ie8 fix

Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

Net Neutrality alert: Verizon to throttle data speeds for heaviest users

By | February 3, 2011, 11:15am PST

Summary: The Net Neutrality whistles are blowing and flags are flying this morning over buzz that Verizon Wireless will be throttling data speeds for its heaviest data users. The change, effective immediately, is believed to be part of Verizon’s efforts to ensure that its network is ready for the flood of iPhone users who will start [...]

The Net Neutrality whistles are blowing and flags are flying this morning over buzz that Verizon Wireless will be throttling data speeds for its heaviest data users. The change, effective immediately, is believed to be part of Verizon’s efforts to ensure that its network is ready for the flood of iPhone users who will start powering up those devices next week.

In a nutshell, if you’re a heavy user - and you really have no way of knowing if that’s you or not - then Verizon Wireless “may reduce your data throughput speeds periodically for the remainder of your then current and immediately following billing cycle to ensure high quality network performance for other users at locations and times of peak demand.”

Maybe I’m wrong here, but doesn’t that just reek of network discrimination? After all, I pay monthly for an unlimited amount of data services - and I use it. Web surf, download apps, stream music, the whole bit. Should I be punished for using something I pay for because other customers don’t do the same?

That’s like watching ESPN 24 hours a day and then having the programming cut in half for the last week of the month because other customers don’t watch it as much as I do. How is that right?

I realize that there is a finite amount of available broadband in a mobile world and that the carriers are dealing with a balancing act to make sure that every customer has a good experience. But can a Internet service provider - and Verizon is exactly that - really discriminate against certain customers because they’re using something that they legitimately pay for?

Apparently, it can.

The whole concept of Network Neutrality is a mess in this country, partly because a court ruling took away the FCC’s teeth in setting some ground rules and partly because the jury is still out on how to regulate mobile broadband against home broadband.

Granted, the rules that are being imposed have more to do with restrict what ISPs can do to as it relates to sites that utilize heavy amounts of broadband - not necessarily the customers themselves.

Verizon Wireless spokesman Jeffrey Nelson told Dow Jones today that the new policy is not related to next week’s release of an iPhone on its network or the launch of pre-orders today, even though there have been widespread questions about how Verizon’s network will hold up with a flood of iPhones hitting it.

In fairness to Verizon, the company isn’t just implementing a policy that will affect heavy users. It’s also taking steps to make the network more efficient so that hiccups don’t become the norm. From a PDF statement on its Web site:

We are implementing optimization and transcoding technologies in our network to transmit data files in a more efficient manner to allow available network capacity to benefit the greatest number of users.  These techniques include caching less data, using less capacity, and sizing the video more appropriately for the device.  The optimization process is agnostic to the content itself and to the website that provides it.  While we invest much effort to avoid changing text, image, and video files in the compression process and while any change to the file is likely to be indiscernible, the optimization process may minimally impact the appearance of the file as displayed on your device. For a further, more detailed explanation of these techniques, please visit www.verizonwireless.com/vzwoptimization.

The new changes take effect today.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Sam has been a technology and business blogger for more than 18 years.

Disclosure

Sam Diaz

Sam Diaz has nothing to disclose.

Biography

Sam Diaz

Sam has been a technology and business blogger, reporter and editor at ZDNet, the Washington Post, San Jose Mercury News and Fresno Bee for more than 18 years. He's a member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and a graduate of California State University, Fresno.

56
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Net Neutrality alert: Verizon to throttle data speeds for heaviest users
hoekbrwr 9th Feb 2011
So this has nothing to do with net neutrality(wrong heading!).V. explicitely declares it is not discriminating on the base of website, but only takes out as much as possible garbage data! If they use the phone's limitations this is no problem for watching on that phone. There is however a problem when you want to view it on a laptop when you are using your phone as an access point. The bottom line is we have to accept this process otherwise we will not be able to use streaming video in the near future because of the flood of extra data traffic to be expected! Better a good flow then freezing videos, that is what is really unacceptable!
0 Votes
+ -
It's not a net neutrality issue
terry flores 3rd Feb 2011
That would mean favoring one destination or provider of service over another. If anything, it is a contract issue, assuming that Verizon promised unlimited data at full speed somewhere in your contract.

There are many similar types of constraints practiced by other utilities or providers of shared services, so it would be difficult to argue that Verizon is doing something out of the norm.

The second part of Verizon's strategy is much more troubling: data tampering. Implementing transparent compression is one thing, assuming that what goes in at the provider end is exactly what comes out at the consumer end. But if Verizon is truly changing the data in any way, this is a big problem for me. Such practices could have wide-ranging effects on many different applications that depend on current data integrity algorithms. If I can't trust the data that's being transferred, then the network is unreliable in my eyes, and should be shunned accordingly. I can see some big potential complaints and/or legal actions against this practice.
0 Votes
+ -
Agreed
bruceslog 4th Feb 2011
@terry flores ; Agreed, and well presented.
0 Votes
+ -
Well said
Economister 4th Feb 2011
@terry flores

I do not have any trouble with the networks doing ANYTHING, as long as:

1. There is competition in the market place so I can go somewhere else if I don't like what they are doing.

2. They don't do whatever they are doing, behind my back.

The first item is obviously a problem, since carrier competition is limited. Therefore some rules must be in place to prevent abuses.

The second item is of a more contractual nature. If you sell me access to your network on a long term (2 years) contract, but reserve the right to reduce the amount and throttle the speed as you please, then I have really signed a BAD contract. My payments are fixed, but you can alter the product or service as you see fit. No person is their right mind would sign a contract like that in any other circumstances, but if you have to have that new shiny toy, then that is what you get.
@terry flores

changing the data in stream is usually applied to picture and video files, and has been the norm for BlackBerries from day one as far as i can tell. pictures and videos are automatically rerendered to the screen size/resolution the device can support.

However: on the BlackBerry, i have the option to download the full size/resolution version unmodified. i will be interested to know if Verizon make this an option or if i will have to search for a way to bypass Verizon's steam rerenders for my friends on Verizon
@terry flores : Thanks. I was about to post the same thing, but I think NoScript killed it. wink

I hate people throwing neutrality in the 'speed' bucket when it is about utilization and not destination. If they were throttling based on what you were viewing and tiering content, that might qualify.

The other thing I get sick of is Homeland Security stealing 'pirating' domains without due process. If it does not protect us from personal harm as citizens at the hands of 'terrorist' then Homeland security should not be involved. *rant off*
0 Votes
+ -
similar or dissimilar utilities . . .
Who Am I Really 4th Feb 2011
@terry flores
how about this
you come home and find yer house dark
because the electric company decided you were using too much and reduced you to 60v from the standard 120v

not acceptable,
and they would face heavy fines for doing so

when I come home and fire up my PC,
start the Oven, put a pot on the stove and plop something in the microwave
the electric company doesn't "throttle my usage" / lower the voltage just because the fridge came on at the same time

the ISPs throttle yer connection based on the false assumption:
"you must be doing illegal file sharing to use that many GB"
@Who Am I Really
Actually the power company uses "peak" demand for charging for use during certain hours. make your coffee later in the evening 8-)
@Who Am I Really

Not a good example. Rolling brownouts during peak usage happens in California in the summer every year. The power companies are allowed to reduce voltage to as low as 87V any time their network infrastructure or generating capacity are over limit. You will note no appliance can get the UL mark if it cannot operate from +15% to -30% of nominal. A more apt anology would be the installation of a speed governor in your car under the control of the government to reduce your cars maximum speed if you drive too much.
@Who Am I Really

They're going to. They just updated the meters around here so they can do just that.
@terry flores

I agree too.
so person A is int he top 1% of usage... person B is in the bottom 40%...

they both pay the same amount, but Person A has been hogging it so bad its making Person B's usage worse... yet somehow thats fair because person A paid for it?

it would be best to have a network that could support everyone no matter how they want to use it, but realistically, 5% of users are not as important as 95% of users. Sounds like a good business decision.
0 Votes
+ -
It's unlimited versus limited...
BillDem 3rd Feb 2011
@doh123 If both are paying for unlimited plans, neither should be throttled in any way regardless of what either uses. If the person who only uses 40% doesn't like it, they should switch to a cheaper plan with more limitations and save a few bucks to make it more "fair" for them. The ENTIRE reason I pay for a lot extra for an "unlimited" plan is so that I never get throttled or limited. I like fixing my expense regardless of whether I use a ton extra one month and very little the next month. I pay the extra so I can just use it and never have to worry about it. If it isn't truly unlimited, they should not be allowed to call it that. What happened to truth in advertising?
@BillDem Pointless discussion. Unlimited data means unlimited number of MB or GB, not the speed with which you get or send them. I am sure they have a statement that says exactly this. They always smart enough to say "speeds up to ...". It is quite clear for even non-technical person that every communication channel has a bandwidth limit. There is always a limit to the number of users that can use this channel at a maximum speed. So guess what will happen if there are more users. The speed will go down as there are X number of data packets this channel can support.
Indeed, Net Neutrality 'advocates' do a disservice by slapping that label on anything they don't like. It's quickly becoming a meaningless buzzword. Much the way polticos on the right and left decry any law they hate as 'unconstitutional' and every thing they like as a 'constitutional right'.

If I go to an all-you-can-eat diner and stay there all day, stuffing food into coolers and rushing over whenever a tray of food is brought out to stuff my face, then yes, I'm going to be asked to leave even though I legitimately 'paid for it'. And then I could complain that somehow my Constitutional rights had been taken away.

The funny thing is that by the logic of this article, Verizon could legitimately side-step the so-called "Net Neutrality" issues by simply charging by the gigabyte, which is something no one really wants.
@xxyl: "If I go to an all-you-can-eat diner and stay there all day..."

Strawman argument. Back up and rethink.
@xxyl



Your "all you can eat diner" is example is not valid. All you can eat does not include filling coolers to take off premises. "All you can eat" means all you can EAT on premises. I'm sure that policy is written somewhere and available for customers to read. I would be very upset if I went to an "All you can eat" restaurant and was asked to leave after I had EATEN any certain number of platefulls of food and attempted to return for more food to EAT. I would, however, not even expect that they would allow me to fill coolers with food to take off premises with me. therefore this example is not related to the subject being discussed.


edit: The issue of Verizon, or anybody else, compressing a transmission such that what the sender sent is not EXACTLY what the recipiant receives seems roughly equivalent to the U.S. Postal Service opening your mail and rewriting a condensed version of your letter to save weight on the mail truck. I would be very upset over that, also. The solution is to charge appropriately for the bandwidth usage and thus make it practical for the sender to compress the file before sending and keep the ISP out of the issue of file compression.
@john3347
You're right, but if I went to an "all you can eat" buffet and the restaurant staff said "You're eating too fast. We're not letting you take as much food per plate because the other customer's aren't getting enough food" then I would tell them to make enough food for everyone. If they refused I would eat somewhere else.
@xxyl

every "all you can eat" restaurant i have ever seen has a very strict policy that it is all you can eat while on premises, and most have a less strickly enforced time limit for how long you can be there. of the ones i've actually asked, they showed me a written policy stating this. absolute minimum, when they lock up at night they kick you out and the next day is a new day, you have to pay again. most common is a 4 hour limit after which you have to leave the premises.

(edit to correct spelling)
Will this change in terms open the opportunity for service cancellation without ETF?
0 Votes
+ -
Discrimination
davidr69 3rd Feb 2011
Why bring people's weight into this? Why does it matter if the user is heavy or skinny?
Why is this important? Here in Canada the Big ISP's tried this. Those who screamed the loudest and hardest against caps was the small businesses relying on their un-capped access to the internet. You want an economic recovery and to stay ahead of the evolution of the internet and not left behind, send in your letters of objection to your elected officials, and support the FCC.
@Bay10
good observation
It's not Net Neutrality, necessarily, but it is a clear indication of monopolistic powers and market imbalances between the few phone providers and ordinary consumers who sign contracts that let the phone companies make the rules. And it's not "necessarily" about Net Neutrality because we don't get to know what Verizon is really doing. America has gone to the right of free-market capitalism (means free-information, free-competition, fair advertising and not just free-of-regulation) and monopoly capitalism doesn't serve us well, much of the world has better telecom than us now. This would be a perfectly fine thing for Verizon to do if it was an advertised option, a net-neutral throttling of heavy users who signed a clear contract that they would be throttled if they were heavy users -- not thrown on users like me who signed two year contracts with too much fine print.
0 Votes
+ -
... which are large enough to meet peak demand. It is certainly unacceptable to deny one user access to the network because another user is exceeding typical bandwidth demands. (In other words - using more than his "fair-share" during peak hours.) It is better to throttale-back those who use the most than denying access to anyone (including the offender). In the long-run, such throttling does not deny service to anyone and it allows the provider the flexibility to "build-out" its network based upon real demand over extended periods of time instead of having to guess on what the demand will be tomorrow.

As long as there is no descrimnation based upon the content of the traffic, I don't see a problem. In the long haul, the provide still needs to build-out to address demand or customers will go elsewhere.
@mwagner...You are missing the point. Verizon is selling UNLIMITED plan. They can have all the fine print they want. The bottom line is that UNLIMITED means I can use it as much as I want and I will not get a cap of any kind on my usage. I may be wrong in my assumption, but then Verizon is lying in its sales pitch because the plan is SORT OF Unlimited.
0 Votes
+ -
Yeah, it IS fair
shawkins 3rd Feb 2011
If your data hogging ways may deny other paying customers decent access, then yes, you should be impeded.

Should I be punished for using something I pay for because other customers don?t do the same?
@shawkins

You are missing the point. Verizon is selling UNLIMITED plan. They can have all the fine print they want. The bottom line is that UNLIMITED means I can use it as much as I want and I will not get a cap of any kind on my usage. I may be wrong in my assumption, but then Verizon is lying in its sales pitch because the plan is SORT OF Unlimited.
0 Votes
+ -
There is non such thing as 'unlimited' data
Doctor Demento 3rd Feb 2011
@mikies

No one can possibly promise you a truly infinite amount of a finite resource, and mobile bandwidth is a FINITE resource, you can scream and yell and pitch a fit as much as you like, no one can give you an infinite amount of anything. Grow up and accept it.
@mikies
Throttling is not the same as capping. Throttling means you receive your data a little slower. Capping means you don't get any more data. Realistically, throttling happens whether by design or by default. It's better to apply intelligence to who gets throttled, but the decision could be made on several bases. Do you slow everybody down a little bit, or just slow down the 1%ers. Takes less administrative overhead to identify and throttle a few heavy users, than to apply throttling to every single connection based on network load. Either way would be fair, and no one is being "capped" or denied access to data services. Just have to wait in line a little... Everyone should calm down. Network build-out is expensive, and time consuming. You have to buy things and build things. You can't just write a check or click a button and get instant bandwidth.
0 Votes
+ -
Welcome to AT&T world
boomchuck1 3rd Feb 2011
They're trying to avoid the problems that AT&T ran into in the larger cities where there was so much wireless internet traffic that the pipes were full and people were losing service. Seems like a reasonable action to me and an attempt to give the best experience to the most users. But I imagine that folks that will get hit real hard are the ones using the tethering features of the iPhone and MiFi.
0 Votes
+ -
ATT World
mjolnar@... 4th Feb 2011
@boomchuck1 ;If Verizon can't handle the traffic, they shouldn't allow more customers. If they sell unlimited plans, then throttle back, it it because they can't handle the traffic. Simple answer, if they can't deliver, they can't increase the numbers they have till they have the increased capabilities.

If you go into a public building, they will have a number of occupants allowed. This is so there is no problem with exit for fire or use of restrooms, what ever the problem. They can be shut down till they can comply. Why can't the companies like Verizon be handled like that? If they can't deliver, it is because they have exceeded the occupancy, they must get in line or be shutdown till they can comply.
Foolishness.
Top 5% get restricted speed for 1.x billing periods.
This is based on a "supposed" hogging issue.
Show me that this is in fact the problem!

If I was a small business owner who signed up for, and paid for unlimited, if I find that my provider was throttling - I'm looking for another provider.

What exactly is this?
GREED. Nothing but pure greed.

sad
@zenwalker

I'm with you but what about areas that only have coverage from one provider?
@mswift@...
I can understand it if there is a specific area and there is very limited data bandwidth. For those areas I can see the carrier reaching out selectivly to the users.
But if none of the hi volume users are in your area, how would the throttling benefit you?
Or is Verizon planning on throttling the top 5% for each area?
whoa.... plain
If you cannot handle the demand, don't sell the service. It is not the customer's fault if you cannot keep up.

Additionally, the strategy should be to reduce speeds across the board during peak usage a little bit so as not to disrupt service as you update the capacity to serve the customers' usage.

Lastly, Verizon earned market share through better service and a capacity growing strategy better than its competition, now is not the time to copy failing strategies of the aforementioned competition.
@hoaxoner So you are inferring its better to deny 10 paying customers service so 3 can hog the air? It is like having a 10 porta potties at a weekend concert, and people putting locks on 3 (for their own personal use). It denies the greater population the availability of the porta potty. Essentially the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few.
@Rick_K
You are assuming that the throttling of the tops users will coincide there use with yours..... doubtful.
If there is a bandwidth issue, it makes more sense to cap all a percentage point or two.
hmmm......
We're fortuneate to be using the Web while it's still mostly content uncensored. The American Far Left's unrelenting persistence will eventually win out and regulate our net usage in it's entirety. Luckily, technology will nearly keep up with usage. The "content" part is entirely another story. Can you say VENZUELLA or CHINA?
John B
0 Votes
+ -
Too bad...
james347 3rd Feb 2011
...don't be such a data pig. There should be a 'Biggest Looser' for bandwidth hogs.
0 Votes
+ -
To Hell with Unwarranted Caps
ericn32 3rd Feb 2011
VZW will need to add backhaul anyways, and asking users to remain under arbitrary, unreasonable limits each month is just a step backwards for innovation. The thing that really angers me, though, is the lack of clarity that all carriers seem to accept. A lot of people bag on AT&T, but at least they post their wireless caps pretty clearly. So does Comcast for their cable.
"That?s like watching ESPN 24 hours a day and then having the programming cut in half for the last week of the month because other customers don?t watch it as much as I do. How is that right?"

I got that far before realizing the blogger is a twit.

It's not like that at all, for one thing the amount of people watching TV at one time does not affect the overall quality of service for everyone watching TV.
@Scarface Claw

There you go again, trying to use 'logic; when the article in question is not about logic, it is a screaming fit by a crybaby who is upset that he has been told he can't get everything he wants.
@Doctor Demento
"... it is a screaming fit by a crybaby who is upset that he has been told he can't get everything he wants."
Wrong.
It is what he was told that he'd receive, if he signed their contact and paid the fee.
I love how any sort of unethical (and probably criminal) behaviour is OK, as long as a corporation profits from it.
Because it is source agnostic, "optimization" will apparently remove color and detail from personal photographs and home movies transmitted over the Verizon network. Your digital memories will fade.
I personally would much rather be throttled than deal with extra usage charges.
Simple fix. Use this as a void in terms of your contract and switch carriers. If they lose enough money, they'll change their toon.
Man, do you guys want cheese with your whine? It is not a data cap, it is a throttle that slows your bandwidth. You STILL have unlimited data, the data is just a bit slower. As others have pointed out it is better business to please 98% of the customers than 2%. If that 2% wants to leave, big deal, they still have 98% of their business. They are not denying you any amount of data just the rate at which it flows. This is a very wise decision by Verizon (although in general I am not a fan of Verizon). I also agree that the 'modification' of data is more of an issue than the throttling of data.
How about we stop companies from selling bandwidth they don't have? If I buy a 5mbit connection for example, I expect to have that available to me 24/7..

The problem is the various companies selling access to end users want to sell you what they don't have. It's fraud plain and simple, and should be prosecuted as such.
0 Votes
+ -
This is *not* a net neutrality issue
macrakis_z 4th Feb 2011
You may or may not want a data contract that limits your consumption per month, but that is *not* a net neutrality issue. Net neutrality is about discriminating by source or type of content, not number of bits. It's a huge difference.
3G, no cap, no contract, $70 a month ... I'm just sayin'. It's possible people.
So this has nothing to do with net neutrality(wrong heading!).V. explicitely declares it is not discriminating on the base of website, but only takes out as much as possible garbage data! If they use the phone's limitations this is no problem for watching on that phone. There is however a problem when you want to view it on a laptop when you are using your phone as an access point. The bottom line is we have to accept this process otherwise we will not be able to use streaming video in the near future because of the flood of extra data traffic to be expected! Better a good flow then freezing videos, that is what is really unacceptable!

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix