it's artificial. It's just trumped up "scarcity." What I mean is that all these carriers have caps in place and charge you for going over or throttle you when you go over. What I am asking is, even though it is artificial, how will the carriers deal with massive spikes in wireless data demand in the coming years? It's only going to get more mobile, more data hungry.
 
We don't throttle we strategically reduce available bandwidth, that's a huge difference between what our competitors do... which is throttle.
 
Meanwhile, in the break room:

FCC: lol!

Verizon!: lmao!
 
ravx25 said:
In other words, Tom means to say "Guys, c'mon, I really want to help you here, but you can't give me childish responses. Go back and draft something more responsible sounding so I can clearly support your stance."

I fully expect Verizon to still get their way here.
Click to expand...

Ugh, you sound right, but I hope dearly that you are wrong.
 
ravx25 said:
In other words, Tom means to say "Guys, c'mon, I really want to help you here, but you can't give me childish responses. Go back and draft something more responsible sounding so I can clearly support your stance."

I fully expect Verizon to still get their way here.
Click to expand...

HansBrix.jpg
 
Somewhere a bunch of politicians just received calls reminding them of certain campaign donations.
 
If people weren't such saps about wireless Internet devices to begin with--as in "We'll pay anything to have it!"--all wireless-dom would cost far less than it does currently, regardless of carrier. I think overall that wireless customers are huge suckers and Verizon saw them coming a mile away and did the appropriate thing with FiOS--which was to stop its roll-out dead in the water. Wired is so much faster, cheaper, and more reliable (and therefore far less profitable)--especially when you can get very close in proximity to your fiber connection.

The FCC in this case is just doing political grandstanding--and it isn't at all unusual to see government getting its "information" from people who are little more than arm-chair speculators who come up with all kinds of off-the-wall theories they throw against the wall in the hopes that one of them will stick. "When I was a little boy..." stories are amusing in a political sense, but are otherwise bereft of any actual technical information or value.
 
I'm not so sure that Netflix is the only thing being throttled these days.

My 85/85 connection tests as such, but it sure doesn't feel like it in actual use.
 
Everyone says they love the idea of net neutrality. I think the idea is a load of shit. The net shouldn't be neutral, nor should it be geared to benefit a small number of companies. The peons don't even know what they really want anyway. They need to be told what to think and how to feel. This is essentially the argument.

I want my nextflix to load instantly, I can't stand the 10 second buffer wait time!
I want all packets to be treated equal!

Those two points are 180 degree polar opposites. By demanding better bandwidth for netflix you are essentially creating an non neutral net. By demanding net neutrality you are by default demanding a lower connection speed with netflix. Since the netflix traffic can not be routed in an optimal way because some grandma is opening an email, some parent is using a voip phone to call their kids, some business is transferring company data to a remote employee. Sorry House of cards you need to go to the back of the line.
 
m heisty said:
Everyone says they love the idea of net neutrality. I think the idea is a load of shit. The net shouldn't be neutral, nor should it be geared to benefit a small number of companies. The peons don't even know what they really want anyway. They need to be told what to think and how to feel. This is essentially the argument.

I want my nextflix to load instantly, I can't stand the 10 second buffer wait time!
I want all packets to be treated equal!

Those two points are 180 degree polar opposites. By demanding better bandwidth for netflix you are essentially creating an non neutral net. By demanding net neutrality you are by default demanding a lower connection speed with netflix. Since the netflix traffic can not be routed in an optimal way because some grandma is opening an email, some parent is using a voip phone to call their kids, some business is transferring company data to a remote employee. Sorry House of cards you need to go to the back of the line.
Click to expand...


Uh, no.... They want neutrality to prevent ISPs from throttling whatever they please in order to extort more money, which is exactly what they are doing now.
 
QOS should only play a part if the network is 100% saturated. The the pipe's not full, no throttling of any traffic whatsoever. There's how many TB/s of fiber out there in the backbones? And how much more just sitting dark for any number of reasons?
 
CombatChrisNC said:
QOS should only play a part if the network is 100% saturated. The the pipe's not full, no throttling of any traffic whatsoever. There's how many TB/s of fiber out there in the backbones? And how much more just sitting dark for any number of reasons?
Click to expand...

Dark fiber can't really be factored into the equation. Much of it was put in place by public entities that can now no longer operate legally due to changes in laws. (Not saying I agree or disagree with this just stating the facts.) Network saturation is likely much higher than anyone will care to admit. The providers don't want to seem like they have done shitty planning and forecasting and were caught flat footed, those who are against the providers don't want network saturation to be a real thing because it would invalidate most of their arguments.
 
TechLarry said:
I'm not so sure that Netflix is the only thing being throttled these days.

My 85/85 connection tests as such, but it sure doesn't feel like it in actual use.
Click to expand...

When doing a speedtest, try a connection from locations that aren't located in immediate proximity to you. The difference in speedtest to a local Seattle site versus one farther to the east is significant during peak hours. Off-hours, the speeds are the same (~56/12), but at the peak of the day, anything not local drops to less than 1/5 of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top