  LilYodaFeline with squirel personality disorderPremium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains | I see a lot of use for this In corporate networks
But for home ISPs? I don't think so! | |
|
 | DonLibesPremium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19 | Re: I see a lot of use for this said by LilYoda:In corporate networks Why would corporate networks want to block Skype? The corporate network where I work charges us for bandwidth. (They could care less what the bandwidth is used for as long as someone pays for it.) Actually, they don't charge us yet - but that's what they've announced as their ultimate goal. | |
|
| | LilYodaFeline with squirel personality disorderPremium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains | Re: I see a lot of use for this When employees start firing up skype and calling their buddies, they eat up the corporate bandwidth... If it affects other employees that are trying to use the internet for legit business purposes, or it reduces the amount of bandwidth available let's say for the corporate website, then you have a problem.
Billing it to the end user (the employee for example) isn't a solution, because you still have a bandwidth shortage. And you can't upgrade your bandwidth since you don't know if next month your users are going to use skype. If they aren't you end up with more bandwidth than you need (which isn't too bad) and a bill higher than you planned to pay (which is baaaaaaaaad) | |
|
| | | DonLibesPremium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19 | Re: I see a lot of use for this I suspect Skype usage will be pretty smooth compared to non-Skype internet traffic which is much more erratic. Andway, when half the employees start downloading the latest Windows megapatch or new versions of Linux, watch out. By comparison, VoIP takes very little bandwidth. | |
|
| | | | LilYodaFeline with squirel personality disorderPremium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains | Re: I see a lot of use for this said by DonLibes:Andway, when half the employees start downloading the latest Windows megapatch or new versions of Linux, watch out. By comparison, VoIP takes very little bandwidth. ¨
Yes and no.
Yes it takes a lot less bandwidth if everyone downloads the patches, etc... However most companies put a transparent proxy between the employees and the net. So windows update things, etc... hopefully get cached and downloaded once only. If the company has a small pipe, a lot of employees and no cache engine, well they deserve to get clobbered with a nightstick 
Anyway, I don't really know why, but I know that a lot of corporations nowadays are trying to block P2P, IM and VoIP apps from inside the company to the outside. My guess is bandwidth usage, cause that's where my job is at, but there could be other things in play (maybe legal implications for the company if an employee shares corpyrighted files?) | |
|
| | | oktiri
join:2003-01-05
Montreal, QC | you sound like the most anal retentive person my eyes had ever the "pleasure" of reading | |
|
| | | | LilYodaFeline with squirel personality disorderPremium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains | Re: I see a lot of use for this It's been a pleasure for me too.
L | |
|
| | | | I've been using skype for a few years and I like it.It only uses bandwidth while you speak. When you stop talking bandwidth stops. They are afraid people will realize how much we are getting ripped off on our phone bills is why. | |
|
|  knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | Another Famous Screenshot
Real Time Usage and Transfer Rates |
Basically, Skype while in call uses about the same bandwidth as your 40 kilobit connection via a 56K analog modem (not even close to a full 56K connect speed). How can they say this affects their network? If their network is so bad that it can't handle data transfer at less than a crappy 40 k/bs connection, it's greed that would hurt VoIP technology and Skype, not bandwidth. Trying to limit Skype for business reasons, I can agree with if you don't want employees to use it. But trying to limit a residential broadband user because it "uses too much bandwidth" is pure and utter Bull*hit!!
I hope this screen shot one gets posted around in the future as well. | |
|
|  atangelNow What??Premium
join:2002-02-18
Bronx, NY | Re: I see a lot of use for this Costing them (the ISPs) money!??? I pay for the bandwidth. How MUCH of it I use (within contract) is my business! | |
|
| | LilYodaFeline with squirel personality disorderPremium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains | Re: I see a lot of use for this If you read my original post I referred to using this in corporate networks. Meaning a network for a company that subscribes to an ISP and pays for a fixed bandwidth.
Usually, they are charged an arm and leg by the ISP, and therefore don't like the idea of their employees getting a free phone ride on the corporate internet access. | |
|
| | | DonLibesPremium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19 | Re: I see a lot of use for this said by LilYoda:If you read my original post I referred to using this in corporate networks. Meaning a network for a company that subscribes to an ISP and pays for a fixed bandwidth. Usually, they are charged an arm and leg by the ISP, and therefore don't like the idea of their employees getting a free phone ride on the corporate internet access. You think phone calls are free? The phone company charges our company for every phone call, even local ones. I suspect that moving our phone traffic over to VoIP would lower our total costs. | |
|
jboyo
join:2004-06-10
North York, ON | Oohhh This is so evil.
"I hate it when my customers try to get what they pay for!" ...sometimes these people sicken me. | |
|
 Wills
join:2001-01-03
Port Charlotte, FL | Who hates Skype? Who are the ones running to him claiming they hate skype?
Skype's competitors? The other VoIP companies that make you pay?
Is it the ISP's who are finding out, with all this bandwidth intensive software, that their networks aren't up to par?
Is it greed hungry ISP's such as Shaw and others who know they're networks aren't up to par, yet would rather limit customers access than spend a small amount of money to properly implement their service?
Is it network admins that can't, for some reason block Skype and need to buy a box dedicated to doing just that?
--
I have a shaved head, a goatee, and tatoos. Don't you realize the rules don't apply to me. | |
|
| | | Re: Who hates Skype? I guess skype wants to have a nice backgraound check when someonme aquires them | |
|
| LilYodaFeline with squirel personality disorderPremium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains | Yeah, skype has a tendency to run on any TCP port, so it's hard to block in corporate networks. And it sucks bandwidth for private employee use instead of being available for corproate applications.
Cisco developped a specific extension to the NBAR service to finally be able to block skype. But I think it got bypassed by skype again... | |
|
| | | | Re: Who hates Skype? Well there are some nice new toys out there that block traffic not by port but by packet content itself. It 'sniffs' the beginning of each packet, and decides what needs to be done from there. This type of checking is even usable on very large amounts of traffic and very efficient. I watched one at work cutting down the p2p traffic and was frankly impressed. Even as a p2p enthusiast it's hard not to admire neat solutions. | |
|
| | | LilYodaFeline with squirel personality disorderPremium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains | Re: Who hates Skype? I think that's exactly what this box is, albeit limited to sniffing of P2P, IM and skype traffic. Which is I said that such devices are needed in corporate environment nowadays, since traffic blocking by port isn't cutting it anymore. | |
|
| | | |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Who hates Skype? I agree - I used to run a grey market Cisco 515 on a DS3, and it was tough filtering out good from bad manually. I ended up blocking whole blocks of IP's and ports to get rid of IM.
Packet sniffing tools help out a lot, similar methods to sw firewalls - they determine what kind of app is running | |
|
| | | | | |
| | |
2 edits | Well, that makes a WHOLE lot of sense, because it will only force the VoIP clients to add extra "garbage" traffic to confuse the filters. In other words, as I understand it a Skype client now tries to send just the audio data alone, but if it has to I'm sure it could be modified to grab some random data from the user's browser cache.
I mean, here's a thought: Both clients (the one on each end) grabs a random web page that is accessible to both. They then use the content of that page as a seed to encrypt the data. How are the filters going to know what kind of traffic it is? Meanwhile both sides are uploading and downloading even more bytes just to confuse the filters. Also, the CEO of this company may be saying that commercial VoIP shouldn't be blocked now, but you just know that some money grubbing evil bastard ISP is going to want to try to use it that way.
Personally I hope the hackers win this one - this kind of blocking of a service the customer is paying for is just evil, especially when it's simply voice chat between friends or family. I've never used Skype and don't intend to but I do fear that if such tools are available, people will want to use them. It's kind of like how the gas stations never charged a dime for air for your tires until somebody came out with a coin-operated air machine, which made some of the station operators figure that they'd charge extra because they could - well in this case the customers are already paying for broadband service, so it's not like they are demanding something to be made available for free. Broadband should not discriminate between applications - how would you like it if your ISP decided to charge you a buck for each e-mail sent and received? | |
|
| | The almighty $$$$$ VoIP companies are scared of losing business, so they put pressure on ISPs(who also want a share of the VoIP market).
Then combine this with the fact that ISPs are looking for ways to limit their broadband traffic so they can have more customers on the same lines without spending money to increase lines and bandwidth.
One solution would be to encrypt all information in a way that packet analyzers can't determine the content being sent/received. This will most definately come at a cost to performance, but in the end you will have anonymous packets which can't be filtered because there is no way to tell if someone is streaming video or music, playing video games, making phone calls, downloading programs/files, etc.
There is no way to stop people from using a service which they pay for unless they shut it off. | |
|
| | Interesting While I can see a small need for this in a corporate environment (the ones who hire consulting firms because they fired all the IT staff...just because the damn bean counters wanted to "save" money), I cant see what a residential ISP would gain from this, especially seeing that VoIP traffic isnt all that heavy at all, fitting perfectly within the 128kbps upstream that most providers offer. | |
|
| | | Re: Interesting Isn't this exactly what congress and the FCC was supposed to be preventing. As long as your not doing anything illegal I don't see how this product would fly in the US. If this is allowed then what would be the next? Cable companies don't particularly like the fact that MLB stream games over the net as well as the networks putting lots of content online. Would they block those next and claim its eating up bandwidth? Or if a ISP launched there own music service would they block competing music services? Allowing this would essentially kill network neutrality. | |
|
 jose3030Premium
join:1999-08-17
Manassas, VA | Typo Verso not Verio. | |
|
| | More Baby Food Please Cuz I couldn't possibly take care of myself or monitor my own traffic.
quote:
...our new NetSpective 2.0 blocks applications such as Skype, Peer-2-Peer (P2P) messaging, streaming media and instant messaging that increasingly cause congestion on internal networks and degrade service for other critical applications.
Whose critial applications? Yours?
quote:
NetSpective 2.0 blocks unregulated traffic that could potentially result in violations of federal communications regulations, or illegal copyright violations through accessing of protected materials...
Wouldn't this be just lovely for the **AA vvvveeeerry convenient.
Here is the best part 
This solution evolved from specific demands from the enterprise market to exercise more control over network activities, and to monitor and control the estimated 30% of productive time loss attributed to surfing, instant messaging, unsanctioned VoIP and downloading,"
Who's 30% loss? And who are they to care? If I wanna stay at home and veg for 72 hours on the web that my perogative. And this tripe about so-called "enterprises" crying is pure bunk cus the way I see it...if these "enterprises" are griping so much about workers slacking off on the web....THEN YOU GET A BETTER FIREWALL! They could have done this crap by themselves, they don't need regulation. BS. So don't give me that crap.
As per usual money is behind it. People are getting P.O.ed because they're selling milk @ $10 bucks a gallon, meanwhile people are getting the cows for free somewhere else. | |
|
|
| | Hmm.. I can't help but see the ramifications of this.. Not the Product but the idea.
Next week MSN/AOL announces a 25 cent fee for emailing people outside of the MSN AOL network.. | |
|
| | | Re: Hmm.. OMG!! what a horrible horrible notion. I'm getting chills just thinking about it..........................Hey stop giving people ideas  | |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA | Yea for Capitalism!! I use Skype for attending meeting while I'm working from home. The 800 Webex numbers are free and the sound quality is much better than anything short of being in the same room. Both IM and Skype are useful communications tools where I work. Blocking either would be silly and counterproductive. To prevent abuses, all of our traffic is potentially monitored and the bandwidth and the computer resources that are used are minimal on most relatively new machines and network infrastructures.
If the ISP's are only pushing for this type of equipment so they can sell their own products that are most likely inferior in quality, shame on them. If they are that determined to ruin customer relations and services in the pursuit of making a profit, why not just use the bandwidth exclusively for downloading advertisements and junk mail?
What's next, photos of the baby sent to grandma blocked because it is not cost effective to the ISP? How about the cable TV cutting out for an hour if a motion sensor on the box senses that you left for the kitchen or bathroom during a commercial break? I hate the double dipping. I pay $60 a month so that I can take advantage of the many offerings and free services that I can utilize with my expensive internet connection. If I am going to be charged for each IM, credit card purchase, download, upload, stream, or voice communication, then sell the base service at a reduced cost. If they take all of the incentive to have high-speed internet away from the customer, how many will still be willing to fork over big bucks?
Everyone wants to make a profit, but a lot of people are pinching pennies now as the all-mighty dollar just doesn't put as much food on the table right now. Skype is gaining in popularity at an alarming rate (at least to ISP's apparently) because it is an alternative to using otherwise expensive means to communicate. If they expect people to dump loads of cash into a cable-owned VOIP application after crippling free/cheaper services, they've got some work to do in their marketing divisions. | |
|
| | Maybe... Hmm, another possibility.... Isn't Skype going to be purchased? Isn't odd that this just happens after this fact? Hmmm... Wasn't there something about someone killing something? (Sorry me mind is a bit foggy at the moment).
Just something to think about. | |
|
| | | Re: Maybe... Blocking technology will not be allowed by the FCC, as evidenced by the FCC coming down on the ISPs that started doing such early in the year.
What will happen is that our ISP bills will start mirroring cell phone bills; allowed a certain amount of bandwidth per month and any overage you pay for. I can see Verizon Wireless Broadband to be the first to instill such a plan.
Chaser | |
|
| | jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA | Re: Maybe... said by chaser7016 :
Blocking technology will not be allowed by the FCC, as evidenced by the FCC coming down on the ISPs that started doing such early in the year.
What will happen is that our ISP bills will start mirroring cell phone bills; allowed a certain amount of bandwidth per month and any overage you pay for. I can see Verizon Wireless Broadband to be the first to instill such a plan.
Chaser
And then the one company that offers unlimited bandwidth will enjoy AOL like success. Remember all the trouble AOL caused when they offered unlimited dial-up service for a standard price? Nobody could connect and those that did had to find clever ways to keep their connection alive for 24 hours or they would have to fight millions of others for the limited, oversold connections all over again.
In the end AOL made quite a few new users and a ton of money. Same type of thing will happen if they try and charge us like cell phones. In fact, even cell phone services are changing due to customer demand. | |
|
| | | | The FCC was under Michael Powell when it came down on the ISP. I think its newer director will go with big business. | |
|
| | | | What will happen?? It allready is happening. Back in my home country Ireland there is a transfer per month cap which if you exceed you will be charged per meg. I'm not 100% but I think there are other isp's in the UK doing the same thing | |
|
| | Reminds me of the Bells Reminds me of the bells complaining that fax machines and dial-up modems were using up all their lines. If I recall correctly they wanted to charge extra for a second or third line. Anything for the money--- | |
|
| | It's only bad if someone isn't making money off it It would seem that Skype's greatest sin is that it doesn't go for maximum profit. If you read the linked article it's all about protecting someone's business model from the potential threat to revenue. Like they are somehow entitled to a revenue stream just because they want one.
Don't the VOIP provider's like Vonage realize they are eating the Long Distance provider's lunches? The ILECs want to impede VOIP to protect their business models. It is humorous how they all want someone to guarantee their right to be in a market and yet block others.
It seems to be a straw man argument that this is useful for corporations to protect themselves and limit bandwidth usage. If you want to have a corp policy against this type of usage, do so, and crack down on violations. Funny thing is, more and more companies are going to VOIP themselves. Would you rather have Susie Secretary use a VOIP connection to talk to a friend, or a bigger part of your T1 to place a traditional call? (Ok, there was just a morsel of flamebait in that last sentence, please don't let it go to waste. | |
|
| | Corp Use. The company I work for is internation.
We were recently told to start using Skype for internation calls to each other to say the company money.
At home I too pay for my bandwidth, how I use my quota is my business. | |
|
| | | You know this one You know, the technology to make cars ride on water is existing for a long time, yet no car constructor starts production of this type of car. And you all know why...
This story is eactly the same, except that FREE voip allready exists, and has great success, and some people don't seem to like this.
By the way, scince ebay bought skype for $$$$$$, i'm rather curious as to how long it will stay free. What those idiots don't seem to understand though, is that this is the same as file-sharing programs. Take it down or make it a pay-service, and 10 other free programs will stand ready to take its place.
Truly, some people see cash in every hair on your head and every microbe on this planet, I truly hope they lose some major $$$$$ on this one. | |
|
|
|
·
·
