Comments Page 2

Comments Page 2
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·

Links: New Topic
Forums »
page: 1 · 2
insomniac84 @ 23rd Jun 07:48PM:
Re: They make no sense.

said by DataRiker :

Well, there are ways to emulate http and https traffic

And given the track record in this cat and mouse game, expect the p2p community to be 2 steps ahead.

It shouldn't matter as long as they prioritize traffic based on how much bandwidth it is trying to use. If a certain type of traffic is peaking at 1.5MBps, it could be throttled during times of network saturation. Your VoIP, video chatting, and gaming (real time stuff) isn't going to max out your connection and hit really fast speeds. These things should be able to work uninterrupted. The stuff spiking are going to be huge web downloads, torrents, other download methods, hd video streaming, etc. Things that are not real time. They can be throttled down by half or more and the only effect is a longer buffer time and longer download time. It's possible and it's the way they need to do it.
reply

Lazlow @ 23rd Jun 07:52PM:
Re: I do not see why this has to be so complicated

Here is a simple argument against that: I do not use VOIP. I pay the same as my neighbor who does use VOIP. Why should his data have a higher priority than mine?
reply

espaeth @ 23rd Jun 07:53PM:
Re: Is it P2P they're after?

said by trent25 :

Why do I always have the feeling that all of those traffic management ideas are not aimed at P2P (legal or illegal) but rather at trying to do something about that pesky competition from online video on demand providers!!!

Maybe because Karl Bode keeps trying to convince you as such in his commentary on nearly every news article post?
reply

titoyay222 @ 23rd Jun 07:53PM:
Re: Time for the Content providers to pay their fair share.

well you (RARPSL) got to my point first. but that's exactly the point I was trying to get across. I also agree with trent25.. the ISP's/CableCo's should start offering BETTER TV solutions than what is current. I shouldn't have to pay $150 a month for Cable TV and internet just to find out between the hours of 2-8am most of the cable channels turn into infomercials.

In fact, i'm going to go for their bandwidth limitation ideas and have them apply that to my cable tv service. man, i would save hundreds of dollars and I could have hundreds more tv stations prob. plus with the new tech that's out today some cablecos like comcast turn off the channel when nobody is watching it. so if its not being used or broadcast why should I have to pay still if i'm not using it. put a right price to it and lower my bill by at least half and just maybe I might by all of their BS about saving the consumers money.
reply

tshirt @ 23rd Jun 07:54PM:
Re: They make no sense.

It MAY be saying that browser traffic (short, small, bursty) still get normal/current powerboost priority, streamed video, large file downloads (netflix, hulu, iTunes, Amazon "direct to disc", etc) whose content provider PAYS to recieve ("assist in transfer cost reassignment" ) higher priority would be second/equal (as long as capacity was avalable, similar to PB) priority....and un- "payment assisted" large file transfers (FTP,P2P, content from producers who don't chose to pay) the lowest priority of all.

I'm all in favor of the 24/7 max transfer (hogs) paying more or recieving lower priority during high demand times, but I buy HSI "broadband" over dialup/low(er) speed DSL, so that those few times a day/week month, when I need to send/recieve a large file, it goes quickly.
Unless the give slightly higher priority to those with fairly low monthly consumption vs those nearing the cap, I would be penalized for an urgent use, even though my monthly usage is fairly low(35-50gig MAX, 30-35 typical)
reply

DataRiker @ 23rd Jun 08:01PM:
Re: They make no sense.

Your describing a throttle by volume, which only slows p2p transfers making them last longer (IMO making the problem worse in the long term)

This new system will have to deal with the following situation:

User A is using p2p with some type of https transfer

User B is trying to pay his credit card bill online

How will it judge which packet is real https and which is not?

I doubt this will have any better results than sandive.

If they drive p2p to this expect millions of upset users who can't get a secure web page to work.
reply

digitalfreak @ 23rd Jun 08:05PM:
Re: Is it P2P they're after?

said by espaeth :

Maybe because Karl Bode keeps trying to convince you as such in his commentary on nearly every news article post?

The truth of the matter is that Karl is right.
reply

TKJunkMail @ 23rd Jun 08:05PM:
Re: I do not see why this has to be so complicated

said by Lazlow :

Here is a simple argument against that: I do not use VOIP. I pay the same as my neighbor who does use VOIP. Why should his data have a higher priority than mine?

Because VOIP uses little bandwidth and it won't slow down your tier 3 access & apps?
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
reply

trent25 @ 23rd Jun 08:14PM:
Re: Is it P2P they're after?

I believe I can think for myself.

When Cable co's try to set caps that are too low to allow subscribers to use online video content providers as their main source for video entertainment, and try to deprioritize traffic based on content, I have every right to question their motives.

Especially that if the customer chooses to not subscribe to the Cable co's Video service and instead uses their Data service to get video content from other online providers the ultimate loser is the Cable co's. And I'm pretty sure that Cable co's don't want to see that happen.

I personally don't mind metered billing, as long as it is priced appropriately and not in a way to ensure the Cable co's upper hand in the video service market.
reply

Lazlow @ 23rd Jun 08:15PM:
Re: I do not see why this has to be so complicated

Even then you are putting one customer's needs over another, while they are both paying for the same service.
reply

Lazlow @ 23rd Jun 08:22PM:
Re: They make no sense.

insomniac84

Why should one type of traffic receive higher priority than others? I do not VOIP and my neighbor does (we pay the same amount for internet). Why should his data get a higher priority than mine? Protocol agnostic is the only fair way to go. First come, first serve.
reply

espaeth @ 23rd Jun 08:24PM:
Re: Is it P2P they're after?

said by trent25 :

When Cable co's try to set caps that are too low to allow subscribers to use online video content providers as their main source for video entertainment, and try to deprioritize traffic based on content, I have every right to question their motives.

That is more a function of the capacity of their networks more than a pure play on controlling online video consumption. The building blocks of DOCSIS networks are well known -- we all know there is 38mbps (ignoring overhead) of capacity per channel, and today there are anywhere from 200 - 500 end users per downstream channel. You can start to do the math pretty quickly on how much {stuff} you can stuff into {size bag}.

I will acknowledge that video competition most likely does factor in as a concern, albeit a rather minor one. If curtailing online video were the key driver that wouldn't explain why DSL providers like Qwest, who have no video interests, are engaging in the same practice. It also wouldn't explain why Verizon, who now has video interests to protect with FiOS, isn't implementing the same restrictions.

In the late 90's my staff worked to implement Packeteer traffic shaping hardware on the resnet connections at the University of MN, and I can assure you that at no point did did video revenue ever come up as a topic.

This problem is as old as Ethernet.
reply

tmc8080 @ 23rd Jun 08:28PM:
simple answer:

split the nodes (more bandwidth in the last mile = more users getting closer to their paid for bandwidth tiers which are based upon the price you pay each month).

we can only speculate why they don't do this.. being a cheap & greedy company is a popular suspicion so we'll go with that.
reply

AJR @ 23rd Jun 08:36PM:
Re: I do not see why this has to be so complicated

I think NOCMan has the right idea.

Although I might swap Tier 3 and 4. (Streaming Media is usually more sensitive to congestion than HTTP/SMTP/POP)
reply

AJR @ 23rd Jun 08:47PM:
Re: I do not see why this has to be so complicated

And because VOIP is much more sensitive to latency and jitter then HTTP/SMTP/POP or P2P traffic.

Since P2P apps tend to be bandwidth hogs and they are usually very tolerant of latency and jitter they should receive "worse" treatment than the VOIP and HTTP/POP/SMTP traffic.

I would love to find a provider that prioritizes VOIP and Streaming Media over P2P. I would sign up in heart beat.
reply

djdanska @ 23rd Jun 08:53PM:
Re: They make no sense.

said by Jovi :

said by r81984 :

People who use P2P use it 24/7.

And your statement uses what data to back itself up?

I was just thinking that. I do use p2p, but I don't do it 24/7. If I want a few things, I may leave it on for a while, but not at days or weeks at a time. I bet there are those who do though. Not all though
--
The day the child realizes that all adults are imperfect, he becomes an adolescent; the day he forgives them, he becomes an adult. The day he forgives himself, he becomes wise.
Alden Nowlan
reply

kickass69 @ 23rd Jun 09:20PM:
Net Neutrality needed more and more

It's constant bs like this why we need that passed more than ever before we all get screwed to the point of no return.
reply

travelguy @ 23rd Jun 09:24PM:
Interesting Anti-Tivo Strategy

quote:
CDN's Jeff Baumgartner speculates that CableLabs is taking the unusual step of publicizing the new cable technology in order to beat back patent trolls ahead of a real patent filing.

Call it the anti-Tivo strategy. By publicising it now, they create prior art that prevents someone else from patenting the idea. What's not clear is how they plan to get their own patent once they've done this.
reply

anon @ 23rd Jun 09:36PM:
msg deleted

deleted by a moderator
reply

sturmvogel @ 23rd Jun 09:58PM:
Re: Is it P2P they're after?

Yes, Karl is right.
reply

funchords @ 23rd Jun 10:00PM:
This is not all that new ... needs more detail

... I've had multiple conversations eluding to a system very much like this. In fact, the "visit the customer portal" part is a very distinct feature from those conversations (and no, it wasn't my idea nor was it cable's). I think cable will have a hard time with a patent. I've certainly expressed significant portions of this idea online here or there. But the patent isn't a reason to do this or not to do this.

Before we poop all over this idea, I'd like to hear more about it. It appears to treat everything equally UNLESS the customer opts to do something different. That's fine with me. In fact, that's the way things probably ought to be.

NOCman, the reason we don't all adopt your view is that we all don't agree with it. Yes, 90% of us do (or we all do 90% of the time), but where does streaming P2P fit in? What if my FTP upload is highly urgent? I don't like your idea because it puts protocol in the priority seat -- well, that's just not how the 'net was designed (even though it does work most of the time). Thanks for sharing it in detail, though. It isn't a completely bad idea, but it does have some serious pitfalls.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
reply

S_engineer @ 23rd Jun 10:05PM:
Re: Is it P2P they're after?

Are you suggesting that some of these providers oversold their networks, or to be more specific, signed contracts with customers that they had no intention of complying with?
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils!
reply

Kearnstd @ 23rd Jun 10:07PM:
Re: I do not see why this has to be so complicated

however gaming isnt a #5 item, as it isnt as fault resistant. id put it over POP and SMTP. mail can run a tad slow and people wont notice it like another customer will a 400 ping in a game.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
reply

funchords @ 23rd Jun 10:10PM:
Re: Is it P2P they're after?

said by espaeth :

Maybe because Karl Bode keeps trying to convince you as such in his commentary on nearly every news article post?

That is not deserved. This very article would be the perfect place for Karl to take such a shot, if he was inclined to do so. He did not.

When TWC did it's 5-40 GB/mo cap masquerading as a video filter, Karl took the appropriate license to interpret it as such. He doesn't appear to be doing so here.

That put to bed, I'm very interested in your overall take on this idea.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
reply

espaeth @ 23rd Jun 10:14PM:
Re: Is it P2P they're after?

said by S_engineer :

Are you suggesting that some of these providers oversold their networks, or to be more specific, signed contracts with customers that they had no intention of complying with?

The providers who were clueful never published a guaranteed amount of data you would be able to consume, so I'm doubtful that it would really come down to a breach of contract.

I'm a realist, so I would state it as: the providers have built and expanded a network to serve the needs of 98+% of their customer base. To serve the needs of each fractional percentage beyond that, the cost of operations increases exponentially.
reply

funchords @ 23rd Jun 10:16PM:
Questions: Would you use such a system?

said by Gbcue :

With this talk of priority tiers and paying more for it, this "method" is just screaming Net Neutrality!

So here's a thought. Let's say that there are three buckets:

1. Assured forwarding
2. Best effort
3. Less-than-best-effort

Now, let's say that
•EVERYTHING goes into bucket #2 unless you specifically request it
•all subscribers can put 25 GB/mo into bucket #1, and you cannot purchase more
•all subscribers can put an unlimited amount into bucket #3 and anything placed there does not apply against any cap

Questions:
- do you see a network neutrality problem here?
- would you use such a system, why or why not?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
reply

patcat88 @ 23rd Jun 10:21PM:
Re: They make no sense.

said by DataRiker :

Your describing a throttle by volume, which only slows p2p transfers making them last longer (IMO making the problem worse in the long term)

This new system will have to deal with the following situation:

User A is using p2p with some type of https transfer

User B is trying to pay his credit card bill online

How will it judge which packet is real https and which is not?

I doubt this will have any better results than sandive.

If they drive p2p to this expect millions of upset users who can't get a secure web page to work.

Rolling 7 day window of GB usage. Top 10 percentile on the node get lowest priority until they fall out of top 10 percentile. If node is never saturated, then there are no problems with being lowest priority.
reply

funchords @ 23rd Jun 10:23PM:
Re: I do not see why this has to be so complicated

said by Kearnstd :

however gaming isnt a #5 item, as it isnt as fault resistant. id put it over POP and SMTP. mail can run a tad slow and people wont notice it like another customer will a 400 ping in a game.

It's amazing how many people put mail in the high priority slot, and also how many perceive gaming as high-bandwidth.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
reply

Lazlow @ 23rd Jun 10:37PM:
Re: They make no sense.

patcat88

That unfairly penalizes those who do the majority of their downloading during non peak hours(which does not cause congestion or cost the ISP anything extra).
reply

Kearnstd @ 23rd Jun 10:43PM:
Re: I do not see why this has to be so complicated

said by funchords :

It's amazing how many people put mail in the high priority slot, and also how many perceive gaming as high-bandwidth.

i like to tell people gaming isnt bandwidth intensive, even with ventrilo tossed in.

the upload there is WoW during a 25man raid with inbound ventrilo traffic at maximum quality setting. Speex 10 quality. most of the time idle its at 2KiB/s tips inbound .1-.4 outbound unless xmit on vent.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

peaking

viperlmw @ 23rd Jun 10:45PM:
Remember Sandvine ?

»Don't Fear The Bandwidth Apocalypse
reply

fiberguy @ 23rd Jun 10:48PM:
Re: They make no sense.

said by DataRiker :

Well, there are ways to emulate http and https traffic

And given the track record in this cat and mouse game, expect the p2p community to be 2 steps ahead.

Those that try to circumvent and play anarchist are ALWAYS going to be a step or two ahead when they are the ones introducing what it is that needs to be challenged.
reply

fiberguy @ 23rd Jun 10:53PM:
Re: I do not see why this has to be so complicated

.. and here's another simple argument.. who's to say that my FTP data "can wait"... What if I'm trying to get a file to someone via FTP, which is NOT p2p, rather, it's just over the 10mb email limit and needs to go FTP.. such as art work for ad copy or what ever..

Sorry, but the P2P community is pushing into an area they have no grounds to stand on.. they need to humble themselves just a little before queen pelosi not only outlaws P2P, but maybe also considers taxing internet connections at 45% as she's stated in the past.

P2P'ers always try to claim that there is nothing illegal going on, which if that's the case, then there is nothing to talk about then, becuase P2P traffic that are things like patches and distros HARDLY are eating up the amount of the overall P2P traffic on the net.. however, movies, music and other software packages that have copyright claims on them ARE.
reply

BF69 @ 23rd Jun 10:58PM:
Re: They make no sense.

said by Ian :

said by UnKown :

its just saying that p2p traffic will get a lower priority than web browser traffic. In my opinion this is a fantastic idea. It essentially throttles big traffic files like videos down during peak times and lets the simple applications get priority. This way your 5 gig dvd copy movie your stealing uses the most amount of network resources in the evening and early morning.

Maybe...

Or maybe your perfectly legal movie download that you paid for from some service other than your ISP gets prioritized far below your ISP's over-priced craptacular offerings.

Are you in THAT big of a hurry to get your "legal" copy of a movie? I'm pretty sure Amazon and Itunes do NOT use p2p to deliver movies. Now NBC has this "NBC Direct" application that does that allows you to download temporary copies of HD TV shows that uses p2p. I won't use it. I'll be danmed if I use it. Ok so other computers are getting copies of stuff on MY computer. Why so some guy can make a hack that allows him access to ALL my files? I bet people that use p2p a lot have a higher % of being a victim of identity theft than most other people.
reply

fiberguy @ 23rd Jun 11:03PM:
Re: Time for the Content providers to pay their fair share.

You are kidding with this post, aren't you?
reply

Ian @ 23rd Jun 11:16PM:
Re: They make no sense.

said by BF69 :

said by Ian :

Maybe...

Or maybe your perfectly legal movie download that you paid for from some service other than your ISP gets prioritized far below your ISP's over-priced craptacular offerings.

So, in your own comment, you mention a P2P application that is totally legal which would be affected by the ISPs "management" of traffic. Call me cynical, but I think your cable or phone company wants the $$ for providing you HD content, when you want it.

(I'll ignore the FUD about P2P and identity theft)

How much in a hurry (or not) I am for for my legal material, be it a movie, tv show, or Linux ISO is my business, not the company with which I contract for an internet connection.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong
reply

Gbcue @ 23rd Jun 11:39PM:
Re: Questions: Would you use such a system?

That's the same thing Comcast is doing with filtering.
reply

Kearnstd @ 23rd Jun 11:51PM:
Re: I do not see why this has to be so complicated

Tier 1:
Http and FTP

Tier 2:
Gaming, VOIP and VPN.

Tier 3:
Streaming Media(trust me people call about their hulu and youtube being choppy A LOT more then pop3 being slow)

Tier 4:
Email Protocalls

Tier 5:
P2P, and other misc protocalls
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
reply

anon @ 24th Jun 12:14AM:
Re: simple answer:

said by tmc8080 :

split the nodes (more bandwidth in the last mile = more users getting closer to their paid for bandwidth tiers which are based upon the price you pay each month).

we can only speculate why they don't do this.. being a cheap & greedy company is a popular suspicion so we'll go with that.

Being very costly, with diminishing returns is another.

Doubling bandwidth on the last mile side usually means doubling equipment on the headend side, which often doubles rack space, cooling, and power requirements too.

The only service that really benefits directly is modem service. Splitting nodes does little for video and phone services.

...meanwhile they've got to keep up with the interest and payments on their multi-BILLION dollar loans they've previously taken out to pay for previous upgrades...
reply

patcat88 @ 24th Jun 12:18AM:
Re: They make no sense.

Whats downloading? 50% of your limit off peak, or 100% of your limit? Rolling window usage to assign priority levels is fair. If your node is not saturated, you have no reason to care.

What about the person who wants to torrent off peak, but not 24/7? are they to be placed in the same class as the person who torrents off peak 12/7/365?

Rolling window with percentile will separate the HTTS bill payer from the P2Per, without content discrimination.

The less you use, the higher your peak speed will be, and the more bursty it will be. If you want a circuit, your going to get treated like a circuit.

If you don't have a rolling window (much better than a powerboost bucket), how do you separate the user which will release the channel when they get their "task" done (download a 700mb movie via HTTP), vs a user that will NEVER release the channel and can never finish their "task" (a heavy P2P downloader, note most P2Pers eventually finish their downloads, their uploads are unstopable and unfinishable, but some P2Pers have a hoarding mentality and select to download 100s or 1000s of files and everything that shows up in the search, they never keep or watch or use everything they download).
reply

funchords @ 24th Jun 12:18AM:
Re: I do not see why this has to be so complicated

said by fiberguy :

P2P'ers always try to claim that there is nothing illegal going on

I've never heard that claim.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
reply

sonicmerlin @ 24th Jun 12:19AM:
Re: Dumb... Pipe

I totally agree with you. I can't understand why people at DSLR aren't screaming with years of pent-up rage over this.

They're acting like little lambs who are being lured into the wolf's den without realizing it.

Look people, any idea which violates the concept of Net Neutrality is A BAD IDEA.

Cable companies have NEVER, EVER justified their desire to 'manage' networks. They make billions and billions in profits every year, are essentially given monopoly positions by various state and local governments, and never reveal internal statistics.

All their SEC filings point to hugely profitable companies who are continually DECREASING the amount of money they invest into their networks. Why is it so hard for you to understand that?

Heavy users are merely the forerunners of the masses. They ride the wave of innovation, using new technologies that prop up creative and unique content companies. Their heavy usage forces ISPs to readjust their network forecasts and invest more into their networks.

Without heavy users ISPs would have no need to upgrade their networks, EVER.

Honestly, if people reading all the articles at DSLR and stopthecap are OK with being sliced and diced by ISPs, then I give up.
reply

sonicmerlin @ 24th Jun 12:22AM:
Re: simple answer:

Wow. Good job lying. I hope you feel better about yourself.

Let's all just ignore the amazing profits made by companies like TWC and Comcast. Sweep those under the rugs. Okay then.

And honestly, you are the first person I have EVER heard say splitting the node only benefits 'modem service', whatever that is. Please, do elaborate.
reply

funchords @ 24th Jun 12:22AM:
Re: I do not see why this has to be so complicated

Oh good God! STOP! Please?!

What if 20 years ago, someone decided to tier the Internet based on the the traffic patters popular in that day? HTTP would have never emerged to take the lead. VOIP wouldn't have made it off of the bench.

There's a reason why the net architecture means that protocol != priority. Because it simply is not.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
reply

sonicmerlin @ 24th Jun 12:24AM:
Re: This is not all that new ... needs more detail

Sigh...

If your FTP upload is highly urgent, then the ISP should be investing their billions in profit back into their network to make sure EVERYONE can use their connections as they see fit.

Don't blame end users for the ISPs being greedy and anti-competitive.
reply

funchords @ 24th Jun 12:35AM:
Re: This is not all that new ... needs more detail

said by sonicmerlin :

If your FTP upload is highly urgent, then the ISP should be investing their billions in profit back into their network to make sure EVERYONE can use their connections as they see fit.

Congratulations, you've been paying attention!

But what I actually said was that he was right for the most part.

This idea is consistent with what I've been telling ISPs as well: if you allow your users to help you decide relative priority, you'll find that their interests by and large match your own. P2P users like to surf the net, too, so they put their own P2P traffic on lower priority. Allow them to extend that idea and the whole neighborhood benefits. VOIP users tend to give that traffic higher precedence. So allow users to put a little bandwidth at high precedence and extend that priority through the network.

This "invention" is one way to implement that idea. (And the scare quotes don't mean it's my idea -- the prioritization schema is owing to the IETF and the web page interface was communicated to me by someone else and I don't know if it's even his idea.)

said by sonicmerlin :

Don't blame end users for the ISPs being greedy and anti-competitive.

That thought would never occur to me.

Somehow, I bet, we actually don't agree. But everything you've said above chimes with what I've been saying.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
reply

anon @ 24th Jun 12:37AM:
What is wrong with comcast's present approach?

Throttle ALL of an individual's traffic during peak hours if that individual is causing congestion problems. This is a sensible approach.

If the problem is truly congestion concerns then where is the evidence that this doesn't work.
I am very suspicious of clever new ideas when there are working simple solutions in place.

quote:
CableLabs uses this example: Customers wanting to use P2P on the cheap could get a service tier that offers big bandwidth and a low price -- but low priority as well. The caveat is that the tier would come with a "high likelihood of preemption," according to CableLabs.

...extra kick of speed to select traffic (or content partners) even when there's network congestion, according to the CableLabs document (pdf) quietly posted to the CableLabs website. That could allow cable operators to bill customers based on what the connection's used for. Instead of (or in addition to) metered billing, a carrier could offer "base Internet browsing" connections to some users, and "game or video hungry" connections to others.

If you bill based on what the connection is used for then we are back to paying by application(application discrimination). How is this other than a different way of stating what has been pushed for all along, leveraging control of the delivery system to get a piece of the content money?

We should not be paying by application or content. It's the internet age, we pay for routing of bits. Whatever content is being transmitted is the business of the end points, not the bit delivery system.
reply

Lazlow @ 24th Jun 12:46AM:
Re: They make no sense.

The ONLY time that downloading causes congestion is during peak hours. I do 99% of my downloading between 11pm and 8am (off peak here). This causes no congestion and does not cost the ISP anything extra. However I do like to browse (here and other places). Under your formula my browsing would be "throttled" because of my off peak downloading(which is causing a problem for no one). This is why a monthly or even daily download limit does not work. What needs to be done is to only count the usage during peak congestion. I can easily download(off peak ) 500GB+/month without contributing to the congestion while another person can download less than 150GB/month(1hr/night during peak congestion) and cause lots of congestion.

A pure proticol agnostic throttle during peak hours(only) is (in the short term) a good answer(which is what Comcast is using right now). The problem with this system is that there is the risk the ISPs will use it (long term) as an excuse not to upgrade their systems.
reply

Lazlow @ 24th Jun 12:51AM:
Re: I do not see why this has to be so complicated

Fiberguy

I think your reply is pretty funny, considering I do not p2p.
reply

HKM @ 24th Jun 01:06AM:
How did you folks let this happen?

What I like to know is how did all of you ComCRAP user let them get away with even establishing a CAP in first place. Yes, I am aware of the whole throttling packets using SPI/DPI based switch then after the undisclosed high bandwidth usage warning by OpsSec from their NOC. Even with the FCC vs ComCRAP fiasco I don't see why users accepted the 250GB/month bandwidth on all RES tiers.

Soon after ComCRAP deployed tier NMS and from what I hear folks are always deprioritized. Ooh wait that is due to overselling service that can't handle all user at same time. If they were worried about congestion then FCC should make some hard rules not to oversell BULLSHIT.

I don't care what both side anti and pro says what is clear is we in USA is way behind. They should make Cable Ops only serve cable and GTFO of Teleco world (VOIP) same goes for Teleco staying away from TV service (IPTV).

PS: What I like to know is when the Death Star has global IP MPLS backbone why are we suffering on DSL? WTF they don't just deploy FTTH and get over with it and not try to milk copper. I mean not like they don't have any fiber routes not laid in.
reply

hottboiinnc @ 24th Jun 01:08AM:
Re: They make no sense.

no you do not contract them for Internet. You contract them to provide you access to THEIR private network. In return as an added bonus they connect you to the WWW.
They can give you a wall garden as your "internet" and thats all they have to give you, since they're only leasing you the network half.
reply

Lazlow @ 24th Jun 01:12AM:
Re: They make no sense.

hottboiinnc

You may contract them for access to their private network but the VAST majority of users are contracting for access to the internet. Most of us want our ISP to be a simple dumb pipe.
reply

KrK @ 24th Jun 01:18AM:
Re: its a front

said by patcat88 :

And IP based cable IPTV services will magically be highest priority.

Yeah, and third party VOIP and Video will be part of the "unwashed masses" tiers... :(
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

reply

KrK @ 24th Jun 01:25AM:
Re: Time for the Content providers to pay their fair share.

said by Mr Matt :

:o This problem could be solved if the content providers pay their fair share for delivery of their content. Just paying for a connection to the Internet is not enough. I should know because I was a Bean Counter for an ISP. Expecting an ISP to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade their networks to carry a content providers traffic is not fair.

See Matt, I think the problem is one of perspective. An ISP is not being "required" to upgrade their network to carry content's provider's content. What's happening is *ISP customers* are wanting that content in increasing numbers and an ISP can choose to serve their customers OR let them go to the competition. The Content providers pay their bandwidth bills generated by ISP customers as they come to their site and download. They pay their share.

Now, you could say an ISP might be forced to increase prices on customers if network needs grow dramatically---- that's a fair enough argument... but this argument that "The content providers are getting a free ride--- they need to "chip in" to cover our expenses" is an argument that should be DOA.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

reply

notwrth10 @ 24th Jun 01:52AM:
Re: They make no sense.

and you want that dumb pipe for free right?
reply

insomniac84 @ 24th Jun 02:50AM:
Re: They make no sense.

said by DataRiker :

This new system will have to deal with the following situation:

User A is using p2p with some type of https transfer

User B is trying to pay his credit card bill online

How will it judge which packet is real https and which is not?

That https p2p is going to make many connections to different hosts and not just one connection. And it will try to transfer much more data. Depending on how good you detect it, it might get a few seconds of max speed, then you start to throttle it back.
reply

insomniac84 @ 24th Jun 02:55AM:
Re: They make no sense.

said by Lazlow :

insomniac84

Why should one type of traffic receive higher priority than others? I do not VOIP and my neighbor does (we pay the same amount for internet). Why should his data get a higher priority than mine? Protocol agnostic is the only fair way to go. First come, first serve.

Well it can be protocol agnostic. I am saying look at sustained rates for specific transfers to specific hosts. VoIp isn't going to try to max out a 15mps connection, while bittorrent or other downloading will. You can leave lower bandwidth stuff alone since it's not a problem. Just throttle stuff that tries to max out the connection back enough to free up the congestion. It's way better to have a torrent drop back a few hundred kbps than it is to screw with stuff that isn't trying to use all possible bandwidth. There is no point in trying to throttle a 50kbps transfer, if another transfer is going 14.95mbps. Just throttle the faster transfer. And we are probably only talking between like 5-7pm, max. If at all.

Just throttle the specific traffic causing the problem, leave everything else alone.
reply

espaeth @ 24th Jun 03:06AM:
Re: I do not see why this has to be so complicated

said by funchords :

said by fiberguy :

P2P'ers always try to claim that there is nothing illegal going on

I've never heard that claim.

.. you mean in the last 5 minutes, right?
reply

espaeth @ 24th Jun 03:12AM:
Re: Questions: Would you use such a system?

said by funchords :

•all subscribers can put 25 GB/mo into bucket #1, and you cannot purchase more

Monthly quotas are too granular. The realtime bitrate would need to be policed.

said by funchords :

•all subscribers can put an unlimited amount into bucket #3 and anything placed there does not apply against any cap

Ostensibly this would work for uploads, but how is it going to get marked coming in from the Internet for downloads?
reply

anon @ 24th Jun 07:19AM:
Re: simple answer:

said by sonicmerlin :

Wow. Good job lying. I hope you feel better about yourself.

What lies? Do you think "node splits" magically happen and don't take extra resources in the headend?

said by sonicmerlin :

Let's all just ignore the amazing profits made by companies like TWC and Comcast.

Sure the companies make money, but they also spend it... and are in hock up to their eyeballs.

Do you not know that TWC just lost $4 BILLION last fiscal year and added $10 BILLION more debt during it's spin off with TW Inc? Currently TWC has about $19 BILLION in debt, last year $9 BILLION, 2-years ago $15 BILLION. »finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=TWC

Comcast has $38 BILLION in debt, last year it was $36 BILLION, 2-years ago $33 BILLION. »finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=CMCSA&annual

Charter has about $17 BILLION in debt but it's been having trouble just paying interest and has filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. »finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=CHTRQ.PK&annual

said by sonicmerlin :

And honestly, you are the first person I have EVER heard say splitting the node only benefits 'modem service', whatever that is. Please, do elaborate.

Modem service aka high speed internet aka cable internet service. Is that hard to figure out?

How does splitting a node really benefit TV service? The standard analog and digital channels are all broadcast from a common feed. SDV and VOD might benefit, but only if there are capacity problems and the cable provider also throws more headend equipment at those services too.

How does splitting a node benefit phone service? Phone service on cable has a few technical variations but all either don't use the same data channel as internet service or if they do, get priority, dedicated bandwidth during calls. The internet service would suffer long before phone service does.
reply

espaeth @ 24th Jun 03:26AM:
Re: simple answer:

said by sonicmerlin :

Let's all just ignore the amazing profits made by companies like TWC and Comcast. Sweep those under the rugs. Okay then.

»www.google.com/finance?q=twc
»www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3ACMCSA

Yes, those net profit margins of 4.22% for TWC and 8.81% for Comcast are amazing... amazingly normal?

said by sonicmerlin :

And honestly, you are the first person I have EVER heard say splitting the node only benefits 'modem service', whatever that is. Please, do elaborate.

Nodes simply segment the RF / Coax plant, and node splits only benefit unique content on each segment. So a node split isn't going to give you more broadcast channels or any kind of tangible broadcast video gains.

He's right in that you do gain a unique DOCSIS data channel for data at the expense of another head-end port, and you might also gain some additional channels for VoD, however, those channels are usually shared across multiple nodes. (ie, you can split the fiber feed at the head-end and send identical signals to multiple nodes.)
reply

Lazlow @ 24th Jun 03:31AM:
Re: They make no sense.

insomniac84

What you have just described is what Comcast is doing now.

The time frame will also shift from market to market. Here 7pm-10pm will (usually) be more congested than 5-7pm.
reply

espaeth @ 24th Jun 03:42AM:
Re: Time for the Content providers to pay their fair share.

I'm not sure I follow? Why is it the content provider's fault if the ISP isn't pricing their connection in a manner that would provide funding for suitable upgrades?
reply

elios @ 24th Jun 05:05AM:
Re: I do not see why this has to be so complicated

get a SO/HO plan that doesnt have QoS but cost more
say the normal res 10/1 is $50/month
a SO/HO would be 200/month for 10/1 but no QoS restrictions
reply

elios @ 24th Jun 05:08AM:
Re: I do not see why this has to be so complicated

wile not high bandwidth it IS sensative to lag
if VOIP is higher then every thing else gaming should be too
sure it doesnt use much bandwidth but if the node is congested your ping is going to go up
reply

yt @ 24th Jun 06:58AM:
Re: Is it P2P they're after?

said by S_engineer :

Are you suggesting that ~~some of these~~ ALL providers oversold their networks

Fixed that for you. And the answer is yes, since the beginning of the Internet. It is designed that way.
reply

yt @ 24th Jun 07:33AM:
Re: Questions: Would you use such a system?

said by funchords :

So here's a thought. Let's say that there are three buckets:

1. Assured forwarding
2. Best effort
3. Less-than-best-effort

Now, let's say that
•EVERYTHING goes into bucket #2 unless you specifically request it
•all subscribers can put 25 GB/mo into bucket #1, and you cannot purchase more
•all subscribers can put an unlimited amount into bucket #3 and anything placed there does not apply against any cap

Questions:
- do you see a network neutrality problem here?
- would you use such a system, why or why not?

As a network engineer I personally think this the most logical and safest evolution from "best effort". It provides quality of service that is user managed. It allows me, as a customer, to prioritize my bits within my home as well as within my ISPs network. It puts the customer in control of network management. e.g. my Skype conference call vs. my multi-tasking web surfing, email attachment sending, etc. .

It is "neutral" if the customer chooses to use it or not and manages the "buckets".

There are potential pit falls to this, but with proper watch dog groups and telco/cable/wireless competition, it can succeed.
•how many "priority" bits come with my service?
•how do you do capacity planning around "best" and "less-than best" effort traffic?
•can we do interprovider QoS? - not likely

Second question... Can an ISP also offer these priorities to their large content / transit customers without violating net-neutrality principals? End to end QoS?

PS While I agree with the 3 buckets, I expect ISP marketing departments will want to tailor them some.
reply

anon @ 24th Jun 07:59AM:
How about something like this:

Now, I'll admit I didn't read all the comments, so if this was already suggested, feel free to mock me to no end.

I use a small regional cable company who, despite having some latency issues, provides great reliable, fast cable modem for a reasonable price. Even the latency issues are come and go. Anyhow, to the point.

There are tons of users on the lower speed tier (I'm on 10/2, there are tiers all the way down to 1.5). Why not allow the large bandwidth users USE that bandwidth, as, especially in this case, most people are just surfing the web and checking their email? My downloading, even maxed out, is not going to interfere with their daily weather report check.

So I propose a slight reverse, leave the priority levels alone *until* the users who are low usage users have a spike in bandwidth requirements (Joe Blow decides he's going to legally download something large, who knows, I'm just spitballing here). Then, take the heavy user and lower the priority. That way, the people who use a lot don't need to worry about it UNLESS there is a higher demand, not just an arbitrary reduction in speed during times XYZ because some jack who never uses 1/10th of his bandwidth is on his computer?
reply

Vchat20 @ 24th Jun 07:59AM:
Re: They make no sense.

I have to completely agree with you. This makes total sense and I only hope that the cable companies actually actively jump on it as a working QOS system.

Thinking of bit torrent for example which is going to be the primary offender in the high bandwidth category, it is NEVER guaranteed speed-wise. Everyone you download from is gonna be on other residential ISPs with varying speeds, other peers or torrents they may be on, all kinds of factors. This compared to a straight HTTP download from a server on a fast pipe.

Take that example and if the ISP needs to throttle that high bandwidth use back, it's not going to have much visible or detrimental effect to anyone while greatly helping congestion issues on the network.

Long story short: With most data it is a case of high bandwidth apps are not realtime dependent and can be throttled back without any detriment except for taking a little bit longer to download. And low bandwidth applications usually need high priority and realtime access.

I am completely behind this option if we MUST have some form of traffic/bandwidth control. I would choose this over metered billing especially if some ISPs get their way and force anemically low caps on their customers.
--
I swear, some people should have pace-makers installed to free up the resources. Breathing and heart beat taxes their whole system, all of their brain cells wasted on life support.-two bit brains, and the second bit is wasted on parity! ~head_spaz
reply

Ian @ 24th Jun 08:28AM:
Re: They make no sense.

said by hottboiinnc :

no you do not contract them for Internet. You contract them to provide you access to THEIR private network. In return as an added bonus they connect you to the WWW.
They can give you a wall garden as your "internet" and thats all they have to give you, since they're only leasing you the network half.

Oh really? May want to send that memo to their marketing departments.

"Comcast High-Speed Internet offers the fastest speeds out there over our advanced fiber-optic network. It's way faster than DSL."

AT&T

"Unlimited high-speed Internet access"
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong
reply

sphinxguy18 @ 24th Jun 08:38AM:
Bull Crap!

I agree with a lot of people in here, it's just another way for them to stick it to you ....

Why don't they finally just spend the g'dam* money and upgrade the out dated network to something better and/or quit putting 80 million people on one node!

God I hate cable operators!
reply

axiomatic @ 24th Jun 11:13AM:
Wasted effort

What these cable companies fail to realize is that if this causes P2P to become to cumbersome to use someone will just come up with another Peer protocol and then this whole effort becomes moot.

This is basically like trying to piss in to the wind.
reply

funchords @ 24th Jun 12:15PM:
Re: I do not see why this has to be so complicated

said by espaeth :

said by funchords :

said by fiberguy :

P2P'ers always try to claim that there is nothing illegal going on

I've never heard that claim.

.. you mean in the last 5 minutes, right?

No, it's a foolish thing to say on its face. It's flame bait. "Nothing illegal going on" -- nobody would say that.

What we do say is that there is legal P2P going on.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
reply

funchords @ 24th Jun 12:17PM:
Re: Questions: Would you use such a system?

said by espaeth :

Ostensibly this would work for uploads, but how is it going to get marked coming in from the Internet for downloads?

Beyond the problematic solution of saying at the access routers detected by DPI, do you have any better ideas? Maybe in IP6 land, using a different IP?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
reply

smokarz @ 24th Jun 12:21PM:
Re: Wasted effort

man, i sure missed the good old days of DIAL UP.

sure it was SLOW, but I had a DUMP PIPE at my disposal, and did what the f*ck i wanted with it.
reply

funchords @ 24th Jun 12:23PM:
Re: Questions: Would you use such a system?

Yeah, the example is simple but it isn't elegant. A 25 GB cap isn't the right Assured Forwarding quota, but it's easy to think about for discussion's sake.

said by yt :

Second question... Can an ISP also offer these priorities to their large content / transit customers without violating net-neutrality principals? End to end QoS?

I've always presumed they do this anyway. How else are virtual end-to-end private networks created? Where I don't want to see QoS happen is between services on the Internet that remains (unless the user is in control). Or between a particular content provider and the Internet at large (the clear-cut NN problems).
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
reply

geonap @ 24th Jun 12:59PM:
you people are freaks

everything after a while when becoming more profitable will then be divided and people will try to figure out how to suck more "monies" out of it, i say "monies" because it's like a bad email nigerian scam, the internet providers are pretty much talking in scamming languages.

whoever supports this idea that we pay to get on the internet, they don't guarantee a route to the actual internet.. if i recall correctly, that's pretty much an intranet.

then you figure, lets de-prioritize everything and make it fast. no, how about we pay for 20 megs, we get 20 megs. my datacenter doesn't de-prioritize anything and i can get good bandwidth for 4 dollars a meg. take all the committed bandwidth charter and ATT could have with this overselling crap, they have the lines and they have the network.

sooner or later, we'll see a conversation about the states having to pay a tax for every gig of transfer from/to that state and the fact that delivery of data to and from a state will also have an increase of prices at the hand of the telco and cable companies.

i recently cancelled charter and i told them their speeds sucked most of the time, they told me that they were giving me the fastest in the area -- 20 megs. i said offering is one thing, delivering is another.

i bet the people here who propose all these caps and de-prioritization and all that other wonderful mumbo jumbo about the pipe being private and content delivery companies need to pay money to the internet provider are POOR, they're wanna be republicans -- that's what i see a lot. People who sometimes are for big business don't know anything about business.

we first started paying for internet, everything was unlimited and juicy.. great and stuff, text used to be free with cell phones too -- right ? as soon as they're too lazy to move over to the next generation, spend money like other countries (and yes, i know.. other countries are government subsidized networks and much smaller so it's easier to handle those situations) they use network capacity as the culprit... well -- i dont care if network capacity is lacking, the fact is that there is network capacity, backbones have enough fiber to feed our habit and once the bigger profit eating companies spend the money they give to their share holders on infrastructure improvements, we would all be much better off..

REMEMBER, THIS IS AMERICA. WE GROW ALL THE TIME, WHY ISN'T OUR FREAKING INTERNET CAPACITY GROWING?
--
Operation Northwoods
"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious" -Oscar Wilde
»www.whatreallyhappened.com/
»tinyurl.com/pxq278
»www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.asp
reply

yt @ 24th Jun 01:08PM:
Re: Questions: Would you use such a system?

said by funchords :

Where I don't want to see QoS happen is between services on the Internet that remains (unless the user is in control). Or between a particular content provider and the Internet at large (the clear-cut NN problems).

The second half is my question. Would it be "OK" for a user to request end to end QoS from a content provider? Now the rub is that the content provider would have to be directly connected to the ISP (a transit customer or a peer) as Inter-provider QoS is even harder (technically and politically) than Inter-provider SLAs.

It's a bit sticky, but there are benefits.
reply

funchords @ 24th Jun 01:12PM:
Re: Questions: Would you use such a system?

I think this is how the RSVP protocol works (although that has a multicast component to it).

I think Interprovider QoS ought not be as hard as people make it out to be. What's the issue, really? But that's a different problem for a different day. Let's get the residential ISP and customers working together, then we can knock on the next door.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
reply

anon @ 24th Jun 06:18PM:
Re: They make no sense.

And I contracted for HDTV too, but instead I get their crap upconverted 480 signal that looks like crap, but is modulated on their HD channel offerings, and counted by them as a high Def channel.....

I pay for internet. What I access or how I access, or how often I access is none of their business.!!!!!
If they don't want to be an "Internet Service Provider", then get the hell out of the internet business.
Don't offer me their crap and call it internet, by their definition.
reply

kasar @ 24th Jun 07:16PM:
That's it..

I'm calling them every day for help... from my third party VOIP line.

I can hear fine, but even with their 3 Mbit uplink speed, it's choppy and garbled from here. Maybe I'll see how much I can download while talking to them. The port has QoS and priority on my router, so it should still work.

I'll bet their services use different ports.
reply

kasar @ 24th Jun 07:21PM:
Re: you people are freaks

The quantity of dark fiber the CLEC's have already in place is enormous. There was dramatic overbuilding in the dot-com days as they tried after-the-fact to build to fill ISP orders.

There are reasons Japan offers 160 mbit connections for the equivalent of $40/month. Most involve markets and competition, things US companies are increasingly insulated from.
reply

mackey @ 26th Jun 04:56AM:
Re: They make no sense.

said by insomniac84 :

If a user has a torrent going and that traffic needs to be throttled by half during an hour of congestion, fine. But that user should still be able to use their internet for surfing the web or other things. Cutting them off completely is a punishment for no reason.

The ISP's should be implementing QoS that is passive to the user that ensures certain "unknown" services are deprioritized if those "unknown" services are trying to use too much bandwidth. The end user should see only this traffic fall, but be able to continue to play xbox and surf the web(both lower bandwidth tasks).

They tried that. And promptly got sued for Network Neutrality violations. It is impossible to implement this and still be Network Neutral. Cutting off or throttling the entire connection is the ONLY "fair" solution. To try and throttle selective services as you describe is an instant NN lawsuit.

People want their 10,000 terrabit/sec connections. And they want it for $0. And they will use 100% of it's capacity 24/7/365. If their bandwidth-hungry apps get throttled they'll cry foul and sue. If they are capped / throttled they'll bitch and moan "well you sold me a 10,000 terrabit/sec connection and I want to use it NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW!" It's lose-lose for the ISPs.

/mackey
reply

Lazlow @ 26th Jun 12:49PM:
Re: They make no sense.

mackey

While a lot of what you say is true, I will not agree that the ISPs are in a loose situation. If I remember TWCs 10k correctly, they cleared $4 billion in 08. They may not be making the huge profits that they have become accustom to over that last decade or two, but it is not a money loosing proposition for them. When you take into account CV's public statement that upgrading their system to D3 was going to cost them between $70-$120 per customer, even bandwidth upgrades are not that expensive.
reply

SuperWISP @ 27th Jun 02:44PM:
It's good to see some innovation and experimentation.

Clearly, there has to be some limit on the amount of bandwidth a consumer can use. Bandwidth costs money -- often a lot of money, especially in rural areas. And since the Internet is a shared medium, there will never be enough to allow anyone to consume an infinite amount.

We can therefore expect to see a lot of experimentation with bandwidth metering, shaping, throttling, and capping. Some of the innovations will be technical; some economic; some in marketing. And you can expect some of the earliest experiments to be hamhanded and klutzy. That's the nature of experimentation. But eventually, the industry will converge on a few schemes that are palatable to consumers and fair to providers. It's good to see that this process is now underway.
reply