# Blogger says Verizon is Purposefully Slowing Netflix; Verizon Denies Charge



## Todd Anderson

Last week’s article detailing current Netflix news generated quite a few comments concerning the quality of streamed material, with some Home Theater Shack members reporting what can best be described as substandard experiences. Comments included reports of poor streaming quality post federal neutrality ruling, dropouts during peak hours, images that appear far from hi-def quality, evidence of blocking, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Netflix blaming each other for quality issues, and a difference in quality between Netflix and Apple TV content in the same home.








A multitude of reasons might be the root cause of these quality issues and others like them, but it's hard not wonder if ISPs are the ones to blame. For those of you that missed the discussion, last month a federal court ruled that the government _doesn't_ have the ability to prohibit ISPs from slowing down or blocking web traffic for specific websites. This opens the door for ISPs to limit the streaming pipeline for internet based content providers like Netflix. The Netflix of the world are concerned that ISPs will start to charge fees for the necessary bandwidth to stream their content, or, possibly, provide less bandwidth in order to force a preference for similar streaming services offered by the Internet Service Provider. 

The looming question for many of us – especially those that have cut the cord and rely on services like Netflix for content – remains: what kind of quality should we expect from streaming services and will ISPs purposefully impact that quality?

Last week the *Washington Post* highlighted a *post by a blogger* named David Raphael, a software engineer at iScan Online, Inc., claiming that Verizon FiOS is intentionally squeezing the internet pipeline on Netflix and Amazon Web Service users. He was first alerted to the issue when a co-worker complained about slowdowns associated with remote use of an iScan Online product. Upon further investigation, Raphael found that his 70 Mbps fiber optic home connection was limited to 40 kBps when accessing content hosted on Amazon Web Services (including Netflix). Confused, Raphael “remoted into” his company’s office located 1 mile from his home, and ran a test with same content and registered a 5,000 kBps connection.

Raphael continued to investigate the issue by chatting with Verizon support via a live chat. The Verizon representative insisted the issue was on Raphael’s end, but eventually – Raphael claims – the rep changed his tune. Raphael pressed the rep by asking: “It is a yes or no question. Is Verizon no limiting bandwidth to cloud providers like Amazon’s AWS services?” The response by the rep is surprising: “Yes, it is a limited bandwidth to cloud providers.” The Verizon rep went on to confirm this explains Raphael’s poor Netflix quality.

Raphael says he has tested the connection speed to Amazon Web Services for several weeks and found that it's normal until about 4:00 PM, at which point “things get slow.” What’s interesting, is that the Verizon rep helping Raphael established his connection was a solid 75 Mbps, despite Raphael’s issues. This would give support to Raphael’s claims. Verizon, however, told the Washington Post that the Verizon rep was “misinformed” and that they treat all traffic equally.








A quick look at the ISP Speed Index shows that the average stream speed for both Comcast and Verizon FiOS Netflix users has declined over the past 12 months (graph shown), with a steep decline beginning at the end of last year. Google Fiber, however, has shown an increase in Netflix streaming speed. There are numerous reasons that might explain these differences, many of which are admittedly technical and tough for the average customer to understand. At the end of the day, customers only care about the end-user experience and if you’ve noticed streaming issues with your chosen content provider, take comfort in the fact that you’re not alone. This story is far from over and is probably in it’s opening act; stay tuned. 


_Image Credits: Verizon, ispspeedindex_

Sources: Washington Post, ispspeedindex, Daves' Blog


----------



## chashint

I would not take anything a Verizon online chat service person "says" as gospel, while I am sure some of them actually know something about how the system works my experience has been they operate from a script to the point I have asked if I was corresponding with a person or a machine.


----------



## Todd Anderson

Of course, your point is valid. The speed tests recorded by the blogger are the best evidence. 

At the end of the day, it's an interesting collection of "facts," if you can call them that, and probably just the tip of the iceberg when considering what consumers and companies like Netflix will deal with as the content delivery landscape changes.


----------



## chashint

I am not saying the ISPs are not regulating the streaming services, but providing service to all customers on a shared bandwidth system is more complicated than most people know.
Home internet service is still tricky and speeds are not guaranteed.
Regardless of which ISP is being discussed the home internet service backbone has a shared finite bandwidth.
That bandwidth is like a tree with the roots of the tree connecting to the "internet" and the trunk of the tree being the ISP servers and the main branches being the large cables that feed distribution centers which split to smaller branches which which feed nodes and ultimately end up to lines in the neighborhood that connect to the leaves which represent the individual homes.
All of the ISP to home bandwidth is multiplexed and time shared.
When all the people in the neighborhoods are away from home and at work or school a single user may be able to access the full 15/50/75Mbps speed on a single large file with maximum data packet size but around 4PM when the people begin to return to the homes and they all start using the internet the ISP needs to service those customers too.
One of the ways to do this is to reduce data packet size. Users surfing the web or checking email notice no slow down but the user that was actually using the full potential of their connection might.
As the day goes on the load on the ISP increases especially as more streaming services are turned on and the ISP still has to service all the customers.
Data packets may get smaller not only on the outgoing end but also on the incoming side.
Since this is specifically about Netflix they are not immune to bandwidth issues either, once again hardware and bandwidth are finite.
As more users request more data the Netflix servers and trunk lines have to service all customers too and they slow down by either breaking the data stream into more smaller packets or by reducing the amount (quality) of the data being sent.
Industrial users are not part of the home user system, they contract with an ISP for a specific amount of guaranteed bandwidth and depending on how large that requirement is a dedicated internet access point is built for them. Industrial users do not get away with paying $50 a month for 75Mbps internet access.
It is not surprising to me at all that the blogger was able to achieve full speed download at the office building while receiving reduced speeds at home, completely different internet connection with absolutely nothing in common.

I am a FIOS subscriber myself 50/25Mbps service, and I am as frustrated as anyone else with the throttling issues on Netflix. I have several high end Netflix capable devices and seldom does anything approaching 1080p quality ever come down the line.
Is it a Netflix issue or a Verizon issue? I don't know.
I have done all I can in my home to maximize my network speed
Nothing that streams is wireless anymore, but quite frankly switching to Gb Ethernet in the home didn't buy me anything on the streaming quality.

Oh well hopefully another round of hardware investment is coming up soon and more bandwidth will become available to the end users, until then the shared resources will be shared and the speed tests will still show you are getting the download speed you are paying for even though Netflix is dropping out and it's taking minutes to open the HTS forums.


----------



## dschlic1

chashint The blogger logged into his work network from his house. He tested the connection speed using his company's servers and his home computer. I very good way to test the speed of your internet connection. I have been told by several people that ISPs optimize their servers to give good results on most of the usual internet speed test web sites.

What gets me is that we pay for a bandwidth that we can't get. Is this fraud? Possibly.


----------



## smurphy522

For about the last month or so I too have had Netflix and Amazon streaming issues which fall in-line with this article. I am no longer able to watch a show in HD (quality) nor can I get through a 1 hour session w/out multiple drops or at least hang-ups (buffering). I have AT&T U-verse (with a direct fiber to my house). Prior to last month I never experienced buffering or drop outs and if available in HD the program was much better visual quality.

I suspect this is not coincidence. These companies (ISPs) all probably had their "other" source stream regulating plans in place and ready to fire awaiting the courts ruling.


----------



## phillihp23

"last month a federal court ruled that the government doesn't have the ability to prohibit ISPs from slowing down or blocking web traffic for specific websites."

This is highly troubling. This could end up leading to a much bigger problem than Netflix streaming. Depending on which political agenda a provider is tied with they could start restricting bandwidth to opposition parties affiliated sites....Just saying anything is possible as we have seen with the on going IRS.

What I don't understand is how you can pay for a product...bandwidth....and then be restricted. Furthermore be restricted based on what internet site you are looking at. Anyone have a link to the federal court ruling? I would like to peruse it and see exactly how they came to this conclusion.


----------



## chashint

It's odd that I come off as defending the ISP or against the blogger, when I want my full bandwidth available to any site I choose as much as anyone, especially when that site is Netflix.
Bottom line is bandwidth is finite.
Streaming movie services multiplied by all users exceed the available bandwidth, perhaps at the source as well as at the ISP's output.
As more people subscribe to the streaming services I see it getting worse.


----------



## lcaillo

dschlic1 said:


> chashint The blogger logged into his work network from his house. He tested the connection speed using his company's servers and his home computer. I very good way to test the speed of your internet connection. I have been told by several people that ISPs optimize their servers to give good results on most of the usual internet speed test web sites.
> 
> What gets me is that we pay for a bandwidth that we can't get. Is this fraud? Possibly.


As chashint says, bandwidth is finite. Should ISPs not take on any more subscribers when the potential bandwidth they might use at some point exceeds the capability of their system? That would be more "honest" but none of us would be able to afford the cost, many of us would not even be able to get service, and most of the time that bandwidth would go unused. Maximizing bandwidth is a complex issue, but one solution are bandwidth shifting by downloading higher bit rate content at off peak times. I think you will start to see more of these schemes start to be used as more people demand high bandwidth content relative to the capacity of the systems.


----------



## fschris

I am surprised people are upset because most will tolerate some pretty lack luster quality in streaming. I personally would never waste my time watching anything streaming on my plasma, when I have a Oppo player, HD cable etc.... I think with all this Net Neutrality going on... the government should keeps its nose out and let consumers vote with their wallets. It would get resolved one way or another. Networks are not cheap to install and operate and content is not cheap to distribute and create. However it seems a couple people think that paying 50 bucks a month for cable and 10 bucks a month for netflix deserve it served on a silver platter 

Really, I would pay a little more for a SLA.. but not sure how many people would. I would also maybe think netflix could charge you less if you waited to watch..... many options are out there.


----------



## jefny

I also have noticed disruptions while watching Netflix-usually a need to rebuffer every few minutes and loss of quality. I have Verizon FIOS. At first I thought it was increased traffic with the availability of House of Cards, second season but now I am inclined to agree that Verizon might be at fault,

What can we relly do about it?


----------



## jdhatfield

I also noticed the disruptions with Netflix during prime time recently and also have Fios. While I understand finite bandwidth, I have a hard time accepting that here. So the question is what can really be done about it? After some searching, it was claimed that getting a VPN connection was shown to improve the user's experience. I decided to give it a try and can report that I've had no problems streaming HD content from Netflix during peak times and without any steping down in resolution. The downside is you have to pay money for a vpn connection and mess around with a mini science project with reflashing a compatible router with dd-wrt firmware to have the router maintain the vpn connection for all devices that sits underneath it (Oppo, etc.) 

I don't like having to go through so many hoops to get what I paid for but at least there seems to be a way around the issue.


----------



## BeeMan458

jefny said:


> What can we relly do about it?


When you can, buy used blu-rays on Amazon and be done with it.

My understanding, Walmart and Target both have great blu-ray pricing well worth checking out.


----------



## Blueleader

I'm curious, has Netflix or any other large file streaming internet company spent any money to help improve the backbone speed of the internet (Fiber upgrades, etc.)? And thus improve access and quality for their customers?


----------



## BeeMan458

Blueleader said:


> I'm curious, has Netflix or any other large file streaming internet company spent any money to help improve the backbone speed of the internet (Fiber upgrades, etc.)? And thus improve access and quality for their customers?


Just saying, we purchased three blu-ray movies today. All of the quality and none of the hassles. So far this month, I'm guilty of purchasing five blu-ray movies: new and used. Currently looking to purchase a used copy of "Blade Runner."

...:bigsmile:

The point, I've given up on Comcast, online services and rental shops. To pay for it all, we've dropped Comcast premium channels and reduced the level of our Comcast services as the quality of online downloads is terrible in comparison to actual blu-ray provided content. Why have a decent Home Theater system and downsize the quality with compressed, lossy, online content?

...


----------



## fschris

BeeMan458 said:


> Just saying, we purchased three blu-ray movies today. All of the quality and none of the hassles. So far this month, I'm guilty of purchasing five blu-ray movies: new and used. Currently looking to purchase a used copy of "Blade Runner."
> 
> ...:bigsmile:
> 
> The point, I've given up on Comcast, online services and rental shops. To pay for it all, we've dropped Comcast premium channels and reduced the level of our Comcast services as the quality of online downloads is terrible in comparison to actual blu-ray provided content. Why have a decent Home Theater system and downsize the quality with compressed, lossy, online content?
> 
> ...


That is what I have been saying... Why watch anything streaming. Its like watching SD on a 1984 TV compared to blue ray. May as well just stream pandora and call it good.


----------



## jdhatfield

Streaming isn't for everyone but it sure seems like that is where things are headed. The HD quality when it is sustained HD quality is decent even on a projector screen. Like yourself, I buy stacks of blu-rays used monthly at our Family Video store because also like yourself, I don't want to compromise on the audio/video quality. I do enjoy binge watching seasons of shows and don't see a huge difference in the experience from streaming versus not. I like having the ability to do it on-demand and my wife likes the ability to easily select between different shows while she's on the treadmill - something that is lost when you're juggling DVDs.

Verizon laid claim to one of the fastest networks when they rolled out the fiber optic Fios product. While in general I'm a fan of Verizon because of the quality they demand of their HW vendors so that their customers will have a quality experience, how they handled this up until now by denying there was a problem has lowered my opinion of them. I read today that the CEO has come out and said they expect a deal with Netflix to prioritize the streaming data to provide a better experience for their customers. (http://www.zdnet.com/verizon-ceo-we-see-a-netflix-deal-ahead-7000026988/) At least they 'fessed up to it t the end of the day and will probably do something about it.


----------



## BeeMan458

Based on what I'm reading above, maybe the problem is us. In my opinion, the general public is happy with twenty minutes of commercials every hour and hazy looking content that lacks any contrast while on the other hand, we're into high quality image and sound.

I guess what I'm trying to say, Comcast, Verizon and Netflix don't love us anymore.


----------



## flamingeye

get ready for higher prices for internet and the service's within , it will soon be just like the cable model or priced like it , I lost hope when net neutrality was lost


----------



## lcaillo

Why shouldn't those who use more pay more? I pay for higher speed internet. Others don't feel they need it so why should they.


----------



## flamingeye

I'm not talking about higher speed but who decides what services I get to have and at what quality and price is what I'm concerned about , when only a few have total control over something it's generally not good for the consumer


----------



## BeeMan458

The trick to that dilemma is to not play.

Every time I can figure out a way to disconnect myself from these people, we do. In my opinion, one can capitulate, give in and give these folks all our money or we can slowly drop out and go off grid with blu-rays, clam-shell phones, paper maps and give up watching commercial content that includes twenty minutes of commercial content for every forty minutes of entertainment content.

The point, just to play along, socially and monetarily, high tech has become too expensive and our choices are play, or don't play.


----------



## fschris

Im just saying to put some perspective to it ...

Google market cap is 408.23 billion. Earnings are 38 bucks a share. 47,756 employees

Operating expenses, other than cost of revenues, were $5.50 billion

Now you Have AT&T who lays down the pipes for Google

AT&T market cap is 169.43 billion Earnings per share are 3.39 and T employes 243,360
operating expenses for 4th Q 17 Billion

So for the Netflix's, Google's and Amazon's crying foul is a little odd considering they are not doing much to make tons of cash hand over fist... 

Company A sells water company B provides the pipes ... the customers want Everything Company A has to offer. However company B is left looking like the bad guys since they are not giving everyone more water. However is cost lots of money to provide what A is selling.


----------



## BeeMan458

Based on your above information, everybody is being handsomely rewarded at the consumer's expense. Just saying, look at the PE of Google and look at the PE of AT&T.

All of the expenses you described, 100% are being passed onto the consumer.....that's us. In the end, win, lose or draw, the consumer foots the bill for everything. In the end, the only one getting hosed, is the consumer. The point, my sympathies are with the final consumer of any product.


----------



## phillihp23

BeeMan458 said:


> Based on your above information, everybody is being handsomely rewarded at the consumer's expense. Just saying, look at the PE of Google and look at the PE of AT&T.
> 
> All of the expenses you described, 100% are being passed onto the consumer.....that's us. In the end, win, lose or draw, the consumer foots the bill for everything. In the end, the only one getting hosed, is the consumer. The point, my sympathies are with the final consumer of any product.


+1

No different than the oil company's /gas prices....rich people crying while pressing their heels into our backs.


----------



## flamingeye

what is so bad about having net neutrality? does it really keep those company's from making a profit will it make them go under , I don't think so it just keeps them from playing favorites and having total control


----------



## BeeMan458

phillihp23 said:


> +1
> 
> No different than the oil company's /gas prices....rich people crying while pressing their heels into our backs.


Wow! You're lucky. Oil companies where we live, are standing on our necks.


----------



## chashint

Wow, y'all have a very negative viewpoint of business.
The only point to any business is to make money and the more the better, period.
No one is under duress to purchase any of the services being discussed.


----------



## flamingeye

I have no problem with a company making money as long as it's a fair price ' but monopoly's do the opposite pulse when a company plays favorites and makes one services at a disadvantage bandwidth wise to make it's own service look better that's not right


----------



## lcaillo

Most of us have options, so it is hard to make the case for a monopoly. If you don't like cable, there is OTA or Sat or internet. If you don't like the internet deals, you can watch one of the other ways. Personally, I hate the amount that I pay Cox, and don't think their customer service is very good. But I pay the price for the convenience. If it goes up any more, however, I will likely be looking at the other options.

In principle, however, I don't have an issue with those that use more bandwidth having to pay for it.


----------



## flamingeye

I guess you haven't seen the news about the two biggest cable providers about to merge then and they control the IPS's too. do you think net neutrality would be a bad thing for us consumers ? again I'm not talking about just bandwidth usage but controlling who gets it and if you don't work for them then you get cut, I just want it to be fair for all not just for the big company's that own the IPS's . maybe I'm not explaining it very good and you should look into what net neutrality is all about and why the two biggest IPS providers merging probably wouldn't be a good thing for us consumers


----------



## BeeMan458

flamingeye said:


> I guess you haven't seen the news about the two biggest cable providers about to merge then and they control the IPS's


I'm ignoring this event as it's dependent on approval and should it go through, I'm not expecting either our Comcast or Verizon bill to go down if the TWC merger goes through. It keeps getting better and better as all the competitors line up behind each other.

...:sarcastic:

The best folks like us can do, is continually find ways to downsize our needs for as a retired couple, we don't have the ability to up-size our income.


----------



## flamingeye

good point , I cut the cable but now the net and it's service's keep going up it's liken to the early days of cable , us fixed income people just don't have a chance anymore


----------



## lcaillo

flamingeye said:


> I guess you haven't seen the news about the two biggest cable providers about to merge then and they control the IPS's too. do you think net neutrality would be a bad thing for us consumers ? again I'm not talking about just bandwidth usage but controlling who gets it and if you don't work for them then you get cut, I just want it to be fair for all not just for the big company's that own the IPS's . maybe I'm not explaining it very good and you should look into what net neutrality is all about and why the two biggest IPS providers merging probably wouldn't be a good thing for us consumers


Please do not state assumptions about what others know or might have seen. :nono: I am well aware of the issue. My point is that there are other options in most places, even for broadband.

I am also quite clear on what net neutality means. It is a nice idea, but not practical. The fact is that some services use more bandwidth than others and those that use it should pay for it, IMO. I think if a provider can show a cost differential in carrying a particular product, there is nothing wrong with charging more for it.


----------



## flamingeye

sorry did not mean to offend I'm not very good at expressing my self or with grammar and spelling . I agree that if a services uses more it should pay more which means we do I disagree with how the IPS provider went about it by cutting bandwidth instead of asking or talking with said services to me that's bad business practice , but again I may not know the hole story ether . I'm sure there is a way to make net neutrality work for everyones benefit . IMO it's better then what we have now.


----------



## flamingeye

my biggest concern is fairness look at it this way streaming service A which also owns the IPS service is in competition with streaming service B but since streaming service A controls the bandwidth too he throttles back streaming service B so his service A performs better , now I'm not saying this is how it actually happened or will happen but the potential for this kind of abuse is there with the setup we have now before us .I just want a open and fair internet that is all I'm trying to say .


----------



## tesseract

Looks like our streaming issues are being addressed. 

http://news.yahoo.com/netflix-streaming-speeds-see-major-boost-comcast-payouts-231552010.html


----------



## flamingeye

yea ,but why am I paying for 20mb and it wasn't enough to get good result's , does this mean I can downgrade too and pay for just 5mb and get good result's now then, they say 5mb was enough to stream 1080 from Netflix before the courts decision and it was then it changed after . us consumers should be able to use less now and save right , well except now I guess Netflix prices will go up like every other company that will have to pay more for the privilege to stream something on there pipeline.


----------



## tesseract

I'm paying for 30 Mbps download. But upload is where the quality comes from, and I had to upgrade service to get to 5 Mbps upload... just so I could get a resolution of at least 480 SD. 

:sad:


----------



## BeeMan458

tesseract said:


> I'm paying for 30 Mbps download. But upload is where the quality comes from, and I had to upgrade service to get to 5 Mbps upload... just so I could get a resolution of at least 480 SD.
> 
> :sad:


Your above is a bit confusing to my itty-bitty mind. For watching television, my understanding, that would be download speed. Sending Mom & Dad pictures of the little guy, would be upload speed.

What am I missing?

...

(when can we expect downloaded, blu-ray quality, movie content)


----------



## chashint

BeeMan458 said:


> (when can we expect downloaded, blu-ray quality, movie content)


There will most likely be claims of 4k streaming long before we ever see real BD quality (video / audio).


----------



## BeeMan458

chashint said:


> ...long before we ever see real BD quality (video / audio).


We're spending a ton of money to keep the Blu-ray tray filled. I figure things are soon to upgrade to MicroSD chips as Blu-ray discs hold about 25GB/50GB (dual layer) worth of information vs 32GB/64gB microSD cards.

(i'm aware of larger discs, will our Blu-ray players, play quad layer discs)

I think the rule of thumb is, price/capacity will half/double every eighteen months. ???

VHS > Laser Disc > DVD > Blu-ray > ???


----------



## tesseract

BeeMan458 said:


> Your above is a bit confusing to my itty-bitty mind. For watching television, my understanding, that would be download speed. Sending Mom & Dad pictures of the little guy, would be upload speed.
> 
> What am I missing?
> 
> ...



I made numerous calls to Sony tech support, they insisted that my upload speed would need to be 5 Mbps or higher for hi rez viewing. Why that is, I do not know. But, my experience did not improve when increasing the download speed, it wasn't until I increased my upload speed that I was able to stream hi rez more often.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100523084252AAsKctl

http://www.ehow.com/info_12184321_upload-speed-affect-netflix-streaming.html


----------

