3 ms·

Yes, it absolutely is a simple fix. This is the increasingly common case of an ISP wanting to have it's cake and eat it too. It's an analogy of course, but it

Yes, it absolutely is a simple fix. This is the increasingly common case of an ISP wanting to have it's cake and eat it too. It's an analogy of course, but it's a good one. Verizon has either a monopoly or a near monopoly on the last mile from POPs to it's customers. In other words customers have no choice or little choice but Verizon. And these customers pay Verizon for some amount of bandwidth and expect Verizon to make a good faith effort to deliver that bandwidth. The Terms & Conditions always say "up to X Mbps" because Verizon can't control network congestion once the data is off of Verizon's network. It might be that once the data leaves their network it has to go to Australia which has notoriously poor internet as a result of being kind-of out of the way. Or maybe it heads to Africa and starts making cell tower hops in which case it's going to be abysmal. But in this case Verizon isn't making a good-faith effort to deliver the bandwidth that their customers are paying for to them. What they want is to extract extra money from someone who also provides a service to their customers, namely Netflix or Level3. Why do they want to do this? It's hard to say for sure. Trying to make extra profits, trying to keep Netflix slow and encourage people to subscribe to Verizon cable TV, spite? We can't know. But what is clear is that this isn't the fault of Netflix or Level3. Level3 has said they will upgrade their side of the connection for free which would reduce congestion and Netflix has offered to locate servers on the Verizon network for free, which would reduce the Verizon/Level3 network congestion. But Verizon refuses to accept either of those offers. Why? I'll venture a guess: it's not because they have the best interests of their customers in mind. If they did, they would have upgraded already. To me it seems like they're abusing monopoly(ish) power.

Zikes 12y ago
> Level3 has said they will upgrade their side of the connection for free which would reduce congestion and Netflix has offered to locate servers on the Verizon network for free, which would reduce the Verizon/Level3 network congestion. They're not necessarily doing this "for free", but as a part of the service their customers have already bought and paid for. It's not doing anything extra, it's normal operations, it's keeping the promise the business made to the customer, which is the opposite of what Verizon is doing in this case.
- msandford 12y ago
  Yeah that's a good point. What I meant was "without any charge to Verizon"
  - Zikes 12y ago
    Absolutely, and you made the point well. I think when companies start butting heads like this, some people don't recognize that it's not just some corporate bank account, but the results of the dollars they've already given for the services they've signed up for. I think that disconnect is responsible for a lot of the lack of outrage around this.
digikata 12y ago
I wonder if Verizon's customers could form a class action lawsuit accusing it of failing in good faith to deliver bandwidth from Netflix due to intentionally congested handover points.
- snoopdug 12y ago
  Verizon has been given immunity from the threat of a class action by virtue of its arbitration clause class action waiver. Same is true comcast, AT&T etc. You can thank the Supreme Court for this.
  - digikata 12y ago
    Hmm, I've heard of immunity over class action wiretap related issues, but bandwidth delivery too? Any references? "class action immunity verizon" just has too much noise.
  - PeterisP 12y ago
    Aren't such waivers automatically null and void at least in some states? In EU, such disclaimers are simply a waste of ink, but I recall seeing that some USA states had gone that way as well.
- snoopdug 12y ago
  http://media.mofo.com/files/Uploads/Images/130725-Employment-Law-Commentary.pdf http://media.mofo.com/files/Uploads/Images/130725-Employment... "Thus, class-action waivers must be enforced regardless of the consequences for the vindication of small-value claims, state or federal." also, http://www.cbs46.com/story/24388303/consumer-advocates-fine-print-could-rob-consumers-of-right-to-sue#.UtAq-G3tWfA.twitter http://www.cbs46.com/story/24388303/consumer-advocates-fine-... also http://publicjustice.net/content/tribe-scotus-denying-access-justice-because-it%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Canti-court-court%E2%80%9D http://publicjustice.net/content/tribe-scotus-denying-access... also http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2014/05/forced-arbitration-denies-justice-victims-fraud-and-discrimination http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2014/05/forced-arbi... So any disputes with verizon cannot go to court, they have to be arbitrated. Further, there cannot be a class arbitration. So to vindicate your rights against verizon, you'd have to be willing to bring an individual arbitration against Verizon and bear the costs of doing so which will be exponentially more than the value of your claim. In essence, these clauses immunize corporations from liability under antitrust laws, consumer protection laws; employment laws etc. It is a terrible situation created by a Supreme Court that despises class actions.

Zikes 12y ago

> Level3 has said they will upgrade their side of the connection for free which would reduce congestion and Netflix has offered to locate servers on the Verizon network for free, which would reduce the Verizon/Level3 network congestion. They're not necessarily doing this "for free", but as a part of the service their customers have already bought and paid for. It's not doing anything extra, it's normal operations, it's keeping the promise the business made to the customer, which is the opposite of what Verizon is doing in this case.

msandford 12y ago
Yeah that's a good point. What I meant was "without any charge to Verizon"
- Zikes 12y ago
  Absolutely, and you made the point well. I think when companies start butting heads like this, some people don't recognize that it's not just some corporate bank account, but the results of the dollars they've already given for the services they've signed up for. I think that disconnect is responsible for a lot of the lack of outrage around this.

digikata 12y ago

I wonder if Verizon's customers could form a class action lawsuit accusing it of failing in good faith to deliver bandwidth from Netflix due to intentionally congested handover points.

snoopdug 12y ago
Verizon has been given immunity from the threat of a class action by virtue of its arbitration clause class action waiver. Same is true comcast, AT&T etc. You can thank the Supreme Court for this.
- digikata 12y ago
  Hmm, I've heard of immunity over class action wiretap related issues, but bandwidth delivery too? Any references? "class action immunity verizon" just has too much noise.
- PeterisP 12y ago
  Aren't such waivers automatically null and void at least in some states? In EU, such disclaimers are simply a waste of ink, but I recall seeing that some USA states had gone that way as well.
snoopdug 12y ago
http://media.mofo.com/files/Uploads/Images/130725-Employment-Law-Commentary.pdf http://media.mofo.com/files/Uploads/Images/130725-Employment... "Thus, class-action waivers must be enforced regardless of the consequences for the vindication of small-value claims, state or federal." also, http://www.cbs46.com/story/24388303/consumer-advocates-fine-print-could-rob-consumers-of-right-to-sue#.UtAq-G3tWfA.twitter http://www.cbs46.com/story/24388303/consumer-advocates-fine-... also http://publicjustice.net/content/tribe-scotus-denying-access-justice-because-it%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Canti-court-court%E2%80%9D http://publicjustice.net/content/tribe-scotus-denying-access... also http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2014/05/forced-arbitration-denies-justice-victims-fraud-and-discrimination http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2014/05/forced-arbi... So any disputes with verizon cannot go to court, they have to be arbitrated. Further, there cannot be a class arbitration. So to vindicate your rights against verizon, you'd have to be willing to bring an individual arbitration against Verizon and bear the costs of doing so which will be exponentially more than the value of your claim. In essence, these clauses immunize corporations from liability under antitrust laws, consumer protection laws; employment laws etc. It is a terrible situation created by a Supreme Court that despises class actions.