dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
21
share rss forum feed
« Keep doing the good work Robb
This is a sub-selection from Way to go!


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

2 recommendations

reply to 88615298

Re: Way to go!

said by 88615298:

yeah thanks to him Comast instituted hard caps which lead to others doing so. You go you!
The main problem I see is that his thoughts on network neutrality are too far out there. He has taken the original idea of network neutrality (that an ISP should treat providers equally to their in house content providers) and extended it to the idea that an ISP has to treat all PROTOCOLS equally and as a practical matter not have any network mgt procedures that stop anyone from flooding the network. His only preferred solution has been to suggest that ISPs expand bandwidth capacity to handle any amount of traffic demanded regardless of cost. I think it very unfortunate that he may have more visibility in pushing his agenda.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:42

7 recommendations

The main problem I see is that his thoughts on network neutrality are too far out there.
Yeah he's in like, crazy town, dude.
His only preferred solution has been to suggest that ISPs expand bandwidth capacity to handle any amount of traffic demanded regardless of cost.
Not true. I've talked with him a lot, and he's made it clear he supports both increased capacity and intelligent traffic management -- as long as it's transparent.
I think it very unfortunate that he may have more visibility in pushing his agenda.
Yeah it should really suck to have an intelligent network engineer helping consumer advocates and consumers better understand bandwidth and network topology.


tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1

2 recommendations

reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

said by 88615298:

yeah thanks to him Comast instituted hard caps which lead to others doing so. You go you!
The main problem I see is that his thoughts on network neutrality are too far out there. He has taken the original idea of network neutrality (that an ISP should treat providers equally to their in house content providers) and extended it to the idea that an ISP has to treat all PROTOCOLS equally and as a practical matter not have any network mgt procedures that stop anyone from flooding the network. His only preferred solution has been to suggest that ISPs expand bandwidth capacity to handle any amount of traffic demanded regardless of cost. I think it very unfortunate that he may have more visibility in pushing his agenda.
for once, i have to agree with tk. the issus at hand (at least with cox's hsi product) is that they are using some form of packet prioritization for voip and streaming video. many users are up in arms that they are paying for preferred or premier service and they should have *all* packets treated as such. the problem arises when someone is saturating the node (more than likely from some sort of p2p, especially bt) and that doesn't leave room for *anyones* packets because the node has been monopolized. with the popularity of products like vonage, et al, and on demand video services (netflix, hulu, youtube, etc) these services are negatively impacted in a noticeable way when there isn't enough bandwidth. otoh, bulk file transfers such as http/ftp downloads, email, etc. experience no adverse effect when delayed several passes (in fact, this is the whole concept of *packet switched networks*).

as i have said the entire time during the announcement of cox's network management system, it is nearly impossible to identify/determine root cause of/upgrade node saturation at such a fine level, especially when such bouts of utilization are so intermittent (as when p2p file transfers are running). add the cost factor to such an equation and we are looking at a lot of money spent simply so that a few people on p2p don't screw up a neighborhoods internet experience. it simply doesn't make business-sense, especially when we are all experiencing a recession (and most of us are dropping unneeded services to boot). if cox uses this to provide node remediation in the interim while d3 is being rolled out - great. where i *do* have an issue is if this is used in lieu of upgrades and d3 is pushed back even after we have pulled out of the recession and spending is back up to normal levels.

it is simply a pipe dream that we will have unlimited bandwidth to every user. we all want faster connections at lower prices, but (as everyone who has taken an economic class) wants are unlimited but resources are limited - and at a time when bandwidth is limited, i don't want someone who is too inconsiderate to throttle his up and downstream speeds to normal levels (or doesn't queue his downloads for late night) affecting my voip calls (or anyone's in the neighboorhood) or slowing down everyone else's internet to a crawl.

my two bits.

q.

amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·KCH Cable
reply to FFH5
I don't think he's completely over the top concerning basic neutrality ideas -

From: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
-----
"A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.[1][2][3]
-----

...As for adding more capacity to handle traffic?
-----Internet2----- that's what they decided was best. They are not inept or technologically challenged people...

......Also, why have most ISPs been upgrading their speeds? If it's going to result in "caps" that hinder what one should reasonably be able to do, that's kind of pointless... I'd rather stay with a set speed until capacity can handle greater speeds for more customers.


Beachie
Stranded in paradise

join:2001-07-12
St. Pete, FL
kudos:2

3 recommendations

reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:

Yeah he's in like, crazy town, dude.
Game....

Not true. I've talked with him a lot, and he's made it clear he supports both increased capacity and intelligent traffic management -- as long as it's transparent.
Set....

Yeah it should really suck to have an intelligent network engineer helping consumer advocates and consumers better understand bandwidth and network topology.
Match!


tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1
reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:

he's made it clear he supports both increased capacity and intelligent traffic management -- as long as it's transparent.
i would like to add that transparency does not always quell speculation or "armchair quarterbacking", as any frequent visitor to our teksavvy forums will be quick to recognize. sure there are people who are very knowledgeable on the topic at hand, but more often than not, their message is silenced by those who yell the loudest, or by those who *appear* to know but are only pushing the agenda of those who are paying them the most...

q.


hobgoblin
Sortof Agoblin
Premium
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY
kudos:11

2 recommendations

reply to Karl Bode
"Yeah it should really suck to have an intelligent network engineer helping consumer advocates and consumers better understand bandwidth and network topology."

Looking At Rob's resume, I don't think I would describe him as a Network Engineer. Intelligent, yes....Maybe an intelligent Software tester and QA Specialist.

Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Pv8man

join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN
reply to FFH5
I agree with Rob on the the "Upgrade Capacity" theory
For those who disagree with that,(TK Junk Mail)

I would have to respond with the statement ....

"That's Free Market Capitalism, Baby"

If One ISP cannot meet the bandwidth demands of customers, then let those customers flow to an ISP that CAN supply the demand for bandwidth.

Such is the rule of capitalism.

SuperWISP

join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

Robb Topolski isn't for free market capitalism.

He is in favor of Internet regulation, which is the antithesis of capitalism (regulation drives capital away) and free competition.

Pv8man

join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN
There is a difference between Capitalism,
and F***ing consumers in the A**.

You don't think we need any internet regulations?

Imagine what the US would be like without any internet regulation.
The large ISP's would run a muck, and be doing ANYTHING that they deem profitable.


sturmvogel
Obama '08

join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
reply to SuperWISP
said by SuperWISP:

He is in favor of Internet regulation, which is the antithesis of capitalism (regulation drives capital away) and free competition.
He is in favor of LAWS to prevent abusive ISP's for not delivering the services they are PAID for.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.


sturmvogel
Obama '08

join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
reply to Pv8man
said by Pv8man:

There is a difference between Capitalism,
and F***ing consumers in the A**.

You don't think we need any internet regulations?

Imagine what the US would be like without any internet regulation.
The large ISP's would run a muck, and be doing ANYTHING that they deem profitable.
The guy you responded to is a small wireless ISP, I believe. He is all for the abusive tactics that were unraveled by Robb's hard work, so he is trying to throw mud.

And there is a difference between capitalism and uncontrolled monopolies.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.

SuperWISP

join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
reply to Pv8man
said by Pv8man:

You don't think we need any internet regulations?

Imagine what the US would be like without any internet regulation.
Lest we forget, the Internet exists in the first place thanks to the fact that it was able to grow without regulation. Regulation kills innovation and plays right into the hands of the largest corporations. Regulate, and you'll drive all competitors out of the business -- leaving only the monopoly cable and telephone companies behind.

So, yes, I'm imagining what the Internet is like without regulation. It's great that way -- and should stay that way.


tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1
reply to hobgoblin

Re: Way to go!

said by hobgoblin:

"Yeah it should really suck to have an intelligent network engineer helping consumer advocates and consumers better understand bandwidth and network topology."

Looking At Rob's resume, I don't think I would describe him as a Network Engineer. Intelligent, yes....Maybe an intelligent Software tester and QA Specialist.

Hob
qft! my thoughts exactly.
you can read and discuss until you are blue in the face, but unless you have lived it, breathed it, done it...you don't really understand the little idiosyncracies etc...
its exactly the argument that many people make between academia and the workforce...

q.

SuperWISP

join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
reply to sturmvogel

Re: Robb Topolski isn't for free market capitalism.

said by sturmvogel:

He is in favor of LAWS to prevent abusive ISP's for not delivering the services they are PAID for.
Not so. The laws Topolski favors would in fact prevent ISPs from managing their networks. They would therefore prevent ISPs from being able to ensure that you get what you pay for.


sturmvogel
Obama '08

join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
said by SuperWISP:

said by sturmvogel:

He is in favor of LAWS to prevent abusive ISP's for not delivering the services they are PAID for.
Not so. The laws Topolski favors would in fact prevent ISPs from managing their networks. They would therefore prevent ISPs from being able to ensure that you get what you pay for.
ISP's should be able to manage their networks as far as they respect the contract and the contract being fair to both parties. Shady practices, outright lies, treating your customers as criminals are not part of the management Robb supports and I applaud him for it.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.


sturmvogel
Obama '08

join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

1 recommendation

reply to SuperWISP
said by SuperWISP:

said by Pv8man:

You don't think we need any internet regulations?

Imagine what the US would be like without any internet regulation.
Lest we forget, the Internet exists in the first place thanks to the fact that it was able to grow without regulation. Regulation kills innovation and plays right into the hands of the largest corporations. Regulate, and you'll drive all competitors out of the business -- leaving only the monopoly cable and telephone companies behind.

So, yes, I'm imagining what the Internet is like without regulation. It's great that way -- and should stay that way.
Certainly regulation kills "innovation" as in you buying a bag of 4 lbs of potatoes and getting instead 2 lbs of potatoes and a brick, since the bag really says Bag of potatoes, 4 lbs, but does not says that it contains 4 lbs of potatoes, right ?

Same thing with that 6 Mbit connection "available" 24/7 but really usable only 3 hrs a day.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.


sturmvogel
Obama '08

join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
reply to SuperWISP
said by SuperWISP:

said by Pv8man:

You don't think we need any internet regulations?

Imagine what the US would be like without any internet regulation.
Lest we forget, the Internet exists in the first place thanks to the fact that it was able to grow without regulation. Regulation kills innovation and plays right into the hands of the largest corporations. Regulate, and you'll drive all competitors out of the business -- leaving only the monopoly cable and telephone companies behind.

So, yes, I'm imagining what the Internet is like without regulation. It's great that way -- and should stay that way.
There WAS regulation. Governed by the RFC's, as in you shall transmit packets and not alter them as in fake RST's, no ?

--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.

SuperWISP

join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
said by sturmvogel:

There WAS regulation. Governed by the RFC's, as in you shall transmit packets and not alter them as in fake RST's, no ?
You clearly do not understand the difference between standardization and regulation. Hint: they're different.

Oh, and RST packets have been used for decades to manage network traffic. We've been doing it for 17 years using open source software, and many commercial network management products do it as well.


knightmb
Everybody Lies

join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
reply to tubbynet

Re: Way to go!

said by tubbynet:

for once, i have to agree with tk. the issus at hand (at least with cox's hsi product) is that they are using some form of packet prioritization for voip and streaming video. many users are up in arms that they are paying for preferred or premier service and they should have *all* packets treated as such. the problem arises when someone is saturating the node (more than likely from some sort of p2p, especially bt) and that doesn't leave room for *anyones* packets because the node has been monopolized. with the popularity of products like vonage, et al, and on demand video services (netflix, hulu, youtube, etc) these services are negatively impacted in a noticeable way when there isn't enough bandwidth. otoh, bulk file transfers such as http/ftp downloads, email, etc. experience no adverse effect when delayed several passes (in fact, this is the whole concept of *packet switched networks*).
Not right, what you are talking about is a software configuration problem. There is no reason why a single IP can monopolize a node unless someone didn't bother to set the pipe configuration properly (as often I've seen). BT opens a bunch of connections yes, uses a lot of bandwidth, yes, is out of control and can't be contained? Completely wrong. I have several customers that BT 24/7 and they don't affect anyone else because I know the difference between a traffic shaping setup based on priority and packet size and the same traffic shaping base that has a pipe size encompassing setting within the packet and priority settings. I think some of the ISP need to go back and read the manuals on their equipment. If you have problems with a kid running BT 24/7 at maximum saturation, then you contain his entire IP into a pipe and QoS/Shape based on that, not on how many connections your node can handle, completely wrong way to do it and exactly why what they are doing is not working.

Analogy time

The Internet is a entrance line at a concert. You have 3 "stations" that can allow people in, one at a time. You want to treat everyone equally, but every time the rock band comes to town, "Johnny" and his 1000 friends all decide to show up at once and try to get in. Johnny's friends basically clog up the stations as they pass through, leaving a bunch of other rock fans waiting in line, getting frustrated, etc.

The concert management decides that this year they are going to manage the flow of people better so that Johnny and his friends don't clog up the entrance way frustrating people behind them.

So they setup a system where, Guys in one entrance, Girls in another, Seniors in the third. Then once again, during the concert Johnny shows up and well, it's clogged up again because Johnny's friends are of all types, Dude, Girl, Seniors, so they just end up clogging the entrance again.

So next concert, they decided that Johnny's friends should have the lowest priority. For one person of Johnny's friends, they must allow 2 "other" people through. Things start to seem a little better, but still Johnny is overwhelming the system because even though his friends must wait to pass, there are just too many to make the system effective because people are still clogged up lines and adding delays.

Finally, management gets smart. Instead of all this wacky, crazy rules to control Johnny's friend, they are just going to funnel all of his friends through one entrance, and leave the other two open for anyone else. So now Johnny has a fairly smooth flow of people coming in and because the other two entrance ways are clear, everyone can get through with either taking turns or waiting in line with Johnny's friends. If the other two entrances are clear, then they allow more of Johnny's friends through to speed things up, but if other people start to show up in line, they get priority until the other two entrances clear again and more of his friends may pass through.

A good analogy is a like a leaky screw-driver
--
Fight NebuAD and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data


tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1
said by knightmb:

Not right, what you are talking about is a software configuration problem. There is no reason why a single IP can monopolize a node unless someone didn't bother to set the pipe configuration properly (as often I've seen). BT opens a bunch of connections yes, uses a lot of bandwidth, yes, is out of control and can't be contained? Completely wrong. I have several customers that BT 24/7 and they don't affect anyone else because I know the difference between a traffic shaping setup based on priority and packet size and the same traffic shaping base that has a pipe size encompassing setting within the packet and priority settings. I think some of the ISP need to go back and read the manuals on their equipment. If you have problems with a kid running BT 24/7 at maximum saturation, then you contain his entire IP into a pipe and QoS/Shape based on that, not on how many connections your node can handle, completely wrong way to do it and exactly why what they are doing is not working.
regardless of how the gears *should* be configured or are *able* to be configured, this is *how* they are configured. i assume that you would like to approach cox/comast/(insert name of mso here) and tell them that their gear is misconfigured? prolly won't fly...

also what kind of administrative overhead are we looking at to locate/confirm/throttle/notify/reinstate a user who has been found of throttling? comcast has a system that is protocol agnostic - but if you are bursting on your link and hit that magic utilzation cap, your entire experience suffers. if you attack those who are only utilizing certain layer-7 application headers you aren't being protocol agnostic (and therefore non-net neutral).

i see it as isps are damned if they do, damned if they don't. sure, they all could run fiber to the home, but that would be in a utopian pipe dream.
the idea has also been brought up that isps shouldn't oversubscribe like they do. this is something that i will generally agree with. heavy oversubscription (especially that done with cable systems) does promote a bad business model and i don't think that isps should be able to get away with such behavior. however, i have been very happy with the response time that cox gives to people. i was on an oversubscribed node near the local university. after working with cox over the period of a month, they split the node and speeds were back to where they should be.

q.


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:42
reply to SuperWISP

Re: Robb Topolski isn't for free market capitalism.

Not so. The laws Topolski favors would in fact prevent ISPs from managing their networks.
That has absolutely never been the case, Brett.


DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
reply to Karl Bode

Re: Way to go!

If you read his posts starting around page 42 on the network congestion managment topic in the comcast hsi section I think his ideas could bring about the internet in such a way that all of the IP based serives would work side by side without problem


DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
reply to Karl Bode

Re: Robb Topolski isn't for free market capitalism.

said by Karl Bode:

Not so. The laws Topolski favors would in fact prevent ISPs from managing their networks.
That has absolutely never been the case, Brett.
Ya he seems to support the DSCP based (easy to implement) traffic managment ideas which would be a big step up from DPI, Sandvine, and data usage caps


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

2 recommendations

reply to FFH5

Re: Way to go!

What a wonderful thread!

I don't need to fix TK's misconceptions or Brent Glass's garbage because so many of you do read along and know what I do support.

Thanks guys!!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ...

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
yah you support taking away private networks from the businesses and turning them over to the customers and the government. Way to go.

And as said before- don't like what the companies do- build your own network. We see your name in the news all the time and yet we don't see you out trying to build your own network to compete. Instead we just see your name attached to what "should be done" according to you.

I for one would like to see you actually go out and try to compete against Comcast or Cox, ATT, VZ, TWC or any other provider using YOUR methods of network management and see how far you get.