ISPs Want To Destroy The Internet: Spread This Message So We Can Stop Them

The ISPs are refusing to upgrade their services and are blaming sites like Netflix. It's time to draw the line and start fighting back.

For now, get a VPN and fix your Netflix, YouTube, Twitch, etc. I use this one: https://www.privateinternetaccess.com

Here are the notes we used while shooting this video:

Verizon (and many other ISPs) have forgotten that they are resellers, and they are breaking the internet by blaming Netflix, Hulu and Youtube for their problems.

They are lying, misleading and cheating in order manipulate the common man’s understanding of the situation; and it’s our job – Nay – Our Mission! -- to shine the light of reason and wisdom on the situation.

While you should always be skeptical of a company that both Makes Media and Sells Access to Other People’s Media, let’s look at the ISPs arguments:

  1. We are carrying a lot of traffic for Netflix to our customers. We should not be responsible for that; everything was fine before Netflix came along.
  2. We should not have to pay to upgrade our networks to carry this high-demand traffic.
  3.  We should be paid for access to our customers/subscribers. We want Netflix (and others) to pay to connect directly to us, rather than Netflix (and others) to go through their own ISPs.

This is the core of the ISPs arguments. Let’s take a look at each one.

ISPs say that Netflix and services like that use a lot of their resources and creates a lot of traffic.

Often, the best lies start with a kernel of truth. Here, it is true that Netflix traffic may be up to 33% of the internet traffic, in general, on the entire internet. ISP’s subscribers want access to Netflix.. and what are ISPs like Verizon again? They are resellers that provide last-mile connectivity to the internet for their customers. They buy a big fat pipe to the internet, divvy it up among all their customers, and then sell their customers something like a 10, 20 or 50 megabit package. Often, they buy a fat pipe from multiple providers. Cogent, Level 3 and other providers like that provide central internet access to ISPs like Verizon, TW, etc. Fortunately for us, Verizon, Time Warner and others are not the internet.  So what’s the problem then? Well, let’s look at the other part of the lie – that these video sevices are over-loading the networks?

Again, there may be some truth to that but let’s look at this objectively: ISPs also tend to offer their own video services. So.. you have enough connectivity in your house to get video services from Cable TV, Video on Demand, ISP-owned streaming services, etc. So you, in your house, have enough data connectivity to do that. What could possibly be the problem then? That’s right internet connectivity. They need to buy more and fatter pipes to the internet.

But is it reasonable for them to say that it’s too much? No, it’s not too much. Here’s why: A Full 1080p HD Netflix movie is AT MOST 2.8 gigabytes per hour. At 2.8 gigabytes per hour – this translates to less than 800 kilobytes per second. But how do ISPs sell their packages? They sell in megabits. Unless you’re on google fiber – then it’s 1 gigabit! Or 1000 megabit. So if we say that you’ve got the 50 megabit FiOS package from Verizon. How fast is that with regard to Netflix? Well, at 2.8 gigabytes per hour, that works out to just over 6 megabit. Round up to 7 megabit just to have a safe margin/padding/etc. Keep in mind these are worst-case-scenario streaming numbers for Netflix.

Effectively, your ISP is saying that it can’t manage a 6 megabit stream. What are you paying for again?

So, let’s take a look at argument #2 – that ISPs should not have to upgrade their networks to carry this high-demand traffic.

I have to go back to the definition of ISP. An ISP is an Internet Service Reseller. They don’t have enough connectivity to support the demands of their customers? Fine, buy more connectivity. Here’s the thing though. Netflix has offered to, FOR FREE, provide equipment and services that would cache video traffic at ISP headquarters. Uh oh! We’re back to that situation where ISPs can offer Video on Demand – Netflix Can Offer ISP customers their Video On Demand without that traffic ever hitting the internet! According to the CEO of Cogent, this was refused unless Netflix paid Verizon for access to their customers. If that isn’t torturous interference with an interstate commerce nexus, I don’t know what is! So. As a reseller, the ISP is saying they’re not responsible to upgrade their connections when their customers demand it. Are they from a parallel dimension?

Since a lot of these ISPs are Cable TV companies, it might just be they’ve been doing that crack cocaine known as the taxpayer dollar for so long they see this as reasonable. You see a lot of taxpayer dollars have gone into building up the cable TV infrastructure in this country. What’s better than a privately owned business that’s both too big to fail and partially subsidized by government funds? Epic!

However this is the 21st century and it just doesn’t work like this. You need to buy more of what you’re reselling. Also, the cable industry has reported record profits for 2013. So. Remind me again why we should care? If ISPs can’t provide the 50 meg package they’re selling then don’t sell it.

Let’s take a look at that last argument. ISPs should be paid for access to their customers.

This just reeks of the “old school” business model. Once you’ve got a customer base, you’re free to wield them like a blunt instrument and upset the apple cart for everyone else. No! No I say. And what can we do to fight this? Education – get the word out! Let these companies know we’re not stupid, we know their game and it won’t work. These companies know that, with services like Netflix, the pick-what-you-want a-la-carte TV programming is finally economically upon us and through inaction, stubbornness and blind greed they hope to slow or stop that. This is one of their strategies; to lie about the situation, manipulate Joe Public’s opinion and try to get companies to cave.

Once companies have to pay for access to ‘customers on ISPs’ it stops being the internet. Right there. It’d be like a public library where the only books they had were ones where the authors paid to be there. How good do you think that would be?

Say no! What we need to do is to Show Solidarity for Major Backbone Providers like Cogent and Netflix. Reach out to your ISP, let them know you know the game they’re playing. Shame on them. Shame!

Ars Technica articles we referenced in the video:



posted 1 year 5 days ago

Thank You for the video, and for using Empire Strikes Back for the Thumbnail, +1 for that!

posted 1 year 5 days ago

Could someone have a link to a download of this video? Verizon's throttling my Youtube speeds, and I want to let it slide for a couple days to see if it will let up.

posted 1 year 5 days ago

Gimme a few mins. I'll have a 720p file up on mega really soon for any one to download.

This link should work: https://mega.co.nz/#!qVNwSbqC!256ncUfHFjYV2jxWsww4ogqjBUr14AK2wayCgcgSobI

Let me know if it doesn't I had a small hiccup with it.

posted 1 year 5 days ago

http://r19---sn-nwj7km7l.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?source=youtube&ra... is the link for the vid directly from the Youtube servers. 

posted 1 year 5 days ago

How did you generate this link?

posted 1 year 5 days ago

opening up a media stream in VLC player is one way.otherwise you can get iy by viewing the pages code i believe.

I should have just done linked that instead of re-uploading it.

posted 1 year 4 days ago

Go to keepvid.com put in vid link accept java application wait for links right click save link address. 

posted 1 year 5 days ago

Here in New Zealand the ISPs invested alot in caching arround 12/13 I believe, and they now offer much, much more reasonable and affordable caps. Most internet by bandwidth usage, i.e. media streaming, steam, netflix/huluu and youtube can be cached very easily, especially cases like steam/netflix/huluu with very small high usage libraries.

Then in some cases like IPTV it can be multicast using VDSL over existing copper infrastructure. There is no excuse for this, since most of the bandwidth used can be easily cached on their own networks! And companies like google have their own caches.

posted 1 year 5 days ago

You're completely right about needed to spread the word. ISP's are able to get away with this because we live in a world based on technology where nobody understands technology.

posted 1 year 5 days ago

I think these vids should be put into a compendium called "The Tech Bible". This is absolute gospel truth. Come back and rewatch in 2020 if you have doubt. The major ISP's are the devil.

posted 1 year 5 days ago

Willful ineptitude with the intent of creating artificial scarcity in order to generate more profit.  Sounds like a solid business plan to me!

posted 1 year 5 days ago

Im on it! Let the social network spamming begin ie Gmail, Facebook and ....hmm Im not that social i guess but if only one person is changed by this video I've succeeded. I can talk about it during parties but I will receive a lot of "What the are you talking about". Thank God for Tek Syndicate there are no gaming tech nerds on cape cod. 

posted 1 year 5 days ago

Tonight is the first night in 4 years of FiOS usage that I've experienced buffering issues on YouTube. Coincidence?

posted 1 year 5 days ago

*It was on this fateful night*

In the words of cave Johnson


posted 1 year 1 day ago

"I don't want your damn lemons! What am I supposed to do with these?"

posted 1 year 5 days ago

"I think not"  *overly long evil laugh*

posted 1 year 5 days ago

Blaming de ISP's for a shitty service and not blaming government-enforced oligopolies is intellectually nearsighted. Expecting unscrupulous companies to behave ethically is beyond innocent. What power does a corporation have without the enforcement of the state? Without anti-competition laws that they can lobby for and pay people in power?

posted 1 year 5 days ago

over guarenteed bandwidth with privateinternetaccess VPN i am on a 50 down 10 up plan ping was +6

posted 1 year 5 days ago

For anyone having issues with mbam blocks ignore them it still works fine I searched and searched and the way the temp exe is generated I have found no way to add it to the ignore list but after using it for a while have no conflicts either other than the blocked port message the product still works flawlessly

posted 1 year 5 days ago

Based on what Tek has been saying about european internet speeds I started playing around with server selection tested a bunch of them I got a record download speed selecting "sweden server" upload and ping were lower but damn 150Mbps hell yeah!!!!!!!!!! I might lower my plan now ;p Going to see what steam gives me on DL speeds shit 3.1 oh well. Canada and hong kong tied for the worst I am in NE USA @ 18-20 Mbps poor Canada how can they screw over people who are so nice.

posted 1 year 5 days ago

52mbps down Better than 91% of the US

150mbps down better than 75% of Sweden


posted 1 year 5 days ago

That made me laugh

posted 1 year 5 days ago

NJ USA yeehaaah!

posted 1 year 5 days ago

Signed up for PIA about 3 weeks ago so its cool to see you guys chose the same one, cant believe how much faster everything is. I could actually watch this video in 1080 without any problems.


posted 1 year 5 days ago

Thanks for the video Logan, Wendell i will try to explain to my friends what the situation is thanks again and also nice thumbnail.

posted 1 year 5 days ago

Ever since this video my VPN connection has been throttled. :(

posted 11 months 3 weeks ago

I have experienced yhe same type of behavior every time I connect to my VPN. I am looking into 24Ghz wireless connection. http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber#airFiberHardware . This may be a solution.

posted 1 year 5 days ago

What about VPN on the router? Have a lot hooked to my network.

posted 1 year 4 days ago

ddwrt and pfsense support having an OpenVPN client on the router so those are really worth trying to get, esp if you have a lot of devices on a network and want them all to use the VPN. ddwrt or pfsense really are necessary since most routers only have VPN passthrough support for older protocols (so clients behind the router can use a VPN) not an actual vpn client (of any protocol) and hence native firmwares don't support being an openvpn client.

Alternatives: An alternative to using an open vpn client is that some high-end routers might support either the IPSec/L2TP or PPTP protocols at the client level. PPTP is insecure but IPSec/L2TP might work if the VPN provider that you're connecting to (like PIA) supports it.

posted 1 year 5 days ago

Thanks for this guys. Awesome Video. I'm gonna try that VPN.

posted 1 year 5 days ago

I love the video, and I completely agree. I feel like if you did a video like the 'What is Bitcoin' (link below) it could go viral or pick up some real steam. This video is good and tells the facts but your average internet user isn't going to sit through it and try and understand it. Something that is easy to follow and easy to understand, that is short and to the point would really gets views. And I think people really like this blocky and bright color style.   


Also you guys (and girl) rock.

posted 1 year 5 days ago

This paragraph says it all. (Consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge said that Netflix's payments to Comcast set a dangerous precedent. "No one on the outside knows what is happening in this market," wrotePublic Knowledge Senior Staff Attorney John Bergmayer. "However, it is clear that residential ISPs should be in the business of charging their users for access the Internet, not of charging the rest of the Internet for access to their users. This ensures that they are putting the needs of their users first.")

 Located in this article: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/02/verizon-ceo-confident-about-getting-payments-from-netflix-too/

posted 1 year 5 days ago

artificial scarcity.... did some one say Enron ?

posted 1 year 5 days ago

This is going to make front page of Reddit. Maybe... http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1yuyf8/isps_want_to_destroy_...

posted 1 year 5 days ago

How's a VPN for atypical VPN use (as in enterprise communications) a solution to the problem?

Take privateinternetaccess.comp for instance, which is owned by London Trust in Michigan, which gets it's bandwidth from Choopa, which gets it's internet bandwidth from Level3 (which is one of the world's biggest bandwidth providers, it used to be the "IT department" of Kiewit, the oldest and probably biggest civil contractor in the US, which is known for rubbing elbows with politics). See the link between public infrastructure and the largest civil engineering contractor in the US? Pffffffffff... it's not like there are any "good guys" in the business... the money has a strong tendency to always find it's way into the same pockets! So go spend extra on a VPN... but know that you've just been pwned!

So think of it: you pay your ISP, which serves itself from your money, and then brings the money to level3 or alike, and you pay extra for a VPN, which brings your money to level3... how's that an improvement, it's just what they want you to do: you have just bought one of those "package deals" that make you spend more money for the same service, just because they've put a mechanism in place that only lets you enjoy the basic service as advertised if you pay extra for another service.

It's just a puppet show!

Truth is that the Internet was opened up to the public "for the benefit of mankind". People should only have to pay for basic connectivity, without any limitations.  The price people have to pay for connectivity should just be cost. Why would there need to be profit... in the end, all infra is paid for with tax money, the only thing that people pay extra for now is for the shareholder dividends of large telecom companies and for the wages of a bunch of useless spammers that these telecom companies employ to sell more useless subscriptions and superfluous services.

I think telecom, water, electricity, public transportation, etc... should just be owned by citizen-owned coops governed by meritocratic professionals that have to have their mandate confirmed by election through the coop shareholders, and operate within a legal framework that guarantees ideological neutrality and human rights. These are not things anyone can trust a commercial company with, and not things anyone can trust a centralized political government with.

posted 1 year 5 days ago

Makes you wonder doesn't it lol?

"People should only have to pay for basic connectivity, without any limitations." <---1000x this. You should not need a VPN to get the speeds you pay for.

I agree with everything you said.

posted 1 year 5 days ago

Give this petition a read on the whitehouse.gov website about the isp refusal to upgrade infrastructure


I linked to the forum that i originally posted to


posted 1 year 5 days ago

Could this have been the reason for Google fibre? Because Google had foreseen loss of net neutrality?

posted 1 year 5 days ago

No, Google just wants more control, they will throttle netflix just the same because they want you to buy VoD from youtube and googlevideo, they just don't have to means yet to force you to buy their stuff.


posted 1 year 4 days ago

Google makes their money by being everywhere not from forcing people to get video on demand. It's in google's best interest that they are everywhere and that everyone can always be connected to google. From that, it makes sense to put fiber in major cities, to encourage ISPs/others to upgrade/build their networks by showing that selling high-bandwidth links to end users is commercially viable.

Throttling netflix would be anti-net neutrality and actively go against Google's "do no evil" policy. A scandal that big would cost Google money because they would lose a lot of consumer trust.

posted 1 year 5 days ago

Knowledge is not defined as knowing which service you can buy that prevent provider of service that you already buy to screw you over... is that what "knowledge" has come to? Being able to seek out the coupons that make you feel good when spending money? Being able to find out which services you can buy extra from the same original providers to compensate for the lack of services that you already pay for?

The true problem here is that the internet, including the backbone infrastructure, already belongs to the people... they just have given away possession of it because they want to be stupid and ignorant and spend money instead of taking responsibility.

Tax payers have already bought the internet as a whole, back when it was created by DARPA, why would anyone have to pay for it over and over again?

The superficiality of many things really hurts! Sharing knowledge is not about sharing on which pages of a flyer you can find commercial offerings that you can buy extra that make you feel better about the money you're wasting already on faulty products and services! Next phase is to attribute the headache you get from the crooked situation to earth magnetism or something. Why don't people take possession of things they already own? Because the Internet is a res derelictum for most people, just like it was a res derelictum for the US government. Then why find ways to spend extra money on it?

posted 1 year 5 days ago

I don't really see the difference between charging google and facebook for a dedicated connection than anyone else? There are quite a few more companies that pay fees to ISPs and you don't notice it because they don't charge you a damn thing to access them. A perfect example is that youtube video everyone in this thread watched. So before you call slippery slope you gotta realize netflix isn't the first company to have to come to these agreements. They probably pay commiecast between $25-50 million annually (analyst estimates) over the next few years while at the same time their stock value is shooting up since striking the deal? Yeah I feel bad for Netflix. If they decide to price you out then you always have to rent, right?

posted 1 year 5 days ago

Yea... about that. We pay ISPs to access the internet. All of it. At the speeds they advertise and we pay for. We enter a contract with our ISPs to pay for monthly services that we agreed upon including access to the internet at agreed upon speeds.


So, Why should Netflix, Facebook, Hulu, or anyone else pay the ISP so we can access them when WE'RE ALREADY FUCKING PAYING THEM TO ACCESS THOSE FUCKING SITES.


COMCAST, ATT, VERIZON, and any other Large ISP is fucking drooling right now because they're SO CLOSE to having the entire internet PAY THEM to have access to their customers THAT ARE ALREADY PAYING THEM TO ACCESS THE ENTIRE INTERNET.


If you think that's an OK business arrangement then ask yourself WHAT IN THE FUCK ARE THE ISPs DOING THAT'S SO SPECIAL THEY HAVE TO BE PAID TWICE TO FUCKING DO IT?

posted 1 year 5 days ago

This is by far the angriest post I've ever written here.

posted 1 year 4 days ago

It's not rocket surgery to figure out that content providers and isps work together towards improving your user experience. That's where part of that ad revenue or monthly fees goes towards. It's remarkable that even with all the performance problems netflix still had a big growth in subscribers. So crying that Netflix has to spend a little bit of that billion or so dollars they made this past quarter on a direct connection to isps is a little absurd. It's a good time for them to make deals now that last a few years so they aren't paying out the ass if the market suddenly shifts to 4k streams. That's 18.52 mb/s per video connection and with as many subs as netflix has that is a tremendous jump in bandwidth. 

posted 1 year 4 days ago

The thing is that it's actually ISPs responsible for that bandwidth.

How many times should Netflix have to pay? Netflix already pays cogent for that bandwidth and there simply isn't any reason to make Netflix pay for that same bandwidth again, to every ISP, multiple times. It's actually the edge ISPs responsibility to upgrade their connections to cogent/Level 3 in order to handle the increased traffic. This out-of-network bandwidth that has to go through a tier 1 provider is what customers are primarily paying for and is the primary reason why ISPs have revenue in the first place.

"It's not rocket surgery to figure out that content providers and isps work together towards improving your user experience." False. Netflix (content provider) has offered to work with isps (Verizon, Comcast, TWC, ATT) and provide distribution platforms (cache servers) to live on the ISPs native network that would greatly mitigate any connectivity bandwidth to cogent. The major ISPs flatly REFUSED unless netflix also pays them to do it.

End user <=> ISP <-> Cogent <=> Netflix

The end user is paying Verizon/TWC/Comcast/ATT for bandwidth and Netflix is paying cogent. It's the ISPs that don't want to:

1) give cogent any of the money they received from end users

2) provide the necessary connectivity links to cogent

3) upgrade their networks

4) negotiate with Netflix.

ISPs want:

1) money from end users

2) and have netflix to give them more money.

3) keep making record profits by providing low bandwidth links

4) their competing video services to load faster than netflix, so they get more subscribers than netflix, and more money from those subscribers

They are doing this because they are a monoply and they control too much of the market so they know they can get away with whatever they try. They have already committed fraud with taxpayer money via Telecommunications Act of 1996 by being contracted to upgrade their networks and pocketing all that money. The major ISPs purposefully keep the bandwidth they sell to end customers low, overcharge for it, and are now trying to use the fact that they don't want to upgrade their connectivity links to internet backbone providers either as leverage to get even higher record profit margins. What the ISPs are trying to do is fucking bullshit.

posted 1 year 4 days ago

No the deal they have with comcast removes cogent from the equation. Netflix appliances connect directly to comcast network at different locations. If it wasn't a better deal than they would've stayed with cogent right? So now cogent is crying and they have journalists crying with/for them because if netflix (cogents biggest customer) no longer needs cogent then guess who is shit out of luck, right? It's just business and basking in the uninformed rants of ars writers isn't doing the internet much justice either. So in the end Netflix is a pretty big deal right now and they will fill their money bin with more billions to swim in. Life goes on.

posted 1 year 2 days ago

As far as I can tell, you're anti-net neutrality (in favor of making the internet become like cable TV) and pro ISP monopoly power. This is shown when you say that it's perfectly fine for ISPs make even larger record profits at the expense of a non-discriminatory open internet by triple charging for the same packets. First Comcast gets money from subscribers, then from netflix, and then from cogent. And as a friendly kick in the pants from the ISP to the consumer, Netflix still won't load as fast as whatever proprietary cable-TV-for-the-internet service the ISP offers like Verizon's Redbox. Seriously dude.

Even if netflix installs their open-CDN hardware device (called Open Connect) on the ISPs network (verizon/comcast/TWC/ATT) there will still be traffic between the T1/T3 provider, like cogent and Level 3, and the as their hardware CDN updates and for whatever content isn't on the CDN. Calling the ars-technica articles “uninformed rants” rings hollow if you don't seem understand how the underlying technology works yourself.

Now that Netflix has agreed to pay comcast, despite the fact that they are already paying cogent, this sets a precedent for other ISPs to demand payment from Netflix as well. While Netflix may be able to afford it what about everyone else who doesn't have the money to pay every single ISP money so their content can get delivered to the end-customer? This creates a tiered internet, the “fast track” tier one for the billion dollar corporations, and one for the regular people and entrepreneurs. Neither Youtube nor Netflix would have been able to launch successfully if this tiered internet existed in the past.

Letting the ISPs play monopoly is bad for innovation by stifling start-up companies before they can get established, businesses in general by adding extra fees to operate on the internet and the end consumer. Who is the only entity that benefits from all of this? The ISPs. And you're okay with lettering their greed ruin the internet for us? Seriously dude. This.is.not.okay.

posted 1 year 5 days ago

VPN Router

Do you have any recommendations for consumer routers with VPN capability? Is the best option to setup a proxy to router all your traffic through the VPN?

posted 1 year 5 days ago

VPN Router

Do you have any recommendations for consumer routers with VPN capability? Is the best option to setup a proxy to router all your traffic through the VPN?