  TKJunkMail Enjoy the sun Premium join:2002-03-03 Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Congestion is a potential problem and ....
.... accusing ISPs of greed doesn't change the facts.
"Complete congestion is a technical fantasy which only exists in the minds of people who do not understand TCP congestion control and how Additive Increase/Multiplicative Decrease (AIMD) works in TCP Congestion avoidance works, he says. "AIMD allows a linear growth of bandwidth utilization until loss occurs, at which time an exponential reduction takes place. This slow-start, fast-fallback ensures congestion cannot cause gridlock." Of course, Complete congestion is impossible. But disabling congestion is NOT impossible. Who cares if the network isn't ever totally completely down, if the response time for a small web page takes 2 mins instead of 2 secs. Claiming that "COMPLETE" congestion is impossible is a straw man argument that tries to minimize the legitimate possibility of severely reduced response times to a majority of customers.
"In an ISP, such as Insight's network, a network upgrade ought to be performed if the network is routinely experiencing congestion," he notes. "This does not mean that individual cable modems ought to be provisioned with higher speeds, but that the shared pool of uplink bandwidth that they share ought to be increased to reduce the occurrence of congestion." Now that is something I agree with. Stop the constant upgrading of modem speeds at the behest of marketing types and actually offer speeds that can be supported with the existing infrastructure. And only increase offered speeds when the infrastructure can handle it.
As Mr. Willner pointed out, network upgrades that are intended to enhance the speed and quality of Internet access would, in the absence of network management, only exacerbate this problem because P2P users around the world seek to retrieve files from computers on systems with the fastest upload speeds. Just increasing speeds without dealing with the reality of P2P and also HD video streaming is a no-win proposition. If an ISP upgrades their speeds without recognizing the probability of their customers then being used by P2P systems to disproportionately serve up content, then their system has to increase costs and will be at a competitive disadvantage to systems that aren't targeted for serving up P2P content.
So, we all agree that network management and abusive customer management is necessary. But how that is done is up for debate.
Content providers, of course, come down on the side of never slowing down their particular content at all - no matter what it costs ISPs to deliver it to customers.
ISPs, on the other hand, don't want to aggravate the 95% of their customers who aren't on the bleeding edge of needing unlimited speeds to download 100 HD movies a month(even though those doing so could never watch them all). To allow that is to drive up costs for all customers.
My suggestion: - Boot the "I need unlimited bandwidth 24x7" wackos or force them to pay much, much more for their service. - stop offering increased speed tiers and start offering byte transfer tiers with costs based accordingly.
The only way that infrastructure will expand is if those creating the need for it pay the costs of the expansion. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
  Jason Levine Premium join:2001-07-13 USA
| I don't think that content providers would object to slowing down content so long as is done in a "neutral" manner. This means not targeting content based on where it is coming from or what type of content it is. To give an example, don't slow down content from YouTube while letting Hulu's content go through at full speed. This is where the network neutrality debate comes in.
I think that the better solution for congestion is to find the top 5-10% of users during heavy usage periods and slow down their connections. Not just for P2P, but for everything. If someone is downloading 500GB worth of material, causing congestion which is directly impacting a large number of users, then reduce their download/upload speed temporarily. Once the congestion has passed, restore their connections to full speed.
The benefit of this approach is that it:
1. Doesn't kick users off completely and doesn't interfere with a user's ability to use the Internet for "basic" tasks. e.g. They still can check their e-mail in a reasonable amount of time, but downloading that new HD movie over P2P will take awhile. 2. Doesn't discriminate between content types or origins. YouTube will be slowed down just the same as Hulu, BitTorrent, Google Maps, BBR, and Windows Update. 3. Is only temporary. 4. Only targets the "bandwidth pigs" and not normal users. -- -Jason Levine Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com |
|
  digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09 49533 | reply to TKJunkMail Sorry, but I'll believe a qualified network engineer over a lobbiest drone, or you for that matter, any day of the week. |
|
 qworster
join:2001-11-25 Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
·RoadRunner Cable
·Vonage
2 edits | reply to TKJunkMail But the ISPs CAUSED this problem DUE TO THEIR GREED, and now their customers have to suffer for it. Shouldn't the ISP's be punished in some way-even if the sanction is as simple as allowing competition? Look, the ISPs were handed a virtual monopoly by the FCC and used it to SCREW the consumer! THEY are the ones that acted irresponsibly. Should they not be sanctioned for this? |
|
 deadzoned Premium join:2005-04-13 Baton Rouge, LA
·Cox HSI
| reply to TKJunkMail It's simply about control. PERIOD.
The ISP's don't want to be "big dumb pipes" and they will sell out to Big Media in order to make this happen. "Network Congestion" is the newest buzzword to scare the consumer into acceptance of a tiered and limited Internet.
I guess it doesn't hurt that you eat every bite of the "P2P-Piracy-Bandwidth Hogs" rhetoric that is fed to you like it's some sort of huge, delicious propaganda burrito.
Ignorance is bliss my friend. I salute you. |
|
  NetAdmin CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| reply to TKJunkMail said by TKJunkMail :My suggestion: - Boot the "I need unlimited bandwidth 24x7" wackos or force them to pay much, much more for their service. - stop offering increased speed tiers and start offering byte transfer tiers with costs based accordingly. Here's a better suggestion, based on being in the trenchs...
Providers need to start charging customers closer to the costs of providing the packages they offer. The current situation is a direct result of the broadband "price war" between telcos and cablecos. If providers can't make enough money to keep up with the constantly growing demands on their network at the current prices they are offering, they need to raise their prices or cut the speeds they offer. Bandwidth costs have not dropped enough that I should be able to get 9Mbps residential connection for the price that I got 3Mbps for less than five years ago. -- --- Over ten plus years of carrying The Clue Bat... |
|
  Filiberto
@telnor.net
| reply to qworster said by qworster : Look, the ISPs were handed a virtual monopoly by the FCC and used it to SCREW the consumer! THEY are the ones that acted irresponsibly. Should they not be sanctioned for this? Dream on....
You now Martin's next job?... In 2 years after he leaves office hes going to be offer a big position in one of the telcos he favor during his term as FCC chairman
And the Telcos Lobbies Congress.. it'll NEVER HAPPEN... Immunity please... Have xxx Million to give to every Senator.. House Representatives...
Even OBAMA voted for TELCO IMMUNITY... talk about courage. |
|