I haven't looked, but it doesn't make sense to me that Bell would use Sandvine in the same manner as the CATV ISPs did.
Sandvine has a lot to offer, but so do other equipment manufacturers. It was their superior packet forging technology (not just the RSTs but the whole redirection thing) that differentiates them. This is only faint praise, as they had no business conspiring with ISPs to secretly use it to cheat customers.
I don't know if this is the start of the death throes of Sandvine. More likely, I think this is the start of the death throes of DPI in the ISP space. And I'm 100% in favor of killing DPI on ISP and transit-provider networks.
DPI by law enforcement with a warrant or on private networks not for use by the public at large for Internet access is perfectly fine with me.
In what some might see as attempted stock manipulation, Sandvine announced before it reset revenue targets that it is really excited about its future in the wireless industry.
So -- the new frontier -- Is DPI, protocol discrimination, and packet forgery necessary for the success of wireless carriers? My guess is NO, but I want data. Unlike wireline services, where we find that throughput generally falls somewhere between 70-80% of the datarate, only 30-40% of the datarate on wireless networks results in useful throughput. Is there something inherent about certain protocols that would make that 30%-40% even worse?
The same providers Sandvine is chasing sell music and video downloads and services. How, then, do they justify buying Sandvine's technology to discriminate against protocols popular for carrying the same content.
Again -- I know the answer to this for wireline service. I only think I know the answer for wireless service, and not all wireless broadband is alike.
Now *I'M BABBLING*. LOL
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report.