Encryption Vs. Network Discrimination
Dressing your packets up in sheep's clothing
(old news - 06:13PM Wednesday Mar 22 2006)
With some ISPs throttling Bit Torrent traffic, many customers have moved to Bit Torrent clients that utilize end-to-end encryption. Princeton professor Ed Felton explores the nuts and bolts of "network discrimination" over at his Freedom To Tinker blog, and if encryption & VPN use may help end users. "The VPN user and the ISP are playing an interesting game of chicken. The ISP wants to discriminate against some of the user’s packets, but doesn’t want to inconvenience the user so badly that the user discontinues the service (or demands a much lower price). The user responds by making his packets indistinguishable and daring the ISP to discriminate against all of them. The ISP can back down, by easing off on discrimination in order to keep the user happy – or the ISP can call the user’s bluff and hamper all or most of the user’s traffic."
|
 
phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
2 edits | More junk... More junk to confuse the newbies... Doesn't VPN tunnels use more bandwidth anyway??? | |
|  | 
fonzbear2000
Premium
join:2005-08-09
Saint Paul, MN | Re: More junk... just use shareaza which connects u to about 10 different bit torrent clients at the same time | |
| | | 
Cjaiceman
Premium,MVM
join:2004-10-12
Parker, CO
 ·Comcast Workplace
·Comcast
| Re: More junk... quote:
The ISP wants to discriminate against some of the user’s packets, but doesn’t want to inconvenience the user so badly that the user discontinues the service (or demands a much lower price). The user responds by making his packets indistinguishable and daring the ISP to discriminate against all of them. The ISP can back down, by easing off on discrimination in order to keep the user happy – or the ISP can call the user’s bluff and hamper all or most of the user’s traffic.
If I was on an ISP that shapes my packets, I would take my money elsewhere and get a "real" internet provider. The ONLY way they could get me to stay would give me a lot of upload, or give me the connection for under $9.99 a month (even then I would still probably switch). | |
| | | | | | |
fonzbear2000
Premium
join:2005-08-09
Saint Paul, MN
| Re: More junk... said by Nanoprobe  :said by fonzbear2000 :just use shareaza which connects u to about 10 different bit torrent clients at the same time Please tell me you're joking. joking about what? using shareaza or the fact that it connects u to multi clients at once? im serious about both of these-please tell me whats wrong with my suggestion
--
comcast high speed subscribers: »[Newsgroups] use up ur monthly 2gb limit? try this! | |
| | | | | Deathsadvoca
join:2003-08-20
South Lyon, MI
clubs:
1 edit | Re: More junk... whats wrong with your suggestion is that all bit torrent clients do that, not just sharaza (Only 10 clients would actually be a really low number for bittorrent, i routinely get 80+). sharaza however is one of the only ones that connects to multiple NETWORKS at on time. however that does nothing to get around the blocks really. they just set any packet that matches bit torrent traffic to a lower speed. Example. all bit torrent traffic cannot exceed 30Kbytes per user. | |
| | | | | | |
fonzbear2000
Premium
join:2005-08-09
Saint Paul, MN
| so, there r over 80 bit torrent clients? like bitcoment, azereus, bittorando etc.? maybe shareaza connects to more than 10-but ya, what i said is useless since it does nothing to get around blocks
--
comcast high speed subscribers: »[Newsgroups] use up ur monthly 2gb limit? try this! | |
| 
Rothan Tik
Destroyer of worlds
Premium
join:2000-11-07
Danvers, MA | ehhh we've recently had problems with this on campus. Because the sysAdmins can't detect this end to end.. our whole network ends up getting slowed down by overusage. | |
| | 
brooklynman4
join:2004-09-07
Brooklyn, NY | Re: ehhh Ill dress mines in a armani sute lol. | |
| | | | | 
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| Re: ehhh Your use of the [sarcasm] tag confuses me. From what he's describing, the problem is they don't have enough bandwidth to provide everyone the capacity wanted. The solution is to add more bandwidth. Just because it costs money doesn't mean it's the wrong solution. Spend 10 minutes reading about how internet 2 does it. They've even show that the correct thing to do is to add bandwidth, not filters, not QOS.
Look at the internet 2. Most of it has has been upgraded to 100Gbps over the last year. And in 2004, they had just finished upgrading from 2.5Gbps to 10Gbps. And in 2001 they had upgraded from 622Mbps to 2.5Gbps. So, from 1999 (when it effectively started) to today, they've increased their capabilities by a factor of 180! That's 180 times faster than what it was 7 years ago. Has your university kept up too?
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself. | |
| | | | 
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
| Re: ehhh At UofB, we had this issue too, unrestricted P2P file trading killed local routers and switches, it was never bandwidth, it was local switches CPU and backplane.....adding bandwidth doesn't fix it, adding a 1/2 million dollar carrier class switch for each dorm with over 2000 residents was the only way to fix it.
And it would come at the parents and students expense.
And still...95% of P2P traffic is illegal file sharing.
Adding local resources to appease illegal file sharing is akin to supporting theft...and the parents and students will foot the bill?
I don't see that happening.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! | |
| | | | 
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| said by G_Poobah :From what he's describing, the problem is they don't have enough bandwidth to provide everyone the capacity wanted. The solution is to add more bandwidth. Just because it costs money doesn't mean it's the wrong solution. But back in reality world, the right solution isn't the one that technically might solve the problem but is prohibitively expensive; it's the one that can be achieved with the resources available. You can't ignore the real world constraints just because you don't like that they exist.
Why do you think people are buying gasoline hybrids but not electric, hydrogen, and CNG based vehicles? I'll give you a hint, it's not because a gasoline hybrid is the least polluting or uses the cheapest fuel.
--
He that winna lout an lift a preen wull nivver be warth a groat. | |
| | | 
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| Uhm, no offense but children should be studying than actually wasting time downloading torrents for there pleasure. Instead of doing traffic shaping why not cap each room to 1.5/384 speeds or the systems capacity and when the system detects that other members are not using the connection those caps slowly raise to probably 3.0/768. That's another solution than just buying new equipment all together.
I see no sarcasm when you bash other people's opinions simply because you don't agree with them. Bit Torrent IS NOT used for just free music and videos, please be aware that it can be used for many thing's and any types of files which can actually take load off networks if people seed.
If 15 students at the university are seeding a file for there biological study and have high quality PNG's that take over 500MB student's in the university can simply download the torrent and all users who have the file can seed to them locally on the network without having to put any strain on the pipe to the internet.
SO BT might be actually yet another solution if it where implemented locally and professors and students can upload there work to it and share it among other people on a local based only network.
There is no reason to traffic shape the network when you can simply have some type of dynamic limit set on the network where if Room A is not using there internet connection it's shared with the rest of the university and if Room B is sucking up all the bandwidth the dynamic caps can take effect by limiting it to make sure the network stays at a level which it can be operational. Then when doing this is no longer useful you upgrade your network and increase pipe speed.
By the way before someone brings up the net neutrality discussion, this is a university who has ever right to change there line policies since it's there network and the only thing you are there for is to study. Not to fool around watching anime all day.
While a home user pays for his/her connection that he agrees for at a certain speed and can use it how he wants. It's the telco's network but it's your money and I see no reason for them to give me degraded service just because they think Sussi who pays an extra $5 cripple my traffic because she is playing X Box Live. In the solution I just given it would keep Sussi using just a limited amount of bandwidth without degrading the rest of the users on the network.
On a ISP network they have seriously fat pipe's but when they oversell that's when the problems occur. If they cannot keep up with demand simply upgrade there network, why though? Because your contract with the ISP is to offer you that so called capped/unlimited usage pipe, and the customer wants that type of service. If your not using your bandwidth I see no reason why the ISP's should be mad because it's like giving them a free meal. Yet your connection should never exceed a amount of GB's per month and that's your paid bandwidth they simply want to traffic shape to limit how much bandwidth you use each month so they can get more free meals. | |
| | | |
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
| Re: ehhh Most ISP's actually don't have seriously fat pipes. They have DS3's, OC3's and OC12's from the likes of verizon and SBC which carry their customers traffic out to the public internet exchange point.
DS3 = 45MB/s not fat at all
OC3 = 155MB/s - Getting there, but still, only 50% more than fastethernet.
OC12 = 655MB/s - a little over half a gig link. Still not seriously fat but this is reasonable to an ISP with a market of 8,000 or so - and it costs about $50,000 just to set it up, and another $20,000 a month in recurring fees.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! | |
| | | | |
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | Re: ehhh Those are fat pipe's in a consumer's perspective. But let's do calculations.
8,000 considering the average price for DSL is 49.95 a month.
8000 * 49.95 = $399600 - 50,000 = 349600 - 20,000 = $329600
So $329600 in profits | |
| | | | | |
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
| Re: ehhh don't forget, building costs, utilities, air conditioning in summer, heat in winter, local infrastructure, right of way fees to place various boxes and nodes in various neighborhoods and also...salaries. This gear doesn't run itself...
329K aint going far....not far at all
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! | |
| | | | | | |
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| Re: ehhh I already know that they need to pay there staff and also pay for network repairs and maintaince but that's still considered a very high number and how much does that really go into network upgrades, if I can give you more accurate number's I will but frankly considering they reach that much profit from one line alone and after that the 50,000 installation does not apply. So more profit, but let's not forget the USF tax, is that also going to employee's as well and network repairs or exactly for what it's suppose to be used for? Expansion.
Considering this is just one line I would really like to read a financial report from a telco, would be very interesting on how exactly money is spent and where it goes. | |
| | | | | | | |
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
| Re: ehhh Total profit after operating costs are deducted would be WELL BELOW the 329K you quoted. Most likely closer to 50K in real profit.
Even less in out of the way corners of America, where that pipe is likely to be even more expensive.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! | |
| | | | | | | | |
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | Re: ehhh 50K you say? How many of these lines do they have???
10? 50? 100?
(Michieru takes out his calculator..)
Let's see 50K x 10 = 500000
Let's see 50K x 50 = 2500000
Let's see 50K x 100 = 5000000 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
| Re: ehhh You think they're paying minimum wage? No No No...at least 4 employees who would make between 40k and 65K a year. These are the people who keep the CO or head end running.
A couple pole climbers, a networking engineer and a technician. By golly, that's 120K to 150K right there...
Plus clerical and management.
Franchise fees, contractors, backup emergency power, insurance costs, ready spares in case of hardware failure..vehicles, gasoline, vehicle maintenance...
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| Re: ehhh Here dude this is what you said to me:
"Total profit after operating costs are deducted"
Operating costs would include those pole climbers, network engineers and technicians, franchise fees, contractors, backup emergency power, insurance costs, ready spares of hardware, vehicles, management, gasoline, and vehicle maintenance all fall under the category of "operating costs".
So you might want to recalculate those numbers but then that would not make any sense so there actually going in debts according to you by a few 120 to 150K per line yet they still find to get money from somewhere to pay for these lobbylist and lawyer fee's.
Let's say they earn 5,000K in profits per line still the profits are high in number because they have millions not thousands of customers so there line numbers are huge so I believe the 5K to 100 lines is closely to there profits.
Which would total of about 500000. But that's where a monopoly comes into play not for low employee wages but because they own most of the network and even backbones costs rise but so does profit.
But how much of this profit actually does go to network expansion. Or network upgrades at that. Like I said instead of making up numbers from what your telling me I rather see a financial report of there actual total cost to give out real numbers not by someone who they contracted but from a 3rd party which plays as a neutral player and just gives the facts. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY | Re: ehhh They're not seeing 329K a month in profit...which is what I believed that you had said.
Cash flow is lucrative, but operating costs are also very high.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| Re: ehhh I only based that on the numbers you gave me, also I am aware that cash flow is unbalanced and that all that profit does go into paying company debts that's why I said in my last post, "cost rise but so does profit"
Even if there not seeing 329K a month per line profits it's somewhere in that range or else they would be going in debt because of the high wages they provide there employee's and with all those operating costs.
But as I said earlier without real numbers this all could be wrong and my actions are being speculative based on the data you gave me. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY | Re: ehhh Those numbers are in the ballpark | |
| | | | | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| According to VERIZON's Income statement here are their last 4 years of PROFITS.
2005 - 7,397,000,000
2004 - 7,831,000,000
2003 - 3,077,000,000
2002 - 4,079,000,000
That's INCLUDING all the sketchy accounting tricks they throw in.
Their TOTAL assets = $168,130,000,000 w/ $16B in current assets (liquid).
Their OPERATING cash flow for 2005 was $22,012,000,000.
I think they're doing just fine. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY | Re: ehhh Verizon's a tier 1 carrier, they're 100 times the size of the average ISP.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! | |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| He says it perfectly "The ISP wants to discriminate against some of the user’s packets, but doesn’t want to inconvenience the user so badly that the user discontinues the service (or demands a much lower price)."
Now, it doesn't matter if it's VPN traffic, if it's http traffic, if it's P2P traffic. The ISP has no right to classify the packets, but the ISP REALLY REALLY REALLY wants to, so they can discriminate. As I've always advocated, encrypt everything, then the ISP is forced to be a common carrier. It sucks, but, on the plus side the processing power is so much greater at the user level today, then even 8 years ago, that encrypting everything is possible now. (For those who used the original pix firewalls with T-3 lines, the 15mb/sec traffic overload crash happend to me all the time. Today, 256-AES at 100mb/sec = zero problems)
Now, lets say an ISP does do the 'jitter bug'. I, for one, would love to see Verizon pull a stunt like that. All it would take is one tech to report it, and that would be grounds for a multi-billion dollar fine against verzion. That would be discrimination on the purest level, as there is NO TECHNICAL REASON, EVER to introduce jitter. Period. No matter what the corporate apologists say, jitter serves no purpose whatsoever, and any ISP that attemped to do that should be dismanteled. That is discrimination in the purest sense of the word.
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself. | |
| | 
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| Re: He says it perfectly said by G_Poobah :All it would take is one tech to report it, and that would be grounds for a multi-billion dollar fine against verzion. Not to sound argumentative, but what would be the basis for the fine? | |
| | |
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| Re: He says it perfectly The Sherman Antitrust Act.
It begins with the statement: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal." And it established penalties for persons convicted of establishing such combinations: ". . . shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court."
Or, as the supreme court ruled, "It is the use of certain tactics to attain or preserve such position that is illegal.". Adding jitter to cause other services to fail on your network would most certainly fall under 'illegal interference in interstate trade'.
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself. | |
| | | |
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
| Re: He says it perfectly Do you know the difference between a Tier 1 carrier and an ISP?
The average ISP is a CUSTOMER of Verizon. (And AT&T and level3 and SBC ...)
You really DON'T know how the internet works...do you. And, after reading the article, I don't believe this professor does either.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! | |
| | | | | 
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
 ·T-Mobile US
| Re: He says it perfectly said by gheezer :Do you know the difference between a Tier 1 carrier and an ISP? The average ISP is a CUSTOMER of Verizon. (And AT&T and level3 and SBC ...) You really DON'T know how the internet works...do you. And, after reading the article, I don't believe this professor does either. And apparently you neither.... he was talking about a possible legal case against the provider, due to deliberate traffic 'massaging'. | |
| | | | | |
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
1 edit | Re: He says it perfectly Seperate ISP from Tier 1 carrier...you will understand my point then.
The ISP is a customer of the carriers who are blathering about tiered services.
And yes...I know about ISP's
G_Poobah posted this, Quoted directly from the article:
"The ISP wants to discriminate against some of the user’s packets, but doesn’t want to inconvenience the user so badly that the user discontinues the service (or demands a much lower price)."
G_Poobah did NOT discriminate between the ISP as a customer of Verizon, and Verizon, the tier 1 carrier who is THREATENING tiered service.
Nor did the *Professor* who crafted the original article.
MOST ISP's are customers of these carriers. COX, Charter, Adelphia, Road Runner...and it's not the ISP who will introduce *jitter*...it's the SBC's and AT&T's and Verizon's
You see the difference?
Those who CAN...do. Those who CAN'T...teach.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! | |
| | | | |
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| "You really DON'T know how the internet works...do you. And, after reading the article, I don't believe this professor does either."
WOW! I can't believe you just said that. Talk about painting the word 'ignorant' on your chest! Next you'll be telling me the earth is only 6000 years old (or is it 5000, I never can remember that, next time I'm in Kansas I'll ask the local school board)
Lets see, who should we believe. A published, ivy league (Princeton) phd professor, who testifies before congress on how the internet works.. OR.. a two-bit just out of college loony case? Hmm, apart from some neo-con republicans, don't think many people are going to believe Gheezers take on it.
Well, this is a dilemma for me! not sure who to believe now!
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself. | |
| | | | | |
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
| Re: He says it perfectly Why do you insult? Just out of college? Two bit? I've been doing networking since the 80's.
And I read the article...the professor never discriminated between the ISP and the Tier1 carrier.
NOT discriminating between the two is a serious flaw in his article.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! | |
| | 
AnonName
@12.160.x.x
| G_Poobah;
As I've always advocated, encrypt everything, then the ISP is forced to be a common carrier.
Not really. All the ISP has to do is associate you with your IP address to treat you "special". I don't care how much you encrypt it. I know how much you are using relative to everyone else on the network because for your traffic to get thru MY router you have to leave the source and destination addresses in the clear.
That would be discrimination on the purest level, as there is NO TECHNICAL REASON, EVER to introduce jitter.
There is a Unix application known as "expect". It is used to automate command line tasks. Generally it is used to automate data collection tasks by connecting to other hosts as if it were a human and executing some job on that host. It was developed by a sharp young fellow at NIST. It has one particularily interesting feature, you can introduce randomness (jitter) to the keystrokes so that the remote machine can not easily decide the program with which it is communicating is not human. 
It would seem that there is at the least ONE technical reason to introduce jitter in a TCP stream. | |
| | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| Multi-billion dollar fine? That's never ever going to happen unless your product is directly responsible for the deaths of 1,000's. (ie. tabacco) The government doesn't give two sh!ts about broadband speeds, just like the 95% of their constituents. | |
| ytsejam
join:2006-02-03
Mountain View, CA
| Why bother? If I were an ISP concerned about high bandwidth utilization, I'd just state the overall monthly usage limit up front in the user agreement, no matter which ports/protocols are involved. This would be similar to the empirically discovered and discussed here 600GB monthly download cap discovered by a Comcast user recently, except that it needs to be disclosed before the user signs up for service. It should be totally feasible to make the limit large enough for the absolute majority of home customers; if you need more bandwidth, just pay more and you'll get it.
This whole encryption-to-prevent-packet-throttling hoopla is just stupid, IMHO. | |
| 
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
| Bill by the bit. Plain-old residential users just wanting to surf the web, email, and do a little gaming should get a flat rate.
Anyone using lots of bandwidth, say anything above 95% (either download or upload) of the other users on the ISP's network use, should get billed by the bit on top of the flat rate. The ISP could even publish a website listing an average bandwidth consumption rate for those 95% of users.
Flat rates, with "Power Users" paying for what they actually use.
--
For official Adelphia support, contact Adelphia. I'm just here for advice... | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
WorkingForAnISP
@midco.net
| Coming from somebody who actually works in an ISP I work for a small ISP (a couple thousand customers) that is also a medium size (80,000+) wholesale ISP (which means we do backend Web Hosting, email etc) in the midwest. Here is the deal. First, yes we profit from providing internet. That is why they call it a business. Second, there is basically no money in selling customers just access anymore. The money is now mainly in value added services like email, spam filtering, cookie cutter web page generation, virus scanners etc. There are too many ISPs that are cutting there profits to the bone to rely soley on just selling internet access. How does an ISP sell you access cheaply? The oversubscribe, 30 to 1 for a small ISP and 100 to 1 or even greater for a large ISP. That means for every 30 customers they sell "1.5Mbps" service to they only have a 1.5Mps pipe (T1) Basically everybody shares a small pipe and statistically speaking not everybody will use it all at once. This model works great for email and regular web traffic. Enter file sharing. This uses a great deal of bandwidth over a long period of time. So 6:00 hits and everybodys a bit slow because a few power users have filing sharing turned on.
Remember internet access is not a constitutional right, it's a business.
Do you even know the contract you signed when you joined your ISP? Most likely it says speeds up to 4Mbps or whatever. I'm pretty sure there wasn't anything explicitly in there about your filing sharing "rights".
Sherman anti-trust act... Maybe in the state where the burglar sued when he fell through the sky-light and hurt himself.
ISP's are protecting their business plain and simple. Let's get real about this. The fact that they oversubscribe saves you money. This isn't a debate abot VOIP. They aren't throttling to be anticompetitive. They throttle because power users use up a shared bandwidth pool. I should know i'm one of them. Encryption will only work so long. There are more ways to throttle somebody's bandwidth then are ways around it. | |
| | radarman
join:2005-06-01
Odenton, MD
| Re: Coming from somebody who actually works in an ISP I haven't worked for an ISP, but I did work for the computing services department at a large university. Different model, but a lot of the same problems.
Why discriminate based on traffic type? In fact, why does any ISP *care* what the traffic is? Wouldn't knowing anything about the traffic tend to degrade your status as a common carrier and potentially introduce liability? Either way, it's none of your business unless you have a warrant. (and yes, we got warrants all the time to sniff traffic)
Instead, care about the relative and absolute volume of traffic. This would make encrypting data to avoid discrimination pointless.
As with most things, there is a bell curve. Aim your upstream capacity with the middle of that bell curve in mind. If some clown starts hitting the high side of that curve, then throttle his connection until he comes back to center.
See how easy it is? You don't have to inspect the clowns packets, or mess with his data - you just de-prioritize him until his usage is within acceptable parameters. If he complains, well he was probably costing you more than his account was worth anyway - or you can just blame "network congestion" and not even technically be lying. | |
| | daleco2k
join:2005-03-11
Warner Robins, GA
| The bottom line is that we the consumers cannot stand by and let the ISP pick on file sharing because that only opens the door for them to start taking down other services such as VoIP. Once a company knows thier customers are going to bend over and take it they have no reason to stop and those wonderful $$ in thier face pushing them to cut more services. If we ever let that get started then next thing you know we will read "up to 4mbps*" and in the fine print "*on HTTP protocol only. All other protocols are limited to 56K"
I for one wont stand by and take it. If my ISP ever starts they will be dropped faster than you can blink. The fact of the matter is that the world is going broadband and more services are being streamed over the internet. The ISP has to keep up and eventually start offering what they advertise and just bite the bullet and pay for more bandwidth. Yes it is expensive and it will cut into profits slightly but at least you will still have customers. | |
| | | |
|
|
·
·