Child Item

Site Totals

61264 Questions Answered 267 Categories

Are You Slowing Down The Internet For Everyone or Just Your Customers?

Hi,

I heard you are going to decide which websites we can visit easily and which ones we will have a hard time connecting to.

Is this just for people with Verizon Service?

If so, I want to switch to a different service provider because you are too arrogant to do business with.

Who give you the right to limit my choice of which websites I can go to?

Comments

El-Gordo

Unfortunately this appears to be in the works and it gets worse... I just read 2 days ago that Verizon is trying to get into bed with Google to "start the process of putting a lid on unrestricted internet access".

So, it appears the time has come if these Goliath do get married to start looking for 1). A new service provider and there are many smaller ones that don't do this kind of crap and 2). Scrap Google and use a different search engine and delete/remove all associated software from both companies.

I have 768k DSL, the max I can get due to distance limitations from the CO. I just notice for certain and started monitoring my DSL service as it has dropped speed down to an average of 265kbps since 8/3/10. I've put in 3 tickets to get it fixed so far and the fix was actually "doctored" by the Verizon techs to reflect "flashing modem lights" as the cause for the TS call when it has been the same all along... Slow Internet Connection.

If I don't hear something positive and see my service return to normal 768k +/- 10k as it has been for YEARS I'm going to start filing complaints with appropriate consumer protection agencies because this is **bleep**. I did get a 2nd tier support tech on 8/5/10 but still have not heard back or seen any positive change in my DSL performance, actually it has gotten worse since that tech call was made. I was getting 375k on the 5th, now I'm down to 265k.

Grrrrrr

Cecelskij

Hi,

Of course they will never admit to purposely slowing down connection speeds.

But whats to stop them from slowing down or even blocking one customer to give access to a customer who is paying more?

They are already admitting to wanting to giving preference to premium business web sites so why would they have a problem with giving preference to one customer over another?

My confusion is over how they are going to do it.

Are they just going to slow down access for their own customers when they try to get onto non-premium websites or are they going to slow down the signal when it is just through their servers on its way to other servers?

Either way, their own customers are going to have limited access.

How can they not see that this is going to make everyone mad at them?

lasagna

I believe this to be much ado about nothing ... this is not a case of "slowing down" traffic, but of traffic prioritization, bandwidth management, caching, etc. Unfortunately when the media gets ahold of these topics and doesn't understand the technical details behind what is being discussed, they misquote information, make flat out incorrect claims, and generally get the story wrong. It's "gotcha journalism" at it's finest and is unfortunately all to often the preferred type of reporting over actually getting and understanding the real details.

While net-neutrality is an important topic, people need to realize that this comes in many flavors. As it applies to the internet in general, this means not blocking or otherwise purposely impeding traffic to a specific network or for a specific protocol over any one other protocol "over the public network". Remember-- the internet is a public network of "best effort" delivery and not a network of guaranteed delivery -- this is why many enterprises still rely on private network connectivity to interconnect their sites and not VPN's or other techniques for going over the internet. On private networks, the concept of "Quality of Service" or QOS has been around for years and is commonly used to prioritize delivery of certain types of traffic over others (for example, VoIP real-time traffic supersedes regular web traffic). There is nothing wrong with this from a net-neutrality perspective as long as they don't block one provider's traffic over another's within the "public" cloud (for example, allowing VoIP to Verizon owned Digital Voice servers but blocking Vonage).

In the Google/Verizon story, there are two particular topics being discussed it would appear:

1. Optimization of Verizon networks to allow delivery of Google content to customers without violating net-neutrality tenents on wired connections.

2. Optimization of Verizon WIRELESS networks to give a better user experience for content deliver of a types which typically do not perform well in this environment.

In the first case, this is nothing new. Companies like Akamai and other content provider networks have for years been assisting large scale data providers with optimizing traffic delivery by bypassing the "public cloud" and using private networks to optimize and deliver content to distributed data points around the globe which are geographically close to the "last mile" network connection points for consumers. You think you see one website, but in fact, this website is replicated across hundreds or thousands of sites and delivered locally to your computer based on where you are. This is particularly true of video content. Google is likely speaking to Verizon about leveraging capabilities to get content closer to end user points to provide a better user experience for their customers -- perhaps buying "private" Verizon cloud space and data center space to make this happen. In the example from above about VoIP traffic, there is nothing wrong with Verizon allocating private network space to redirect Digital Voice traffic off their "public cloud" and into a private voice network for Verizon servers -- just as long as in the "big bucket" internet pipe they don't otherwise de-prioritize or block other providers VoIP traffic.

In the latter case, it is a well known situation that wireless delivery over cellular networks really isn't truly "net neutral" and never has been on any carriers network. The physics of how the data is packetized and delivered is entirely different and this is why you companies like AT&T swimming in wireless delivery issues because of the huge demand set that was created when the iPhone hit the streets. In this scenario, Google is likely looking to optimize the delivery of streaming content such as video (from Youtube, etc.) so that it can be served across the Verizon network to Verizon devices in as efficient manner as possible. Working "with" the carrier to optimize content instead of dictating how the content will be delivered and hoping the carrier can figure out how to handle it.

Sure, it's a fine line between favoring one vendor over another, but "end of the world" scenarios that people have been reporting are forthcoming simply isn't true.

Hubrisnxs

excellent explanation, a good write up can be found @engadget which calls the Verizon-Google announcement "a well-thought out policy proposal. http://bit.ly/cnQicC

via the vz twitter bar at the right

RetiredDBA

Come on lasagna, we all know that all big corporations are villainous monsters whose purpose is to reduce us common folks to mere slaves, and who are led by sociopaths who have managed to stay out of reform school. Any hollywod movie can teach us that.

Seriously, your explanation is a lot better than "gotcha journalism". But gotcha journalism builds market share. This has been true since the days of William Randolph Hearst.

MayeSea

Really?!, It seems as if you are aware of what is actually happening and the STATED goals of the cable companies. The question you should address is: What are you getting in return for selling out?

Internet neutrality has been stripped and in it's place we are supposed to TRUST our cable company to NOT hold our access hostage for more money .... are you naive enough to believe that cable companies will not take advantage of multiplying their revenue by tens or hundreds of times in the interest of "customer service" .... lol?

Worse still, the PTBE's (the powers that be) will now control the CONTENT of EVERYTHING we see ... rather than a search engine returning the most pertenent information or website, it will now return the most commercialized. It is not the end of the "world" as we know it .... only the digital world.

[Deleted User]

As this thread is now over seven years old, it will be locked in order to keep discussions current. If you have the same or a similar question/issue we invite you to start a new thread on the topic.

Child Item