phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
2 edits | More junk...
More junk to confuse the newbies... Doesn't VPN tunnels use more bandwidth anyway??? |
|
fonzbear2000
Premium
join:2005-08-09
Saint Paul, MN | just use shareaza which connects u to about 10 different bit torrent clients at the same time |
|
Cjaiceman
Premium,MVM
join:2004-10-12
Parker, CO
 ·Comcast Workplace
·Comcast
| quote:
The ISP wants to discriminate against some of the user’s packets, but doesn’t want to inconvenience the user so badly that the user discontinues the service (or demands a much lower price). The user responds by making his packets indistinguishable and daring the ISP to discriminate against all of them. The ISP can back down, by easing off on discrimination in order to keep the user happy – or the ISP can call the user’s bluff and hamper all or most of the user’s traffic.
If I was on an ISP that shapes my packets, I would take my money elsewhere and get a "real" internet provider. The ONLY way they could get me to stay would give me a lot of upload, or give me the connection for under $9.99 a month (even then I would still probably switch). |
|
Rothan Tik
Premium
join:2000-11-07
Danvers, MA | ehhh
we've recently had problems with this on campus. Because the sysAdmins can't detect this end to end.. our whole network ends up getting slowed down by overusage. |
|
brooklynman4
join:2004-09-07
Brooklyn, NY | Ill dress mines in a armani sute lol. |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| He says it perfectly
"The ISP wants to discriminate against some of the user’s packets, but doesn’t want to inconvenience the user so badly that the user discontinues the service (or demands a much lower price)."
Now, it doesn't matter if it's VPN traffic, if it's http traffic, if it's P2P traffic. The ISP has no right to classify the packets, but the ISP REALLY REALLY REALLY wants to, so they can discriminate. As I've always advocated, encrypt everything, then the ISP is forced to be a common carrier. It sucks, but, on the plus side the processing power is so much greater at the user level today, then even 8 years ago, that encrypting everything is possible now. (For those who used the original pix firewalls with T-3 lines, the 15mb/sec traffic overload crash happend to me all the time. Today, 256-AES at 100mb/sec = zero problems)
Now, lets say an ISP does do the 'jitter bug'. I, for one, would love to see Verizon pull a stunt like that. All it would take is one tech to report it, and that would be grounds for a multi-billion dollar fine against verzion. That would be discrimination on the purest level, as there is NO TECHNICAL REASON, EVER to introduce jitter. Period. No matter what the corporate apologists say, jitter serves no purpose whatsoever, and any ISP that attemped to do that should be dismanteled. That is discrimination in the purest sense of the word.
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to Rothan Tik
Re: ehhh
said by Rothan Tik  :we've recently had problems with this on campus. Because the sysAdmins can't detect this end to end.. our whole network ends up getting slowed down by overusage. Well, just tell your sysadmins what everyone here is always saying - {sarcasm} just add bandwidth, it doesn't cost anything. After all no one should abridge the rights of copyright infringers to have their free music and videos.{/sarcasm}
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| reply to G_Poobah
Re: He says it perfectly
said by G_Poobah :All it would take is one tech to report it, and that would be grounds for a multi-billion dollar fine against verzion. Not to sound argumentative, but what would be the basis for the fine? |
|
ytsejam
join:2006-02-03
Mountain View, CA
| Why bother?
If I were an ISP concerned about high bandwidth utilization, I'd just state the overall monthly usage limit up front in the user agreement, no matter which ports/protocols are involved. This would be similar to the empirically discovered and discussed here 600GB monthly download cap discovered by a Comcast user recently, except that it needs to be disclosed before the user signs up for service. It should be totally feasible to make the limit large enough for the absolute majority of home customers; if you need more bandwidth, just pay more and you'll get it.
This whole encryption-to-prevent-packet-throttling hoopla is just stupid, IMHO. |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: ehhh
Your use of the [sarcasm] tag confuses me. From what he's describing, the problem is they don't have enough bandwidth to provide everyone the capacity wanted. The solution is to add more bandwidth. Just because it costs money doesn't mean it's the wrong solution. Spend 10 minutes reading about how internet 2 does it. They've even show that the correct thing to do is to add bandwidth, not filters, not QOS.
Look at the internet 2. Most of it has has been upgraded to 100Gbps over the last year. And in 2004, they had just finished upgrading from 2.5Gbps to 10Gbps. And in 2001 they had upgraded from 622Mbps to 2.5Gbps. So, from 1999 (when it effectively started) to today, they've increased their capabilities by a factor of 180! That's 180 times faster than what it was 7 years ago. Has your university kept up too?
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself. |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| reply to J D McDorce
Re: He says it perfectly
The Sherman Antitrust Act.
It begins with the statement: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal." And it established penalties for persons convicted of establishing such combinations: ". . . shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court."
Or, as the supreme court ruled, "It is the use of certain tactics to attain or preserve such position that is illegal.". Adding jitter to cause other services to fail on your network would most certainly fall under 'illegal interference in interstate trade'.
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself. |
|
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
| reply to G_Poobah
Re: ehhh
At UofB, we had this issue too, unrestricted P2P file trading killed local routers and switches, it was never bandwidth, it was local switches CPU and backplane.....adding bandwidth doesn't fix it, adding a 1/2 million dollar carrier class switch for each dorm with over 2000 residents was the only way to fix it.
And it would come at the parents and students expense.
And still...95% of P2P traffic is illegal file sharing.
Adding local resources to appease illegal file sharing is akin to supporting theft...and the parents and students will foot the bill?
I don't see that happening.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! |
|
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
| reply to G_Poobah
Re: He says it perfectly
Do you know the difference between a Tier 1 carrier and an ISP?
The average ISP is a CUSTOMER of Verizon. (And AT&T and level3 and SBC ...)
You really DON'T know how the internet works...do you. And, after reading the article, I don't believe this professor does either.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! |
|
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: ehhh
Uhm, no offense but children should be studying than actually wasting time downloading torrents for there pleasure. Instead of doing traffic shaping why not cap each room to 1.5/384 speeds or the systems capacity and when the system detects that other members are not using the connection those caps slowly raise to probably 3.0/768. That's another solution than just buying new equipment all together.
I see no sarcasm when you bash other people's opinions simply because you don't agree with them. Bit Torrent IS NOT used for just free music and videos, please be aware that it can be used for many thing's and any types of files which can actually take load off networks if people seed.
If 15 students at the university are seeding a file for there biological study and have high quality PNG's that take over 500MB student's in the university can simply download the torrent and all users who have the file can seed to them locally on the network without having to put any strain on the pipe to the internet.
SO BT might be actually yet another solution if it where implemented locally and professors and students can upload there work to it and share it among other people on a local based only network.
There is no reason to traffic shape the network when you can simply have some type of dynamic limit set on the network where if Room A is not using there internet connection it's shared with the rest of the university and if Room B is sucking up all the bandwidth the dynamic caps can take effect by limiting it to make sure the network stays at a level which it can be operational. Then when doing this is no longer useful you upgrade your network and increase pipe speed.
By the way before someone brings up the net neutrality discussion, this is a university who has ever right to change there line policies since it's there network and the only thing you are there for is to study. Not to fool around watching anime all day.
While a home user pays for his/her connection that he agrees for at a certain speed and can use it how he wants. It's the telco's network but it's your money and I see no reason for them to give me degraded service just because they think Sussi who pays an extra $5 cripple my traffic because she is playing X Box Live. In the solution I just given it would keep Sussi using just a limited amount of bandwidth without degrading the rest of the users on the network.
On a ISP network they have seriously fat pipe's but when they oversell that's when the problems occur. If they cannot keep up with demand simply upgrade there network, why though? Because your contract with the ISP is to offer you that so called capped/unlimited usage pipe, and the customer wants that type of service. If your not using your bandwidth I see no reason why the ISP's should be mad because it's like giving them a free meal. Yet your connection should never exceed a amount of GB's per month and that's your paid bandwidth they simply want to traffic shape to limit how much bandwidth you use each month so they can get more free meals. |
|
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
| Most ISP's actually don't have seriously fat pipes. They have DS3's, OC3's and OC12's from the likes of verizon and SBC which carry their customers traffic out to the public internet exchange point.
DS3 = 45MB/s not fat at all
OC3 = 155MB/s - Getting there, but still, only 50% more than fastethernet.
OC12 = 655MB/s - a little over half a gig link. Still not seriously fat but this is reasonable to an ISP with a market of 8,000 or so - and it costs about $50,000 just to set it up, and another $20,000 a month in recurring fees.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| reply to gheezer
Re: He says it perfectly
said by gheezer :Do you know the difference between a Tier 1 carrier and an ISP? The average ISP is a CUSTOMER of Verizon. (And AT&T and level3 and SBC ...) You really DON'T know how the internet works...do you. And, after reading the article, I don't believe this professor does either. And apparently you neither.... he was talking about a possible legal case against the provider, due to deliberate traffic 'massaging'. |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| reply to gheezer
"You really DON'T know how the internet works...do you. And, after reading the article, I don't believe this professor does either."
WOW! I can't believe you just said that. Talk about painting the word 'ignorant' on your chest! Next you'll be telling me the earth is only 6000 years old (or is it 5000, I never can remember that, next time I'm in Kansas I'll ask the local school board)
Lets see, who should we believe. A published, ivy league (Princeton) phd professor, who testifies before congress on how the internet works.. OR.. a two-bit just out of college loony case? Hmm, apart from some neo-con republicans, don't think many people are going to believe Gheezers take on it.
Well, this is a dilemma for me! not sure who to believe now!
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself. |
|
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
1 edit | reply to kamm
Seperate ISP from Tier 1 carrier...you will understand my point then.
The ISP is a customer of the carriers who are blathering about tiered services.
And yes...I know about ISP's
G_Poobah posted this, Quoted directly from the article:
"The ISP wants to discriminate against some of the user’s packets, but doesn’t want to inconvenience the user so badly that the user discontinues the service (or demands a much lower price)."
G_Poobah did NOT discriminate between the ISP as a customer of Verizon, and Verizon, the tier 1 carrier who is THREATENING tiered service.
Nor did the *Professor* who crafted the original article.
MOST ISP's are customers of these carriers. COX, Charter, Adelphia, Road Runner...and it's not the ISP who will introduce *jitter*...it's the SBC's and AT&T's and Verizon's
You see the difference?
Those who CAN...do. Those who CAN'T...teach.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! |
|
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | reply to gheezer
Re: ehhh
Those are fat pipe's in a consumer's perspective. But let's do calculations.
8,000 considering the average price for DSL is 49.95 a month.
8000 * 49.95 = $399600 - 50,000 = 349600 - 20,000 = $329600
So $329600 in profits |
|
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
| reply to G_Poobah
Re: He says it perfectly
Why do you insult? Just out of college? Two bit? I've been doing networking since the 80's.
And I read the article...the professor never discriminated between the ISP and the Tier1 carrier.
NOT discriminating between the two is a serious flaw in his article.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! |
|
