duder
@rr.com | why pay for this crap
just another way to stick it to us .....
it never ends ...... |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| its a front
And IP based cable IPTV services will magically be highest priority. And this is all a front for ISPs not wanting to pay for bigger backbone and peering links. Watch the caps roll out, 10GB high priority, 100GB low priority, $1 a GB after 100GB low priority.
1000 cable modems per node FOREVER!!!!! |
|
r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
St John'S, NL
 ·magicjack.com
 ·Cox HSI
·Insight Communicat..
 ·AT&T Midwest
| They make no sense.
"This would move a greater proportion of peer-to-peer service to off peak times."
People who use P2P use it 24/7.
Anyways how can setting Qos make people use P2P more at off peaks times. People are going to use it when they are home from work and Qos will not change that.
--
For those of you playing a drinking game.... MY FRIENDS! |
|
UnKown
The Underground Network
join:2002-09-08
Orlando, FL
·Earthlink Cable Mo..
| its just saying that p2p traffic will get a lower priority than web browser traffic. In my opinion this is a fantastic idea. It essentially throttles big traffic files like videos down during peak times and lets the simple applications get priority. This way your 5 gig dvd copy movie your stealing uses the most amount of network resources in the evening and early morning. |
|
tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA | HUH???
Perhaps if this was explained differently, it would sound like a better system.
Right now it sounds worse/less desirable for ALL users than the current method. |
|
Gbcue
E.I.T.
Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs:  | OMG Net NEUTRALITY!
With this talk of priority tiers and paying more for it, this "method" is just screaming Net Neutrality! |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
1 edit | reply to r81984
Re: They make no sense.
r81984
I think you missed the point. During peak times p2p will be "bumped" in favor of other things. Thus, while p2p MAY be running 24/7, a majority of the actual p2p data will be transmitted during off peak hours.
Edit:need to learn to type faster. |
|
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
| I do not see why this has to be so complicated
Teir 1
Routing Protocols
HSRP/VRRP/GLSB etc
Teir 2
VOIP - all voip
Teir 3
http/smtp/pop/imap
Teir 4
Streaming Media
Teir 5
Bulk - p2p, ftp etc.. things that can wait.
Teir 2 & 3 is where 99% of customer complaints originate from. People complain when web pages load slowly etc, not when they're trying to download huge torrents etc.. These are older people who expect it to work much the same every day.
If they would just do that, and deal with abusers who try to stick their traffic into priority queues, they'd be done with the problem.
--
Play a Death Knight?
www.theebonhold.com |
|
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
·Comcast
·Embarq
|  Time for the Content providers to pay their fair share.
 This problem could be solved if the content providers pay their fair share for delivery of their content. Just paying for a connection to the Internet is not enough. I should know because I was a Bean Counter for an ISP. Expecting an ISP to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade their networks to carry a content providers traffic is not fair. My employer sold out their dial up business because the revenue per subscriber was decreasing while the cost to provide service was increasing.
If a customer orders a movie from Netflix via snail mail, the delivery service does not transport and deliver the movie for free. The cost of delivery is in the price of the subscription for the service.
It would be nice if someone out in broadband land might post an estimate the cost for delivering a High Definition Movie via the Internet. I am sure that Netflix already knows what it costs to deliver a movie via snail mail.
There is no reason to charge the broadband subscriber for the amount of data downloaded if the content providers contribute to the ISP to offset the cost of carrying the sender's traffic and upgrading the ISP's networks to carry the additional traffic.
On the other hand a large content provider has the leverage to negotiate with ISP's for a fair price for carrying their traffic. Unfortunately a consumer has no leverage and if the ISP can get away with it they will tell the customer this is the price for downloading data take it or leave it. The cost for delivering a movie should be less than the cost of delivering the movie via snail mail but more than 0.
If ISP's want to provide true network neutrality they should lobby for a system where the content providers pay their fair share to deliver their content, while leaving cost for their subscribers alone. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to patcat88
Re: its a front
said by patcat88  :And IP based cable IPTV services will magically be highest priority. And this is all a front for ISPs not wanting to pay for bigger backbone and peering links. Watch the caps roll out, 10GB high priority, 100GB low priority, $1 a GB after 100GB low priority. 1000 cable modems per node FOREVER!!!!! A major part of the problem is not the backbone and peering links but the lack of adequate bandwidth on the "Last Mile" link (ie: Between the Customer and the Cable Company's Head End). IOW: Congestion on the Last Mile not between the Head End and the Internet. |
|
trent25
join:2005-11-28
Philadelphia, PA
1 edit | Is it P2P they're after?
Why do I always have the feeling that all of those traffic management ideas are not aimed at P2P (legal or illegal) but rather at trying to do something about that pesky competition from online video on demand providers!!!
How about actually trying to compete and offer a video product that I'd be willing to pay for versus what I can get online at a usually cheaper price and most of the time is a better product. |
|
Jovi
join:2000-02-24
Mount Joy, PA
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to r81984
Re: They make no sense.
said by r81984 :People who use P2P use it 24/7. And your statement uses what data to back itself up?
--
"Where's my coffee? Oh. I guess it's my turn to make it."  |
|
Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to UnKown
said by UnKown :its just saying that p2p traffic will get a lower priority than web browser traffic. In my opinion this is a fantastic idea. It essentially throttles big traffic files like videos down during peak times and lets the simple applications get priority. This way your 5 gig dvd copy movie your stealing uses the most amount of network resources in the evening and early morning. Maybe...
Or maybe your perfectly legal movie download that you paid for from some service other than your ISP gets prioritized far below your ISP's over-priced craptacular offerings.
People forget that crushing copyright infringement is a small part of what the big ISPs want. They want total control over the bits sent to you in order to maximize their own profit from them. There's a reason people want net neutrality.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong |
|
DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Metairie, LA
clubs:
1 edit | reply to UnKown
Well, there are ways to emulate http and https traffic
And given the track record in this cat and mouse game, expect the p2p community to be 2 steps ahead. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to trent25
Re: Is it P2P they're after?
Cause the feeling you have is correct. |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
1 edit | Dumb... Pipe
We need dumb pipes. Period.
Maybe I want to download some patch or something *AND* watch a new video at the same time.
Both should go as fast and as good as the server(s) can push them.
My router and/or computer will sort it all out... and I, the guy paying for the service, will be happy about it.
when the ISPs start mucking with my connection because they think something is happening - where will it stop?
Net Nanny anyone?
What if I want to download the newest porn vid... the ISP sees it as ??? and deprioritizes it? Slows it down? Fuck that!
I want my spankage now damn it!
P2P, RS, FTP, DDL - that should be up to me and it should just work.
Who doesn't see this choking and puking?
Time to start encrypting everything end to end I suppose.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to Mr Matt
Re: Time for the Content providers to pay their fair share.
said by Mr Matt : This problem could be solved if the content providers pay their fair share for delivery of their content. Just paying for a connection to the Internet is not enough. I should know because I was a Bean Counter for an ISP. Expecting an ISP to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade their networks to carry a content providers traffic is not fair. My employer sold out their dial up business because the revenue per subscriber was decreasing while the cost to provide service was increasing. If a customer orders a movie from Netflix via snail mail, the delivery service does not transport and deliver the movie for free. The cost of delivery is in the price of the subscription for the service. It would be nice if someone out in broadband land might post an estimate the cost for delivering a High Definition Movie via the Internet. I am sure that Netflix already knows what it costs to deliver a movie via snail mail. There is no reason to charge the broadband subscriber for the amount of data downloaded if the content providers contribute to the ISP to offset the cost of carrying the sender's traffic and upgrading the ISP's networks to carry the additional traffic. On the other hand a large content provider has the leverage to negotiate with ISP's for a fair price for carrying their traffic. Unfortunately a consumer has no leverage and if the ISP can get away with it they will tell the customer this is the price for downloading data take it or leave it. The cost for delivering a movie should be less than the cost of delivering the movie via snail mail but more than 0. If ISP's want to provide true network neutrality they should lobby for a system where the content providers pay their fair share to deliver their content, while leaving cost for their subscribers alone. Your ISP is trying to double dip. I pay to use the ISP to send and receive data. The ISP has thus been paid for my usage. Now they want to be paid by whoever I am using my PAID FOR bandwidth to communicate with to allow me to do that communication. They have no right to tell me who I connect to or what I do over that connection nor to charge the other end for the usage of the connection that they have already charged me for. |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| reply to UnKown
Re: They make no sense.
It truly is the only acceptable idea. This way people can leave their stuff going and only if it is causing a congestion problem will the traffic be de-prioritized. But I would say this only works if they do it by application and not by user.
quote:
the new system de-prioritizes high consumption customers if the local node is congested and that one user is a major reason why.
Definitely a bad idea.
If a user has a torrent going and that traffic needs to be throttled by half during an hour of congestion, fine. But that user should still be able to use their internet for surfing the web or other things. Cutting them off completely is a punishment for no reason. The consumer gets a 15mbps line that speed bursts and is oversold in some unknown ratio. Not to mention the node is also an unknown bottleneck. That means the ISP is the only one who knows what bandwidth is truly available at any one time, so the end user can't implement their own QoS without overlimiting themselves at all times.
The ISP's should be implementing QoS that is passive to the user that ensures certain "unknown" services are deprioritized if those "unknown" services are trying to use too much bandwidth. The end user should see only this traffic fall, but be able to continue to play xbox and surf the web(both lower bandwidth tasks). And it should only kick in if a part of the network the user is using is 100% saturated with traffic. And then it should distribute slow downs as equally as possible among the higher bandwidth "unknown" traffic. The high bandwidth is key. It shouldn't be throttling traffic that isn't trying to draw high bandwidth.
quote:
The system would give an extra kick of speed to select traffic (or content partners) even when there's network congestion
Huge conflict of interest right there. That is really messed up if they strike a deal with netflix and all of a sudden their streaming videos have priority over other people's high bandwidth traffic. ISPs are supposed to be paid for by the end users. The webpages and internet services buy their own connections to get onto the internet. No one should have to pay twice to reach an end user. The fact that they are trying to sneak this in, tells you already their attempts aren't going to be user friendly at all.
If done properly, ISP's can get away with it. But if they are trying to temporary cut off users, set the entire user's total speed to extremely low levels, double selling access by charging web services for priority, it must be opposed. |
|
titoyay222
Premium
join:2005-04-27
Cincinnati, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Mr Matt
Re: Time for the Content providers to pay their fair share.
but doesnt the content provider already pay for the services technically? they pay to have their connection to the internet just like you and I do. the only difference I can see is that the content provider pays for a much larger pipe than I pay for. doesnt the isp already know how much data transfer the company (for example netflix) will be using? i'm sure netflix didnt just buy some lame data connection without having in mind how much data they would be transferring.
I dunno, I could be way wrong! |
|
trent25
join:2005-11-28
Philadelphia, PA
| reply to dadkins
Re: Dumb... Pipe
Look at the bright side, no need to install any net nanny type software or blocking content via DNS to prevent your kids from reaching inappropriate content. ISPs can take care of that for you.
And when you need your spankage, give ur ISP a call and ask them to let it thru. 
This is seriously becoming ridiculous. I wouldn't have even imagined that something like that would be even up for discussion ... good bye net neutrality! |
|
