Verizon Wireless Throttling System Now Live Should Only Impact Top 5% of Unlimited EVDO (3G) Users Tipped by Gbcue 
Early this year Verizon stated they'd be implementing a new throttling system, though our conversations with Verizon failed to illuminate just what triggered a throttled-back state for consumers. Fast forward many months later and Verizon's new network optimization page suggests the company's throttling system is now live in most markets. According to Verizon, their throttling system will only impact "top 5 percent of data users with 3G devices on unlimited data plans," suggesting that most capped users and users on Verizon's new LTE network won't be impacted by this system. For whatever it's worth, Verizon would prefer you call this "network optimization," not throttling, and the company indicates their system isn't like other carriers. The system works more like Comcast's terrestrial system, which de-prioritizes user packets if that user is in the top 5% of the heaviest users and if a local tower (or node) is suffering from congestion: The difference between our Network Optimization practices and throttling is network intelligence. With throttling, your wireless data speed is reduced for your entire cycle, 100% of the time, no matter where you are. Network Optimization is based on the theory that all customers should have the best network possible, and if you’re not causing congestion for others, even if you are using a high amount of data, your connection speed should be as good as possible. So, if you’re in the top 5% of data users, your speed is reduced only when you are connected to a congested cell site. Once you are no longer connected to a congested site, your speed will return to normal. This could mean a matter of seconds or hours, depending on your location and time of day. Since Verizon worked with Google to torpedo network neutrality consumer protections for wireless, there's really no reason for Verizon to illuminate precisely what form this traffic management takes -- so a lot of the technical specifics remain murky here. According to the company FAQ, since February the company has also been in the process of implementing a "video optimization" policy in a market-by-market basis. Granted if Verizon implements these policies well, most users will never notice they even exist.
|
 ssavoyPremium
join:2007-08-16
Henrietta, NY | Great *waits for $1.99 "network enhancement" fee* | |
|  | Reviews:
 ·Comcast
 ·T-Mobile US
| Re: Waits Waits for the...... " Every tower in our network is congested !" Hence everyone no matter where, when, what, or why gets throttled, I mean Optimized.
To all those users who where showboating "I got my unlimited data from Verizon grandfathered" Translation Verizon is better than Tmobile, sprint, etc, ...HAHAHA ! | |
| | | | | Re: Waits I would use a different service than VZW 3G if it were available! Wireless is a last resort for many of us who've been completely ignored by wireline ISP's. It's not bragging, it's *desperation.*
That said, I should get a call from Frontier today to schedule DSL installation. It has been a damn long time coming. | |
| | | | |
| | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Lets have this debate if/when impacts become a hindrance. | |
| | | | | | Re: Waits said by openbox9:Lets have this debate if/when impacts become a hindrance.
Thankfully you don't control anything. Debate away! | |
| | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: Waits Thankfully it just doesn't matter. | |
|
tcopePremium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
kudos:1 | 4G ""top 5 percent of data users with 3G devices on unlimited data plans"
Is this Verizon spinning the remification of their throttle? That is, they mention 3G users but not 4G users. I suspect with 4G speeds more data will probably be used. | |
| Reviews:
 ·Frontier Communi..
·Verizon Online DSL
| What does network neutrality have to do with this? Network neutrality is the theory (that I happen to agree with, BTW) that ISPs should not be able to prioritize traffic based on source or destination, e.g., Comcast prioritizes their own VOD offering over that of Netflix or Hulu. Network neutrality is silent on the topic of QoS and traffic management. | |
| | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: What does network neutrality have to do with this? Net neutrality has nothing to do with throttling the overall connection's throughput, but it's always a favorite talking point to trot out when a network is managed in a manner that impacts a couple of users. | |
| | |  Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | Re: What does network neutrality have to do with this? said by openbox9:Net neutrality has nothing to do with throttling the overall connection's throughput, but it's always a favorite talking point to trot out when a network is managed in a manner that impacts a couple of users.
Part of what they are doing is what net neutrality will prevent.
It is fine to throttle all traffic equally for a congested tower to keep traffic moving.
It is not acceptable to throttle people because they use their connection more than 95% of other users. Net neutrality would stop unfair throttling to some people and not others. | |
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: What does network neutrality have to do with this? said by Oh_No:It is not acceptable to throttle people because they use their connection more than 95% of other users. Really? And why not? | |
|
| | | | | said by Crookshanks:Comcast prioritizes their own VOD offering over that of Netflix or Hulu.
Isn't that because Comcast's VOD offering doesn't touch the internet (assuming it's the cable box offering)? It is a private system using bandwidth not available and not used by the cable modem system.
Not really relevant to the net neutrality argument. | |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
| Verizon gets it right? Considering that every urban instance of their EVDO I've used is heavily burdened - yielding speeds of 256kbps or less, some form of congestion management is sorely needed
Implementing a system which improves throughput and response for the average customer - while giving data hogs maximum unused bandwidth - whats not to like? | |
| |  TomekPremium
join:2002-01-30
Valley Stream, NY | Re: Verizon gets it right? said by elray:Considering that every urban instance of their EVDO I've used is heavily burdened - yielding speeds of 256kbps or less, some form of congestion management is sorely needed
Implementing a system which improves throughput and response for the average customer - while giving data hogs maximum unused bandwidth - whats not to like?
So if 5% gets their speed reduced, how much you think you connection will be ? 0.005% ?
Verizon's 3G was the slowest to begin with
--
Semper Fi | |
| | Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
·Verizon Online DSL
| Where do you live? I've used my 3G service in Buffalo, New York City, Boston, New Orleans and Nashville over the last 12 months. I've never seen speeds as low as 256kbit/s. The typical speeds I've seen range from 500kbit/s to 1.5mbit/s, depending on time of day.
I have seen SOME difference with urban vs. rural areas but never as slow as what you are describing. The only time I've seen their data network that slow was during the recent floods in my hometown; it was operating at sub-dialup speeds for a few days. I attribute that to a combination of lost cell sites, increased data usage and the possibility that they turned off some EVDO channels in favor of increasing voice capacity. | |
| | |  Smith6612Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:21
·Frontier Communi..
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Verizon gets it right? I'm in the Buffalo area here, and have touched Verizon's 3G service in many areas. If I go to Amherst/East Amherst for example, I don't see much of a slow-down. Typically 700kbps to 3Mbps based on the time of day or what is going on. Of course, minus a ton of Verizon Wireless stores in the Amherst areas, they all have Cable, DSL and/or FiOS available to them so no one is relying on 3G for access while at home. If I go out to more rural towns such as Cambria (West of Lockport) where most of the towers run off of T1s, and Cable/DSL is spotty (but Cable is more prevalant with DSL covering the gaps in most spots), yeah, I do see 200kbps speeds on the 3G network at night. Some of those towers can only kick out 1.5Mbps/1.5Mbps, and that is at 5AM when no one is really online so it's really a backhaul issue.
When I went to a small, rural town in Michigan called Frankenmuth during the summer, Verizon's 3G maintained about 2Mbps most of the time. The tower was probably running off of Fiber or two T1s, but it held up pretty nice. It might help that the town was pretty close to Flint, and the town also houses Air Advantage, a Wireless ISP. | |
| | | | | | Re: Verizon gets it right? Verizon is weird for me. In the city where fiber is laid out everywhere, the speeds average ~500. At home, which is halfway in the sticks and cable internet has only been good the last 5 years, I get speeds upwards of 2Mbps. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
·Verizon Online DSL
| Hmm, the rural areas around these parts are faster than the suburban ones. If I drive 20-30 minutes from town I can reach 2.0-3.0mbit/s at most times. In town I usually see 1.0-2.0mbit/s. I guess they have better backhaul around these parts and few people rely on 3G as a primary means of connectivity.
It was pretty bad here during the floods; there was a period of about three days where it took multiple attempts to place voice calls and even a few moments where text messages wouldn't go through. The data network started out fine and then dropped to sub-dialup speeds right around the same time the voice network resumed working normally. That's why I make the assumption that they turned off some EVDO channels in favor of the voice network, though that's just a guess on my part. They also lost a few of the low lying cell sites, which I'm sure didn't help matters any.
That experience is why I'm ponying up an additional $30/mo to have Verizon install a POTS line at my residence. I'd rather pay the money and be ensured of having reliable communications during the next disaster. | |
|
| | | | | "Considering that every urban instance of their EVDO I've used is heavily burdened"
This is very clear evidence that Verizon gets it wrong--they are clearly not investing enough money in new cell towers and other methods to increase capacity. | |
| | | | | Re: Verizon gets it right? I think LTE is their answer to congested 3G networks, EVDO is an old technology, it can only do so much | |
| | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by PastTense:"Considering that every urban instance of their EVDO I've used is heavily burdened"
This is very clear evidence that Verizon gets it wrong--they are clearly not investing enough money in new cell towers and other methods to increase capacity.
No, it isn't. There is an absolute, finite amount of spectrum licensed in a given area - and even with a city blanketed by towers transmitting at low power levels, the bandwidth is used up quickly. Without some form of management, it will always degrade. | |
|
 rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY | Speeds I rarely if ever use my IPhone for internet anymore because it is so slow. Just awful in NY.... A rip off. Good for email but that's about it. The difference between my home TWC connection and the Verizon Wireless Network is a big joke. | |
| | Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Speeds I was in NYC two weeks ago and got 700kbit/s in the middle of the afternoon/early evening hours. I ranged from JFK airport to Washington Heights and all points in between; didn't have any issues whatsoever with the 3G network. I was even tethering with it at the airport while I waited for friends to deplane. | |
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: Speeds My VZW service in NYC during Labor Day weekend was solid. Surfing the net, Google Maps, streaming audio and video, etc. off and on throughout the weekend with no noticeable problems. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·DIRECTV
·Optimum Online
·Cablevision
| EVDO just too slow for the number of users in cities I have a HTC Thunderbolt in central NJ, we are still a 3G only area and I get between 500kbps and 2000 kbps completely usable for streaming audio, surfing etc. Though Netflix streaming only works at certain times of the day on 3G, so the towers are somewhat congested, hopefully that means they'll deploy LTE soon.
Since my thunderbolt isn't the best with battery life, I have it set to CDMA only since I'm in 3G areas 95% of the time, LTE is about 5 miles north of me.
The farther I drive north, into more congested areas the slower 3G gets, sometimes it's probably backhaul, but I think the towers themselves just get congested using older technology with the number of users in more urban areas, so when I know I'm traveling north I switch on LTE and it's FAASSST!
I'm technically a 4G unlimited user according to my contract but I spend most of my time in 3G areas, so I wonder how I'll be affected. but in any case I think the throttling measures Verizon is taking in 3G areas is fair, they have to try to keep the connection speeds usable for the vast majority of users until they can upgrade 3G areas to LTE and migrate users to LTE and I'm a heavy user using 3 - 7GB a month.
For anyone in a city with LTE, LTE is deployed there for a reason, I'd suggest you upgrade to LTE from my experience | |
|  INT0CABLEBANNEDPremium
join:2007-10-22
Bronx, NY | it doesnt affect 4g subscribers. the top 5% will get throttled ... once that top 5% gets throttled a new wave of 5% will arrive. then that 5% gets throttled then a new wave of %5 will show up. | |
| | INT0CABLEBANNEDPremium
join:2007-10-22
Bronx, NY | Re: it doesnt affect 4g subscribers. there is a 4G outage nationwide as we speak. | |
| | | | | Re: it doesnt affect 4g subscribers. My 4G has been SUPER slow since last Monday. I'm talking like .2Mbps down with full bars right next to the tower while 3G pulls about 1.5Mbps down. | |
|
Reviews:
·Bright House
| test Let's see.
3G: 3.1Mbps shared with only 1 channel (3.1) or 2 (6.2) in most areas. 3+ only if it's NYC or the like and it's still slow (9.3). Your client can only access 3.1 at most the cell site balances all the users. If it's a 4G area most likely the back-haul is being shared on fiber /w the 4G. Then it's NOT a back-haul issue, pure spectrum capacity crunch + wireless radio congestion, nothing VZW can do.
4G: 73Mbps shared with 20MHz in 700MHz premium band. It's back-hauled with GigE (1Gbps) ethernet.
Think about it. VZW is doing this for a REASON.
The REASON rural areas are slow is because they have NO other choice until LTE is there. | |
| Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
| Halfway reasonable, as described This network congestion avoidance throttling punishment system, as described, is halfway reasonable. It allows users to use unused bandwidth more freely. It tackles head-on the issue of appropriate use of contended resources while not stupidly limiting the use of uncontended resources. I fault it for not being more intelligent about distribution of the contended resources, however, it's a hell of a lot closer to right than a lot of the other garbage I've seen out there.
If indeed it is as described, it's good to hear our frequencies and market forces are with a company that is making halfway responsible use of them.
Ditto any similarities with Comcast.
My experience presently for the last few years is with Comcast and T-Mobile. When I bought into T-Mobile's system with a Google smartphone (Nexus One), I started using the smartphone. I immediately started a habit of listening to radio streaming. It's 71MB per workday, or 1.5GB per month, so I found that I was often getting into the throttled group, which meant weeks of EDGE performance. After many bouts of opting not to pay the prepaid account for short periods during these slowdowns (which means I don't get charged for those unpaid periods as well), T-Mobile came to their senses and fixed the problem to the extent that I can actually use my smartphone again all month long, and now they sucked me into a postpaid account (BAD IDEA! Don't do it), but at least they don't throttle like they used to. T-Mobile had what I called stupid throttling.
Granted, if I had more money, I'd buy a CC Radio which recorded shows from AM radio, and I'd be set. Until then, I'll keep downloading 71MB per weekday. What I would think would be better in high contention times and spots is a message popping up on the screen asking me "The network is currently under heavy use. Do you mind if I postpone downloading this until 11PM?", and I could make a decision based upon my situation. Instead, T-Mobile made the service nearly unusable.
I think a lot of people started dumping T-Mobile during their warm-up phase with AT&T, and T-Mobile has pulled back a bit, as to avoid getting bad breath from AT&T on it. | |
|  Tim
@amesnational.com | Top 5% Top 5% is a number that isn't relevant to me as a customer. My bill shows me Megabytes not what % user I am. How am I to know if this applies to me when I have nothing to compare it to? | |
|  VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | I am sure Verizon will continue pushing any VOD services they have and other options they can have for users to download information FROM Verizon
Oh, and why Verizon and others AT THE VERY LEAST leave Verizon-downloaded-material OUT of any cap? i mean, what a joke | |
| | | Throttling and Controls should be mad a criminal act The build the system, and sell the services. As time progresses, more people are going wireless, and more features are being offered the consumer. The consumer keeps buying Ipads and Tablets, and using airtime longer and longer. Soon, the networks get congested, and the provider, after pushing the consumer to buy all its services, says they must now "throttle" the heavy users. Then the seller lablel's the heavy users as "abusers of the bandwidth" and announces that these abusers will be fined. OK, this is a stinking racket and the wireless provider is the "Pusher" After they get the users "addicted" to the service. now throttling and fines are used to punish the consumer that are using the system to its limits-which is perfectly legal. Why should you pay for a high bandwidth service plan, and then be fines for using what you contracted for ? This is being done by wireless, and wired DSL services and is another way to steal more of your hard earned money. There are not enough competition in this field for the consumer to bail out and switch to a competitor, as they all are going to use these tricks sooner or later. | |
|
| |
|
|
·