Strategic CIO // Executive Insights & Innovation
Commentary
2/6/2014
12:55 PM
Connect Directly
LinkedIn
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
100%
0%

Why Carriers Won't Win War On Netflix

Simmer down, Net neutrality doomsayers. We can expect carriers to experiment with traffic impairment, but we can also expect them to fail.

It was only a matter of time. The simmer surrounding the hyped "death of Net neutrality" escalated to a boil Wednesday when a blogger who works for a cloud startup claimed that Verizon is now using the opportunity to "wage war against Netflix" and other content providers.

The blog writer, David Raphael, claimed that traffic to and from his Amazon Web Services infrastructure was much slower on his Verizon connection than it was on another carrier's connection. Raphael said he measured performance in a number of different ways, and that by using the time honored rule-in/rule-out methodology, established that Verizon was the problem. Raphael said he had a conversation with a Verizon customer service rep (he posted a screenshot of that chat on his blog) in which he asked point blank: "Is Verizon now limiting bandwidth to cloud providers like AWS?" To which the Verizon rep allegedly replied: "Yes, it is limiting bandwidth to cloud providers." Raphael said he went a step further, asking the rep: "This is why my Netflix is bad now?" To which the rep allegedly replied: "Yes."

Verizon denied the claim -- particularly that a Verizon rep admitted to the blogger that the carrier slows down AWS and other cloud services -- using standard corporate double-talk. In a statement reported by The Washington Post, Verizon said:

We treat all traffic equally, and that has not changed. Many factors can affect the speed of a customer's experiences for a specific site, including that site's servers, the way the traffic is routed over the Internet, and other considerations. We are looking into this specific matter, but the company representative was mistaken. We're going to redouble our representative education efforts on this topic.

Yes, in the future we will tell our customer reps not to rat us out, and craft specific punishments for doing so.

To be fair, it's not entirely clear whether the blogger was experiencing peering congestion or true rate limiting. You can't tell without more rigorous testing than the blogger was able to do. But under-the-covers traffic management is a common practice of any network operator.

[Is your staff ready for digital business? See Digital Innovation: Internal Or External Team?]

Whether or not the blogger or Verizon is telling the truth, there's still no reason to believe that the Internet as we know it is about to melt down because of the end of Net neutrality rules, which had forbidden carriers from giving certain kinds of content preferential treatment over other kinds until a court overturned those rules last month. Moreover, enacting stifling new regulations won't help and may harm carrier competition.

As our friends in the application performance management world have taught us, we live in a highly testable and transparent Internet world, and unless there's massive collusion among backbone providers, it's going to be pretty darned obvious when someone is intentionally slowing down traffic from specific content providers.

It's all "comparative anatomy." That is, if you simulate traffic from Netflix (or any other provider of Big Content) coming from one endpoint, and simulate "carrier traffic" from another, and "carrier traffic" is doing fine but Netflix isn't, you have an impairment. (In practice, the test would be a bit more complicated, but that's the general idea.)

As soon as I read Raphael's blog post, I predicted we'll see a new service serving the content industry: performance monitoring of carriers. Just you watch. There's already a project that uses consumer endpoints to monitor bandwidth for the FCC, among other agencies. It's just a question of whether existing APM service vendors such as Keynote and Gomez will tweak their software for this specific use, whether a startup will jump on it, or whether content juggernauts such as Netflix, Apple, and Google will roll their own performance monitoring into various datacenters and millions of viewing endpoints nationwide. (Interestingly, since I first read the blog post, Raphael's company has come up with a Net neutrality testing tool.

The bottom line is this: Even if Verizon or any other carrier hasn't tried to impede bandwidth-hogging traffic in this post-Net-neutrality world, the carriers will likely experiment with it. Would they be wolves if they left lambs alone? But they're not going to be able to get away with it because testing is relatively easy, content providers have deep pockets, and we have antitrust laws that address anticompetitive behavior.

And so begins another arms race. Settle down for amusing and interesting times. Just know that the Internet ain't melting down anytime soon.

InformationWeek Conference is an exclusive two-day event taking place at Interop where you will join fellow technology leaders and CIOs for a packed schedule with learning, information sharing, professional networking, and celebration. Come learn from each other and honor the nation's leading digital businesses at our InformationWeek Elite 100 Awards Ceremony and Gala. You can find out more information and register here. In Las Vegas, March 31 to April 1, 2014.

Jonathan Feldman is Chief Information Officer for the City of Asheville, North Carolina, where his business background and work as an InformationWeek columnist have helped him to innovate in government through better practices in business technology, process, and human ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
LesH453
50%
50%
LesH453,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/6/2014 | 2:21:30 PM
net neutrality carriers will win.
i think you have missed the point compleatly.. its not bandwidth... its fees...

the carriers can and you can bet will double dip.. they will charge the content providers and the comsumers a fee for better bandwidth and in some cases even which content they will deliever.  

they already have the patents and the means to do it.. and have for several years.. the internet will become only a place for those that can afford it.. 

like sat tv and cable you ll get to pick a package. and i am sure you ll love paying for the channel that gives you a wall so you can watch paint dry.. 

the fcc should make all carriers common carriers.. and let the state puc's regulate them.  pots is almost gone and then when wire lines are totally gone they will charge and provide what ever they want for what ever they want.

look at NJ.. some of those hit hardest by the storms will not have any wire lines replaced.  its already a done deal in one of them. 

 

 
monglobonglo
50%
50%
monglobonglo,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/6/2014 | 3:07:54 PM
Collusion or Conglomeration? ISPs are regional monopolies. Get the Fiber Rollout on track
"unless there's massive collusion among backbone providers"

 

you mean like the type of collusion that occurs when Time Warner buys AOL?  or when Comcast buys Time Warner?

 

its the trajectory that pushes the industry towards the type of monopolistic practices of the telecom giant era.  What happens when the other ISPs have to follow suite to compete?

 

and while there is competition amongst ISPs at the national level, there is limited or zero competition at the regional level, especially when you consider different levels of service.

 

residential customers are, effectively, at the whim of a regional monopoly..... you live in city A?  then your ISP == Cox.  You live in city B?  then your ISP == Comcast.

while alternatives - such as myriad small dialup/DSL providers that utilize the preexisting copper telephone infrastructure, satellite/phone (down/up), and cellular broadband - exist for residential customers, they don't compete with the regional ISP's level of service.

small dialup/DSL providers cant compete with the services offered through coaxial copper (Cable) or fiber to the curb from an ISP like Comcast or Verizon.  Satellite requires a massive investment in infrastructure (the dish, the dish's "modem," and a dialup modem for upstream).  Cellular broadband requires an investment in infrastructure (your smartphone or modem) and the usage costs are enormous.

 

BTW:  the real solution is to get the ISPs in gear and to roll out fiber for real.  not the miniscule roll out to a select few regions.  Roll it out everywhere.

Fiber infrastructure throughout the US will effectively eliminate the need for congestion related throttling because the overall network bandwidth will increase by at least two orders of magnitude.

it wont become an issue again until people have 8k or 12k 3D streams and holographic video games.
rradina
50%
50%
rradina,
User Rank: Ninja
2/12/2014 | 2:17:20 PM
Re: Collusion or Conglomeration? ISPs are regional monopolies. Get the Fiber Rollout on track
"Satellite requires a massive investment in infrastructure (the dish, the dish's "modem," and a dialup modem for upstream)."

 

Satellite-based HSI has been using two-way groundstations for quite a while.  Are you sure they are still deploying modems for the upstream path?
Lorna Garey
100%
0%
Lorna Garey,
User Rank: Author
2/6/2014 | 4:59:34 PM
Reaping what they've sown
Just the fact that so many smart, technically knowledgeable people are MORE than ready to believe Verizon is throttling Netflix (and it could as easily have been Cox or Comcast as Verizon) is pretty telling in itself.

As another commenter pointed out, when one is a monopoly, one acts as a monopoly. Carriers' customer attitudes range from "meh" to outright hatred. When's the last time anyone raved about their cable service? All it will take is a few cases where the smoking gun is real and the mainstream media explains the issue in a way the masses get, and I predict the cries for blood will get deafening.
jfeldman
50%
50%
jfeldman,
User Rank: Strategist
2/6/2014 | 5:18:28 PM
Re: Reaping what they've sown
Unbundling... you know you want it. :-D
Lorna Garey
50%
50%
Lorna Garey,
User Rank: Author
2/6/2014 | 5:20:18 PM
Re: Reaping what they've sown
Oh, I absolutely do!
Charlie Babcock
100%
0%
Charlie Babcock,
User Rank: Author
2/6/2014 | 9:12:30 PM
Net neutrality may not be free
I read the Washington Post story about David Raphael yesterday and didn't automatically conclude Verizon was slowing AWS traffic. But the finger of suspicion pointed in that direction, once the Verizon service rep said it was. Let's keep testing, as Raphael did, for the possible reality of such an action, just in case. The price of freedom (or in this case, net neutrality) is vigilance.
jfeldman
100%
0%
jfeldman,
User Rank: Strategist
2/7/2014 | 8:18:30 AM
Broadband test data via FCC
In case you're looking for actual data (not hyperbole, not conjecture, but data) about real broadband speeds, you can find it here, at the FCC's "Measuring Broadband America" report.  (This uses SamKnows technology that I refer to above).  Enjoy--  http://www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-america
Whoopty
IW Pick
100%
0%
Whoopty,
User Rank: Ninja
2/7/2014 | 9:58:49 AM
Dinosaurs
Services like Netflix are revolutionising the entertainment industry and ISPs would be far smarter to get onboard with it and help push it forward, rather than trying to limit it simply because it uses a lot of bandwidth. 
Somedude8
50%
50%
Somedude8,
User Rank: Ninja
2/7/2014 | 12:46:26 PM
Greed Trumps All
The mortgage meltdown wasn't because our country suddenly spawned thousands and thousands of corrupt and greedy people, it was because the tempation was too great.

The tempation is far too great for ISPs to not throttle. Franlky, I find it almost ludicrouse that people would think that ISPs won't start acting in a way that they see as 'monetizing their existing investment'. Maybe not this morning, maybe not even next week. But very soon, if not already, we will absolutely see the major ISPs dipping their toes in the water. Too much temption not to.
AndujarC438
50%
50%
AndujarC438,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/7/2014 | 12:49:59 PM
I hope carriers win
How irrational to root for Netflix over the carriers. It demonstrates the ignorance of basic business principles. If you want more and faster internet you need building the internet to show a profit. If the internet is a pipe then Netflix gets to dump as much water into that pipe without any charge. You will never get massive building of bigger pipes with that model. Just like rent control stymies construction and leads to shortages of housing and dilapted housing that does exist. 

The author displays a stunning ignorance. 
Lorna Garey
50%
50%
Lorna Garey,
User Rank: Author
2/7/2014 | 1:26:37 PM
Re: I hope carriers win
I'm not sure your analogy helps your case.
jries921
100%
0%
jries921,
User Rank: Ninja
2/7/2014 | 1:35:56 PM
Re: I hope carriers win
Netflix does have to pay its own ISP; its customers have to pay theirs, and those ISPs have to pay their backbone providers using the money they get from their customers.


But I don't have to directly pay ISPs all over the world to make sure traffic to my wife's website isn't lower priority than someone else's and neither should Netflix.

 
jries921
50%
50%
jries921,
User Rank: Ninja
2/7/2014 | 1:38:46 PM
Re: I hope carriers win
and the principle of net neutrality would not stop ISPs from offering metered service or imposing limits on the total number of data transmitted in a given period of time.  Vendors do those things now.

 
anon5595567285
50%
50%
anon5595567285,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/7/2014 | 4:36:07 PM
Re: I hope carriers win
No, NetFix doesn't pay but all it's customers do. I pay over $70 a month to Time Warner for just internet service for my home and I don't have any other worthwhile choice to pick from if they start limiting so yes I want the gov to prevent them from having that capability since they basically have a monopoly on service around here.  If they want to play in the game then they can play fair and equal with everyone esle.  That isn't ignorance of basic business principals!  Building out their infrastructure is done buy sacraficing a little profit to maintain the system their customers want.  Maybe they should try to keep their customers happy before they try to keep their stock holders happy!

 The local telephone companies version is pathetically slow in this area and not much better than a 56k modem. 
kadawson
50%
50%
kadawson,
User Rank: Author
2/10/2014 | 5:34:33 PM
Re: I hope carriers win
You want to gift carriers with still more profit on top of their already obscene levels? Do you think that they will then feel the "incentive" to build bigger pipes? It hasn't worked since 1995 when they began siphoning hundreds of billions out of the economy into their bottom lines, and ignored stipulations and their own pomises to plow profits back into infrastructure. What has changed since then? Only that the carriers have gotten bigger, more consolidated, and bolder. Read Bruce Kushnick.
rradina
50%
50%
rradina,
User Rank: Ninja
2/12/2014 | 2:34:04 PM
Re: I hope carriers win
I don't think anyone is suggesting rent control.  We're suggesting adequate oversight and enforcement to guarantee that property is rented to everyone regardless of race, creed, gender, sexual preference or economic status.  If they can pay the rent, they get the property.  The rental agreement should be standarized to ensure the interests of both parties are protected and renters should feel safe that the building manager cannot tamper with the delivery of services to extort favors (whatever that might be).

What's also being suggested is that we don't want a single "Mr. Potter" slumlord owning all the property.  We prefer many different property owners competing for renters.  This would naturally keep the properties updated and prices fair.
jries921
IW Pick
100%
0%
jries921,
User Rank: Ninja
2/7/2014 | 1:29:55 PM
Obvious slowdowns
It's true that deliberately slowing down third party packets will be hard to hide, but I don't think that's the point.  All that's required is deniability plausible enough that proof is hard, but not so plausible that service owners don't know who to pay off or who not to offend (organized crime bosses have been doing that for decades).


And I don't think complex rules are required to enforce net neutrality.  All that's required is one sentence in an Act of Congress forbidding ISPs from prioritizing network traffic on the basis of who sent it and a couple of more sentences spelling out the penalties.  ISPs would continue to be able to sell bandwidth as they've always done.  And ISPs could continue to prioritize on the basis of protocol, as they've always done.


And as you note, it's not hard to deduce when collusion is in progress or when particular users are being deliberately slowed down.  That would make it easier to enforce such a law.

 
ATotalBlamBlam
50%
50%
ATotalBlamBlam,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/10/2014 | 11:55:48 AM
Internet Must Go
In order to support the net neutrality effort, it's important that people keep up to date on the issue. If anyone needs a refresher on the basics, here's this great short mockumentary: http://www.theinternetmustgo.com/
J_Brandt
50%
50%
J_Brandt,
User Rank: Ninja
2/11/2014 | 12:25:41 PM
The Real issue - True Competition
In order to achieve true net neutrality is to have true competition for Internet access.  When the average consumer has only one choice for that access, then the carriers rule.  Their customer service consists of what they need to do to get by.  I think that if consumers had real choice, and could easily switch providers, then the carriers would be forced to provide real customer service.  The issue of carriers throttling service evaporates as they fight to provide the best Netflix (or insert name of service here) fearing customer defections to carriers who provide better access.
Lorna Garey
50%
50%
Lorna Garey,
User Rank: Author
2/11/2014 | 2:25:01 PM
Re: The Real issue - True Competition
Absolutely true. The difference in Comcast service around my area in the PF (pre-FIOS) versus AF (after-FIOS) eras was stunning. Suddenly, Comcast really, really liked me! Those yearly price increases? Thing of the past! You want to know within 20 minutes when the tech will get to your house? No problemo!

 
rradina
50%
50%
rradina,
User Rank: Ninja
2/12/2014 | 2:41:25 PM
Re: The Real issue - True Competition
One more thing is needed.  We need to make sure the leading oil producers don't collude and buy the car companies, tire companies and auto parts companies.  Likewise, it's bad that content delivery companies own content-creating companies.
The Business of Going Digital
The Business of Going Digital
Digital business isn't about changing code; it's about changing what legacy sales, distribution, customer service, and product groups do in the new digital age. It's about bringing big data analytics, mobile, social, marketing automation, cloud computing, and the app economy together to launch new products and services. We're seeing new titles in this digital revolution, new responsibilities, new business models, and major shifts in technology spending.
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
InformationWeek Tech Digest - July 22, 2014
Sophisticated attacks demand real-time risk management and continuous monitoring. Here's how federal agencies are meeting that challenge.
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
InformationWeek Radio
Live Streaming Video
Everything You've Been Told About Mobility Is Wrong
Attend this video symposium with Sean Wisdom, Global Director of Mobility Solutions, and learn about how you can harness powerful new products to mobilize your business potential.