News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by avianlyric on Sunday April 16, 2023 @03:12PM (#35593303)
> Said the other way around: fast.com is great to see actual throughput from Netflix as opposed to some fake throughout from a dedicated speed test site for the exact same reason.

Yup. This is pretty much the reason Netflix created fast.com. They wanted a speed test service that couldn’t be gamed by ISPs. Many ISPs will prioritise traffic to know speed test services (like Ookla’s speedtest.net), making their services appear faster than they’re under more normal usage.

By placing fast.com on Netflix IPs, ISPs either have to prioritise all Netflix traffic (which they’re very unlikely to do), or accept that fast.com is going to provide a more realistic measurement of their performance.

Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by neurostimulant on Sunday April 16, 2023 @03:38PM (#35593562)
Now that my ISP bundles Netflix subscription into their internet plans, access to netflix and fast.com now practically saturate the fiber link, while before it was outright blocked. Hooray for no net neutrality I guess.

When netflix IPs was blocked by this ISP, it's pretty much impossible to use netflix because the only way to get around the block was to use VPN, but netflix itself blocks VPN access.

Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by solarpunk on Sunday April 16, 2023 @03:45PM (#35593620)
I'm curious where you live and what provider does this weird Netflix reselling practice.
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by neurostimulant on Monday April 17, 2023 @01:19AM (#35597102)
Streaming services do this all the time in Asia. Instead of paying with credit card, you pay via your carrier/ISP, sometimes at discounted pricing. I paid Netflix, Disney+, Amazon Prime and Zoom this way.
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by callahad on Monday April 17, 2023 @03:02AM (#35597577)
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by happymellon on Sunday April 16, 2023 @03:49PM (#35593657)
> Hooray for no net neutrality I guess

Surely it would essentially saturate your fibre if there was net neutrality, unless you don't pay for full fibre speeds?

Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by tpxl on Sunday April 16, 2023 @04:02PM (#35593764)
Parent was being facetious.
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by bee_rider on Sunday April 16, 2023 @03:49PM (#35593658)
What is the internet anyway? Are there truth in advertising issues around selling internet access with excessive filtering?
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by patmcc on Sunday April 16, 2023 @04:16PM (#35593872)
Your ISP entirely blocked netflix? That's incredible shitty.
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by dhosek on Sunday April 16, 2023 @04:28PM (#35593976)
Early in the pandemic, I spent a while without wired internet using a wireless hotspot from the library which would not connect to Netflix but any other streaming video service was fine. I forget who the wireless vendor behind the hotspot was—I think it might have been Verizon.
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by kerkeslager on Sunday April 16, 2023 @10:42PM (#35596315)
So there's a bit of a weird fact about public libraries, which is that it probably wasn't on the normal internet (Internet1) but was in fact on Internet2 (see [1]).

Internet2 is used by hospitals, among other things, and as such has higher robustness requirements than Internet1. The pandemic created much higher demand for bandwidth from hospitals, forcing Internet2 providers to scramble to keep up in areas. As such, blocking high-bandwidth sites which are clearly lower priority than medical traffic might have actually been a reasonable move.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet2

Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by riceart on Sunday April 16, 2023 @11:16PM (#35596500)
Not quite sure I understand - what do hospitals need a ton of bandwidth for? Why would those bandwidth requirements rise significantly during the pandemic. Sure there were a bunch of people on vents in the MICU, but pretty much every elective procedural service plummeted.
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by uni_rule on Sunday April 16, 2023 @11:22PM (#35596533)
I'd imagine telehealth played a fairly large roll. White crispy video calls are not that demanding individually 10s to 100s of them at scale per location (and an exponential increase of calls in general) might be something more of a problem for that sort of infrastructure.
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by riceart on Sunday April 16, 2023 @11:40PM (#35596619)
There are very few medical centers where there are 100s of simultaneous clinic visits. During the pandemic a lot of providers did home telehealth. Even 100s of simultaneous telemedicine visits don’t take much bandwidth compared to HD video streaming.

It might have been difficult relative to the infrastructure at some hospitals - but that is to my point that hospitals in general are not very demanding bandwidth wise and I would be a bit surprised they’re more than a rounding error on the Internet2 in general - especially compared to all the academic research involving large models and just video streaming in general that blew up during the pandemic.

Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by inportb on Monday April 17, 2023 @12:44AM (#35596924)
Other than telehealth, we also use the bandwidth for remote desktops/apps and lossless high-resolution radiographic images. While one might expect this traffic to occur over local networks, many hospitals have multiple sites and partnerships that are connected over the internet. So, for example, one might operate the hospital's apps while sitting in the library at the affiliated university.
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by riceart on Monday April 17, 2023 @01:20AM (#35597108)
I’m aware. But these arent particularly bandwidth intensive (compared to 4K HDR video and the like). How many gigabytes of lossless DICOM is one usually pulling over the course of a day.
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by riceart on Monday April 17, 2023 @10:13AM (#35600978)
> So, for example, one might operate the hospital's apps while sitting in the library at the affiliated university.

Remote Desktop and even PACS are not huge bandwidth consumers in this day and age of 4K streaming. At my large academic institution usually only the radiologists use the PACS client directly on workstations - all the other clinicians are using a “zero footprint” viewer over Citrix like everything else.

Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by inportb on Wednesday April 19, 2023 @12:31PM (#35630189)
That "zero footprint" viewer over Citrix is susprisingly resource-intensive, even at 1080p with lossy compression. If everyone used it (say, if every workstation were a Citrix client), it quickly adds up. During peak hours, it positively chugs. Not sure if networking or compute is the bottleneck here. Perhaps you're right: some institutions have not caught up to this day and age of 4K streaming, and their pre-Netflix infrastructure is buckling under the weight of all these Citrix streams.
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by riceart on Wednesday April 19, 2023 @09:40PM (#35635384)
At my current institution the bottleneck is compute - Epic slows to a crawl midday no matter off prem or on. And unfortunately the only constant is academic healthcare IT is a trash fire.

> If everyone used it

Like many large facilities I’ve been in the US, the EMR and PACS viewer (for non rads) are often over Citrix (ie every workstation is a Citrix client). But how many people are simultaneously viewing images - it’s only a minority of users (both in general - the ancillary staff is not) and at any given time (most clinicians are not viewing images at any moment)

This is a large university affiliated center - the bandwidth used by the medical center is a drop in the bucket compared to the size of the pipes they (the uni) have.

Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by bluedino on Monday April 17, 2023 @08:29AM (#35599719)
I've worked at two hospitals. Both of them "had" Internet2. I was excited, as I had not heard about it in ~20 years.

Neither of them actually ran any traffic over it.

Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by baby on Sunday April 16, 2023 @06:20PM (#35594795)
Heh, just revert back to pirating. That’s what I do whenever things don’t work.
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by BLKNSLVR on Sunday April 16, 2023 @11:29PM (#35596573)
From the above thread it looks as if piracy might actually be a more bandwidth economical option than streaming services. Spread the load of the bandwidth around a bit more. Download any time other than peak streaming hours to then watch, self-contained, during peak streaming hours.
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by mr_toad on Monday April 17, 2023 @03:41AM (#35597818)
Plus you can rewatch without downloading again. And use sneakernets for sharing with your friends.
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by froggit on Monday April 17, 2023 @04:59AM (#35598302)
I've always disliked how wasteful streaming is in respect bandwidth consumption. However, the "efficiency be damned, just make it fasterer" attitude towards bandwidth is, if not the biggest, then definitely among the biggest, drivers behind the ever increasing internet throughput.

Thinking about it, it seems like watching habits could make streaming be more or less "efficient" compared to downloading once and storing it locally (depends on how one chooses to calculate efficiency tbh).

People that have things they regularly re-watch are obviously gonna benefit from having a local copy they can access entirely on their own terms.

It hadn't occurred to me until recently, but the way I watch stuff has me going through a pretty large amount of data yet I'm also excessively unlikely I re-watch nearly anything that I've seen in the previous 2 years. Whether something is streamed or stored local, it has to be downloaded the first time it's watched. If it'll take 2 years before I re-watch something, it's a waste of time and money to keep a backlog of multiple disks worth of video

Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by AlecSchueler on Monday April 17, 2023 @07:54AM (#35599431)
With music it's quite different though, I often have the same albums on rotation and it's great to be able to cache them all locally.
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by SpaghettiJimmy on Monday April 17, 2023 @02:15PM (#35604400)
Couldn't agree more. I've stopped paying to stream music entirely and now pay to own FLAC files which I store and use on my PC and phone. Almost like regressing back to having an iPod, and I personally love it.
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by winternett on Tuesday April 18, 2023 @03:58AM (#35611245)
I never gave up my music files, and never will trust service providers enough to do so.
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by DontchaKnowit on Tuesday April 18, 2023 @03:21PM (#35618729)
Huh. I typically watch the same thing over and over repeatedly for like a year or more.

Very wasteful if I did much streaming.

Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by Spooky23 on Sunday April 16, 2023 @10:38PM (#35596292)
* * *
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by dspillett on Sunday April 16, 2023 @05:05PM (#35594261)
> Now that my ISP bundles Netflix subscription into their internet plans, access to netflix and fast.com now practically saturate the fiber link

They may have an ISP-local netflix cache, from Netflix themselves not some home-grown hack, so they can achieve that with some reliability without it costing as much as it otherwise would for bandwidth peering.

Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by tiedieconderoga on Sunday April 16, 2023 @09:30PM (#35595856)
Netflix distributes "red boxes" to ISPs which are exactly that: edge content caches.

(PDF): https://openconnect.netflix.com/Open-Connect-Briefing-Paper....

Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by noobcoder on Monday April 17, 2023 @12:05AM (#35596739)
Mine did the same and charged for bundles of HBO Max, Netflix, Disney+ Until recently they reverted it after bunch of complains and tonnes of people changing their ISP
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by pratnala on Monday April 17, 2023 @02:49AM (#35597501)
Netflix blocks datacenter VPNs but you can use residential VPNs (which tbf are more expensive) to circumvent this.
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by postdb on Monday April 17, 2023 @08:50AM (#35599896)
hmmm, IMHO, traffic for video and everything else ought to separated into 2 classes. Video obvious takes much much more bandwidth than other stuff. It would be good to allow none video, smaller assets that are needed to to make a website function to have priority over video files.
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by postdb on Monday April 17, 2023 @08:52AM (#35599912)
BTW, AT&T has terrible records for dropping customer's traffic and also email without warning or notices to their customers. Why such terrible company is around amazing how corporation don't really survive by merit in our current world.
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by kijiki on Sunday April 16, 2023 @04:09PM (#35593818)
Couldn't ISPs just sniff the SNI hostname to differentiate fast.com vs actual Netflix video streaming?
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by wtallis on Sunday April 16, 2023 @04:13PM (#35593848)
The fast.com page kicks off requests to nflxvideo.net domains for the actual speed measurement. And it wouldn't surprise me if actual Netflix video streaming made occasional connections to fast.com purely to make it harder for ISPs to cheat.
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by cesarb on Sunday April 16, 2023 @04:49PM (#35594137)
You can think of the requests to fast.com as just loading the speed test control scripts and user interface. The actual speed test loads files from the same servers (with the same SNI hostname) used by actual Netflix video streaming. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the fast.com speed test loads real streaming video segments from these servers, the only difference being that it doesn't have the decryption key for these videos.
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by therein on Sunday April 16, 2023 @05:58PM (#35594649)
That's surely how I would have done it.
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by bmicraft on Sunday April 16, 2023 @07:17PM (#35595070)
It would also not surprise me if dns requests for fast.com temporarily elevated bandwidth limits for netflix
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by bradknowles on Monday April 17, 2023 @09:48PM (#35609012)
It does. You're loading segments of real movies on Netflix that are not encumbered by copyright.

But they're intentionally otherwise indistinguishable from any other real movie on Netflix.

Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by catminou on Monday April 17, 2023 @03:53AM (#35597885)
Yes a few ISPs actually do this (not just for Netflix, but for other sites in general).
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by anonymousnotme on Sunday April 16, 2023 @06:29PM (#35594833)
It definitely looks like testing sites are prioritized. The fastest download speed that I have gotten is maybe 7 MB (bytes) per second; generally it is 2-5 MB per second. The speed test sites generally get 100 Mb per second dowload. In general the best I seem to get is about half the speed of the speed test sites. To me the real speed of the ISP is how fast one can download something one wants, not the result of a test. I would prefer to see results for downloads/uploads from youtube and various CDN networks and popular sites. I would also like to see ISP have a URL that is inside their network to test upload and download so that one can at least isolate what part of the connection might be lagging. Actually, I just used devtools to snag a 25MB file from fast.com. Curl/wget gives a speed of about 3 or 4 MB per second. That does not really seem to match up with fast.com download speed of 70Mb/second. 70/8 is 8.75, which is about double. Is fast.com accurate? Is my math wrong?
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by jackson1442 on Sunday April 16, 2023 @06:37PM (#35594868)
I personally like https://speed.cloudflare.com since it just looks like you're doing typical CloudFlare traffic. The results viewer is also quite nice.
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by is_true on Sunday April 16, 2023 @07:27PM (#35595127)
My ISP (Telecom) gives me a speed of 250Mbps using fast.com and 40Mbps using Cloudflare's tool.
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by kortilla on Sunday April 16, 2023 @10:48PM (#35596343)
Your isp likely has a Netflix oca or is directly peered with Netflix directly. It’s standard for any decent sized ISP since it’s either the largest or 2nd largest by volume peer (youtube being in the other).
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by binkHN on Sunday April 16, 2023 @08:46PM (#35595562)
Very cool! I never knew about this! I really appreciate the latency during upload test. I've bookmarked this and will stop using speedtest.net. Thank you!
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by egberts1 on Sunday April 16, 2023 @10:06PM (#35596100)
MB = megabyte

Mb = megabits

1 byte = 8-bit

Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by gnicholas on Sunday April 16, 2023 @11:12PM (#35596480)
For years, AT&T sales reps would refer to MB when they meant Mb. Soon after I started service with them, I called to ask about the promised speed, and the tech insisted they sold Mb/s. He conferenced in a salesperson and was embarrassed to discover that the salesperson talked exclusively in terms of MB/s.
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by NoZebra120vClip on Monday April 17, 2023 @12:32AM (#35596883)
Did they just spell it with the abbreviations? Or did they pronounce 'megabytes' deliberately?
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by gnicholas on Monday April 17, 2023 @12:38AM (#35596907)
They literally said it out loud. I had spent the last 7 years on a fast university network, and had never paid for internet before that. I honestly believed that they were going to deliver the speeds they claimed.
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by NoZebra120vClip on Monday April 17, 2023 @12:55AM (#35596983)
I wouldn't have believed "megabytes" was an Internet speed, because it never is. It's literally impossible for that to be a signaling rate on any known Layer 2 technology. ISPs use Gibibytes or Tebibytes (which they misname as Gigabytes/Terabytes) for transfer caps, but that's apples and oranges.
Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by gnicholas on Monday April 17, 2023 @06:52PM (#35607716)
> I wouldn't have believed "megabytes" was an Internet speed

Perhaps HNers know better, but among lay people, pretty much no one talks about megabits. For example, people know that an MP3 is about 5MB. They know that they can email attachments up to 20MB (or sometimes 10). But I've literally never heard a lay person talk about bits, or bits per second.

And the fact that ISP's transfer caps are denominated in bytes makes things all the more confusing.

Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by philwelch on Tuesday April 18, 2023 @12:51AM (#35610083)
There was a time when everyone considered a kilobyte to be 1024 bytes, a megabyte to be 1024 kilobytes, and so forth. The main reason this changed is because disk manufacturers advertised e.g. 1 billion byte hard disks as having “1 GB” of capacity and, to pretend they weren’t ripping us all off, proceeded to claim that the definitions were ambiguous. But even today, if you go out and buy an 8 GB DIMM, you are getting 8 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024 bytes.

(As a historical side note, there was even a weird transitional period where a “1.44 MB 3.5 floppy” held 1.44 * 1000 * 1024 bytes, or what everyone at the time would have called 1440 kilobytes.)

Personally I think it’s unfortunate that standards bodies and even courts have sided with the disk manufacturers. I also find the SI binary prefixes utterly revolting on an aesthetic level, so I’d much rather join whatever parts of the tech industry are still holding out.

Re:AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some webs... by anonymousnotme on Monday April 17, 2023 @11:24AM (#35602143)
I was trying to ask if there was something more that the speed test do other than multiple or divide by 8. Is some other overhead that they add in? If not, then their math or testing seem to be off or curl/wget seem to be different than they get via the browser's javascript engine. To me it seems that the speed test number is inflated or higher than what one will even for the same URL off of netflix or cloudflares URLs used in their speed tests.