  jose3030 Premium join:1999-08-17 Manassas, VA | haha 0wn3d | |
|
 |  |
 |  |   G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17 Schenectady, NY
1 edit | Re: haha 0wn3d And what TECHNICAL benefit does adding jitter to any transmission add? name one...single...benefit?
There is none.. Yet you say they can and will and should do it?
You of course, have given us proof that Net Neutrality is REQUIRED to prevent this kind of thing. There is no technical reason whatsoever for the ONLY way to disrupt a VoIP call to exist. Thus, any company that uses said technique, is actively, not passively, ACTIVELY interfering with commerce. I can't wait to see Verizon or AT&T or Comcast get caught when an engineer spills his guts to the press about the devices they are using to interfere. The backlash is exactly what we need to crush these monopolies once and for all. -- The central injustice of capitalism is the exploitation and alienation of labor. | |
|
 |  |  |
 |  |  |   go-go-OpenSource
@verizon.net | Re: haha 0wn3d Asterisk looks really cool. I have to watch that Systm episode about it and play with that Asterisk @ home server. I hope it starts making it way into the Enterprise soon. | |
|
 |  |  wilburyan
join:2002-08-01 | There is one problem with your "Jitter" idea... how do you target Skype specificly?
What if the provider is delivering there own VOIP or multimedia service through the same connection? | |
|
 |  |  |   GOLFnSUN Enjoy the sun Premium join:2002-03-03 Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: haha 0wn3d said by wilburyan :There is one problem with your "Jitter" idea... how do you target Skype specificly? What if the provider is delivering there own VOIP or multimedia service through the same connection? Comcast, Charter, others??, don't use std VOIP like Skype or Vonage does. They actually use a separate RF frequency on the cable(one not shared with the cable modem) to provide voice services. So their voice services don't share that std data internet channel. They use a private, separate path until they hand a voice call off to the POTS provider at a gateway. Therefore, anything they do to the data channel won't affect their voice services. -- -- Join Red Room Forum BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com My Web Page | |
|
 |  |  |  |   G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17 Schenectady, NY
| Re: haha 0wn3d Wrong, wrong and wrong. More lies and FUD from the corporate drone.
Packetcable 1.0 (and 1.5) specs use EXACTLY the same frequencies as regular IP traffic. In fact, when you make a voice call over your comcast phone, you are giving up some of your bandwidth to make that call. It's hard to see downstream, but VERY easy to prove upstream. Start an FTP upload to a site, let the speed stabilize. Then make a comcast call. BOOM, you've lost about 7KB/sec transfer speed while the call is in progress.
Lie #2: The cable modem itself, being docsis compliant, uses EXACTLY the same pathway to the CMTS. If your CMTS is overwhelmed, or sucks, your digital voice will suck too. However, they have the OPTION to offload the traffic destined for the POTS network, by creating a separate Voice Path to the Media Gateway. Now we all know that comcrap isn't going to run a separate circuit to each CMTS just to give their voice a clean path, so they grab some channels from the uBRxxxx at the CMTS, and take it AWAY from your paid for bandwidth. This is a mini 2nd tier network, which they work very hard to keep quiet. It's EXACTLY the same thing they want to do with the 2nd tier for ANY traffic they can extort from providers. Pull off some channels, and give it a dedicated pathway, without actually 'building' a better internet to provide 'better' service. Steal from the poor, to pay to the rich, that's their motto.
Asking Retire Rich to explain a TECHNICAL answer to corporate extortion is like asking a fish how to ride a bike. -- The central injustice of capitalism is the exploitation and alienation of labor. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  IsdnWolf Premium join:2002-05-24 Cleveland, TN
| Re: haha 0wn3d In charter areas, we use an entire diffrent channel (frequency). Granted, it could be done in the same channel as voice, but the design was to use an entire diffrent channel.
Also, in most, but not all Charter Markets, an entire diffrent CMTS is used for voice. In east TN, we are using seperate CMTS's and seperate channels. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |   GOLFnSUN Enjoy the sun Premium join:2002-03-03 Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: haha 0wn3d said by IsdnWolf :In charter areas, we use an entire diffrent channel (frequency). Granted, it could be done in the same channel as voice, but the design was to use an entire diffrent channel. Also, in most, but not all Charter Markets, an entire diffrent CMTS is used for voice. In east TN, we are using seperate CMTS's and seperate channels. You mean Poobah was wrong. Again? -- -- Join Red Room Forum BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com My Web Page | |
|
 |  |   insomniac84
join:2002-01-03 Schererville, IN
| said by GOLFnSUN :One technique to affect voice calls involves the modification of packet forwarding thru the introduction of jitter that can scramble all voice calls but that has no noticeable effect on other traffic. You don't have to block the voice call, but just make it unintelligible. Wouldn't that affect online games? | |
|
 |  |  |   GOLFnSUN Enjoy the sun Premium join:2002-03-03 Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: haha 0wn3d said by insomniac84 :said by GOLFnSUN :One technique to affect voice calls involves the modification of packet forwarding thru the introduction of jitter that can scramble all voice calls but that has no noticeable effect on other traffic. You don't have to block the voice call, but just make it unintelligible. Wouldn't that affect online games? It could. But induced changes in latency(ping times) could be less troublesome to online games than to a voice conversation, as long as they don't get too lengthy. -- -- Join Red Room Forum BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com My Web Page | |
|
 |  |  |  |  iano0
join:2001-10-30 UK
| Re: haha 0wn3d It could. But induced changes in latency(ping times) could be less troublesome to online games than to a voice conversation, as long as they don't get too lengthy.
My understanding is that the opposite would be the case - induced lag in an online game (especially an action intensive one such as an FPS) would be far less tolerable than a minor delay in a conversation.
Consider for example a one second delay in a phone converation - an inconvenience but only slightly noticable. A one second delay in the middle of a Quake Deathmatch would be far less tolerable when trying to gun down a moving target. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |   GOLFnSUN Enjoy the sun Premium join:2002-03-03 Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: haha 0wn3d said by iano0 :It could. But induced changes in latency(ping times) could be less troublesome to online games than to a voice conversation, as long as they don't get too lengthy.
My understanding is that the opposite would be the case - induced lag in an online game (especially an action intensive one such as an FPS) would be far less tolerable than a minor delay in a conversation. Consider for example a one second delay in a phone converation - an inconvenience but only slightly noticable. A one second delay in the middle of a Quake Deathmatch would be far less tolerable when trying to gun down a moving target. You are probably correct. I'm not a gamer and I have no actual experience with what sub-second delays could mean inside some games. -- -- Join Red Room Forum BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com My Web Page | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |   Vig Thread-safe since 1997 Premium join:2004-03-23 San Diego, CA
| said by iano0 :Consider for example a one second delay in a phone converation - an inconvenience but only slightly noticable. A one second delay in the middle of a Quake Deathmatch would be far less tolerable when trying to gun down a moving target. It would be bad for both. A 1 second delay is quite perceptible and very annoying in a voice conversation. Even as little as a quarter second can be perceived. -- Visit the land of the never-setting sun | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  iano0
join:2001-10-30 UK
| Re: haha 0wn3d That's true, but I gave a delay of one second as an extreme example. I can't imagine an ISP deliberately causing that much lag. My point was to highlight which would suffer most, the phone conversation would still be possible, the game would be unplayable. | |
|
 |  Kearnstd Elf Wizard Premium join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ | ISPs will never risk causing gaming issues, it is one of their biggest resons for promotings broadband is online gaming. -- [65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
 Techman21
join:2005-04-14 Richmond, VA
| Yet another one... WTF. In the U.S there is absolutely NO reason this ability should ever exist. Like the above poster I would love to see the baby bells try to touch this. Of course if the pubilc outrage isn't enough we'll just get steam rolled in yet another area of technology. The gov.'t might have reason to use this for specific purposes which would most likely need a court order of some sort.
They take a step forward and we always seem to step back in defense. | |
|
  JammerMan79 Premium,VIP join:2004-05-13 Prince George, BC
| uhuh... sure "Perhaps a reader with inside knowledge will step forward and answer this and other questions. For now I have plenty on my plate, so I'll leave the mystery of Skype detection to my contemporaries."
Oh ya... I can see this happening. -- I may work for, but do not necessarily represent the views and beliefs of TELUS Communications. | |
|
 |   Scott W Premium join:2003-08-09 Beaverton, OR
| Re: uhuh... sure I find it interesting the author was surprised by skype's distributed technology, everyone knows this and in fact skype is in a legal situation over their technology which they previously used in morpheus as they are currently being sued by StreamCast Networks:
»news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6054484.html | |
|
  skypeisnotthatimmune
@ameritech.net
| Skype is not that immune I have a firewall/IPS unit we just purchased for under $1500. It kills Skype and p2p very very well. My office is full of software and hardware "nerds", they tried several trick, and the only way to break the blockage is by getting into SSL VPN. Guess what, I can get that throttled to the point Skype is unusable.
I will not disclose the manufacturer, but it is a known brand (not as big as Cisco though). | |
|
 |   Denjin
join:2001-01-18 Schaumburg, IL | Re: Skype is not that immune Even ISS' IPS products can block Skype... I'm sure a few others also manage. -- Ningen wa, ningen da. | |
|
 |  claudeo
join:2000-02-23 Redmond, WA
| said by skypeisnotthatimmune :
I have a firewall/IPS unit we just purchased for under $1500. It kills Skype and p2p very very well. My office is full of software and hardware "nerds", they tried several trick, and the only way to break the blockage is by getting into SSL VPN. Guess what, I can get that throttled to the point Skype is unusable.
I will not disclose the manufacturer, but it is a known brand (not as big as Cisco though). And what exactly was the benefit of doing this? (In $, please, not in micromanagement short term satisfaction?) | |
|
 |   BlockAllOutgoing
@etv.net
| It's very easy to block all outbound traffic off your network. Most "Firewalls" should do this. I work in k-12 public ed. and it's very common to block everything going out (and in) except port 80. I think what this is getting at is where you can't just block the end users from getting "out" but you have to watch both incomming and outgoing and try and figure out what you need to "filter"
Mert | |
|
  justin Australian join:1999-05-28 Brooklyn, NY
Host: IPv6 Business Connectiv.. Home/Office setup .. Console/Handheld g.. Console Tech
| the author sounds less than technical if he spent just a few hours googling he would have known about the distributed and encrypted nature of skype. The blocking would not be that hard to do but why should anyone selling blocking tools to ISPs be cheered on? we pay for data, not for "easy" and "cheap" applications like web browsing on port 80, and everything else costs extra and must come from the ISP. If he wants to help ISPs block skype then he should keep very quiet about it. | |
|
 CSU
join:2002-10-21 Lagrange, GA | Greedy Bastards! I don't see the big deal on using services like skype. If I pay my ISP to have access to the internet, then why can't I use it anyway I see fit as long as I'm not breaking the laws? | |
|
 |
|
 |