back to article Verizon: We're throttling broadband. FCC: WTF? Verizon: Lol, jk!

Verizon is going back on its vow to throttle broadband for some of those on unlimited data plans. The telco said it will not punish heavy users of its network by crippling their LTE speeds. Verizon said in July that it will implement the policy, which would have cut throughput rates for the top five per cent of LTE users, in …

  1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

    The whole event was probably a PR stunt stages from the start in an attempt to give Wheeler a shred of credibility so that when he screws the US re: net neutrality he can claim he's "not a shill"* and that the millions of responses for Net Neutrality really were expressing their desire for internet slow lanes to be created.

    But that's all a good thing, because it will keep the filthy freetards from destroying civilization as we know it. The free market will save us all, but only if we regulate against any threat to the business models of established cartels.

    Back in you box, consumer. Unless you're going to pay ever more money to not actually consume anything, just get off the internet and leave those bits and bytes to someone who is higher margin than you, mmkay? There's a good prole...

    *Despite being the former top lobbyist for the telecom industry

    1. NP-Hardass
      Mushroom

      I hope your first paragraph is wrong

      For all our sakes...

      1. Tom 13

        Re: I hope your first paragraph is wrong

        Trevor's been off his meds for a while now. You'll get accustomed to it.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Yup

      Someone's asking you to pay for what you use, and you bitch and whine like a baby?

      Equality = getting some other sucker to pay for my big fat lunch.

      1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

        Re: Yup

        "Someone's asking you to pay for what you use, and you bitch and whine like a baby?"

        I agree, this is exactly the question you need to be asking the cartels. Why do they have such a problem paying for what they use? They use our capital, but refuse to pay for it by investing in new infrastructure. Fucking babies.

        As for your belief that "equality = getting some other sucker to pay for my big fat lunch", well...it's clear to me that you subscribe to the cartel mindset and propaganda.

        Me, I believe that equality is where everyone pays for what they use, and nobody gets to double dip. So Netflix pays their ISP. Their ISP pays for peering. We pay our ISP.

        Nowhere does our ISP get to charge Netflix. I'm paying my ISP for bits to move across the network. They don't get to charge me more or less depending on whose bits they are. They don't get to charge Netflix - or anyone else - to make their bits go faster than those of others.

        Equality is where everyone pays for what they use. Netflix pays for their bandwidth. End users pay for their bandwidth. And ISPs invest in new infrastructure.

        Nobody gets a free ride. Not the cartels, or their whiny baby bitches either.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Yup

          Thanks for confirming Trevor Pott. You want a free lunch, and you are ignorant of how the internet works, particularly traffic peering.

          Comcast wasn't double-dipping Netflix. Comcast creates huge asymetrical traffic flows into an access network. Somebody has to pay for these, and Netflix's own CDN wasn't up to the job. So Netflix hired Cogent to carry the traffic, then replaced Cogent with a direct deal where it could. Netflix paid less for the direct deal than it had paid Cogent.

          So much for "gouging", "double-dipping", "pay-to-play", and all the other FUD that 11-year old Save-The-Internet keyboard warriors throw about. None of it is true.

          Maybe if you read more and ate less you would be healthier and better informed.

          1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

            Re: Yup

            Thanks for confirming your biases, anonymous coward. You believe that anyone who actually wants what they pay for is "demanding a free lunch" because you believe that it is the duty of every "consumer" to simply pay whatever they're told; in your world consumers exist to serve the cartels and are otherwise without value or rights.

            Netflix is allowed to create hugely asymmetrical traffic into an "access network". That's what access networks do; they provide access for the end user to content out on the internet. There's no other reason for Comcast to exist other than to provide it's users hugely asymmetrical access to content that resides on other networks.

            We pay our ISPs to build that access network and to ensure they have enough interconnection with other networks that we get the data we request. We don't pay them to maintain some 1990s false economy concept of "peering is free only when network exchange roughly equal amounts of information".

            That's long dead. We're not a bunch of text-based academic networks anymore. Content lives in a handful of big sources now. Without the ability to access that content, there's no reason to have an access network in the first place or for all those millions of customers to pay the ISP the monthly bill.

            Comcast doesn't like this reality. They think that because they have the subscribers by the short and curlies that they can play dirty in order to get Netflix to agree to cough up all the revenue they're losing from cord cutters who are saying "no more cable TV". There is even quite a bit of evidence that Comcast was massively throttling Netflix before they finally capitulated and agreed to pay.

            Note that Netflix agreeing to pay to peer directly with Comcast isn't evidence that Cogent wasn't up to the job. All it shows is that Netflix wasn't going to pay Cogent and then Comcast as well.

            And that is the original source of the disagreement, just by the by. Comcast (and a couple others) getting butthurt by the fact that Netflix traffic grew so fast, so quickly that their existing agreements for peering with companies like Cogent started to look like something they weren't able to monetize to their liking. They started to demand that Netflix - and a couple of others - pay to push that traffic on top of the existing agreements, and refused to increase peering bandwidth with anyone carrying traffic from Netflix et al until they capitulated.

            Netflix was perfectly happy having an intermediary do the transferring because it meant they built one point of interconnection and the rest was the intermediary's problem. Instead, they ended up with a series of messy peering arrangements directly with the access network providers each of which continually tries to shake down Netflix for more money.

            That is exactly the position Netflix didn't want to be in. Now every time renegotiation comes around they get to play the same stupid games with these monopolistic cable cos as they play with the traditional content providers. Blacking out shows, threatening not to run season enders or other such pap.

            I don't think anyone would have a problem with a transparent where Netflix is jacked directly into the access network. in that case it isn't so much "peering" as "that provider is now one of the ISPs for Netflix."

            But the problem comes when companies like Comcast start shaking down companies using third party transit providers that already have agreements. Netflix pays their transit provider. Who pays whom to get bits and bytes on or off of Comcast's network at that point is 100% between the access provider and Comcast. At no point should the traffic origin matter.

            No internet service provider should be allowed to charge anyone different amounts based on the origin or destination of the traffic*. Everyone connected to a network should pay for the total traffic load they put onto the network.

            The end user pays for what they upload and what they download. Business users, colocation facilities, datacenters and so forth pay for what they upload and download. Peering with other networks is trickier, but generally can go up to a 5:1 access to transit ratio (sometimes higher) before money is requested, because the access networks know that without the "big content" on the transit networks, there's not much reason for them to be.

            But you don't turn around to a peer and say "pay me more because you carry Netflix". You don't tell a peer "we won't increase interconnect with you or even negotiate with you becausse you carry Netflix". You don't blackmail individual content providers into directly interconnecting with your network, and you don't don't individual content providers "you pay more to put traffic on our network than peers or other datacenters/enterprise customers/etc because you're Netflix".

            That's what network neutrality is all about. It isn't about getting "a free lunch". It's about treating traffic equally. Everyone pays. And everyone pays only once. And nobody gets to discriminate and nobody gets to blackmail.

            It's about dealing fairly, and about preventing any one entity from using control of their piece of the pie to beat others into submission.

            If Netflix turned around tomorrow and said "we're blocking Comcast customers" I'd be the first to say "not cool, Netflix." The problems are many, and only actually legislating net neutrality will help.

            Right now, there is fuck all to prevent any given party from bullying the other, and the concept of "he who has the biggest stick wins" is completely unacceptable.

            Right now, there is no means of arbitration for disputes except the courts, which take forever and don't have the understanding to make a rational decision here.

            Right now, we have the same companies owning access networks, traditional content distribution networks and content creation networks. There are massive conflicts of interest.

            At the core of it is this concept: no company should be able to use a dominant position in one market to create a dominant position in another market. This is exactly what Comcast is attempting to do, and it's absolutely unacceptable.

            I am - to a limited extent, and only if used with care and for sound technical reasons - okay with prioritizing traffic under two scenarios:

            1) traffic is prioritized based on content type, but explicitly not on source or destination. E.G. voice & video (which are latency sensitive) prioritized over other traffic. But it isn't okay to prioritize "VOIP from Comcast" while degrading Skype, or VOIP from another competitor. It also isn't okay to prioritize "video from Comcast" while throttling (or leaving prioritized) "video from Netflix". If you prioritize traffic from one class, you do it for all examples of that class to and from all sources. Period.

            2) traffic that is classified as "emergency services" traffic. This could be - and I'd argue should be - hashed out in legislation. Traffic to/from police, fire, medical and rescue services should take priority over all other traffic. We are an increasingly internet dependent society, and in an emergency traffic to/from emergency services is all that matters.

            I'm not saying Comcast - or any network provider - doesn't have the right to try to make a profit form their investment. By all means; they should do so. They take the risk, they invest in infrastructure, they should structure their business and price their wares such that they can stay in the black.

            But they should not be allowed to build barriers to entry for competitors looking to enter the market. (See laws they've managed to push through that say "no other companies shall be allowed to lay fibre/build out last mile networks/etc." Especially ones that say municipalities or counties aren't allowed to do so.)

            And what isn't okay - what never will be okay unless you're a fucking sociopath - is the idea that the economic interests of the company owning the access network should ever allow it to abuse it's role as gatekeeper to restrict or prioritize traffic based on origin or destination. Especially as a means of harming competitors.

            Maybe if you give a bent fuck about your fellow man, weren't such a self-absorbed fuck and spent your time doing something other than obsessing about what other people do with their lives you'd be capable of understanding the above.

            As it stands, I don't expect that any amount of reading, exposure to facts, or introduction to the real world results of giving ISPs free range to clamp down on competition will make you capable of being informed. You have your agenda - defend crony capitalism and the cartels that make it up - and you'll die before you admit that you're wrong.

            Well you have fun with that. You're the digital equivalent of some sad old fuck who still rages about "niggers" being allowed in the same schools as white kids**. You are a representative of an old guard establishment. The rest of us are just waiting for you - and the rest of the aged bastard like you - to just die off and make the world a better place.

            Cheers.

            *With the possible exception of "on-net" versus "off-net" differentiation (a-la MPLS). This is because it simply costs far less to transit packets across your own network. As soon as it has to peer, then it makes sense to up the rates a little.

            **And yes, in case you hadn't notice, network neutrality is a social issue, not one of "wanting to get a free lunch". It's about right of access and the right to be treated without discrimination. It's about customer rights and the role of the individual - and governments - in a society where mega corporations have unprecedented power over all aspects of our lives.

      2. Fluffy Bunny

        Re: Yup

        No, that's socialism.

        Which is where the NBN comes in...

      3. Tom 13

        Re: Yup

        Yes and no the first line. While I concur that heavy users should pay for what they use, Verizon hasn't offered that option to them. Moreover, Verizon are the fools who sold the unlimited data plan in the first place. They should have to honor their contracts just as much as their customers do.

    3. Gene Cash Silver badge

      Not really, because having been a US Verizon customer, this is in-line with their "FU, we're Verizon" attitude until they realize they've pissed off the FCC yet again, and back down. They've done it before and I'm sure they'll do it again.

      Actually, I get the feeling Wheeler has a little "AH GOT DA POWA" now and maybe some "I've sucked FCC dick for years, now you get to suck mine" from the looks of some of his recent grandstanding.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The joke is on you! You need to read between the lines...suckers.

    Let's add the statement + reality in order to find: THE TRUTH.

    "Verizon is going back on its vow to throttle broadband for some of those on unlimited data plans."

    And there's the secret for the suckers that believe it: Verizon doesn't HAVE a truly "unlimited data plan".

    As per

    www.verizonwireless.com/support/faqs/CallingPlans/more-everything-plan.html

    all new signups are "shared data" with limits that you specify. Any "unlimited data" plan is grandfathered - that is, a legacy - plan.

    And, as per

    www.intomobile.com/2007/11/03/verizon-wireless-when-we-say-unlimited-data-we-mean-5gb-worth-of-unlimited-data/

    what they mean by "unlimited" is 5GB of high speed 4G, afterwards you get unlimited 3G data. And SURPRISE, that's very common here in the United States - Sprint does the same thing, about 5GB worth of 4G. After you've hit your Sprint 4G limit you are 'throttled down' to 3G, but they don't call it "throttling" due to the fact that you are forced off the 4G datastream and back on the 3G but is it our fault that you hit your given 4G limit as per contract?

    And even then, with Verizon, if you DO have a legacy "unlimited" plan there is the question of what you LOSE by keeping it. For example

    community.verizonwireless.com/thread/811253?start=0&tstart=0

    Is it true that, sure you can keep your "unlimited" plan but we'll make you pay FULL PRICE for that new phone you want, rather than the discount that everyone else gets?

    Ah, the joys of corporate semantics. Enjoy our words.

    Suckers.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The joke is on you! You need to read between the lines...suckers.

      Yes, they will make you pay full price if you buy a new phone through them. Basically any change to your contract causes you to lose unlimited data, and a subsidized phone purchase starts a NEW two year contract. You also can't change your minutes, texts, add/remove a line, etc. All are considered contract changes.

      1. Goobertee

        Re: The joke is on you! You need to read between the lines...suckers.

        Worse than that--don't even THINK about trying a new plan.

        Got a missive from a local dealer telling me I could save money. Went to the store and the lady manager did a paper and pencil and showed me it would save $60/month on the before taxes and fees charge, plus give me a new phone. So she entered my details and started the process. OOPS! You don't have the super-duper shared data plan, so the $60 off doesn't apply. And adding the plan adds $80, so you'd be $20 worse off.

        Not surprisingly, I indicated I wasn't interested. Please cancel everything and put it back like it was before. So she canceled this and canceled that and OOPS! Let me call Verizon. Sorry, we can't reinstate your unlimited data plan I just took off because they don't offer that any more and they can't enter it on the computer. So you get a 2 gigs a month plan unless you pay (monthly) for an upgrade.

        This is the second time I've been to one of that company's stores and worked with the manager and the second time I've ended up worse off as the result. Guess I learned my lesson.

        The reason I was upgrading was my existing phone was getting flaky (a friend with the same phone was having the same problems) and decided to get a new one. Changing companies wasn't really an option because Verizon has better service in my area and I'm the "daddy" in a family plan. I went to the real Verizon store and had to pay for what I got, but at least they got it right on the first try.

        And I felt like a sucker, of course.

        1. Tom 13

          Re: Sorry, we can't reinstate your unlimited data plan

          Contact your local consumer protection agency. They can't cancel your contract until you sign the new one. That's a big no-no.

        2. MRHOR

          Re: The joke is on you! You need to read between the lines...suckers.

          Sorry to disabuse you - I have a grandfathered totally unlimited data plan from Verizon, and they upgraded my phone from Android to iPhone with no issues; still grandfathered data plan and the Senior low minutes, pay for text phone plan. Works for me. I did tell them before the process started that I was not interested in any upgrade that affected the data plan and they were cool with that.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like