Topic 'Re: They make no sense.' in forum '' - dslreports.com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22599243 en Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:18:08 EDT Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:18:08 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22615230
While a lot of what you say is true, I will not agree that the ISPs are in a loose situation. If I remember TWCs 10k correctly, they cleared $4 billion in 08. They may not be making the huge profits that they have become accustom to over that last decade or two, but it is not a money loosing proposition for them. When you take into account CV's public statement that upgrading their system to D3 was going to cost them between $70-$120 per customer, even bandwidth upgrades are not that expensive.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22615230 Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:49:37 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22613344 said by insomniac84:

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 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). They tried that. And promptly got sued for Network Neutrality violations. It is impossible to implement this and still be Network Neutral. Cutting off or throttling the entire connection is the ONLY "fair" solution. To try and throttle selective services as you describe is an instant NN lawsuit.

People want their 10,000 terrabit/sec connections. And they want it for $0. And they will use 100% of it's capacity 24/7/365. If their bandwidth-hungry apps get throttled they'll cry foul and sue. If they are capped / throttled they'll bitch and moan "well you sold me a 10,000 terrabit/sec connection and I want to use it NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW!" It's lose-lose for the ISPs.

/mackey]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22613344 Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:56:09 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22604949
I pay for internet. What I access or how I access, or how often I access is none of their business.!!!!!
If they don't want to be an "Internet Service Provider", then get the hell out of the internet business.
Don't offer me their crap and call it internet, by their definition.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22604949 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:18:42 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22601560 said by hottboiinnc:

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.
Oh really? May want to send that memo to their marketing departments.

"Comcast High-Speed Internet offers the fastest speeds out there over our advanced fiber-optic network. It's way faster than DSL."

AT&T

"Unlimited high-speed Internet access"
--
“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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22601560 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:28:18 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22601467
Thinking of bit torrent for example which is going to be the primary offender in the high bandwidth category, it is NEVER guaranteed speed-wise. Everyone you download from is gonna be on other residential ISPs with varying speeds, other peers or torrents they may be on, all kinds of factors. This compared to a straight HTTP download from a server on a fast pipe.

Take that example and if the ISP needs to throttle that high bandwidth use back, it's not going to have much visible or detrimental effect to anyone while greatly helping congestion issues on the network.

Long story short: With most data it is a case of high bandwidth apps are not realtime dependent and can be throttled back without any detriment except for taking a little bit longer to download. And low bandwidth applications usually need high priority and realtime access.

I am completely behind this option if we MUST have some form of traffic/bandwidth control. I would choose this over metered billing especially if some ISPs get their way and force anemically low caps on their customers.
--
I swear, some people should have pace-makers installed to free up the resources. Breathing and heart beat taxes their whole system, all of their brain cells wasted on life support.-two bit brains, and the second bit is wasted on parity! ~head_spaz]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22601467 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:59:25 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22601165
What you have just described is what Comcast is doing now.

The time frame will also shift from market to market. Here 7pm-10pm will (usually) be more congested than 5-7pm.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22601165 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:31:36 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22601120 said by Lazlow:

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.
Well it can be protocol agnostic. I am saying look at sustained rates for specific transfers to specific hosts. VoIp isn't going to try to max out a 15mps connection, while bittorrent or other downloading will. You can leave lower bandwidth stuff alone since it's not a problem. Just throttle stuff that tries to max out the connection back enough to free up the congestion. It's way better to have a torrent drop back a few hundred kbps than it is to screw with stuff that isn't trying to use all possible bandwidth. There is no point in trying to throttle a 50kbps transfer, if another transfer is going 14.95mbps. Just throttle the faster transfer. And we are probably only talking between like 5-7pm, max. If at all.

Just throttle the specific traffic causing the problem, leave everything else alone.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22601120 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:55:08 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22601114 said by DataRiker:

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?
That https p2p is going to make many connections to different hosts and not just one connection. And it will try to transfer much more data. Depending on how good you detect it, it might get a few seconds of max speed, then you start to throttle it back.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22601114 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:50:52 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22601018 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22601018 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:52:56 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22600952
You may contract them for access to their private network but the VAST majority of users are contracting for access to the internet. Most of us want our ISP to be a simple dumb pipe.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22600952 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:12:07 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22600940 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22600940 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:08:13 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22600873
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22600873 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:46:51 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22600777
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).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22600777 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:18:11 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22600539 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22600539 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:16:54 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22600462 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22600462 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:58:00 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22600426 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22600426 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:48:54 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22600370
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).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22600370 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:37:37 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22600300 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22600300 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:21:53 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22599847 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22599847 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:53:49 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22599666
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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22599666 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:22:51 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22599561
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22599561 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:01:30 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22599524
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)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22599524 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:54:17 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22599479 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22599479 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:48:46 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22599439
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22599439 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:41:37 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22599384
And given the track record in this cat and mouse game, expect the p2p community to be 2 steps ahead.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22599384 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:32:33 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22599382 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22599382 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:32:17 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22599373 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." :(]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22599373 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:30:20 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22599284
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22599284 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:14:20 EDT Re: They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22599262 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-They-make-no-sense-22599262 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:10:37 EDT They make no sense. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/They-make-no-sense-22599243
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!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/They-make-no-sense-22599243 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:05:39 EDT