G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| Translation
What he means to say is..
"We are offering higher speeds for more money (but read the fine print), but like SBC, we decide what you can use it for". So why the HELL are you selling it? What if everyone suddenly used all their downstream? Would you magically throttle those too? Of course. The BOTTOM LINE is that 'your network cannot support the higher upstream speeds". So DON'T SELL IT LIKE THAT. Don't sell something you can't support!
Yet another argument for the net neutrality clause. If I PAY for 1MB upstream, then I expect I can USE 1MB upstream. What if it was all SSL encrypted traffic? Would you throttle that? What if it was all e-mail traffic? would you throttle that? Time for the FCC to step in and lay down the smack.
--
Sure the internet has lots of porn and piracy, but I'm sure there's a downside to it. |
|
moko
join:2002-12-22
Fayetteville, GA | I agree 100%........what if 90% of our upload was sending doc's,would they throttle that?.....we should use OUR speed[what we pay for]for what ever we want to. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit |  Necessary step; cable still has upload limitations
Given that cable technology and available equipment still has upload limits that are lower than download limits( »computer.howstuffworks.com/question589.htm ), cable companies still have to manage how much uploading takes place in an area so as to not degrade the performance of the several hundred to several thousand users that share a node.
Since some P2P default configurations put no limit on how much uploading takes place, cable companies are looking for hardware and software that can throttle, but not terminate, applications that could saturate the upload capacity of a node.
While heavy users of P2P apps like bit torrent won't like these limitations, it is a better solution than just closing off ports or finding other ways to totally block an application. Using a scalpel instead of a sledge hammer.
Some will say that cable should have upstream speeds as fast as download. But that would involve a massive increase in the number of CMTS ports and an equivalent increase in equipment costs. The cost increases would just be passed on to all of a cable companies customers, all in the attempt to satisfy less than 5 % of their user base.
It would be better if the P2P apps would ship with defaults that limits the upload characteristics of product.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page |
|
MxxCon
join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY
clubs:  
| Escalating Arms Race
We are really awaiting a OS release that will give us more knobs and tweaks then what we have now. and We(paying customers) are really awaiting release of new bittorrent clients/protocols which include encryption that will break all your fucking "knobs and tweaks".
what will end up happening is, you, idiots, will drive everybody into using complete darknets like freenet and waste and next generation networks(it's name escapes me now). so all you'll see are streams random data, and you won't be able to fuck around with application protocols.
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: Signature can not exceed 20GB] |
|
sherman10570
join:2000-10-15
Pleasantville, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | reply to G_Poobah
Re: Translation
1MB = 1 Megabyte = 8 Megabits
You're only paying for _1_ megabit. Not 8. Get your own facts right.
Secondly, if every customer used their entire 1 megabit all the time, everyone's upload would feel like a 56k modem. They throttle the p2p services for a reason - to keep speeds consistent for all cusomers. Welcome to the world of residential Internet Service Providers. If you want a full megabit 24/7/365, I suggest you pay $300-400/month for a partial T1.
Thirdly, net neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. This is RCN's network. "Net neutrality" as discussed recently by SBC is about traffic between major providers.
- Sherman |
|
sherman10570
join:2000-10-15
Pleasantville, NY
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Necessary step; cable still has upload limitat
Well said - cable at the end of the day is a shared technology, and users do not understand the cost to upgrade facilities.
Residential users just don't understand what it costs to provide bandwidth to them. If every user could have 5 megabits of upload available 24/7/365, it would cost hundreds of dollars a month. Oh wait. Verizon charges ~$200/month for that service.
- Sherman |
|
GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| If traffic type was 'ethnic' he'd be a
Racist. Not being ambiguous as to the types of traffic their subscribers are using is class case of prejudice. It one thing to monitor and react to virus, hacking, etc., but its completely something different to inhibit user behavior because they are simply using their paid-for service.
BTW, is the use of BT in the AUP/TOS for RCN? If so, then they are within their right to abuse their subscribers, otherwise they are what they are and no better than a virus. |
|
rcnman
Jason Nealis
Premium,VIP
join:2003-05-02
Herndon, VA
| reply to moko
Re: Translation
said by moko  :I agree 100%........what if 90% of our upload was sending doc's,would they throttle that?.....we should use OUR speed[what we pay for]for what ever we want to. The main issue here is the default behavior of these P2P programs, Where the case is now a multitude of customers boot up their P.C.'s and don't realize that the P2P program they downloaded is now running wide open and sharing files. Because of the masses the few people who do focus on seeding / uploading get grouped into the masses.
Because of our high upstream abilities and soon to come enhancements to that product offering we are not out to support the peer 2 peer community alone. RCN is not eliminating the ability for customers to participate, but is instead insuring a fair share to the community.
And as noted in the discussions we are in the learning process and the final rollout will hopefully have a configuration that will work for everyone.
We would be foolish to think this isn't going to cause some issues, and I know there are people out there who have strong religion when it comes to managing bandwidth. But in the end the goal here is to manage items in order to provide the best service possible and communicate that with our user base.
-Jason
--
Jason Nealis, Director, Operations RCN |
|
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| reply to G_Poobah
The true/core problem has nothing to do with the actual ISP -- it has to do with the arrangements they have with their upstream provider (Level3, Cogent, Verio, Abovenet, AT&T, MCI, Sprint, Telia, etc. etc.).
In these scenarios, the ISP is bound by their agreement to only utilise a certain percentage of traffic (and if they exceed that amount, they are billed for extra usage -- and this isn't cheap, as it adds up quickly). The funniest thing is that many of these providers sell "solutions" which involve non-symmetric measurements for bandwidth usage. In English: they expect you to use only 20% of your upstream, while it's fine to use 90% of your downstream. Remember, this is applying to large pipes such as OC48s.
Commercial connectivity (i.e. non-residential) is a purely symmetrical medium and always has been. That DS1 you buy gets you 1.5mbit up AND 1.5mbit down -- symmetrically (some people call this "3.0mbit" but that's generally incorrect).
There is absolutely NO REASON OR JUSTIFICATION behind differentiating between the direction of traffic flow. Downstream, upstream, it's all the same. So who's really to blame?
Marketing/sales.
The instant these jhonkas figured out that different kinds-of services utilise bandwith differently, they jumped at the chance to create -- financially -- a difference between a standard 45mbit DS3 and a 95th percentile DS3, a utilisation-based DS3, or any other sort-of non-symmetric method. For example, web server farms will be *sending* lots of traffic, but usually won't be downloading much -- in this situation, a customer may want to buy a package that has a lot of upstream capability but only pays for, say, 512kbit of downstream traffic. So in the case one of the administrators downloads a 650MB ISO from that server farm, well, they'll get billed extra.
It's all about marketing. And let me tell you -- it didn't used to be this way. When you purchased a pipe, you got exactly what speed the physical pipe was -- and you got to use as much of that pipe as you wanted (i.e. 100% in both directions). Now, marketing has created little stipulations and other madness to try and "save people money" when the actual goal is to hope they exceed limits which results in the seller *making* more money.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977. In memory of 2005... |
|
achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| reply to sherman10570
said by sherman10570 :1MB = 1 Megabyte = 8 Megabits You're only paying for _1_ megabit. Not 8. Get your own facts right. Secondly, if every customer used their entire 1 megabit all the time, everyone's upload would feel like a 56k modem. They throttle the p2p services for a reason - to keep speeds consistent for all cusomers. Welcome to the world of residential Internet Service Providers. If you want a full megabit 24/7/365, I suggest you pay $300-400/month for a partial T1. Thirdly, net neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. This is RCN's network. "Net neutrality" as discussed recently by SBC is about traffic between major providers. You're a dumbass. - Sherman That was a well thought out, very concise, and accurate point, Sherman.
Sadly, don't expect it to be understood by many folks here... 
--
Bring back chicken and potato chips - Vote Perot! |
|
voyager6868
join:2003-01-29
Lynnwood, WA
 ·Bell Sympatico
| Throttling
I don't see any problem with a moderate amount of throttling to make sure that people aren't just mindlessly letting their torrent clients run at full speed.
If companies want to say, reduce the speed of torrent uploads by 1/2 and advertise this, then I would have no problem.
The issue with Rogers, at least, is that they throttle torrent traffic to such an extreme amount that it severely affects the performance of such traffic. Most people see about 5-10% their usual download speeds because upload is practically disabled. I find this approach completely unacceptable. |
|
nozzer
join:2004-06-25
Waltham, MA
| reply to koitsu
Re: Translation
Not true. The problem for cable providers is the upstream on their HFC systems. Bandwidth in the upstream direction is limited by bandwidth in the frequencies necessary to ensure reliable communication from the low powered cable modem to the node.
Jason also revealed that once they have upgraded OS's for their CMTS plant (the nodes to which each customers coax is connected) they will be able to control based upon the load on the CMTS.
noz |
|
petecellar
join:2002-10-15
Philadelphia, PA
| 24/7
Despite what the f.u. standard broadband contracts may state - as a customer I think they should only sell what they can support.
You should be able to use it 24/7/365 - whether it's streaming video, virtual networking, or p2p.
But that the business world... most people won't notice and "special users" have to pay more or shop around. Competition becomes really necessary. |
|
nonner9
join:2005-10-14
Charlotte, NC
| There's only on thing to do...
If you don't like the user agreement, then switch to a company who doesn't throttle any of the traffic which you want to use.
OR even better...
If everyone, in this forum who's complaining, got together, I bet they could form a new company which doesn't throttle any traffic, and maybe even charge a premium for it... |
|
JohnA
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Pittsburgh, PA | reply to rcnman
Re: Translation
Just an observation, rcnman, but it seems a waste of time to answer those complaining on the news page. None of them seem to have RCN service. What a surprise. |
|
nozzer
join:2004-06-25
Waltham, MA
| Can we be clear on something here?
As an RCN customer, I think its fair to point out why I think what RCN is doing is commendable. NOTHING is being down to throttle torrents being downloaded. Even the upstream. This is completely unlike the Rogers/Shaw debacle where many users are lucky to see even dialup speeds when they DOWNLOAD torrents. Unlike Comcast RCN do not send rude letters to high bandwidth users, and unlike OOL they don't massively throttle the whole connection of high upstream users.
ONLY seeds are being throttled, and ONLY when RCN is seeing peak numbers of upstream seeds on their network. RCN is trying to limit the effect on their customers of people who leave their P2P application on full share at peak times. Often these folks don't even realise these apps are still running - for those of us who need to seed for ratio purposes - use a client with a scheduler that limits the upstream bandwidth you are using at peak times so you aren't being greedy.
Also the poster suggests "ISP's shouldn't advertise speeds they can't support" - in this case RCN are trying to ensure the vast majority of us get these speeds when we really need them. Everyone of those in the minority know full well that their residential connection is using a shared resource. |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| reply to rcnman
Re: Translation
So, the problem is the customers are ignorant (not dumb, just don't know what the software they are running does). The big problem I have with the entire 'design' like this, is what it to stop RCN from saying 'Well, VoIP takes up too much traffic, so we're going to limit it to 50kb', or 'Too much is e-mail attachments, so we're going to limit it to 50kb'.
So, my question is very simple. If you ADVERTISE 1mb upstream, yet you don't allow 1mb upstream, doesn't that make you a hypocritcal liar? How is what RCN is doing any different than what SBC is proposing (charging more for faster speeds), except of course, RCN isn't bothering with the 'faster speeds' part, just the 'charging more' part.
--
Sure the internet has lots of porn and piracy, but I'm sure there's a downside to it. |
|
idoit_eliminator
@199.5.x.x | reply to JohnA
thats totally irrelevant. Dont advertize a service thats unlimited and then cripple it in some way. |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| reply to sherman10570
Wow, sherman.. you wear a special helmet, right? It shows..
#1: yah, whaever, so I used caps instead of mb.. Everyone knows what I'm talking about.
#2: If everyone used 1mb all the time, then how is that MY problem? It's the ISP's problem.. If they can't handle it, then they either a)upgrade the network or b)lower the speeds they sell (which would most likely necessitate a price cut if their was competition, cause everyone would leave). It's very simple, we the customer DO NOT EXIST to ensure the ISP makes a profit. We the customer exist to consume the product the ISP is selling us.
#3: Net Neutrality has EVERYTHING to do with the issue. Do you even know what it means? It's exactly the same as the FCC Cartertone decision, which allowed NON-ATT phones to be used on AT&T's network. Net neutrality means that RCN can't favor 'gaming' traffic over 'voip' traffic. Net neutrality means that RCN can't treat 'www' traffic any differently than it treats 'wais' traffic. Net neutrality is the ONLY THING that prevents companies from abusing their monopoly/duopoly powers over the consumer.
--
Sure the internet has lots of porn and piracy, but I'm sure there's a downside to it. |
|
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
1 edit | said by G_Poobah :#1: yah, whaever, so I used caps instead of mb.. Everyone knows what I'm talking about. Actually, when I read your post, I thought the same thing sherman10594 did. This is somewhat off-topic compared to the rest of the thread, but it's important: please learn to use proper unit designators. The difference between 1MB and 1Mb is huge.
If you need a quick lesson, just remember: data storage (i.e. hard disks, tape drives, floppies, etc.) uses _bytes_, while throughput and bandwidth (i.e. network devices, network speed, etc.) uses _bits_.
I cannot count how many times I have seen people post on forums about how they have a "1.5MB DSL connection" and are only getting "160kB/sec, WHY???".
Then again, I also say "mb" when I should be using "Mb", but I use lowercase for megabit because it's easier to (visually) distinguish the difference between mb vs. MB.
#2: If everyone used 1mb all the time, then how is that MY problem? It's the ISP's problem.. If they can't handle it, then they either a)upgrade the network or b)lower the speeds they sell (which would most likely necessitate a price cut if their was competition, cause everyone would leave). It's very simple, we the customer DO NOT EXIST to ensure the ISP makes a profit. We the customer exist to consume the product the ISP is selling us. This is where I "generally" agree with you. Of course, I'm not addicted to the amount of bandwidth I can get; I'm more interested in latency (and no, I'm not a gamer).
I agree that many ISPs are overselling their capacity, which is affecting all customers as a whole. Of course, with proper monitoring, ISPs shouldn't have a problem predicting when they're going to run out of capacity, nor have a problem detecting when they *are* out of capacity.
But I should educate you in one respect:
There is an silent war occuring between residential and commercial Internet connectivity. The amount of bandwidth a residential DSL or cable customer gets -- for the cost of US$20-60/month -- EASILY exceeds that of the cost of a commercial network connection (i.e. servers on 100mbit Ethernet in a co-lo, DS1s, DS3s, etc.). As it stands right now, *one single cable modem user* can pretty much max out many small-time co-lo customers' bandwidth.
Prices for residential DSL/cable are decreasing, while costs for server connectivity are either increasing or staying the same. There is no harmonious balance between the two any more, and that's going to ultimately affect the Internet as we know it -- hell, it already is.
So keep in mind that even though you're paying what you consider "a crapload" for something like a 6mbit/1mbit connection, there are those of us who run the servers you're downloading data from who curse you for being able to saturate what we pay 10x the amount for. US$40 6/1 cable versus US$400 512/512 co-location.
I'm not whining -- I'm just saying, please keep this in mind the next time you have the sudden desire to download tons of data from a web or FTP server somewhere. Chances are the person you're getting information from pays a crapload more than you do.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977. In memory of 2005... |
|
