FCC To Look Into Data Bottlenecks And Pay-For-Access Deals With ISPs

The whole point of net neutrality is that Internet Service Providers like Comcast and Verizon shouldn’t be allowed to actively prioritize or degrade the data they help to deliver; it should all be treated equally. But as we’ve seen with Netflix speeds over the last year, ISPs can passively allow downstream data to bottleneck, effectively telling the largest content providers that they have to pay for more direct access. After omitting this latter issue in his controversial net neutrality proposal, FCC Chair Tom Wheeler announced today that it’s time for his commission to consider it.

In a statement [PDF] released Friday afternoon, Wheeler cites one of the many e-mails he’s received about this issue of interconnectivity.

“Netflix versus Verizon: Is Verizon abusing Net Neutrality and causing Netflix picture quality to be degraded by ‘throttling’ transmission speeds? Who is at fault here?” reads the e-mail from a consumer named George. “The consumer is the one suffering! What can you do?”

Technically, George is misstating what Verizon has done to Netflix’s data. Throttling would be in violation of the recently gutted neutrality rules, which the major ISPs have promised to abide by pending approval (and inevitable, eventual legal challenge) of the new ones.

What started happening last summer is that Verizon and others began allowing Netflix data to bottleneck. See, Netflix pays a lot of money to bandwidth providers to carry their streaming videos. But in order to reach the end-users, that data has to be handed off to ISPs who pipe it into your home. Until last year, when Netflix’s downstream connection started to get congested, the ISPs would open up more connection points. Think of it like the supermarket that temporarily opens up a register or two to keep the checkout lines moving.

Feeling that they weren’t getting the money they deserved for providing a service that consumers already pay good money for, ISPs simply stopped opening these extra lanes and allowed Netflix to back up. This put Netflix in the position of having to choose: Lose customers who don’t care or understand why their streaming episodes of Burn Notice look like 8-bit video games, or pay the ISPs for better access to their networks.

And in February, Netflix agreed to pay Comcast an undisclosed amount for a more direct connection to the Comcast network. Almost immediately, speeds improved. Then a few weeks back, it reached a similar deal with Verizon, though that hasn’t really shown the desired results yet.

Netflix is certainly not the first company that has paid for this sort of connection, but since it represents the largest chunk of downstream traffic in the U.S. and has a history of being brash in its feelings toward ISPs, these deals have brought these “paid-peering” agreements to the fore.

“We don’t know the answers and we are not suggesting that any company is at fault,” writes Wheeler in his response to the e-mail. “Consumers pay their ISP and they pay content providers like Hulu, Netflix or Amazon. Then when they don’t get good service they wonder what is going on. I have experienced these problems myself and know how exasperating it can be…. Consumers must get what they pay for. As the consumer’s representative we need to know what is going on.”

Wheeler says he recently directed his staff to request relevant info from both the ISPs and affected content providers regarding these issues of interconnectivity and pay-to-play access.

The commission has obtained and is looking at the deals that Netflix made with both Comcast and Verizon. It has also asked to review other peering arrangements.

“To be clear, what we are doing right now is collecting information, not regulating,” cautions Wheeler. “We are looking under the hood. Consumers want transparency. They want answers. And so do I. The bottom line is that consumers need to understand what is occurring when the Internet service they’ve paid for does not adequately deliver the content they desire, especially content they’ve also paid for.”

In a statement released to Consumerist, Comcast’s VP of Government something or other says the company welcomes Wheeler’s look under the hood.

“Internet traffic exchange on the backbone is part of ensuring that bits flow freely and efficiently and all actors across the system have a shared responsibility to preserve the smooth functioning and highly competitive backbone interconnection market,” says the statement from a company that allowed Netflix traffic to effectively grind to a halt and only changed its tune when A) Netflix agreed to pay up and B) when Comcast needed to look good before regulators in order to get them to sign off on the company’s pending acquisition of Time Warner Cable.

Read Comments1

Edit Your Comment

  1. Mokona512 says:

    When there is nothing regulating their use of peering, there is nothing stopping ISP’s from dynamically turning peering ports on and off. For example, verizon may be doing this in order to ensure that streaming services such as netflix are always performing slowly. My reason for this is that with natural network congestion, throughput during peak usage hours (when everyone is trying to use it) will be the slowest, and times when hardly anyone is using a service, the performance will be great. but on verion’s network, the services are about the same slow at all hours. It is just as slow at 7PM as it is at 3AM. With the killing of the old net neutrality rules, they could be throttling these services to always perform as slowly as they do at peak hours, or as a workaround for not throttling, they can be dynamically scaling the peering in order to make sure that at all times of the day, the peering port(s) will always be congested.

    Think about it like this, in order to always have rush hour like traffic jams and slowdowns, a city decides to close lanes during non peak hours so that traffic is always extremely slow. (the city could implement the same condition be adjusting speed limits to make sure that it takes users just as long to get from point A to point B, as it does during peak rush hour, or they can dynamically open and close lanes in order to ensure that there will always be too many cars for the road to handle, and thus always slow. This is what verizon may be doing if they are not throttling).

    When a user pays for a specific speed, it is up to the ISP to ensure that nothing between the user and the server are causing any slowdowns below the speed they are paying for. If this requirement is not required and enforced, then ISP’s will simply get away with charging a lot for a high speed connection, but creating bottlenecks between anything that will actually make use of the full speed they are paying for, and thus being able to sell a product that the users cannot make sue of.

    A loophole for any kind of no throttling rule is simply to slow the hardware down. Don’t want your users viewing netflix? then shut off a few peering ports to slow it down, or replace an 8 wire ethernet cable, with a 4 wire one (thus making the gigabit port into a 100mbit port, there are many ways to slow traffic without using QOS, and many ISP’s are taking advantage of those loopholes in order to charge customers for speeds and making it nearly impossible to use the added speed.