08-08-2010 10:34 AM
I heard you are going to decide which websites we can visit easily and which ones we will have a hard time connecting to.
Is this just for people with Verizon Service?
If so, I want to switch to a different service provider because you are too arrogant to do business with.
Who give you the right to limit my choice of which websites I can go to?
08-08-2010 10:07 PM
Unfortunately this appears to be in the works and it gets worse... I just read 2 days ago that Verizon is trying to get into bed with Google to "start the process of putting a lid on unrestricted internet access".
So, it appears the time has come if these Goliath do get married to start looking for 1). A new service provider and there are many smaller ones that don't do this kind of crap and 2). Scrap Google and use a different search engine and delete/remove all associated software from both companies.
I have 768k DSL, the max I can get due to distance limitations from the CO. I just notice for certain and started monitoring my DSL service as it has dropped speed down to an average of 265kbps since 8/3/10. I've put in 3 tickets to get it fixed so far and the fix was actually "doctored" by the Verizon techs to reflect "flashing modem lights" as the cause for the TS call when it has been the same all along... Slow Internet Connection.
If I don't hear something positive and see my service return to normal 768k +/- 10k as it has been for YEARS I'm going to start filing complaints with appropriate consumer protection agencies because this is **bleep**. I did get a 2nd tier support tech on 8/5/10 but still have not heard back or seen any positive change in my DSL performance, actually it has gotten worse since that tech call was made. I was getting 375k on the 5th, now I'm down to 265k.
08-09-2010 11:54 AM
Of course they will never admit to purposely slowing down connection speeds.
But whats to stop them from slowing down or even blocking one customer to give access to a customer who is paying more?
They are already admitting to wanting to giving preference to premium business web sites so why would they have a problem with giving preference to one customer over another?
My confusion is over how they are going to do it.
Are they just going to slow down access for their own customers when they try to get onto non-premium websites or are they going to slow down the signal when it is just through their servers on its way to other servers?
Either way, their own customers are going to have limited access.
How can they not see that this is going to make everyone mad at them?
08-09-2010 01:49 PM
I believe this to be much ado about nothing ... this is not a case of "slowing down" traffic, but of traffic prioritization, bandwidth management, caching, etc. Unfortunately when the media gets ahold of these topics and doesn't understand the technical details behind what is being discussed, they misquote information, make flat out incorrect claims, and generally get the story wrong. It's "gotcha journalism" at it's finest and is unfortunately all to often the preferred type of reporting over actually getting and understanding the real details.
While net-neutrality is an important topic, people need to realize that this comes in many flavors. As it applies to the internet in general, this means not blocking or otherwise purposely impeding traffic to a specific network or for a specific protocol over any one other protocol "over the public network". Remember-- the internet is a public network of "best effort" delivery and not a network of guaranteed delivery -- this is why many enterprises still rely on private network connectivity to interconnect their sites and not VPN's or other techniques for going over the internet. On private networks, the concept of "Quality of Service" or QOS has been around for years and is commonly used to prioritize delivery of certain types of traffic over others (for example, VoIP real-time traffic supersedes regular web traffic). There is nothing wrong with this from a net-neutrality perspective as long as they don't block one provider's traffic over another's within the "public" cloud (for example, allowing VoIP to Verizon owned Digital Voice servers but blocking Vonage).
In the Google/Verizon story, there are two particular topics being discussed it would appear:
1. Optimization of Verizon networks to allow delivery of Google content to customers without violating net-neutrality tenents on wired connections.
2. Optimization of Verizon WIRELESS networks to give a better user experience for content deliver of a types which typically do not perform well in this environment.
In the first case, this is nothing new. Companies like Akamai and other content provider networks have for years been assisting large scale data providers with optimizing traffic delivery by bypassing the "public cloud" and using private networks to optimize and deliver content to distributed data points around the globe which are geographically close to the "last mile" network connection points for consumers. You think you see one website, but in fact, this website is replicated across hundreds or thousands of sites and delivered locally to your computer based on where you are. This is particularly true of video content. Google is likely speaking to Verizon about leveraging capabilities to get content closer to end user points to provide a better user experience for their customers -- perhaps buying "private" Verizon cloud space and data center space to make this happen. In the example from above about VoIP traffic, there is nothing wrong with Verizon allocating private network space to redirect Digital Voice traffic off their "public cloud" and into a private voice network for Verizon servers -- just as long as in the "big bucket" internet pipe they don't otherwise de-prioritize or block other providers VoIP traffic.
In the latter case, it is a well known situation that wireless delivery over cellular networks really isn't truly "net neutral" and never has been on any carriers network. The physics of how the data is packetized and delivered is entirely different and this is why you companies like AT&T swimming in wireless delivery issues because of the huge demand set that was created when the iPhone hit the streets. In this scenario, Google is likely looking to optimize the delivery of streaming content such as video (from Youtube, etc.) so that it can be served across the Verizon network to Verizon devices in as efficient manner as possible. Working "with" the carrier to optimize content instead of dictating how the content will be delivered and hoping the carrier can figure out how to handle it.
Sure, it's a fine line between favoring one vendor over another, but "end of the world" scenarios that people have been reporting are forthcoming simply isn't true.
08-09-2010 03:28 PM
08-10-2010 03:26 AM
Come on lasagna, we all know that all big corporations are villainous monsters whose purpose is to reduce us common folks to mere slaves, and who are led by sociopaths who have managed to stay out of reform school. Any hollywod movie can teach us that.
Seriously, your explanation is a lot better than "gotcha journalism". But gotcha journalism builds market share. This has been true since the days of William Randolph Hearst.
08-10-2010 04:37 PM
Are you directing this towards FIOS or DSL?
I ask because I have been a long time customer using DSL and it has to be the dregs of the internet. Was dial-up any worse? At times I see no difference. When Verizon was introducing FIOS into my area I opted out because they were doing the worse installations I have seen of any utility ever. I was an electronics tech and learned right from wrong generations ago. I have had a couple of new modems sent out to me when they are outdated but the game continues with big V.
Once I asked a technician who was out here checking my lines about how she saw the QC aspect concerning fiber and copper at Verizon. She said they were letting copper go to H***.
That about summed up how I surmise their stand on it.
Everything but installations and rare technicians are outsourced to countries overseas leaving us at the whim of people who we can barely communicate with.
How are we supposed to deal with the headaches?
My first move will be to cable.
08-10-2010 06:53 PM
I am directing my comments toward Internet traffic in general. The issues you cite are local loop and general bandwidth issues and have nothing to do with net neutrality.
08-11-2010 06:50 AM
Has anyone considered that Verizon may be slowing down their DSL customers' throughput in order to get them to switch to Fios? Here's my situation. I ordered the 7.5 MBps DSL service from Verizon about 2 months ago. Beginning the first day of use, I was getting speeds no faster than about 1.2 MBps, so I used Verizon's own DSL line quality checker and it reported to me that there was so much crap (it actually said the word 'crap!'.....no, it didn't) on the line that I needed to contact support to get a tech over to fix/replace the line. So, I call support, and even though I explained that I had used the DSL line quality checker and what it reported, the rep insisted on the typical walk-through of troubleshooting steps. Turn modem off, turn modem on, go to speed check site, etc. and I started to get very annoyed. I said, "listen, your own program told me I needed a service call so just schedule me a **bleep** (I actually said '**bleep**!'......yes I did!) service call already!" The rep said that for some reason his PC kept giving him an error everytime he tried to schedule the service call so he said he would contact my CO and have them call me directly to schedule the service call. When I finally recieved the call from the CO, I was totally shocked and awed by their response. "We're sorry sir but it seems we aren't even able to provide you with the 7.5 MBps service. In fact, if we try to give you more throughput than 1.2 MBps, it makes our servers become unstable so we recommend..." yep, you guessed it! "...that you switch to our Fios service which is much faster!" I began to laugh so loud and hard that I had to put the phone down a moment or two to compose myself and when I was again able to speak I had asked what would have happened if I were regular 'Joe Blow' with no tech experience (I have an A.S. in Networking from ITT) who wouldn't have been bothered by the slow speed and would have never called for service? "Nothing!", said the CO rep. So I explained in detail at how charging someone for faster service, even though they knew that they could not provide said speed was paramount to fraud, which in turn made the CO rep ask if there was anything else he could do for me, to which I gleefully said, "no" and hung up the phone. I immediatly contacted billing to make them aware of their dirty little practice and they said they were going to downgrade my service to the 1.5 MBps speed to which I stated that the CO said they couldn't provide anything more than 1.2!!! So, the billing departments 'fix' for the situation was to say I was being billed for the 1.5 service but instead of paying 39.95 per month, I would only have to pay 25.99 per month. I reluctantly took the deal and continued to use the service. I'd also like to mention that I did (and I shouldn't have) try to switch to Fios but after checking my credit (which is crap because I'm totally irresponsible with money and **bleep** proud of it!!) they told me I would have to pay a $125 deposit (which I can't afford because I am totally irres....wait a minute....deja vu?) so I decided to stick with crap, I mean DSL. A few days later, I noticed that my super duper, sonic, speed barrier blasting service was getting even...........slower!!!!! Thought I was going to say 'faster' didn't ya!? Nope, slower. So, I ran a few different speed tests and low and behold, the fastest speed I was receiving now was around 950 kbps. So, I scrolled through the many numbers in my caller ID (thank god for caller ID units with big memories!) until I came to the number that came on the unit when the CO called me. Quick thinking, huh!?!? I called, hoping not to get the same quick witted individual that I spoke to the first time, but you know what they say about Murphy's Law, right? I was then told that they were still having issues with instability with my connection so they had to lower my speed to......(ugh! do I acutally have to type this!?!?)......950 kbps. "But!", he said with great enthusiasm in his voice. "Verizon is having a great deal in your area right now for Fios. I recommend you call the sales department now and setup an appointment for setup. Would you like the sales number?" I immediatly went into a rant about how weasely I thought they were for slowing my service down even more without notifying me, knowing full well that I was probably now paying for 1.5 MBps but now only getting 950 kbps and felt completely comfortable in knowing so! Well, to wrap this baby up, I have found a very nice rep in the billing department who is now trying to not only completely credit me for all charges to my account up to this point but to also see if she can get me switched to Fios without having to pay the $150 deposit. I have told her, and her supervisor, that if they cannot do that, then I will be cancelling my account with Verizon and taking my business elsewhere which is something I should have done a very, very, very long time ago. Am I a sucker or what!??!?