back to article FCC launches probe into Verizon/Netflix spat

The Federal Communications Commision (FCC) has announced it will investigate whether Verizon deliberately slowed traffic from Netflix. Chairman Tom Wheeler issued a statement on Friday that the commission will "collect information" on how the ISP handled traffic from the streaming video service as the two firms were …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Uncle Ron

    Of Course They Did

    Of course they throttled Netflix. Of course they did. If I was running Verizon I'd do everything I could to create and maintain artificial scarcity across the board. Netflix is simply the most visible. I believe Aereo is also being throttled. As well as numerous web sites.

    An investigation will turn up Nothing of Any Kind. Because every system administrator reading this knows there are countless ways to monkey with a content provider without leaving -any- breadcrumbs whatsoever. It will be the methodology used by the huge ISP's in order justify implementing Metered Billing as quickly and as pervasively as possible. Metered Billing is the real pot-of-gold for the ISP's. Almost limitless profitability.

    I believe they are also using Net Neutrality as a red herring to further justify Metered Billing. They will first seem to fight, then seem to cave, on Net Neutrality, then use this "loss" as a further justification (the first being scarcity) to go to Metered Billing.

    These are exactly the steps I would take if I ran any of these companies. The strategy is so patently obvious as to require a bribed and paid off lackey to miss.

    What do you think?

    1. Mark 85

      Re: Of Course They Did

      Interesting concept. For them to be doing what they are accused of doing (throttling back) with Netflix points to them hitting a big guy. I'm surprised they haven't tried this with Youtube or Facebook. Or maybe their not as a big a target as Netflix.

      The big problem with Metered Billing is the users. Those old enough to remember being charged by the likes of CompuServe and AOHell would probably rebel. Even the cellphone companies are getting away from metered billing except maybe for Verizon. Could be that they figure it's still viable????

      There's a point down the food chain where many websites figure it won't be worth paying due to their revenues or page visits not justifying it.

      1. Uncle Ron

        Re: Of Course They Did

        "Those old enough to remember being charged...would probably rebel."

        How would they rebel? There is no competition. 70% of Americans have ONE choice for high-speed internet service: Their local cable system monopoly. And the Comcasts and Verizons of the world are not stupid: They will charge just enough, and ramp up charges just enough, over a period of time to stay under the radar of public outrage.

        Wouldn't you love to have a business that allowed you to very nicely and very comfortably increase revenue and profit every year BY DOING NOTHING? Look for $200, $300 a month bills--just for internet service--over the next 3 to 5 years. The big shots in the industry are already publicly predicting this!

        If America lets this happen, it's the end of the road for America. Not hyperbole.

      2. Tom 13

        Re: haven't tried this with Youtube or Facebook.

        FB doesn't have the oodles of streaming data that Netflix does. YouTube certainly would, but now that Google own them it would be imprudent to sue or worse try such tactics on them. First off, it's never a good idea to sue someone who can print money (effectively). And who can say what minor tweaks to algorithms might do to your search status.

        I never had a problem with metered billing when I had a CompuServe membership. Never bought one for AOL. CompuServe's interface might have been obscure, but AOL always looked cartoony.

    2. Tom 35

      Re: Of Course They Did

      You are forgetting another big reason they want Netflix to suffer. They are Cable Companies, they don't want to you watch Netflix, they want you to subscribe to a big fat expensive bundle of mostly crap and rent their PVR too.

    3. JeffyPoooh
      Pint

      Re: Of Course They Did

      What do I think about your theory? No. I can see the future because I'm in it.

      We got Bell Aliant FibreOP FTTH about a month ago. I chose the 175 Mbps service, plus an amazingly generous telephone service. Speed testing shows that the connection is meeting spec, and the ISP's connection to the larger Internet seems to more than adequate. The Telco ISP *clearly* and boldly states "No usage caps" (they're highlighting this as a feature, not a bug), and everything indicates that is their intent.

      Their money-spinner is that they (a telco / ISP) are now able to offer 'Cable' TV (fiber optic). That's new and it more than doubles their revenue. That's their focus.

      They're intentionally steering the ISP service to become a boringly reliable background infrastructure service where you just pay your monthly fee and stop worrying about it. They're showing zero interest in making the Internet service into a monthly dog and pony show. Fibre is cheap. Bandwidth is cheap. Content is king.

      This is the future.

      1. Uncle Ron

        Re: Of Course They Did

        You are very lucky. You are also in Canada, correct? Less than 30% of Americans have any such option. Nor are they likely to in "the future." The infrastructure cost in the US would be HUGE. Google's footprint is tiny, and I have never even heard of "Bell Aliant FibreOP FTTH." Is it offered anywhere other than Canada?

        Further, in the absence of some US regulatory requirement, an ISP would be plain foolish not to inch closer to the "norm" (Metered Billing) that Comcast et al. are setting up and publicly talking about right now. In fact, it would be "business negligence" to be "altruistic" with shareholders' money, right? Their incentive is to "monetize" their monopoly to the max. Right?

        The only solution in the US is that, if Comcast et al. want to be in these other businesses, they should be required to sell off "the last mile" and open it up to all comers. Closely regulate and inspect that "last mile" and let anybody hook on who wants to. That removes the incentive to throttle content companies. As a truly regulated monopoly, the "last mile" company couldn't price gouge. The "plumbing and the water" would not be owned by the same company. This is done in other countries and it works. Some of the industry studies that led to this arrangement, to eliminate shenanigans and price gouging, were done in Canada.

        1. Mad Chaz

          Re: Of Course They Did

          The situation you describe is pretty much how things were here in early 2000s.

          ADSL was more or less not an option anywhere yet and cable was the only way to get high speed. You had very strict transfer limits with high penalty for going over.

          ADSL came along and couldn't compete on speed, but you could get no transfer limit.

          ADSL managed to catch up due to cable sitting on it's ass, then ADSL started putting limits on as well. For a long time, for most people, even if you did have a choice, it was basically the same price for the same thing. Not only that, but then both choices started imposing HUGE penalty if you broke your automatically renewed contract outside something like a 2 weeks window in a 2 years period.

          What litle competition was left was ADSL reselers that usually managed to differentiate by offering no transfer limits. Most of it unknown by 90% of the population.

          Then the big players got so greedy that they somehow convinced the CRTC (Canada's FCC) to make no transfer limit connections illegal.

          That finally got the mainstream media's attention.

          Inside a few weeks, the federal gov got so deeply embarrassed the CRTC got forced into action.

          The end result is that now we're getting fiber to the home deployed by the combined bells. It'll basically make phone/tv/internet a duopoly everywhere. For now, that means we're getting much faster connections in the near future.

          Netflix still isn't that big a thing in Canada, but it's slowly comming. How the ISPs will react to it when they realise people will cut off TV is another story.

          1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

            Re: Of Course They Did

            Yo, Canuck from out west here. We got nothing but Telus and Shaw, and no hope of FTTP except in greenfields aimed at rich white folks. (Greenfields aimed at poor people are still on copper.)

            I don't know where you are getting your info, but the situation is getting worse out here, not better. Prices are skyrocketing, connectivity is dropping, everything's congested and they've no interested in last mile investment whatsoever.

            Sorry mate, but this isn't out east, where there are enough liberals to make a difference for the little guy. There is no forced line sharing. No TekSavvy for ADSL and Cable, no a lot of things. You've got Shaw that you can't afford (and doesn't work) and Telus that you can only barely afford and barely works. There's crappy microwave backhaul and terrifyingly bad sattelite. That's it.

            Want to get a consistent >5Mbit upstream? That'll be $900/mo just to light the fibre, and that's after $30K to bring the fibre in, and $90/mo/mbit on 95th percentile billing. Oh, and a minimum 5 year contract.

            Bell Alliant is amazeballs, but it just covers the coasties out east. Bell proper is shite and Telus + Shaw are criminally asstastic. You start out with "Awesome!!111!!oneoneone" out east, and it steadily gets worse as you go west.

            Capitalism! Yeah!

    4. StimuliC

      Re: Of Course They Did

      Uncle Ron, they are doing it to every service. Though if you, as a customer, phone them they blame your speed and try and upsell that speed. Though their hardware is mediocre quality and their router, in itself, exasperates the problems with streaming, especially when the streaming is being done through WiFi.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I wish the UK was as active in investigations like this.

    A little birdy from sky hq tells me Microsoft and Sky broadband did a deal which throttled PSN downloads as part of the Sky services on Xbox deal.

    Pretty disgusting behaviour from two of the most disgusting companies around.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    There was a very interesting article recently on had about all this:http://hackaday.com/2014/06/12/net-neutrality-fcc-hack-is-a-speed-bump-on-the-internet-fast-lane/

  4. StimuliC

    Verizon are a mess.

    They force the use of a router connected to their fiber network that allows them to snoop on your network. It sends them your SSID and password for your WiFi network. What devices are connected to your home network and even gives them access to the settings on the router.

    In fact, while I have 14 devices in my home, There is just me and I can't really use more than a couple devices at the same time but they would continually try and upsell the service to me offering me even faster internet.

    Strange enough though, the buffering problems were always there regardless of how fast the speed was and happened on all streaming services!

    I dropped their TV service and after a few phone calls I finally got them to allow me to run my own router and use a Cat 6 cable run out to their Optical Network Terminal rather than use their MoCA coax based router.

    Interestingly before I made the final switch to my own equipment I had run my router off their router and the buffering problems stopped when using the Wireless-N, if I switched back over to their Wireless-N connection the buffering returned.

    I would blame their low quality hardware for much of the problems. Hardware that they try and tie you to and the routers especially, they give you the crappiest of crappy routers with only 802.11G and then upsell one that has Wireless-N. Though even with Wireless N the buffering problems persist or become worse. LOL

    1. Mad Chaz

      Re: Verizon are a mess.

      ISPs here in Canada are not any better. The issue is usually that they buy the crapiest router around and load it with a custom firmware that's anything but good. So you end up with a connection that's effectively trottled by the router's lack of capacity.

      And you forgot the part where they blame your computer being slow.

      1. dan1980

        Re: Verizon are a mess.

        @Mad Chaz

        Wow - I thought Telstra was an Aussie-only ISP - there you go!

        No doubt your ones are similarly branded as 'home gateways' and have tiny shiny-but-useless interfaces and unworkably-miniscule NAT tables.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Is this the Tom Wheeler that's a former lobbyist for the Telco's who then hired former Verizon and Comcast attorneys to his FCC team? Pure coincidence I'm sure.

    1. Uncle Ron

      Tom Wheeler

      Tom Wheeler is the former president of the US Cable Industry Association and it's former chief lobbyist to all government agencies and legislative bodies. He is -also- the former president of the Cellular and Internet Industry Association and it's former chief lobbyist to all government agencies and legislative bodies.

      How this guy is -anywhere- near the regulatory process, much less Chairman of the US FCC is -totally- beyond any logic.

  6. joemostowey

    FCC? Federal cash cow

    The FCC can't even explain why Cox Cable, less than 150 feet from my door, on the same side of the road can refuse to hook cable to my house for internet Access. Cox' excuse? You would be the only customer on that transmission line.

    A monopoly, just like Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner, Comcast. They won't provide service because then the ratio of customers to income drops- and so does their stock.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like