r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
St John'S, NL
 ·magicjack.com
 ·Cox HSI
·Insight Communicat..
 ·AT&T Midwest
| They make no sense.
"This would move a greater proportion of peer-to-peer service to off peak times."
People who use P2P use it 24/7.
Anyways how can setting Qos make people use P2P more at off peaks times. People are going to use it when they are home from work and Qos will not change that.
--
For those of you playing a drinking game.... MY FRIENDS! |
|
UnKown
The Underground Network
join:2002-09-08
Orlando, FL
·Earthlink Cable Mo..
| its just saying that p2p traffic will get a lower priority than web browser traffic. In my opinion this is a fantastic idea. It essentially throttles big traffic files like videos down during peak times and lets the simple applications get priority. This way your 5 gig dvd copy movie your stealing uses the most amount of network resources in the evening and early morning. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
1 edit | reply to r81984
r81984
I think you missed the point. During peak times p2p will be "bumped" in favor of other things. Thus, while p2p MAY be running 24/7, a majority of the actual p2p data will be transmitted during off peak hours.
Edit:need to learn to type faster. |
|
Jovi
join:2000-02-24
Mount Joy, PA
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to r81984
said by r81984  :People who use P2P use it 24/7. And your statement uses what data to back itself up?
--
"Where's my coffee? Oh. I guess it's my turn to make it."  |
|
Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to UnKown
said by UnKown :its just saying that p2p traffic will get a lower priority than web browser traffic. In my opinion this is a fantastic idea. It essentially throttles big traffic files like videos down during peak times and lets the simple applications get priority. This way your 5 gig dvd copy movie your stealing uses the most amount of network resources in the evening and early morning. Maybe...
Or maybe your perfectly legal movie download that you paid for from some service other than your ISP gets prioritized far below your ISP's over-priced craptacular offerings.
People forget that crushing copyright infringement is a small part of what the big ISPs want. They want total control over the bits sent to you in order to maximize their own profit from them. There's a reason people want net neutrality.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong |
|
DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Metairie, LA
clubs:
1 edit | reply to UnKown
Well, there are ways to emulate http and https traffic
And given the track record in this cat and mouse game, expect the p2p community to be 2 steps ahead. |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| reply to UnKown
It truly is the only acceptable idea. This way people can leave their stuff going and only if it is causing a congestion problem will the traffic be de-prioritized. But I would say this only works if they do it by application and not by user.
quote:
the new system de-prioritizes high consumption customers if the local node is congested and that one user is a major reason why.
Definitely a bad idea.
If a user has a torrent going and that traffic needs to be throttled by half during an hour of congestion, fine. But that user should still be able to use their internet for surfing the web or other things. Cutting them off completely is a punishment for no reason. The consumer gets a 15mbps line that speed bursts and is oversold in some unknown ratio. Not to mention the node is also an unknown bottleneck. That means the ISP is the only one who knows what bandwidth is truly available at any one time, so the end user can't implement their own QoS without overlimiting themselves at all times.
The ISP's should be implementing QoS that is passive to the user that ensures certain "unknown" services are deprioritized if those "unknown" services are trying to use too much bandwidth. The end user should see only this traffic fall, but be able to continue to play xbox and surf the web(both lower bandwidth tasks). And it should only kick in if a part of the network the user is using is 100% saturated with traffic. And then it should distribute slow downs as equally as possible among the higher bandwidth "unknown" traffic. The high bandwidth is key. It shouldn't be throttling traffic that isn't trying to draw high bandwidth.
quote:
The system would give an extra kick of speed to select traffic (or content partners) even when there's network congestion
Huge conflict of interest right there. That is really messed up if they strike a deal with netflix and all of a sudden their streaming videos have priority over other people's high bandwidth traffic. ISPs are supposed to be paid for by the end users. The webpages and internet services buy their own connections to get onto the internet. No one should have to pay twice to reach an end user. The fact that they are trying to sneak this in, tells you already their attempts aren't going to be user friendly at all.
If done properly, ISP's can get away with it. But if they are trying to temporary cut off users, set the entire user's total speed to extremely low levels, double selling access by charging web services for priority, it must be opposed. |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| reply to DataRiker
said by DataRiker :Well, there are ways to emulate http and https traffic And given the track record in this cat and mouse game, expect the p2p community to be 2 steps ahead. It shouldn't matter as long as they prioritize traffic based on how much bandwidth it is trying to use. If a certain type of traffic is peaking at 1.5MBps, it could be throttled during times of network saturation. Your VoIP, video chatting, and gaming (real time stuff) isn't going to max out your connection and hit really fast speeds. These things should be able to work uninterrupted. The stuff spiking are going to be huge web downloads, torrents, other download methods, hd video streaming, etc. Things that are not real time. They can be throttled down by half or more and the only effect is a longer buffer time and longer download time. It's possible and it's the way they need to do it. |
|
tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
·Comcast
| reply to UnKown
It MAY be saying that browser traffic (short, small, bursty) still get normal/current powerboost priority, streamed video, large file downloads (netflix, hulu, iTunes, Amazon "direct to disc", etc) whose content provider PAYS to recieve ("assist in transfer cost reassignment" ) higher priority would be second/equal (as long as capacity was avalable, similar to PB) priority....and un- "payment assisted" large file transfers (FTP,P2P, content from producers who don't chose to pay) the lowest priority of all.
I'm all in favor of the 24/7 max transfer (hogs) paying more or recieving lower priority during high demand times, but I buy HSI "broadband" over dialup/low(er) speed DSL, so that those few times a day/week month, when I need to send/recieve a large file, it goes quickly.
Unless the give slightly higher priority to those with fairly low monthly consumption vs those nearing the cap, I would be penalized for an urgent use, even though my monthly usage is fairly low(35-50gig MAX, 30-35 typical) |
|
DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Metairie, LA
clubs:
4 edits | reply to insomniac84
Your describing a throttle by volume, which only slows p2p transfers making them last longer (IMO making the problem worse in the long term)
This new system will have to deal with the following situation:
User A is using p2p with some type of https transfer
User B is trying to pay his credit card bill online
How will it judge which packet is real https and which is not?
I doubt this will have any better results than sandive.
If they drive p2p to this expect millions of upset users who can't get a secure web page to work. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to insomniac84
insomniac84
Why should one type of traffic receive higher priority than others? I do not VOIP and my neighbor does (we pay the same amount for internet). Why should his data get a higher priority than mine? Protocol agnostic is the only fair way to go. First come, first serve. |
|
djdanska
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Glen Ellyn, IL
clubs:
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·T-Mobile US
·A + Net
·Mediacom
·RCN CABLE
| reply to Jovi
said by Jovi :said by r81984 :People who use P2P use it 24/7. And your statement uses what data to back itself up? I was just thinking that. I do use p2p, but I don't do it 24/7. If I want a few things, I may leave it on for a while, but not at days or weeks at a time. I bet there are those who do though. Not all though
--
The day the child realizes that all adults are imperfect, he becomes an adolescent; the day he forgives them, he becomes an adult. The day he forgives himself, he becomes wise.
Alden Nowlan |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to DataRiker
said by DataRiker :Your describing a throttle by volume, which only slows p2p transfers making them last longer (IMO making the problem worse in the long term) This new system will have to deal with the following situation: User A is using p2p with some type of https transfer User B is trying to pay his credit card bill online How will it judge which packet is real https and which is not? I doubt this will have any better results than sandive. If they drive p2p to this expect millions of upset users who can't get a secure web page to work. Rolling 7 day window of GB usage. Top 10 percentile on the node get lowest priority until they fall out of top 10 percentile. If node is never saturated, then there are no problems with being lowest priority. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | patcat88
That unfairly penalizes those who do the majority of their downloading during non peak hours(which does not cause congestion or cost the ISP anything extra). |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to DataRiker
said by DataRiker :Well, there are ways to emulate http and https traffic And given the track record in this cat and mouse game, expect the p2p community to be 2 steps ahead. Those that try to circumvent and play anarchist are ALWAYS going to be a step or two ahead when they are the ones introducing what it is that needs to be challenged. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to Ian
said by Ian :said by UnKown :its just saying that p2p traffic will get a lower priority than web browser traffic. In my opinion this is a fantastic idea. It essentially throttles big traffic files like videos down during peak times and lets the simple applications get priority. This way your 5 gig dvd copy movie your stealing uses the most amount of network resources in the evening and early morning. Maybe... Or maybe your perfectly legal movie download that you paid for from some service other than your ISP gets prioritized far below your ISP's over-priced craptacular offerings. Are you in THAT big of a hurry to get your "legal" copy of a movie? I'm pretty sure Amazon and Itunes do NOT use p2p to deliver movies. Now NBC has this "NBC Direct" application that does that allows you to download temporary copies of HD TV shows that uses p2p. I won't use it. I'll be danmed if I use it. Ok so other computers are getting copies of stuff on MY computer. Why so some guy can make a hack that allows him access to ALL my files? I bet people that use p2p a lot have a higher % of being a victim of identity theft than most other people. |
|
Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
·Bell Sympatico
| said by BF69 :said by Ian :said by UnKown :its just saying that p2p traffic will get a lower priority than web browser traffic. In my opinion this is a fantastic idea. It essentially throttles big traffic files like videos down during peak times and lets the simple applications get priority. This way your 5 gig dvd copy movie your stealing uses the most amount of network resources in the evening and early morning. Maybe... Or maybe your perfectly legal movie download that you paid for from some service other than your ISP gets prioritized far below your ISP's over-priced craptacular offerings. Are you in THAT big of a hurry to get your "legal" copy of a movie? I'm pretty sure Amazon and Itunes do NOT use p2p to deliver movies. Now NBC has this "NBC Direct" application that does that allows you to download temporary copies of HD TV shows that uses p2p. I won't use it. I'll be danmed if I use it. Ok so other computers are getting copies of stuff on MY computer. Why so some guy can make a hack that allows him access to ALL my files? I bet people that use p2p a lot have a higher % of being a victim of identity theft than most other people. So, in your own comment, you mention a P2P application that is totally legal which would be affected by the ISPs "management" of traffic. Call me cynical, but I think your cable or phone company wants the $$ for providing you HD content, when you want it.
(I'll ignore the FUD about P2P and identity theft)
How much in a hurry (or not) I am for for my legal material, be it a movie, tv show, or Linux ISO is my business, not the company with which I contract for an internet connection.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to Lazlow
Whats downloading? 50% of your limit off peak, or 100% of your limit? Rolling window usage to assign priority levels is fair. If your node is not saturated, you have no reason to care.
What about the person who wants to torrent off peak, but not 24/7? are they to be placed in the same class as the person who torrents off peak 12/7/365?
Rolling window with percentile will separate the HTTS bill payer from the P2Per, without content discrimination.
The less you use, the higher your peak speed will be, and the more bursty it will be. If you want a circuit, your going to get treated like a circuit.
If you don't have a rolling window (much better than a powerboost bucket), how do you separate the user which will release the channel when they get their "task" done (download a 700mb movie via HTTP), vs a user that will NEVER release the channel and can never finish their "task" (a heavy P2P downloader, note most P2Pers eventually finish their downloads, their uploads are unstopable and unfinishable, but some P2Pers have a hoarding mentality and select to download 100s or 1000s of files and everything that shows up in the search, they never keep or watch or use everything they download). |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| The ONLY time that downloading causes congestion is during peak hours. I do 99% of my downloading between 11pm and 8am (off peak here). This causes no congestion and does not cost the ISP anything extra. However I do like to browse (here and other places). Under your formula my browsing would be "throttled" because of my off peak downloading(which is causing a problem for no one). This is why a monthly or even daily download limit does not work. What needs to be done is to only count the usage during peak congestion. I can easily download(off peak ) 500GB+/month without contributing to the congestion while another person can download less than 150GB/month(1hr/night during peak congestion) and cause lots of congestion.
A pure proticol agnostic throttle during peak hours(only) is (in the short term) a good answer(which is what Comcast is using right now). The problem with this system is that there is the risk the ISPs will use it (long term) as an excuse not to upgrade their systems. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to Ian
no you do not contract them for Internet. You contract them to provide you access to THEIR private network. In return as an added bonus they connect you to the WWW.
They can give you a wall garden as your "internet" and thats all they have to give you, since they're only leasing you the network half. |
|
