 tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
1 recommendation |
tshirt
Premium Member
2014-Jun-5 12:51 pm
So, Comcast has had their meter independantly audited... will Neflix? Have they tested to be absolutely positively certain that an ISP blockade is the ONLY circumstance that can trigger a warning?
That their definition of ABNORMAL is in fact abnormal?
and are they willing to open it up for independent testing and analysis?
perhaps even pay for continuing oversight and public disclosure?
Cause right now it still looks like a "misleading PR stunt" |
|
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL |
Agreed, there is a lot more real data that NetFlix or even Level3 could release without violating non-disclosure aspects of their contracts. |
|
4 recommendations |
to tshirt
I dont see this as a PR stunt at all, I see this as a transparency measure. Anyone other than an ISP employee would see it the same way |
|
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL |
I think that's the point, its lacking transparency and real supporting data. |
|
3 recommendations |
And an auditor paid for BY comcast is transparent? Please, comcast has been shown to be a greedy corporation that does not care about their customers. They have one of the lowest customer satisfaction rates in the country. I believe netflix any day over comcast. |
|
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL |
Yet the evil corporation actually goes to the trouble of having a third party perform the audit and releases (at least for the last one) the basis (data) and audit report for public viewing. |
|
tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA |
to AVonGauss
See, this bothers me
"That's how it works now, but Netflix may modify/tune as they continue to roll out and learn more.
Sort of like " it's not finished, may not even work correctly, but the first thing we'll do, is put up a billboard and accuse them of stalling"
rather then quietly informing the new "partner/signatory" that the interconnect is not yet up to the task.
it's the highly publicized part of the stunt that doesn't seem to be quite right. |
|
| |
Some of their criteria is based on arbitrary set points, like what is "abnormally compressed". For credibility they want that to set that at a point where it still holds true that it's the trouble is on the ISP's end. They may even be conservative (a prudent decision when you begin pointing fingers) right now and have that value at a high level and then lower it later. |
|
tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2014-Jun-5 2:17 pm
MAYBE, it has yet to be shown what their exact methodology and assumptions are, but they don't seem to have chosen the conservative approach to anything else so far.
Perhaps they will reveal actual numbers rather then unsupported conclusions. |
|
| |
Why should they when you have the last mile corp ISP vultures make them pay twice.... |
|
dfxmatt
join:2007-08-21
Crystal Lake, IL
1 recommendation |
to tshirt
Please. Do you even know anything about networking? It's very plausible that this is deliberate congestion and does not read at all like "PR stunt" |
|
|
| |
PlusOne to tshirt
Anon
2014-Jun-5 3:39 pm
to tshirt
said by tshirt: Have they tested to be absolutely positively certain that an ISP blockade is the ONLY circumstance that can trigger a warning?
That their definition of ABNORMAL is in fact abnormal?
and are they willing to open it up for independent testing and analysis?
perhaps even pay for continuing oversight and public disclosure?
Cause right now it still looks like a "misleading PR stunt" Good point. People here demand that Comcast submit to federal regulators over their measurement claims. So where is the demand that Netflix do the same. Well??? |
|
| |
Probitas to AVonGauss
Anon
2014-Jun-5 3:46 pm
to AVonGauss
So when a pharma company has a third party they pay for release documents stating their drug is safe even if others have tested and shown NOT safe, it gets approved and then kills people, that was reliable and not bought.
When any company doing any auditing has financial ties to the company they are auditing, that's a huge red flag in my book. Government institutions are supposed to be paid for by tax payers because it's in the publics interest, not private (again, stating what it should be, not what it likely is). |
|
 your moderator at work
 hidden : Personal attacks
|
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
1 edit |
to Probitas
Re: So, Comcast has had their meter independantly audited... will Neflix?While I would actually tend to agree a paid for study or even audit deserves more scrutiny, I would hardly compare a bandwidth meter to a drug viability analysis. My point, which you seem to have ignored, is they also tend to release the supporting data. Did you read it and find an area that is suspicious? |
|
| |
said by AVonGauss:While I would actually tend to agree a paid for study or even audit deserves more scrutiny, I would hardly compare a bandwidth meter to a drug viability analysis. My point, which you seem to have ignored, is they also tend to release the supporting data. Did you read it and find an area that is suspicious? Why don't you read the comments section of that article on this site? There are plenty of complaints about the methodology. But more importantly, there's no way to confirm the data is accurate. The release of the report wasn't "trouble" for Comcast, it was a calculated PR move to bolster the argument for their merger. |
|
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL |
The released the first audit long before there was any TWC merger.... |
|
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
to dfxmatt
And it's very plausible that this is not deliberate congestion but may be the fault of Netflix's service providers. Why are they never questioned, especially given Level 3 and Cogent's histories? |
|
 ieolusSupport The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Danbury, CT |
to AVonGauss
This is how it works...
1. manipulate data
2. provide said manipulated data to "independent 3rd party"
3. release report based on manipulated data
4. ???
5. profit |
|
dfxmatt
join:2007-08-21
Crystal Lake, IL
1 edit |
to openbox9
They have probably been yelling at their service providers continually about this for it to actually come to a public spat. Also see » www.techdirt.com/article ··· rs.shtml , which shows that this is 100% verizon. |
|
Bengie25
join:2010-04-22
Wisconsin Rapids, WI |
to openbox9
Cogent has a horrible history, but Level 3, while not flawless, is a shining example of an ethical business. |
|
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
to dfxmatt
That article doesn't show anything except for another outlet jumping on the "it's Verizon's fault" bandwagon. |
|
| openbox9 |
to Bengie25
Shining example of ethical business? Please, do tell. |
|
tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA |
to Probitas
Nobody died here, MAYBE, at most, somebody pays a few extra a month until it get a hearing. MAYBE |
|
| |
to pumpkinhead7
Skype does similar, too, even when it don't mention a specific ISP name in a warning message.  |
|
| RJARRRPCGP |
to pumpkinhead7
(double post) |
|
