said by wierdo :

... Most ISP terms of service specifically forbid users from running servers. It isn't right, but that's what most people agree to. In my case, I can spend an extra $40 or $50 a month and have that allowed.
...

said by funchords :

They can, and yes, it costs dollars. But on the other hand, its what the current set of customers seem to want.

said by funchords :

I am not doing anything I am not authorized to do.

said by funchords :

If you want to serve content, buy a account that allows servers. Or buy a dedicated server for the vast sum of $60/mo.

said by TK Junk Mail :

A very small vocal subset of the customers. 95% could care less.

said by funchords :

They can, and yes, it costs dollars. But on the other hand, its what the current set of customers seem to want.

said by wierdo :

I fear that the users are quietly being hypnotized by your chant "they can just build their way out of it. more capex more capex more capex."

Don't wish that you should get things for free just because you presume that it should be so, especially when you're in contravention of the published terms of service you agreed to when you bought the account.

If you want to serve content, buy a account that allows servers. Or buy a dedicated server for the vast sum of $60/mo.

said by funchords :

The data seems to be working against you.

said by funchords :

I really fear that we (the users) are quietly being hypnotized by the chant, "we're out of bandwidth, the exaflood is coming, we can't build our way out of it."

said by espaeth :

Actually, this should be a relevant discussion. I keep reading people arguing "freedom of speech!" violations because one specific protocol is impacted, and I can't help but think of it like someone crying in a parking lot that their wireless key FOB battery went dead so they can't unlock their car. (even though they're holding the keys in their hand) One application doesn't make or break the Internet.

As for no interference from ISPs; maybe if this were the 1980's and the Internet was still a simple place filled people of only good intentions. Traffic interference is a fact of life, just like people had to get accustomed to traffic signals once enough people started getting cars.

said by wierdo :

The key is to do it per flow and not per user, firstly so you don't have to have ridiculous buffer sizes, and secondly so that you can slow down p2p and large HTTP downloads without messing with mundane web browsing.

said by TK Junk Mail :

Throwing resets into the stream would be a way that will still get people upset about forging packets.

said by funchords :

No, I said I couldn't upload them via the Gnutella protocols (Gnutella or G2). I should have been able to, except that by big fat ISP performed a Man-in-the-middle attack using secret technology because it decided my use didn't fit its bursty model.

said by funchords :

What else I could or could not have done is beside the point. It's the Internet. The network in the middle is supposed to connect the end points, not dictate their behavior!

said by funchords :

You know, the industry is the same some that complains that somewhere between a third to 95% of all internet traffic is P2P file sharing -- aka Continuous Data Transfer.

If it's a world of burst traffic, someone forgot to tell the world.

said by espaeth :

You couldn't upload that content to a service like Rapidshare or MegaUpload? You couldn't upload it to your Comcast personal web page, or other 3rd party web/ftp hosting provider? You couldn't post the music files in a Usenet newsgroup dedicated to music content?

said by funchords :

Yeah, which is why I couldn't upload any of my original content for three straight months, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

said by funchords :

Repeating the same mistake twice is beyond dumb.

said by espaeth :

That's a very narrow view of the situation; you're assuming continuous data transfer which is atypical in a world of burst traffic.

said by funchords :

Why would you want to? Every modem is already configured to limit uploads. The customers' traffic is already shaped.

You only need to shape it again if you've oversold the bandwidth beyond all reasonable ability to deliver it.

said by espaeth :

The TCP reset trick is limited to a small group of applications that can gracefully deal with a lost connection and can still assemble working data at the end of the transfer. P2P apps do this very well by not strongly relying on any one particular connection and CRC checking the received file to ensure a valid copy was reached.

said by espaeth :

I've skimmed through the Cisco CMTS config guides and I don't see any obvious way to implement equal division traffic shaping without resorting to a 3rd party box.

said by TK Junk Mail :

Throwing resets into the stream would be a way that will still get people upset about forging packets.

Capital expenditures for our businesses were $781.3 million, $885.8 million and $768.7 million, in 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively, and primarily include payments for consumer premises equipment, such as new digital video cable boxes and modems, as well as infrastructure and capital expenditures related to our cable and Lightpath telecommunications networks

an increase in Cable segment capital expenditures of 41.2% to approximately $6.0 billion, primarily as a result of (i) the installation of advanced set-top boxes, modems and other equipment associated with the increase in subscribers to our digital video, high-speed Internet and digital phone services; (ii) network improvements to handle the growth in subscribers and to provide service improvements and enhancements

Total capital expenditures for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006, and 2005 were approximately $1.2 billion, $1.1 billion, and $1.1 billion, respectively.

$17,717[M] in construction and capital expenditures

We continue to make significant capital expenditures to meet the demand for communications services and to further improve such services. Capital spending for Wireline was $10,956 million in 2007, $10,259 million in 2006 and $8,267 million in 2005. Capital spending for Domestic Wireless was $6,503 million in 2007, $6,618 million in 2006 and $6,484 million in 2005.

said by TK Junk Mail :

Yes, I believe it is the same idea. Though the way I read Fairshare is that it is more dynamic than a satellite FAP system in that it will be applied and then removed real time and much more quickly and for a very limited period of time - maybe for just the length of a download or upload.

said by TK Junk Mail :

The real question is how do they then throttle the traffic after identifying whose packets need throttling. The easiest way would be to throttle down the transfer speed at the CMTS for those users whose traffic is staying at the highest rates for lengthy periods of time.

Throwing resets into the stream would be a way that will still get people upset about forging packets.

said by halfband :

Isn't that similar to what the satellite guys do now, throttle a high volume user? They refer to it as FAP right?

said by TK Junk Mail :

The easiest way would be to throttle down the transfer speed at the CMTS for those users whose traffic is staying at the highest rates for lengthy periods of time.

said by en102 :

Yup - this will be interesting

Throttle by user bandwidth for long periods of time may not be a good idea either.
Eg. I'm on a 3Mbps connection and I want to d/l Fedora Core DVD ISO as well as some other ISO's. A reset would just tick me off.

Why not look at the overall traffic crossing the node, and when its nearing capacity, throttle from the top usage down until its at a supportable level.

said by jc100 :

First, this software I am sure is deep packet inspection. IT HAS TO LOOK AT what you download or for certain protocols to determine it's p2p. (Invasion of privacy).

The FairShare system, which works with Sandvine’s network switches, allows service providers to curtail bandwidth based on subscriber-usage metrics from various sources to balance available bandwidth and resources among all subscribers.

Donnelly said FairShare has already been deployed by a North American service provider, but he declined to identify the customer.

FairShare uses technology from two companies Sandvine acquired last year, CableMatrix Technologies and Simplicita Software.