RCN Exec Speaks on Traffic ShapingDiscusses attempt to deal with Bit Torrent bandwidth ( old news - 09:20AM Friday Jan 27 2006) tags: bandwidth · cableTipped by Karl Bode  in December we reported that our users were having some connectivity issues when it came to Bit Torrent traffic. While other North American cable ISPs have engaged in throttling the app, they've sometimes lied about it ( Shaw, Rogers come to mind). Jason Nealis, Director of Operations for RCN, stops by our forums and is at least up-front about the company's handling of p2p traffic. "In order to support the recently launched new speed initiatives and future product initiatives we have completed some tuning specifics surrounding the traffic on our network," says Nealis. According to RCN, internal metrics indicated that in excess of 90% of upstream traffic was being consumed by p2p. As such, they've decided to prioritize outbound p2p traffic, in order to keep decent bandwidth available for regular use. Why not just avoid advertising upstream speeds you can't deliver? "This prioritization will not have any impact on your ability to download data using the more popular peer 2 peer programs, however transmissions without downloading or "seeding" of data will be de-prioritized," he says. They aren't touching the speed at which users can seed via Bit Torrent, but they are limiting the total number of connections. According to Nealis, the company has improvements planned that will allow them to take a more nuanced approach. "We are really awaiting a OS release that will give us more knobs and tweaks then what we have now. Some forthcoming product enhancements moved up the schedule, but soon we will have a OS release that will allow us to manage this on a CMTS basis and not have to group it all into one bucket."While RCN shouldn't advertise speeds they clearly aren't ready to support, this kind of honesty from a company needs to be applauded. According to Nealis, the company "went round and round on what that right way was" to communicate these changes to users. "In the end just coming clean is the right choice" he concludes. Read on.
Related:- Comcast Bandwidth Meter Still A No Show
- RCN Preps DOCSIS 3.0 Launches
- Comcast Launches Wireless Broadband In Philly
- Charter Offers 60 Mbps In California
- Comcast Slammed For Non-Existent Throttling Changes
- Mediacom Hints At 50, 100 Mbps Speeds
- There's Still No Evidence That Metered Billing Is Necessary
- Comcast Website Hackers Indicted
|
 
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| Translation What he means to say is..
"We are offering higher speeds for more money (but read the fine print), but like SBC, we decide what you can use it for". So why the HELL are you selling it? What if everyone suddenly used all their downstream? Would you magically throttle those too? Of course. The BOTTOM LINE is that 'your network cannot support the higher upstream speeds". So DON'T SELL IT LIKE THAT. Don't sell something you can't support!
Yet another argument for the net neutrality clause. If I PAY for 1MB upstream, then I expect I can USE 1MB upstream. What if it was all SSL encrypted traffic? Would you throttle that? What if it was all e-mail traffic? would you throttle that? Time for the FCC to step in and lay down the smack.
--
Sure the internet has lots of porn and piracy, but I'm sure there's a downside to it. | |
|  | 
moko
join:2002-12-22
Fayetteville, GA | Re: Translation I agree 100%........what if 90% of our upload was sending doc's,would they throttle that?.....we should use OUR speed[what we pay for]for what ever we want to. | |
| | | 
rcnman
Jason Nealis
Premium,VIP
join:2003-05-02
Herndon, VA
| Re: Translation said by moko :I agree 100%........what if 90% of our upload was sending doc's,would they throttle that?.....we should use OUR speed[what we pay for]for what ever we want to. The main issue here is the default behavior of these P2P programs, Where the case is now a multitude of customers boot up their P.C.'s and don't realize that the P2P program they downloaded is now running wide open and sharing files. Because of the masses the few people who do focus on seeding / uploading get grouped into the masses.
Because of our high upstream abilities and soon to come enhancements to that product offering we are not out to support the peer 2 peer community alone. RCN is not eliminating the ability for customers to participate, but is instead insuring a fair share to the community.
And as noted in the discussions we are in the learning process and the final rollout will hopefully have a configuration that will work for everyone.
We would be foolish to think this isn't going to cause some issues, and I know there are people out there who have strong religion when it comes to managing bandwidth. But in the end the goal here is to manage items in order to provide the best service possible and communicate that with our user base.
-Jason
--
Jason Nealis, Director, Operations RCN | |
| | | | JohnA
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Pittsburgh, PA | Re: Translation
Just an observation, rcnman, but it seems a waste of time to answer those complaining on the news page. None of them seem to have RCN service. What a surprise. | |
| | | | | 
idoit_eliminator
@199.5.x.x | Re: Translation thats totally irrelevant. Dont advertize a service thats unlimited and then cripple it in some way. | |
| | | |
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| So, the problem is the customers are ignorant (not dumb, just don't know what the software they are running does). The big problem I have with the entire 'design' like this, is what it to stop RCN from saying 'Well, VoIP takes up too much traffic, so we're going to limit it to 50kb', or 'Too much is e-mail attachments, so we're going to limit it to 50kb'.
So, my question is very simple. If you ADVERTISE 1mb upstream, yet you don't allow 1mb upstream, doesn't that make you a hypocritcal liar? How is what RCN is doing any different than what SBC is proposing (charging more for faster speeds), except of course, RCN isn't bothering with the 'faster speeds' part, just the 'charging more' part.
--
Sure the internet has lots of porn and piracy, but I'm sure there's a downside to it. | |
| | | | |
WowSoMuch
@208.17.x.x | Re: Translation "Hypocritical liar" - LOL
As opposed to just a liar? | |
| | | | | | | | | | | 
rchandra
Stargate S G-1 And Atlantis Fan
Premium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105
clubs: | Re: Translation While I'd be very appreciative of this sort of speed upgrades, wake me up please when my broadband has monthly costs more like the Asians are enjoying on a $/mbit/s basis. I have a feeling you can just call me van Winkle. | |
| | | 
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA | They already throttle my upload speed to 47kb/sec, in SoCal. | |
| | 
sherman10570
join:2000-10-15
Pleasantville, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | 1MB = 1 Megabyte = 8 Megabits
You're only paying for _1_ megabit. Not 8. Get your own facts right.
Secondly, if every customer used their entire 1 megabit all the time, everyone's upload would feel like a 56k modem. They throttle the p2p services for a reason - to keep speeds consistent for all cusomers. Welcome to the world of residential Internet Service Providers. If you want a full megabit 24/7/365, I suggest you pay $300-400/month for a partial T1.
Thirdly, net neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. This is RCN's network. "Net neutrality" as discussed recently by SBC is about traffic between major providers.
- Sherman | |
| | | achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| Re: Translation said by sherman10570 :1MB = 1 Megabyte = 8 Megabits You're only paying for _1_ megabit. Not 8. Get your own facts right. Secondly, if every customer used their entire 1 megabit all the time, everyone's upload would feel like a 56k modem. They throttle the p2p services for a reason - to keep speeds consistent for all cusomers. Welcome to the world of residential Internet Service Providers. If you want a full megabit 24/7/365, I suggest you pay $300-400/month for a partial T1. Thirdly, net neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. This is RCN's network. "Net neutrality" as discussed recently by SBC is about traffic between major providers. You're a dumbass. - Sherman That was a well thought out, very concise, and accurate point, Sherman.
Sadly, don't expect it to be understood by many folks here... 
--
Bring back chicken and potato chips - Vote Perot! | |
| | | | 
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
| Re: Translation said by achuchma :That was a well thought out, very concise, and accurate point, Sherman. Sadly, don't expect it to be understood by many ANY folks here... There, fixed that for ya!
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! | |
| | |
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| Wow, sherman.. you wear a special helmet, right? It shows..
#1: yah, whaever, so I used caps instead of mb.. Everyone knows what I'm talking about.
#2: If everyone used 1mb all the time, then how is that MY problem? It's the ISP's problem.. If they can't handle it, then they either a)upgrade the network or b)lower the speeds they sell (which would most likely necessitate a price cut if their was competition, cause everyone would leave). It's very simple, we the customer DO NOT EXIST to ensure the ISP makes a profit. We the customer exist to consume the product the ISP is selling us.
#3: Net Neutrality has EVERYTHING to do with the issue. Do you even know what it means? It's exactly the same as the FCC Cartertone decision, which allowed NON-ATT phones to be used on AT&T's network. Net neutrality means that RCN can't favor 'gaming' traffic over 'voip' traffic. Net neutrality means that RCN can't treat 'www' traffic any differently than it treats 'wais' traffic. Net neutrality is the ONLY THING that prevents companies from abusing their monopoly/duopoly powers over the consumer.
--
Sure the internet has lots of porn and piracy, but I'm sure there's a downside to it. | |
| | | | 
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
1 edit | Re: Translation said by G_Poobah :#1: yah, whaever, so I used caps instead of mb.. Everyone knows what I'm talking about. Actually, when I read your post, I thought the same thing sherman10594 did. This is somewhat off-topic compared to the rest of the thread, but it's important: please learn to use proper unit designators. The difference between 1MB and 1Mb is huge.
If you need a quick lesson, just remember: data storage (i.e. hard disks, tape drives, floppies, etc.) uses _bytes_, while throughput and bandwidth (i.e. network devices, network speed, etc.) uses _bits_.
I cannot count how many times I have seen people post on forums about how they have a "1.5MB DSL connection" and are only getting "160kB/sec, WHY???".
Then again, I also say "mb" when I should be using "Mb", but I use lowercase for megabit because it's easier to (visually) distinguish the difference between mb vs. MB.
#2: If everyone used 1mb all the time, then how is that MY problem? It's the ISP's problem.. If they can't handle it, then they either a)upgrade the network or b)lower the speeds they sell (which would most likely necessitate a price cut if their was competition, cause everyone would leave). It's very simple, we the customer DO NOT EXIST to ensure the ISP makes a profit. We the customer exist to consume the product the ISP is selling us. This is where I "generally" agree with you. Of course, I'm not addicted to the amount of bandwidth I can get; I'm more interested in latency (and no, I'm not a gamer).
I agree that many ISPs are overselling their capacity, which is affecting all customers as a whole. Of course, with proper monitoring, ISPs shouldn't have a problem predicting when they're going to run out of capacity, nor have a problem detecting when they *are* out of capacity.
But I should educate you in one respect:
There is an silent war occuring between residential and commercial Internet connectivity. The amount of bandwidth a residential DSL or cable customer gets -- for the cost of US$20-60/month -- EASILY exceeds that of the cost of a commercial network connection (i.e. servers on 100mbit Ethernet in a co-lo, DS1s, DS3s, etc.). As it stands right now, *one single cable modem user* can pretty much max out many small-time co-lo customers' bandwidth.
Prices for residential DSL/cable are decreasing, while costs for server connectivity are either increasing or staying the same. There is no harmonious balance between the two any more, and that's going to ultimately affect the Internet as we know it -- hell, it already is.
So keep in mind that even though you're paying what you consider "a crapload" for something like a 6mbit/1mbit connection, there are those of us who run the servers you're downloading data from who curse you for being able to saturate what we pay 10x the amount for. US$40 6/1 cable versus US$400 512/512 co-location.
I'm not whining -- I'm just saying, please keep this in mind the next time you have the sudden desire to download tons of data from a web or FTP server somewhere. Chances are the person you're getting information from pays a crapload more than you do.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977. In memory of 2005... | |
| | | | | kd6cae
P2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
join:2001-08-27
Lancaster, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Translation I've wondered about this myself. Why should it cost any more to send data then to receive it? And why can't residential users be offered symetrical connectivity? Right now I have 7 mbits downstream and 900Kbits upstream. I pay $59.95 for this connection. I looked in to getting SDSL here via a local ISP and checked in to the cost of 1.5mbit symetrical SDSL, and as I recall it was something like $350 a month or something high like that. So for nearly 10 times the price I'm paying now, I could increase my upstream by roughly 600 kilobits or so which doesn't seem like a hell of alot since for 10 times the price I currently pay for 7 megabits downstream, I'd be cutting my downstream to nearly 5 times what it is now! And let's not forget the few areas that have up to 2mbits upstream. That's more than a T1, yet I bet if you ordered a T1 at those same locations, it'd still be $400 a month or more. Let's face it, whether we use our connection for basic web browsing, or we use our connection for high quality audio or video streaming or even p2p traffic, there are users that want to have upstream bandwidth and make use of it. So why not realize the internet isn't just a receive only medium and give those that want it more upload, and allow them to make use of it! Maybe in order to get more bandwidth, particularly in the upstream direction, we should go to a metered solution like many server data centers do, where you can use up to so much data for a set price then it'd be so much more per gigabyte over? And how do we get T1's and other types of symetrical conections to drop in price? | |
| | | | | | HMS1
join:2006-01-14
Austin, TX
| Re: Translation All your points are reasonable. If it were just a matter of policies or business decisions on the part of the ISPs you would be right on target.
There are other factors to be taken into consideration tho:
• There are technical reasons that cable, in current form, can't handle upstream nearly as well as downstream. I don't recall the explanation (maybe someone will fill in this part), but it has to do with it being designed years ago when it was all about delivering TV with little need for up.
•It's way expensive to improve the "last mile" infrastructure. In the long run, hopefully we'll have fiber and big, symmetrical bandwidth. But it takes investment by either the providers or government. The providers need a good ROI to do it, and we don't have a political climate for government to do it. And either way it takes time.
•Competition theoretically would improve things, but in most cities there is a cable monopoly (maybe even legally forced) and a telco oligopoly at best. Also this factor is in tension with the "last mile problem" - practically speaking, only one entity can own each connection from the individual residences or businesses to the central office (or whatever it's called).
| |
| | | | | | | BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Translation said by HMS1 :All your points are reasonable. If it were just a matter of policies or business decisions on the part of the ISPs you would be right on target. There are other factors to be taken into consideration tho:
• There are technical reasons that cable, in current form, can't handle upstream nearly as well as downstream. I don't recall the explanation (maybe someone will fill in this part), but it has to do with it being designed years ago when it was all about delivering TV with little need for up.
•It's way expensive to improve the "last mile" infrastructure. In the long run, hopefully we'll have fiber and big, symmetrical bandwidth. But it takes investment by either the providers or government. The providers need a good ROI to do it, and we don't have a political climate for government to do it. And either way it takes time.
•Competition theoretically would improve things, but in most cities there is a cable monopoly (maybe even legally forced) and a telco oligopoly at best. Also this factor is in tension with the "last mile problem" - practically speaking, only one entity can own each connection from the individual residences or businesses to the central office (or whatever it's called).
Consumer connections are mostly asymmetrical in nature. So uploading in general usually takes the beating.
It costs more to send traffic then to receive because of the peering agreements made by isp's to tier 1's and some tier 2's.
If I told you give me 10 k a month and id carry 100 mbit both ways to another peer you would say hell no thats to high my customers don't use that. I say ok then we will give you 45 mbit for 5 k.
Now downloading is mostly used and is burst type traffic. Meaning it is not sustained , it is only sustained by the server sending the content. So more can be downloaded without worries of sustaining. And to be clear downloading does include web surfing.
Uploads are more sustained. Usually since the servers are sending out to more then 1 downloader at a time. It's all relative. And since the transport is all bunched together your server may be on your backbone and helping saturate the upload you want so bad.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
| | | | | |
mwa423
@wideopenwest.com
| quote:
I've wondered about this myself. Why should it cost any more to send data then to receive it? And why can't residential users be offered symetrical connectivity?
Because then there's no incentive for hella expensive commercial connections. You can run a relatively decent web server on 1.5 mbit, or most other servers now that I think about it (except your "super elite top ftp site")
Also, if you look at commercial connections/t1/etc. they have guarenteed bandwidth. The bandwidth you get on your 7 mbit connection might be 4 mbit during peak times, might by 7 off peak, and that's in the agreement. For business customers, they had better get their full bandwidth, otherwise according to the SLA, then the telco will probably be opening their wallet.
Also, is it painfully clear to everybody else that higher capacities basically mean you can download/upload illegal things more quickly? | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| Re: Translation said by sporkme :Damn! If you're paying $400 for a server and 512Kb/s of usage, I've got a bridge to sell you.  Actually the bandwidth isn't that bad -- it's the 14U of rack space and power which is.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977. In memory of 2005... | |
| | | | | | Hanko
join:2001-12-28
Eatonville, WA
| It isn't only those who run servers that have to pay a high price for bandwidth. If you are a "Rural" customer like me who cannot get cable or DSL and Satellite is just not cutting it for VPN use you are stuck paying high prices.
I have a T1 to my house. It allows me to work from here instead of driving into downtown Seattle every day. I gladly pay the $536/month for the service. While I feel for those who complain that they are not getting all of their bandwidth from a 6/1 cable connection at $50/month I would gladly trade my monthly bill with them for the bandwidth anytime.
It is all relative on your situation. | |
| | | |
sherman10570
join:2000-10-15
Pleasantville, NY
·Verizon FIOS
| #2: You're right, it is not your problem. If you don't like their service, they don't pay for it. It's that simple. Put up or shut up. Customers like you (ones that use more capacity than others) lose money for the providers.
#3: As soon as you pay for their service, you agree to their terms of service. Again, if you don't like it, don't subscribe. It's their network and they can do what they want, the government can't say shit.
- Sherman | |
| | | | |
dfgdg
@comcast.net | Re: Translation Then they need to PROVIDE the service I PAID for!!! | |
| | | | | |
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
| Re: Translation Read the AUP and ToS, As a residential customer, you're paying for a connection, not guaranteed bandwidth.
Guaranteed badnwidth costs you between 600 and 1000 bux a month.
Keep blabbing about that which you know nothing...
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! | |
| | | | | | | Deathsadvoca
join:2003-08-20
South Lyon, MI
clubs:
1 edit | Re: Translation true the AUP doesnt guarantee bandwidth. The ONLY thing that i ask of my isp is that they DO NOT RESTRICT WHAT PORTS OR WHAT DATA i send on my line. if the bandwidth to max out my connection is available and not being used by anyone else on the same co then i damn well expect to be able to use it on any port. i dont want a connection where port 80, and 8080 are the only 2 ports that can use maximum bandwidth.
As long as an isp make a good attempt to get the amount of bandwidth that every user needs to his/her home then i am happy with it (i can see comcast or sbc trying to "low ball" the number so they only buy 45 mbit to support 1000+subs).
Does anyone know what the current user to bandwidth ratio that major companies use? it would be interesting to find out that information, like 15 users @ 5 mbit : 1 isp connection @ 5 mbit.
i dont have rcn cable so does anyone know if them limiting bandwidth to certain applications is justified? or are they just trying to lower there cost? a justification would be your bandwidth drops significantly during peak hours or ur max bandwidth cannot be obtained during off hours. | |
| | | | | | 
Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA | you do... that is why speeds are UP TO xMb/xMb.. no company as far as i know has anything in writing that says all speeds are guaranteed. | |
| | | | huziwhatsis
join:2004-03-11
Norwood, PA | You are insane.
The entire business model of ISPs is and has been oversubscription. Reserving 1:1 bandwidth is the circuit-switch telephone model. It simply isn't affordable and is NOT what has powered the growth of the Internet. | |
| | | | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: Translation said by huziwhatsis :You are insane. The entire business model of ISPs is and has been oversubscription. Reserving 1:1 bandwidth is the circuit-switch telephone model. It simply isn't affordable and is NOT what has powered the growth of the Internet. Actually, that is true with most residential communications, computer or voice. Just try using the phone (cell *or* POTS) after an earthquake, tornado, or other major news disaster when over 30% of the people are trying to call in/out, or in some areas where a special promotion requires you to call in.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| |
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| The true/core problem has nothing to do with the actual ISP -- it has to do with the arrangements they have with their upstream provider (Level3, Cogent, Verio, Abovenet, AT&T, MCI, Sprint, Telia, etc. etc.).
In these scenarios, the ISP is bound by their agreement to only utilise a certain percentage of traffic (and if they exceed that amount, they are billed for extra usage -- and this isn't cheap, as it adds up quickly). The funniest thing is that many of these providers sell "solutions" which involve non-symmetric measurements for bandwidth usage. In English: they expect you to use only 20% of your upstream, while it's fine to use 90% of your downstream. Remember, this is applying to large pipes such as OC48s.
Commercial connectivity (i.e. non-residential) is a purely symmetrical medium and always has been. That DS1 you buy gets you 1.5mbit up AND 1.5mbit down -- symmetrically (some people call this "3.0mbit" but that's generally incorrect).
There is absolutely NO REASON OR JUSTIFICATION behind differentiating between the direction of traffic flow. Downstream, upstream, it's all the same. So who's really to blame?
Marketing/sales.
The instant these jhonkas figured out that different kinds-of services utilise bandwith differently, they jumped at the chance to create -- financially -- a difference between a standard 45mbit DS3 and a 95th percentile DS3, a utilisation-based DS3, or any other sort-of non-symmetric method. For example, web server farms will be *sending* lots of traffic, but usually won't be downloading much -- in this situation, a customer may want to buy a package that has a lot of upstream capability but only pays for, say, 512kbit of downstream traffic. So in the case one of the administrators downloads a 650MB ISO from that server farm, well, they'll get billed extra.
It's all about marketing. And let me tell you -- it didn't used to be this way. When you purchased a pipe, you got exactly what speed the physical pipe was -- and you got to use as much of that pipe as you wanted (i.e. 100% in both directions). Now, marketing has created little stipulations and other madness to try and "save people money" when the actual goal is to hope they exceed limits which results in the seller *making* more money.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977. In memory of 2005... | |
| | | nozzer
join:2004-06-25
Waltham, MA
| Re: Translation Not true. The problem for cable providers is the upstream on their HFC systems. Bandwidth in the upstream direction is limited by bandwidth in the frequencies necessary to ensure reliable communication from the low powered cable modem to the node.
Jason also revealed that once they have upgraded OS's for their CMTS plant (the nodes to which each customers coax is connected) they will be able to control based upon the load on the CMTS.
noz | |
| | JimF
join:2003-06-15
Allentown, PA
| said by G_Poobah :The BOTTOM LINE is that 'your network cannot support the higher upstream speeds". So DON'T SELL IT LIKE THAT. Don't sell something you can't support! Never fly an airline. They sell more seats than they have. And never buy a car with a speedometer rated 140 mph. They really don't let you go that fast. | |
| | |
sherman10570
join:2000-10-15
Pleasantville, NY
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Necessary step; cable still has upload limitat Well said - cable at the end of the day is a shared technology, and users do not understand the cost to upgrade facilities.
Residential users just don't understand what it costs to provide bandwidth to them. If every user could have 5 megabits of upload available 24/7/365, it would cost hundreds of dollars a month. Oh wait. Verizon charges ~$200/month for that service.
- Sherman | |
| 
MxxCon
join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY
clubs:
| Escalating Arms Race We are really awaiting a OS release that will give us more knobs and tweaks then what we have now. and We(paying customers) are really awaiting release of new bittorrent clients/protocols which include encryption that will break all your fucking "knobs and tweaks".
what will end up happening is, you, idiots, will drive everybody into using complete darknets like freenet and waste and next generation networks(it's name escapes me now). so all you'll see are streams random data, and you won't be able to fuck around with application protocols.
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: Signature can not exceed 20GB] | |
| |
sherman10570
join:2000-10-15
Pleasantville, NY
·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | Re: Escalating Arms Race
It doesn't matter if you enrypt all of your traffic. If p2p traffic just becomes generic traffic, they will still manage it. Every packet that travels over their network they have complete control over.
The ISP's are trying to classify and manage p2p traffic so that "regular" traffic such as web browsing, email, etc feels faster than the rest. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but a very small percentage of cusomters consume a large percentage of an ISP's traffic.
At the end of the day, if you want guaranteed bandwidth 24/7/365, pay for a business-class service.
- Sherman | |
| | 
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| said by MxxCon :We are really awaiting a OS release that will give us more knobs and tweaks then what we have now. and We(paying customers) are really awaiting release of new bittorrent clients/protocols which include encryption that will break all your fucking "knobs and tweaks". what will end up happening is, you, idiots, will drive everybody into using complete darknets like freenet and waste and next generation networks(it's name escapes me now). so all you'll see are streams random data, and you won't be able to fuck around with application protocols. Encryption won't break their "knobs and tweaks", there has to be routing information in the TCP/UDP header and there is always "behavioral" traffic shaping. Encryption just encrypts the packet data, which is usually not what they use to perform QoS on traffic anyway.
IE: If your PC is opening 500 connections/second to 500 different IP address, you are probably running BitTorrent, we'll limit his device to 50 connections a second and forcibly close the rest. | |
| | | | | | |
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: Escalating Arms Race said by MxxCon :said by Matt :Encryption won't break their "knobs and tweaks", there has to be routing information in the TCP/UDP header and there is always "behavioral" traffic shaping. Encryption just encrypts the packet data, which is usually not what they use to perform QoS on traffic anyway. since you don't use them, you probably don't know, but OOL is fucking around at application protocol level. they specifically handicap bittorrent seed hosts and mess around with edk upload connections. And? Encrypting the data still does nothing to the TCP Header, nor to the behavioral pattern of BitTorrent.
If you're throwing 500 connections a second to their router, they are going to know you're using P2P and limit you. Email, Web, FTP, VoIP, Gaming, it doesn't matter -- nothing "looks" like P2P traffic except P2P traffic. | |
| GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| If traffic type was 'ethnic' he'd be a Racist. Not being ambiguous as to the types of traffic their subscribers are using is class case of prejudice. It one thing to monitor and react to virus, hacking, etc., but its completely something different to inhibit user behavior because they are simply using their paid-for service.
BTW, is the use of BT in the AUP/TOS for RCN? If so, then they are within their right to abuse their subscribers, otherwise they are what they are and no better than a virus. | |
| voyager6868
join:2003-01-29
Lynnwood, WA
·Bell Sympatico
| Throttling I don't see any problem with a moderate amount of throttling to make sure that people aren't just mindlessly letting their torrent clients run at full speed.
If companies want to say, reduce the speed of torrent uploads by 1/2 and advertise this, then I would have no problem.
The issue with Rogers, at least, is that they throttle torrent traffic to such an extreme amount that it severely affects the performance of such traffic. Most people see about 5-10% their usual download speeds because upload is practically disabled. I find this approach completely unacceptable. | |
| petecellar
join:2002-10-15
Philadelphia, PA
| 24/7 Despite what the f.u. standard broadband contracts may state - as a customer I think they should only sell what they can support.
You should be able to use it 24/7/365 - whether it's streaming video, virtual networking, or p2p.
But that the business world... most people won't notice and "special users" have to pay more or shop around. Competition becomes really necessary. | |
| nonner9
join:2005-10-14
Charlotte, NC
| There's only on thing to do... If you don't like the user agreement, then switch to a company who doesn't throttle any of the traffic which you want to use.
OR even better...
If everyone, in this forum who's complaining, got together, I bet they could form a new company which doesn't throttle any traffic, and maybe even charge a premium for it... | |
| nozzer
join:2004-06-25
Waltham, MA
| Can we be clear on something here? As an RCN customer, I think its fair to point out why I think what RCN is doing is commendable. NOTHING is being down to throttle torrents being downloaded. Even the upstream. This is completely unlike the Rogers/Shaw debacle where many users are lucky to see even dialup speeds when they DOWNLOAD torrents. Unlike Comcast RCN do not send rude letters to high bandwidth users, and unlike OOL they don't massively throttle the whole connection of high upstream users.
ONLY seeds are being throttled, and ONLY when RCN is seeing peak numbers of upstream seeds on their network. RCN is trying to limit the effect on their customers of people who leave their P2P application on full share at peak times. Often these folks don't even realise these apps are still running - for those of us who need to seed for ratio purposes - use a client with a scheduler that limits the upstream bandwidth you are using at peak times so you aren't being greedy.
Also the poster suggests "ISP's shouldn't advertise speeds they can't support" - in this case RCN are trying to ensure the vast majority of us get these speeds when we really need them. Everyone of those in the minority know full well that their residential connection is using a shared resource. | |
| |
See 11 replies to this post | |
| peerimpact
join:2005-11-07
Londonderry, VT
3 edits | Not all p2p rapes your Web traffic Have a Look at Peer Impact RCNMAN www.peerimpact.com
They are a commercial hybrid peer to peer company that sells and distributes content from the 4 Major record Labels ,Game Developers and soon NBC universal .
Peer Impact tries to attempt to keep as much traffic as possible within an ISPs network and only reaches out when it needs to find a chunk it cant find locally and it also keeps the nodes sorted geographically so network members can receive a faster download .They use a what they call "traffic cop" node to control their p2p network.They also have QoS built in so your computer is bogged down when you are using your PC and it ramps the download/upload when your computer is idle.
Kontiki and Red Swoosh use similar methodologies for their p2p distribution platforms.AOL are using Kontiki for thier Hi-Q Video service and iFilm use Redswoosh for content distribution.
Bit torrent on the other hand wastes a lot of network traffic because it uses a brute force approach to connecting peers and the Tracker is essentially a peer-cache so it connects users from all over the place and it is not managed in any way .
Not all p2p traffic is bad its just that certain networks that decentralise them selves as much as possible because the people that developed them where trying to escape legal liability including Bram Cohen all they managed doing was wasting more bandwidth than the Network providers can handle .
You will see more peer to peer traffic coming your way so get used to it and it will come from a variety of sources from content distribution to VOIP. | |
| |
rcnman
Jason Nealis
Premium,VIP
join:2003-05-02
Herndon, VA
| Re: Not all p2p rapes your Web traffic said by peerimpact :Peer Impact tries to attempt to keep as much traffic as possible within an ISPs network and only reaches out when it needs to find a chunk it cant find locally and it also keeps the nodes sorted geographically so network members can receive a faster download Agreed, and no I don't believe all P2P is bad, I use it quite often myself The RCN implementation in it's current state does some of this traffic cop model. If the content is seeded on net by a RCN sub that someone one net is looking for it will redirect to that on-net seed. And there obviously no limits to the download nor to the seed. (as long as its on-net)
--
Jason Nealis, Director, Operations RCN | |
| | | 
Maggs
Premium
join:2002-11-29
Woodside, NY
·RCN CABLE
| Re: Not all p2p rapes your Web traffic What RCN is complaining about is traffic going OFF network, if it's excessive, they pay big time.
Residental connections are just that. Residental, if you want 24/7/365 connectivity, get some Dark Fiber from RCN.
»www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,a···0,00.asp
VOIP uses some upload, if you have people using too much upload, voice data gets slowed down.
l
"An E1 line (2.048 mbps) from Ghana Telecom using the new SAT3 fibre cable costs US$15,000 a month," -
»www.apc.org/english/rights/handb···_04.shtm
That's quite expensive considering some people could upload 10 GB a month with P2P easily
There has to be reasonable rules in place, in order to protect infrastructure. Those CISCO CMTS's are expensive
Froogle says: "CISCO UBR N+1 RF SWCH FOR CMTS RTR
Price: $22,392 - $25,052
Description from CaliforniaPC: UBR-RFSW - CISCO UBR N+1 RF SWCH FOR CMTS RTR"
Be reasonable its a RESIDENTAL connection you know. They say in their TOS/AUP that the service is provided on a "24/7 Best Efforts" basis
--
"Silent leges inter arma" Float like a butterfly, sting like warm tea. | |
| peerimpact
join:2005-11-07
Londonderry, VT
2 edits | ISPs to offer Content Subscriptions I think most ISPs might end up offering a subscription for content and keep it within the networks own walls like Playlouder from the UK is going to do .
Then networks like RCN would finally recive a cut of the subscrption fee pool from the content thats already traveling around the network and it would save them from all those silly DCMA notices .
»www.playloudermsp.com/thedifference.html | |
| 
fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA
| Yes, it is theres... but... I know the infrastructure belongs to the cable company. It is their connection to do with as they choose.
HOWEVER!
They should stop the deceptive advertising. They are, in effect, lying to the consumer. In huge letters, in loud proclamations, they advertise their speeds and bandwidth they're "giving" the user. "Hey! You'll get XX speed and all the bandwidth you need for all those fun applications!!!". But of course, buried down in the legalese of the "terms of service" they reserve the right to throttle you down to less than dialup speeds or give you no service at all should they see fit. Yes, their ads may say "up to XX speed" but what does the average consumer see or understand about that? They only see that their connection becomes sluggish and they're just trying to use the XX amount of bandwidth the advertisements tell them they have available.
So yes, the evil cable companies are at fault, ultimately. If they cannot provide the service which they advertise for residential accounts, they shouldn't advertise it as being available. If they can't give me 1Mb of upload bandwidth, don't advertise that you can and then bury some gobbledygook in some user agreement that says you don't have to give me what you advertise. | |
| | nozzer
join:2004-06-25
Waltham, MA | Re: Yes, it is theres... but... If you've missed the "speeds are not guaranteed" rider on all TV and Print advertising for cable companies you're either blind/deaf or stupid. | |
| Madoc Owain
join:2005-04-22
Indianapolis, IN
| Nothing new here.. Telcos have a LONG history of promising service they cannot deliver, under certain conditions.
Their model of service, circa 1996, is to provide enough service for some of the people, all of the time. They could NEVER provide for all of the people, all of the time. Before the dial-up Internet revolution, this worked out well for the telcos. Let's look at a typical central office of the time. Copper lines connect you, the subscriber, to a common point for your neighborhood. Those lines get trunked to another common point, and then run back to the CO. Once inside the CO, the lines run into a series of switches, where your call can be moved from one switch to another until it gets to the one that will take it to its destination.
The dirty little secret: there was not a switch available for each line going into the CO. There's maybe 1 for each 16-24 lines. Period. Why? Because, at some point, it was determined that x number of people would be using the phone at once at peak periods. The telcos built a little beyond this need (Mother's Day overwhelms the available switches). Business lines were more expensive during this time because their ratio was 1-in-8, necessitating more switches and of course, more bandwidth between the COs.
When 2nd lines became more popular, telcos built out their CO switches to the normal ratio.. not taking into account the advent of "unlimited Internet access". Suddenly, their ratios were way off because you had Junior surfing porn into the wee hours, instead of making a quick 5 minute call like he was 'supposed to'.
I've been out of the biz awhile, so I can't say for certain whether the advent of cheap digital switching has changed this mindset for the telcos, but given what I am seeing coming from these guys' CEOs, I'd have to say 'no'.
It would seem the cable companies are using the same model - pricing according to expected bandwidth usage across a large segment of population. Remember, that upstream capacity doesn't come free, they have to not only plan for that when they build out a neighborhood, but also have a budget for bandwidth usage outside of the cable co's network.
I wish Boardwatch Magazine were still around, I'm sure they'd have a lot to say about this topic.
M.O.
»www.madocowain.com
»www.playmaille.com | |
| | | |
|
|
·
Necessary step; cable still has upload limitations