netg
@cisco.com | Cable ISP charging premium for VOIP customers
Now that sucks, so they are going to charge me more if i have a different VOIP provider.
»www.internetweek.com/showArticle···69500337 |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Throttle competition's websites also?
Quite scary. If I've paid for a connection, I shouldn't be told afterwards "oh, by the way, if you want your connection to *really* work, you'll need to pay us more."
I'm not sure if they're doing this or not, but it also sounds like they have the capability to slow down your connection if you're trying to access certain websites. For example, a cable modem customer looking into getting DSL might get dissuaded if the phone company's website loaded extremely slowly. Loading other websites would be fine, so it would seem to the user that the phone company can't even invest in a decent webserver. Net result: The customer stays with the cable company.
(Of course, they could just block the site, but that's more obvious. An intentional slow down is harder to prove.)
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com |
|
John_W
Premium
join:2000-04-25
Worcester, MA
clubs:  | Talk about being anti-competitive. |
|
Roop
join:2003-11-15
Ottawa, ON
 ·Cybersurf Corporat..
| reply to Jason Levine
i'm on rogers and this really sucks guys. i wish dsl was better but i'm 6km out and sattlelite is no faster than dsl here.
about 6 months ago i notice on DC++ my uploads would start at like 10kbyte but would drop to 1kbyte after a minute. i thought it was just me but at the same time, a bunch of other rogers users noticed this.
downloading is not affected in this traffic shaping. you can always download at max speed. of course, every DC hub is going to ban you for not uploading. there are now many DC hubs that don't allow rogers IPs.
same applies to torrents. download as much as you want, but uploads suck. this is bad news for the p2p community. limewire and other kazaa like programs are affected too.
do you know what the kicker is on this? Rogers has caps. 60gb a month of combined traffic for normal customers and 100gb for the high tier.
why are they traffic shaping if you can only download/upload 60-100gigs REGARDLESS of what it is? |
|
kdandaoc
join:2003-10-13
608052427 | Weird analogy
Yes this is terrible, it's like going and buying a vile of crack and finding out there's not much in it! |
|
hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
clubs:
 ·QuantumVoice
·AT&T Southeast
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Roop
Re: Throttle competition's websites also?
AGREED for sure.
I remember reading some where if i can find it i will post it, was about P2P, and it was costing like 10 million a year in equipment problems for the cable companies. I want to say this was back in 2002 or 2001.
Sounds stupid here correct me if im wrong but it sounds like the government has there hands in this some how. |
|
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
·CenturyLink
| reply to Roop
said by Roop  :why are they traffic shaping if you can only download/upload 60-100gigs REGARDLESS of what it is? Because you see it from your single user month-at-a-time point-of-view...and they see it from their multi-user aggregated bandwidth millisecond point-of-view.
--
A is A |
|
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
·CenturyLink
| reply to Jason Levine
said by Jason Levine :I'm not sure if they're doing this or not, but it also sounds like they have the capability to slow down your connection if you're trying to access certain websites. I'm sure that there is a vast underground facility located somewhere that is protected by black helicopters and agents dressed in black Kevlar. And inside, hundreds of Grandma-types monitoring the billions of web sites making sure that they instantly throttle you when you visit a competitor's web site.
Ahh...yeah.
--
A is A |
|
Skyrunner8
join:2002-01-10
Berkeley, CA
| Cox in So Cal
Uhm, It seems like Cox Is doing this now also. At least in my area, all my bit torrent downloads are slower. Sometimes they will shoot up to about 30 Kb/s, but immediately drop down to under 4. Since they basically have a monopoly in this area, We have no alternatives (Besides crappy dial up for satellite)
It happened over the summer also, because when we came back from summer break, it was all slow after that. Anybody else with Cox experiencing this?
--
-Jeff |
|
Monster Rain
Premium
join:2002-08-03
USA
| reply to hayabusa3303
Re: Throttle competition's websites also?
said by hayabusa3303 :Sounds stupid here correct me if im wrong but it sounds like the government has there hands in this some how. You would be wrong.
--
CNN. Spreading the fear! One shark attack at a time. |
|
sirsloop
Premium
join:2004-02-18
New York, NY
·Optimum Online
| reply to netg
Re: Cable ISP charging premium for VOIP customers
Once it has been proven, it won't fly. Look at the flury of negative feedback and mass hysteria that occured when OOL decided to throttle connections that were open for more than a "burst". There was around 2 days where they held nearly every eingle negative review in /gbu !!! |
|
Toadman
Hypnotoad
join:2001-11-28
Medina, OH | reply to netg
It will be only a matter of time that cable providers will start filtering any VIOP traffic except their own VOIP system. And for many users like me that only have one choice, we will in essence have "no choice". |
|
Drex_CS
join:2005-05-11
canada
| reply to John_W
Re: Throttle competition's websites also?
said by John_W :Talk about being anti-competitive. what's anti=competitive? the guy above you posted a "hypathetical" situation in which a cable company "could" slow down connection to a website... To bad that it's not possible to do. |
|
Turbocpe
Premium
join:2001-12-22
IA
1 edit | Mediacom was throttling FTP
In this post:
»[AL] Mediacom Newsgroups
One of the Mediacom Reps indicated that the Mediacom Cable Internet service quote:
...actual intension of us offering this service is for transmission of Text and small pictures
Despite indicating that the FTP throttling idea has been cancelled:
»[AL] Mediacom Newsgroups
I've still heard rumors from a few that this is still something that is being considered, and possibly will be implemented. |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs:
·Optimum Online
| reply to netg
Re: Cable ISP charging premium for VOIP customers
Give me what I'm paying for..
It's not your problem what I'm doing with my internet connection. And don't tell me about being fair to other BB users.. Get your network together that that will not be an excuse.
It's obvious this is true look @ the Riaa's lawsuits. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to Drex_CS
Re: Throttle competition's websites also?
Actually, according to the article, I think it is possible to do so. From the article:
it charges people $10 more each month if they want to make sure a third-party Internet telephone service, from a service provider such as Vonage or Primus, works properly over Shaw's high-speed service. "Without this service customers may encounter quality of service issues with their voice over Internet service," the company states on its website. As one industry source told me, "It's a sneaky way of saying if you don't get this your service will suck." Suddenly, high-speed customers with "regular" service find themselves as second-class cybercitizens. To accomplish this, Shaw uses technology from Merrimack, N.H.-based Ellacoya Networks Inc., among a handful of companies — including Cisco-owned P-Cube Inc. of Sunnyvale, Calif., and Waterloo-based Sandvine Inc. — that have perfected the art of what's known as "deep packet inspection." Basically, the technology can analyze all traffic on a high-speed network, identify what it is, and then "mark" it — that is, assign it a level of priority chosen by the network operator. It means Shaw knows which subscriber on its network is using a Primus VoIP service, or Kazaa for downloading music, or Bit Torrent for downloading movies. In fact, it inspects even deeper. Not only does the technology know you're using Kazaa, for example, but it knows the specific songs you have chosen to download, which itself has privacy implications depending on how a network operator uses it. This says to me that the cable provider is examining the packets, recognizing that they are being used to carry VoIP traffic (specifically, a 3rd party's VoIP traffic) and assigning them lower priority. If the user were to use the cable company's own VoIP solution, then the traffic would be given normal priority.
The later part of the statement seems to indicate that the company can identify specific properties of the request (which song is being downloaded, for example). It's not too far of a jump to go from "which song" to "which URL". (If anything, it's probably easier to identify.)
Of course, the rest of my post was purely hypothetical in nature. I didn't mean to imply that any provider was taking such action. Merely that such action is theoretically possible given this technology.
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com |
|
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| So for those that want a "cheaper monopoly"...
...as noted in numerous threads like this one:
»ISPs: Verizon/MCI Merger Will Kill Us
This is what you'll get when VZ and one cable company are your only choices for the wire and the pipe to the Internet.
This is exactly why both telcos and cablecos should be open to offers from regional/small ISPs to wholesale out the more "demanding" premium customers. |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs: |  Do they call themselves PISPs?
Partial Internet Service Provider |
|
keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA
·Teliax VOIP
 ·WestPAnet Inc.
·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
| I think it is fair
Internet providers giving different priority to different traffic is fine by me. To have music download slower than say a web site is a good idea. You take available bandwidth and allocate it correctly.
VOIP should be given priority over all other traffic, then VPN traffic, then web sites, email, and then whatever is left for music downloads.
If you want 100% of say 3/768 then pay for it. There is no way it is financially possible to allow 1% of users to use 90% of the bandwidth. Allow 99% of the users to use what is used by 99% of the people and whatever is left over then give that to the less priority traffic, like music. If what is left over is 3 megs for your CD or whatever you are downloading then so be it.
$50 a month broadband is not 3 megs all the time, it is not practical. Buy a T1, for maybe $400 a month if you are lucky, and download all you want at full speed. |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| reply to Drex_CS
Re: Throttle competition's websites also?
said by Drex_CS :said by John_W :Talk about being anti-competitive. what's anti=competitive? the guy above you posted a "hypathetical" situation in which a cable company "could" slow down connection to a website... To bad that it's not possible to do. It's fairly trivial to block or slow connections to specific sites. There are also a number of ways to do it (at different layers of the IP stack).
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) |
|
