http://davesblog.com/blog/2014/02/05/verizon-using-recent-net-neutrality-victory-to-wage-war-against-netflix/

key screengrab - http://davesblog.com/images/verizon_fail.png

I usually don�t post articles about current affairs. However, a recent series of events has inspired me to write about this.

Towards the end of January, the president of our company � iScan Online, Inc., was complaining that our service was experiencing major slowdowns. I investigated the issue, but I couldn�t find anything wrong with our production environment. We were stumped.

One evening I also noticed a slowdown while using our service from my house. I realized that the one thing in common between me and our president was that we both had FiOS internet service from Verizon.

Since we host all of our infrastructure on Amazon�s AWS � I decided to do a little test � I grabbed a URL from AWS S3 and loaded it.

40kB/s.

WTF.

I also noticed that our Netflix streaming quality is awful compared to just a few weeks ago.

Next, I remoted into our office � about a mile away from my house. I tested the same link �

5000kB/s.

WTF.

So I contacted Verizon support over their live chat.

Verizon had me do a speedtest.

75Mb/s.

He says �You have excellent Bandwidth � is there anything else I can help you with?�

I replied � �Yes. Why are these files slow��

So he proceeded to walk me through various troubleshooting:

�reboot your router��
�make sure your system has latest updates�
�change your wifi channel�
After about 30 minutes of this � I grew impatient. I explained to him that there was something limiting the speed on their side. He remoted into my system with a screen sharing tool, and I showed him my remote screen to the connection at the office. He kept on saying that bandwidth is different for different locations etc�

That�s when I decided to press him. Here is a screen capture of the final part of our chat:



Frankly, I was surprised he admitted to this. I�ve since tested this almost every day for the last couple of weeks. During the day � the bandwidth is normal to AWS. However, after 4pm or so � things get slow.

In my personal opinion, this is Verizon waging war against Netflix. Unfortunately, a lot of infrastructure is hosted on AWS. That means a lot of services are going to be impacted by this.

PS> a number of folks have questioned the expertise of the support individual. I completely understand. I�m not a networking expert, but I did want to share 2 more pieces of data that I think are significant:

Traceroute from Residential Side:

Tracing route to iscanonline.com
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 7 ms 7 ms 8 ms L100.DLLSTX-VFTTP-65.verizon-gni.net
3 10 ms 6 ms 9 ms G0-5-2-0.DLLSTX-LCR-21.verizon-gni.net
4 16 ms 9 ms 10 ms so-5-0-0-0.DFW9-BB-RTR1.verizon-gni.net
5 10 ms 9 ms 9 ms 0.xe-3-3-0.BR2.DFW13.ALTER.NET
6 9 ms 10 ms 9 ms 204.255.168.158
7 10 ms 9 ms 10 ms ae-1.r08.dllstx09.us.bb.gin.ntt.net
Traceroute from Business line (1 mile away)

traceroute to iscanonline.com (23.21.158.115), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
1 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 18.036 ms 1.326 ms 2.318 ms
2 l100.dllstx-vfttp-93.verizon-gni.net (71.244.30.1) 5.870 ms 5.211 ms 5.193 ms
3 g0-5-0-2.dllstx-lcr-21.verizon-gni.net (130.81.138.12) 7.400 ms 67.679 ms 10.605 ms
4 so-5-0-0-0.dfw9-bb-rtr1.verizon-gni.net (130.81.199.34) 12.062 ms 6.652 ms 17.799 ms
5 0.xe-3-3-0.br2.dfw13.alter.net (152.63.100.5) 7.207 ms 7.858 ms 9.616 ms
6 204.255.168.158 (204.255.168.158) 7.435 ms 7.256 ms 10.366 ms
7 ae-1.r08.dllstx09.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.3.27) 7.365 ms 10.160 ms 9.083 ms
Posted by David Raphael Feb 5th, 2014

*****

I'll just say a 'live chat' center rep isn't a reliable source, but hmmmmm...

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

is predicated on bundled services

if people opt out of buying cable going for the ala carte version that netflix is pioneering...big part of verizons profitability will be compromised

netflix is using verizons infrastructure not the other way around, verizon wants to keep all the potential money to itself & has the lobbying power to do so

welcome to capitalism


does it even matter?

Most of the major internet service providers also sell cable TV as well.

>Most of the major internet service providers also sell cable
>TV as well.

True, but you don't need cable tv to have internet.

>True, but you don't need cable tv to have internet.
even if they aren't cable providers

Yeah and your point???

Ok work with me here, hip bopper.

We agree on the following:
1) Verizon, time warmer et al aka big cable currently provides the infrastructure to netflix
2) Netflix is in direct competition with big cable. Provides a major service for a fraction of the cost that big cable charges.
3) net neutrality says big cable owns it's infrastructure and gets to throttle data speeds at its whim and fancy.

If we agree on all the above (wifi is created from big cable infrastructure btw) then you must see the logic in big cable purposefully slowing down netflix because...well...it's in their interests to do so. They don't want customers having more choices. They want everyone locked into a cable/internet/phone plane and being raped for 150 a month.

If more people went internet only for 79/month and streamed netflix or Hulu or whatever, big cable wouldn't make as much money.

Therefore...they are gonna do this. It's in their interests.


does it even matter?

>Ok work with me here, hip bopper.
>
>We agree on the following:
>1) Verizon, time warmer et al aka big cable currently provides
>the infrastructure to netflix

I can kinda agree, but Netflix transcends them by offering CD's to view their content aside from streaming.

>2) Netflix is in direct competition with big cable. Provides a
>major service for a fraction of the cost that big cable
>charges.

True but Netflix doesn't show shows or events in real-time.

>3) net neutrality says big cable owns it's infrastructure and
>gets to throttle data speeds at its whim and fancy.
>

This is definitely true.


>If we agree on all the above (wifi is created from big cable
>infrastructure btw) then you must see the logic in big cable
>purposefully slowing down netflix because...well...it's in
>their interests to do so. They don't want customers having
>more choices. They want everyone locked into a
>cable/internet/phone plane and being raped for 150 a month.
>
>If more people went internet only for 79/month and streamed
>netflix or Hulu or whatever, big cable wouldn't make as much
>money.
>
>Therefore...they are gonna do this. It's in their interests.
>
While you make the obvious and valid points, Netflix shouldn't be their biggest concern. They need to be more worried about iTunes which has more movies and shows. It is a battle that Verizon and big cable will eventually lose because after awhile because people will eventually get tired of the high bundle packages and outrageous cell phone bills.

The FCC's was extremely backwards in its ruling...something like this, where Verizon purposely degrades Netflix/Hulu etc while keeping their own streaming services running optimally, I think they will get the message when people freak.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>Frankly, I was surprised he admitted to this. I�ve since
>tested this almost every day for the last couple of weeks.
>During the day � the bandwidth is normal to AWS. However,
>after 4pm or so � things get slow.
>
>In my personal opinion, this is Verizon waging war against
>Netflix. Unfortunately, a lot of infrastructure is hosted on
>AWS. That means a lot of services are going to be impacted by
>this.

i first noticed this last month. i know i can get what netflix calls "1080 super HD," its highest encoding, but during evening hours i was hovering in the lowest 240, 288, and 384 SD qualities. there was no competition for bandwidth in my house. i chalked it up to high traffic for netflix because during off hours--after midnight weeknights, weekend mornings and early afternoons--it streams in HD like it used to easily until this year. i thought netflix just needed to expand its resources to handle their success (volume), but i wouldn't put it past verizon to do this. however...


>I'll just say a 'live chat' center rep isn't a reliable
>source, but hmmmmm...

i use live chat sometimes for customer service sometimes, and they can say some wacky things that probably aren't really true (i usually assume english isn't a first language). unfortunately, it's hard to tell in this case whether this was a true admission. so much is on AWS that this shouldn't stand now that the story is out there.

http://mobile.theverge.com/2014/2/5/5383082/verizon-denies-throttling-netflix-traffic-after-net-neutrality-ruling

)))--####---###--(((

bunda
<-.-> ^_^ \^0^/
get busy living, or get busy dying.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304834704579401071892041790

(c) The Wall Street Journal

Media & Marketing

Netflix Agrees to Pay Comcast to End Traffic Jam

Deal Ends Standoff Over Streaming, Would Give Netflix Direct Access to Comcast Systems

By Shalini Ramachandran

Updated Feb. 23, 2014 12:16 p.m. ET

Netflix Inc. NFLX -0.63% has agreed to pay Comcast Corp. CMCSA -1.37% to ensure Netflix movies and television shows stream smoothly to Comcast customers, a landmark agreement that could set a precedent for Netflix's dealings with other broadband providers, people familiar with the situation said.

In exchange for payment, Netflix will get direct access to Comcast's broadband network, the people said. The multiyear deal comes just 10 days after Comcast agreed to buy Time Warner Cable Inc., TWC -0.79% which if approved would establish Comcast as by far the dominant provider of broadband in the U.S., serving 30 million households.

For a year Netflix and Comcast have been in a standoff over Netflix's request that Comcast connect to Netflix's video distribution network free of charge. But Comcast wanted to be paid for connecting to Netflix's specialized servers because of the heavy load of traffic Netflix would send into the cable operator's network. Under the deal, Netflix won't be able to place its servers inside Comcast's data centers, which Netflix had wanted. Instead, Comcast will connect to Netflix's servers at data centers operated by other companies.

Negotiations heated up in recent months, as Netflix saw a deterioration in streaming speeds for Comcast subscribers. According to Netflix data published recently, the average speeds of Netflix's primetime streams to Comcast subscribers had dropped 27% from October to January. Netflix Chief Executive Reed Hastings didn't want streaming speeds to deteriorate further and become a bigger issue for customers, the people said.

During this period, Netflix was using Internet middlemen Cogent Communications CCOI -0.10% as a "primary" route into Comcast, a person familiar with the matter has said. That connection was starting to become overwhelmed with Netflix traffic, congesting traffic and leading to slower Netflix streams for Comcast Internet users, people familiar with the matter said.

At the same time, Comcast presented Netflix with more attractive deal terms than the operator had been offering, the people said. The deal spans several years. Netflix was aiming for a long-term deal to make sure its projected traffic growth wouldn't put it at a disadvantage, one of the people said. The connection is a so-called "paid peering" deal, which connects Netflix's network to Comcast's directly. Netflix was previously using several middlemen to access Comcast's network.

Mr. Hastings and Comcast CEO Brian Roberts have talked on-and-off in recent months to discuss a possible deal and the two came to a framework for an agreement at a meeting at the Consumer Electronics Show in January. Final details were worked out over the past two days, one of the people said.

The deal could force Netflix's hand in its standoff with other major U.S. broadband providers, including AT&T Inc., T -1.15% Verizon Communications Inc. VZ -1.77% and Time Warner Cable,�all of whom have also refused to connect with Netflix's servers without compensation. Netflix's streams with Verizon in particular have gotten worse in recent months.

Netflix has little room to pay more to transmit its TV shows and movies. In a February regulatory filing, Netflix said that if providers don't interconnect with its servers, its ability to deliver streaming video, its business and operating results could be "adversely affected" due to increased costs.

The deal is the latest sign that broadband providers are gaining leverage in their dealings with content companies. Over the past several years, technology companies like Microsoft Corp. MSFT +0.61% , Facebook Inc. FB -1.49% and Google Inc. GOOG -0.03% have also started paying major broadband providers for direct connections to their networks that would provide faster and smoother access.

Write to Shalini Ramachandran at shalini.ramachandran@wsj.com

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18mm8nn3h0vwyjpg/ku-medium.jpg

you should know that

a. Comcast is still required to abide by it.


b. this kind of deal is not new, and is not affected by net neutrality, even if that hadn't been struck down.

Netflix used to pay cogent (or whatever CDN, it varies), now they pay Comcast directly, get a better connection, and probably pay less than they were paying. They're not paying 0, which is what they wanted to use OpenConnect for, but your Netflix bill isn't going to double bc of this.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/on-25th-anniversary-of-web-lets-keep-it.html

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2147600/fcc-will-seek-input-on-latest-net-neutrality-proposal.html

So long, net neutrality? FCC to propose new pay-for-preferential treatment rules

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission will take public comments before moving forward with a new set of net neutrality rules that sparked controversy when they were leaked in a news report earlier Wednesday.

The FCC will release a proposal soon to reinstate net neutrality rules that would allow broadband providers to negotiate with content providers for preferential treatment, an agency official confirmed Wednesday.

Some digital rights groups called the pay-for-priority proposal, reported earlier in a Wall Street Journal article, the death of net neutrality at the FCC.

But the FCC, in an upcoming meeting, will vote on whether to open the net neutrality proposal up to public comments, though the plan is not finalized, the agency official said.

Under the proposal, �broadband providers would be required to offer a baseline level of service to their subscribers, along with the ability to enter into individual negotiations with content providers,� the official said by email. �In all instances, broadband providers would need to act in a commercially reasonable manner subject to (FCC) review on a case-by-case basis.�

The FCC will seek comment on �exactly what the baseline level of service would be, the construction of a �commercially reasonable� standard, and the manner in which disputes would be resolved,� the official added.
Activist anger

Digital rights groups Public Knowledge and Free Press objected to the plan to allow commercial traffic management agreements, sometimes referred to as peering agreements.

�The FCC is inviting ISPs (Internet service providers) to pick winners and losers online,� Michael Weinberg, a vice president at Public Knowledge, said by email. �The very essence of a��commercial reasonableness� standard is discrimination. And the core of net neutrality is nondiscrimination. This is not net neutrality.�

The FCC proposal would allow broadband providers to charge higher traffic management prices to Web services that they see as competitors, and dealing with issues on a case-by-case basis would cause confusion for Web entrepreneurs, Weinberg added. �This standard allows ISPs to impose a new price of entry for innovation on the Internet,� he said.

Free Press President and CEO Craig Aaron called on the FCC to pass �real� net neutrality rules.

�With this proposal, the FCC is aiding and abetting the largest ISPs in their efforts to destroy the open Internet,� he said by email. �Giving ISPs the green light to implement pay-for-priority schemes will be a disaster for startups, nonprofits and everyday Internet users who cannot afford these unnecessary tolls. These users will all be pushed onto the Internet dirt road, while deep pocketed Internet companies enjoy the benefits of the newly created fast lanes.�

The FCC is working on new net neutrality rules after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down the agency�s net neutrality regulations in January. The appeals court said the FCC couldn�t enforce the rules because of the agency�s own classification of broadband as an information service, not a telephone-style, common-carrier service.

The court, however, pointed the agency to a section of the Telecommunications Act that gives it broad authority to ensure broadband deployment. That section of telecom law, the court said, could be used as authority to pass net neutrality rules.

The question of content providers paying for traffic prioritization has come up in recent months after Netflix entered into a commercial peering arrangement with Comcast, the largest U.S. broadband provider, in February. The deal gives Comcast subscribers faster speeds when watching Netflix videos.

Still, Netflix, in a blog post last month, called on the FCC to pass strong net neutrality rules to prevent large broadband providers from asking for increasingly higher fees to deliver traffic.

i don't know when this is supposed to go into effect or if it has already, but i tried watching something a few nights ago, after this article was posted, and it struggled to hit 720 when it was easily 1080 super hd during the day. 240, 288, and 384 still are common during peak hours (roughly 6 pm to midnight), but now i can stream in (wow) 480 in recent weeks. it's put me off of watching because i know the quality will be less than half of what it should be because of this business issue.


https://ca.news.yahoo.com/netflix-paying-verizon-more-direct-internet-connection-effort-204631508.html

SAN FRANCISCO - Netflix will pay Verizon Communications to help clear up some of the congestion that has been bogging down its Internet video service.

The deal marks the second time in less than three months that Netflix Inc. has anted up for a more direct connection to a major Internet service, even though CEO Reed Hastings objects to having to pay for better access.

Netflix negotiated a similar arrangement with Comcast Corp. in February.

The financial details of Netflix's partnerships with Comcast and Verizon Communications Inc. haven't been disclosed.

Netflix is reducing its reliance on third-party vendors to deliver video to Internet service providers because the streaming speeds of its movies and TV shows have been slowing in recent months.

The company hopes the Verizon deal "will improve performance for our joint customers over the coming months," Netflix spokesman Joris Evers said Tuesday. Verizon issued a similar statement.

Netflix has nearly 36 million U.S. subscribers to its Internet video service, which charges $8 per month in the U.S. About 9 million customers pay Verizon for high-speed online access in their homes and businesses.

With its Comcast partnership in place, Netflix says the quality of its video on that network has improved dramatically. In March, Netflix's video streamed at an average of 2.5 megabits per second, a 66 per cent increase from January. The higher speeds translate into a richer and steadier picture.

Netflix's video streamed at an average of 1.91 megabits per second on Verizon's Internet service in March.

Although Hastings has publicly complained about having to pay Internet service providers for more direct connections, it's not clear the deals will cost Netflix more money. That's because Netflix already had been paying content-delivery fees to third-party vendors such as Cogent Communications Group Inc.

In a blog post last week, Comcast asserted that its deal will enable Netflix to reduce its expenses.

Netflix didn't directly address that claim in its own blog post deriding Comcast last week. Instead, Netflix accused Comcast of "double dipping" by charging to deliver content that many of its subscribers want to watch. Netflix has become so popular that it generates nearly one-third of the evening traffic on the Internet in the U.S., according to the research firm Sandvine.

The Netflix traffic is straining some networks and raising tensions with Internet service providers who argue they shouldn't have to shoulder all the financial burdens for handling all the extra traffic.

Even though Netflix is now working with Comcast, their relationship remains antagonistic. In the most visible sign of discord, Netflix is opposing Comcast's proposed $45 billion acquisition of rival Time Warner Cable Inc. because it believes the combination will give Comcast too much control over the prices that both consumers and websites pay for Internet access.

Netflix Inc., which is based in Los Gatos, Calif., plans to raise its prices by $1 or $2 for new customers only within the next two months.

for the streaming error message "The Verizon network is crowded right now. Adjusting video for smoother playback..."

http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/assets/docs/Letter_to_David_Hyman.pdf

gotta admit, it's an interesting counterargument

make your voice heard: http://www.fcc.gov/blog/keeping-track-open-internet-comments-submitted-fcc

https://www.battleforthenet.com/sept10th/

http://politics.suntimes.com/article/washington/obama-net-neutrality-no-blocking-and-other-proposals/mon-11102014-1034am

lots going on between the lines

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."