throttling

Towards the end of January, the president of our company – iScan Online, Inc., was complaining that our service was experiencing major slowdowns. I investigated the issue, but I couldn’t find anything wrong with our production environment. We were stumped.

One evening I also noticed a slowdown while using our service from my house. I realized that the one thing in common between me and our president was that we both had FiOS internet service from Verizon.

Oddlly enough, Verizon denies it.



  1. bobbo, zero tech knowledge but this is how we learn says:

    So, “should” the answer be the free market or the gubment?

    I don’t know, but I would think business customers especially, but all customers, have contractual rights to some minimum speed.

    As dear old Mom used to say: SUE THE BASTARDS.

    Bring in your traceroutes and prove you have been throttled back.

    Win millions.

    If this throttling is illegal, take the evidence to the local DA. They won’t do anything of course. The Man. Almost worthless absent political connections.

    • pedro says:

      What the hell does free market has to do with bastards throttling & breaking their own terms of service?

      Typical liberul looking for dumb excuses to further his control agenda

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        What do you think “free” means Pedro?

        Without liberal gubment regulation (AND ENFORCEMENT) free market theory is bizneds can do as they wish to maximize profit like cutting competitors bandwidth and end users of the webtudes can decide to change carriers or not. Suing in court? Not really a free market concept.

        It all depends on how F*CKING NUTS YOU WANT TO BE….so in your case, I don’t know where you set the bar…..as you don’t even know what a bar is?

        Ha, ha…..but I dither.

        • Guyver says:

          What do you think “free” means Pedro?

          I suppose for you it means something with respect to lunch? :D

          ALL programs I support show a gaining of one kind of freedom over some other kind of freedom.

          Without liberal gubment regulation (AND ENFORCEMENT) free market theory is bizneds can do as they wish to maximize profit like cutting competitors bandwidth and end users of the webtudes can decide to change carriers or not. Suing in court? Not really a free market concept.

          So compelling a service provider to do things on your terms is what you call gaining one kind of freedom over some other kind?

          In a free market, a consumer could vote with their wallet. Did you somehow lose that ability? Did you lose your ability to voice your grievances online with places such as http://www.ripoffreport.com or http://www.complaints.com?

          Is this simply a matter of you believing network access is an entitlement which is why you play the “liberal gubment” card?

          If you’re griping about the tactics of a natural monopoly, then who’s responsible for establishing that?

          Vote with your wallet… or I suppose you want some cheese with that whine?

        • pedro says:

          I see you keep manipulating concepts to fit your lefty agenda. This time showing us your intellectual dishonesty by leaving out parts of the definition.

          Here, educate yourself”

          “The laissez-faire principle expresses a preference for an absence of non-market pressures on prices and wages, such as those from government taxes, subsidies, tariffs, regulation (other than protection from coercion and theft), or government-granted or coercive monopolies.”

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Well Pedro….actually relevant and on point. What a change.

            I don’t think throttling a particular persons bandwidth is “coercion” as used in laissez faire parlance. Certainly its not theft. Its just a degraded service.

            Do you disagree…… on point?

          • Guyver says:

            I don’t think throttling a particular persons bandwidth is “coercion” as used in laissez faire parlance.

            Is it worth whining about or wanting government to step in because you don’t like the terms of service you’ve allowed yourself to contractually have?

            Nope. Suck it up.

            Certainly its not theft. Its just a degraded service.

            What is quality of service worth to you? Will you pay more for it?

            If you won’t pay more, then why not freeload? That’s certainly compatible with your entitlement mindset.

            Or is freeloading off of some place like McDonald’s too inconvenient (or too expensive since $1 from the value menu costs too much in liberal money)?

  2. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    McGuyver….you crack me up. Pedro 2.0. Same stupidity with a varnish of malapropisms. Simply Marvelous.

    I will state the obvious on your request.

    1. do you really not see the freedoms being balanced?

    2. do you think Net Neutrality is best enforced by free market or regulation that is enforced?

    • pedro says:

      Stupidity is your poor attempt at passing this obvious theft from an ISP as a product of free market.

      Go and make your ignorant claims somewhere else.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        OH!–sorry. You do think it is theft huh? Well, I’m not tech enough to slam that one way or the other.

        Theft—normally thats when I TAKE something from you. Isn’t throttling an example of me NOT GIVING YOU something?

        Please explain how theft fits……using dictionary defintions of the terms?

    • Guyver says:

      do you really not see the freedoms being balanced?

      Fascinating. So what you’re really saying is you don’t have the freedom to choose who you do business with. As a consumer, you feel compelled to empower Verizon to maintain their tactics.

      You’ve got some metaphorical gun pointed at your head?

      do you think Net Neutrality is best enforced by free market or regulation that is enforced?

      Said the sheeple not realizing that he could take his business elsewhere.

      Here’s something more on your comprehension level: http://tinyurl.com/k52otj9

      I know this is a hard concept to grasp because you’re liberal, but you CAN vote with your wallet. If liberals collectively boycotted a product or a brand, then things CAN turnaround.

      The problem is you won’t due to some impotence problem you feel you have about yourself while whining about big government will come to save the day and your E.D. problems.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        What a pile of projection you got going here McDuff.

        Where am I whining? All I have done this thread is point out (quite consistently with your comment making them rather backsliding) that a customer of Verizon has two options. Gubment regulation or free market. Even Pedro is responding (incorrectly and stupidly but) on point.

        Do you have no reference points other than your twisted relationship with your hatred for liberal atheists? I do assume you don’t even comprehend my anti-theist stance?

        But on point==you didn’t answer any of my questions. They are fair questions.

        No more intercourse with you until you engage in the fair market of ideas.

        Answer the f*cking questions, or stfu.

  3. Peppeddu says:

    Just VPN or dump them.

  4. jpfitz says:

    Ha! Fuck Verizon. I chose a different telecom provider.

    Argument solved. Freedom to choose.
    Freedom to watch a vid about liberty.
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Nice video but misplaced emPHAsis on property so I stopped watching at 2 min in.

      FREEEEEEEEEDOM is not about “yourself” as much about: LEAVING OTHER PEOPLE ALONE. The video implies this but doesn’t develop it.

      Might just be my thing….ymmv.

      • jpfitz says:

        You didn’t see the full video then, life, liberty and your property (bandwidth) is yours. No one may take from you what you paid for or earned. Watch to the end. Theft is actionable.

        Governments will create a controlled service with political pigs vying for absolute power over the services. Consumers have no one to complain to with governmental interference. A free market with choices is best for all citizens.

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          If an activity is “actionable” how can you justify not taking steps to prevent it?

          Suing after the injury is more often than not as bad as the injury itself.

          “Real World” stuff.

          ……….and thats why FREEEEEEEEEDOM IS BEST UNDERSTOOD outside of one’s self. When one’s self is the center of the Universe, its difficult to identify the concentric circle at which you, your id, and your superego stops.

          Know what I mean?

          • jpfitz says:

            Yes, agreed, litigation to recover theft of service or property is a painful but needed action.

            Freedom is not understood from outside oneself but a concept felt from within. One can create a virtual prisoner of oneself with the mind and ego. At the same time others who are the property of say the military are in essence slaves, not able to move about freely.

            We are all connected in some way, I don’t know how. Maybe the subconscious along with our brains running on electricity including the heart creates a global or even locally intensified event, for instance the power of a large gathering at a concert, can empower the individual who’s receptive to positive feelings. Then compare that to the power of the twin towers being watched live on tv creating negative feelings like FUD.

            Enslavement of humans has been forced upon the weak or helpless since the dawn of mankind. Always from external pressures for selfish reasons.

            You live in a country which runs on a capitalistic system. Meaning if you don’t like your broadband provider, you have options. Competition creates a market that’s yours to shop from.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior culture critic says:

            Sorry I missed this jp. Rereading your post, in effect it supports my view of things more than yours. Humans “feel” for themselves, but freedom is found when other people leave you alone. Its not a pure division, just a more functional way of viewing/dissecting the issue.

            With apologies to that German guy, there is no group consciousness. Nice poetic images from time to time, but nothing “real.”

  5. Guyver says:

    a customer of Verizon has two options. Gubment regulation or free market.

    Should have been obvious which option I endorse given my comments of voting with one’s wallet.

    Free Market, but not the quasi-kind Liberals seem to insist is demonstrative of a “free market”.

    The “Gubment” option is rather fickle. So is it really an “option”?

    Do you have no reference points other than your twisted relationship with your hatred for liberal atheists?

    Hatred? No. Amusement? Yes.

    But on point==you didn’t answer any of my questions. They are fair questions.

    So you say.

    Answer the f*cking questions, or stfu.

    What a tough-sounding lib you are. :D

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      True that. I slopped into the mode of Fox News fair and balanced coverage. My own private joke.

      Still…neither answer is interesting until it gets teased out with the pros and cons analyzed, contrasted, summed up and a balance struck.

      3. Do you answer only from your own preferences, or from what would be most efficatious for society as a whole?

      4. Do you see, appreciate, and operate on the difference?

  6. ± says:

    No surprise here. Some will remember the total debased evilness of Bell Atlantic. Verizon IS Bell Atlantic, their name changed with the hope that people will forget who they are.

  7. dusanmal says:

    Real NetNeutrality REQUIRES removal of both Corporate meddling AND Governmental meddling. You simply can’t have NetNeutrality based on FCC regulation. Paraphrased – one who regulates it – controls it. End of story.
    What people interested in real resolution of this problem can do and what could have bipartisan support is extension of Constitutional protections to Internet traffic. NEGATIVE rights to the Government and FCC, NEGATIVE rights to the ISPs. Ban on both regulation AND obstruction. If we have had that in place instead of hollow, loophole full, in Government corrupt hands FCC regulation – those affected by Verizon-Netflix issue would be able to sue for violation of their Constitutional Rights.
    FCC regulation was a Trojan horse and good riddance (so far) from it. It contained language that protected NetNeutrality only so far as it is agreeable with Governmental interest. Explicit rules were in it enabling “Great Firewall of China” (“legal content”), NSA (“legal devices”) and general oppression (“legal services”) mandate at the whim o this or some future administration. If Leftie – just imagine what that FCC regulation could provide to some Rightie President with a pen and a phone.
    As for those unhappy with Verizon – SWITCH. That is the Free Market response. Drop their phones, drop their ISP/FiOS. But no, you want Nanny State to worry for you. And they would, remember that the best care Nanny provides is without any freedoms for you…

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      You switch….but the gravity of the situation is that ultimately, all the competitors collude and do the same thing. The illusion of choice.

      Duce==I don’t know what fantasy world you live in where you think that ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE GUBMENT can control/manage this very type of issue.

      You act as if “if men were Angels, there would be no need for Gubment” was not a conditional statement.

      Know what I mean?

  8. John E Quantum says:

    Why can’t you call God on the phone?

    Because even God can’t get Verizon to do anything.

  9. Uncle Patso says:

    Yeah, switch providers.

    Good luck with that.

    I live in a small town in a rural area. My choices are

    * cable TV + internet bundle 10Mb ~$100/mo
    * phone + DSL bundle ~3-6Mb ~$60/mo

    I’m not even considering satellite internet — much too expensive.

    Pick your monopoly.

    Outside the few dozen largest metropolitan areas in the U.S., this is pretty much the choice people have.

    If either one or both of these decide their policy is “Dose are some nice bits youse guys got dere — be a shame if sumpin’ happened to ‘em….” you’re even more screwed than before. The individual gets stomped underfoot when the titans struggle.

    • spsffan says:

      I might add that it doesn’t matter much if you are rural or urban. I live in the second most populous metropolitan area in the USA.

      My choices are more or less as Patso outlines, except,

      with Verizon, I get a real POTS line that will most likely work after an earthquake, can be found by 911, can be used in my bedroom where cell service (even from Verizon) acts as though it is in a Faraday cage.

      I have little use for cable television. I don’t watch much to begin with, and with the switch to digital broadcasting, I think I have a mix of channels over the air that suits me better than what basic cable gives you around here.

      Oh, I could use another ISP for the DSL, but it’s still going through Verizon’s phone line. And I used to do that, but the services was so spotty that I sucked it up and went with Verizon, which though I find them rather evil, at least is working 99.9% of the time.

      My mother had satellite for a while. 250 channels. 225 of which are home shopping junk. $80 a month, and no internet. No thanks.

      A real free market would permit other telephone companies to run wires to my home. For that matter, I should be able to chose among different cable providers. But we ain’t got that. We have regulated public utility monopolies and more expensive yet inferior alternatives.

  10. FiOSopher says:

    voting with wallet: only choices are purchase or not purchase from Netflix. I love how some perceive the world of ISPs as populated by competitors … there is no significant ISP competition in most of the world, including my home. Internet bandwidth should be provided as a utility. The incumbents hate that idea and will spend (are spending) stunning sums to make sure that cannot/will not occur.

  11. Dallas says:

    The NSA should look into this.

  12. Captain Obvious says:

    If I can’t stream Zombeavers, then there will be hell to pay.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Those where some nice lookin beavers…..except for that last one.

      You know…at the right time, I could enjoy that flick. Probably, they will camp it up just a tad too much. Dead serious with good acting could have made it a cult favorite.

      Love the Whack a Mole scene.

    • jpfitz says:

      BIKINIS. BEAVERS.
      Looks like a good ride. Nice and campy with lots of T&A.

      One funny line.

      “Suck a bag of dicks!”

      Louis C. K.

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=OT7xc_XqYO8

    • Captain Obvious says:

      Zombeavers will obviously be the most significant film of 2014. 11 Oscars for sure.

  13. mainecat says:

    I have both FIOS and TWC available to me. With verizon, I can get a triple play for $80. I do not want cable or phone. How much is internet only? $80.. Then I have to pay for Netflix and/or Amazon on top of that to cut the cable cord. So you actually have to pay extra to receive TV content. Either option jumps to $100 after the first year. TWC puts in so much digital copy protection that nothing can be recorded. Ever. FIOS? no copy protection. WTF? All options cost the same no matter what. I’ve not included fees and taxes so add another $20.

    It looks like TWC throttles anything that is not their own offerings.

    I’ve given up on cable as it is all reality shows and commercials. Phone? What’s that? I’ve got a cell…

  14. mainecat says:

    I work for my State. At work we have a Verizon MiFi. A whopping $49.95 a month. UNLIMITED. 10MB up/10MB down. It consistently blows away my fiber optic FIOS at home. Never throttled. Ever. I could never get such a deal as an individual..

    Bottom line we are being hosed. BOHICA.

  15. Obbob's an A$$ (er, donkey)! says:

    Every damned one of you voted for this crap (with your dollars). You’re online, aren’t you?!!!

    And in case you forgot, it’s now legal to throttle too. So go ahead and thank any one of the countless DEMOCRATS who have so far helped contribute to this new “internet regulation” which is now allowing these ISP crooks to do whatever they want. After all, they know better!

    (Anyone care to look up the authors of those old SOPA/PIPA bills? Care to look at the political party those authors belonged to?! Hint: you’ll find almost no R’s in the mix – just like now.)

    • Captain Obvious says:

      No one mention Lamar Smith who introduced SOPA. Or Blackburn, Mack, Chabot, Gallegy, Goodlatte, Griffin, Ross, or Terry. Or mention 9 of the original 13 supporters were Republicans.

      You might hate the Democrats. Fair enough. But don’t go thinking that the Republicans are the good guys.

      • bobbo, LIBERALISM===the tonic 95% of us need says:

        Oh Yea!–As Perennial Third Party Candidate Ralph Nader so cogentally pointed out and made a plank in his political party (of one!)==”There is only ONE party–the Corporate Party. D’s and R’s are the two sides to that same coin.”

        He was right.

        This issue is just one demonstration====among ALL TOO MANY.

        We the people: the corpus on which wealth and labor is EXTRACTED for the ===CRIMINALLY RICH.

        Just ………………. look!

  16. Speedball says:

    I see. You add those numbers as you go by, then set cruse control to 125 mph..

  17. Traaxx says:

    You can always trust a Businessman/woman to follow the letter of the law, it would be nice if they could read though :(

    Remember, the bottom line is always slavery………………………..
    Whatever…………………………………………………………………………………
    Traaxx