1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Verizon vs Netflix = Simply Explained

Discussion in 'Bits & Bytes' started by ethics, Jun 13, 2014.

  1. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    And as Einstein once stated, if you can't explain it simply, you don't know it (not verbatim). Being a fan of simple yet awesome explanation on this issue, I present you an analogy with water:

    Verizon Charges: 1. Netflix pays Verizon for broadband use. 2. Customer's Pay Verizon for broadband use.

    The Scam:

    1. Netflix is pushing their data out like water coming out of a open fire hydrant.
    2. Verizon should be putting a FIRE HOSE between Netflix and You because both sides are paying for broadband (really they should be doing it because the end user is paying for high speed but they want to have their cake and eat it too).
    3. Instead Verizon is using a GARDEN HOSE to purposely limit the speed, so they can connect 8 Garden Hoses to 1 Fire Hydrant and charge more people for the same pipe.
    It worked fine for them for many years because most people were never using the actual bandwidth they were paying for... because all people did was Facebook and Email. So they would be paying $50 a month for 10mb speeds, and hardly ever break past .5mb. So they were making a ton of money without having to invest in infrastructure that could actually support 10mb speeds for all users. But now that has changed because everyone wants to use their 10mb Fire Hydrant... and their aint enough Fire Hydrants to go around.

     
  2. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    I don't buy it, especially with DOCSIS 3 supporting channel bonding which allows faster speeds on existing infrastructure.
     
  3. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Buy what? Explanation?
     
  4. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    Physical infrastructures--like the SONET ring buried somewhere in your neighborhood--have switching attentuation that's possibly reach saturation with all the channelized streaming going on. Billing "faster speeds on existing infrastructure" when that infrastructure is dropping a few million packets per second because the switches are initiating a holdback is going to be hard to prove. It's not like every regional backbone has OC-192s or OC-768s at the distrubution level. The frame forwarding hardware alone would be in the billions of dollars, which would likely only help Cisco's stock price.
     
    ethics likes this.
  5. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    Verizon's excuses. But, I just realized that DOCSIS 3 standards apply to cable connections, not DSL which is what Verizon primarily uses (outside of FIOS).

    So yeah, their failure to upgrade the cabinets (DSLAM) to VDSL2 is nothing short of greed. Their existing infrastructure should be able to handle speeds higher than 10MB, too.
     
  6. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    Those facts hold true whether it's a wired coax system or a wireless ethernet system. If the switching backplane is in hold-down and forwarding is disabled due to congestion or packet loss--which streaming invokes by saturating the distribution links, most of which are OC-1/OC-3--then performance is going to be degraded.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2014
  7. Andy

    Andy ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  8. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Verizon is a piece of shit and I am shocked that this is legal for them to do this. Nothing from FCC.
     

Share This Page