Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Verizon Media The Internet Entertainment

Verizon Tells Customer He Needs 75Mbps For Smoother Netflix Video 170

An anonymous reader writes: Verizon recently told a customer that upgrading his 50Mbps service to 75Mbps would result in smoother streaming of Netflix video. Of course, that's not true — Netflix streams at a rate of about 3.5 Mbps on average for Verizon's fiber service, so there's more than enough headroom either way. But this customer was an analyst for the online video industry, so he did some testing and snapped some screenshots for evidence. He fired up 10 concurrent streams of a Game of Thrones episode and found only 29Mbps of connection being used. This guy was savvy enough to see through Verizon's BS, but I'm sure there are millions of customers who wouldn't bat an eye at the statements they were making. The analyst "believes that the sales pitch he received is not just an isolated incident, since he got the same pitch from three sales reps over the phone and one online."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Verizon Tells Customer He Needs 75Mbps For Smoother Netflix Video

Comments Filter:
  • uh... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by retchdog ( 1319261 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @03:55PM (#49572537) Journal

    since they just throttle the connection into tiers so as to maximize profit, isn't it at least possible that the higher tiers also have lower latency or higher prioritization (among the ISP's users, not necessarily of youtube)?

    • Re:uh... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Stewie241 ( 1035724 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @04:05PM (#49572617)

      Latency is generally not important at all for Netflix. For Skype or video chatting, maybe, but with Netflix, you can have 5 second ping and still have a good video watching experience.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Ichijo ( 607641 )

        with Netflix, you can have 5 second ping and still have a good video watching experience.

        That's correct when the buffer is more than 5 seconds long and you don't mind the >5 second delay before the video begins.

        So in real life, a faster data connection really does create a better viewing experience, so Verizon is technically correct, but each additional megabit per second provides less and less of an improvement over the previous megabit per second.

        • Except that high throughput does not necessarily give you lower latency. It usually does but it's not a guarantee. Take satellite connections for example. The bandwidth of the connection you have can vary significantly but getting the radio signals up to the satellite and back again result in high latency, regardless of the bandwidth you have access to.

          In general you are correct though. Modern land line networks (regardless of whether the last mile is wireless/phone) typically do not suffer from latency

        • Re:uh... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by angel'o'sphere ( 80593 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @05:20PM (#49573103) Journal

          so Verizon is technically correct
          No they are not.

          For watching a video that needs something like 1.5 Mbps bandwidth, on a line that already has 50 Mbps increasing that to 75 makes no difference at all.

          • Re:uh... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by WarJolt ( 990309 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @05:46PM (#49573251)

            increasing that to 75 makes no difference at all.

            Unless you're sharing your bandwidth with some annoying roommates.

          • Huh? Netflix says it needs 25 Mbs [netflix.com] I'm not sure where you're getting 1.5 Mb/s-- unless you like 360p.

            • 25Mb/s is only if you want 4k streams.3-5Mb/s is what the vast majority of users consume at. even 1.5Mb/s is quite watchable, but noticeably lower quality.

              • If you pay for the service, the bandwidth, and have the equipment, it's annoying when you have to settle for the bare minimum. Not necessarily HULK SMASH lebel of annoying, but it's still there..

                I happen to like aesthetically pleasing films. Sometimes, if the aesthetics are constrained by network issues, the film really isn't "worth" watching-- I'll read a book, or do a little programming instead.

              • I set my Netflix to the lowest quality option, which they state as 0.3 GB per hour, or about 0.667 Mbps. If I'm watching a movie on the TV I'll bring it up to full quality, but most of the time I'm watching TV episodes on my tablet, and I really can't tell much of a difference. I have 5 internet users in the house, and most of our video watching is done over the internet as opposed to TV. If we don't limit the speed of the streams, we could blow through our bandwidth very quickly. I even had to cap the iPo

              • by Rob Y. ( 110975 )

                Eventually, ISP's are going to come up with 'pay per gigabyte' pricing that will solve this in a better, fairer way. Net neutrality is vital - certainly for protecting access to all content. But unlimited access to unlimited amounts of data is not really net neutrality. I'm fine with watching Netflix at 720P if I can save money on my broadband bill. Someone else may want 4K streams and be willing to pay for it. The internet will survive this.

                • Eventually, ISP's are going to come up with 'pay per gigabyte' pricing that will solve this in a better, fairer way. Net neutrality is vital - certainly for protecting access to all content. But unlimited access to unlimited amounts of data is not really net neutrality. I'm fine with watching Netflix at 720P if I can save money on my broadband bill. Someone else may want 4K streams and be willing to pay for it. The internet will survive this.

                  Eventually? I live in Australia nearly all the providers here charge on a per gigabyte quota basis and have done for a long time. It is one of the reasons I can't see ultra HD streaming taking off here as when you are paying for your data it becomes very expensive

        • Re:uh... (Score:5, Informative)

          by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @06:15PM (#49573419)

          So in real life, a faster data connection really does create a better viewing experience

          No. This would only be true if the people at Netflix were complete morons. They measure the latency, and adjust the buffer. So as long as your bandwidth is good enough, and the latency is reasonably consistent, you are fine.

          so Verizon is technically correct

          No they aren't. They are flat out lying.

          • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

            Taken to the logical extreme, if you are correct that latency has exactly zero effect on the viewing experience as long as it's reasonably consistent, then bandwidth is irrelevant because you can simply download the entire movie before watching it and it would not impact the viewing experience.

            No, I think every additional second between the time you press "play" and the time the movie starts, downgrades the viewing experience slightly, no matter how repeatable that latency is.

            • We're not talking about logical extremes, we're talking about the set of reasonable values for typical broadband connections. Of course a one minute latency is going to suck (though it might still be tolerable if you had no other options and just wanted to watch a movie), but broadband connections are going to generally have a latency of at most 100ms.

      • Re:uh... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by abies ( 607076 ) on Wednesday April 29, 2015 @02:48AM (#49574959)

        I understand your idea, but I think this is not true with TCP/IP. Latency IS affecting throughput considerably.
        a) There is a limit of un-acked bytes which can be pushed, so there is guaranteed limit depending on distance (and with 5 seconds it is going to be very visible)
        b) With any kind of packet loss, which is to be expected, window size will reset, slowing it even more

        Only info I was able to find about that was quite old and metioning various workarounds which will be implemented for that in 2010 or so ;) Does anybody know how it looks like these days on majority of internet? What will be expected maximum throughput over TCP/IP with 5s ping, with 0% packet loss, 0.1% packet loss and 1% packet loss?

        • by sabri ( 584428 )

          What will be expected maximum throughput over TCP/IP with 5s ping, with 0% packet loss, 0.1% packet loss and 1% packet loss?

          Hypothetical question with no real-world application.

          1. The guy talks about "5s ping". That means 2500ms latency one-way.
          2. You will not find 2500ms latency anywhere in the world. You did not even find that in 1994.
          3. Even satellite will provide better than that: ~300ms.
          4. Your question lacks an important parameter: bandwidth and server/receiver memory.

          As long as you have enough memory, you can store the entire transmission without acking.

      • My wife was watching Netflix on her tablet recently when the power went out (taking the WiFi with it) for probably about 20 seconds. She had enough in her buffer that the show just kept on running until about another 20 seconds after the power came back on.

    • since they just throttle the connection into tiers so as to maximize profit, isn't it at least possible that the higher tiers also have lower latency or higher prioritization (among the ISP's users, not necessarily of youtube)?

      If it's the case that latency or QoS is applied to intentionally push lower-tier users to a higher tier, then Verizon is even sleazier than TFA indicates.

      • then Verizon is even sleazier than TFA indicates.

        We already knew that. They make the Koch brothers look honorable.

        • From my understanding the Kochs are very honorable and trustworthy. They have made it very clear their stance on things and don't seem to have changed positions on a whim or back stabbed those they support to advance their cause.
    • In other words, they lie so damned much about what they're selling you so that if you upgrade to the next tier they just might be giving you what they charge you for now?

      Sounds like a pile of shit to me.

      (Not what you say, it probably echoes what the assholes at Verizon say)

    • That's why there's a buffer. 300ms of ping only needs an extra 300ms of buffer, in theory.
      • according to a deterministic theory, or one where 300ms is a hard upper bound.

        in other words, it's a dumbass assumption.

      • by WarJolt ( 990309 )

        That's why there's a buffer. 300ms of ping only needs an extra 300ms of buffer, in theory.

        The buffer is for the jitter, Not the transmission time. Ping is round trip time, so your latency is only 150ms assuming that the path there is about the same cost as the.trip back. I suppose that's more important for live streaming content.
        You need a round trip to begin streaming, so the 300ms is important for that.

    • They do need to be carefull if they try throtteling upstream bandwidth for customers with lower level packages. It is simply too easy to prove. Comcast is an example of where this was not hidden very well. Customers with 20Meg Comcast connecitons could not stream Netflix nearly as well as 6Meg DSL customers in the same neighborhood. Customers needing redundancy against outages were the very first to note and document the problem.

      Verizon needs to be carefull what is placed in their sales training materia

  • probably planning for 8K video....obviously

    • 10 separate streams at only 29 Mbps... that means you could do ... 2^2... but it's 8k, so 4^2 = 16... 29/10*16... 46.4 ... so, you could still do 8k Netflix on 50Mbps...

  • by bhcompy ( 1877290 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @03:56PM (#49572553)
    It's almost as if your maximum potential bandwidth to a third party destination isn't just constrained by the network you start in.
  • Verizon will "fix" this quickly.

  • ISPs lie. Who knew?

    Seriously, if I had a nickel for every time my ISP (*cough* rogers.com *cough*) lied to me, I'd be a rich man.

    I think they deliberately fill their storefronts with toxic twerps who score the highest on sociopathy tests.

    • by desdinova 216 ( 2000908 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @04:03PM (#49572601)
      no the ones who score high on sociopathy tests get put into executive training programs.
    • Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bobbied ( 2522392 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @04:17PM (#49572699)

      I think they deliberately fill their storefronts with toxic twerps who score the highest on sociopathy tests.

      No, they pick their sales people from the stock of minimum wage skilled who fancy themselves tech savvy and then bonus them on how much they manage to sell (up sell) customers. In the words of a famous manger, you get what you bonus. Of course they will suggest you buy MORE from them because they likely get a bonus for this. Verizon KNOWS that 75mbs is pointless, that nobody is going to flood that for very long, that you are likely only ever going to need maybe 25mbs, but that doesn't mean they won't be happy to take an extra $40/month from you so your speed testing shows 75mbps.

      Verizon does seem to be well stocked with these types though. I recently spent a number of hours trying to fix my FIOS internet connection with a number of them on the phone... After beating around the "Yes, I've rebooted the router" and "No, I won't directly connect my laptop up to the internet for love or money" with multiple techs over multiple hours, it turns out that they switched my connection from PPPoE to DHCP and didn't bother to tell me to change. I don't figure the first level support guys had any clue, they just read from the cue cards and if you go off script, they are helpless.

      • I still like the exchange I had with corporate IT a while back. Come in one morning and power up my desktop and there is a pop and some smoke came out of the back where the power supply was and it smelled like burned plastic. Found someone else who was in and filled out a service ticket where I stated what had happened and specifically requested that they send the local IT service person over with a new power supply. About 2 hours later I get a call from the IT help center in Florida and they want to remote
  • We never heard something dumb from a broadband provider's tech support before?

    BTW, Netflix has a bunch of testing videos called "example short". Some come with a resolution and bitrate meter. For 720p you need 4000Mbps. Personally, I have a 18-20Mbps connection at home, and I normally get 720p quality from Netflix, except during the off hours, when I might get 1080p picture.

    • For 720p you need 4000Mbps. Personally, I have a 18-20Mbps connection at home, and I normally get 720p quality from Netflix, except during the off hours, when I might get 1080p picture.

      Should that 4000Mbps be 4Mbps? Even that seems high, as I believe that 1080p = 5Mbps, but 4Gbps seems way overboard.

    • by Livius ( 318358 )

      It not usually *so* dumb as to be an obvious act of attempted fraud.

      So, yes, news, although at the same time wholly unsurprising.

  • by zazenation ( 1060442 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @04:04PM (#49572615)

    This tactic has been used in auto sales for years.
    Selling customers at closing "undercoating, rustproofing and fabric protection" that are already part of the car, but get people to shell out extra coin for. Extended warranties fall into the same category. Just extra profit if nobody questions it.
    I guess all those unemployed car sales-bodies have to take a job somewhere.

    • they keep calling my wife offering her "amazing" deals with "special" rates that are $20 to $30 more than our current rate and about $10 more than their advertised rate for the same features/speed/channels/etc.

      Each time she asks them to check what we are paying now, and each time they are like, oh, never mind. good bye.

    • This tactic has been used in auto sales for years. Selling customers at closing "undercoating, rustproofing and fabric protection" that are already part of the car, but get people to shell out extra coin for. Extended warranties fall into the same category. Just extra profit if nobody questions it. I guess all those unemployed car sales-bodies have to take a job somewhere.

      Your analogy is a bit flawed.

      This isn't merely trying to sell tiny upgrades on the same model. Verizon sales tactics are more along the lines of "no, no, no, you don't need a Cavalier, you need a Corvette", and the customer believing that bullshit.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @04:11PM (#49572667)

    He may not be able to see the difference if he doesn't have this [amazon.com].

    • See, If I was extremely rich, I would buy this and write a review just so it had one with a verified purchase.

  • A salesman who's not telling the truth?

  • by Rakarra ( 112805 )

    He fired up 10 concurrent streams of a Game of Thrones episode

    I know why he really did this, so he could watch every scene with nudity at once on multiple TVs in his living room.
    You'll need more than 10 concurrent streams for that..

  • I'm sure 'caveat emptor' is at least 2000 years old as a phrase, but the concept pretty much dates back to as long as there was commerce.

  • So they're lying, and that's a crime.
    • nah, corporations paid a huge amount of money vie "Citizen's United". It's not lying, they call it "Federally protected Freedom of Speech" lol
  • I had a very similar incident. I complained to a company that rhymes with "Slime Corner" that my internet service was spotty, "sticking" often such that minutes went by without anything coming through. They then simply recommended that I upgrade to a higher bandwidth.

    (And it still does it, by the way. Especially on the weekends. The sole alternative vendor is even slimier, tacking on magic fees from nowhere onto our bill.)

    <curmudgeon>
    Get ON my lawn and fix my damned Internet!
    </curmudgeon

  • I have Netflix and there is no streaming option, only DVD discs.

    • I think Netflix has DVDs only in the U.S.A., all other countries only have streaming.

      And in Canada, Games of Thrones is available (for streaming).

    • I have Netflix and there is no streaming option, only DVD discs.

      No idea where you are in the world but Netflix has different content licenses for different regions (based on your DNS server location so it's very easy to fool). Spotify and I imagine the rest of streaming services are the same.

      • I live in California and get my internet from Verizon.

        Apparently the guy from TFA streaming 10 copies of Game of Thrones was not an American then? I didn't know Verizon provided broadband service outside of the USA.

    • I don't have Netflix, but last I talked to someone with Netflix and mentioned Game of Thrones, they did not have it available.
  • by Dutch Gun ( 899105 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @04:32PM (#49572811)

    Dan: Plus when I called in...
    Dan: They told me if I go from 50 mbps to 75 mbps i will get better netflix streaming. is that true?
    Dan: Will it improve?
    Robert: Yes it you have more bandwidth you will have smoother video viewing.
    Dan: But isn't 50 mbps already enough?
    Robert: yes it is enough. 75 will just be smoother.

    So, basically Dan baited the rep into talking up the improvements related to Netflix streaming. Note also the rep was actually honest that 50 mbps was enough to stream Netflix just fine. It sort of sounds like this guy was trolling for a story, and got the sales rep to overstate the benefits with a nice leading question. Ok, so Verizon should tell their sales reps to be a bit more honest, but... I'm having a hard time generating any outrage here. Are people equally outraged when salespeople sell 4K TVs to customers who will likely never see the difference between that and a good 1080p screen at their TV size and viewing distance?

    Sales rep overstates benefits of top-tier package. News at 11.

    • The rep literally and directly told him that his Netflix video would be improved by going from the 50 to 75 Mbps tier.

      • Which is probably true. Movies will start/buffer/fastforward quicker, the menu will be more responsive. It's won't be very significant, but an improvement anyway.

    • by sjames ( 1099 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @05:00PM (#49572987) Homepage Journal

      No, since the correct answer is "Really 50Mbps is all you need. Going to 75 won't matter". Really, even 50 is WAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY overkill for a 3Mbps stream.

      In a just world, they'd let the people in jail for possession of pot go to make room for the lying pack of jackles that is sales and marketing. Although rarely enforced at all, it is actually against the law to lie to potential customers. Many times they get around it on technicalities or dismissing statements as mere puffery but this is just a straight up lie.

  • It needs a usage cap that allows us to actually do streaming.

    • by guises ( 2423402 )
      A usage cap? What do you mean by this? Why would you need a usage cap to do streaming?
      • For the reading-impared: fast broadband is pointless if there is a usage cap that prevents you from taking advantage of it for video.

  • I was told by AT&T that my customer needed 2 fiber lines since there were more than 5 computers in an office. These are workers doing email and RDP.

  • by Mycroft-X ( 11435 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @04:41PM (#49572863)

    He fired up 10 concurrent streams of a Game of Thrones episode and found only 29Mbps of connection being used

    Yet 25Mbps is the MINIMUM standard of broadband -- because being able to stream only 8 streams of Game of Thrones at one time is indistinguishable from dial up, from a regulatory perspective.

  • Of course the sales guy is going to say that. He earns a gold star for every upsell.
  • by bobbied ( 2522392 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @04:49PM (#49572909)

    Yea, they will happily sell you more bandwidth than you will likely ever use outside of running a speed test, but they will sell you *anything* to make more cash from you.

    It's worse too if you are an established customer with them. All those advertised prices you see? GARBAGE... They DON'T apply to you as an established customer. The ad price for the services I get is $75/month and the actual price I pay is $130! How's that? Well, let's see, there is a bunch of things NOT in the advertised price. Equipment Rental $25 for a DVR set Top box, and I have two, $10 for the router, then there is the regional sports fee (because I pay for ESPN non the less) for $7, add in tax and FCC mandated fees and it's $130 or so. It's a racket, but I'm sure Verizon isn't the only provider that does this kind of thing. TWC does similar stuff too.

    Then, you know what happens after your contract term is up, they do away with the service you used to pay for. I had just internet with them for years, starting at 10mbs, that plan went away eventually and I got automatically bumped up. Over time I went from $50/month to nearly double that with not nearly a double in speed. We where at $100/moth for 25/25 by the end of 6 years. However, you call them and they are all about "we don't raise your rates like the other guys!". I told one of their sales people that it as a boldfaced lie to say they don't raise rates, I'd been a customer for YEARS and they surely did raise my rates during that time, multiple times.

    But what really frosted me was the "Oh the advertised rates are for NEW customers only!" line. Come on Verizon, I've been your customer for 6 years, never a late bill payment, no changes in my service, not even a technician visit to my home to fix something. You are going to give the guy up the street you don't know is really going to pay you a better deal then me? You people are NUTS..

    • Tell them you are considering Dish and want to compare plans.
      • They don't give a shit. When I told them that I was considering switching to cable modem, they told me to go for it. So I did.

      • Maybe after my current contract is up I'll give them the heave ho...

        I hear that the "customer retention" people have a bit more authority, but they are also a whole lot more pushy by the sounds of the news reports..

    • by houghi ( 78078 )

      I can only compare to what I know from Belgium, Europe.
      1) The price only being for new customers? That is almost a standard, but it must be indicated.
      2) Paying extra for hardware lease? That is normal as well, as long as you have the option of using your own (or buy it from them). Otherwise it must be included.
      3) Taxes and all other costs must be included by law.
      4) Extra channels will cost extra

      And yes, if you have a signed contract and newer deals are cheaper, you still will need to pay what you signed for

      • I don't think you fully understand this price increase thing...

        It's not that I don't expect my rates to go up over time for the same service, especially if I'm not under a fixed price contract with them, I do. It's that the sales people say "We don't raise your rates like the other guys do!" when they are trying to sell you a fixed rate contract. From my experience, THAT'S NOT TRUE. They clearly raised my rates over the 6 years I wasn't under a fixed price contract, and not by just a little. We nearly

    • by dj245 ( 732906 )

      But what really frosted me was the "Oh the advertised rates are for NEW customers only!" line. Come on Verizon, I've been your customer for 6 years, never a late bill payment, no changes in my service, not even a technician visit to my home to fix something. You are going to give the guy up the street you don't know is really going to pay you a better deal then me? You people are NUTS..

      The only reason that works is because of limited competition. Which, sadly, is the system that almost everyone in the USA lives under.

  • ... if you have multiple computers on your lan, streaming different content from different sites.

    I've found routinely that video streaming tv shows from a network's website, which ordinarily runs fine will still start to choke if somebody else in my house is watching a moderately long youtube video in HD, for example.

    • i have a 12mbs and doing more then 1 Netflix steam is no problem. and being youtube auto corrects for bandwidth speed i would be checking my roughter for shure.
    • ... if you have multiple computers on your lan, streaming different content from different sites.

      I've found routinely that video streaming tv shows from a network's website, which ordinarily runs fine will still start to choke if somebody else in my house is watching a moderately long youtube video in HD, for example.

      Are you really talking about the difference between 50 and 75 Mbits/second down? If you really are seeing issues with streaming netflix while someone else is watching an HD youtube video with a provisioning of 50 Mbits/second, there's something wrong, and it's almost certainly not your provisioning. I'd want to see how you laid out your network, check some stats from your router, look at what switches you're using, and check how your Netflix appliance is connected to the network.

      I'd also want to do some s

  • Verizon should be honest and tell me people their torrents and Usenet connections will download much faster. Once you get above a certain point, nothing you really do online is going to be better, unless you're pulling down large files. So, I guess your Steam installs will be faster, and if you're downloading (not streaming) movies from iTunes and/or Amazon that will be faster. But I would think services like Amazon, Google Play and iTunes have perfected the art of starting a video after enough of the do
  • > Verizon recently told a customer that upgrading his 50Mbps service to 75Mbps would result in smoother streaming of Netflix video.

    Ok, not really. A salescreature working for Verizon said that. Now you could argue rightly that salescreatures are the "face" of the company to customers. If they lie to the customer (and this is without a doubt a really big lie) it reflects badly on the company, just as horrible service reflects badly on Comcast. (In their case they deserve it, but I digress.)

    The problem

    • U-Verse is basically just branding for AT&Ts various services, similar to Comcast and "Xfinity". Their speed tiers will of course vary by location, but when I used it, it was 25/5. If I'm not mistaken, fiber connections are also sold under the U-verse name.
  • it was the sales droid who lied - it is him who should be castigated for lieing - presumably to earn a few extra $ commission or bonus. All those who were conned into paying for something that they did not need should be able to seek compensation from the sales droid - the fine NOT to be paid by Verison. The droid's manager and managers all the way up should have to pay in proportion to their take home pay.

    Unless there are consequences it will happen again. Not much different from the bankers who caused the

  • I have a 50Mbps connection as well, and I just did a speed test and averaged 9.76 Mpbs with spikes up to about 11. This is about normal for my 50 Mbps connection.
  • When I was attempting to have my account information corrected ( a process that took over six months to accomplish ) they kept on trying to sell me more services, one of which was their 75Mbs service. Sigh.

  • To be more precise, de facto monopoly, which enables non-competitive pricing. The lying goes along with the rest.

    1984 [bukisa.com]

    “It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

    It's not they are alone. Most of

  • To expect the truth from any cable, internet or cell phone provider is a foolish foolish thing. They are more or less marketing companies. Marketing companies get paid to lie. They get paid to deceive to maximize profit. Like that merger between AT&T and Comcast. In what universe would that help the consumer? It's insane that anyone would think that, except the politicians paid by the lobby groups to believe. There's nothing we can do about it really, just grin and bear it as we get screwed equal
  • Is this going to be the practical bandwidth I can get to Netflix and other popular services 99% of the time, including Saturday night? If so, it's a wonderful service and could be well worth upgrading to 75mbps or even 1gbps. I would love to do a time machine backup of my laptop to a cloud storage provider that wouldn't burn in a house fire.

    On the other hand my "30mbps" Comcast connection frequently ends up buffering a single HBO now stream. To be fair, this could well be problem of HBO or network intermedi

  • It's not just bandwidth, it's also discard priority according to the service class of each customer.

    In case of congestion, you'd better belong to the "gold" class (highest paying customers) rather than the "silver" or "bronze" classes. I don't actually know the number of classes nor their names as defined internally by Verizon, but customers are typically classified in several classes, and their traffic is treated differently. Maximum bandwidth is the first (obvious) difference, but not the only one. In gen

I like work; it fascinates me; I can sit and look at it for hours.

Working...