dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
42
share rss forum feed


djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
reply to Dampier

Re: [TWC] TW Officially Announces Packet Shaping for All RR User

7:30pm and downloading from NG server at 1180KB/sec. This shaping technology doesn't seem to have hit my area yet.
--
Laser eye surgery rocks! I love frickin' laser beams.

Dampier
Phillip M Dampier

join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY
said by djrobx:

7:30pm and downloading from NG server at 1180KB/sec. This shaping technology doesn't seem to have hit my area yet.
That is possible, although remember this is in effect only during "peak times" whatever that means (and if someone can get them to confirm what those times actually are, that would be useful to know.)

vasta

join:2003-04-07
Orlando, FL
does this affect Brighthouse users?


must not have hit me yet but i have noticed insanely slow speeds on NG

Dampier
Phillip M Dampier

join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY
said by vasta:

does this affect Brighthouse users?
Apparently so in the St. Cloud area at least. See the link above to a post from a user who got telephone confirmation from Bright House in central Florida.


ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
reply to djrobx
said by djrobx:

7:30pm and downloading from NG server at 1180KB/sec. This shaping technology doesn't seem to have hit my area yet.
You'll only see it if the load on the network in your area warrants it. If they start to approach capacity packets of these particular activities (usenet, BT, P2P) get prioritized. If you're in a cable system that isn't under tremendous load you will likely never see any affects of packet shaping.
--
Macintosh Users Group Serving the Inland Empire

SyphonBW

join:2004-02-24
Alliance, OH
Well my speeds on newsgroups are @ 1800kb's a sec 15mbps a sec and that is with SSL Maybe SSL cant be seen by roadrunner or can it?


ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
reply to Dampier
said by Dampier:

said by djrobx:

7:30pm and downloading from NG server at 1180KB/sec. This shaping technology doesn't seem to have hit my area yet.
That is possible, although remember this is in effect only during "peak times" whatever that means (and if someone can get them to confirm what those times actually are, that would be useful to know.)
Peak times means you'll only see the traffic shaping when the network traffic is so heavy as to require it. If you're in a cable system that never sees very heavy traffic like the one I'm in (I never see slow downs, ever) you will likely never see it. If you have slow downs in the evening then you will like get caught up in traffic shaping.
--
Macintosh Users Group Serving the Inland Empire

Dampier
Phillip M Dampier

join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY
reply to ColorBASIC
said by SyphonBW:

Well my speeds on newsgroups are @ 1800kb's a sec 15mbps a sec and that is with SSL Maybe SSL cant be seen by roadrunner or can it?
With SSL on, supposedly you can hide your network traffic (Giganews markets an account with that option specifically to get beyond packet shapers), but some packet shaping technology can still identify traffic based on how it moves across the network (On another forum someone mentioned Cisco sells technology which can throttle encrypted traffic based on how the packets move back and forth, making it easy to identify even encrypted p-2-p traffic.)

Also, and this is very important, RR admits to using this only at "peak times" but then doesn't really define what those hours are. Peak time for Rochester apparently include late afternoons because that is when I noticed throughput going off the cliff.

When connectivity sucks, my usual routine is to check latency and other providers and what was different this time is that no matter where I went for newsgroup traffic, and no matter how many connections I opened, they all gradually slowed down to the same speed... around 400kbps for four concurrent connections. I could approximate standard RR 10mbps speed only when opening 10 concurrent connections and then shutting them off every 15 minutes or so and restarting them.

And I don't spend all day on newsgroups - usually 30 minutes a day max, so I'm hardly Mr. Piggy when it comes to network usage (and outside of technology that relies on p-2-p to deliver legal content, I don't use Bit Torrent stuff at all).

The thing about people considering this good news is that the trends like this rarely are positive. It signals management willingness to start limiting their users' ability to use the service and spend less on improving the network. That generally guarantees more throttling for more applications they define as "abusive" and the kinds of hidden usage caps like Comcast loves are now in the realm of possibility as well. Because when management considers punitively imposing restrictions on their customers, that philosophy can quickly extend to many other aspects of their service. The key is nipping this mentality in the bud before it becomes entrenched, not because we should celebrate bandwidth piggies, but because the nature of the Internet and future applications that require broadband connections inevitably make more and more of us bandwidth piggies in their eyes.


ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA

1 edit
As I mentioned earlier, peak times has less to do with the times than the peaks.

All this traffic shaping is doing is deprioritizing packets of high bandwidth applications. If your cable system is not running near capacity, even deprioritized traffic still runs full speed.

If your local cable system is near capacity nearly all day, then you'll see the effects of traffic shaping all day. In other local cable systems that aren't near capacity, those users may never see any effects of traffic shaping because there are no "peak" hours.

I haven't seen the effects of traffic shaping yet (knocks on wood) but I also use encrypted usenet service from Giganews. Then again I've NEVER seen a slowdown in my area under TWC I may never be affected by this traffic shaping, encryption or not.

If I ever am, I also happen to be in the FiOS hotbed that is SoCal and one call to Verizon and all my traffic shaping problems disappear in a week or two. FiOS while offering the same 15/2 speeds has so much network capacity they can let their users run willy-nilly 24-7 and they don't seem to give a crap.

Even with SSL they can look at throttling prot 563 (traditional SSL NNTP port) just like they did 1214 for Kazaa. Luckily Giganews also acception SSL connections on 443 which is the traditional HTTPS port. TW may have to do a bit a tail chasing to stop those determined to circumvent the traffic shaping or resort to Comcast's just cancel heavy users approach.
--
Macintosh Users Group Serving the Inland Empire

mnmsmith

join:2002-03-03
Humble, TX
Maybe my cable system is at capacity then, because since this was implemented, my Newsgroup speeds are down to nothing no matter what time of day.


ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA

3 edits
My TW news server speeds have always sucked so I don't use them as a guide. I've been just watching my Giganews speeds which for both encrypted and unencrypted traffic have remained a steady 14.5Mb from my 15Mb service.

You could be in a burdened cable system cause there are at least 2 cable systems here in SoCal (mine headed out of Lake Elsinore, and another near LA) that we aren't seeing any effects of traffic shaping yet...at least that I can see.

So I think what this will do is for those cable systems that have evening slow downs...what we'll see is the evening slow downs get far worse for BT, P2P, and usenet users by the slow downs are lessened for all of the other users. Those in areas with no slow downs may just continue that way.

But who knows...cable operators can be a devious lot and we may not be seeing traffic shaping because we have SO MUCH FiOS competition here. From Corona to Huntington Beach and farther north, a lot of the TWC footprint is paralleled by FiOS service.
--
Macintosh Users Group Serving the Inland Empire


djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO

1 edit
reply to ColorBASIC
For me, doing something to limit rampant use of services known to be used in a continual manner during peak usage hours is not surprising with areas moving to 10-15mbps caps.

With a 10mbps connection and the included newsgroup service you can easily suck down around 100GB per day and you can bet there are people doing it. I love my newsgroup downloads, but I simply don't think it's reasonable to expect Time Warner to deliver every customer 10mbps 24x7 for $54.95 per month. Residential pricing and speeds are based on sharing intermittent use.

So in my mind there must be limits. When someone is walking out the door with the all-you-can-eat buffet table, what are the options? Impose monthly download limits? Give everyone lower speed caps so we're all stuck with 1.5mbps 24x7? Charge extra per gigabyte downloaded? Take away the free news server? Cancel people's accounts? Yes, they can beef up their back end to support the "hogs", but the circuits required to carry this kind of transit aren't cheap and there's a point where it's not cost effective to do so. An OC3 is 155mbps. That whole thousands-of-dollars-per-month circuit will be filled with just 10 people maxing out 15mbps caps! Even at the undiscounted $54.95 per month price, the money they collect isn't going to cover the cost!

Given the choices, I like TW's approach. I find it comforting to know I can queue up gigs and gigs worth of downloads in my newsreader and know that my downloads are not negatively impacting someone else's online game play. As long as I can still enjoy full speeds when the network is not so busy it's overall still worthwhile for me. And it's nice to know I'm not going to get some nasty letter from TW. Compare that to Comcast who cancels their users, or Cox who advertises a 60gb per month limit for their premier customers!

Nobody likes limits but they're part of life. If you don't like the limits you have to find another service that doesn't have them. For most people that alternative is much slower DSL.
--
Laser eye surgery rocks! I love frickin' laser beams.


ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA

1 edit
The problem isn't whether it's reasonable or not...TWC's major SoCal competitor, Verizon, permits 24-7 use with both their DSL and FiOS products.

So TWC is free to limit their service but with true wireline competition in SoCal, people like me will simply leave as Verzion has no trouble supporting the "hogs".

The fact is whether it's RR, Cox, Cablevision or Comcast; current cable system topology doesn't support providing these 15Mb speeds and in order to do it they have to select which customers and applications can get it. With SDV, DOCSIS3 and improved compression technology they will soon be able to but in the meantime these changes for me say "cable can't compete" with emerging telco wireline competition like we have in many many areas of SoCal.

IOW...limits are part of life...IF you're a cable customer. But for users in Temescal Valley, Huntington Beach and some other SoCal areas there are alternatives that are just as fast and about the same price but have none of these use restrictions.

--
Macintosh Users Group Serving the Inland Empire


limitme

@skiplink.net
So, just what exactly are those limits? Anyone care to elaborate? Any TWC disclosure agreement or TOS we can read that specifically states what those limits are? Amazing what they can get away with.


ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA

2 edits
Limits on what? Throughput? The limits are having to put up with traffic shaping which is dynamic depending on load on the cable system. While they traffic shape, they don't cancel you for excessive use like Comcast does.
--
Macintosh Users Group Serving the Inland Empire


limitme

@skiplink.net
limit on bandwidth and throttling....because no one here knows what those limits are and when they are in effect.


swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
reply to Dampier
said by Dampier:

The thing about people considering this good news is that the trends like this rarely are positive. It signals management willingness to start limiting their users' ability to use the service and spend less on improving the network. That generally guarantees more throttling for more applications they define as "abusive" and the kinds of hidden usage caps like Comcast loves are now in the realm of possibility as well. Because when management considers punitively imposing restrictions on their customers, that philosophy can quickly extend to many other aspects of their service. The key is nipping this mentality in the bud before it becomes entrenched, not because we should celebrate bandwidth piggies, but because the nature of the Internet and future applications that require broadband connections inevitably make more and more of us bandwidth piggies in their eyes.

Well said. This is why we need network neutrality legislation. ISPs ought to be, by law, "common carriers" such that it is none of their business what the customer is using the connection for. The electric utility simply bills me by the kilowatt, and has no right to try to set different terms depending on whether I'm using I'm using the watts for a light bulb or a lawn mower. Large ISPs obviously want a different rule and this has to be stopped.

Discussions of this topic always get the neutrality issue confused with the bandwidth and total-traffic issues. The question of neutrality or discrimination is about discrimination by type of traffic or origin or destination. The fact that cable companies oversell capacity is also a problem but it is a separate issue.

A reasonable policy would be (a) no discrimination (b) any limits on total traffic must be openly disclosed (c) if the ISP is going to limit usage to less than the advertised rates at any time they have to admit it in their advertising (plainly, not with "up to" weasel words).

Legislators aren't representing constituents (other than big corporations) on this. We need to whack them with clue-by-fours. Write a letter.


ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
reply to limitme
The limit is that they traffic shape and the traffic shaping is always in effect. You only see it when the network nears usage capacity (so-called peak times).

Traffic shaping is a service limitation but is a dynamic one. The effects change from second to second.
--
Macintosh Users Group Serving the Inland Empire


djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO

1 edit
reply to ColorBASIC
quote:
IOW...limits are part of life...IF you're a cable customer. But for users in Temescal Valley, Huntington Beach and some other SoCal areas there are alternatives that are just as fast and about the same price but have none of these use restrictions.
They don't now. Time Warner didn't a week ago either. I'm just not so certain that these limits are only being imposed due to "cable topology" problems. Anyone know how many 38mbps DOCSIS QAM256 channels are in simultaneous use on an average system? There's TW's peering/transit to the rest of the world to consider as well.

Verizon might actually want heavy usage statistics to prove the need for FIOS to their investors.
--
Laser eye surgery rocks! I love frickin' laser beams.


ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
reply to swhx7
If you want to pay per MB, then you can compare residential HSI to electricity.

You don't pay a flat monthly rate for electricity for if you did, you can damn well bet they would be throttling your high electricity applications like your A/C unit.
--
Macintosh Users Group Serving the Inland Empire


ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA

1 edit
reply to djrobx
People have been saying "they don't know" about telco wireline services for 10 years. The nature of telco wireline is they don't have the bottlenecks in the same spot as the cable operators do. Cable bottlenecks are often at the node level which isn't an issue for DSL or FiOS. Rarely if ever is the bottle neck at the headend or CO. It's just the nature of the two network layouts that cable HSI is more susceptible to slowdowns casued by the so-called hogs.

So I have no doubt in my mind that TW is implementing traffic shaping because they are facing these bottlenecks that are a simply the nature of cable internet topology.
--
Macintosh Users Group Serving the Inland Empire

niagara_man1

join:2007-05-02
Niagara Falls, NY
reply to ColorBASIC
thats fine. .... i would be willing to pay. I just signed up for TW 2 meg upload / 7 meg download for 169.99 in my area.


swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
reply to ColorBASIC
said by ColorBASIC:

If you want to pay per MB, then you can compare residential HSI to electricity.

You don't pay a flat monthly rate for electricity for if you did, you can damn well bet they would be throttling your high electricity applications like your A/C unit.

Flat rates are no excuse for overselling or for packet discrimination. Users are entitled to expect the advertised rates even at peak times.

Traffic amounts is a different issue than bandwidth at a give time; these are often confused.

Heavy users (in terms of total traffic over time) should expect to pay more. In a flat rate system - which we have with internet because people overwhelmingly prefer flat rates - that means going to a higher tier such as "business class". But if other posters' interpretations are correct, RR is actually throttling those users down to the lower-tier rates.

Sooner or later we need more capacity. Without government intervention ISPs will increase restrictions more and more instead of investing in capacity. A better solution would be taxpayer support of infrastructure, and regulation to force ISPs to pass along the benefits to customers (including network neutrality) instead of letting it be windfall corporate welfare.


djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO

2 edits
reply to ColorBASIC
People have been talking about cable blockage being at the node since the days when service was capped at 1500kbps. Somehow we've stepped up to 6-10mbps and the same topology seems to be handling it. We've only gone from QAM64 (29mbps) to QAM256 (38mbps),

I'm on node SC71, which I'm guessing means there are at least 71 nodes in Santa Clarita (I also know that due to a certain planning blunder we were one of the last nodes). 71 * 38mbps = 2698mbps. Yet all tracerts show we go through a gigabit ethernet connection to Tujunga. Hmmmmm...

Of course, from what I understand a node is just a fiber->coax conversion, and what we're really referring to are DOCSIS channels. Couldn't there be more than one DOCSIS channel per node? Perhaps many nodes are sharing the same channel? Those are the questions I'd like to see answers to, but I suppose we're getting off topic.

-- Rob
--
Laser eye surgery rocks! I love frickin' laser beams.


ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
reply to swhx7
Flat rates are absolutely an excuse for overselling.

Overselling is REQUIRED if you want 15Mb for $50.

Overselling is the ONLY way to provide that speed for that price.
--
Macintosh Users Group Serving the Inland Empire


ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA

1 edit
reply to djrobx
38Mb per channel, not total. It's not the "node" per se that is the limitation...it's how many channels are dedicated to throughput.


ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA

1 edit
reply to niagara_man1
said by niagara_man1:

thats fine. .... i would be willing to pay. I just signed up for TW 2 meg upload / 7 meg download for 169.99 in my area.
Call the telco and tell them you want a T-1 or T-3. It's would be $500/mo+ but it's dedicated and you can use it 24-7. Plus when it goes down they bust ass to fix it. They will not be calling you about excessive use or subjecting you to traffic shaping.

But even at $170 for 7Mb, it's going to be a shared connection. It's whether or not $170 buys you out of traffic shaping.

That's the trade off...cable network shared topology getting you 15Mb with traffic shaping for $50 or non-shared or SLA access for $500+ for 1.5/1.5Mb service.
--
Macintosh Users Group Serving the Inland Empire


swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia

1 edit
reply to ColorBASIC
said by ColorBASIC:

Flat rates are absolutely an excuse for overselling.

Overselling is REQUIRED if you want 15Mb for $50.

Overselling is the ONLY way to provide that speed for that price.

No, it's not true. If they're not going to build more capacity, at least let's have truthfulness enforced. Then instead of "15Mb for $50" in big print and "up to" and other negations in tiny print, it would be advertised as "maximum 15Mb, less at peak hours, maybe secret limits on total traffic, and we will degrade any traffic we choose to degrade at any time" for $50.

Another problem is the nature of these contracts. They're extremely one-sided and the ISPs grant themselves the exclusive right to change the terms at any time. This could not happen in a competitive market. Therefore we need both pro-competition policies (like equal access to the "last mile"), and regulation to impose some fairness on the contracts until there is enough competition that regulation is no longer needed.


ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA

3 edits
ISP's can't crap capacity.

If you don't want overselling, you will get 768kbps access for the same $50 you're paying today and even then it will still be oversold at the headend/CO level.
--
Macintosh Users Group Serving the Inland Empire

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
reply to SyphonBW
said by SyphonBW:

Maybe SSL cant be seen by roadrunner or can it?
They may not be able to see what's in those packets, but they most certainly can tell where they're going. Giganews, et. al. have pretty well known address ranges.