Time Warner Cable Vs. The Horde - Blizzard says traffic shaping impacting customers...
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
Time Warner Cable Vs. The Horde
Blizzard says traffic shaping impacting customers...
(old news - 10:32AM Friday Aug 10 2007)
tags: gaming · networking · RoadRunner Cable
Tipped by MxxCon
Two months ago, some Rochester, NY, Time Warner Cable customers in our forums say they started getting e-mails telling them that Time Warner Cable would soon be implementing traffic shaping technology to help deal with bandwidth hogs. Technicians seemed to verify this claim, but the company denied any such plans. From the e-mail that circulated to some users: "Time Warner today implemented a network management tool to improve the operation of the network for all subscribers. As a result, a small minority of users may experience slower speeds during peak hours when using certain applications that consume lots of bandwidth. You can address this situation by reducing your use of bandwidth-intensive applications during peak hours. 'Peak hours' are generally in the evenings." Since the technology was supposedly implemented, some World of Warcraft players have reported significant connectivity issues, most notably significant latency and gameplay freezing. Blizzard investigated the problems and places the blame squarely on Time Warner Cable's new traffic shaping efforts: "Our network administrators have been unable to find any abnormalities that would cause these reported connections issues; however, reports of connection problems with services other than World of Warcraft have also been reported at various locations. The cause of these other issues seems to be being blamed on the packet shaping protocols that Time Warner/Road Runner has recently implemented.
Our network administrators are continuing to examine what the cause may be, but at this time the cause does seem to be this packet shaping software." Interestingly, however, Time Warner Cable not only denies that traffic shaping is to blame, but spokesman Alex Dudley also "denied the legitimacy" of the e-mail announcing that traffic shaping was being implemented by the company. Time Warner Cable historically has had varying policies on bandwidth from market to market based on congestion. The company sometimes offers faster tiers or caps service in one market, while leaving service alone in another. Sometimes this results in the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing, but given that WOW uses so little bandwidth, traffic shaping makes no sense and it's likely an overloaded node or router issue. Still, early conversations with company insiders indicate that there were some kind of traffic shaping plans in place for some markets, but the company had wanted to keep it under wraps. An internal public relations screw up occurred and the information was accidentally publicized. Insiders think the plan has since been put on hold, which means this NYC WOW lag is likely a separate network issue. We're still digging and will post more when we have it.
Related:- Copper Thieves Keep Dying
- Time Warner Cable To Employ DNS Redirection
- Is DNS Redirection a Network Neutrality Violation?
- OCAP Becomes Tru2way
- GameRail Closes Up Shop
- Time Warner Cable To Start Per-Gigabyte Fee Trial On Thursday
- Long Awaited Japanese Caps Arrive: 930GB Per Month
- Time Warner Cable Launching Powerboost Today In NYC
|
Links: New Topic
Forums »
RayW @ 10th Aug 10:15AM:
Can any Warcraft users report what the usage is?
It would be interesting to see what TW considers high usage.
Peak and average would be nice (using something like AnalogX Netstat Live).
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time.
reply
Omega @ 10th Aug 10:16AM:
Don't stand between a WoW addict and his game....
Things could get ugly!
But there is no reason that any gaming traffic should be shaped in anyway. It hardly takes up any bandwidth, it just requires a good ping.
reply
texans20 @ 10th Aug 10:17AM:
Queue Net Neutrality Debate
Now I wait for a lot of people who know nothing about net neutrality to scream bloody murder. Instead of waiting for the government to fix your problem, call Time Warner! Every time you call, they loose money. Better yet, switch ISPs. I understand not all places have an alternative, but most do. I live in a podunk town and I have access to Time Warner, AT&T, at the AT&T lines give me access to a few other ISPs like Earthlink.
I'll give you a hint though, a network neutrality law will not solve any problems. What it will do is cause a price rise as the companies are forced to subsidize the price of the heavy users by making the light users pay more. I have not had a price increase on Road Runner service since I started it several years ago, and I don't want one to pay for people who feel they can download 24/7.
--
The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility, and out of self interest -- for himself, his family, and the future of his country -- to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state.
reply
NOCMan @ 10th Aug 10:18AM:
bandwidth
Wow uses about 20-80kbps depending on what you're doing in game.
--
Mac Chatter
»www.macchatter.net
reply
nokiatech @ 10th Aug 10:25AM:
Re: Can any Warcraft users report what the usage is?
WoW requires very little actual bandwidth. It's the latency that matters. There are many who live near their west coast servers that play with no issue on dialup connections. You can do it from the east coast but latencies tend to rise quickly.
Grandma downloading pictures of the grandkids is using much more bandwidth then a wow player.
reply
DSLTech @ 10th Aug 10:34AM:
Time to go out and get a life?
Just kidding, WOW fans. Time Warner surely needs to address any LATENCY issues brought on by this traffic shaping.
reply
jc100 @ 10th Aug 10:38AM:
Ever pull that SH*T here.. Im going elsewhere
Good thing for competition. They pull that crap and I'd get rid of them faster than one can jump. While it's their network and their prerogative, customers DO NOT have to stick around. I'm guessing Rochester probably has alternatives in providers. I can hear their membership base falling... (Whoosh)...
reply
deepblackmag @ 10th Aug 10:39AM:
Re: bandwidth
Not counting voice traffic to vent servers etc. I have two frequent WOW users on my network (apt building) and have special solarwinds reporting setup on their ports to aggregate their traffic. Sometimes their upstream exceeds half a megabit when both users are talking etc. I dont care that they are playing a game, but sometimes their traffic does degrade the line for other traffic (such as my SIP/RTP/H323) and I shape their game crap back. They know who i am, bitch about the ping etc. Voice traffic game traffic and possibly on update download days (which IS bittorrent) they can chew up alot of bandwidth for a residential user. Im sure TWC just has some automated capping measure in place for upstream on their UBRs, and its just catching the wrong streams. Unfortunately cisco's NBAR doesnt recognise WOW as a valid protocol lol
reply
PhoenixDown @ 10th Aug 10:49AM:
Re: Queue Net Neutrality Debate
The trouble is many people don't have alternative broadband connections. I live in nyc and yet my only option for broadband is TWC. I hate to imagine the scenario in smaller towns.
I think the real answer to the issue is legitimate competition. If people had a legitimate second or third choice for providers, then issues like packet shaping and net neutrality will be solved via the market place.
reply
Cabal @ 10th Aug 10:50AM:
Re: Can any Warcraft users report what the usage is?
WoW uses less than 5 KB/s up or down at any given time while playing (as noted, latency is critical). BitTorrent-based patching will use a lot more, obviously, but I doubt that's relevant here.
--
Anonymous posts are ignored. If you wish to be heard, speak for yourself.
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
reply
kaila @ 10th Aug 10:52AM:
I don't have anything to say about this subject but....
I love the title! :D
reply
ender7074 @ 10th Aug 11:02AM:
Re: bandwidth
I see. So you think your traffic is more important than their "game crap"? I'm kinda doubting that their upload is taking that much bandwith but even if it is, so what? If that were the case, I would have severe latency issues all the time because my upstream is barley over that amount and I'm usually doing multiple things online at the same time, which include, playing a game, running vent, and downloading crap. Sounds to me like you need more bandwith than to selectively take bandwith away from others just because you think your needs are more important than their needs.
reply
anon @ 10th Aug 11:02AM:
this is bullshit
I'm in Astoria, NY and my download speed was a constant ever flowing 1.7MB, but ever since this packet shaping shit went into effect, everyday during business hours ( and up till a little after 9PM EDT) my speed drops and fluctuates between 300-600KBs. This shit is annoying and I don't know what I can do about this. This is not what I'm paying for.
reply
kfsutops @ 10th Aug 11:05AM:
Re: Ever pull that SH*T here.. Im going elsewhere
The don't care about competition. That isn't going to stop them from dong this.
In the Tampa area Verizon is hitting pretty hard with the FIOS and the packet shaping is going on here from Brighthouse..which is basically TW.
--
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots"
reply
JohnBrowning @ 10th Aug 11:17AM:
Whining Gamers...
This is called network management. If you don't like it, pay for a higher quality connection.
reply
deepblackmag @ 10th Aug 11:25AM:
Re: bandwidth
Yes, because as well all know budgets for resources such as bandwidth are vast and under the direct control of those responsible for managing them. If you are only allocated a certain amount, you will do what you can with that amount, and if it means prioritizing the voice traffic of the many over the game traffic or filesharing traffic of the few, thats exactly what i will do. Furthermore, broadband is JUST LIKE a leased line in the fact that bandwidth is NOT unlimited or even as broad as the residential ISPs like TWC would like you to believe. They simply oversell their pipes so you DONT actually have your 384 or 512 up, you are sharing that same upstream with several other customers, together making up the full price of that actual bandwidth. They simply bank on the fact that not everybody will want to use that available capacity at the same time. When it IS overused (as a result of it being oversold) the same thing applies, you prioritize the most noticable traffic and start dropping the least important (and financially, that means gaming and filesharing, because most users are paying for the thing most important on their list, things like web and email and to a lesser extent voip)
I run NBAR, CBAC, and use netflow to monitor all WAN connections (and switch ports of certain LAN users). I have a very good idea of exactly how much traffic is being used by which type of application. I can sort it by destination and verify that it is to a voice server running vent, teamspeak, etc. or a MMO such as WOW, EQ2, etc. Between those, and cursory applications frequently used at the same time by users in that group, such as media intensive sites like youtube and various filesharing apps, your connection is VERY likely to be re-classified via one of my route-maps with a diffserv ~priority 0 to 3 while most normal users will be somewhat higher than that. While carriers may have larger pipes and more tolerance for this sort of thing, they are simply following the exact same formula ANY network engineer managing a fixed capacity network WILL EVENTUALLY IMPLIMENT. The first people to be impacted will be those of the media generation, and the most noticable impact will be to their gaming latency (because we all know gamers count a 25 ping increase like it will be end of the world)
reply
GemSnake @ 10th Aug 11:29AM:
*
Damn Time Warner plays alliance! :(
reply
RRedline @ 10th Aug 11:30AM:
Re: Whining Gamers...
Whining gamers? They are having problems so bad that it is making the game unplayable. It uses very little bandwidth, so any well-written packet shaping technology should not need to interfere with online gaming.
reply
slckusr @ 10th Aug 11:35AM:
Re: bandwidth
yea, i used to play wow on 28.8 3 the country. anddidnt have any issues other than a higher ping. couldnt be using THAT much bandwidth.
reply
deepblackmag @ 10th Aug 11:41AM:
Re: Whining Gamers...
The packet shaping tech is VERY well writen. It is simply a matter of implimentation. And frankly its not practical to try to shape EVERY connection on a large network by individual flows (connections) especially if its primarily UDP traffic. The TWC guys will likely have a handful of rules prioritizing the top 20 or so types of traffic they care about and then binning everything else in the best effort pile. World of warcraft is not a critical application to most users of their network.
reply
deepblackmag @ 10th Aug 11:43AM:
Re: Queue Net Neutrality Debate
There is no debate. Companies will prioritize traffic based on information available to them in realtime. That means to defeat all everybody has to do is start using IPSEC and the bloody problem will solve itself. Now just try getting everybody to enable that so we can have a truly open internet again lol.
reply
anon @ 10th Aug 12:51PM:
Re: Whining Gamers...
said by JohnBrowning :
This is called network management. If you don't like it, pay for a higher quality connection.
It's not just about the whiny gamers. The truth is gamers use bandwidth for specific purposes, and as such tend to be a lot more sensitive/aware of latency, packet loss, and bandwidth loss.
What grandma won't notice until it has degraded to the point she can't get her email (if she notices at all) gamers will pick up on day 2.
The same goes for anyone who telecommutes, utilizes remote servers, depends on a VPN, oh, and the file sharers.
reply
Ikarasu @ 10th Aug 11:46AM:
Re: bandwidth
WoW itself takes up little bandwidth. In some situations, it can get up to 20-30 Kb/s, but thats in the most extreme raid conditions, And it takes very little upload. The average WoW user probably wont ever excede 5-10 Kb/s.
Your talking about VoIP Traffic, which would be Ventrilo/Teamspeak/Something else. using QOS on voice servers (WoW Currently doesn't use one, so Traffic shaping Ventrilo/ect wouldn't limit WoW... unless, for some reason you decided to do both) Would not affect Wow.
Ventrilo takes up little bandwidth, actually. So does Gaming. I imagine your SIP VoIP, depending on which carrier you use/voice codec, takes up the same, if not more bandwidth.
Shaping someones traffic for downloading, such a BT/Updates I understand and agree with. Limiting apartment users gaming/voice servers, is kind of selfish. Personally, I wouldn't put up with it.
reply
plat2on1 @ 10th Aug 11:46AM:
Re: Whining Gamers...
said by JohnBrowning :
This is called network management. If you don't like it, pay for a higher quality connection.
better get used to it, gaming and online gaming are growing at exponential rates. WoW itself has nearly 10 million active users. pretty soon you will be in the minority and it will be your traffic that is given low priority. :p
reply
Noah Vail @ 10th Aug 11:47AM:
Hold on dere pardner
I support two sites that have 6 WoW systems each, on Brighthouse, near Tampa. I haven't heard the first word about any latency issues. I get called at the first hint of any WoW issues.
It may be your local loop is over hogged, P2P and/or bots.
NV
edit:I'll append that I know of several people who P2P on BH and there is no evidence of any kind of packet shaping going on out of the Tampa operation. With the new GM Tampa got a few months ago that might change, but there is no sign of it yet.
There is evidence that FiOS in Tampa is packet shaping, by throttling certain protocols. I've seen it first hand, but I've read posts here that downplay it. Those posts are not clear on whether or not they P2P, so I'm not sure.
So the evidence on FiOS is inconclusive.
NV
reply
S_engineer @ 10th Aug 11:49AM:
Wait a second...............
Its not like they're picking on a particular game, wouldnt they would have to be looking at consistent bandwith usage to consider someone a "hog"?
--
Burn a tire, but make sure you buy that carbon offset!
reply
deepblackmag @ 10th Aug 11:55AM:
Re: bandwidth
Do you have any idea the CPU load on a poor old access router when trying to track and shape every connection? I dont waste processing power trying to pick out the WOW from the vent from the youtube. If you violate policy and suck up too much bandwidth you get dropped into low priority class (Your service is not degraded by my defintiion of the word, however YOU are not able to degrade the service of any other user whos traffic will be transmitted first). You are perfectly free not to put up with it, but as the only connection available to the location is via an overpriced slow leased line from XO, and most users are perfectly happy with their connectivity, I can live with a 3% to 5% dissaproval rate. Dont confuse SIP/RTP with vent/teamspeak. The functionality of the protocols is different, and the gamers like to jack up their voice quality beyond what a usual VOIP connection would use.
reply
Noah Vail @ 10th Aug 11:59AM:
DoOd!
said by deepblackmag :
Do you have any idea the CPU load on a poor old access router when trying to track every connection? I dont waste processing power trying to pick out the WOW from the vent from the youtube.
Your Routers are GNarly! You need to upgrade Mon!
NV
reply
deepblackmag @ 10th Aug 12:01PM:
Re: Whining Gamers...
Then they can buy whatever sort of gamerail clone service TWC developes. When it becomes a financial issue, it will get the proper classification. Before wow = money for twc, forget about them caring lol
reply
deepblackmag @ 10th Aug 12:03PM:
Re: DoOd!
LOL if i had the money to waste on a new router for a cheapskate, id upgrade their line from a fractional T1 to a full, or something better. The only reason they can even run a decent IOS is because i sprang for their routers ram out of my own pocket.
Since you brought it up though, would you like to buy me a nice new 2811 to drop in? Id love a nice integrated services router to replace the old POS (i think its a 2610 but id have to look).
reply
kilrathiace @ 10th Aug 12:04PM:
Re: *
I have stated since 2 weeks ago that this entire WoW and other problems were not related to packet shaping. RR basically screwed something on their network and while it didnt affect all connections, routing to WoW servers was affected. People choose this problem to attack packet shaping even though its totally irrelevant to this issue.
reply
bogey780 @ 10th Aug 12:05PM:
Re: Queue Net Neutrality Debate
Essentially this showcases how different applications on the net have different needs. BT doesn't need a great ping. WOW does. Net Neutrality would just work at making everyone have the same ideal connection which would make it very expensive for network management.
reply
Ikarasu @ 10th Aug 12:08PM:
Re: bandwidth
Not really. Which provider do you use? Most of them have selectable codecs, and most of them try to use the higher end codec, for best quality. I believe most the ISP hosted sites do this, and a few of the larger VoIP companies do. Most people who just go from SIP/SIP do it also.
I have my Vent on the highest possible setting, and I can still use it on 56K. Ventrilo is pretty compressed, and I can tell you that highest Vent takes up less bandwidth then my Broadvoice connection does.
Maybe instead of punishing select users, because your hardware cant handle proper QOS, you should invest in better equipment? Especially if it's the only connection available to them.
You could even setup a cheap server PC, and prioritize traffic through software. If your hardware is so old, it cant QOS Traffic properly, might be a good idea to invest in a cheap $100-200 PC, installing linux, and using it to QOS your traffic.
Your users may "Put up with it", but if it's their only choice, I can see why. IMO, they have every right to use Vent to talk to their friends, as you do to use VoIP to talk to yours. Maybe they're talking about games, maybe your just chatting, whatever it is, it should be equal use - Just cause you have the power to prioritize what you deem as important, doesn't mean you should.
As far as a 3-5% disapproval rate... is it necessary? I doubt 3-5% of your users are using SIP....
reply
deepblackmag @ 10th Aug 12:08PM:
Re: Queue Net Neutrality Debate
Actually, neutrality would be mob rule lol. whoever used the most bandwidth would (surpise surpise!) have the most bandwidth. Its communism of the internet, and we all know how successful and prosperous those communist countries turned out to be (north korea... the soviet union... etc)
reply
Ignite @ 10th Aug 12:10PM:
Re: Whining Gamers...
said by deepblackmag :
The packet shaping tech is VERY well writen. It is simply a matter of implimentation. And frankly its not practical to try to shape EVERY connection on a large network by individual flows (connections) especially if its primarily UDP traffic. The TWC guys will likely have a handful of rules prioritizing the top 20 or so types of traffic they care about and then binning everything else in the best effort pile. World of warcraft is not a critical application to most users of their network.
I seriously doubt they are doing it that way, though if they are they are morons. They will most likely be deprioritising known non-realtime traffic, P2P, possibly Usenet, and leaving unknown traffic alone until they have better kit to identify it.
Makes no real sense to have 20 types of traffic prioritised when you can have 5 types deprioritised, 5 types prioritised and the rest BE.
Having worked with 2 ISPs on this kind of thing we worked by first de-prioritising known P2P and Usenet, then prioritising some known real time traffic, and leaving a purely best effort queue in between.
It's perfectly practical to shape every flow so long as you are willing to spend the money to do it properly and is why Ellacoya, Sandvine, etc, work inline.
Commercial shaping generally isn't quite the same as a few NBAR policy maps on a 7200.
I'd also disagree regarding World of Warcraft, it would be a critical application to far more users on their network than SSH for example, which I'm sure you'd say should be on the list of prioritised applications. Ellacoya at very least agree with me, the WoW protocol is an identified protocol on their equipment.
reply
Ignite @ 10th Aug 12:11PM:
Re: Whining Gamers...
said by JohnBrowning :
This is called network management. If you don't like it, pay for a higher quality connection.
Give me 10 gamers over 1 guy hammering P2P 24x7 on my network any day.
reply
Ikarasu @ 10th Aug 12:14PM:
Re: bandwidth
Just for the record:
Ventrilo, Highest quality Speex codec: Upload is 5.6 Kb/s.
Taking into consideration sometimes 2-3 people can talk at once, thats around 15 Kb/s download max.
Flying through Shat, and Sharing IL data at max rate (Probably dont know what it is, so just accept that this is maximum bandwidth, which it is :P) My WoW is running 5.5 Kb/s down, 4.5 Kb/s up. And thats for about...5-10 seconds, while it loads the 50 or so people signed in right now.
WoW/Vent isnt bandwidth intensive. Maybe these users were doing something else, but theres pretty much no way it was doing half a mb. I know people on 56K who use vent, and WoW, and get very little lag...
reply
deepblackmag @ 10th Aug 12:14PM:
Re: bandwidth
I am not investing any more of my money to improve the environment for services I am not responsible for. I AM responsible for the voip latency. I am responsible for poor page load times and dropped pop3 connections. I am NOT responsible for gaming and chat, and I could care less that a few users are unhappy about it. I am being paid so that the majority of geezers sitting in their apartments can get their mail and pull up CNN in a timely fashion. Frankly the whole place is barely worth the money they are willing to pay for any services or equipment at all.
»gasmass.com/oink.png
reply
Ikarasu @ 10th Aug 12:18PM:
Re: bandwidth
geezers pulling their email, or waiting a whole 2 seconds for a webpage to load, makes a lot more sense then degrading gameplay experience. Waiting a second or two longer to see a webpage, or get your E-mail isn't exactly a problem.
Having your b/w be prioritized, and affected by an old crappy Router, giving you latency in game, kinda makes it un-playable/unfun, which is the point of games.
I'd say 99% of ISPs prioritize gaming traffic... Not the other way around :\
reply
major marco @ 10th Aug 12:20PM:
Broadband in U.S. Sucks
If the U.S. had more options for broadband, quibbling over bandwidth wouldn't even be an issue, but anyone who even has access to broadband has exactly two choices in each market -one single DSL provider and one cable provider. You can thank the 1996 Telecom Act for that.
And while it may be argued that some now even have access to FIOS, but as we have already seen, Verizon can't even get its billing services correct so imagine how horrendous the FIOS service must be.
Bottom line: U.S. broadband sucks ass because the name of the game is how much money the company can squeeze out of consumers for the tiniest bit of service rather than quality of the service. :mad:
--
The Toll
reply
bmn @ 10th Aug 12:22PM:
Re: Queue Net Neutrality Debate
said by texans20 :
I'll give you a hint though, a network neutrality law will not solve any problems. What it will do is cause a price rise as the companies are forced to subsidize the price of the heavy users by making the light users pay more.
They already do that, so NN wouldn't cause it. Everyone is paying for unlimited usage despite some people barely using their connections.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.
reply
Ignite @ 10th Aug 12:23PM:
Re: bandwidth
Have to ask, why are you running all this monitoring on that old router?
Can imagine that a router that old being used as a QoS toy will be taking its' toll a bit. Have seen NBAR eat up 10% of an NPE-G1 in the past so I doubt that old thing is enjoying running it along with the SNMP polling.
How many users do you have on this fractional T1? How much are they paying?
Sounds to me like you need more bandwidth rather than QoSing down fairly minimal usage.
Yes I know it's minimal, I play WoW a fair bit myself, average bidirectional bandwidth of around 20kbps, increasing to around 40kbps when using voice chat. Hardly massive for a residential user and even at 24x7 usage less than the 12GB/month average broadband user in the UK.
Sadly customers burst every so often, such as at patch time, Windows reinstall time, etc, sad fact of life. I guess you don't have any customers smacking the line with P2P or heavy newsgroup usage much?
Sounds like you enjoy shaping 'their game crap back' a bit too much. :huh:
reply
deepblackmag @ 10th Aug 12:23PM:
Re: bandwidth
»gasmass.com/oink.png
reply
bmn @ 10th Aug 12:24PM:
Re: Queue Net Neutrality Debate
said by deepblackmag :
Actually, neutrality would be mob rule lol. whoever used the most bandwidth would (surpise surpise!) have the most bandwidth. Its communism of the internet, and we all know how successful and prosperous those communist countries turned out to be (north korea... the soviet union... etc)
Mob rule doesn't equal "communism". Nice red herring though.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.
reply
bmn @ 10th Aug 12:25PM:
Re: Queue Net Neutrality Debate
said by bogey780 :
Essentially this showcases how different applications on the net have different needs. BT doesn't need a great ping. WOW does. Net Neutrality would just work at making everyone have the same ideal connection which would make it very expensive for network management.
I'd like to see some hard facts that backup that assertion. Applying QoS based on who paid and who doesn't would actually cost more and be FAR more complex.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.
reply
Ignite @ 10th Aug 12:29PM:
Re: bandwidth
If you are unhappy with 2 users averaging 100kbps or so for 6 hours a day, well, I'm glad I'm not in your building :)
As has already been mentioned, gaming is usually a high priority traffic on most provider networks, along with voice, SSH and other real time apps, with P2P right at the bottom and http / smtp / pop3 in the middle with other interactive apps.
reply
deepblackmag @ 10th Aug 12:32PM:
Re: bandwidth
I would agree completely that they need a faster pipe, and a better router. Shaping is a stopgap measure to keep my phone from ringing every time some retard fires up kazaa. The problem is that the owners arent interested in it (they dont see the point, arent big net users etc) so they want to use the same crap that was good 7 years ago lol. There is no point in arguing with people like that, they simply dont care and enough of their clients arent net savvy enough to use youtube so its really not worth wasting time worrying about.
reply
deepblackmag @ 10th Aug 12:31PM:
Re: bandwidth
The line speed is positively prehistoric frame relay garbage. See my other comments about the owners not caring enough to pay for something better.
edit: My other comment is "held by system" lol whatever that means.
reply
Ikarasu @ 10th Aug 12:33PM:
Re: bandwidth
Well, that doesn't make sense. WoW is download heavy, same with Ventrilo/TS.
Ventrilo/TS Sends 1 voice stream to a centralized server, and that server uploads it to the rest. Warcraft's max bandwidth, which is like 6-7 KB/s both directions, is mainly downstream. The upload is very rare, and once every day at the most.
Don't know how you figured it was WoW/Vent. But if they told you that's what it is...well, maybe they're covering up File sharing. Before blaming an app/game though, you should check into what the specifications of the mentioned programs are. I can say, with 100% Certainty... Them usage stats are NOT for WoW/Vent.
reply
Ignite @ 10th Aug 12:34PM:
Re: bandwidth
Understood.
I guess you have to work with what you've got :(
Ikarasu - those stats are from the switch ports facing those customers. When customers download the switch is transmitting to them, so it makes upload and download look the other way around as it's from the switch POV not the customer NIC.
reply
deepblackmag @ 10th Aug 12:35PM:
Re: bandwidth
How about sending me a new 7204 with a nice NPM4 =) I wont give it to them but it will go nice in my rack of play gear =P
Edit: You are correct, i should have mentioned it. That is a switch port, not the router. I wouldnt dare run SNMP polling on it that intensively lol I have managed to crash (accidentally) some equipment in the past with frequent polling.
reply
Ignite @ 10th Aug 12:38PM:
Re: bandwidth
said by deepblackmag :
How about sending me a new 7204 with a nice NPM4 =) I wont give it to them but it will go nice in my rack of play gear =P
There's a CRS-1 here though I may have some problems getting it out of the building...
reply
deepblackmag @ 10th Aug 12:40PM:
Re: bandwidth
Just slip the poor security people 20$, im sure its more than they make. Places with a CRS1 cant afford to pay people decent wages these days :
reply
Kearnstd @ 10th Aug 12:42PM:
Re: Whining Gamers...
honestly id give WoW priority over SSH and VPH on a residental link. SSH and VPN still wouldnt be effected by WoW since its traffic is so minimal.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
reply
Nightfall @ 10th Aug 12:45PM:
Re: Whining Gamers...
said by RRedline :
Whining gamers? They are having problems so bad that it is making the game unplayable. It uses very little bandwidth, so any well-written packet shaping technology should not need to interfere with online gaming.
Thats the problem right there. A lot of people are under the impression that WoW takes up a huge amount of bandwidth, when in fact latency is the issue at hand. There are some network engineers and admins who see online gaming as a blackhole so to speak. Its obvious that Time Warner views online gaming like that. The only way to get through to Time Warner is through your wallet.
reply
deepblackmag @ 10th Aug 12:45PM:
Re: Queue Net Neutrality Debate
Applying QOS based on who paid and who didnt is bloody PIE on a docsis network where all the users have cable modem configs pushed out by the central office. All you need to do is create one config per tier (paid vs didnt pay) and have it set a certain DSCP priority tag (or equivilant, whatever QoS they like to use). The individual modem would be responsible for tagging and the routers would just have to respect the tag itself.
reply
bmn @ 10th Aug 12:45PM:
Queue the hordes...
Here come the hordes of anti-NN who usually know nothing about the internet or how it all works to take on the NN crowds who are probably jumping the gun...
Currently, there are two conflicting reports of what is ACTUALLY going on here and neither of them may even be correct. TW announcing that they MIGHT be doing traffic shaping does not actually equate them doing it. The source of the problem may be elsewhere - poor peering agreements, overloaded transit circuits, etc. Or it could very well be the continuing capacity problems that WoW was having, although if just TW customers are seeing problems, it likely points to an issue specific to TW's network.
And IF TW is shaping traffic, especially game traffic, intentionally, shame on them. Disrupting the traffic of an application like WoW, where users are actually paying to use that service is down right rotten, low and should most definitely be illegal.
On the other hand, if TW isn't shaping traffic and it is another problem on their network, they need to hire some people who actually know how to run a network.
And if it is the WoW servers acting up again... Well, we all know the solution there.
Either way, more facts are needed.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.
reply
deepblackmag @ 10th Aug 12:45PM:
Re: Queue Net Neutrality Debate
As i recall, thats what the russian revolution was with the overthrow of the czar. =P
reply
bmn @ 10th Aug 12:52PM:
Re: Queue Net Neutrality Debate
said by deepblackmag :
Applying QOS based on who paid and who didnt is bloody PIE on a docsis network where all the users have cable modem configs pushed out by the central office.
You are assuming the USERS are paying for QoS, in which case that would be VERY easy. For example, my business class cable connection is set with a higher QoS priority than the folks using normal residential connections.
However, talking about something TOTALLY different. The expense and complexity of setting up QoS based on whether internet site or service X or Y paid for their customers to have better QoS to their site/service is where the problem is. Your QoS rules become more complex if you say prioritize VoIP provider X's traffic and not VoIP provider Y's traffic instead of doing what would make more sense and just creating one QoS class for ALL VoIP. Doing that would cost far less in time and would be far less complex. And most routers already have the ability to prioritize based on traffic classes in their software, so there is no additional expense to the provider.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.
reply
Richard B @ 10th Aug 12:55PM:
Re Traffic Shaping Packets
It seem to be two miss conceptions going on here First one seem to for get that you not buy a steaming connection but a pack base. You are always going run into latency problem. Also I am wondering low bandwidth usage in WOW is working against them because many traffic shaping algorithms I know places lower demand application like e mail on a lower priority.
To me it come down to customer ignorance of the network technologies regardless of the speed, there no guarantee streaming technologies will work efficiently on packet base technologies like the internet.
reply
bmn @ 10th Aug 12:55PM:
Re: Queue Net Neutrality Debate
said by deepblackmag :
As i recall, thats what the russian revolution was with the overthrow of the czar. =P
Yeah, but if use that, then what about the French Revolution ? The American Revolution ? South American revolutions ? They all were basically mob rule.
And technically democracy is basically mob rule, albeit it a tad bit more, how shall we say, restrained.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.
reply
Iforgot @ 10th Aug 01:06PM:
Sex and Bandwidth (Hemmm)?
Well, if I remember correctly there was a person that uttered a phrases that had changed history, and it should be applied here (I have not had _ _ _ with that girl).
Everyone knows you can twist words around to influence what ever you like, and packets are not any different. My 1.5 cents states that, what gives TWR the right to shape our packets? it's manipulative and I don't see the difference between this and reading your email. Sure bush had signed a bill stating that the Gov can do it, but what gives the ISP the same right. Not only is my information/packet being read to be priorities, but their marketing ploy states that I have the up to the bandwidth that I'm paying for. Over populating the network is the same to me as fraud, your lying to the people that you have the goods or services that they are paying for, and prioritizing the packets is another way for them to cover their ass for over populating it.
People don't care how you look at it consequently; a pie is a pie, is a pie however you slice it (Ask the FCC). :o In IT it is always the bottom end of the business that fails, because the pins heads towards the top never like to rub elbows with the person shoveling the coals in the fire. I have been lucky to be part of both shticks and understand this well. They should be investing in education towards their IT and getting rid of the marketing quota that is killing the network.
Everyone needs to eat, however with the way these ISP's are going a reeducation is at hand. How much are you willing to sacrifice to keep what you have worked hard for "your rights"! :huh:
Thanks for letting me chime in....
reply
grabeck @ 10th Aug 01:11PM:
don't forget packet loss :-)
I've had that issue with my ISP and WoW. Extreme packet loss (15%) is not liked by apps like WoW. I notice WoW can simply not recover from a 2-10 mins. time frame where packet loss is bad on the ISP routers in my area. Shaw Cable (ISP) offers a QoS feature for VoIP customers for improved bandwidth, and when asked if it could be offered to gamers they said no. I find that hard to believe.
btw... SCREW the Horde!!! bunch of losers! /spit LOL. jk
reply
David @ 10th Aug 01:13PM:
Re: *
said by GemSnake :
Damn Time Warner plays alliance! :(
ROFLMAO!!
reply
FiL @ 10th Aug 01:28PM:
Re: bandwidth
I think many paying customers are happy current ISP's don't all think like yourself; someone who DEFIANTLY knows whats best for the end user...blah. Go home...
reply
ender7074 @ 10th Aug 01:31PM:
Re: bandwidth
It would seem to me that you are responsible for EVERYONES quality, not just people on voip or using POP3. It's pretty sad that you just trash gamers, who are paying or are entitled to the same level of service as the "old geezer" that is pulling up CNN. Your attitude towards your customers is pretty bad. Gamers or not, they deserve the best connection that you can provide. Better to short everyone and have the best connection than to shit on a specific group you don't like.
reply
Mike @ 10th Aug 01:42PM:
Re: Can any Warcraft users report what the usage is?
Just take a look at the size of this technical support thread on the official forums;
»forums.worldofwarcraft.com/threa···27&sid=1
25 pages long of NY TW issues.
reply
deepblackmag @ 10th Aug 01:43PM:
Re: bandwidth
I am only responsible for the quality requirements in a contract. You should consider that before claiming I should waste my time and effort improving something that only negatively impacts the requirements I must meet.
reply
deepblackmag @ 10th Aug 01:46PM:
Re: Queue Net Neutrality Debate
All of those are just examples of terrorist activities lol =P
reply
deepblackmag @ 10th Aug 01:47PM:
Re: Queue Net Neutrality Debate
You are assuming that services would pay for QoS lol. I frankly dont see that happening, meaning the only viable target for billing is the user. Thus my comment stands.
reply
Vathral @ 10th Aug 02:00PM:
Usage during noon
WoW rarely uses any bandwidth as other pointed out. It seems Blizzard themselves on the WoW forum first placed the blame on traffic shaping, not the users.
Here is the usual network usage on WoW. All it is is poor routing which is causing the terrible lag spikes us players are complaining about.
--
F@H
reply
grabeck @ 10th Aug 02:04PM:
Re: Whining Gamers...
nice job... looks like to took you a while to think that you up :mad:
u know, you'd be perfect for World of Warcraft. They have a character race already setup for you.
TROLL! You could even be a Priest and troll the WoW forums QQ'ing about how no one respects you.
reply
texans20 @ 10th Aug 02:06PM:
Re: Queue Net Neutrality Debate
said by PhoenixDown :
The trouble is many people don't have alternative broadband connections. I live in nyc and yet my only option for broadband is TWC. I hate to imagine the scenario in smaller towns.
I think the real answer to the issue is legitimate competition. If people had a legitimate second or third choice for providers, then issues like packet shaping and net neutrality will be solved via the market place.
You are 100% correct. Thus, we don't need to patch the broken system by net neutrality, lets drop some of the stupid regulations to foster the free market.
--
The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility, and out of self interest -- for himself, his family, and the future of his country -- to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state.
reply
lesopp @ 10th Aug 02:13PM:
Re: Hold on dere pardner
I have the Virtual Office III (15/2) with a static IP, for $89.95 and its been this way for a awhile. This is a business account. Too bad I didn't think of daily speed tests until last Monday. Yesterday I opened a ticket with Brighthouse, today a cable tech arrived and didn't find anything wrong. Tomorrow another tech is coming out to replace the cable modem.
I'm considering the FIOS option and I am seriously contemplating a lawsuit to recoup two thirds for what I've paid since the contract went into effect plus court costs and attorney fees because they're only giving me a third of the contracted speed.
Spped test results to »web.tampabay.rr.com/speedtest/
6 Aug 07, 6:45 AM Download Speed: 5654.9 k bits per sec
7 Aug 07, 9:33 PM Download Speed: 5554.8 k bits per sec
8 Aug 07, 11:52 AM Download Speed: 5554.8 k bits per sec
9 Aug 07, 10:05 AM Download Speed: 512.8 k bits per sec
10 Aug 07, 1:12 PM Download Speed: 5224.1 k bits per sec
Traceroutes get there in 6 hops all in the TW network.
reply
lesopp @ 10th Aug 02:14PM:
Re: Whining Gamers...
One could also say its bait and switch.
reply
bmn @ 10th Aug 02:36PM:
Re: Queue Net Neutrality Debate
said by deepblackmag :
You are assuming that services would pay for QoS lol. I frankly dont see that happening, meaning the only viable target for billing is the user. Thus my comment stands.
Providers, however, are not looking to bill the consumer, though. They want a cut of the service providers take (Youtube, etc.).
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.
reply
Noah Vail @ 10th Aug 03:09PM:
Re: DoOd!
Sorry, we're all 1701's here. And if that wasn't enough to make you feel good about your stuff, I don't have the admin on them either.
They're supplied by the data provider w/ nearly every i/o port blocked. To get the needed services to the terminals I had to set up multiple gateways and the static routing to support it. My schematic would look like one of those webs the spiders made while on drugs.
I won't get into the VLANs I use to compensate for degraded underground lines.
There. Isn't it all better now?
NV
--
The More Alike 2 Religions are, the Stronger the Hate between them.
reply
noadplz @ 10th Aug 03:15PM:
Re: *
And i always hear that alliance lose in BG :)
reply
Noah Vail @ 10th Aug 03:23PM:
Re: Hold on dere pardner
You've got a home office package. I've got a 10/1.5 business and it sets back $399/mo. Not that it makes any difference in this issue. AFAIK everyone shares the same loop and there isn't any priority for business class.
What are your ping times to 4.79.174.1 & 66.185.132.1 (RRs peer points with Level3 and ATDN respectively)? I'd expect them to be 25ms or less.
NV
--
The More Alike 2 Religions are, the Stronger the Hate between them.
reply
batterup @ 10th Aug 03:26PM:
Re: Whining Gamers...
said by JohnBrowning :
This is called network management. If you don't like it, pay for a higher quality connection.
reply
cryptmagic @ 10th Aug 03:57PM:
Re: Usage during noon
TW put there business, ahead of there customers. I have had lag for 4 weeks, and it is bad. My vonage phone, will get hit with a spike lag, and i cant hear anyone for 5 seconds, i play wow, and i get constant lag spikes. Even my XBOX live is lagging, it is that bad. I am switching to dsl, sure it may be a little slower, but i dont want to deal with this crap anymore.
reply
lesopp @ 10th Aug 04:33PM:
Re: Hold on dere pardner
14ms and 11ms respectively. Except for yesterday latency has always be excellent (80 ms to our Vancouver firewall and 35 ms to our Vienna VA firewall.
Another speed test on www.speedtest.net using FCN Communications in Tampa shows 5756 kb/s down and 1832 kb/s up.
What bothers me is that I should be much closer to 15000 kb/s down.
There may not be any priorities, meaning a FIFO strategy, but traffic shaping can be employed to affect all traffic as a means to limit throughput. At the interface level:
rate-limit input 10000000 2000000 8000000 conform-action transmit exceed-action drop (other conform and exceed actions are available)
If it persists after they replace the cable modem tomorrow I guess my weekend project will be to get and analyze some Wireshark captures.
reply
GemSnake @ 10th Aug 05:31PM:
Re: *
That's why they are pissed! I'm thinking of creating a guild called "We run your intarwebz". And I dare anyone to gank me!
--
"In a fight between you and the world, bet on the world." - Franz Kafka
reply
GemSnake @ 10th Aug 05:35PM:
Re: *
said by kilrathiace :
I have stated since 2 weeks ago that this entire WoW and other problems were not related to packet shaping. RR basically screwed something on their network and while it didnt affect all connections, routing to WoW servers was affected. People choose this problem to attack packet shaping even though its totally irrelevant to this issue.
kilrathiace
Level 1
Joined 2005-04-22
Location: Far Rockaway, NY
Noob!!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
For our slow and special readers, that was a joke.Chillax.
--
"In a fight between you and the world, bet on the world." - Franz Kafka
reply
Stovokor @ 10th Aug 05:35PM:
Re: Broadband in U.S. Sucks
From what I understand, the 1996 Telecom Act regulated healthy competition between telcos and had very little to do with differing services. Broadband in America is being tested and researched in several different forms; while consumer monopolies are typically DSL and Cable, and you are correct in that aspect, I have a feeling we'll see BPL or something equally ridiculous come from out of the woodwork soon. :)
For the Horde!
reply
Noah Vail @ 10th Aug 06:20PM:
Re: Hold on dere pardner
Try your speed test at the Fort Worth Texas /Sprint link. I don't know why but it consistently gives me the best result, which would be closest to accurate.
Your upload speed looks about right. TB RR used to have a local file download to test your speed from tampabay.rr.com domain, but it appears to have been replaced with a link to the swfla speedtest site.
NV
--
The More Alike 2 Religions are, the Stronger the Hate between them.
reply
major marco @ 10th Aug 06:48PM:
Re: Broadband in U.S. Sucks
said by Stovokor :
From what I understand, the 1996 Telecom Act regulated healthy competition between telcos and had very little to do with differing services. [...]
The Telecom Act of 1996 was intended to open up communication services to broad competition on the most basic level, but when it comes to gov policy, things hardly ever work the way they were intended. Which is why we went from 15 national ISPs in 1996 to 5, and, about a dozen big landline telephone companies to -at present time- 3. So yeah, "differing services" played a huge role in the rewrite of the 1934 communications act (which established the FCC) that the '96 bill was originally based on.
--
The Toll
reply
justin @ 10th Aug 10:03PM:
Re: Can any Warcraft users report what the usage is?
As a past TWC new york subscriber that was always connected to jersey over ssh so noticed latency issues with every keystroke my money is on the usual suspect: overloaded nodes. People don't notice that so much unless they are in a game where lag is immediately visible. Then it becomes very noticeable.
Maybe 1 out 100 "average" web users would bother to report congestion to tech support (if that!) but I can imagine 50 out of 100 WOW addicts gnashing their teeth and documenting every jump in latency.
reply
MysticGogeta @ 10th Aug 11:40PM:
Re: Usage during noon
I would be VERY pissed if they did that to me I'm glad I've never had problems because I can't get dsl. I'm very sure many Wow players are stuck in the same position where its TWC or Dial up.
--
Team Discovery-Join the fight
reply
PHOENIXZERO @ 11th Aug 01:53AM:
Re: bandwidth
Wow, glad I'm not in your building either, with that kind of attitude. I think it'd be great if those that are came here, knowing who you were and saw your posts regarding them.
reply
axus @ 11th Aug 05:15AM:
Re: Queue Net Neutrality Debate
Duh, the price is already higher than it should be for the average user... maybe too low for 5% of users and too high for the rest. Cable and Phone companies make more money that way. And since people are willing to pay that much and there is little competition, they aren't gonna lower it.
reply
texans20 @ 11th Aug 11:24AM:
Re: Queue Net Neutrality Debate
said by axus :
Duh, the price is already higher than it should be for the average user... maybe too low for 5% of users and too high for the rest. Cable and Phone companies make more money that way. And since people are willing to pay that much and there is little competition, they aren't gonna lower it.
How do you know it's too high? Do you have some sort of insider information that shows they are pulling in this huge profit, or do you just believe the prices are too high? Do you believe these communication companies should not make a nice profit?
--
The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility, and out of self interest -- for himself, his family, and the future of his country -- to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state.
reply
zerog @ 11th Aug 06:25PM:
Re: Queue Net Neutrality Debate
didn't see Big Red anywhere in here?
How is commie China doing nowadays? Aren't they buying up Africa and South America?
reply
edhalen @ 11th Aug 11:34PM:
Re: Can any Warcraft users report what the usage is?
You got it right. Overloaded nodes.
--
Peace
reply
kfsutops @ 12th Aug 01:02PM:
Re: Hold on dere pardner
You can believe all you want. You don't live here. You know nothing about here.
The problem with packet shaping is that it is only happening at certain times. SO....and further more..I'm pretty sure that WOW wouldn't see the packet shaping.
I can show you proof of the packet loss issues with my support logs during my conversation with Brighthouse. I can also provide you with the ticket number if you would like.
reply
John Galt @ 13th Aug 02:28PM:
Re: Queue Net Neutrality Debate
said by zerog :
How is commie China doing nowadays? Aren't they buying up Africa and South America?
They are buying up the U.S. of A.
--
A is A
reply
Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2008 silver matrix LLC
