Now we see what happens when Trump picks an ex Verizon goon to run the FCC. They are already salivating over the prospect of dismantled net neutrality regulations
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Verizon Throttling Netflix Traffic as Part of Temporary Video Optimization Test
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Now we see what happens when Trump picks an ex Verizon goon to run the FCC. They are already salivating over the prospect of dismantled net neutrality regulations
The thing he didn't mention is latency. When you take that into account, it's not 5X faster. You have to make 3 trips to set up a TCP connection. Say your ping is 150ms. If you're only downloading 1MiB (~2MP jpeg image), that's a total of ~1.22 seconds vs ~0.45 seconds for 8mbit/s vs 35mbit/s, under the false assumption that TCP will download at full data rate immediately. There's also a warmup period, so realistically, it'll be less of a difference.
Anyway, I don't agree with throttling, just ranting a little about latency. When it comes to typical web browsing, I think latency is much more of a problem than bandwidth.
But wouldn't the 8mbps connection have the same ping and the same 3 trips to set TCP? So you wouldn't be getting 8 there either, theoretically you would still be significantly faster with the 35mbps device.
Edit: I've only noticed latency while voip(ing) or gaming
Last edited:
Yes, they have the same ping, so there's a constant overhead that doesn't depend on the bandwidth. You don't get to load data while the 3-way handshake is happening. That means 5X the bandwidth won't mean 1/5 the total download time (it's (1.5 * ping) + (payload / bandwidth)). 150ms doesn't sound like a big deal, but one website might take many round trips to load fully because one resource might load another resource after it's done loading, plus IDK how many threads a browser uses to load stuff in parallel.
Edited for your edit: Loading time due to latency feels just like bandwidth constraint. If you load a small resource, latency dominates, and bandwidth doesn't matter (as long as it's reasonable). If you load a webpage, that's hundreds of small resources, including pesky little DNS requests. Many load in parallel, but some don't.
Here, I've loaded the relatively simple http://macrumors.com with Safari's web inspector open. There are many parallel requests at first, but some occur later:
Last edited:
Sure. Though if it happens to you once... you'll likely change your habits in the future.
The first terabyte costs $100... but the second terabyte is an additional $200. That's not something you'll do every month.
I think if you know you will need two terabytes each month... there should be a reasonably priced plan for you.
That would be extra money for the ISP each month.
Otherwise... people will use 999GB every month.
It's a big deal because people pay a monthly charge for X speed bandwidth for whatever purpose they want. That includes Netflix. Who is Verizon to decide, without warning, to throttle Netflix? How dare they throttle anything? That's a violation of trust, a violation of contract and a violation of the basic laws of the internet. That's why.
[doublepost=1500691865][/doublepost]
And that's ********. Because when I tested using the Netflix speed app and the speedtest.net app, I received two VERY different numbers. 250Mbps from speedtest vs. 19 from FAST, the Netflix app.
[doublepost=1500691865][/doublepost]
And that's ********. Because when I tested using the Netflix speed app and the speedtest.net app, I received two VERY different numbers. 250Mbps from speedtest vs. 19 from FAST, the Netflix app.
Apple may have to consider going back to Local over Cloud if Net Neutrality gets the axe. Won't be long before the Telecoms demand a slice of the Apple Music revenue.
High fidelity uncompressed audio... ya not without an extra surcharge to the ISP for it traversing their carrier-waves (on top of what you already pay for the service access). That or you could use the ISPs competing Streaming service at reduced price and no "optimization".
80 a month? Try adding another $30 if you want channels you will actually want to watch, another $20 on top of that if you want to watch sports and another $15 if you want any of it in HD, and another $15 each if you want to watch on more than one tv, and you get to pay another $50 for intennet and another $20 if you want that internet faster than DSL and of course forced in to a contract for that adds 50% after the first year for the privilege of this service, , but hey they throw in a landline and call it a triple bundle because that's the real cutting edge technology customers really need.
For comparison - with EE (my provider), I get 38ms ping, 69Mbps download, 45Mbps upload and on my plan, I get 20GB per month (unlimited calls and texts in Europe). I do have to supply my own handset and I can't roam on this plan so have to use wi-fi when I travel. There is no throttling (fast.com shows same speed as Speedtest), I can tether at full speed up to my limit. This costs me $26 + tax / month.
Of course they never announced this until it was noticed by their users, and VZ were subsequently questioned by Ars Technica. Did they really think this would go under the radar?
The right thing would have been to notify users of such temporary optimization tests.
I'm glad the Reddit users made this an issue, and that publications pressed Verizon.
As long as we keep this up, carriers will be forced to compete.
How quickly did they all decide to do unlimited plans because T-Mobile pushed it?
The same can, and hopefully will, happen regarding the caveats these unlimited plans currently have.
Please don't make this a net neutrality thing.
Remember... we've only had "net neutrality" for a very short period of time. And within that time - companies have been as horrible as ever - zero rating, throttling, etc.
PS: Hasn't speedtest.net been known or suspected to be in cahoots with anyone willing to pay them? It would explain why everyone seems to show normal speeds on it.
As long as we keep this up, carriers will be forced to compete.
How quickly did they all decide to do unlimited plans because T-Mobile pushed it?
The same can, and hopefully will, happen regarding the caveats these unlimited plans currently have.
Please don't make this a net neutrality thing.
Remember... we've only had "net neutrality" for a very short period of time. And within that time - companies have been as horrible as ever - zero rating, throttling, etc.
PS: Hasn't speedtest.net been known or suspected to be in cahoots with anyone willing to pay them? It would explain why everyone seems to show normal speeds on it.
Verizon - it's the NOTwork.
Spare me the BS about how it's the best network and has service everywhere. I'm sitting in a place right now that has 0 service on AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon (but has WiFi). And we're not that far out in the "middle of nowhere".
Spare me the BS about how it's the best network and has service everywhere. I'm sitting in a place right now that has 0 service on AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon (but has WiFi). And we're not that far out in the "middle of nowhere".
Coverage, Like real estate, is all about location. Personally, T-Mobile coverage is MUCH better than Verizon's where I live, work, and hang out.
internet speeds has serious reached retarded levels. In the 90s you always got the latest and greatest. Now that fiber is out, internet speeds seem to be degrading if anything. ISP's should no longer be allowed to control the internet and what goes one t because thats oligopoly. Internet is a commodity, just like Apples or milk. Can you imagine going to the store and someone tells you "You only get to buy this brand of bottled milk which is skimmed for $15" ?
Thats whats happening with ISP. I am afraid if USA allows this, then other ISPs all over the world would do the same and make an excuse that "This is how they do it in America".
Thats whats happening with ISP. I am afraid if USA allows this, then other ISPs all over the world would do the same and make an excuse that "This is how they do it in America".
Where I live, T-mobile has very good coverage. In my experience, they seem to be more customer-focused than any of the other carriers. I hope that we keep 4 carriers around (AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and Sprint). If we go down to 3, I could see rates going up and competitive promotions and discounts going away.
This is the type of mentality that shows the ugly face of people.
As long as it doesn't affect ME ME ME ME, I don't care if the whole world burns.
That's the issue. In the US, many people only have 1 home ISP and most have 2. With no competition prices have steadily risen over the years with almost no difference in service.
By comparison, there are many phone services to choose from, which has caused phone service prices to come DOWN. Unlimited has also made a comeback.
Capitalism doesn't work when there's no competition and thus the home ISPs should be regulated.
Verizon: lol nothing to see here, just running some tests!
Reality: oh ****, we were forced into offering unlimited data, need to activate the emergency throttle plan because our arrogant snowflake network can't handle it!!!1
Reality: oh ****, we were forced into offering unlimited data, need to activate the emergency throttle plan because our arrogant snowflake network can't handle it!!!1