5 ms·

> we implement network management, which is significantly different than blanket throttling [Verizon spokesperson] Correct. It's selective throttling.

scarface74 8y ago
And I’m perfectly okay with that for wireless carriers. Unlike wired based data transport, you can’t just throw money at infrastructure and get more bandwidth. There is a known limit to how much data you can carry over a certain frequency and only certain frequencies are good for data.
- ehnto 8y ago
  Bad news for Australia, where people switch to their phone data when they need serious bandwidth because it's faster than our wired infrastructure.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    In the grand scheme of things, neither is our wired infrastructure in the US. Upload speeds are usually abysmal. Comcast’s gigabit plan costs over $100 has 35Mbps upload speed and still I believe has a data cap. But I don’t even bother getting on WiFi when I go somewhere. My cellular data is usually more reliable.
- Ajedi32 8y ago
  > you can’t just throw money at infrastructure and get more bandwidth Can't you? You can always just keep decreasing the size of the individual cells in the network, right? Surely we aren't hitting any strict limitations in that respect yet, are we?
  - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
    Of course you can do that. But each individual cell in an area raises the noise floor of that chunk of spectrum. And Shannon Information theory then has some pretty harsh things to say about that.
    - Retric 8y ago
      Outside of conventions that's a rather meaningless limitation. We could easily have 20x as many cell towers in the US without issue.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        Which doesn’t help depending on how congested the area it’s tryinb to cover. The biggest hurdle to getting more towers though is not the carrier, it’s city regulations.
        jessaustin 8y ago
        Smaller cells use less intrusive antennae, often not even mounted on towers. The really big towers are for big cells like those covering rural interstates. No one complains about those towers.
- close04 8y ago
  I also agree, under certain conditions. The main ones being that this has to be disclosed front and center when agreeing to sign the contract mentioning the relative priorities that different types of traffic will receive (ex: voice - high, video streaming - medium, web browsing - low) and it should differentiate exclusively based on traffic type, not particular sources (like throttling one streaming service but not another). It should also flag when this is happening and with which type of traffic so a user can clearly determine if the service is fit for use. Limiting bandwidth based on who pays more is just a new source of revenue disguised as network or congestion management. Now imagine you're driving down the road and some road authority does congestion management by pulling cars over based on how much money they threw at the toll barrier or by how much their car manufacturer is contributing to the respective authority each year. After all the road has a fixed capacity and almost 0 chances of increasing it. Any internet throttling rule that can be circumvented by paying for "priority" should be illegal.
- stefan_ 8y ago
  Except we are far away from these limits and instead have carriers aggressively throttling video (which then falls back to lower res) simply to obscure lacking infrastructure and investment.
  - aaaaaaaaaab 8y ago
    >which then falls back to lower res Another reason to adopt AV1 as soon as possible.

scarface74 8y ago

And I’m perfectly okay with that for wireless carriers. Unlike wired based data transport, you can’t just throw money at infrastructure and get more bandwidth. There is a known limit to how much data you can carry over a certain frequency and only certain frequencies are good for data.

ehnto 8y ago
Bad news for Australia, where people switch to their phone data when they need serious bandwidth because it's faster than our wired infrastructure.
- scarface74 8y ago
  In the grand scheme of things, neither is our wired infrastructure in the US. Upload speeds are usually abysmal. Comcast’s gigabit plan costs over $100 has 35Mbps upload speed and still I believe has a data cap. But I don’t even bother getting on WiFi when I go somewhere. My cellular data is usually more reliable.
Ajedi32 8y ago
> you can’t just throw money at infrastructure and get more bandwidth Can't you? You can always just keep decreasing the size of the individual cells in the network, right? Surely we aren't hitting any strict limitations in that respect yet, are we?
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  Of course you can do that. But each individual cell in an area raises the noise floor of that chunk of spectrum. And Shannon Information theory then has some pretty harsh things to say about that.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Outside of conventions that's a rather meaningless limitation. We could easily have 20x as many cell towers in the US without issue.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      Which doesn’t help depending on how congested the area it’s tryinb to cover. The biggest hurdle to getting more towers though is not the carrier, it’s city regulations.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        Smaller cells use less intrusive antennae, often not even mounted on towers. The really big towers are for big cells like those covering rural interstates. No one complains about those towers.
close04 8y ago
I also agree, under certain conditions. The main ones being that this has to be disclosed front and center when agreeing to sign the contract mentioning the relative priorities that different types of traffic will receive (ex: voice - high, video streaming - medium, web browsing - low) and it should differentiate exclusively based on traffic type, not particular sources (like throttling one streaming service but not another). It should also flag when this is happening and with which type of traffic so a user can clearly determine if the service is fit for use. Limiting bandwidth based on who pays more is just a new source of revenue disguised as network or congestion management. Now imagine you're driving down the road and some road authority does congestion management by pulling cars over based on how much money they threw at the toll barrier or by how much their car manufacturer is contributing to the respective authority each year. After all the road has a fixed capacity and almost 0 chances of increasing it. Any internet throttling rule that can be circumvented by paying for "priority" should be illegal.
stefan_ 8y ago
Except we are far away from these limits and instead have carriers aggressively throttling video (which then falls back to lower res) simply to obscure lacking infrastructure and investment.
- aaaaaaaaaab 8y ago
  >which then falls back to lower res Another reason to adopt AV1 as soon as possible.