Cox Network Management Trial Goes LiveCompany VP makes media rounds to insist it won't be used much... ( old news - 08:17AM Friday Feb 13 2009) tags: business · bandwidth · cable · networking · caps · Cox HSILast month we profiled Cox's new network management system, which de-prioritizes certain types of traffic when the network gets congested. Unlike Comcast, Cox is targeting specific protocols, and any applications the company deems non-time-sensitive. Yet strangely, Cox tries to tell Cable Digital News that the new system "doesn't pick on particular protocols or applications." Cox SVP of technology Jay Rolls also insists it won't have to be used very often: "Most of the time our networks aren't sitting there in congestion or having problems. It's really the exception, not the norm. Think of this more as a tactical tool that can go on the spot and attack a problem that might crop up very quickly." Rolls is apparently making the media rounds, telling Multichannel News that Cox's first trial market (in Kansas/Arkansas) is live, and only upstream traffic is being tinkered with. "We only really have to battle this on the upstream," Rolls says. For downstream traffic, "it's my opinion that DOCSIS 3.0 will make that a non-issue as we bond downstream channels and increase overall per-node bandwidth capacity." Multichannel news quotes Rolls as saying the trial could take up to six weeks to complete, and that Cox "may get into this and find out we may not be able to measure [certain applications] properly." We spoke briefly with Rolls to clarify what this meant. "We hope to have results in the next 4 to 6 weeks," he tells us, "unless we discover as we go over the data that the required telemetry data we need to draw conclusions is not properly provided by the vendor." Related:- Comcast, Cox, Trot Out Their Worst 'Bandwidth Hogs'
- Cox: What Bandwidth Crunch?
- New Comcast Throttling System 100% Online
- Exploring Cox's New Network Management System
- Exclusive: Charter Implementing New Caps
- Cox Raises Their Usage Caps
- Cox Scraps App-Specific Throttling Trials
- Comcast Still Fighting FCC Throttling Sanction
|
 Lewism8
join:2008-04-25 Quebec, QC | Really? Yeah right ... | |
|  |  chemaupr
join:2005-06-06 Alexandria, VA | Re: Really? not a fan of any type of control like this. However, they have been very forthcoming with information. Will see how it goes. | |
|  |  |   DataRiker Premium join:2002-05-19 Metairie, LA clubs:
| Re: Really? I guess what they are implicitly saying is that all encrypted traffic will be throttled now.
ever p2p application i use now has encryption options, eg bit torrent, and emule (they call it obfuscation), which until now seems to have been working, so I guess i can kiss that goodbye | |
|  |  |  |   funchords Hello Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: Really? said by DataRiker :I guess what they are implicitly saying is that all encrypted traffic will be throttled now. ever p2p application i use now has encryption options, eg bit torrent, and emule (they call it obfuscation), which until now seems to have been working, so I guess i can kiss that goodbye Well you aren't in the trial area (Kansas and Arkansas) so you shouldn't be noticing anything. Are you?
Forget about the encryption options in BitTorrent and eMule as they are not likely to be effective. Today's DPI includes looking across multiple packets and the pattern/directions/lengths of the packets to guess at the protocols. So it'll be necessary (once again) for the P2P obfuscation to evolve to break up those predictable patterns. And so the world turns. Fortunately, the P2P developers can do this easily.
SOAPBOX Profit-driven network vendors get rich selling these new "solutions" to the foolish business suits inside ISPs (who haven't yet matured to realize the futility of it all). Some tech libertarians think we ought not have Network Neutrality regulation because ultimately, the Internet works around roadblocks anyway so regulations would be unnecessary. True to a point, but regulations would help prevent ISPs from making such dumb decisions in the first place and would return network vendors back to job 1 -- innovating in the space that actually grows the capacity of the network, not simply reshuffles it. /SOAPBOX -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL ... Do something! ... | |
|  |  |  |  |   DataRiker Premium join:2002-05-19 Metairie, LA clubs:
4 edits | Re: Really? Yes you are correct that i am not in the test area but about 6 months ago any torrents would experience unusually slow speeds which seemed to fix itself after enabling encrytion, didn't do any sophisticated research.
i don't have enough time right now to explain the emule behavior but clients would just drop off.
have not tested without encryption recently for a baseline
have not had the need too, all my torrents now reach over 1 MB/s (well with seeds that is)
actually I am very happy with cox for now, works awesome, except for that brief time period | |
|  |  |  |   Its a Secret Whatever Premium join:2008-02-23 U B Funny
·Shaw
| said by DataRiker :I guess what they are implicitly saying is that all encrypted traffic will be throttled now. I wonder if encrypted email will bite the dust as well. -- "In the future, that which is not mandatory will be illegal" | |
|   funchords Hello Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Why this PR was Inadequate Disclosure It will only be used on the upstream? Where was that in the disclosure?
And are they -- or aren't they -- looking at specific protocols? How do they know, without looking SOMEHOW at the protocol -- if an application is FTP or HTTP, P2P file-sharing or not? -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL ... Do something! ... | |
|  |   Karl Bode News Guy join:2000-03-02 | Re: Why this PR was Inadequate Disclosure You and your pesky demand for details. | |
|  |  |   funchords Hello Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Washington, DC | Re: Why this PR was Inadequate Disclosure If you're going to hang me, can I know who made the rope? | |
|  |  |  |   Karl Bode News Guy join:2000-03-02 | Re: Why this PR was Inadequate Disclosure I suppose next you'll demand to know WHY you were hanged. I mean really. The nerve. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |   major marco Res Firma Mitescere Nescit Premium join:2003-02-13 Stepford, CA clubs: | Cocks: 2nd only to Comcrap in doubleplus ungood thinking Ah yet another PR move by Cocks spokesdittoheads talking outta both sides of their pie holes.... Well er no, we're NOT looking at specific protocols, but um, yes, we are! | |
|  |   needforspeed59 Cruise Ship Just Passing Through
join:2001-05-02 Glendale, AZ | Re: Cocks: 2nd only to Comcrap in doubleplus ungood thinking Nice pun. What are you, 7 years old?  -- Great success! High five! | |
|  |  |   major marco Res Firma Mitescere Nescit Premium join:2003-02-13 Stepford, CA clubs: | Re: Cocks: 2nd only to Comcrap in doubleplus ungood thinking 8. | |
|  |  |   KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK | You don't like "Spokesdittoheads"? | |
|  gtoken
join:2003-12-28 Fort Smith, AR | DOCSIS 3.0 So is COX using DOCSIS 3.0 in Arkansas now? Will I need to get a new modem to use DOCSIS 3.0? | |
|  |  |  |  |   Its a Secret Whatever Premium join:2008-02-23 U B Funny
·Shaw
| Re: Neat, now they can sell people services they don't have said by KrK :Cya Cox, I'm outta here. Or, as some would say... Cya, Cox suckers...  -- "In the future, that which is not mandatory will be illegal" | |
|   dvd536 as Mr. Pink as they come Premium join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ
| Checkbook congestion management Guess we'll have to implement some of our own. games and HTTP reqs use little bandwidth just another way of avoiding putting any money in upgrades. -- When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|   moon1234
@charter.com | New Company Slogan Cox... cause thats what we are! | |
|  | |  |
|
|