dslreports logo
 story category
Wheeler Quizzes All Four Wireless Carriers on Throttling
It isn't just Verizon that has gotten criticized by FCC boss Tom Wheeler over the throttling of unlimited customers. Reuters notes that Wheeler did in fact send concerned missives to the other large carriers as well, after he received Verizon's response. FCC insiders claim Verizon was the only one to initially get a letter because it was the only one to recently institute a policy change (the throttling of all unlimited LTE users, when only unlimited 3G users were throttled previously):
quote:
Wheeler wrote those three carriers after receiving Verizon's response, an FCC official said. Verizon was the first under the spotlight because it was the only one to announce a policy change. Wheeler is trying to establish himself as a strong defender of consumers and somebody who will punish Internet providers whose business practices run afoul of consumers' interests.
Of course when it comes to the FCC and being a "strong defender of consumers," talk is relatively cheap.
view:
topics flat nest 

ev
@74.140.91.x

ev

Anon

Network Management Vs. Shareholders

Verizon is a public company -- why is their network utilization level not audited by an independent third party and completely transparent? Ditto for the other three.
elefante72
join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

elefante72

Member

Re: Network Management Vs. Shareholders

Well the reasons typically are:

1. Competitive reasons
2. Intellectual property
3. They would have to show the biggest consumer is the CIA.

ev
@74.140.91.x

ev

Anon

Re: Network Management Vs. Shareholders

"Competitive reasons" stopping local county and state auditors from double-checking gas pumps and supermarket scales? No...
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: Network Management Vs. Shareholders

Competitive reasons or trade secrets are 2 of the biggest farces for not providing information publicly.

Their competitors already know where they fall short.
Their competitors already know what they are working on.
They are public companies and the core of how their business is functioning should be public knowledge and verifiable by the public.
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

78036364 (banned) to ev

Member

to ev
Why do cable companies not have to justify why they have caps? Or even offer meters? Oh by eh way cable ISPs throttle too. Why isn't the FCC looking into this.

Charter uses reasonable network management practices consistent with industry standards to ensure that all of its Customers have a high quality online experience. Charter's online network is a bidirectional, shared network, the proper management of which is essential to promote the use and enjoyment of the Internet by all of our Customers. The potential for congestion which could adversely affect our network exists when a small number of users place an unusually heavy demand on the available network bandwidth. To this end, the FCC permits us to employ "reasonable network management" practices to protect Customers from activities that can unreasonably burden our network or cause service degradation, including network congestion and security attacks. In the event the periods of congestion necessitate such management, Charter has available the following tools and practices(without limitation and as may be adjusted over time): (i) Subscriber Traffic Management (STM) technology to temporarily manage upstream and downstream traffic during times of peak congestion in a protocol-agnostic manner; (ii) spam filtering and spam detection techniques; and (iii) use of an upper limit of bandwidth allocated for uploading of files during congested periods. Charter also employs certain automated processes to more evenly distribute the available bandwidth to users. Most Customers do not notice any change in their Internet experience as a result of these practices. Charter reserves the right to modify these network management practices in its discretion and in accordance with law.

Also in the AUP

12. NO EXCESSIVE USE OF BANDWIDTH

If Charter determines, in Charter’s sole discretion, that Customer is using an excessive amount of bandwidth over the Charter network infrastructure for Internet access or other functions using public network resources, Charter may at any time and without notice, suspend excessive bandwidth capability, suspend Customer’s access to the Service, require Customer to pay additional fees in accordance with Charter’s then-current, rates for such service, or terminate Customer’s account.

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC

IPPlanMan

Member

Re: Network Management Vs. Shareholders

You're changing the subject...
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

78036364 (banned)

Member

Re: Network Management Vs. Shareholders

said by IPPlanMan:

You're changing the subject...

No I'm not. Cable ISPs throttle, why is that different? Wheeler says throttling is no no.

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC

IPPlanMan

Member

Re: Network Management Vs. Shareholders

Yes, you are.
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Wakefield, MA

BosstonesOwn to 78036364

Member

to 78036364
Because the spectrum on the cable is not an open asset owned by the american people, the airwaves supposedly are.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory to IPPlanMan

Member

to IPPlanMan
He's the master of the red herring.

ev
@74.140.91.x

ev to 78036364

Anon

to 78036364
"FCC permits us..."

Which is hilarious because MSO Internet is an unregulated wild wild west. Anarchy -- delivered on a silver platter courtesy of Michael Powell and the lack of Title II consumer protections.

BLEAH.

Eagles1221
join:2009-04-29
Vincentown, NJ

Eagles1221 to ev

Member

to ev
Well, they did get restrictions from the FCC when they poached the 700Mhz TV band for LTE and one of the stipulations was no throttling allowed on the LTE piece.
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

78036364 (banned)

Member

Re: Network Management Vs. Shareholders

said by Eagles1221:

Well, they did get restrictions from the FCC when they poached the 700Mhz TV band for LTE and one of the stipulations was no throttling allowed on the LTE piece.

A)It doesn't say that

B) Any restrictions are on the 700 MHz band. Verizon also uses AWS for LTE which has ZERO restrictions. So explain why they can't throttle that spectrum?

C) When T-Mobile, Sprint and At&t all get a piece of the 600 MHz spectrum next year is the FCC going to impose "no throttling rules" on them since that spectrum is clearly more valuable that 700 MHz?
78036364

78036364 (banned)

Member

Wheeler is a tool

"Verizon was the first under the spotlight because it was the only one to announce a policy change."

So If Verizon never instituted this change Wheeler was perfectly happy letting the other 3 throttle unlimited data users as they have for YEARS? He only sent the other letters out after Verizon called him out on his hypocrisy. He also apparently didn't mind that Verizon had been throttling unlimited 3G data users for the last 3 years since he never brought that up before either. Or perhaps it wasn't until Verizon's announcement that Wheeler even knew about the other throttling going on. Which is pretty scary that the FCC commish is that ignorant.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

Re: Wheeler is a tool

I don't think logic works this way.

ev
@74.140.91.x

ev to 78036364

Anon

to 78036364
Hypocrisy?

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC

IPPlanMan

Member

Re: Wheeler is a tool

Yes.
IPPlanMan

IPPlanMan

Member

Throttling schemes...

All these schemes are ridiculous....

As long as the meter is running, there's no risk of congestion... Or so we're expected to believe. Once it becomes unlimited, you're a hog at some arbitrary level which has nothing to do with anything.

See here's how it works:
Unlimited Data is called congestion.
Tiered Data is called usage.

Unicorns and stardust.
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

78036364 (banned)

Member

Re: Throttling schemes...

said by IPPlanMan:

All these schemes are ridiculous....

As long as the meter is running, there's no risk of congestion... Or so we're expected to believe. Once it becomes unlimited, you're a hog at some arbitrary level which has nothing to do with anything.

See here's how it works:
Unlimited Data is called congestion.
Tiered Data is called usage.

Unicorns and stardust.

So hundreds or even just dozens streaming HD video has ZERO affect on a tower? Sorry that is just plain lack of knowledge of how things work. bandwidth is not some magic shit that is eternal and unlimited.

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC

IPPlanMan

Member

Re: Throttling schemes...

said by 78036364:

So hundreds or even just dozens streaming HD video has ZERO affect on a tower? Sorry that is just plain lack of knowledge of how things work. bandwidth is not some magic shit that is eternal and unlimited.

There you go again...

mackey
Premium Member
join:2007-08-20

mackey

Premium Member

Re: Throttling schemes...

Yeah, how dare he bring Facts into this argument!
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin

Member

Re: Throttling schemes...

Uh... What facts?

mackey
Premium Member
join:2007-08-20

mackey

Premium Member

Re: Throttling schemes...

a) hundreds or even just dozens streaming HD video will degrade service to everyone on the tower
b) bandwidth is not some magic shit that is eternal and unlimited

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

Re: Throttling schemes...

So in that case I should then be throttled for the remainder of my billing period? BS.
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

78036364 (banned) to IPPlanMan

Member

to IPPlanMan
said by IPPlanMan:

said by 78036364:

So hundreds or even just dozens streaming HD video has ZERO affect on a tower? Sorry that is just plain lack of knowledge of how things work. bandwidth is not some magic shit that is eternal and unlimited.

There you go again...

Yes and you don't say anything because you know I'm right. Plenty of unlimited data customers tether their phones and use them as regular internet. It's not uncommon for them to use 100 GB, 500 GB or even 1 TB of data in a month. Now no one with ANY common sense can say that 1 TB isn't excessive on a mobile connection.

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC

IPPlanMan

Member

Re: Throttling schemes...

And those people bring the whole system down? Seriously.
You wouldn't know the difference if you didn't read about their digital bragfest.
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

78036364 (banned)

Member

Re: Throttling schemes...

said by IPPlanMan:

And those people bring the whole system down? Seriously.
You wouldn't know the difference if you didn't read about their digital bragfest.

Your post clearly shows you know little of how things work. Now quit avoiding the question, is 1 TB a month excessive for a mobile connection yes or no?

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC

IPPlanMan

Member

Re: Throttling schemes...

You think it is. I disagree.
Them posting it proves the system can handle it.
grabacon9
join:2013-08-21
Newark, OH

grabacon9 to 78036364

Member

to 78036364
The system can handle it. The corporate greedy liars would say otherwise.
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

78036364 (banned)

Member

Re: Throttling schemes...

said by grabacon9:

The system can handle it. The corporate greedy liars would say otherwise.

Prove the network can handle 10000 users using 1 TB per month each. I'm interested in your math.

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC

IPPlanMan

Member

Re: Throttling schemes...

I'm more interested how you came up with that assumption...
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

78036364 (banned)

Member

Re: Throttling schemes...

I'm more interested on why you refuse to answer a yes or no question. Hmmmmmm.

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC

IPPlanMan

Member

Re: Throttling schemes...

You didn't ask a question. You stated an assumption you were comfortable making.

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

1 recommendation

ptrowski to 78036364

Premium Member

to 78036364
said by 78036364:

said by grabacon9:

The system can handle it. The corporate greedy liars would say otherwise.

Prove the network can handle 10000 users using 1 TB per month each. I'm interested in your math.

So there are a ton of people using 1 TB on their mobile connections? Highly unlikely.

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC

1 recommendation

IPPlanMan

Member

Re: Throttling schemes...

Yup. But it's an assumption he's comfortable postulating...

ev
@74.140.91.x

1 recommendation

ev to 78036364

Anon

to 78036364
GTFO

Staying connected to AOL all day every day 15 years ago could've been considered excessive, too. Yet, the ILECs had NO problem selling customers an extra low-cost twisted pair along with UNLIMITED calling to the local modem pool.

In fact, when AOL switched from hourly plans to unlimited, they had all sorts of problems early on. Remember that? Then AOL ramped up capacity to meet subscriber demand and all was well again -- something Verizon wants to pretend simply isn't possible because physics and maths and stuff.

If Verizon is so woefully over-subbed and new sites are too expensive, maybe they should suspend their relentless advertising campaigns for a year or two?
AmericanMan
Premium Member
join:2013-12-28
united state

AmericanMan

Premium Member

Re: Throttling schemes...

said by ev :

In fact, when AOL switched from hourly plans to unlimited, they had all sorts of problems early on. Remember that? Then AOL ramped up capacity to meet subscriber demand and all was well again -- something Verizon wants to pretend simply isn't possible because physics and maths and stuff.

If Verizon is so woefully over-subbed and new sites are too expensive, maybe they should suspend their relentless advertising campaigns for a year or two?

QFT.

The real reason Verizon doesn't do anything is because the second they try to tell their shareholders "hey guys you know if we spend a little bit of money now we can make bajillions more in a year or two" the shareholders will probably bail and cry "forget long term revenues we want short term revenues now! D:"

Verizon has a responsibility to its shareholders first, and customers second. Because without the former there couldn't be the latter.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to 78036364

Member

to 78036364
I think his point was pretty clear in that why argue with you when:

a. You limit the argument to a very narrow view that appears in your favor.
b. You won't admit you are wrong regardless.

To support what he says and go against what you say I will yet again say to you, which has been said numerous times, this has nothing to do with who uses what. It is the fact that according to Verizon if you are on a tiered plan you can stream all the HD you want and it is simply OK. However, if you are on an unlimited plan and stream all the HD you want it is called congestion. Cost to the user is not relevant so don't bring that into the fight again as if one is willing to pay more, they can stream away.

•••

Mark_Venture
join:2000-05-31
Coatesville, PA

Mark_Venture to 78036364

Member

to 78036364
said by 78036364:

Yes and you don't say anything because you know I'm right. Plenty of unlimited data customers tether their phones and use them as regular internet. It's not uncommon for them to use 100 GB, 500 GB or even 1 TB of data in a month. Now no one with ANY common sense can say that 1 TB isn't excessive on a mobile connection.

If a carrier was throttling ALL users on that single tower only when it was over loaded, that is network management.

But that is not what is being proposed by Verizon here.

I get that SOME unlimited users abuse it and use hundreds of gigs per month, and that can cause issues, especially if that data usage occurs during "peak" hours. But if there is no other traffic when that much data is being used, what is the impact on the other thousands of customers who are not trying to use data?

And why continue for the remainder of this billing cycle, plus the next business cycle, when in theory the congestion on a tower should subside as people move around.

And why throttle only those users on unlimited?

For your example of "hundreds or just dozens streaming HD video" Sure that would impact, if they are all doing so at the same time on the same tower. But why should it matter what data plan the person is paying for? i.e. A user paying for 6GB tiered plan who uses 5GB is just as detrimental on the network as a user who is PAYING for Unlimited and uses 5GB, or even a user paying for a 2GB plan who decided to stream HD video at that same moment, is it not?
houghe9
join:2008-02-27
Lexington Park, MD

houghe9 to 78036364

Member

to 78036364
said by 78036364:

Now no one with ANY common sense can say that 1 TB isn't excessive on a mobile connection

why does your common sense win out? why is it my problem to do anything? i paid for a service i am using that service. why do i need to care about anyone else? i don't buy a TV on sale at Walmart and walk out the door worrying if someone else in the store was able to purchase a TV. I don't care how much data you use. I pay for mine. My common sense says I work very hard for my money and when i spend it, I expect to get what i paid for. common sense in this case would also be if you buy 4 of something you don't just take 3.
Why should I or any other customer think they should get less? the more you defend companies that do this throttling the more you hurt us as a whole. The most logical step in the process should be if Verizon is having network congestion problems that they put up more towers, spend more on r&d and develop the next technological innovation. by putting caps on and charging more they solve their problem at our expense and they do not have to do anything.

One last thing. these companies are not your friend. They are not doing anything out of their kind hearts. they are in it to make money and as long as they are getting mine I am going to use it how I want within the guidelines of my contract.
RobertJTownley
join:2001-04-13
Omaha, NE

RobertJTownley to 78036364

Member

to 78036364
Agreed, 1TeraByte is excessive even for some cable systems, but i doubt there are many even coming close to 100GB. i have had an unlimited data plan for several years... never went above 10GigaBytes in the course of a month.
clone (banned)
join:2000-12-11
Portage, IN

clone (banned) to 78036364

Member

to 78036364
Telecoms are the only industry in the world who actively work to curb demand for their product. Any other industry would be happy to step up to the plate and meet the demand for their product (ie. increase capacity for users to utilize the services they want).

If you can blow through your cap in less than 5 minutes on an unloaded cell site, did you really cost Verizon or whomever anything at all? $30 for 5 minutes of use. Sounds fair to me!
biochemistry
Premium Member
join:2003-05-09
92361

biochemistry

Premium Member

Re: Throttling schemes...

Not true. Power and water companies also try to limit demand. What do they all have in common? They are (power and water) or should be considered utilities.

mackey
Premium Member
join:2007-08-20

mackey to IPPlanMan

Premium Member

to IPPlanMan
said by IPPlanMan:

As long as the meter is running, there's no risk of congestion... Or so we're expected to believe. Once it becomes unlimited, you're a hog at some arbitrary level which has nothing to do with anything.

Actually what's more important than the actual limit is psychological effect of knowing that some (small) limit exists and it's the fear of going over said limit which keeps congestion down. If someone knows they're on unlimited then they will have no problem using lots of data, but if they know they have a limit then they'll think twice about watching that new kitten video.

••••••••••••••••••••••••
grabacon9
join:2013-08-21
Newark, OH

grabacon9

Member

The greedy liars love throttling.

They'd prefer to charge more than please customers with artificial caps.
RobertJTownley
join:2001-04-13
Omaha, NE

RobertJTownley

Member

Fair and Reasonable throttling is OK, but 24.4kbps in the wee hours?

Unlimited DATA Verizon customer here. i would be very interested if perGB Verizon customers in my area also get throttled back twenty years in speed?
wget at first reported well over 800kb/s download speed, but then after a few minutes dropped to about 24.4 dialup modem speed. i understand that during the day, but even in the wee hours of the night/morning, it never went above 48kilobits/second.
14% [====>                                  ] 99,787,231  3.63KB/s  eta 9h 24m
79% [++++++++++++++++++++=========> ] 535,379,964 4.67KB/s eta 1h 53m


The download finally finished at 6:23AM, so even around 4AM, i was throttled back twenty years to the early 1990's.