[HN Gopher] AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some...
___________________________________________________________________
AT&T Wireless traffic shaping apparently making some websites
unusable
Author : acaloiar
Score : 293 points
Date : 2023-04-16 18:06 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (adriano.fyi)
(TXT) w3m dump (adriano.fyi)
| j1elo wrote:
| This might, in a very "take it with a pinch of salt" way, be
| actually _good_ for stirring up the incentives of lazy web devs
| (read: greedy bosses who don 't care about technical prowess) to
| make slimmer websites... if enough people in the developed world
| have issues accessing them, it might at last have the effect that
| couldn't be achieved by probably orders of magnitude more people
| having worse issues from developing countries.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| >(read: greedy bosses who don't care about technical prowess)
|
| Oh come on. There's plenty of ICs out there who'll happily do
| slapdash work because nobody cares if you close tickets well as
| long as you close them good enough. So what if the fix only
| lasts 2yr before needing to be refactored for performance. Lord
| knows if the code will even be in use then.
| j1elo wrote:
| Yeah... I was just anticipating the opposite kind of
| responses: "we web debs would like to make things right but
| our bosses don't care and expect it to be made fast even if
| fat"
| jskier wrote:
| Ditto, same in a rural area of Wisconsin I'm at a lot, for the
| past 3 years or so. Like, 3/4 of the Internet is slow through
| their shaping garbage. What worked for me was using WireGuard to
| my home network in an urban area (1 gig symmetrical fiber), or,
| using an ssh ~ socks proxy. Problems no more, until they decide
| to block those.
|
| Support has been awful, best of luck if you go that route. They
| took us off their unlimited plan without consent, took 6 months
| to get it back. Also, throttling doesn't actually seem to happen
| once over their limit on the advertised unlimited* data plan,
| it's just most of the Internet is awfully slow most of the time
| going directly through this, ah, ISP, which they claim to be.
|
| * Not actually an unlimited plan
| reaperman wrote:
| I use a VPN to a cheap server in a lesser-known datacenter.
| Also works for bypassing government level blocks in middle
| eastern countries.
|
| But yes, AT&T throttles a wide diversity of content, even on
| their very highest tier plan (Unlimited Elite, now named
| Unlimited Premium). This is advertised as never throttling, no
| matter how much data you use (all other customers are supposed
| to get throttled first).
|
| Also the throttling happens with mobile hotspot, I have to use
| VPN on my laptop with many many sites as well, even when I'm
| inside the "40GB/mo of unthrottled hotspot data".
|
| The speeds instantly go way, way up once I hop on VPN.
| Tarball10 wrote:
| AT&T uses different APNs for regular phone plans and data-only
| hotspot plans. It's very possible that the phone traffic is being
| routed completely differently than the hotspot traffic, with
| congestion at a peering point occurring on the hotspot. AT&T
| tends to be known for having poor/congested peering.
|
| You could try changing the DNS server on your hotspot to a
| different public resolver like 1.1.1.1 or 8.8.8.8. If CloudFront
| is using DNS based geolocation to route you to the nearest data
| center, a different DNS server may get you routed around the
| issue to a different data center.
| Rimintil wrote:
| Use resolvers that support eDNS Client Subnet, otherwise geo-
| resolvers like Google/CF DNS may cause your traffic to be
| misrouted.
|
| You can use Quad9's EDNS [0] so your client is properly routed,
| any privacy concerns aside.
|
| [0] https://www.quad9.net/support/faq/#edns
| overstay8930 wrote:
| Quad9 doesn't work on AT&T, because of poor routing you're
| sent to Miami or Amsterdam.
| acaloiar wrote:
| Good tip. I just tried with both and wasn't routed to a faster
| point of presence with either.
|
| I'll add a traceroute from the phone and one from a device
| connected to the LTE router to the updates section next.
|
| [update] Traceroutes added
| Tarball10 wrote:
| It's definitely odd that you're getting routed across the
| country to an east coast pop. Ideally in your location you'd
| be routed to a west or central pop. Perhaps a bad combination
| of Cloudfront getting geolocation wrong for your IP range,
| and poor performance of at&t's network for that specific
| source-destination combination.
| acaloiar wrote:
| I found that odd as well, and my iPhone hotspot does get
| routed through a different list of hosts as you can see in
| the traceroute.
|
| I suppose it should be noted. The iphone antenna and router
| antennas are no more than a meter from each other. They're
| unlikely to be hitting different towers.
| themagician wrote:
| A decade long fight about Net Neutrality in the public, and the
| ISPs just went and did what they were always going to do anyway
| in the background. No surprise. No news. No fanfare. Just,
| "Here's your broken internet where every websites loads at a
| different speed. Get Unlimited* access with a 35GB limit before
| more limits kick in. Some websites are unusable. Enjoy. * _Some
| limits apply. See T &C for details._"
| twoodfin wrote:
| Net Neutrality was never going to apply to mobile networks
| under any FCC proposal.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| But OP _is_ paying for the first 50gb /month to be a "business"
| unthrottled connection on their unlimited connection!
| ivalm wrote:
| How does traffic shaping interact with net neutrality
| regulations?
| downWidOutaFite wrote:
| There are no net neutrality regulations. Republicans won that
| battle at the FCC.
| PuffinBlue wrote:
| Like a neutrino interacting with regular matter, it would seem.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| What net neutrality regulations?
|
| Yet another Trump triumph that I voted for Biden to fix, that
| he has shown absolutely no interest in fixing.
| knome wrote:
| Net neutrality was removed under Ajit Pai's time leading the
| FCC. Did I miss some post-Pai restoration?
| exabrial wrote:
| Easy.
|
| goto here: https://www.att.com/support
|
| log in.
|
| cancel.
|
| tell them why.
|
| goto https://www.t-mobile.com
|
| port your number and sign up.
|
| and you're done!
|
| You can't legislate good behavior. You can only hit them in the
| checkbook. Wireless fortunately doesn't have the cable
| providers do, where local governments have entrenched players
| into local monopolies. Switching away is the most powerful
| thing you can do.
| whatshisface wrote:
| This seems like a good idea if t-mobile doesn't have traffic
| shaping, but do they?
| dublinben wrote:
| T-Mobile was one of the earliest violators of net-
| neutrality:
| https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/publications/t-mobile-
| likely-v...
| pnw wrote:
| I'd be happy to switch to T Mobile if they could stop leaking
| their customers data.
| exabrial wrote:
| ok, fair point.
| iSnow wrote:
| >You can't legislate good behavior.
|
| Well, you absolutely can. It's just that the US voter
| regularly votes in politicians that do absolutely nothing to
| mandate at least fair behaviour.
| downWidOutaFite wrote:
| lol as if ATT is going to care if a tiny handful of techies
| switches because of this.
| mullingitover wrote:
| Wireless providers have never had the same net neutrality
| situation the landlines providers have.
| snapcaster wrote:
| This explains some similar behavior I've had with various apps
| taking absurdly long to load when the internet connection itself
| feels fine. Assumed it was just iPhone's gradually getting
| shittier
| pimlottc wrote:
| Now that you mention this, it does match my experience on AT&T
| with my iPhone - plenty of bars, no DNS issues but
| frustratingly long delays spent staring at layout templates
| (because progressive enhancement is long dead) waiting for any
| actual content to arrive.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > This is an "unlimited" 100Mbit plan with 50GB for Business Fast
| Track (prioritized) data. Being that I was far below the 50GB of
| monthly Fast Track data, my data should have had top priority, so
| I became suspicious.
|
| And yet ATT will get away with this fraud or theft of selling
| something it is not delivering because no one in government wants
| to hold them accountable.
| anecdotal1 wrote:
| Get Calyx. Unlimited data, no throttling service via T-Mobile.
| Grandfathered contract from Clearwire
|
| https://members.calyxinstitute.org/enroll/membership
|
| I've done nearly gigabit symmetrical over 5G with it before and
| several Terabytes in a month. No issues.
| explorer83 wrote:
| I like the testing and documentation. But I also want to see more
| test results in more areas over a longer period of time.
| acaloiar wrote:
| While I can't provide more results over a long period of time,
| yet -- I can provide a pcap file and some details about IPv4/6.
|
| I've added an "updates" section at the bottom of the post.
| explorer83 wrote:
| Excellent! I've bookmarked the page and look forward to
| updates. Thank you for making this public.
| taf2 wrote:
| What's the best way to simulate this kind of network?
| pyrolistical wrote:
| Throttle all traffic from cloundfront
| maximilianroos wrote:
| > for some reason, AT&T traffic to fast.com is throttled. Why
| AT&T wants bandwidth to appear lower than reality is a mystery to
| me
|
| My guess is that Netflix is throttled, and given that fast.com is
| a Netflix site, fast.com is throttled too.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Since almost everyone usingfast.com on an AT&t network also use
| AT&t DNS, I'm surprised they don't do something funky with
| that, for example throttling IPs that did a recent Netflix.com
| lookup, but not IPs that did a recent fast.com lookup
| jrockway wrote:
| Because if this was a workaround to get better Netflix
| quality, then there would be 1000 blogspam articles about it.
| It's too good to be true ("visit fast.com to make Netflix
| load faster"), and the Internet loves that kind of thing.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| Netflix intentionally hosts fast.com on the same IPs as their
| video sites. It is a very intentional way for consumers to see
| if their isp is throttling Netflix.
| ekosz wrote:
| We've been hearing complaints from AT&T users for months now that
| our website (https://vstream.com) doesn't work for them. I've
| tried hunting down the reasons & tried getting in touch with AT&T
| to no avail. This seems like it could be the very thing that's
| causing the issues for our users.
|
| Now I just need to figure out what to tell our users that are
| having these issues...
| Tarball10 wrote:
| This appears to load fine for me on both AT&T fiber and AT&T
| cellular. It looks like all content on that site is being
| loaded from Cloudflare, so I'm curious if those users would be
| having issues with other Cloudflare protected sites as well?
| acaloiar wrote:
| I believe I can confirm that vstream.com is affected by this.
| It fails to fully load in a reasonable amount of time unless I
| connect via VPN, Verizon, or my (phone) hotspot.
|
| Update: For what it's worth, the "above the fold" portion of
| the content loads down to "All Debuts". After that, there's a
| long blank space with a Loading indicator near the bottom.
| Eventually it loaded. I didn't keep track of how long, but it
| was almost certainly longer than 1 minute.
| varenc wrote:
| One nit of the author's analysis:
|
| The Strava javascript file used for speed tests is 1.68MB
| uncompressed. But in a browser and most all other situations it
| should be requested with `Accept-Encoding: ...`. In Chrome,
| Strava responds with a gzipped response that's 463kB in size.
|
| This doesn't really matter for the CLI speed tests, when its
| requested without compression, but it does mean that the speed
| test performance won't correspond with the actual in-browser
| performance and the traffic shaping may not be comparable when
| the request is made without compression. Adding
| `--compression=gzip` to the wget command will fix this.
|
| To quickly show the difference: $ curl -s
| 'https://web-assets.strava.com/assets/federated/find-and-invite-
| friends/827.js' --compressed -w '%{size_download}\n' -o
| /dev/null 462525 $ curl -s 'https://web-
| assets.strava.com/assets/federated/find-and-invite-
| friends/827.js' -w '%{size_download}\n' -o /dev/null
| 1759662
| acaloiar wrote:
| Fair nit. Although this is why I chose to focus on transfer
| rates instead of time.
|
| But consider this. When I load Strava's dashboard, open the
| Network tab and search for "cloudfront", these are the metrics:
|
| > 374 requests 15.80 MB / 7.07 MB transferred Finish: 4.89 min
|
| This is not a good time, and no amount of compression is going
| to help the situation.
| Bluecobra wrote:
| Makes me wonder if it's just something as simple as suboptimal
| routing and the path it's taking is through a hop experiencing
| packet loss or some other issue further upstream. I would think
| that there's a higher chance of AT&T being incompetent then doing
| something nefarious.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| > Why AT&T wants bandwidth to appear lower than reality is a
| mystery to me, but I digress
|
| For you a speed test is just once in a life time event.
|
| For a _wireless_ provider this is a thing what clogs the _shared
| media_ of a radio channel for quite a lot (modern speed tests try
| to push 100 or even more M _Bytes_?) and cause a disruption for
| everyone else on the same channel.
|
| I don't know why ATT throttles (if at all, not a customer) that
| site, but wire and wireless providers are different.
| DanAtC wrote:
| fast.com was created by Netflix to show if your ISP was
| throttling Netflix traffic.
|
| A lot of mobile services (at least in the US) offer "unlimited
| streaming" which is really just bandwidth-limited to offer SD-
| quality streams and offer "HD" (read: less-limited) streaming
| as a paid add-on.
| dublinben wrote:
| >For Netflix, part of the message is: If you've got a bandwidth
| problem, don't blame us -- blame your ISP.[0]
|
| This coverage from when Netflix launched Fast.com in 2016
| alludes to the reason why the results on Fast.com may be slower
| than on something like Speedtest.net. ISPs like AT&T throttle
| connections to streaming video providers like Netflix, in order
| to force a lower quality stream. By offering a speed test from
| the same infrastructure that delivers your TV show, they are
| revealing the 'traffic shaping' that is degrading your
| connection. Sites like Speedtest.net are all excluded from this
| throttling, so it will always appear that you are getting 'full
| speed' when testing your connection.
|
| [0] https://variety.com/2016/digital/news/netflix-fast-
| internet-...
| fjni wrote:
| I never thought about this much, but what's interesting is
| that there's a missed opportunity for collaboration here.
|
| I think most ISPs throttle known streaming sites (netflix,
| youtube, etc.) by default for mobile plans. Some even
| advertise it [1]. And really what the ISPs have noticed is
| that if you throttle the throughput, the streaming services
| will switch to a lower quality stream (e.g. 720 or even 480
| instead of 1080p) to allow for non-lagging streams.
|
| So in some weird way the streaming sites are the ones that
| provided the tool and the ISPs figured out how to exploit it.
|
| The two could have just worked together on a solution. Here
| they are pointing the finger at each other. ISPs don't want
| to have default 1080p streams for 4" device screens (which
| makes sense,) and streaming services don't want their network
| traffic throttled (which also makes sense.)
|
| [1] https://www.t-mobile.com/offers/binge-on-streaming-video
| vitus wrote:
| > The two could have just worked together on a solution.
|
| We do...? Google Global Cache [0] and Netflix Open Connect
| [1] are both the result of ISP partnerships wherein we
| deploy cache nodes in the ISP's datacenter to reduce
| network load and improve our users' viewing experience.
|
| Whether a specific ISP chooses to partner with us or not
| (and the breadth of their deployment) depends on their
| willingness to sign the relevant contracts.
|
| [0] https://support.google.com/interconnect/answer/9058809?
| hl=en
|
| [1] https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/
| fjni wrote:
| I didn't know about that. That's cool.
| crazygringo wrote:
| But why would AT&T be throttling Cloudfront requests
| specifically?
|
| That's not traffic shaping, it's just dumb. Traffic shaping is
| slowing down _types_ of traffic like torrents or video in order
| to prioritize regular sites. But this is degrading regular sites
| that are usually what _benefit_ from traffic shaping if there 's
| overall network congestion.
|
| I'm not questioning anything the author reports, it all seems
| extremely well documented.
|
| I am questioning what AT&T is trying to accomplish here though.
| It makes no sense, unless they're in some kind of negotiation
| with Cloudfront right now, punishing them until they pay up or
| something? But that doesn't explain why it would only happen on a
| data-only plan. I'm mystified.
| fjni wrote:
| I think the era of traffic shaping as you describe it is no
| longer. Most connections are encrypted these days, a good
| thing. But that also means, me as an ISP in the middle, I only
| see the layer 4 packet. So I know where a packet is coming from
| and where it's going (and ttl and some other not really helpful
| data for this purpose.) I don't even know the port.
|
| So I'm left with doing (dumb) traffic shaping by destination
| and target.
|
| If I had to guess, I'd say that they incorrectly thought that
| some specific IP address (range) serves predominantly one type
| of data. So they throttle by the only data point they have,
| destination ip, and the collateral damage is everything else
| hosted on that ip address.
| kaszanka wrote:
| Wait, why wouldn't they know the port? I'm not aware of any
| cases where the TCP header itself is encrypted.
| fjni wrote:
| You are correct. The port is part of the tcp header and my
| statement above is incorrect!
| kevincox wrote:
| 99% of consumer traffic is on 443 these days (citation
| needed)
| robocat wrote:
| HTTP3 uses UDP and doesn't have to use the same port,
| although I presume it does. "A browser first connects the
| server with HTTP/2 To discover the service. The server
| responses with an Alt-Svc header, including the port for
| HTTP/3, such as Alt-Svc: h3-29=":443""
| kevin_nisbet wrote:
| So I had this conversation with one of the traffic shaping
| vendors many years ago. At the time when encryption still
| wasn't that common, they didn't sound too worried about the
| shift to all encrypted connections. Their product was already
| starting to use a behavioral analysis to shape the traffic
| most of their customers were interested in.
|
| So to detect bittorrent, they'd build a profile about how
| many bit torrent clients operate, the packet and connection
| creation patterns used, and then slap a throttle on. Looking
| at some independent analysis, these products might only
| detect 50% of the bittorent traffic, and have a false
| positive rate, especially for bittorent users also doing
| something else. And the ISPs don't care, they get what they
| need if they clamp 50% of the traffic.
|
| So I'm not disputing that everything encrypted is a good
| thing, just pointing out that because it's encrypted doesn't
| necessarily mean the shaping equipment can't figure out
| enough to throttle bit torrent.
|
| > If I had to guess, I'd say that they incorrectly thought
| that some specific IP address (range) serves predominantly
| one type of data. So they throttle by the only data point
| they have, destination ip, and the collateral damage is
| everything else hosted on that ip address.
|
| This is plausible. As I recall, the way some of the equipment
| worked was it would sniff out DNS requests, and then mark the
| IP address as this destination. So if someone set's a rule
| for example.com, it might accidentally apply to alice.com
| using the same IP address.
|
| My knowledge on the industry is out of date though.
| fjni wrote:
| This is great insight. Thank you for that.
|
| I imagine lots of people are or have spent lots of money
| and time trying to figure out the type of data or
| connection from patterns as you say.
|
| A more nuanced and correct statement would have been to say
| that it's much harder to do than it used to be, when you
| could just look at the mime-type or similar to figure out
| what to throttle.
| Meleagris wrote:
| If you're interested in learning more, deep packet
| inspection, and specifically "encrypted traffic
| classification" are fairly mature in industry. Many
| traffic shapers are using products like Enea's Qosmos
| ixEngine or home-grown equivalents which can identify
| thousands of applications and protocols.
|
| Most providers that use traffic shaping don't care about
| content, and the encrypted traffic classification is
| enough to make traffic policy decisions.
| lordgrenville wrote:
| > While wget is not my goto for command line HTTP fetching
|
| It is for me. Is there something better I'm not aware of?
| Animats wrote:
| Remember how 5G was supposed to support "the metaverse"?[1]
|
| I've been working on a high performance metaverse client. All
| Rust, all multi-threaded. Designed to max out a gamer PC.
| Supports Second Life and Open Simulator. Second Life had a
| reputation for being sluggish. Fixing that.
|
| I'm pulling content from the servers at 200Mb/s, sustained.
| 400Mb/s in tests, but don't need to go that fast. The servers
| (AWS front-ended by Akamai caches) can handle that just fine.
| Gigabit fiber can handle that just fine. The 3D world appears in
| high detail in seconds. Looks like an AAA game title. Not like
| low-rez Meta Horizon or Decentraland.
|
| 5G can handle that, right? Says so right here in the promotional
| materials.Verizon: [2] AT&T: [3]
|
| The carriers said "unlimited", right? So they can't complain if
| you're downloading 100GB per hour.
|
| [1]
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgale/2022/05/24/how-5-an...
|
| [2] https://www.ericsson.com/en/blog/2022/4/why-metaverse-
| needs-...
|
| [3] https://www.verizon.com/about/news/5g-makes-metaverse-real
|
| [4] https://www.xrtoday.com/event-news/5g-networks-crucial-to-
| me...
| dboreham wrote:
| Unlimited is a term of art that means "limited".
| xeromal wrote:
| Yup. Buffets have been that way forever. No one is actually
| allowed to eat unlimited.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| I'm not sure what you mean. Most buffets won't limit you.
| xeromal wrote:
| There is always a limit even if it's not published.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| For what purpose? People can only eat so much. The buffet
| doesn't have to limit you. And if the buffet isn't
| limiting you then it's valid for them to say "unlimited".
| bobbean wrote:
| But I'll eat until they kick me out. That's how I know I
| got my moneys worth
| DangitBobby wrote:
| Can we just start calling fraud by its own name?
| doublerabbit wrote:
| I'll order one criminality with extra politicians and one
| large diet-fraud-lite(tm) with extra ice.
|
| Just charge it to my offshore. Cheers
| cbsks wrote:
| Are you insinuating, sir, that a telecommunications company has
| lied to the public? A lie that increases their own profits??
| How dare you!
| Animats wrote:
| While lobbying for Government funding for 5G, too.[1][2]
|
| [1] https://www.csis.org/analysis/accelerating-5g-united-
| states
|
| [2] https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-
| lobbying/...
| mikeryan wrote:
| In theory yes? But 5G deployment is still catching up to LTE so
| It's still going to be dependent on how saturated the bandwidth
| is. I've found that in some crowded situations (conferences and
| the ilk) switching to LTE actually performs better.
| PhilippGille wrote:
| I'm interested in more info about your client. Is it open
| source, is there a website or blog post about it?
| Animats wrote:
| http://animats.com/sharpview/
| kevin_nisbet wrote:
| Taking a quick 5 minute look at the packet capture attached to
| the post, it looks to me like this is likely traffic shaping.
| While it's always difficult to be 100% sure from just the client
| side capture, the capture looks relatively clean of errors, and
| the amount of data in flight doesn't appear to even approach the
| advertised window. We're getting some merging of segments likely
| from a segment offload, but I doubt that's throwing off the
| results.
|
| So there's a good chance there's a shaper letting through about
| 320kbit/s as it's relatively even throughout the capture.
| acaloiar wrote:
| Thanks for the feedback. I was hoping to see more of this sort
| of analysis from the HN crowd :)
|
| There's one other person from HN doing some analysis with me
| via email. Maybe something will come of it. You both came to
| the same conclusion based on the pcap data. They're also
| analyzing the iphone tether pcap data I just provided in an
| update.
| fjni wrote:
| > I already knew from previous experience that for some reason,
| AT&T traffic to fast.com is throttled. Why AT&T wants bandwidth
| to appear lower than reality is a mystery to me, but I digress
|
| This I think is because they throttle ip addresses for known
| video streaming sites. That is one of (the only reliable) ways an
| ISP can get the streaming provider to drop the stream to a lower
| quality one by default. Since fast.com is a Netflix ip, and the
| isp can't distinguish whether it's video that is being
| transferred or a file to measure throughout, the speed test gets
| caught up in it. 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.
| bscphil wrote:
| > Since fast.com is a Netflix ip, and the isp can't distinguish
| whether it's video that is being transferred or a file to
| measure throughout,
|
| It is _really_ trivial to do basic traffic snooping and see
| what people are looking at. I 'm surprised it isn't more
| common.
|
| I figured it would be harder, or perform worse, but I easily
| wrote a little piece of software that filters the TLS
| ClientHello for arbitrary domains. Maybe 10 years ago hardware
| wouldn't have been able to do this, but I bet it's no big deal
| now. So your filter chain just looks like <Netflix IP range> ->
| <has fast.com ClientHello> -> unthrottle. You don't need to do
| packet inspection on every packet, just ones that you might be
| interested in (e.g. Netflix IPs).
|
| It's crazy to me that the many people who care about privacy
| and censorship in tech haven't pushed ECH (encrypted
| ClientHello) harder. It's such a gaping hole in web privacy
| that you can still passively snoop domain names sent in
| cleartext. It makes DoH/DoT almost pointless.
| hedora wrote:
| People drastically overestimate the security properties of
| TLS.
|
| The correct mental model is that it's good enough to convince
| 1990's US internet users to type their credit card into a web
| page. (Where the downside of a breach is that you have to
| dispute some charges and change your CC#.)
|
| If you need stronger security than that, then many, many
| caveats start to apply.
|
| For instance, by default, anyone that can reliably man-in-
| the-middle port 80 on your website can get an acme
| certificate for your domain from a reputable certificate
| authority.
| xyzzy_plugh wrote:
| This isn't applicable to fast.com as it simply makes requests
| to Netflix's CDN from the frontend. Indistinguishable from
| regular Netflix traffic.
| bscphil wrote:
| Good point, although you could still do logic like only
| activating the throttle _after_ the customer visits
| netflix.com. You can 't distinguish the CDN traffic, but
| you can still tell what website is being viewed.
|
| Incidentally, my speeds on fast.com are always terrible
| (about 1/8 of what I get elsewhere), despite the fact that
| I'm fairly confident it is not being throttled. That's
| because the speed I see is >100 Mbps, which is like 4
| Netflix UHD streams. Wouldn't be much point in throttling
| to that speed, you'd want 10 Mbps _max_ , and less on
| wireless.
| the456gamer wrote:
| then you might miss embedded clients, right?
| paulddraper wrote:
| Indeed that's the point of fast.com.... To measure the speed
| from Netflix servers
| avianlyric wrote:
| > 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.
| anonymousnotme wrote:
| 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?
| jackson1442 wrote:
| 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.
| neurostimulant wrote:
| 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.
|
| Another fun part: 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.
| dspillett wrote:
| _> 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.
| [deleted]
| patmcc wrote:
| Your ISP _entirely blocked_ netflix? That 's incredible
| shitty.
| baby wrote:
| Heh, just revert back to pirating. That's what I do
| whenever things don't work.
| dhosek wrote:
| 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.
| solarpunk wrote:
| I'm curious where you live and what provider does this
| weird Netflix reselling practice.
| happymellon wrote:
| > 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?
| tpxl wrote:
| Parent was being facetious.
| bee_rider wrote:
| What is the internet anyway? Are there truth in advertising
| issues around selling internet access with excessive
| filtering?
| kijiki wrote:
| Couldn't ISPs just sniff the SNI hostname to differentiate
| fast.com vs actual Netflix video streaming?
| wtallis wrote:
| 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.
| cesarb wrote:
| 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.
| therein wrote:
| That's surely how I would have done it.
| sharkski wrote:
| [dead]
| eurleif wrote:
| I recently discovered that T-Mobile does this too, but they
| actually let you disable it on their site. Ostensibly, it's a
| feature for your benefit (somehow), and they're doing you a
| favor by enabling it by default. In reality, of course, it's
| for their own benefit, and they're banking on people not
| realizing it can be disabled. I suppose giving you the option
| lets them advertise things like "no throttling" and "4K
| streaming supported" while still reaping the benefits of
| throttling/lower-bitrate streaming.
| tyingq wrote:
| >it's a feature for your benefit (somehow)
|
| They don't count the "shaped/throttled" sites against your
| data plan limits, so I can see some people liking it.
| eurleif wrote:
| They do this even with an unlimited plan.
| getpost wrote:
| "Modernizing its search engine has become an obsession at
| Google"....
|
| No doubt it can be modernized, but just making Google search as
| good as it used to be would be helpful. And why not better than
| it used to be with the traditional interface? That would still be
| worth doing even if Google adds on a superb AI.
|
| Search is the proverbial goose that laid the golden egg and
| Google is killing it, and I don't mean "killing" in the
| contemporary ironic usage.
| ikurei wrote:
| I think you might have written this comment on the wrong post
| delecti wrote:
| Google search can't be as good as it used to, because the web
| isn't as "clean" (pure? idealistic? honest? legitimate?) as it
| used to be. People making websites with the goal of appearing
| higher in Google's results means Google has to work on
| countermeasures. That sets off a game of cat-and-mouse, and
| means actual good results are caught in the crossfire.
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| Is it possible to return Google to pre-seo blackhat days? I
| think the golden egg has been poisoned, even if Google tried
| it's best
| Flammy wrote:
| Wrong thread?
| ehPReth wrote:
| Bell in Canada is doing the same with their new 'unlimited' (vs
| the previous generation 'unlimited') and their cheaper data
| plans.
|
| Even if you have any amount of 'fast data' left you're throttled
| to SD speeds for streaming video unless you pay for the higher
| tier of their plans. Data isn't equal any more. Their higher
| plans say "HD video is up to 1080p" so I suppose no
| 1440p/4K/60fps/etc either.
|
| It's honestly fucking infuriating but there's nothing that can be
| done except use a VPN I guess. I'm on the previous generation so
| "data is data" and they don't throttle me yet but if I ever
| change plans it's there.
|
| I'm not totally sure if the other carriers do (or their
| 'competition' in forms of MVNOs that they themselves own) but
| they tend to have a habit of copying each other, at least after a
| little delay.
|
| https://www.bell.ca/Mobility/Cell_phone_plans/Unlimited-plan...
| (select your local area or just choose Ontario)
|
| bonus fun bs:
|
| every so often when you try to log into the web portal they try
| to trick you into letting them build a profile off your
| browsing/usage data so they can make even more money off of you.
| a popup with 'advertising is a reality in today's world' comes up
| with the nice attractive 'get this out of my face so I can do
| things' blue button being 'yes please opt me in'. shady dark
| pattern!
|
| back when, they used to opt people in by default and make you
| explicitly opt out... but then the regulators said hey that's
| illegal. so now they resort to stuff like that to get the numbers
| back up.
|
| here's some of the blurb if anyone is interested: "Advertising is
| a reality in today's world, and people find that they receive ads
| that are irrelevant to them. With our tailored marketing program,
| Bell will work to ensure that the offers participants receive
| when using our services may be more relevant, rather than random
| marketing ads. In other words, participants won't see more ads,
| just more relevant ads."
|
| full text: https://pastebin.com/ESskYEUy it's honestly super
| gross what they collect and how they try to trick people into
| agreeing.
| lopkeny12ko wrote:
| While everyone knows that all wireless carriers are universally
| terrible, I've actually had a fairly noneventful (read: good)
| experience with T-Mobile over the last decade. I've never
| observed evidence of traffic shaping or any other shady business
| (like capturing NXDOMAIN DNS responses and directing you to a
| sponsored search page). I've also never observed significant
| performance degradation from congestion-based prioritization
| after exceeding the alloted 50 GB or whatever of monthly "normal-
| priority" data usage.
| jlund-molfese wrote:
| I have too, mostly...
|
| But apart from all the data breaches, I was also able to verify
| T-Mobile doing this (arbitrary blocking of texts containing
| innocuous URLs) on my plan. Although they _seem_ to have fixed
| it now. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29744347
| canes123456 wrote:
| Many of their plans downscale video, or at least they used to
| artogahr wrote:
| This is interesting, I don't see how this is possible from a
| technical sense
| ikiris wrote:
| its trivial with a simple rate limit.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Identify (by IP or traffic shape) video traffic, then
| throttle the stream to the desired bitrate. The viewer's
| player will usually silently adapt.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| Netflix should have it own set of AS. And after that it's
| quite simple, routers can do throttle for decades.
| dylan604 wrote:
| If it is an HLS or DASH type of video stream, they could
| just query the playlist for a smaller video size and
| throttle that connection so that you're only served the
| smaller encode vs the full frame highest quality. Pretty
| simple thing to do really
| lopkeny12ko wrote:
| I've never experienced this. How would this even work for
| encrypted (HTTPS) streams?
|
| Even if this were technically feasible, it sounds like a
| massive infrastructure investment with little to no value.
| T-Mobile would need to have enough compute and network
| horsepower to DPI all outbound traffic, intercept every video
| stream, detect if it's over some resolution threshold, and
| re-encode it at a lower resolution or bit rate, all in real
| time.
| sodality2 wrote:
| Throttle video CDN ISP/ASN's
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| It is in collaboration with certain video providers.
|
| YouTube over mobile for me is downscaled to 720p. In
| exchange, that doesn't get counted in my high speed
| allotment of data.
|
| I can opt out, but then my data can get deprioritized over
| a certain threshold.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| On my older plan, they downscale video from some providers to
| 720, but don't include that video in my data count.
|
| I can opt out, but then any streaming goes against my high
| speed data limit.
|
| I think it's actually a pretty fair trade off.
| survirtual wrote:
| Yeah, except they leak customer data regularly and have
| offshored tons of customer service to India -- including
| onboarding. When I tried to sign up, they didn't know what an
| esim was and wanted my SSN, along with other data that could
| easily be used to steal my identity. I don't want to spend my
| days arguing with people, definitely not about the existence of
| esim; but I did that day. It went all the way up their customer
| service management chain.
|
| T-Mobile is also completely hit or miss with service. If you
| are in a location where it works, fine. Good luck if you
| travel.
|
| If you can tolerate T-Mobile, Google Fi is better in almost
| every way security wise -- and I am very anti-google services
| these days. It uses the T-Mobile network.
|
| As for me? ATT has provided the best service of any carrier
| while traveling, so I will use them. When I need security, I
| flip on my VPN.
| quanticle wrote:
| ATT has provided the best service of any carrier while
| traveling, so I will use them.
|
| Really? My experience with AT&T while traveling has been
| pretty awful. In the US, in rural areas, Verizon is better.
| And outside the US, Google Fi gives you international data
| roaming as part of the base package. One of the reasons I
| switched to Google Fi is because it's so much better when
| traveling.
| jen20 wrote:
| I used Google Fi for a while, and while I'd love to use
| them as a primary carrier again, I can't until they choose
| to support add-on SIMs for watches. As a Google Fi and
| YoutubeTV customer, I cannot wait until I no longer have to
| give AT&T any money at all.
| judge2020 wrote:
| The only thing with Fi is that it is T-Mobile, and you'll
| always be in a lower priority block of customers compared
| to people paying for T-Mobile directly, which mean you'll
| see slower traffic in congested areas at peak times
| (including e.g. during rush hour traffic).
| radicaldreamer wrote:
| Thats not true, Google Fi has the same priority as
| postpaid T-Mobile. This is something MVNOs negotiate in
| their contracts with carriers, not something thats true
| across the board.
|
| Discount MVNOs increase their margins by buying wholesale
| deprioritized data while Google Fi has negotiated the no
| deprioritization.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Is this talked about somewhere? All I see is this reddit
| post[0] by u/Peterfield53, which looks like a very active
| user on r/GoogleFi but doesn't seem to be a Googler or
| otherwise a Google Fi support agent.
|
| 0: https://old.reddit.com/r/GoogleFi/comments/ulc1t5/perk
| s_of_f...
| [deleted]
| horsawlarway wrote:
| If you're travelling, I find it hard to beat Fi.
|
| You literally land in a new country, turn your phone back
| on and you get a "Welcome to [country] - your data rate
| is the same" message almost anywhere.
|
| Personally - I've flown from Taiwan to Brazil to
| Amsterdam and then back to the US and I don't have to
| think about my phone. It just works.
|
| ---
|
| Outside of the travel use-case, I would also probably
| pick something else, but if I know I'm going to be
| travelling, I'll switch back to Fi.
| zamnos wrote:
| With eSim and the Airalo app, international travel is
| fairly painless. It costs a few bucks and a couple
| minutes to setup (which can be done while waiting at the
| airport to leave) to get a data-only sim for your
| destination county. If you're paying for an expensive
| domestic account for international reasons instead of a
| cheaper $40/mo eg Mint mobile plan, it might be worth
| investigating theirs plans to see if it would end up
| saving money, given your travel requirements.
| withinboredom wrote:
| I still have my Sprint plan. This is how it works by
| default. (Sprint + gvoice = google fi; before gfi you
| could merge your gvoice and sprint accounts which was
| really cool. Then they cancelled that and started gfi)
| Since the TMo merger, I suspect gfi is still using the
| Sprint stuff.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| If I have to pick between T-Mobile and Google, I pick
| T-Mobile. Google is going to kill Fi and Voice one day,
| T-Mobile is not. T-Mobile has some customer service,
| including stores, Google has none. Was able to migrate a
| physical SIM to an eSIM in a store in ~30 min. You can even
| move your Google Voice number to a T-Mobile DIGITS number for
| similar functionality.
|
| (T-Mobile customer for 2+ decades, least terrible option
| imho)
|
| EDIT: > Google Voice app may be slow but it does work every
| time
|
| Until it doesn't! Fair critique though. I can also recommend
| the "Unlisted" iOS app for this purpose.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| > You can even move your Google Voice number to a T-Mobile
| DIGITS number for similar functionalit
|
| You had my interest...till i read the reviews of the DIGITS
| app on the app store. 1.9 average, most complains about it
| not working at all. Google Voice app may be slow but it
| does work every time
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| > As for me? ATT has provided the best service of any carrier
| while traveling, so I will use them.
|
| I'm curious about your reasons to say that AT&T provides the
| best service "while traveling". I'm guessing it would be
| domestic travel, because AT&T roaming charges are the second
| highest among the big three (I believe Verizon is actually
| even more expensive).
|
| I was a customer and an employee of AT&T for a while, and I
| find T-Mobile to be better in almost every aspect, except
| perhaps for coverage in very rural areas, which I don't mind.
| T-Mobile 5G coverage and speed is also significantly better.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Do you mean international charges? I thought roaming has
| not been a thing for a decade.
|
| Many ATT plans include usage in all of the western
| hemisphere, excluding the Caribbean islands. And for
| countries not included, it is $10 per day ($5 for other
| lines on your plan) up to 10 days in a billing cycle, and
| after that it is free until the next billing cycle.
|
| Not the cheapest (I think T-Mobile has international at $5
| per day), but not terrible either for a quick jaunt
| somewhere and not having to worry about SIMs or changing
| phone number or whatever.
| hypothesis wrote:
| > If you can tolerate T-Mobile, Google Fi is better in almost
| every way security wise -- and I am very anti-google services
| these days. It uses the T-Mobile network.
|
| Be careful there, because T-Mobile rot spreads to any
| downstream MNVO. Sim-jacking is still possible and data
| breach is happening above Google Fi level. There were
| articles about that IIRC.
| rsaxvc wrote:
| When I had AT&T VDSL they had weak peering. Some traffic that
| should have gone across town would routinely get routed several
| states away before coming back to town, because they hadn't
| peered with the local exchanges. Some traffic was ok.
|
| When I switched to an ISP with local peering, ping times between
| my home and my server downtown dropped to a few milliseconds.
| It's like being on my LAN.
|
| If this is still an issue for AT&T, traceroute+reverse DNS of
| each router may indicate it.
|
| This poor peering isn't directly a throughput problem, but really
| increases the chance of being routed through a congested link,
| which you could sometimes guestimate from ping times and
| peeringdb.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Same issue in Canada: our big ISPs historically refuse to peer
| freely at our domestic IXs like TORIX. So smaller ISP and DCs
| end up peering with them in the USA and your packets would make
| circuitous cross-border round trips to go a few km.
|
| Some national players do have ports at domestic IXs, but only
| as backup links or for negotiated (paid?) access.
|
| The hazards of ISPs also being backbone providers.
|
| (It looks like Rogers has gotten better with this behaviour)
| jshier wrote:
| Yep. I'm still on AT&T's ADSL (what used to be known as Uverse)
| and routinely get routed through Chicago rather than Detroit (I
| live 30 mi north) for major services like Cloudflare. Of the
| two choices I have for ISP, AT&T or Comcast, only AT&T has such
| poor routing. AT&T Fiber apparently has better peering but
| their supposed expansion hasn't happened in my area yet.
| chrsjxn wrote:
| You've got to love a website that makes text selection invisible
| by default.
|
| I'd probably double check assumptions on the cloudfront issues.
| Switching carriers or adding VPN might connect you to a different
| edge node.
|
| Some web assets being throttled for specific AT&T accounts seems
| a little too targeted to just be traffic shaping. I'd expect them
| to throttle traffic for all users, like they do with the speed
| tests.
| sgtfrankieboy wrote:
| >You've got to love a website that makes text selection
| invisible by default.
|
| First time seeing it being invisible, mostly they just disable
| it. Terribly annoying practice. I often select text while
| reading articles.
| chrsjxn wrote:
| Same here!
|
| I think it helps me read faster online, but it's probably
| just a fidget-y habit.
| 0887437208577 wrote:
| [flagged]
| esalman wrote:
| Fun story: I work remotely for an org located in the Bay area.
| Few months ago I get a call early morning from the IT security
| person. Apparently someone had been trying to RDP into my work
| laptop, over a thousand attempts per day for last couple of days.
|
| What changed before the last couple of days? My laptop was
| frequently dropping WiFi connection- a lot of times in the middle
| of zoom meetings. We use a router provided by AT&T. My wife
| complained of the same thing, so I thought I'll ping their
| customer support.
|
| The customer support person proceeded to tell us they wanted to
| reconfigure our router to enable "5G". After some bewilderment we
| realized they were talking about 2.4G vs. 5G WiFi. And they will
| do it remotely. Ok fine go ahead, we said, and forgot about it..
| until I got the call from my office IT security.
|
| Apparently the AT&T support person left our router in passthrough
| mode. According to their K/B, "Placing a device in passthrough
| mode will remove firewall protection provided by the AT&T
| gateway."
|
| I reset my router to default settings, and got myself a 100ft
| Ethernet cable to fix the issues.
| LoganDark wrote:
| > Placing a device in passthrough mode will remove firewall
| protection provided by the AT&T gateway
|
| Did... did they seriously turn the router into a DMZ*, without
| your consent? Where every port of your computer is just open to
| the internet?
|
| That's scary.
|
| *that's what it was called on my router, the "forward every
| single port to one device" mode. Not sure if that is the
| correct term for it.
| esalman wrote:
| Yeah. We checked with censys.io, port 3389 and 8080 were open
| as publicly available service on the router.
| rzzzt wrote:
| Passthrough mode turns ~90% of the (DSL modem / ONT) + router
| + DHCP + NAT + WiFi AP + whatever functionality off, allowing
| you to add another home router after it which is completely
| under your control and let the ISP-provided one only do the
| most necessary, eg. (DSL modem / ONT) parts.
| judge2020 wrote:
| At least on BGW-320's, which are the modern routers for ATT
| fiber deployments, it keeps flows in the NAT table even if
| you use it in passthrough mode, although it doesn't
| actually do NAT, so you end up still being limited to 8192
| sessions (not that that's typically a problem, but it does
| mean you can't e.g. run a big web server through your
| connection, and you can't use 3p fiber modems without some
| hacks).
| LoganDark wrote:
| > add another home router after it which is completely
| under your control and let the ISP-provided one only do the
| most necessary, eg. (DSL modem / ONT) parts.
|
| Oh absolutely, I used that trick once in order to use a
| router that I could configure over web interface instead of
| Over The Cloud With A Spyware Mobile App (aka Internet Of
| Shit).
|
| Unfortunately my ISP smartened up to this and started
| cutting the line whenever I tried to use my router. Like,
| it would work for a while, then they'd shut off service,
| and it wouldn't work anymore (even if I removed my router)
| until I called them up and complained.
|
| They would act oblivious like the problem was with my
| equipment. Every time I asked them why my internet stopped
| working they would say there was some problem with my
| hardware. The hardware was brand new and could not have
| been more fine; they were mistaken. It would also work
| perfectly when I actually had service; the issue was the
| ISP kept cutting it because they're petty bastards.
|
| Eventually I gave up, which is probably what they wanted,
| but it's not like I'm suffering too badly with their
| equipment, even if I have to use a rooted phone in order to
| pry away all the spyware permissions from their stupid app.
|
| They are a monopoly so I have no choice.
| alar44 wrote:
| [dead]
| radicaldreamer wrote:
| You need to file an FCC complaint about this, Xfinity has
| an executive response team for all FCC complaints.
| Document every time you called them and your equipment
| details.
| avidiax wrote:
| I had to do this when they let a new renter cancelled my
| cable internet multiple weeks before my move-out, even
| after I told them that the new renter's dates were wrong
| when they called to confirm. Regular support wanted me to
| sign a new contract and pay an install fee to reactivate.
|
| It was a really shitty situation that should never have
| happened, but the executive team was what all customer
| service should strive to be. A single person, with ample
| time in their day to fully understand the problem and
| blow past all the usual roadblocks on the way to a
| solution. Was still a few hours on the phone, but at
| least I wasn't treated as though it was my fault.
| LoganDark wrote:
| Honestly, that experience was years ago, and I don't
| really care enough to raise a fuss about it just today,
| since their first-party router is "not too terrible".
|
| About Xfinity in particular though, assuming someone else
| uses them, I did learn just recently that at least
| Xfinity allegedly offers a special decoder box (or
| something) that is, I believe, free of charge, and lets
| you hook up your router directly rather than putting it
| through theirs as a DMZ, and it's supposed to get them to
| not cut the line. Some self-install kit or something. You
| can only get it by asking over phone call.
| baobrien wrote:
| I bought my own 3rd party cable modem for Xfinity and it
| works fine.
| LoganDark wrote:
| Well, in my situation/ISP it did happen. Though it was a
| while ago so I don't remember too many specifics.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Wow, I hate Comcast like everyone else, but even they are
| not that bad. That is just ridiculous. If I couldn't have
| my own modem and own router... I dunno, they have a local
| monopoly, but I'd start looking at 5G connections or
| something.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| thorum wrote:
| I noticed this same issue with my AT&T internet. After some
| investigation, I found that using a VPN (Virtual Private Network)
| effectively resolved the problem. It seems that when internet
| traffic is encrypted and routed through a different server, the
| traffic shaping technique they employ isn't able to identify and
| throttle specific types of data.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-16 23:00 UTC)