|
Terrible Image QualityI noticed a few weeks ago that images accessed through my Millenicom/Verizon service are being degraded considerably. After doing some research online, I found that VZW is "optimizing" images and video to reduce the demand on their network. I also found one website that explained the practice and included sample images (I am not sure if I can link to it here because of spam rules).
I have a CradlePoint router so that I can use my laptops on wifi. I have tried plugging the USB modem directly into each computer, but I still have the image problem. I have even tried accessing the images on my phone directly through my local Verizon tower and the pictures are degraded considerably. I believe I have ruled out the possibility of it being hardware related.
I contacted Millenicom via email to explain the problem. I even included images accessed here and through AT&T at work. The difference is quite noticeable. Millenicom contacted VZW to make sure they weren't throttling my account or that any problems had been reported with my local tower. Millenicom then reset my modem and told me to call in if I still noticed a problem.
After coming here and not seeing any posts from others about network optimization, I am curious why I seem to be one of a small group that has even noticed. The degradation in quality is very pronounced. Product images on Amazon and eBay are quite grainy, and it is very hard to pick out detail. Images on Flickr and Google Photos do not seem to be degraded. I am assuming VZW recognizes they are dedicated to photography and have made an exception.
I find this practice to be unacceptable. I manage several websites, and I need to be able to see exactly what the end user will see while creating images for display online. I also think it is unfair to give someone a watered-down, lower quality connection just because your network is overloaded.
Is anyone else experiencing this problem? What should I do at this point? |
actions · 2012-Jan-25 7:49 pm · (locked) |
|
Move somewhere there is FiOS or Cable. You are expecting something that wireless was never intended to provide. The carriers have to take steps to provide a reasonable system to all of it's subscribers not just a few with special needs. There are millions of smart phones out there now using a finite amount of bandwidth. |
actions · 2012-Jan-25 8:11 pm · (locked) |
1 recommendation |
I disagree. I have even read articles online recently stating 4G networks will be the future method of choice for delivering data. The argument is it will be much easier to upgrade a tower and blanket a large area than run miles of new cable. If mobile broadband becomes the standard, are we supposed to just expect lower quality?
Anyway, I am more interested in finding out if other Millinicom/VZW users are experiencing the same thing. At least that way I will know whether or not it can be fixed. |
actions · 2012-Jan-25 8:18 pm · (locked) |
Jim_in_VA (banned) join:2004-07-11 Cobbs Creek, VA |
Jim_in_VA (banned)
Member
2012-Jan-25 8:22 pm
We often send large photoshop files to online commercial printers and art sites. They have never complained of image degradation after receiving them. To Verizon it is just data, whether photos or documents. I've never had a problem with it. |
actions · 2012-Jan-25 8:22 pm · (locked) |
|
Same with me. I've sent high resolution pics to Walmart for printing and never had a problem |
actions · 2012-Jan-25 8:31 pm · (locked) |
|
to Jim_in_VA
I don't think images attached and sent through email would be degraded. I have only seen this in images accessed through the browser while viewing web pages. The sample image I sent to Millenicom support was 28k when viewed with AT&T DSL and downsized to 6k when viewed with Millenicom. That's a pretty substantial difference. |
actions · 2012-Jan-25 8:31 pm · (locked) |
Jim_in_VA (banned) join:2004-07-11 Cobbs Creek, VA |
Jim_in_VA (banned)
Member
2012-Jan-25 8:35 pm
do you have an example on a website? |
actions · 2012-Jan-25 8:35 pm · (locked) |
|
Yes. Am I allowed to post links here? |
actions · 2012-Jan-25 8:35 pm · (locked) |
|
to sundrop74
Here's a 1.42 Mb pic. How does it look to you? |
actions · 2012-Jan-25 8:36 pm · (locked) |
Jim_in_VA (banned) join:2004-07-11 Cobbs Creek, VA |
to sundrop74
yes, you are |
actions · 2012-Jan-25 8:36 pm · (locked) |
Jim_in_VA |
to Jack_in_VA
looks sharp to me Jack, even you're hairy arm |
actions · 2012-Jan-25 8:38 pm · (locked) |
|
to Jim_in_VA
I just posted the links, but my post isn't showing up. Do I have to upgrade to premium or something?
The image you posted is only 138 kb on my computer and very pixelated (after enlarging and right-clicking to save). |
actions · 2012-Jan-25 8:45 pm · (locked) |
sundrop74 1 edit |
to Jack_in_VA
It looks very pixelated to me, even when enlarged. The size on my computer is 138 kb. I'm linking to the webpage I manage for my church. The image of my pastor is the one I mentioned earlier that was resized from 28 kb to 6 kb. (link removed for privacy reasons) I have another example here: » www.anotherpartofme.com/ ··· quality/ |
actions · 2012-Jan-25 8:48 pm · (locked) |
grobinetteSoutheast of disorder MVM, join:2001-01-27 22152-1106 |
to sundrop74
No you are okay, new members can't post links without mod approval because of all the spammers. Nothing personal. |
actions · 2012-Jan-25 8:49 pm · (locked) |
Jim_in_VA (banned) join:2004-07-11 Cobbs Creek, VA |
to sundrop74
If I right click the image of your pastor and select info, it shows as 27.9 kb ...it does not resize it to 6 kb for me and is a JPEG of 240px x 320 px |
actions · 2012-Jan-25 9:01 pm · (locked) |
|
|
to sundrop74
Here's a pic sent through Verizon. The first was Sprint |
actions · 2012-Jan-25 9:10 pm · (locked) |
|
Still 138 kb. My connection is obviously either trottled or optimized. I have posted more links, but am waiting for it to be approved by the mods. |
actions · 2012-Jan-25 9:14 pm · (locked) |
|
to Jim_in_VA
said by Jim_in_VA:If I right click the image of your pastor and select info, it shows as 27.9 kb ...it does not resize it to 6 kb for me and is a JPEG of 240px x 320 px Same with me 27.79 KB (28,452 bytes) 240px à 320px |
actions · 2012-Jan-25 9:15 pm · (locked) |
2 edits |
via AT&T | via Millenicom |
I deleted the images of my pastor for privacy reasons. Here are a couple of other sample images. Notice the difference in file size and quality. |
actions · 2012-Jan-25 9:37 pm · (locked) |
1 edit |
That's strange. Are you sure it's not something with your computer?
The second rose I posted I sent from my computer (Sprint) via email to my wife's computer(Verizon) and then posted to Millenicom Forum from her computer (Verizon). They are exactly the same. |
actions · 2012-Jan-25 9:43 pm · (locked) |
|
It's not the computer. I have verified this problem across two computers and my phone (on wifi and VZW 3G). I think it's my local tower, because my phone displays the images correctly in a town about 20 miles away. |
actions · 2012-Jan-25 9:45 pm · (locked) |
|
I've run out of ideas as I've never experienced this. I know about throttling but that just slows data not shapes it. As you can see I have the same results from Verizon and Sprint.
If you find the problem please share. |
actions · 2012-Jan-25 9:53 pm · (locked) |
1 edit |
*delete |
actions · 2012-Jan-25 9:53 pm · (locked) |
|
saturn2121
Anon
2012-Jan-25 10:08 pm
What browser are you using? I know Opera optimizes slow web connections. But I've used Verizon for years and never had any optimization effects. |
actions · 2012-Jan-25 10:08 pm · (locked) |
dib22 join:2002-01-27 Kansas City, MO 1 edit |
to sundrop74
Venturi Systray Icon |
Do you have "venturi" installed? Look down in your systray and see if there is a V icon... if so right click it and choose "OFF". I don't think verizon even uses venturi anymore... If you do indeed have it installed/enabled I am amazed its working at all! » support.verizonwireless. ··· uri.html |
actions · 2012-Jan-25 10:51 pm · (locked) |
|
No Venturi installed or running that I am aware of. I am using Chrome, but I have the same result in IE and on different computers. As I said before, I have even pulled up the pastor image on my phone using Verizon (not Millenicom via wifi) and it looks the same. It displays correctly in a nearby town, so that leads me to believe it is the tower. |
actions · 2012-Jan-25 10:57 pm · (locked) |
dib22 join:2002-01-27 Kansas City, MO |
dib22
Member
2012-Jan-25 11:29 pm
said by sundrop74: I am using Chrome, but I have the same result in IE and on different computers. ... It displays correctly in a nearby town, so that leads me to believe it is the tower. Yup sounds like it! You can always VPN around it if you have access to a VPN service. |
actions · 2012-Jan-25 11:29 pm · (locked) |
DS1192 join:2010-07-16 La Crosse, WI |
DS1192
Member
2012-Jan-26 12:46 am
Really? I would not believe a tower could be doing it. Maybe the tower in the near by town has faster speed which keeps the optimization software down. From the sounds of it. You must have some optimization running. If not the browser, then some other software. |
actions · 2012-Jan-26 12:46 am · (locked) |
|
If it is optimization software on my computer, then why would my Verizon phone have the same result when I am not connected to Millinicom via wifi? That completely rules out the computer as the culprit.
I am going to do a test this weekend and actually take my computer and USB modem to a nearby town and see if I get a different result on another tower. |
actions · 2012-Jan-26 9:23 am · (locked) |
sundrop74 |
to dib22
I am not familiar with VPN services. Can you explain it to me like a two year old? =) |
actions · 2012-Jan-26 9:24 am · (locked) |