11 ms·

I would not take some offhanded remark from an outsourced, minimum wage, offshore worker as confirmation of anything.

RyanZAG 13y ago
By far the most correct observation. These guys are just following a script - they probably don't even know what half of the words mean. Please don't read anything into it or assume the outsourced support is somehow privy to anything at all that goes on inside Verizon other than what the FAQ system he's using tells him on screen.
- squigs25 13y ago
  I wouldn't read into this even if it wasn't an outsourced support person. But the proof is in the pudding, the speed tests speak for themselves, no?
  - incongruity 13y ago
    But the proof is in the pudding, the speed tests speak for themselves, no? That's exactly it -- multiple, independent yet individually unreliable measures can actually produce very reliable aggregate evidence through convergence. This is particularly true if one uses abductive reasoning, but IIRC, there's statistical proof behind this idea as well... That is to say that the speed tests say something and the chat says something, but together, they begin to paint an troublesome picture. Combine that with the timing and it starts to look bad. More data points will add to that convergent picture, of course...
  - kordless 13y ago
    As they say, a leading question's answer is usually no. We need this to be verified by someone with intricate knowledge of whatever is going on inside Verizon's network. The number of people with the exact knowledge of what is going on will be necessarily limited.
- waps 13y ago
  The netflix data itself points to a gradual lowering of bandwidth to their service. Now here's 2 scenarios : 1) Verizon decided to enter some router configurations that affect the packet forwarding to Netflix (well, most likely FROM netflix, as the internet is not actually symmetrical). What we should see as a result of this is a sudden change in bandwidth. 2) The load on the interfaces in between is changing, either because of more netflix subscribers, more AWS traffic, or more netflix traffic. Since these are things happening slowly over time, you'd see a gradual worsening of traffic conditions. I think it's pretty fucking likely that what's happening here is 2). Now granted, Verizon could solve this problem by cooperating with Netflix. But for them that's an expense with no upside, so likely they're demanding Netflix make it worth their while to upgrade the interconnects. This is one of the basic problems with the internet today. It used to be the case that bandwidth between providers was much more plentiful than last-mile bandwidth. So we upgraded last-mile bandwidth. Problem : doing that resulted in an exponential increase in load on the core network and the interconnects between different networks. Needless to say, nobody can keep up with exponentially rising demands (especially without subscriber growth). The basic problem is that a linear increase in bandwidth for the customer results in an exponential increase in costs for the ISP (so -surpise- small ISPs don't feel the effects nearly as badly). So ISPs are desperate. Their costs are spiralling out of control, with everyone demanding they follow this exponential curve, but of course their customers not willing to pay for it (and all the money in the world would only buy time if thrown at this problem). Demanding the ISPs pay for it is simply not going to work. Right now, yes, they could theoretically pay for it, but that won't last long. Plus Netflix is being a rather bad netizen themselves. The polite thing to do is to carry the traffic to very close to the user on your own network, and only use other's links, especially transit, as a last resort ("cold-potato" routing, for content providers). Netflix has caches, but no own network. There's other problems that result from this cost problem. Already transcontinental and other long-haul links are strained to the limit. This has resulted in a massive degradation of non-local internet traffic, and it's getting worse fast. It is really a very simple problem. You have consumers, and you have producers. And you get more and more of each. To a limited approximation you can assume everyone on the internet is both. To simplify things, let's say everyone uses a tiny amount of everyone else's services. Now given N participants in the network, what is the load on the core network ? N * (N - 1) =~ N^2 (assuming full duplex links, which would be generally correct for the internet) So adding more participants in the internet increases resources required to give every existing participant in the network his "old" speed. These need to be paid for. But unless everyone want to start paying an amount for your internet connections that rises with the square of the size of the internet, we're going to see progressively worse and worse throttling. Right now the strategy is fast becoming limiting interconnect capacity to prevent the core network overloading, which would have far worse consequences. While, yes, historically this has mostly been monopolies cheating the market, that's less and less true. This is going to get worse, fast. And since those resources are obviously not going to be made available, there's only one thing to say : Get used to it.
- rosser 13y ago
  I'd be with you if you'd said, "By for the most likely correct observation." But you're asserting the truth of this position, not its probability, and I don't think anyone participating in this discussion thus far has sufficient information to do that.
waterlesscloud 13y ago
You're right. It would take a top executive paid a minimum of 7 figures before we could trust what they tell us.
nashashmi 13y ago
And this is the reason why I cannot make a complaint about Verizon that will stick. Verizon purposely hires or makes it seem they hire crappy technical people. But when a person does 'know' either through some confidential/proprietary memo or through technical know-how, people begin to have doubts on the quality of the information. I had a deep fight with Verizon over a chromebook 3g service that they no longer offered, and I tried to get a copy of the internal memo that said the service was cancelled, but they would not give it to me. And everybody thought that the person I spoke to was lying.
cbaleanu 13y ago
The title of this article is also very misleading. Did not find any reference to the neutrality law in the article.
- kevinchen 13y ago
  Verizon throttling AWS has nothing to do with net neutrality?
  - cbaleanu 13y ago
    Did you even read the article? It's more about low available bandwidth + more users, visible in the afternoons, when he is at home, in his residential area. Comparing speed there with what he has at the office, after office hours, he gets an 'yes' to his questions from a guy most likely located on a different continent. I still don't see the net neutrality issue in the article.
lerk 13y ago
They don't get a minimum wage. That's the reason they're off shore.
whitef0x 13y ago
Also I do not think that Verizon would be targeting Amazon's S3 platform, even if it was a small subsection of it. Too many webservices use it and Amazon is no small player either. There are easier ways to limit Netflix bandwidth through data stream throttling like they do for torrents.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
senthil_rajasek 13y ago
How did you conclude that this was a "remark from an outsourced, minimum wage, offshore worker" ? The author was talking to a Verizon customer support.
netneutrohno 13y ago
Yup, Verizon confirmed that it isn't throttling anything. http://bgr.com/2014/02/05/verizon-throttling-netflix-amazon-aws http://bgr.com/2014/02/05/verizon-throttling-netflix-amazon-...
- darkarmani 13y ago
  Too bad there is proof that they are throttling. Whether it is by policy or accident, they speed differences indicate that they are affecting it.

By far the most correct observation. These guys are just following a script - they probably don't even know what half of the words mean. Please don't read anything into it or assume the outsourced support is somehow privy to anything at all that goes on inside Verizon other than what the FAQ system he's using tells him on screen.

squigs25 13y ago
I wouldn't read into this even if it wasn't an outsourced support person. But the proof is in the pudding, the speed tests speak for themselves, no?
- incongruity 13y ago
  But the proof is in the pudding, the speed tests speak for themselves, no? That's exactly it -- multiple, independent yet individually unreliable measures can actually produce very reliable aggregate evidence through convergence. This is particularly true if one uses abductive reasoning, but IIRC, there's statistical proof behind this idea as well... That is to say that the speed tests say something and the chat says something, but together, they begin to paint an troublesome picture. Combine that with the timing and it starts to look bad. More data points will add to that convergent picture, of course...
- kordless 13y ago
  As they say, a leading question's answer is usually no. We need this to be verified by someone with intricate knowledge of whatever is going on inside Verizon's network. The number of people with the exact knowledge of what is going on will be necessarily limited.
waps 13y ago
The netflix data itself points to a gradual lowering of bandwidth to their service. Now here's 2 scenarios : 1) Verizon decided to enter some router configurations that affect the packet forwarding to Netflix (well, most likely FROM netflix, as the internet is not actually symmetrical). What we should see as a result of this is a sudden change in bandwidth. 2) The load on the interfaces in between is changing, either because of more netflix subscribers, more AWS traffic, or more netflix traffic. Since these are things happening slowly over time, you'd see a gradual worsening of traffic conditions. I think it's pretty fucking likely that what's happening here is 2). Now granted, Verizon could solve this problem by cooperating with Netflix. But for them that's an expense with no upside, so likely they're demanding Netflix make it worth their while to upgrade the interconnects. This is one of the basic problems with the internet today. It used to be the case that bandwidth between providers was much more plentiful than last-mile bandwidth. So we upgraded last-mile bandwidth. Problem : doing that resulted in an exponential increase in load on the core network and the interconnects between different networks. Needless to say, nobody can keep up with exponentially rising demands (especially without subscriber growth). The basic problem is that a linear increase in bandwidth for the customer results in an exponential increase in costs for the ISP (so -surpise- small ISPs don't feel the effects nearly as badly). So ISPs are desperate. Their costs are spiralling out of control, with everyone demanding they follow this exponential curve, but of course their customers not willing to pay for it (and all the money in the world would only buy time if thrown at this problem). Demanding the ISPs pay for it is simply not going to work. Right now, yes, they could theoretically pay for it, but that won't last long. Plus Netflix is being a rather bad netizen themselves. The polite thing to do is to carry the traffic to very close to the user on your own network, and only use other's links, especially transit, as a last resort ("cold-potato" routing, for content providers). Netflix has caches, but no own network. There's other problems that result from this cost problem. Already transcontinental and other long-haul links are strained to the limit. This has resulted in a massive degradation of non-local internet traffic, and it's getting worse fast. It is really a very simple problem. You have consumers, and you have producers. And you get more and more of each. To a limited approximation you can assume everyone on the internet is both. To simplify things, let's say everyone uses a tiny amount of everyone else's services. Now given N participants in the network, what is the load on the core network ? N * (N - 1) =~ N^2 (assuming full duplex links, which would be generally correct for the internet) So adding more participants in the internet increases resources required to give every existing participant in the network his "old" speed. These need to be paid for. But unless everyone want to start paying an amount for your internet connections that rises with the square of the size of the internet, we're going to see progressively worse and worse throttling. Right now the strategy is fast becoming limiting interconnect capacity to prevent the core network overloading, which would have far worse consequences. While, yes, historically this has mostly been monopolies cheating the market, that's less and less true. This is going to get worse, fast. And since those resources are obviously not going to be made available, there's only one thing to say : Get used to it.
rosser 13y ago
I'd be with you if you'd said, "By for the most likely correct observation." But you're asserting the truth of this position, not its probability, and I don't think anyone participating in this discussion thus far has sufficient information to do that.

waterlesscloud 13y ago

You're right. It would take a top executive paid a minimum of 7 figures before we could trust what they tell us.

nashashmi 13y ago

And this is the reason why I cannot make a complaint about Verizon that will stick. Verizon purposely hires or makes it seem they hire crappy technical people. But when a person does 'know' either through some confidential/proprietary memo or through technical know-how, people begin to have doubts on the quality of the information. I had a deep fight with Verizon over a chromebook 3g service that they no longer offered, and I tried to get a copy of the internal memo that said the service was cancelled, but they would not give it to me. And everybody thought that the person I spoke to was lying.

cbaleanu 13y ago

The title of this article is also very misleading. Did not find any reference to the neutrality law in the article.

kevinchen 13y ago
Verizon throttling AWS has nothing to do with net neutrality?
- cbaleanu 13y ago
  Did you even read the article? It's more about low available bandwidth + more users, visible in the afternoons, when he is at home, in his residential area. Comparing speed there with what he has at the office, after office hours, he gets an 'yes' to his questions from a guy most likely located on a different continent. I still don't see the net neutrality issue in the article.

lerk 13y ago

They don't get a minimum wage. That's the reason they're off shore.

whitef0x 13y ago

Also I do not think that Verizon would be targeting Amazon's S3 platform, even if it was a small subsection of it. Too many webservices use it and Amazon is no small player either. There are easier ways to limit Netflix bandwidth through data stream throttling like they do for torrents.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

senthil_rajasek 13y ago

How did you conclude that this was a "remark from an outsourced, minimum wage, offshore worker" ? The author was talking to a Verizon customer support.

netneutrohno 13y ago

Yup, Verizon confirmed that it isn't throttling anything. http://bgr.com/2014/02/05/verizon-throttling-netflix-amazon-aws http://bgr.com/2014/02/05/verizon-throttling-netflix-amazon-...

darkarmani 13y ago
Too bad there is proof that they are throttling. Whether it is by policy or accident, they speed differences indicate that they are affecting it.