Cable Cooking Up New Network Management SystemAfter Cablelabs has 'brainstorm' on how to tackle P2P, limited capacity 06:36PM Tuesday Jun 23 2009 by Karl Bodetags: business · bandwidth · cable · networking · net-neutrality · consumers · ComcastTipped by Bob61571  After taking heat from some Attorneys General and the FCC for throttling upstream P2P traffic for all users regardless of congestion, Comcast earlier this year deployed a new network management system. As we explored in detail last fall, the new system de-prioritizes high consumption customers if the local node is congested and that one user is a major reason why. That's in contrast to a new system used by Cox that de-prioritizes traffic based on application type and a seemingly arbitrary definition of time sensitivity by Cox. The fact that we don't see customers complaining in the forums is a testament to the fact that these solutions seem to be working as unobtrusive alternatives to low caps and high overages. Now, according to Cable Digital News, CableLabs is working on a new, more sophisticated version of that same idea: The concept could open up new ways for operators to deal with P2P traffic and heavy-volume flows such as streaming video. CableLabs uses this example: Customers wanting to use P2P on the cheap could get a service tier that offers big bandwidth and a low price -- but low priority as well. The caveat is that the tier would come with a "high likelihood of preemption," according to CableLabs. "This would move a greater proportion of peer-to-peer service to off peak times." The system would give an extra kick of speed to select traffic (or content partners) even when there's network congestion, according to the CableLabs document (pdf) quietly posted to the CableLabs website. That could allow cable operators to bill customers based on what the connection's used for. Instead of (or in addition to) metered billing, a carrier could offer "base Internet browsing" connections to some users, and "game or video hungry" connections to others. Charging customers based on what they use their connection for is one alternative to metered billing, which consumers lately haven't been too keen on. One forseeable problem is the system raises the old specter of having content companies pay a premium to receive expedited transit if they want to remain competitive. That's going to raise the hackles of network neutrality advocates, who don't want a future where ISPs act as trolls under the bridge -- nickel and diming passers by: It's also designed to apply to over-the-top, Internet-fueled video services from the likes of Amazon.com Inc. and Netflix Inc. And operators could use this invention to automatically prioritize emergency services, such as 911 calls. CDN's Jeff Baumgartner speculates that CableLabs is taking the unusual step of publicizing the new cable technology in order to beat back patent trolls ahead of a real patent filing. The invention was "developed during a brainstorming session on how to deal with peer-to-peer traffic," according to the CableLabs document, and "attempts to solve the problem of peer-to-peer traffic and heavy volume traffic flows (such as streaming video) by applying pre-emption." More details should be forthcoming in a few months.
Related:- The EFF 'Test Your ISP' Project
- Comcast Gets Investigated While Cox Gets Free Pass
- What's Behind Comcast's Sudden Love of P2P
- Virgin Takes Aim At BitTorrent
- New Comcast Throttling System 100% Online
- Verizon Laughs Off DOCSIS 3.0
- Cox Scraps App-Specific Throttling Trials
- Comcast Still Fighting FCC Throttling Sanction
|
page: 1 · 2  |
 
duder
@rr.com | why pay for this crap just another way to stick it to us .....
it never ends ...... | |
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| its a front And IP based cable IPTV services will magically be highest priority. And this is all a front for ISPs not wanting to pay for bigger backbone and peering links. Watch the caps roll out, 10GB high priority, 100GB low priority, $1 a GB after 100GB low priority.
1000 cable modems per node FOREVER!!!!! | |
|  | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: its a front said by patcat88 :And IP based cable IPTV services will magically be highest priority. And this is all a front for ISPs not wanting to pay for bigger backbone and peering links. Watch the caps roll out, 10GB high priority, 100GB low priority, $1 a GB after 100GB low priority. 1000 cable modems per node FOREVER!!!!! A major part of the problem is not the backbone and peering links but the lack of adequate bandwidth on the "Last Mile" link (ie: Between the Customer and the Cable Company's Head End). IOW: Congestion on the Last Mile not between the Head End and the Internet. | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
 ·Bell Sympatico
| Re: They make no sense. said by UnKown :its just saying that p2p traffic will get a lower priority than web browser traffic. In my opinion this is a fantastic idea. It essentially throttles big traffic files like videos down during peak times and lets the simple applications get priority. This way your 5 gig dvd copy movie your stealing uses the most amount of network resources in the evening and early morning. Maybe...
Or maybe your perfectly legal movie download that you paid for from some service other than your ISP gets prioritized far below your ISP's over-priced craptacular offerings.
People forget that crushing copyright infringement is a small part of what the big ISPs want. They want total control over the bits sent to you in order to maximize their own profit from them. There's a reason people want net neutrality.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong | |
| | | | 
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: They make no sense. said by Ian :said by UnKown :its just saying that p2p traffic will get a lower priority than web browser traffic. In my opinion this is a fantastic idea. It essentially throttles big traffic files like videos down during peak times and lets the simple applications get priority. This way your 5 gig dvd copy movie your stealing uses the most amount of network resources in the evening and early morning. Maybe... Or maybe your perfectly legal movie download that you paid for from some service other than your ISP gets prioritized far below your ISP's over-priced craptacular offerings. Are you in THAT big of a hurry to get your "legal" copy of a movie? I'm pretty sure Amazon and Itunes do NOT use p2p to deliver movies. Now NBC has this "NBC Direct" application that does that allows you to download temporary copies of HD TV shows that uses p2p. I won't use it. I'll be danmed if I use it. Ok so other computers are getting copies of stuff on MY computer. Why so some guy can make a hack that allows him access to ALL my files? I bet people that use p2p a lot have a higher % of being a victim of identity theft than most other people. | |
| | | | |
Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
·Bell Sympatico
| Re: They make no sense. said by BF69 :said by Ian :said by UnKown :its just saying that p2p traffic will get a lower priority than web browser traffic. In my opinion this is a fantastic idea. It essentially throttles big traffic files like videos down during peak times and lets the simple applications get priority. This way your 5 gig dvd copy movie your stealing uses the most amount of network resources in the evening and early morning. Maybe... Or maybe your perfectly legal movie download that you paid for from some service other than your ISP gets prioritized far below your ISP's over-priced craptacular offerings. Are you in THAT big of a hurry to get your "legal" copy of a movie? I'm pretty sure Amazon and Itunes do NOT use p2p to deliver movies. Now NBC has this "NBC Direct" application that does that allows you to download temporary copies of HD TV shows that uses p2p. I won't use it. I'll be danmed if I use it. Ok so other computers are getting copies of stuff on MY computer. Why so some guy can make a hack that allows him access to ALL my files? I bet people that use p2p a lot have a higher % of being a victim of identity theft than most other people. So, in your own comment, you mention a P2P application that is totally legal which would be affected by the ISPs "management" of traffic. Call me cynical, but I think your cable or phone company wants the $$ for providing you HD content, when you want it.
(I'll ignore the FUD about P2P and identity theft)
How much in a hurry (or not) I am for for my legal material, be it a movie, tv show, or Linux ISO is my business, not the company with which I contract for an internet connection.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong | |
| | | | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
 ·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Re: They make no sense. no you do not contract them for Internet. You contract them to provide you access to THEIR private network. In return as an added bonus they connect you to the WWW.
They can give you a wall garden as your "internet" and thats all they have to give you, since they're only leasing you the network half. | |
| | | | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: They make no sense. hottboiinnc
You may contract them for access to their private network but the VAST majority of users are contracting for access to the internet. Most of us want our ISP to be a simple dumb pipe. | |
| | | | | | | | notwrth10
join:2007-03-03
1001EB | Re: They make no sense. and you want that dumb pipe for free right? | |
| | | | | | |
Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
·Bell Sympatico
| said by hottboiinnc :no you do not contract them for Internet. You contract them to provide you access to THEIR private network. In return as an added bonus they connect you to the WWW. They can give you a wall garden as your "internet" and thats all they have to give you, since they're only leasing you the network half. Oh really? May want to send that memo to their marketing departments.
"Comcast High-Speed Internet offers the fastest speeds out there over our advanced fiber-optic network. It's way faster than DSL."
AT&T
"Unlimited high-speed Internet access"
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong | |
| | | | | | |
Anon 51
@rr.com
| And I contracted for HDTV too, but instead I get their crap upconverted 480 signal that looks like crap, but is modulated on their HD channel offerings, and counted by them as a high Def channel.....
I pay for internet. What I access or how I access, or how often I access is none of their business.!!!!!
If they don't want to be an "Internet Service Provider", then get the hell out of the internet business.
Don't offer me their crap and call it internet, by their definition. | |
| | | 
DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Metairie, LA
clubs:
1 edit | Well, there are ways to emulate http and https traffic
And given the track record in this cat and mouse game, expect the p2p community to be 2 steps ahead. | |
| | | | 
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| Re: They make no sense. said by DataRiker :Well, there are ways to emulate http and https traffic And given the track record in this cat and mouse game, expect the p2p community to be 2 steps ahead. It shouldn't matter as long as they prioritize traffic based on how much bandwidth it is trying to use. If a certain type of traffic is peaking at 1.5MBps, it could be throttled during times of network saturation. Your VoIP, video chatting, and gaming (real time stuff) isn't going to max out your connection and hit really fast speeds. These things should be able to work uninterrupted. The stuff spiking are going to be huge web downloads, torrents, other download methods, hd video streaming, etc. Things that are not real time. They can be throttled down by half or more and the only effect is a longer buffer time and longer download time. It's possible and it's the way they need to do it. | |
| | | | |
DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Metairie, LA
clubs:
4 edits | Re: They make no sense. Your describing a throttle by volume, which only slows p2p transfers making them last longer (IMO making the problem worse in the long term)
This new system will have to deal with the following situation:
User A is using p2p with some type of https transfer
User B is trying to pay his credit card bill online
How will it judge which packet is real https and which is not?
I doubt this will have any better results than sandive.
If they drive p2p to this expect millions of upset users who can't get a secure web page to work. | |
| | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: They make no sense. said by DataRiker :Your describing a throttle by volume, which only slows p2p transfers making them last longer (IMO making the problem worse in the long term) This new system will have to deal with the following situation: User A is using p2p with some type of https transfer User B is trying to pay his credit card bill online How will it judge which packet is real https and which is not? I doubt this will have any better results than sandive. If they drive p2p to this expect millions of upset users who can't get a secure web page to work. Rolling 7 day window of GB usage. Top 10 percentile on the node get lowest priority until they fall out of top 10 percentile. If node is never saturated, then there are no problems with being lowest priority. | |
| | | | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: They make no sense. patcat88
That unfairly penalizes those who do the majority of their downloading during non peak hours(which does not cause congestion or cost the ISP anything extra). | |
| | | | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: They make no sense. Whats downloading? 50% of your limit off peak, or 100% of your limit? Rolling window usage to assign priority levels is fair. If your node is not saturated, you have no reason to care.
What about the person who wants to torrent off peak, but not 24/7? are they to be placed in the same class as the person who torrents off peak 12/7/365?
Rolling window with percentile will separate the HTTS bill payer from the P2Per, without content discrimination.
The less you use, the higher your peak speed will be, and the more bursty it will be. If you want a circuit, your going to get treated like a circuit.
If you don't have a rolling window (much better than a powerboost bucket), how do you separate the user which will release the channel when they get their "task" done (download a 700mb movie via HTTP), vs a user that will NEVER release the channel and can never finish their "task" (a heavy P2P downloader, note most P2Pers eventually finish their downloads, their uploads are unstopable and unfinishable, but some P2Pers have a hoarding mentality and select to download 100s or 1000s of files and everything that shows up in the search, they never keep or watch or use everything they download). | |
| | | | | | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: They make no sense. The ONLY time that downloading causes congestion is during peak hours. I do 99% of my downloading between 11pm and 8am (off peak here). This causes no congestion and does not cost the ISP anything extra. However I do like to browse (here and other places). Under your formula my browsing would be "throttled" because of my off peak downloading(which is causing a problem for no one). This is why a monthly or even daily download limit does not work. What needs to be done is to only count the usage during peak congestion. I can easily download(off peak ) 500GB+/month without contributing to the congestion while another person can download less than 150GB/month(1hr/night during peak congestion) and cause lots of congestion.
A pure proticol agnostic throttle during peak hours(only) is (in the short term) a good answer(which is what Comcast is using right now). The problem with this system is that there is the risk the ISPs will use it (long term) as an excuse not to upgrade their systems. | |
| | | | | |
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
1 edit | said by DataRiker :This new system will have to deal with the following situation: User A is using p2p with some type of https transfer User B is trying to pay his credit card bill online How will it judge which packet is real https and which is not? That https p2p is going to make many connections to different hosts and not just one connection. And it will try to transfer much more data. Depending on how good you detect it, it might get a few seconds of max speed, then you start to throttle it back. | |
| | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| insomniac84
Why should one type of traffic receive higher priority than others? I do not VOIP and my neighbor does (we pay the same amount for internet). Why should his data get a higher priority than mine? Protocol agnostic is the only fair way to go. First come, first serve. | |
| | | | | |
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
2 edits | Re: They make no sense. said by Lazlow :insomniac84 Why should one type of traffic receive higher priority than others? I do not VOIP and my neighbor does (we pay the same amount for internet). Why should his data get a higher priority than mine? Protocol agnostic is the only fair way to go. First come, first serve. Well it can be protocol agnostic. I am saying look at sustained rates for specific transfers to specific hosts. VoIp isn't going to try to max out a 15mps connection, while bittorrent or other downloading will. You can leave lower bandwidth stuff alone since it's not a problem. Just throttle stuff that tries to max out the connection back enough to free up the congestion. It's way better to have a torrent drop back a few hundred kbps than it is to screw with stuff that isn't trying to use all possible bandwidth. There is no point in trying to throttle a 50kbps transfer, if another transfer is going 14.95mbps. Just throttle the faster transfer. And we are probably only talking between like 5-7pm, max. If at all.
Just throttle the specific traffic causing the problem, leave everything else alone. | |
| | | | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: They make no sense. insomniac84
What you have just described is what Comcast is doing now.
The time frame will also shift from market to market. Here 7pm-10pm will (usually) be more congested than 5-7pm. | |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| said by DataRiker :Well, there are ways to emulate http and https traffic And given the track record in this cat and mouse game, expect the p2p community to be 2 steps ahead. Those that try to circumvent and play anarchist are ALWAYS going to be a step or two ahead when they are the ones introducing what it is that needs to be challenged. | |
| | |
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| It truly is the only acceptable idea. This way people can leave their stuff going and only if it is causing a congestion problem will the traffic be de-prioritized. But I would say this only works if they do it by application and not by user.
quote:
the new system de-prioritizes high consumption customers if the local node is congested and that one user is a major reason why.
Definitely a bad idea.
If a user has a torrent going and that traffic needs to be throttled by half during an hour of congestion, fine. But that user should still be able to use their internet for surfing the web or other things. Cutting them off completely is a punishment for no reason. The consumer gets a 15mbps line that speed bursts and is oversold in some unknown ratio. Not to mention the node is also an unknown bottleneck. That means the ISP is the only one who knows what bandwidth is truly available at any one time, so the end user can't implement their own QoS without overlimiting themselves at all times.
The ISP's should be implementing QoS that is passive to the user that ensures certain "unknown" services are deprioritized if those "unknown" services are trying to use too much bandwidth. The end user should see only this traffic fall, but be able to continue to play xbox and surf the web(both lower bandwidth tasks). And it should only kick in if a part of the network the user is using is 100% saturated with traffic. And then it should distribute slow downs as equally as possible among the higher bandwidth "unknown" traffic. The high bandwidth is key. It shouldn't be throttling traffic that isn't trying to draw high bandwidth.
quote:
The system would give an extra kick of speed to select traffic (or content partners) even when there's network congestion
Huge conflict of interest right there. That is really messed up if they strike a deal with netflix and all of a sudden their streaming videos have priority over other people's high bandwidth traffic. ISPs are supposed to be paid for by the end users. The webpages and internet services buy their own connections to get onto the internet. No one should have to pay twice to reach an end user. The fact that they are trying to sneak this in, tells you already their attempts aren't going to be user friendly at all.
If done properly, ISP's can get away with it. But if they are trying to temporary cut off users, set the entire user's total speed to extremely low levels, double selling access by charging web services for priority, it must be opposed. | |
| | | | 
Vchat20
Landing is the REAL challenge
join:2003-09-16
Warren, OH
clubs:
| Re: They make no sense. I have to completely agree with you. This makes total sense and I only hope that the cable companies actually actively jump on it as a working QOS system.
Thinking of bit torrent for example which is going to be the primary offender in the high bandwidth category, it is NEVER guaranteed speed-wise. Everyone you download from is gonna be on other residential ISPs with varying speeds, other peers or torrents they may be on, all kinds of factors. This compared to a straight HTTP download from a server on a fast pipe.
Take that example and if the ISP needs to throttle that high bandwidth use back, it's not going to have much visible or detrimental effect to anyone while greatly helping congestion issues on the network.
Long story short: With most data it is a case of high bandwidth apps are not realtime dependent and can be throttled back without any detriment except for taking a little bit longer to download. And low bandwidth applications usually need high priority and realtime access.
I am completely behind this option if we MUST have some form of traffic/bandwidth control. I would choose this over metered billing especially if some ISPs get their way and force anemically low caps on their customers.
--
I swear, some people should have pace-makers installed to free up the resources. Breathing and heart beat taxes their whole system, all of their brain cells wasted on life support.-two bit brains, and the second bit is wasted on parity! ~head_spaz | |
| | | | 
mackey
join:2007-08-20
| said by insomniac84 :If a user has a torrent going and that traffic needs to be throttled by half during an hour of congestion, fine. But that user should still be able to use their internet for surfing the web or other things. Cutting them off completely is a punishment for no reason. The ISP's should be implementing QoS that is passive to the user that ensures certain "unknown" services are deprioritized if those "unknown" services are trying to use too much bandwidth. The end user should see only this traffic fall, but be able to continue to play xbox and surf the web(both lower bandwidth tasks). They tried that. And promptly got sued for Network Neutrality violations. It is impossible to implement this and still be Network Neutral. Cutting off or throttling the entire connection is the ONLY "fair" solution. To try and throttle selective services as you describe is an instant NN lawsuit.
People want their 10,000 terrabit/sec connections. And they want it for $0. And they will use 100% of it's capacity 24/7/365. If their bandwidth-hungry apps get throttled they'll cry foul and sue. If they are capped / throttled they'll bitch and moan "well you sold me a 10,000 terrabit/sec connection and I want to use it NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW!" It's lose-lose for the ISPs.
/mackey | |
| | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: They make no sense. mackey
While a lot of what you say is true, I will not agree that the ISPs are in a loose situation. If I remember TWCs 10k correctly, they cleared $4 billion in 08. They may not be making the huge profits that they have become accustom to over that last decade or two, but it is not a money loosing proposition for them. When you take into account CV's public statement that upgrading their system to D3 was going to cost them between $70-$120 per customer, even bandwidth upgrades are not that expensive. | |
| | | 
tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
·Comcast
| It MAY be saying that browser traffic (short, small, bursty) still get normal/current powerboost priority, streamed video, large file downloads (netflix, hulu, iTunes, Amazon "direct to disc", etc) whose content provider PAYS to recieve ("assist in transfer cost reassignment" ) higher priority would be second/equal (as long as capacity was avalable, similar to PB) priority....and un- "payment assisted" large file transfers (FTP,P2P, content from producers who don't chose to pay) the lowest priority of all.
I'm all in favor of the 24/7 max transfer (hogs) paying more or recieving lower priority during high demand times, but I buy HSI "broadband" over dialup/low(er) speed DSL, so that those few times a day/week month, when I need to send/recieve a large file, it goes quickly.
Unless the give slightly higher priority to those with fairly low monthly consumption vs those nearing the cap, I would be penalized for an urgent use, even though my monthly usage is fairly low(35-50gig MAX, 30-35 typical) | |
| | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
1 edit | r81984
I think you missed the point. During peak times p2p will be "bumped" in favor of other things. Thus, while p2p MAY be running 24/7, a majority of the actual p2p data will be transmitted during off peak hours.
Edit:need to learn to type faster. | |
| | 
Jovi
join:2000-02-24
Mount Joy, PA
| said by r81984 :People who use P2P use it 24/7. And your statement uses what data to back itself up?
--
"Where's my coffee? Oh. I guess it's my turn to make it."  | |
| | | |
tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA | HUH??? Perhaps if this was explained differently, it would sound like a better system.
Right now it sounds worse/less desirable for ALL users than the current method. | |
| 
Gbcue
E.I.T.
Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs: | OMG Net NEUTRALITY! With this talk of priority tiers and paying more for it, this "method" is just screaming Net Neutrality! | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
| I do not see why this has to be so complicated Teir 1
Routing Protocols
HSRP/VRRP/GLSB etc
Teir 2
VOIP - all voip
Teir 3
http/smtp/pop/imap
Teir 4
Streaming Media
Teir 5
Bulk - p2p, ftp etc.. things that can wait.
Teir 2 & 3 is where 99% of customer complaints originate from. People complain when web pages load slowly etc, not when they're trying to download huge torrents etc.. These are older people who expect it to work much the same every day.
If they would just do that, and deal with abusers who try to stick their traffic into priority queues, they'd be done with the problem.
--
Play a Death Knight?
www.theebonhold.com | |
| |
See 17 replies to this post | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
trent25
join:2005-11-28
Philadelphia, PA
1 edit | Is it P2P they're after? Why do I always have the feeling that all of those traffic management ideas are not aimed at P2P (legal or illegal) but rather at trying to do something about that pesky competition from online video on demand providers!!!
How about actually trying to compete and offer a video product that I'd be willing to pay for versus what I can get online at a usually cheaper price and most of the time is a better product. | |
| |
See 10 replies to this post | |
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
1 edit | Dumb... Pipe We need dumb pipes. Period.
Maybe I want to download some patch or something *AND* watch a new video at the same time.
Both should go as fast and as good as the server(s) can push them.
My router and/or computer will sort it all out... and I, the guy paying for the service, will be happy about it.
when the ISPs start mucking with my connection because they think something is happening - where will it stop?
Net Nanny anyone?
What if I want to download the newest porn vid... the ISP sees it as ??? and deprioritizes it? Slows it down? Fuck that!
I want my spankage now damn it!
P2P, RS, FTP, DDL - that should be up to me and it should just work.
Who doesn't see this choking and puking?
Time to start encrypting everything end to end I suppose.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| |
trent25
join:2005-11-28
Philadelphia, PA
| Re: Dumb... Pipe Look at the bright side, no need to install any net nanny type software or blocking content via DNS to prevent your kids from reaching inappropriate content. ISPs can take care of that for you.
And when you need your spankage, give ur ISP a call and ask them to let it thru. 
This is seriously becoming ridiculous. I wouldn't have even imagined that something like that would be even up for discussion ... good bye net neutrality! | |
| | sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
| I totally agree with you. I can't understand why people at DSLR aren't screaming with years of pent-up rage over this.
They're acting like little lambs who are being lured into the wolf's den without realizing it.
Look people, any idea which violates the concept of Net Neutrality is A BAD IDEA.
Cable companies have NEVER, EVER justified their desire to 'manage' networks. They make billions and billions in profits every year, are essentially given monopoly positions by various state and local governments, and never reveal internal statistics.
All their SEC filings point to hugely profitable companies who are continually DECREASING the amount of money they invest into their networks. Why is it so hard for you to understand that?
Heavy users are merely the forerunners of the masses. They ride the wave of innovation, using new technologies that prop up creative and unique content companies. Their heavy usage forces ISPs to readjust their network forecasts and invest more into their networks.
Without heavy users ISPs would have no need to upgrade their networks, EVER.
Honestly, if people reading all the articles at DSLR and stopthecap are OK with being sliced and diced by ISPs, then I give up. | |
| tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| simple answer: split the nodes (more bandwidth in the last mile = more users getting closer to their paid for bandwidth tiers which are based upon the price you pay each month).
we can only speculate why they don't do this.. being a cheap & greedy company is a popular suspicion so we'll go with that. | |
| |
BB User
@charter.com
| Re: simple answer: said by tmc8080 :split the nodes (more bandwidth in the last mile = more users getting closer to their paid for bandwidth tiers which are based upon the price you pay each month). we can only speculate why they don't do this.. being a cheap & greedy company is a popular suspicion so we'll go with that. Being very costly, with diminishing returns is another.
Doubling bandwidth on the last mile side usually means doubling equipment on the headend side, which often doubles rack space, cooling, and power requirements too.
The only service that really benefits directly is modem service. Splitting nodes does little for video and phone services.
...meanwhile they've got to keep up with the interest and payments on their multi-BILLION dollar loans they've previously taken out to pay for previous upgrades... | |
| | | sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
| Re: simple answer: Wow. Good job lying. I hope you feel better about yourself.
Let's all just ignore the amazing profits made by companies like TWC and Comcast. Sweep those under the rugs. Okay then.
And honestly, you are the first person I have EVER heard say splitting the node only benefits 'modem service', whatever that is. Please, do elaborate. | |
| | | | 
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Re: simple answer: said by sonicmerlin :Let's all just ignore the amazing profits made by companies like TWC and Comcast. Sweep those under the rugs. Okay then. »www.google.com/finance?q=twc
»www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3ACMCSA
Yes, those net profit margins of 4.22% for TWC and 8.81% for Comcast are amazing... amazingly normal?
said by sonicmerlin :And honestly, you are the first person I have EVER heard say splitting the node only benefits 'modem service', whatever that is. Please, do elaborate. Nodes simply segment the RF / Coax plant, and node splits only benefit unique content on each segment. So a node split isn't going to give you more broadcast channels or any kind of tangible broadcast video gains.
He's right in that you do gain a unique DOCSIS data channel for data at the expense of another head-end port, and you might also gain some additional channels for VoD, however, those channels are usually shared across multiple nodes. (ie, you can split the fiber feed at the head-end and send identical signals to multiple nodes.) | |
| | | |
BB User
@charter.com
| said by sonicmerlin :Wow. Good job lying. I hope you feel better about yourself. What lies? Do you think "node splits" magically happen and don't take extra resources in the headend?
said by sonicmerlin :Let's all just ignore the amazing profits made by companies like TWC and Comcast. Sure the companies make money, but they also spend it... and are in hock up to their eyeballs.
Do you not know that TWC just lost $4 BILLION last fiscal year and added $10 BILLION more debt during it's spin off with TW Inc? Currently TWC has about $19 BILLION in debt, last year $9 BILLION, 2-years ago $15 BILLION. »finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=TWC
Comcast has $38 BILLION in debt, last year it was $36 BILLION, 2-years ago $33 BILLION. »finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=CMCSA&annual
Charter has about $17 BILLION in debt but it's been having trouble just paying interest and has filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. »finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=CHTRQ.PK&annual
said by sonicmerlin :And honestly, you are the first person I have EVER heard say splitting the node only benefits 'modem service', whatever that is. Please, do elaborate. Modem service aka high speed internet aka cable internet service. Is that hard to figure out?
How does splitting a node really benefit TV service? The standard analog and digital channels are all broadcast from a common feed. SDV and VOD might benefit, but only if there are capacity problems and the cable provider also throws more headend equipment at those services too.
How does splitting a node benefit phone service? Phone service on cable has a few technical variations but all either don't use the same data channel as internet service or if they do, get priority, dedicated bandwidth during calls. The internet service would suffer long before phone service does. | |
| 
kickass69
join:2002-06-03
Lake Hopatcong, NJ | Net Neutrality needed more and more It's constant bs like this why we need that passed more than ever before we all get screwed to the point of no return. | |
| travelguy
join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM
| Interesting Anti-Tivo Strategy quote:
CDN's Jeff Baumgartner speculates that CableLabs is taking the unusual step of publicizing the new cable technology in order to beat back patent trolls ahead of a real patent filing.
Call it the anti-Tivo strategy. By publicising it now, they create prior art that prevents someone else from patenting the idea. What's not clear is how they plan to get their own patent once they've done this. | |
| 
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| This is not all that new ... needs more detail ... I've had multiple conversations eluding to a system very much like this. In fact, the "visit the customer portal" part is a very distinct feature from those conversations (and no, it wasn't my idea nor was it cable's). I think cable will have a hard time with a patent. I've certainly expressed significant portions of this idea online here or there. But the patent isn't a reason to do this or not to do this.
Before we poop all over this idea, I'd like to hear more about it. It appears to treat everything equally UNLESS the customer opts to do something different. That's fine with me. In fact, that's the way things probably ought to be.
NOCman, the reason we don't all adopt your view is that we all don't agree with it. Yes, 90% of us do (or we all do 90% of the time), but where does streaming P2P fit in? What if my FTP upload is highly urgent? I don't like your idea because it puts protocol in the priority seat -- well, that's just not how the 'net was designed (even though it does work most of the time). Thanks for sharing it in detail, though. It isn't a completely bad idea, but it does have some serious pitfalls.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL | |
| | sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
| Re: This is not all that new ... needs more detail Sigh...
If your FTP upload is highly urgent, then the ISP should be investing their billions in profit back into their network to make sure EVERYONE can use their connections as they see fit.
Don't blame end users for the ISPs being greedy and anti-competitive. | |
| | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: This is not all that new ... needs more detail said by sonicmerlin :If your FTP upload is highly urgent, then the ISP should be investing their billions in profit back into their network to make sure EVERYONE can use their connections as they see fit. Congratulations, you've been paying attention!
But what I actually said was that he was right for the most part.
This idea is consistent with what I've been telling ISPs as well: if you allow your users to help you decide relative priority, you'll find that their interests by and large match your own. P2P users like to surf the net, too, so they put their own P2P traffic on lower priority. Allow them to extend that idea and the whole neighborhood benefits. VOIP users tend to give that traffic higher precedence. So allow users to put a little bandwidth at high precedence and extend that priority through the network.
This "invention" is one way to implement that idea. (And the scare quotes don't mean it's my idea -- the prioritization schema is owing to the IETF and the web page interface was communicated to me by someone else and I don't know if it's even his idea.)
said by sonicmerlin :Don't blame end users for the ISPs being greedy and anti-competitive. That thought would never occur to me.
Somehow, I bet, we actually don't agree. But everything you've said above chimes with what I've been saying.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL | |
| |
asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| What is wrong with comcast's present approach? Throttle ALL of an individual's traffic during peak hours if that individual is causing congestion problems. This is a sensible approach.
If the problem is truly congestion concerns then where is the evidence that this doesn't work.
I am very suspicious of clever new ideas when there are working simple solutions in place.
quote:
CableLabs uses this example: Customers wanting to use P2P on the cheap could get a service tier that offers big bandwidth and a low price -- but low priority as well. The caveat is that the tier would come with a "high likelihood of preemption," according to CableLabs.
...extra kick of speed to select traffic (or content partners) even when there's network congestion, according to the CableLabs document (pdf) quietly posted to the CableLabs website. That could allow cable operators to bill customers based on what the connection's used for. Instead of (or in addition to) metered billing, a carrier could offer "base Internet browsing" connections to some users, and "game or video hungry" connections to others.
If you bill based on what the connection is used for then we are back to paying by application(application discrimination). How is this other than a different way of stating what has been pushed for all along, leveraging control of the delivery system to get a piece of the content money?
We should not be paying by application or content. It's the internet age, we pay for routing of bits. Whatever content is being transmitted is the business of the end points, not the bit delivery system. | |
| 
HKM
join:2008-12-31
Fort Lauderdale, FL
·AT&T Southeast
| How did you folks let this happen? What I like to know is how did all of you ComCRAP user let them get away with even establishing a CAP in first place. Yes, I am aware of the whole throttling packets using SPI/DPI based switch then after the undisclosed high bandwidth usage warning by OpsSec from their NOC. Even with the FCC vs ComCRAP fiasco I don't see why users accepted the 250GB/month bandwidth on all RES tiers.
Soon after ComCRAP deployed tier NMS and from what I hear folks are always deprioritized. Ooh wait that is due to overselling service that can't handle all user at same time. If they were worried about congestion then FCC should make some hard rules not to oversell BULLSHIT.
I don't care what both side anti and pro says what is clear is we in USA is way behind. They should make Cable Ops only serve cable and GTFO of Teleco world (VOIP) same goes for Teleco staying away from TV service (IPTV).
PS: What I like to know is when the Death Star has global IP MPLS backbone why are we suffering on DSL? WTF they don't just deploy FTTH and get over with it and not try to milk copper. I mean not like they don't have any fiber routes not laid in. | |
|
Blurf
@fnf.com
| How about something like this: Now, I'll admit I didn't read all the comments, so if this was already suggested, feel free to mock me to no end.
I use a small regional cable company who, despite having some latency issues, provides great reliable, fast cable modem for a reasonable price. Even the latency issues are come and go. Anyhow, to the point.
There are tons of users on the lower speed tier (I'm on 10/2, there are tiers all the way down to 1.5). Why not allow the large bandwidth users USE that bandwidth, as, especially in this case, most people are just surfing the web and checking their email? My downloading, even maxed out, is not going to interfere with their daily weather report check.
So I propose a slight reverse, leave the priority levels alone *until* the users who are low usage users have a spike in bandwidth requirements (Joe Blow decides he's going to legally download something large, who knows, I'm just spitballing here). Then, take the heavy user and lower the priority. That way, the people who use a lot don't need to worry about it UNLESS there is a higher demand, not just an arbitrary reduction in speed during times XYZ because some jack who never uses 1/10th of his bandwidth is on his computer? | |
| sphinxguy18
Premium
join:2008-01-13
Garland, TX
·Vonage
·Cox HSI
1 edit | Bull Crap! I agree with a lot of people in here, it's just another way for them to stick it to you ....
Why don't they finally just spend the g'dam* money and upgrade the out dated network to something better and/or quit putting 80 million people on one node!
God I hate cable operators! | |
| axiomatic
join:2006-08-23
Tomball, TX
| Wasted effort What these cable companies fail to realize is that if this causes P2P to become to cumbersome to use someone will just come up with another Peer protocol and then this whole effort becomes moot.
This is basically like trying to piss in to the wind. | |
| | smokarz
join:2006-07-24
West Hartford, CT | Re: Wasted effort man, i sure missed the good old days of DIAL UP.
sure it was SLOW, but I had a DUMP PIPE at my disposal, and did what the f*ck i wanted with it. | |
| geonap
lolatidiots
join:2005-12-14
Glendale, CA
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| you people are freaks everything after a while when becoming more profitable will then be divided and people will try to figure out how to suck more "monies" out of it, i say "monies" because it's like a bad email nigerian scam, the internet providers are pretty much talking in scamming languages.
whoever supports this idea that we pay to get on the internet, they don't guarantee a route to the actual internet.. if i recall correctly, that's pretty much an intranet.
then you figure, lets de-prioritize everything and make it fast. no, how about we pay for 20 megs, we get 20 megs. my datacenter doesn't de-prioritize anything and i can get good bandwidth for 4 dollars a meg. take all the committed bandwidth charter and ATT could have with this overselling crap, they have the lines and they have the network.
sooner or later, we'll see a conversation about the states having to pay a tax for every gig of transfer from/to that state and the fact that delivery of data to and from a state will also have an increase of prices at the hand of the telco and cable companies.
i recently cancelled charter and i told them their speeds sucked most of the time, they told me that they were giving me the fastest in the area -- 20 megs. i said offering is one thing, delivering is another.
i bet the people here who propose all these caps and de-prioritization and all that other wonderful mumbo jumbo about the pipe being private and content delivery companies need to pay money to the internet provider are POOR, they're wanna be republicans -- that's what i see a lot. People who sometimes are for big business don't know anything about business.
we first started paying for internet, everything was unlimited and juicy.. great and stuff, text used to be free with cell phones too -- right ? as soon as they're too lazy to move over to the next generation, spend money like other countries (and yes, i know.. other countries are government subsidized networks and much smaller so it's easier to handle those situations) they use network capacity as the culprit... well -- i dont care if network capacity is lacking, the fact is that there is network capacity, backbones have enough fiber to feed our habit and once the bigger profit eating companies spend the money they give to their share holders on infrastructure improvements, we would all be much better off..
REMEMBER, THIS IS AMERICA. WE GROW ALL THE TIME, WHY ISN'T OUR FREAKING INTERNET CAPACITY GROWING?
--
Operation Northwoods
"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious" -Oscar Wilde
»www.whatreallyhappened.com/
»tinyurl.com/pxq278
»www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.asp | |
| | kasar
join:2002-05-29
Brush Prairie, WA
| Re: you people are freaks The quantity of dark fiber the CLEC's have already in place is enormous. There was dramatic overbuilding in the dot-com days as they tried after-the-fact to build to fill ISP orders.
There are reasons Japan offers 160 mbit connections for the equivalent of $40/month. Most involve markets and competition, things US companies are increasingly insulated from. | |
| | | |
|
|
·
Time for the Content providers to pay their fair share.
This problem could be solved if the content providers pay their fair share for delivery of their content. Just paying for a connection to the Internet is not enough. I should know because I was a Bean Counter for an ISP. Expecting an ISP to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade their networks to carry a content providers traffic is not fair. My employer sold out their dial up business because the revenue per subscriber was decreasing while the cost to provide service was increasing.