Topic 'Re: I can see both sides here...' in forum '' - dslreports.com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777083 en Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:03:33 EDT Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:03:33 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21791309 said by RARPSL:

There is a simple solution to the 3rd party VoIP situation. When I use such an application, I am connecting with a Server run by the VoIP Provider. Thus Comcast KNOWS that this is a VoIP Session and can serve it over the same channel as they use for THEIR CDV service. I know that this might be seen as violating some aspects of Network Neutrality but so long as there is no blackmail fees being extorted from the VoIP Providers and ALL VoIP traffic flows unrestricted over the 2nd channel, I see no real problem.
Ditto, if Comcast gave other voip companies the same network reliability it offers for its DV service, i'm thinking the FCC wouldn't even have asked the question.

I don't think there shouldn't be any prioritizing to the net, I think that it should be in question when the prioritizing is used as some benefit to them.

said by bzmeteorite:

Of course, they could prioritize all VoIP possible on the data channel, but what happens if a competitor uses a proprietary technology that prevents Comcast from identifying their voice service?
Implementation of this should start with the need to standardize what type of flag would be set to tell Comcast, this is voip info and to route it accordingly.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21791309 Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:16:07 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21787542
No matter how you dress up the pig, it is still a pig. The traffic flows around the world on the same pipes. At one point or another it all comes together regardless of channel, signal, or protocol.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21787542 Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:04:06 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21784072
You never see him spouting off about how U-Voice does the same thing on U-Verse. That their Voice system that is IP as well does NOT touch the Internet and gets a different ride than Vonage or someone else. NOPE its always poor Comcast that he gets all over.

Oh and one more thing else Robb-- EVERY cable company's VOICE SYSTEM DOES NOT TOUCH THE INTERNET! IT STAYS ON ITS OWN NETWORK! ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21784072 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:10:55 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21783930 said by funchords:

The tack on CDV, no matter how slight, how can it not remove from the pool? There were never guarantees from *ANY* broadband service from day 1 how much back-end infrastructure would be in place to support the end user connections. Heck, there's not even any guarantee if you buy a connection directly from a carrier today -- that's part of the cost-effective scalability that makes the Internet possible. The only guiding rule was that it at least has to be reasonably possible to achieve the maximum subscribed rate from your connection.

Arguing that CDV is taking away from the bandwidth pool is like arguing that the other 650+MHz of video on the wire are cutting into the bandwidth pool. Both statements are equally true and equally irrelevant.

said by funchords:

Something big to worry about -- at 384 Kbps when this all broke? C'mon. Then Comcast tripled the upload speed of everyone's modems: it doesn't seem too concerned.
This started in 2006, they bumped the upload speed 2 years later in combination with network upgrades taking place for the DOCSIS 3.0 rollout.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21783930 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:49:20 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21783733 said by espaeth:

You don't know how much of the 38mbps DOCSIS channel is allocated to HSI, so you have no way of knowing that CDV traffic was ever in conflict with HSI capacity. I'm betting that we already know (Comcast probably disclosed it one way or another, if not in an article certainly in one of their July or Sept filings).

The tack on CDV, no matter how slight, how can it not remove from the pool?

As for continuous uploads -- yeah, it raises the floor but it does so in a constant manner -- if it's background bursty (big number theory) or if its constant from each, or both, it's still the same effect.

Something big to worry about -- at 384 Kbps when this all broke? C'mon. Then Comcast tripled the upload speed of everyone's modems: it doesn't seem too concerned.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21783733 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:17:09 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21783363 said by funchords:

said by espaeth:

On a per-connection basis there is no conflict.
Also true on the data side -- illustrating that the whole "BitTorrent grows to consume all the bandwidth" ruse just doesn't stand up under examination.

I've been trying to explain that for over a year -- and still am, but the voices of truly frustrated network admins drown out that illustration. They're convinced its something that the protocol must be doing. That's not the same argument. My argument is this: You don't know how much of the 38mbps DOCSIS channel is allocated to HSI, so you have no way of knowing that CDV traffic was ever in conflict with HSI capacity.

You keeping making the argument that since each raindrop is small there is no risk, but losing sight that large collections of raindrops in a storm can cause all kinds of destruction.

Large collections of clients that create simultaneous traffic are the issue, be it in the form of a swarm of P2P clients or a botnet of denial of service traffic generators. By removing the spontaneous/random elements that naturally balance out network load you are engineering your own scarcity.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21783363 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:07:53 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21782911 said by espaeth:

On a per-connection basis there is no conflict.
Also true on the data side -- illustrating that the whole "BitTorrent grows to consume all the bandwidth" ruse just doesn't stand up under examination.

I've been trying to explain that for over a year -- and still am, but the voices of truly frustrated network admins drown out that illustration. They're convinced its something that the protocol must be doing.

When the near side is traffic limited, you can't cheat like that.

But c'mon, we're talking about VOIP here. I don't care if everyone in the neighborhood jumps on the line, it's not going to be the straw that breaks any camel's back.

My point of the above response was to refute the nonsense that the word "logical" as used meant anything. It doesn't.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21782911 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:47:19 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21781344 said by funchords:

said by voicenotdata :

Same physical channel in most cases, but it's on a different logical channel (stream) which is how the voice traffic is given priority over the same "last mile" from the modem to the CMTS.
...and which reduces the bandwidth for the data side and which contributes to congestion.The bandwidth of an individual user is never allocated such that it can consume the entire bandwidth of the channel. Let's say they carved off 2mbps of a worst-case 38mbps down / 9mbps up configuration for CDV. Even if that reduced channel capacity down to 36/7, it's still less than 6/1, 8/2, 12/2, 16/2 configuration that an end user is allowed for attachment into the shared infrastructure.

On a per-connection basis there is no conflict.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21781344 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:37:28 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21780565 said by voicenotdata :

Same physical channel in most cases, but it's on a different logical channel (stream) which is how the voice traffic is given priority over the same "last mile" from the modem to the CMTS....and which reduces the bandwidth for the data side and which contributes to congestion.

Logical channel is beside the point.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21780565 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:33:14 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21779226 said by funchords:

It is not, it shares the same channel (and thus contributes to the bandwidth congestion) with all other HSI traffic. That said, it does get priority handling by the network -- that appears to be part of what this FCC inquiry is about. Same physical channel in most cases, but it's on a different logical channel (stream) which is how the voice traffic is given priority over the same "last mile" from the modem to the CMTS.

Non-cable VOIP provider's services use the "data side connection" not the "voice side connection" of the eMTA/modem and because the traffic originates from the "data side" it is classified "best effort" not "priority".]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21779226 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 07:56:32 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21779205 said by devnuller:

So are we incenting technology to build separate physical channels as was done in decades past? Should business move away from IP convergence for fear of regulation? FiOS TV priority? Uverse?
Probably not, but the already too-thin pool of Internet access bandwidth ought not be eroded by those other services -- particularly in the midst of using a nasty thing like Sandvine's RST attacks reclaim some of the customer's requested bandwidth so you can sell it again. That's just wrong on its face.

U-Verse is an interesting thing -- bandwidth is sloshing around between Internet Access or TV (VOD?) on a per-household basis. It's another trend I don't like but with current laws, can anything be done?

We definitely don't want to be the country that invented the net and somehow mismanaged our way such that we have only ghetto-style access: That everything else gets prioritized except for the thing that provides the maximum consumer choice!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21779205 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 01:01:22 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21779126 said by devnuller:

Network Engineers should STOP doing what's right and focus on how to avoid illogical politicians and anti-corporate, mob influencing propaganda pushers.
I don't know if the current model of putting voice and data in the same DOCSIS channel was the best idea to start with in this case. If regulation like what is being discusses pushed voice back to a dedicated channel, I don't see that as a "bad thing" necessarily, but I agree that it isn't the best way to get there (being forced by the FCC).
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21779126 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:36:24 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21778920 said by videoOip :

Do all the same principals go for the Video over IP priority which is done by FiOS?

If I have my Internet Video app, FiOS must give it equal treatment as their HD ESPN signal?
I think that only FiOS video on demand uses IP, not a live, "real time" channel like ESPN. Not sure what kind of preferential treatment is given to FiOS VoD content, but it may have to be investigated if it presents an anti-competitive advantage.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21778920 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:36:21 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21778872 said by espaeth:

said by Matt:

There are ways to make use of it -- you could identify the destination of the port 5060 session and prioritize all traffic to that IP. That doesn't even require DPI since the header has to be read anyway.
Not quite -- there's a few problem here.

1) There is no way to configure that type of operation in standard Cisco IOS or Juniper JunOS devices.

2) The session border controller doesn't need to be same point of termination as the RTP streams. If you use Viatalk, for instance, your device talks SIP to their call managers but the calls hand off to directly to Level(3) gateways -- the destination IP of the RTP stream is delivered in the SIP INVITE.

3) This scheme is easy to exploit. Take the new uTP UDP-based bit torrent protocol -- under this scheme all the client would have to do is send a port 5060 packet to look like a SIP setup and then the UDP-based P2P flow that follows could be classified as protected VoIP traffic.
1) It could be added.

2) Then Viatalk may be the exception -- or perhaps my Nuvio service is since the SIP destination is the same as the RTP destination. VoIP providers could simply add an RTP proxy.

3) I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want my torrent session limited to a hundred kbps or so. And before you say that's per session, it's pretty easy to identify 100+ simultaneous "VoIP" sessions.

FWIW, I'm not holding this up an the ultimate answer, I'm just using it to illustrate there are ways to identify and prioritize 3rd party VoIP sessions.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21778872 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:21:31 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21778858 Protocol

Just because its using a protocol used by the Internet does not mean that it makes use of the Internet. Making use of an Internet protocol does not make it an Internet based service.

Calling it VoIP allows it to get past those +$15/month of government taxes/fees/unfees.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21778858 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:17:28 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21778773 said by Matt:

There are ways to make use of it -- you could identify the destination of the port 5060 session and prioritize all traffic to that IP. That doesn't even require DPI since the header has to be read anyway.
Not quite -- there's a few problem here.

1) There is no way to configure that type of operation in standard Cisco IOS or Juniper JunOS devices.

2) The session border controller doesn't need to be same point of termination as the RTP streams. If you use Viatalk, for instance, your device talks SIP to their call managers but the calls hand off to directly to Level(3) gateways -- the destination IP of the RTP stream is delivered in the SIP INVITE.

3) This scheme is easy to exploit. Take the new uTP UDP-based bit torrent protocol -- under this scheme all the client would have to do is send a port 5060 packet to look like a SIP setup and then the UDP-based P2P flow that follows could be classified as protected VoIP traffic.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21778773 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:00:27 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21778689 said by espaeth:

said by Matt:

There is a control port however for SIP, UDP 5060.
Which is all but useless to identify at a port-level. Giving priority to your SIP signaling for call setup/tear-down and not the voice-carrying RTP streams gains you nothing from an end-user perspective.
There are ways to make use of it -- you could identify the destination of the port 5060 session and prioritize all traffic to that IP. That doesn't even require DPI since the header has to be read anyway.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21778689 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:43:23 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21778638 said by Matt:

There is a control port however for SIP, UDP 5060.Which is all but useless to identify at a port-level. Giving priority to your SIP signaling for call setup/tear-down and not the voice-carrying RTP streams gains you nothing from an end-user perspective.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21778638 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:34:07 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21778560 said by espaeth:

said by RARPSL:

How do I know that I am probably a HTTP session? The first hint is that I am talking to Port80 or 443. In the case of ViOP, the session would be going to the designated VoIP Port.
There is no designated VoIP port -- UDP ports for RTP sessions are assigned dynamically by the session border controllers during each call setup. That's why VoIP providers have you open up massive firewall ranges like UDP ports 10,000 - 20,000.
There is a control port however for SIP, UDP 5060.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21778560 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:15:10 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21778425 said by RARPSL:

How do I know that I am probably a HTTP session? The first hint is that I am talking to Port80 or 443. In the case of ViOP, the session would be going to the designated VoIP Port. There is no designated VoIP port -- UDP ports for RTP sessions are assigned dynamically by the session border controllers during each call setup. That's why VoIP providers have you open up massive firewall ranges like UDP ports 10,000 - 20,000.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21778425 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:50:24 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21778199 said by hottboiinnc:

So then does that make FiOS and U-verse cable companies? They offer TV service over IP.
First of all, at least in NJ, Verizon is regulated like a cable company, through a statewide franchise agreement.

Secondly, FiOS TV is not an IP based service. In fact the equipment and protocols are virtually identical to HFC cable. Think of it as an 860MHz cable system with the fiber node in your house.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21778199 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:12:57 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21778131 said by NetAdmin1:

But in this case, where phone sharing the DOCSIS channel and potentially opening cable companies to further regulation may be a good reason.
Bingo! One technology step forward and two steps back. Thanks FCC and everyone pushing for "stick it to the man" regulation!

Network Engineers should STOP doing what's right and focus on how to avoid illogical politicians and anti-corporate, mob influencing propaganda pushers.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21778131 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:00:55 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777974 said by bzmeteorite:

On one hand, the fact that CDV is on its own channel (as I understand from comments from the previous article) may make some inclined (FCC, et al.) to regulate it as a telco service.That was the old-style of digital telephone before CDV that had its own channel. There was confusion on the other story about which product they were talking about, hence the reason the separate voice channel was mentioned.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777974 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:38:08 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777968 said by devnuller:

So are we incenting technology to build separate physical channels as was done in decades past?Moving phone to a separate channel on the cable has other, more technically sound reasons going for it. CLI and ingress mitigation come to mind. With the old TDM based system with NIUs, you could move the phone channels around if you had interference.

But in this case, where phone sharing the DOCSIS channel and potentially opening cable companies to further regulation may be a good reason.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777968 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:36:18 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777824 said by funchords:

It is not, it shares the same channel (and thus contributes to the bandwidth congestion) with all other HSI traffic. That said, it does get priority handling by the network -- that appears to be part of what this FCC inquiry is about. So what? My buddy just switched to FIOS due to a great price offer and his phone service shares the same fiber wavelength as his Internet connection. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777824 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:12:38 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777801 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777801 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:10:00 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777796 said by bzmeteorite:

And how would they absolutely know that it's to a VoIP service?
How do I know that I am probably a HTTP session? The first hint is that I am talking to Port80 or 443. In the case of ViOP, the session would be going to the designated VoIP Port. As I stated in my comment, the IPN that the connection is going to is that of the VoIP's Server so an attempt to connect there is a GOOD indication of an VoIP session (especially in conjunction with the VoIP Port at the Server side).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777796 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:09:48 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777776 said by RARPSL:

Yes you can and do "access the CDV infrastructure from outside of Comcast's network". At some point, the traffic leaves the Comcast network and flows over the Internet or some TelCo's network (unless both sides of the phone call are CDV numbers). VoIP is Voice over IP and thus IS an Internet-Based service.There is nothing Internet-based about CDV. It's using the DOCSIS network to terminate to media gateways on Comcast's network to do SS7 or private SIP/H323 handoffs. None of that traffic touches an Internet backbone.

Standard Internet VoIP can be used on any open Internet connection -- I can go to my neighbor's house with my ATA, or make SIP calls from a hotel room over the Internet. You cannot register to Comcast's SIP gateways over the public Internet.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777776 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:05:24 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777774 said by videoOip :

Do all the same principals go for the Video over IP priority which is done by FiOS?

If I have my Internet Video app, FiOS must give it equal treatment as their HD ESPN signal?
Good point. According to another DSLR story here at »No, AT&T Is Not Throttling U-Verse, AT&T U-Verse does similar stuff. I am guessing Verizon FIOS is the same.

quote:
In order to provide a consistently high-quality video service, AT&T Uverse High Speed Internet throughput speeds may be temporarily reduced when a customer is using other U-verse services in a manner that requires high bandwidth. This could occur more often with higher speed Internet access products. It may be necessary, for some AT&T High Speed Internet users, for AT&T to set a maximum downstream speed on a customer line to enhance the reliability and consistency of performance.
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777774 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:05:21 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777745 said by espaeth:

said by djrobx:

Nope, sorry, that would be treating VOIP differently than other internet traffic, which is against net neutrality principles.
Exactly. Internet network neutrality means you can't hinder nor help Internet traffic based on protocol, as to prioritize VoIP is to deprioritize other Internet traffic.

The core of the matter is this: CDV is not an Internet-based service. You cannot .
Yes you can and do "access the CDV infrastructure from outside of Comcast's network". At some point, the traffic leaves the Comcast network and flows over the Internet or some TelCo's network (unless both sides of the phone call are CDV numbers). VoIP is Voice over IP and thus IS an Internet-Based service. It flows over the same Comcast LAN as other Internet Traffic until it reaches an Peering point and passes to some other ISP's network. The "Last Mile" is carried by a separate channel to the Head End but then gets commingled with all other IP traffic as it flows through the the Comcast network.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777745 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:00:08 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777645 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777645 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:43:39 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777555
Also if you talk to Comcast actually to someone that knows what they're doing they will tell you that the DV actually does NOT touch the Internet. It stays off the Internet and stays on its private network. The Internet is not a private network. Thus why it does not count toward anything on the network.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777555 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:29:18 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777531 said by funchords:

said by bzmeteorite:

On one hand, the fact that CDV is on its own channel
It is not, it shares the same channel (and thus contributes to the bandwidth congestion) with all other HSI traffic. That said, it does get priority handling by the network -- that appears to be part of what this FCC inquiry is about.
So are we incenting technology to build separate physical channels as was done in decades past? Should business move away from IP convergence for fear of regulation? FiOS TV priority? Uverse?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777531 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:26:02 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777417 said by bzmeteorite:

On one hand, the fact that CDV is on its own channel
It is not, it shares the same channel (and thus contributes to the bandwidth congestion) with all other HSI traffic. That said, it does get priority handling by the network -- that appears to be part of what this FCC inquiry is about.

But there seems to be a larger question being asked by the FCC here, and we tech geeks and NN-backers are overlooking it because we're steeped in the technical details. That larger question is Is Comcast a phone company? subject to the regulations that phone companies endure.

Comcast has had it both ways -- generally telling the states (like Missouri, for example) that CDV is a VOIP service not subject to certain state regulations and taxes.

They had to see this coming -- even if it wasn't cuddled in a Net Neutrality question, after being lauded as the "third largest telephone company" by Wired in its new issue (17.02 pg 56).
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777417 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:10:29 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777374 said by djrobx:

There is a simple solution to the 3rd party VoIP situation. When I use such an application, I am connecting with a Server run by the VoIP Provider. Thus Comcast KNOWS that this is a VoIP Session and can serve it over the same channel as they use for THEIR CDV service.
Nope, sorry, that would be treating VOIP differently than other internet traffic, which is against net neutrality principles.
There seems to be a lot of definitions of network neutrality. I am of the type that net neutrality is not allowing bribes or holding certain networks hostage or at a degraded speed (yes, you can down mod me... that's just my definition of what appears to be a lot of differing definitions/opinions out there on net neutrality, though mine is probably closer to the original intention of net neutrality). Because of the fact that VoIP and IPTV are extremely latency and packet loss sensitive, I don't have a problem with prioritizing it over data services which are mostly for bulk and do not require even latency or packet loss. As long as everyone's VoIP and IPTV are prioritized evenly (not one provider over another), of course, as I mentioned earlier, I'm sure some may use a proprietary solution which may not get prioritized... inviting more problems.

This makes theory sense otherwise everything would have to be extremely overbuilt, because as peak hour comes around, your (maybe very important 911) call or video may stutter or drop completely (in the case of VoIP) as a link approaches capacity.
--
What happens when you combine common sense and an outspoken personality?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777374 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:04:05 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777351 said by djrobx:

Nope, sorry, that would be treating VOIP differently than other internet traffic, which is against net neutrality principles.Exactly. Internet network neutrality means you can't hinder nor help Internet traffic based on protocol, as to prioritize VoIP is to deprioritize other Internet traffic.

The core of the matter is this: CDV is not an Internet-based service. You cannot access the CDV infrastructure from outside of Comcast's network.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777351 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:00:56 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777320 said by RARPSL:

There is a simple solution to the 3rd party VoIP situation. When I use such an application, I am connecting with a Server run by the VoIP Provider. Thus Comcast KNOWS that this is a VoIP Session and can serve it over the same channel as they use for THEIR CDV service. I know that this might be seen as violating some aspects of Network Neutrality but so long as there is no blackmail fees being extorted from the VoIP Providers and ALL VoIP traffic flows unrestricted over the 2nd channel, I see no real problem.
Even such a system would likely require hardware or (maybe) firmware upgrades, probably on the CPE side (mind you, I am no expert of DOCSIS, but that makes practical sense). And how would they absolutely know that it's to a VoIP service? There is always the possibility of an oversight with DPI especially if one VoIP provider a custom proprietary solution, in which case I'm sure some sue-happy consumer or company would take advantage of. Say there was a directory of VoIP services, that could work, but that's more administrative overhead and likely even more chance of someone crying anti-competitive/net neutrality.

I kinda like another poster's idea that since CDV doesn't travel the public net, it shouldn't be expected to be treated the same as VoIP that runs over the public net. Then again we're back to square one when the FCC requires it be regulated as a telco service since it's on a different channel because of their definition.
--
What happens when you combine common sense and an outspoken personality?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777320 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:55:34 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777305 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777305 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:52:26 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777303
You can't please everyone.

But if the Free Press was really Free and could think they'd see and say that the U-Verse and FiOS networks are anti-competitive as it removes the previous ISPs from offering services that were once doing it.

But NOPE! They don't see it that way. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777303 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:52:06 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777291 There is a simple solution to the 3rd party VoIP situation. When I use such an application, I am connecting with a Server run by the VoIP Provider. Thus Comcast KNOWS that this is a VoIP Session and can serve it over the same channel as they use for THEIR CDV service.
Nope, sorry, that would be treating VOIP differently than other internet traffic, which is against net neutrality principles.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777291 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:50:54 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777271
If I have my Internet Video app, FiOS must give it equal treatment as their HD ESPN signal?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777271 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:46:53 EDT Re: I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777248 said by bzmeteorite:

On one hand, the fact that CDV is on its own channel (as I understand from comments from the previous article) may make some inclined (FCC, et al.) to regulate it as a telco service. If Comcast started to put it's Digital Voice service inline with data (sharing the channel with internet), consumers and regulators would cry out and start lawsuits if their line became "de-prioritized" and they tried calling 911 and as a result of their de-prioritization, their 911 call dropped due to latency or packet loss.

Of course, they could prioritize all VoIP possible on the data channel, but what happens if a competitor uses a proprietary technology that prevents Comcast from identifying their voice service? Or when people or regulators start crying about the usage of DPI to identify VoIP? Net neutrality?

I just don't see a realistic middle ground without someone getting hurt in some way.
There is a simple solution to the 3rd party VoIP situation. When I use such an application, I am connecting with a Server run by the VoIP Provider. Thus Comcast KNOWS that this is a VoIP Session and can serve it over the same channel as they use for THEIR CDV service. I know that this might be seen as violating some aspects of Network Neutrality but so long as there is no blackmail fees being extorted from the VoIP Providers and ALL VoIP traffic flows unrestricted over the 2nd channel, I see no real problem. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777248 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:42:33 EDT I can see both sides here... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777083
Of course, they could prioritize all VoIP possible on the data channel, but what happens if a competitor uses a proprietary technology that prevents Comcast from identifying their voice service? Or when people or regulators start crying about the usage of DPI to identify VoIP? Net neutrality?

I just don't see a realistic middle ground without someone getting hurt in some way.
--
What happens when you combine common sense and an outspoken personality?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/I-can-see-both-sides-here-21777083 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:13:29 EDT