Comcast: Metered Billing Is Not The Answer - Upgrading to DOCSIS 3.0, traffic shaping will be...
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
Comcast: Metered Billing Is Not The Answer
Upgrading to DOCSIS 3.0, traffic shaping will be...
04:18PM Thursday Feb 07 2008 by Karl
tags: prices · business · bandwidth · cable · Comcast
While Time Warner Cable may be considering per-byte billing, the majority of companies we've spoken to say they have no plans to follow suit. Comcast was publicly non-committal to our inquiry one way or the other, though reports have indicated they've tested the idea to their CEO's approval -- but won't be implementing it out of fear of user backlash. IP Democracy, citing anonymous sources, says Comcast executives continue to say privately they don't believe that metered billing is the answer:
Comcast isn't fond of this metered usage approach because it doesn't solve the bandwidth problem that P2P applications create, company representatives reportedly said during the meeting. In other words, Comcast doesn't plan to go with a metered approach any time soon. I contacted one Comcast executive to confirm that Comcast won't follow Time Warner's tentative lead, at least not in the near future. Here's what he said: "Most [ISPs] recognize that a metered approach doesn't solve peak-hour usage pressures. We (and I'm sure all ISPs) will watch TW's plan with interest.
Of course, after all of the criticism created after we broke the news of Time Warner Cable's plan, it's possible that Time Warner execs got a sneak preview of the public's sour reaction and have already scrapped the idea.

With the plethora of new revenue streams ISPs are embracing on top of monthly triple-play income (advertising via webmail, BVAS, selling your clickstream data, DNS Redirection revenue, charging to get around spam filters, targeted behavioral advertising) it's painfully disingenuous for any large, incumbent provider to argue they're not making enough money to sufficiently upgrade their networks under the current flat-rate pricing model.

Last year Comcast's Steve Craddock insisted that "cable can go deploy DOCSIS 3.0 for a couple billion dollars -- It’s the kind of money we can find in the sofa cushions" -- in other words cash for upgrades is not a problem. And Comcast is already handling high-consumption users through account termination & traffic shaping. There's no real way for Comcast to justify a move to metered billing.

Related:
  1. Comcast Installs DOCSIS 3.0 In Two New Markets
  2. Comcast Makes Upstream Speed Boost Official
  3. Comcast To Deploy Femtocells
  4. Comcast, Cox, Trot Out Their Worst 'Bandwidth Hogs'
  5. Beating Comcast's Sandvine On Linux With Iptables
  6. Comcast Unveils New International VoIP Plans
  7. Time Warner Cable: Caps 'Make Your Internet Experience Better'
  8. Comcast Expands Switched Digital Video Trials
Links: New Topic
Forums »
page: 1 · 2
Jonbo298 @ 7th Feb 04:01PM:
Though...

I have a distaste for Traffic Shaping, if it came down to choosing either bill by the GByte, or traffic shaping, I'd take shaping. But thats why I'm hoping the Telco's don't flock to one of these "ideas".

If it becomes more of an issue, the next thing after Bittorrent will arrive and then a new battle will wage at some point.
reply
BabyBear @ 7th Feb 04:06PM:
Not Byte'ing

"Yes we are not going to a 'by-the-byte' service that is not answer(Mutters under breath - BY THE HOUR is where its at!)." :o
reply
TK Junk Mail @ 7th Feb 04:06PM:
Tactics vs strategy

If you read the WHOLE news item:
Hoping to lay helpful groundwork as potentially sympathetic parties get ready to file comments in the FCC inquiry into how broadband providers deal with P2P, top cable operator Comcast has held DC briefings on its P2P traffic management practices (which triggered the inquiry in the first place.)

During one meeting yesterday, according to sources, Comcast execs reiterated that the filtering technology it deploys doesn't block P2P applications but merely slows them down. Even then the goal is to slow down uploads and only during peak periods of network congestion.

More interesting, however, is Comcast's position on metered broadband usage. Fellow cable operator Time Warner has announced it will test consumption-based pricing for high-speed service as a way of managing networking congestion.

Comcast isn't fond of this metered usage approach because it doesn't solve the bandwidth problem that P2P applications create, company representatives reportedly said during the meeting. In other words, Comcast doesn't plan to go with a metered approach any time soon.

I contacted one Comcast executive to confirm that Comcast won't follow Time Warner's tentative lead, at least not in the near future. Here's what he said: "Most [ISPs] recognize that a metered approach doesn't solve peak-hour usage pressures. We (and I'm sure all ISPs) will watch TW's plan with interest."

Sounds like Comcast won't rule out ever offering metered broadband service, but clearly metered broadband isn't a solution that Comcast is itching to deploy.
I think what we are seeing here is that Comcast, facing an FCC inquiry, doesn't want to hold out bill-by-byte as an ALTERNATIVE to its P2P management techniques. After they can successfully defend their P2P throttling methods, I still think bill-by-byte will be seriously considered, based on actions by other North American cable companies.

If, however, the FCC makes a ruling that P2P throttling is forbidden, I would expect Comcast & others to immediately consider bill-by-byte as a favored alternative.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
reply
zed260 @ 7th Feb 04:06PM:
Re: Though...

i dont mind paying by the gigabyte as long as no traffic shaping
reply
BabyBear @ 7th Feb 04:11PM:
Re: Tactics vs strategy

said by TK Junk Mail :

If, however, the FCC makes a ruling that P2P throttling is forbidden, I would expect Comcast & others to immediately consider bill-by-byte as a favored alternative.
They already got the 'forged' packet thing going for them, so they could leave the byte billing on the back burner for a while longer. ;)
reply
RadioDoc @ 7th Feb 04:11PM:
They'll never do it

Because if they did, all of the low-usage suckers currently paying $59 for email and casual web surfing will be down somewhere in the $15-$20 range, thus scuttling their "sofa cushion" pirate ship of extreme profits. Pretty hard to switch to a usage billing model without dramatically lowering the base rate.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
reply
Raptor @ 7th Feb 04:17PM:
Who are these people, and have they ever used the Internets?

"Comcast isn't fond of this metered usage approach because it doesn't solve the bandwidth problem that P2P applications create..."
Yes it would. A soon as mom and dad receive their $300 Internet bill, Junior would never leave his torrents running uncapped 24/7 again. And would think twice about the need to download 85 Linux distros a month.

I'm not necessarily for it without seeing the pricing scheme, but it would certainly kill the people who are unnecessarily downloading things/leaving torrents/irc/etc running all the time. Plus it would create a new revenue source, or it could, depending on whether the bloaters offset the lite users. That whole 1% uses 99% thing may be put to the test.

"Most [ISPs] recognize that a metered approach doesn't solve peak-hour usage pressures"
Oh? Neither does over selling the node and then throttling the sh*t out of peoples connections and calling it traffic management, while placing the blame on all those pirates!!

Your crappy network should be able to handle peak usage, that's why it's called peak usage. It happens every damn day during the same time. Deal with it instead of causing a service degradation. Otherwise, people shouldn't have to pay full price for 4pm-9pm (5 hours x 30 days = 150 hours = 6.25 of lost days of throttling per month). I guess that calls for a 20% reduction in all of our bills.

They're all having their cake, eating it too, on fine china, leaving us to clear the table, do the dishes, and fly them back to their house in a private jet.
--
....where's my fiber?
reply
TheWickerMan @ 7th Feb 04:19PM:
Re: Though...

said by Jonbo298 :

I have a distaste for Traffic Shaping, if it came down to choosing either bill by the GByte, or traffic shaping, I'd take shaping.
Reluctantly, I have to agree. I don't want to go back to the early to mid 90's where I had to constantly worry about how much I was on the internet. After a few months of running up bills in excess of $100, I found a rare-at-the-time flat-rate provider.

Funny thing, a few months after that, a telemarketer called me trying to sell me internet service at the low cost of "only" $x/hour. When I told him I was already getting unlimited usage for $19/month, he seemed shocked. I don't think he even knew such a thing existed. It's always funny listening to them stammer and try to "save" the call, before finally realizing they have nothing to sell you. :D
reply
jmn1207 @ 7th Feb 04:27PM:
Re: They'll never do it

said by RadioDoc :

Because if they did, all of the low-usage suckers currently paying $59 for email and casual web surfing will be down somewhere in the $15-$20 range, thus scuttling their "sofa cushion" pirate ship of extreme profits. Pretty hard to switch to a usage billing model without dramatically lowering the base rate.
That's what I'm wondering. If the heavy bandwidth users only make up a small percentage of people, how would Comcast create a rate that makes as much money as they currently bring in? Certainly a large portion of these bandwidth hogs will switch services (if possible) or stop their activity. If the base rate is unreasonable, I'd rather have 3MB/384 unlimited DSL service than 16MB/2MB metered. I'm guessing that many others feel the same.

If anything, a metered billing format is a bit of an unknown. The earnings for each month could dramatically vary. It's one thing to start a business model fully based on this type of payment system, but to transition to it is another situation. It would require a complete reorganization and it would take months before any type of reasonable strategy could be decided upon. The bigger the company, the greater the unknowns, and the greater the risk.
reply
Karl @ 7th Feb 04:36PM:
Re: They'll never do it

I assume they'd keep all base rates the same, and just begin by charging painful overage fees for users who consumer more than a certain amount. Then, over the next decade as independent video delivery starts to really eat their cable subscription lunch, they can keep nudging those ceilings downward (their own video properties like Fancast exempt from the caps of course).

It for me always comes back to which ISP wants to shoot themselves in the marketing face by publicly stating they're going to be the first American ISP to charge overages. Does any cable operator in FiOS territory really think that's a good idea?
reply
Skeedatl @ 7th Feb 04:41PM:
Cox does both

said by News Item :
There's no real way for Comcast to justify a move to metered billing.


Why not? Cox does monthly usage tiers (apparently unenforced) AND anti-P2P traffic shaping.

Meanwhile from everything I read, what TWC is testing isn't Pay-By-The-Byte, it's tiered service just like Cox. Pay by the byte is pay by the byte. What Cox does (and from what I understand, TWC is planning for that test market) is charge different prices for different monthly usage limits; tiers.
reply
tmc8080 @ 7th Feb 04:45PM:
Pass it along..

Comcast might want to pass that along to Time Warner & Video Tron... throttling bittorrent isn't the answer either. It would be fair to QOS prioritize VOIP & web traffic.. which would make the other p2p packets 3rd or 4th in the priority lineup, especially during peak usage periods.. 3pm to 1am(ish) weekdays. That doesn't mean skimp on the aggregate bandwidth. Also, improving customer service & providing faster install/repair times should be made better.
reply
jmn1207 @ 7th Feb 04:47PM:
Re: They'll never do it

And they would most definitely have to provide the usage caps, finally. And if it varied from region to region due to limitations of their infrastructure, that would make it real easy for competitors to identify areas to grow their own business, and what areas to avoid.
reply
Raptor @ 7th Feb 04:52PM:
Re: They'll never do it

said by Karl :

keep all base rates the same, and just begin by charging painful overage fees for users who consumer more than a certain amount...
Oooo' Canadaaaa.....
reply
jarablue @ 7th Feb 04:56PM:
LOL let's meter education too!!!

Meter information? Um does that sound right? Should we burn books too now?

Metering the internet. What ass clown thought this up?
reply
RadioDoc @ 7th Feb 05:14PM:
Re: They'll never do it

That's not a true usage-based metered system then. It's a penalty for exceeding your "flat rate" allotment.

I still think all of the usage cap rhetoric has a more sinister motive than just "network management" and cutting the cable hogs off at the trough. Somewhere in there a cabal of lawyers are incubating a way to interfere with IP-based video originating from outside their revenue cloud without tripping the "neutrality" wire.

Or maybe they're just greedy pigs.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
reply
tiger72 @ 7th Feb 05:19PM:
Re: Though...

said by zed260 :

i dont mind paying by the gigabyte as long as no traffic shaping
If you're not consuming a lot of bandwidth, you likely won't be traffic-shaped.

I would support a mix of the two: traffic-shapping AFTER a user meets a certain level of monthly transfers (~100GB). This solves high-usage BT clients which are the major source of their network problems.
--
|- The LP »www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml -|
|- Cato @ Liberty »www.cato-at-liberty.org -|
|- Ron Paul »www.ronpaul2008.com/ -|
reply
Zerny @ 7th Feb 05:25PM:
geez

So any idea how much id use if i played World of Warcraft 6 to 8 hours a day 5 or 6 days a week? Im usually down for a few hours of hardcore porn after I get done playing also.
reply
openbox9 @ 7th Feb 05:30PM:
Re: Though...

You can always throw in QoS and weight the high bandwidth/large number of connections apps (i.e. P2P apps) at the bottom and let everything flow freely. That way you aren't shaped, bill-per-byte isn't needed as much, and everyone will be happy...except for the hogs that want to download the Internet via their P2P app and their "unlimited" residential connection. P2P apps would be able to roam freely during non-peak usage times such as early morning through midday.
reply
tiger72 @ 7th Feb 05:34PM:
Re: Though...

said by openbox9 :

You can always throw in QoS and weight the high bandwidth/large number of connections apps (i.e. P2P apps) at the bottom and let everything flow freely. That way you aren't shaped, bill-per-byte isn't needed as much, and everyone will be happy...except for the hogs that want to download the Internet via their P2P app and their "unlimited" residential connection. P2P apps would be able to roam freely during non-peak usage times such as early morning through midday.
If TWC and Comcast did that, i'd be just fine. HTTP, -> FTP inbound -> SMTP -> NNTP -> P2P. The current Comcast forged packet stuff is indeed unnecessary when they could just use simple QoS rules...
--
|- The LP »www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml -|
|- Cato @ Liberty »www.cato-at-liberty.org -|
|- Ron Paul »www.ronpaul2008.com/ -|
reply
openbox9 @ 7th Feb 05:34PM:
Re: LOL let's meter education too!!!

The same "ass clowns" that meter the backbones to the ISPs. Metered billing is by now means a new concept and it happens daily across various networks.
reply
openbox9 @ 7th Feb 05:41PM:
Re: Though...

I agree. QoS is the future to keep a majority of customers happy. Of course the P2P users won't like it, but a majority of people would be happy that they're now able to surf, read e-mail, and upload their photos to Walmart without a problem.

If I were king for a day, I'd look at the most used services/protocols and then weight them higher. I'd also look at the most resource consuming services/protocols and weight them with the lowest priority. There may be a few services/protocols here and there outside of the basic model, but you can handle the exceptions on a case by case basis.
reply
espaeth @ 7th Feb 06:06PM:
Re: Pass it along..

said by tmc8080 :

It would be fair to QOS prioritize VOIP & web traffic.. which would make the other p2p packets 3rd or 4th in the priority lineup, especially during peak usage periods..
There's a couple problems with this.

1) P2P users tend to cloak their traffic. (think encryption) If you boosted the priority of a traffic type, it's guaranteed that P2P developers would also try to mask their traffic to look like the favored applications.

2) Routers are built to move packets at line rate which means they're not going to have the time/resources to do deep packet inspection and act on it, at least not at the performance levels that are expected today.

Sandvine gets a mirror copy of the traffic going through the routing hardware using either SPAN sessions or network taps. It analyzes the traffic on its own processing time (without impacting normal packet delivery) and injects a reset to connections that it deems in violation of the configured policy. You'll notice users reporting that it takes a few seconds for the connection to be reset because it takes that long for Sandvine to recognize the stream and issue the reset. Routers only have a couple microseconds (fractions of a millisecond) to look at each packet and sling it to the destination interface.

What actually may work is a layered approach. QoS could indeed be used for applications that accurately represent themselves, but perhaps Sandvine would still need to be in place to still aggressively close connections for services that try to cloak themselves.
reply
fonzbear2000 @ 7th Feb 06:19PM:
What is traffic shaping?

I read about it here: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_shaping but that is too technological and makes NO sense. Can someone please give a more simple explanation. Thanks.
--
i wish qwest would die! i want FIOS!
reply
rradina @ 7th Feb 06:26PM:
Does QOS really work?

I've read several comments in this thread regarding QOS and putting P2P at the bottom of the list. I certainly understand QOS in a corporate private network where IT is in control of the applications, protocols and ports being used across the link. How does this work in an environment where the applications, protocols and ports change like the wind? Isn't it like trying to catch a terrorist entering a stadium. Lots of people going in but it's tough to find that one nut job masquerading as normal. Certainly the security folks can profile guys who look like Osama Bin Laden but that will only guarantee the bad guys shave the beard and ditch the turbans. Now what?

In other words, if VOIP is prioritized, won't P2P try to masquerade itself as VOIP? Even if it cannot possibly do this, how about VPN? I use it all the time. How does the ISP know I'm not P2Ping through my VPN connection? Or will my VPN traffic now also be at the bottom of the list making working from home impossible during peak hours?

What if ISPs provided a way for customers to prioritize their own traffic? Obviously the honor system wouldn't work so there would have to be a way to manage it. Would an intelligent customer premises device (CPD) work? I know this could get potentially beyond the technical expertise of the masses but if we assume this is possible, now the customer can prioritize their own traffic and the CPD prioritizes the traffic at the link layer rather than the IP layer. If not the link layer, perhaps each CPD is given two IP addresses and based on customer configuration, the CPD controls which address (the high priority one versus the normal priority one) application-specific traffic uses. Combine this with a TOS that provides x-gigabytes per month of priority traffic. If you use it up, ALL your traffic is regular priority.

Now the customer can place their VOIP, video conferencing, VPN and other traffic at a priority while declaring their P2P traffic at regular priority.

No caps. No shaping. No net neutrality issues. The customer is in control. If they try to prioritize too much traffic, all their traffic goes to regular priority for the rest of the month. I know this is a bit like the FAP on satellite but I think it's different because the customer is in control. Along with each speed tier, the ISP could also offer the customer to pay for additional priority traffic. Again, the customer is in control and they can tailor their connection to meet their needs.

With this kind of arrangement, you could have the 7x24 torrent download at low priority -- getting whatever bandwidth is left -- but if you want the latest Linux distro now, hit a web page on the CPD, declare your torrent traffic as priority, grab the distro at full speed and then lower your torrent traffic back to normal.

If we get get this far, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to enable the CPD to publish HTTP-based web services to which applications could interface and start provide integrated prioritization. Now the masses have the "automatic transmission" they need because their applications can make it easy for them to choose high/low priority.

Am I dreaming?
reply
bentman78 @ 7th Feb 06:31PM:
If they can't take some p2p now....

What are they going to do when the real bandwidth hungry media services such as VOD and sites like Hulu and Joost take off?

If I pay I expect to be able to watch HD TV and play TF2 without lag...that's the way I see it. Since I don't really download movies or illegal music (I do download from Amazon) that isn't a concern for me. It's when my wife is watching HDTV upstairs, I'm playing playing TF2 downstairs while recording more HD content on my DVR or watching my Netflix that I want to get what I paid for.
--
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. " - Thomas Jefferson
reply
anon @ 7th Feb 06:55PM:
Re: LOL let's meter education too!!!

said by openbox9 :

The same "ass clowns" that meter the backbones to the ISPs. Metered billing is by now means a new concept and it happens daily across various networks.
Yes, 95th percentile billing... I'll gladly go with that on my connection instead of be nickel and dimed to death by paying grossly inflated per GB prices...
reply
anon @ 7th Feb 06:59PM:
Re: Though...

said by tiger72 :

VoIP -> VPN -> HTTP/SMTP -> FTP inbound -> NNTP -> P2P.
Tweaked it for you... Basically you have your most important, time sensitive apps at the top and the less sensitive traffic at the bottom.

If providers would do that across the board, without charging anyone extra (ie charging Vonage, etc. more for that higher QoS), I'd have no problems with it, so long as the providers realize that QoS only saves you for only so long before you have to upgrade.
reply
anon @ 7th Feb 07:04PM:
Re: Does QOS really work?

said by rradina :

In other words, if VOIP is prioritized, won't P2P try to masquerade itself as VOIP?
It could try, but it would fail miserably. The traffic/netflows for VoIP and P2P are completely different animals entirely. VoIP traffic is a constant and steady stream of traffic between two hosts, with a predictable data rate. P2P traffic is bursty, unpredictable and tends to move from host to host.

DPI can also spot the difference in the packets. VoIP audio is easily identifiable when examining packet payloads.
reply
dez_nutz @ 7th Feb 07:08PM:
Re: They'll never do it

said by RadioDoc :

Because if they did, all of the low-usage suckers currently paying $59 for email and casual web surfing will be down somewhere in the $15-$20 range, thus scuttling their "sofa cushion" pirate ship of extreme profits. Pretty hard to switch to a usage billing model without dramatically lowering the base rate.
So true... Well said.
reply
espaeth @ 7th Feb 07:14PM:
Re: Does QOS really work?

said by factchecker :

said by rradina :

In other words, if VOIP is prioritized, won't P2P try to masquerade itself as VOIP?
It could try, but it would fail miserably.

DPI can also spot the difference in the packets. VoIP audio is easily identifiable when examining packet payloads.
It's unrealistic to have core network devices doing DPI in most networks. Cisco has some base level detection with Network Based Application Recognition (NBAR), but it's nowhere near the analysis level of something like the Sandvine product.

DPI devices and high-performance routing devices are currently mutually exclusive.
reply
patcat88 @ 7th Feb 07:28PM:
Re: Though...

All of the Ellacoya/Sandvine/Ciscos can do that easily, prioritize a certain protocol lower, but no, Comcast can't be satisfied with that, they need to ELIMINATE the traffic.
reply
josh7234 @ 7th Feb 07:32PM:
Scam

This is all a scam. Quite simple i don't see how anybody would actually stand up for the metered billing because the people who are supposedly hogging band with don't effect the other people-never have. You pay your bill and ill pay mine. I'm paying to get unlimited amount. Thought i use hardly any a month. Would it work both ways though because there has been numerous reports about how only a certain few actually "hog" band with. But why is it they charge the people who use hardly anything? hm? I smell scam the people who "hog" band with are far fewer than the people who use LESS than the allotted bandwidth.This is insane, if there going to charge by the byte then i want my money back from all the other months i didn't go anywhere near a cap.
reply
patcat88 @ 7th Feb 07:51PM:
Re: Pass it along..

That actually explains why throttling ISPs don't QOS it lower. Its much more expensive since that would involve changing the routers, rather than sending a copy of the data off to a box, and letting the box deal with it in non-real time.
reply
anon @ 7th Feb 08:26PM:
Re: Does QOS really work?

said by espaeth :

It's unrealistic to have core network devices doing DPI in most networks. Cisco has some base level detection with Network Based Application Recognition (NBAR), but it's nowhere near the analysis level of something like the Sandvine product.
Indeed. I was just pointing out, however, that DPI gear can spot the differences quite easily..
reply
anon @ 7th Feb 08:37PM:
since

when did this become ok i feel like i live in europe or canada
reply
MrMoody @ 7th Feb 09:01PM:
Re: They'll never do it

My country reeks of trees ...
Our yaks are really large ...
And they smell like rotting beef carcasses ...
--
The public is a poor business manager.
reply
ChrisXP @ 7th Feb 10:05PM:
Mixed

Part of me is okay with the billing option, if it lowers the ISP bill monthly on those months of no heavy gaming/downloading (need breaks!). On the months I do heavy downloading, if I can get sustained speeds. Something like $1/GB of transfer isn't too unreasonable above a reasonable preset a month (cheaper than most webhosts offer).

BUT, in return for paying for the bandwidth, my expectations will be higher...

1. Rebates for a downed network for longer than 3hrs (especially DNS servers).
2. Remove the ads on the mailbox. Have no business there anyway.
3. More mailboxes, and with at least the master account with 1GB storage (25MB is simply not enough).
4. Can host more than just .html/.doc and images on the webspace -- extensions like .php is crucial.
5. Sustained transfers that is known to exist (as the Powerboost shows).
6. Tray app to monitor bandwidth, with a scaled warning, so folks can scale back as needed.
7. More pro-active scanning of the network for all those damn trojans and all, that make the modem and scanners go nuts.

Until the above are the default, nope, I'll stick to the flat-rate.
--
Zionism is a crime

»www.jewsagainstzionism.com »www.christianzionism.org
reply
BF69 @ 7th Feb 10:07PM:
Ironic

that Comcast would say this since it is WELL known that Comcast does in fact have invisable caps.
reply
karlmarx @ 7th Feb 10:27PM:
Re: Does QOS really work?

Yes, DPI gear CAN detect the difference, IF IT'S UNENCRYPTED. otherwise, it all looks EXACTLY the same. The solution, of course, is that EVERY vendor of EVERY protocol will start to encrypt their traffic. Every web site will be https. Every VoIP call will be encrypted. Every telnet session will be SSL. Everything, everywhere to everyone will be encrypted. Then the ISP is back to square 1.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity!
reply
RARPSL @ 7th Feb 11:32PM:
Re: Mixed

said by ChrisXP :

Part of me is okay with the billing option, if it lowers the ISP bill monthly on those months of no heavy gaming/downloading (need breaks!). On the months I do heavy downloading, if I can get sustained speeds. Something like $1/GB of transfer isn't too unreasonable above a reasonable preset a month (cheaper than most webhosts offer).

BUT, in return for paying for the bandwidth, my expectations will be higher...

1. Rebates for a downed network for longer than 3hrs (especially DNS servers).
2. Remove the ads on the mailbox. Have no business there anyway.
3. More mailboxes, and with at least the master account with 1GB storage (25MB is simply not enough).
4. Can host more than just .html/.doc and images on the webspace -- extensions like .php is crucial.
5. Sustained transfers that is known to exist (as the Powerboost shows).
6. Tray app to monitor bandwidth, with a scaled warning, so folks can scale back as needed.
7. More pro-active scanning of the network for all those damn trojans and all, that make the modem and scanners go nuts.

Until the above are the default, nope, I'll stick to the flat-rate.
8. A roll-over rebate of extra free overage bandwidth from those months I under utilize my bandwidth quota by some designated amount. Ex. I am allowed to use 2X GB a month. If I use less than 1XGB, I get my cap raised by however the usage was under 1XGB - use .5XGB and you are allowed to use 2.5XGB before the Overage rate kicks in.
reply
anon @ 7th Feb 11:44PM:
Re: Does QOS really work?

said by karlmarx :

Yes, DPI gear CAN detect the difference, IF IT'S UNENCRYPTED.
That's when you start looking at things like the flows. VoIP has a pretty characteristic flow - a constant, X Kbps per second flow (depending on the codec used, of which only two or three are in wide use), typically with very little variation.

For P2P to look like a VoIP conversation, you would have to make your P2P client use those same, sub-150kbps flows... You would end up crippling the throughput of your clients.

Every web site will be https.
Not likely to happen. For most content, HTTPS is overkill. Unless the client is transmitted back to the server or the server is transmitting client specific data, there is no reason to waste CPU resources encrypting a JPG that anyone can see.

Every VoIP call will be encrypted.
Maybe one day, yes. But even then, just looking at the flow of packets, you could tell it is a VoIP call.

Every telnet session will be SSL.


We already have encrypted telnet... It is called SSH. And I can find it even though it is encrypted. You can't read the contents, but you can tell it is SSH traffic.
reply
HenryNettles @ 7th Feb 11:56PM:
The important question is ....

Realistically, in this world, almost everything is metered. I pay per kilowatt hour for my electricity. I used to pay about $12 per month for water, and if I used more than a preset base amount, I was charged for the extra water. In the world of the future, I think it is almost certain that we will be billed "per unit" for our internet usage. The important question is, "How much?"

Everyone out there wants to sell me movies over the internet, including my ISP (AT&T). So let's think about this for a moment. I can go to the video store and rent a movie on DVD for about $3 (new movie) or $1.50 (older movie). We'll assume 4.7 gigabytes for $3, just as a (upper) data point. That amounts to $0.64 per gigabyte. For a lower data point, assume an older movie ($1.50) on a dual-layer DVD (9 gigabytes). This works out to be about $0.17 per gigabyte. If AT&T came to me and said, "You can have 50 gigabytes per month for your $35 base charge (6 meg DSL), and we will charge you $0.17 per gigabyte over the base amount", then I could live with that. If they wanted to charge me $1 per gig, and allow only 5 gigs as a base amount, then I would have a serious problem with that.
reply
BF69 @ 8th Feb 12:32AM:
Re: The important question is ....

said by HenryNettles :

Realistically, in this world, almost everything is metered. I pay per kilowatt hour for my electricity. I used to pay about $12 per month for water, and if I used more than a preset base amount, I was charged for the extra water. In the world of the future, I think it is almost certain that we will be billed "per unit" for our internet usage. The important question is, "How much?"

Everyone out there wants to sell me movies over the internet, including my ISP (AT&T). So let's think about this for a moment. I can go to the video store and rent a movie on DVD for about $3 (new movie) or $1.50 (older movie). We'll assume 4.7 gigabytes for $3, just as a (upper) data point. That amounts to $0.64 per gigabyte. For a lower data point, assume an older movie ($1.50) on a dual-layer DVD (9 gigabytes). This works out to be about $0.17 per gigabyte. If AT&T came to me and said, "You can have 50 gigabytes per month for your $35 base charge (6 meg DSL), and we will charge you $0.17 per gigabyte over the base amount", then I could live with that. If they wanted to charge me $1 per gig, and allow only 5 gigs as a base amount, then I would have a serious problem with that.
Your numbers are a bit off. A HD( 720P )movie download from XBOX Live is about 6 GB. Standard def movies usually are about 2 GB or less.
reply
tmc8080 @ 8th Feb 05:19AM:
QOS debate;

What I was getting at.. if Comcast can throttle & sent packet resets to cablemodems doing hours upon hours of bittorrent traffic.. it is reasonable that they can QOS the same traffic to be less of a burden to the node. As p2p evolves to be another popular forms.. I'm sure they could adapt a strategy. I think the general idea is that few applications run 24/7 (or VERY long times) and consume more bandwidth on the net than p2p. It's not a difficult thing for your ISP to figure out what applications are running.. sure the lines can be made murkier with encryption, and masking technologies.. but bulk consumption (data transmitted/received over time), number of peers, etc are all factors. Its nothing more than running these applications in the background layer.. so that when you load a webpage, make a voip call these applications work without a hitch. P2P data can get there.. just not be weighted equally with other traffic.

Of course things are going to get better.. my point is; let's say we get 50 or 100mbit+ links in the future.. it is not unconceivable that Comcast or others would try to limit p2p access to maybe 50% of the speed cap to say 25mbit or 50mbit so that other traffic doesn't see degradation. Loads better than what AT&T is trying to do.. filtering content or Time Warner's charging for extra gigabytes. Streaming HD movies on the order of 50gb a clip are not going to be enabled by Docsis 3 anytime soon.. a 10gb Divx 6 movie isn't out of the question, though.. just it will take slightly longer to get to you. Seeing as most of you already haven't broken the 20mbit barrier yet, this is a proposal for the future... I don't think they should be doing anything to limit or QOS data right now other than requisite node load balancing. The current speed caps are just too small to introduce petty limiting. This is a reasonable alternative to a $250 internet bill for a 100mbit symetric connection to the internet.. it can be had for $70 or $99 depending upon bundling (with cheaper & lower tiers available).
reply
moonpuppy @ 8th Feb 07:44AM:
Re: They'll never do it

said by RadioDoc :

That's not a true usage-based metered system then. It's a penalty for exceeding your "flat rate" allotment.

I still think all of the usage cap rhetoric has a more sinister motive than just "network management" and cutting the cable hogs off at the trough. Somewhere in there a cabal of lawyers are incubating a way to interfere with IP-based video originating from outside their revenue cloud without tripping the "neutrality" wire.

Or maybe they're just greedy pigs.
You're right. This has nothing to do with hogs so much as a way to get extra money for people actually using their connections.

The current price point is very close to a separate phone line and AOL or MSN dial up service. If people used their high speed connections the same way they used dial up, then cable ISPs would be happy beyond belief. However, they tout how you can download music (legal iTunes and Napster), videos (via YouTube and video mail), and get everything faster. People then actually start using their connections and some go nuts with it.

I agree with Karl in that it will have a high flat rate that has extra charges for overages.
reply
anon @ 8th Feb 12:01PM:
hey!

Could not something like a sandvine be used just to detect cloaked traffic, then feed that information into the QOS enabled router. The "offending" node could then be de-prioritized for the duration of the cloaked traffic.

This would allow normal QOS to be used instead of forged packets, without slowing down the whole network.
reply
chriswelch @ 8th Feb 01:37PM:
Re: They'll never do it

OHH canada!
reply
djrobx @ 8th Feb 03:13PM:
Re: Though...

quote:
VoIP -> Gaming Packets -> VPN -> ssh-> HTTP/SMTP -> FTP inbound -> "Other" (IM/videochat/VNC/etc)-> NNTP -> P2P.

Some additions(and I'm not a big online gamer by any stretch).
reply
espaeth @ 8th Feb 06:13PM:
Re: hey!

said by Humbugged :

Could not something like a sandvine be used just to detect cloaked traffic, then feed that information into the QOS enabled router. The "offending" node could then be de-prioritized for the duration of the cloaked traffic.
Not with the way that routers work. Routers don't understand conversations and flows, they only handle information on a packet-by-packet basis.

QoS is done by traffic classification either through AccessList matches on the router or relying on Type of Service (ToS) bits in the IP header, using either legacy ToS or more commonly today DiffServ Code Point (DSCP) values. The marking needs to be done by some device directly in the forwarding path, be it by the CMTS, the cable modem, or the application itself. The cable modem probably doesn't have the right feature set to do the marking, so that pretty much leaves applications and the CMTS. Letting applications choose their fate is problematic in that it would require the apps to all accurately identify themselves. Marking at the CMTS is only possible if there is some data at a fixed offset in the packet that it can key in on. For example, TCP destination port 80 is always at the same offset location in every packet, so it's very easy for router ASICs to identify and apply a marking value to the IP header.

The only way this would be feasible is if P2P packets were easily identified by a common value that could always be found in the same place. Sandvine can detect cloaked packets by analyzing flows quite easily, but it can't feed that information back to the router to do anything about it. The only option Sandvine has out-of-band is to issue the TCP resets to close down the connection. Technically companies like Sandvine and Arbor Networks do make products that can modify router configs based on certain scenarios, but that development is still in its infancy and has the scary potential of causing outages via misconfiguration.
reply
anon @ 8th Feb 08:51PM:
Re: Does QOS really work?

isn't that how university P2P scanners work?

They notice random surges of large connections being made, and they figure its P2P- so they shut the connection down.
reply
LeftOfSanity @ 10th Feb 10:54AM:
Re: Though...

said by patcat88 :

All of the Ellacoya/Sandvine/Ciscos can do that easily, prioritize a certain protocol lower, but no, Comcast can't be satisfied with that, they need to ELIMINATE the traffic.
From what I understand, they aren't eliminating it. The resets just delay it.
reply
cablejoe @ 17th Feb 01:12AM:
Imagine the billing nightmares.....

Right now, the vast majority of cable subscribers have a fairly static monthly bill....little or no variation from one month to the next.

And yet almost everyone has had an experience where their bill got completely screwed up...and getting it straightened out through the billing department makes Gideon's knot pale in comparison.

No way do I trust the cable industry to develop a mechanism for accurately reporting bandwidth usage and billing customers accordingly.
reply
ditka_b @ 13th Mar 09:55AM:
Just ban P2P

Go back to a few years ago and we can DL our linux distros ect.. from shared HTTP sites, FTP like the old days.
P2P is 99% used for what causes the problem. I know some use it for other things but that doesn't excuse the fact that it's a pirating tool since it's inception.
Just block it 100% and let the pirates go back to ftp, IRC, BBS, Newsgroups ect..
reply

Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2008 silver matrix LLC