Far from significant? They use the same set amount of bandwidth but can have vastly more customers. That's why Comcast did it before the law changed. Now that the law has changed, why wouldn't Verizon do it when it's more profitable?
The reasonable explanation, again, is that it's an issue either on the consumer side or on the service provider (like Spotify, Netflix, etc) side.
All at the same time? When some AWS sources are affected but otherwise-identical AWS services aren't? Why is that likely?
That's why Comcast did it before the law changed. Now that the law has changed, why wouldn't Verizon do it when it's more profitable?
Comcast did it for one type of traffic mostly due to facilitation of copyright infringement issues. It was a very specific type due to a very specific reason.
Verizon's problems existed before and after the law changed. There's nothing correlating the two.
All at the same time? When some AWS sources are affected but otherwise-identical AWS services aren't? Why is that likely?
Comcast did it for one type of traffic mostly due to facilitation of copyright infringement issues. It was a very specific type due to a very specific reason.
So you're saying instead of reporting users who were most likely breaking the law, they instead reduced their culpability instead of completely negating it? Abetting their customers in breaking the law only a little instead of a lot?
Verizon's problems existed before and after the law changed. There's nothing correlating the two.
So you're saying instead of reporting users who were most likely breaking the law, they instead reduced their culpability instead of completely negating it? Abetting their customers in breaking the law only a little instead of a lot?
More discouraging it using their own resources.
Your own graph disproves that.
No, it supports it. Look at November onward.
What's a likely non-ISP-throttling reason?
Networking issues, programming not talking to each other well, Netflix being more advanced at data optimization than the ISPs, user error, geography...
no subject
The reasonable explanation, again, is that it's an issue either on the consumer side or on the service provider (like Spotify, Netflix, etc) side.
All at the same time? When some AWS sources are affected but otherwise-identical AWS services aren't? Why is that likely?
no subject
Comcast did it for one type of traffic mostly due to facilitation of copyright infringement issues. It was a very specific type due to a very specific reason.
Verizon's problems existed before and after the law changed. There's nothing correlating the two.
All at the same time? When some AWS sources are affected but otherwise-identical AWS services aren't? Why is that likely?
Impossible to say as I'm not on the AWS end.
no subject
So you're saying instead of reporting users who were most likely breaking the law, they instead reduced their culpability instead of completely negating it? Abetting their customers in breaking the law only a little instead of a lot?
Verizon's problems existed before and after the law changed. There's nothing correlating the two.
Your own graph disproves that.
Impossible to say as I'm not on the AWS end.
What's a likely non-ISP-throttling reason?
no subject
More discouraging it using their own resources.
Your own graph disproves that.
No, it supports it. Look at November onward.
What's a likely non-ISP-throttling reason?
Networking issues, programming not talking to each other well, Netflix being more advanced at data optimization than the ISPs, user error, geography...