[DSMan195276]

Points worth considering:

ISP's have tended to charge for a specific speed, not amount of data. By throttling the Netflix connection they're basically saying "We don't really care that you paid us to be able to access anything on the internet at this speed".

And it's worth noting that this is a case where the ISP is in complete control of the speed you get Netflix. There are many cases where the ISP doesn't have a hand in this, the server you're connecting to simply can't pump stuff out fast enough to go as fast as your ISP will let you. But in this case Netflix has more then enough server power (Which they paid for), but the ISP's are specifically slowing down the end connection to you're house to a lower speed then you paid for unless Netflix is willing to fork over more money.

It is almost exactly the same thing as if you were to purchase a 'subscription' to the post office where they guarantee your packages would be delivered in at least 10 days (when possible). But, packages from Netflix are purposely slowed down by the post office and get to you in 14 days instead, and the post office turns around and tell Netflix they need to pay more if they want the package to get to you in 10 days, even though you already paid for that speed.

[rayiner]

> ISP's have tended to charge for a specific speed, not amount of data. By throttling the Netflix connection they're basically saying "We don't really care that you paid us to be able to access anything on the internet at this speed".

I think you're reading an "anything on the internet" into your service agreement that isn't there, but even then you have at best a case for false advertising. If ISP's were up front about these practices, would it be OK?

[msandford]

I have 50/5 cable service and I often can't get even 3Mbps to Netflix for a full-HD stream.

I don't know that regulations regarding advertised vs actual speeds are going to do anything to solve the problem, but I do believe that there is a problem when I can't use even 6% of the theoretical bandwidth that I've theoretically paid for.

I understand not getting 100% downloads all day every day from every website on the internet. Not all have fast enough servers or fast enough primary links or whatever. I understand not getting even say 50% downloads all day every day because I know how TCP backoff works; it's exponential and a lot of downloads are short.

I might even understand not being able to use all 25% of my connection 24/7 again because there are things like peak usage where everyone gets home from work and starts doing stuff online at home and the local loops that the cable company has provisioned might be too big to provide everyone with 100% throughput. I'm not necessarily complaining about that as there are realities to life that aren't necessarily pretty but still real.

But what I can't understand is that my ISP which advertises a specific download capability would throttle it at the SOURCE (or the input to their network) when there is enough bandwidth at the last mile to support the connection.

For the vast majority of internet history (admittedly only 25 years or so) the limiting factor was almost always the LAST MILE. We're now finding out that it's not the last mile anymore but still something within the ISP's control and they're not doing much to alleviate the problem.

This to many folks feels like a betrayal because according to a certain "the last mile is always the slowest" mindset, it is! People aren't wrong to think that because that's how it's always been. ISPs are creating a paradigm shift that they're not telling anyone about and are in fact doing a good job to obfuscate.

You might disagree that it is a betrayal but it feels like that to many folks. You can try to tell them they're wrong but I suspect that because of the many years of assumptions people have had about the way the world works you won't have a lot of luck.

[DSMan195276]

I doubt it has that specific wording, yes, and I do know that it has the wording "up to", not guaranteed, so they're not breaking the contract.

But the point still stands, why the heck am I paying for 2 MB/s download speed if my ISP isn't even going to give me that much if I pay for it? IMO, it's simply bull. If they were actually upfront about these practices (instead of just making it look like Netflix's or whoever-else's fault) I can guarantee you their would be a ton more outrage. If my ISP isn't going to actually give me 2 MB/s download when they are completely capable of doing it, and I paid for it, that's just absurd. In any other industry that type of practice would easily be grounds for a lawsuit. It's not even that it's out of their control, they're purposely going against attempting to fulfill what you're paying for.

[pyre]

> If ISP's were up front about these practices, would it be OK?

It certainly doesn't help that the SOP for ISPs in the US is to deflect blame for network issues, even when the blame falls squarely on them (throttling Netflix, their DNS server is down, etc). It's always the user's fault or the remote site's fault. Never the ISP's fault.

You can even see this in the rhetoric that they espouse about Netflix. The ISPs are choosing to throttle Netflix. It's a business decision. Yet, they want people to think that it's Netflix's fault for not "paying up." Regardless of whether or not you think that the ISPs have a right to ask Netflix for this money, it's disingenuous to say it's Netflix's "fault" for deciding not to pay.