 r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
 ·row44
| What a crappy company! Sandvine is going to become the new RIAA. They need to use their programming talent on something else.
They are trying to profit off of limiting the internet. Sandvine is one of the worst companies ever.
--
For those of you playing a drinking game.... MY FRIENDS! |
|
|
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | How is Sandvine limiting the Internet? And why are the such a bad company? They actually appear to be turning around and listening to their customers, which are sort of listening to their customers. |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX | They are in the business of limiting internet. If they are listening to end users then they would not be in business.
--
For those of you playing a drinking game.... MY FRIENDS! |
|
| reply to r81984
hmmm
company with no debt, 90M in the bank, solid biz model...
do your research b4 you comment.
sure sounds like a crappy company! wake up and buy some stock. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to r81984
They are not limiting the Internet. A tool is only that...a tool. It's how the tool is used that maybe you take issue with. When end users start paying Sandvine for service, then they get a voice, until then, direct your "internet limiting" at the ISPs. FWIW, Comcast appears to be implementing Sandvine's technology with minimal to no noticeable impact to the end users so maybe they are listening  |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
·row44
| They why are they buying it? The point of sandvine technology is to limit the internet which will impact users. If they are not impacting users then the equipment is not working. An ISP and sandvine do not have a right to say what traffic is more important than others that should be left up the end user.
--
For those of you playing a drinking game.... MY FRIENDS! |
|
 ztmikeMark for moderationPremium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN | reply to SVC Investor
said by SVC Investor :
hmmm
company with no debt, 90M in the bank, solid biz model...
do your research b4 you comment.
sure sounds like a crappy company! wake up and buy some stock.
lol
Says the guy who owns stock. Trying to defend your purchase?  |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to r81984
said by r81984:If they are not impacting users then the equipment is not working. Noticeable impact said by r81984: An ISP and sandvine do not have a right to say what traffic is more important than others that should be left up the end user. Sandvine isn't determining traffic priorities. Besides, with Comcast's implementation of Fairshare, priorities are left up to the end user. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to ztmike
Technically, r81984  said, "Sandvine is one of the worst companies ever." SVC Investor merely pointed out that Sandvine is sitting relatively well from a corporate perspective. Business is business, and being a profitable business is definitely not being "one of the worst companies ever". |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
·row44
| They are sitting well as long as ISP want to screw their customers.
They are a shitty company in the aspect they are encouraging limiting the internet.
If there ever is a net neutrality law that gets put in place sandvine will go out of business in the US.
--
For those of you playing a drinking game.... MY FRIENDS! |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Last time. Sandvine isn't "limiting the internet". Comcast's current implementation of Sandvine's Fairshare doesn't violate any network neutrality principles. Step outside of your box for a second and be objective. |
|
| reply to openbox9
No they're not. They're throttling users when a node is "congested" instead of simply splitting the node and providing more bandwidth. Any throttling tool will allow an ISP to skip one cycle of upgrading, but after that cycle they are forced to permanently use that tool even as they upgrade. It's a stopgap measure, and doesn't address the real issue of congestion. Only splitting the node will fully address the problem. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Yes the are. From my understanding, Comcast's current implementation of Fairshare doesn't prioritize specific protocols over others. Therefore, the end user has control over protocol prioritization (at least through Comcast's network).said by sonicmerlin:Any throttling tool will allow an ISP to skip one cycle of upgrading, How did you determine this? Throttling schemas are used to manage peak congestion. Until the congestion is more than intermittently bursty, laying out resources to split nodes doesn't make sense. Having said that, the network engineers should monitor their networks and plan upgrades accordingly.said by sonicmerlin:but after that cycle they are forced to permanently use that tool even as they upgrade. Forced? More like ISPs choose to maintain tools that enable them manage their networks and minimize impacts as traffic eventually bursts to new bandwidth limits. |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
·Clear Wireless
| reply to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:Any throttling tool will allow an ISP to skip one cycle of upgrading, but after that cycle they are forced to permanently use that tool even as they upgrade. It's a stopgap measure, and doesn't address the real issue of congestion. Only splitting the node will fully address the problem. So called "Fair Access Policies" such as those used by satellite internet providers are systems that allow for the elongation of upgrade cycles. Those systems have a limit at which a hard throttle kicks in that effectively limits the maximum number of bytes any particular user can put on the network.
Fairshare, by contrast, is a completely different system in that it's a prioritization scheme and not a throttle. Your priority on the network is inversely proportional to your amount of bandwidth demand; those who create the least amount of demand get the highest priority.
We're talking about scenarios where the circuit is filled to the point where there is congestion, and congestion usually affects every single connection on the wire. Say you're streaming a HD video which is running along but fills the shared pathway to capacity. When I pick up my phone to make a VoIP call, the extra traffic I add to the line creates a congested condition -- but the impact occurs to both of us. In that state some of my packets get dropped, some of your packets get dropped -- my VoIP call has unusable audio, your video maybe falls behind on buffering.
So if you are streaming video for an hour, and I want to make a 6 minute phone call, your traffic use over the hour was impacted 10% of the time, but my phone call was 100% impacted. FairShare is just a system to even out those odds. If my connection had higher priority than yours, 0% of my 6 minute VoIP call would be impacted, and you'd still have impact to 10% of the duration of your video stream. |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:Last time. Sandvine isn't "limiting the internet". Comcast's current implementation of Sandvine's Fairshare doesn't violate any network neutrality principles. Step outside of your box for a second and be objective. "Any" is too big of a word. Fairshare doesn't affect Comcast's VOIP but it affects all other VOIP products. That's definitely a Network Neutrality issue. It is an issue for Comcast specifically because its VOIP products use the same RF frequencies as its HSI products and therefore takes from the same bandwidth pool. This arrangement is not true for all MSOs, but it is for Comcast.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5 |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by funchords:"Any" is too big of a word. Fairshare doesn't affect Comcast's VOIP but it affects all other VOIP products. That's definitely a Network Neutrality issue. Wait... what?!
Comcast VoIP is service that is provided within Comcast's network and carries SLAs over call quality; the traffic never transverses the Ethernet port of a cable modem or emta to hit any device an end-user would have. Internet VoIP is just another Internet IP packet that happens to hit a media gateway somewhere out on the Internet, with a service provider that has no SLAs because there are no guarantees on Internet performance or packet delivery.
If FairShare specifically targeted VoIP traffic then maybe it would be a neutrality violation, but it doesn't work based on protocol. In traffic by quantity it is almost certain that Comcast phone traffic would naturally end up at the top of the prioritization scheme anyway.
The eMTAs have a separate "voice" and "data" side that happens to combine within the same box and shares a radio, but acts like 2 cable modems (different MACs, WAN IPs, etc). A customer can get the same effect by subscribing with 2 cable modems, putting their high importance / low bandwidth traffic (ie, VoIP) on one modem, and doing their heavy transfers on the other. |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by espaeth:said by funchords:"Any" is too big of a word. Fairshare doesn't affect Comcast's VOIP but it affects all other VOIP products. That's definitely a Network Neutrality issue. Wait... what?! Before anybody gets too excited, there are reasons that this isn't a big deal. Read on...
said by espaeth:Comcast VoIP is service that is provided within Comcast's network and carries SLAs over call quality; the traffic never transverses the Ethernet port of a cable modem or emta to hit any device an end-user would have. The issue occurs because the first threshold in Fairshare is the port utilization, ports that serve these emtas. So we have the issue of Comcast's VOIP adding to the utilization being measured yet being exempt from its effects and penalties. Comcast's preferential scheduling of its VOIP, which I presume is happening, also raises the specter of NN.
said by espaeth:Internet VoIP is just another Internet IP packet that happens to hit a media gateway somewhere out on the Internet, with a service provider that has no SLAs because there are no guarantees on Internet performance or packet delivery. Comcast's HSI network is part of the Internet, so if discrimination is happening along these paths, it should be considered as to whether or not it is fair and right to do so. Comcast's VOIP travels across the metro area to some place near the access routers where it hits the PSTN. The first several hops are routers carrying Internet traffic and IP packets (VOIP or not, Comcast or not) compete there, together.
said by espaeth:If FairShare specifically targeted VoIP traffic then maybe it would be a neutrality violation, but it doesn't work based on protocol. In traffic by quantity it is almost certain that Comcast phone traffic would naturally end up at the top of the prioritization scheme anyway. Quantity is a reason why this isn't a big deal. It wouldn't be any deal at all of the eMTAs and cablemodem of a subscriber were linked together and the "over"-use by a cablemodem meant that both the cablemodem and the eMTAs suffered the consequences.
Another reason that this isn't a big deal is because it doesn't seem to actually be causing a disparity. None of the VOIP companies seem to be saying that Comcast's fairshare is impacting them. So it's hard to get excited about this, aside from the technicality.
said by espaeth:The eMTAs have a separate "voice" and "data" side that happens to combine within the same box and shares a radio, but acts like 2 cable modems (different MACs, WAN IPs, etc). A customer can get the same effect by subscribing with 2 cable modems, putting their high importance / low bandwidth traffic (ie, VoIP) on one modem, and doing their heavy transfers on the other. Except that Comcast doesn't offer that -- not without charging a full subscription for the second modem (if they'd do that at all).
By the way, it would be nice -- if Comcast offered a "less-than-best-effort" un-"capped" modem. I had suggested that as early as May of 2008 to folks at Comcast. That way the customer could voluntarily offload some of his bulk traffic to the non-peak hours. Users could pay a modem rental and ignore the 250 GB limit.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5 |
|
 AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ | Comcast sells a digital phone product, not VoIP
--
standard disclaimers apply. |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by AVD:Comcast sells a digital phone product, not VoIP yeah, whatever. |
|
AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ | said by funchords:said by AVD:Comcast sells a digital phone product, not VoIP yeah, whatever. 
--
standard disclaimers apply. |
|
