 |  | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Re: Fairshare hits users instead of protocols Here's my thought. Users should refuse in writing to accept said changes and specifically state they do not want their history sold to third parties. While Comcast doesn't say it can prevent the collection of your information, even by opting , it opens the can of worms. First, this software I am sure is deep packet inspection. IT HAS TO LOOK AT what you download or for certain protocols to determine it's p2p. (Invasion of privacy). Second, I am sure it tracks your history, of which gets sold. Seriously, I would like to see a pack of teething lawyers pick up this case and sue the pants off Comcast. I think it's a matter of time before this does happen, too. | |
| | | 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Fairshare hits users instead of protocols said by jc100  :First, this software I am sure is deep packet inspection. IT HAS TO LOOK AT what you download or for certain protocols to determine it's p2p. (Invasion of privacy). Actually, the whole purpose of a "protocol agnostic" system is so that it doesn't have to do deep packet inspection. All they need is info on the IP pairs and then count packets.
The real question is how do they then throttle the traffic after identifying whose packets need throttling. The easiest way would be to throttle down the transfer speed at the CMTS for those users whose traffic is staying at the highest rates for lengthy periods of time.
Throwing resets into the stream would be a way that will still get people upset about forging packets.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Fairshare hits users instead of protocols Yup - this will be interesting
Throttle by user bandwidth for long periods of time may not be a good idea either.
Eg. I'm on a 3Mbps connection and I want to d/l Fedora Core DVD ISO as well as some other ISO's. A reset would just tick me off.
Why not look at the overall traffic crossing the node, and when its nearing capacity, throttle from the top usage down until its at a supportable level.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | | | |
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: Fairshare hits users instead of protocols said by en102 :Yup - this will be interesting Throttle by user bandwidth for long periods of time may not be a good idea either. Eg. I'm on a 3Mbps connection and I want to d/l Fedora Core DVD ISO as well as some other ISO's. A reset would just tick me off. Why not look at the overall traffic crossing the node, and when its nearing capacity, throttle from the top usage down until its at a supportable level. I think we are saying the same thing. Throttle at the CMTS, but NOT with resets. Just change the profile so that the SPEED of the connection is lowered.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| I've got a 10 times better idea. Why don't ISPS, instead of looking for ways to salvage their outdated systems, look / invest in better technologies? For all the money they spend lobbying and dodging this responsibility, think of how much could have been accomplished. I'd be willing to give credit to a company who at least re-invests the 10s of millions spent lining politicians pockets and puts it to use on a step by step upgrade. In this respect, if said company redirected their efforts and upgraded towns one at a time, people would be far less critical. However, this seems not to be the case or their interest. Odds are, these same ISPS who are looking into these technologies, will be the same ones in ten years moaning how they were given an unfair deal to shareholders. To this I would reply, innovation and failing to keep up with growth will be the downfall of many companies to come. | |
| | | | | | 
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ
·Sprint Broadband D..
| Re: Fairshare hits users instead of protocols You said the dirtiest word in the business lexicon: "invest".
It's only dirty in context. "Invest" is a great word if you are gonna plow some of your 401K money into their stocks, but start talking about infrastructure investment and Wall Street Analysts and stockholders retire to the fainting bench with a bad case of the vapors.
Of course, "investment" of company capital in lobbying Washington for more H1-B visas is acceptable, great and will make your sheets whiter and brighter. But ghod forbid you invest in your physical plant, thus creating jobs and (OH NOOoooo!) raising wages.
It's the new world of half-capitalism: their half, making lots of money, is just sublime. The other half, capital investment by business as an engine that drives the overall economy, creates jobs and "the rising tide that lifts all boats"? Well, we just cannot be having that. Somewhere, someone might slip into Caviar Deficiency Syndrome. Them guys spent a lot of money on their Ivory Caviar Spoons and come hell or high water, they are gonna use them. | |
| | | | | | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Fairshare hits users instead of protocols Exaclty... the only way that companys will 'invest' or want to increase CAPEX is if they
a) Have to (i.e. competition is forcing them to) in which its an all out war (i.e. Cable vs. FiOS in many areas)
b) Have another revenue stream to tap into from CAPEX (in which cost can be recouped from new LOB/revenue stream eg. cable selling HSI + VoIP)
c) Legally required to (which passes cost to consumer)
(basically what you said above)... there are times when the economy is in the pits, where government will 'help' out these 'poor' companies to kick start the economy again.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Read a few 10-K filings and you'll see that billions are being invested in infrastructure.
Cablevision: »yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/dis···8-013859
Capital expenditures for our businesses were $781.3 million, $885.8 million and $768.7 million, in 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively, and primarily include payments for consumer premises equipment, such as new digital video cable boxes and modems, as well as infrastructure and capital expenditures related to our cable and Lightpath telecommunications networks Comcast: »yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/dis···8-034239
an increase in Cable segment capital expenditures of 41.2% to approximately $6.0 billion, primarily as a result of (i) the installation of advanced set-top boxes, modems and other equipment associated with the increase in subscribers to our digital video, high-speed Internet and digital phone services; (ii) network improvements to handle the growth in subscribers and to provide service improvements and enhancements Charter: »yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/dis···8-000004
Total capital expenditures for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006, and 2005 were approximately $1.2 billion, $1.1 billion, and $1.1 billion, respectively. AT&T: »yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/dis···8-000012
$17,717[M] in construction and capital expenditures Verizon: »yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/dis···8-042027
We continue to make significant capital expenditures to meet the demand for communications services and to further improve such services. Capital spending for Wireline was $10,956 million in 2007, $10,259 million in 2006 and $8,267 million in 2005. Capital spending for Domestic Wireless was $6,503 million in 2007, $6,618 million in 2006 and $6,484 million in 2005. | |
| | | | | | | | 
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| Re: Fairshare hits users instead of protocols In Telcos, AT&T spent $17 Bn and Verizon $10 Bn. Telcos aren't doing MITM attacks against their users who are simply using the bandwidth that they bought.
The top spender in Cable was Comcast with $6 Bn and the rest much less. The MSOs offer bigger packages than TelCos but then throttle, reset, kick and scream if you use it.
The data seems to be working against you.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
| | | | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Fairshare hits users instead of protocols said by funchords :The data seems to be working against you. Not really. TScheisskopf implied that ISPs are only interested in plowing money into managements' bonuses and severance packages and not investing in their companies and infrastructure. I was merely pointing out that both telcos and cablecos are reinvesting billions into their infrastructure. | |
| | | | 
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
·Comcast
1 edit | said by TK Junk Mail :
The easiest way would be to throttle down the transfer speed at the CMTS for those users whose traffic is staying at the highest rates for lengthy periods of time. Isn't that similar to what the satellite guys do now, throttle a high volume user? They refer to it as FAP right?
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 | |
| | | | |
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: Fairshare hits users instead of protocols said by halfband :Isn't that similar to what the satellite guys do now, throttle a high volume user? They refer to it as FAP right? Yes, I believe it is the same idea. Though the way I read Fairshare is that it is more dynamic than a satellite FAP system in that it will be applied and then removed real time and much more quickly and for a very limited period of time - maybe for just the length of a download or upload.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: Fairshare hits users instead of protocols said by GOLFnSUN :said by halfband :Isn't that similar to what the satellite guys do now, throttle a high volume user? They refer to it as FAP right? Yes, I believe it is the same idea. Though the way I read Fairshare is that it is more dynamic than a satellite FAP system in that it will be applied and then removed real time and much more quickly and for a very limited period of time - maybe for just the length of a download or upload. Which they already have today, too. This is how Camiant manages a product marketed as "Power Preview" by some and "Power Boost" by others.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
| | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
1 edit | said by GOLFnSUN :The real question is how do they then throttle the traffic after identifying whose packets need throttling. The easiest way would be to throttle down the transfer speed at the CMTS for those users whose traffic is staying at the highest rates for lengthy periods of time. Throwing resets into the stream would be a way that will still get people upset about forging packets. You've nailed it. Then why do this at all? The CMTS already knows the congestion on my node. Why does it have to talk to a Sandvine box 20 miles away?
So instead of discriminating between one protocol or another, we're discriminating between the first megabyte of the hour versus the 101st? In a service that is sold in a manner that makes no difference between the two, how is this solution any better?
We don't need anything that doesn't already exist in the Internet standards.
Tom Donnelly -- why do your customers demand secrecy? What are they afraid of? As FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said, "When they have reasonable network practices, they should disclose those and make those public."
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
| | | | | | | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: Fairshare hits users instead of protocols said by espaeth :I've skimmed through the Cisco CMTS config guides and I don't see any obvious way to implement equal division traffic shaping without resorting to a 3rd party box. Why would you want to? Every modem is already configured to limit uploads. The customers' traffic is already shaped.
You only need to shape it again if you've oversold the bandwidth beyond all reasonable ability to deliver it. Otherwise, any congestion that would occur would be momentary and you don't need an elaborate solution for that!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: Fairshare hits users instead of protocols said by espaeth :said by funchords :Why would you want to? Every modem is already configured to limit uploads. The customers' traffic is already shaped.
You only need to shape it again if you've oversold the bandwidth beyond all reasonable ability to deliver it. That's a very narrow view of the situation; you're assuming continuous data transfer which is atypical in a world of burst traffic. You know, the industry is the same some that complains that somewhere between a third to 95% of all internet traffic is P2P file sharing -- aka Continuous Data Transfer.
If it's a world of burst traffic, someone forgot to tell the world.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: Fairshare hits users instead of protocols said by espaeth :You couldn't upload that content to a service like Rapidshare or MegaUpload? You couldn't upload it to your Comcast personal web page, or other 3rd party web/ftp hosting provider? You couldn't post the music files in a Usenet newsgroup dedicated to music content? No, I said I couldn't upload them via the Gnutella protocols (Gnutella or G2). I should have been able to, except that by big fat ISP performed a Man-in-the-middle attack using secret technology because it decided my use didn't fit its bursty model.
What else I could or could not have done is beside the point. It's the Internet. The network in the middle is supposed to connect the end points, not dictate their behavior!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
| | | | | | | | 
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Re: Fairshare hits users instead of protocols said by funchords :No, I said I couldn't upload them via the Gnutella protocols (Gnutella or G2). I should have been able to, except that by big fat ISP performed a Man-in-the-middle attack using secret technology because it decided my use didn't fit its bursty model. You need to put some additional context around that. The thing they are trying to preserve is the user experience of the typical subscriber. The overwhelming majority of applications play nice on a stat-mux network; P2P is one of those that doesn't.
The problem with P2P is that it is shifting the traffic load from Internet head-ends where bandwidth is plentiful (and thus cheap), to network segments that have limited scalability due to technical constraints in the delivery medium and therefore are more expensive to expand.
At the head-end you can expand capacity by just dragging a cable over to your upstream provider in a meet-me room and turn up 10GigE worth of capacity at a shot. Even better, with wave-division technologies like CWDM or DWDM you can mux several connections on the same physical fiber pair.
At the user segment of the DOCSIS plant you can only add bandwidth 38mbps at a time, consuming 6MHz of frequency bandwidth with each shot. (keep in mind that 750-1000Mhz of bandwidth is shared between video & data services) Moreover, even if you had all the frequency spectrum available to you for just data purposes, you couldn't tap it all because you're limited by what the DOCSIS spec itself is capable of providing.
said by funchords :What else I could or could not have done is beside the point. It's the Internet. The network in the middle is supposed to connect the end points, not dictate their behavior! Actually, this should be a relevant discussion. I keep reading people arguing "freedom of speech!" violations because one specific protocol is impacted, and I can't help but think of it like someone crying in a parking lot that their wireless key FOB battery went dead so they can't unlock their car. (even though they're holding the keys in their hand) One application doesn't make or break the Internet.
As for no interference from ISPs; maybe if this were the 1980's and the Internet was still a simple place filled people of only good intentions. Traffic interference is a fact of life, just like people had to get accustomed to traffic signals once enough people started getting cars. | |
| | | | | | | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
1 edit | Re: Fairshare hits users instead of protocols said by espaeth :said by funchords :What else I could or could not have done is beside the point. It's the Internet. The network in the middle is supposed to connect the end points, not dictate their behavior! Actually, this should be a relevant discussion. I keep reading people arguing "freedom of speech!" violations because one specific protocol is impacted, and I can't help but think of it like someone crying in a parking lot that their wireless key FOB battery went dead so they can't unlock their car. (even though they're holding the keys in their hand) One application doesn't make or break the Internet. Hahahaha -- I'll give you that.
However, this is just an example of a string of loosely-related events including the NARAL short-codes and AT&T censoring Pearl Jam. While these seem to all be beside the point, they're all examples of big companies that seem to easily use their power -- not to hold down the little guy, but without any regard for the impacts on him.
I, myself, sometimes cringe at the height of some of these accusations. But one of my faults is my optimism. (Yes, seriously!) 
As for no interference from ISPs; maybe if this were the 1980's and the Internet was still a simple place filled people of only good intentions. Traffic interference is a fact of life, just like people had to get accustomed to traffic signals once enough people started getting cars. Okay, I can play with that. Traffic signals are quite standardized. Imagine driving across a river to find that red lights and stop signs do not exist there, and instead they just have 50-foot holes to stop your car, instead?
It's the Internet. We have a set of Standards that define it. FOLLOW THE STANDARDS or GET OUT OF THE BUSINESS!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
| | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| said by GOLFnSUN :Throwing resets into the stream would be a way that will still get people upset about forging packets. That was an incredibly idiotic way to do it in the first place, unless their goal was to actually prevent you from using a particular protocol.
They should do the two things that every sane traffic shaping device does. Delay packets by a few milliseconds or drop a packet every once in a while. Either way will trigger the congestion avoidance mechanisms in the endpoints' TCP stacks causing them to slow their transmission rate some. The delay is probably the better mechanism, as dropping packets can cause them to back off more than you intend. Of course, you have to monitor the flow further to make sure that the endpoints didn't just increase their window size to compensate. If they did, then your only option is to drop packets or drastically increase the delay, which would require a very significant buffer size on the shaping device for a high speed line. 150KB per flow, plus state information to induce a 100ms delay at 12Mbps.
The key is to do it per flow and not per user, firstly so you don't have to have ridiculous buffer sizes, and secondly so that you can slow down p2p and large HTTP downloads without messing with mundane web browsing.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  | |
| | | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: Fairshare hits users instead of protocols said by wierdo :The key is to do it per flow and not per user, firstly so you don't have to have ridiculous buffer sizes, and secondly so that you can slow down p2p and large HTTP downloads without messing with mundane web browsing. The key is not to have a network with enough congestion to make this debate necessary.
I really fear that we (the users) are quietly being hypnotized by the chant, "we're out of bandwidth, the exaflood is coming, we can't build our way out of it."
That's simply horsecrap.
Comcast, I'm very very sorry that the Internet didn't maintain its 5% upload/download ratio. Times have changed, deal with it. Quit trying to throttle the Genie back into the bottle. Create the broadband system your customers want!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
| | | | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| Re: Fairshare hits users instead of protocols said by funchords :I really fear that we (the users) are quietly being hypnotized by the chant, "we're out of bandwidth, the exaflood is coming, we can't build our way out of it." I fear that the users are quietly being hypnotized by your chant "they can just build their way out of it. more capex more capex more capex."
It's not as easy as you think.
If you want to serve content, buy a account that allows servers. Or buy a dedicated server for the vast sum of $60/mo. Don't wish that you should get things for free just because you presume that it should be so, especially when you're in contravention of the published terms of service you agreed to when you bought the account.
Not that I think it's right, but that's the way it is. In the case of cable, there is a very limited upstream capacity, you know, no matter how much they want to spend. With DSL, not so much, since it's not shared. If they wanted, they could just reallocate DMT buckets to create more upstream bandwidth, although they might have to replace modems and maybe CO hardware. It's not so easy on the cable plant, what with having to replace all the hardware that only passes upstream up to 42MHz, including the splitters in every household that subscribes to cable.
It can be done, but not overnight. Until then, something has to be done. Even then, the only real solution is to push fiber to the home, and that's going to cost even more. Look how slowly Verizon is rolling out FiOS. You think it's going to go faster in the average cable plant?
Luckily it has thus far proven cheaper to upgrade backbone links than to use traffic shaping. Would that it be so for the last mile. Sadly, the two are not equal.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. | |
| | | | | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
1 edit | Re: Fairshare hits users instead of protocols said by wierdo :said by funchords :I really fear that we (the users) are quietly being hypnotized by the chant, "we're out of bandwidth, the exaflood is coming, we can't build our way out of it." I fear that the users are quietly being hypnotized by your chant "they can just build their way out of it. more capex more capex more capex." They can, and yes, it costs dollars. But on the other hand, its what the current set of customers seem to want.
Don't wish that you should get things for free just because you presume that it should be so, especially when you're in contravention of the published terms of service you agreed to when you bought the account. I am not doing anything I am not authorized to do.
If you want to serve content, buy a account that allows servers. Or buy a dedicated server for the vast sum of $60/mo. I have no real problem with the limits that I paid for. Why buy/rent a server if our needs aren't that big?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
| | | | | | | |
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: Fairshare hits users instead of protocols said by funchords :said by wierdo :said by funchords :I really fear that we (the users) are quietly being hypnotized by the chant, "we're out of bandwidth, the exaflood is coming, we can't build our way out of it." I fear that the users are quietly being hypnotized by your chant "they can just build their way out of it. more capex more capex more capex." They can, and yes, it costs dollars. But on the other hand, its what the current set of customers seem to want. A very small vocal subset of the customers. 95% could care less.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | | | | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: Fairshare hits users instead of protocols said by GOLFnSUN :A very small vocal subset of the customers. 95% could care less. Maybe that's the thinking that has got us into this mess. It's very old thinking, more suited to the media than telecommunications.
I couldn't say it any better than Ed Markey did at the February En-Banc hearing in Harvard: "The beauty of the Internet is its wonderfully chaotic, ever evolving nature. Its ability to re-invent itself every year."
It's the network operators job to be nimble enough to respond to that -- not to force the the 5% of users who are out there doing new and innovative things to stop.
Jerry Yang ran a web server in his Stanford dorm-room. Almost certainly, the network and in particular the dorm segment was built expecting more downloading than uploading in a world where FTP and Gopher still outstripped web use.
The site, known as "Jerry's List" or "Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle," was at akebono.stanford.edu/yahoo and later it became better known as the word spelled by it's acronym: YAHOO -- recently valued north of $30 Bn.
Those that would presume to predict the Internet will be well advised to give themselves a wide margin of error. Personally, I think today's assumptions are about to get killed yet again: Click HERE!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
| | | | | | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| said by funchords :said by wierdo :said by funchords :I really fear that we (the users) are quietly being hypnotized by the chant, "we're out of bandwidth, the exaflood is coming, we can't build our way out of it." I fear that the users are quietly being hypnotized by your chant "they can just build their way out of it. more capex more capex more capex." They can, and yes, it costs dollars. But on the other hand, its what the current set of customers seem to want. They want ISPs to do it, but they don't want to pay the prices necessary to recoup those costs.
said by funchords :I am not doing anything I am not authorized to do. You're rare, then. Most ISP terms of service specifically forbid users from running servers. It isn't right, but that's what most people agree to. In my case, I can spend an extra $40 or $50 a month and have that allowed.
said by funchords :If you want to serve content, buy a account that allows servers. Or buy a dedicated server for the vast sum of $60/mo. See above. You're the exception rather than the rule.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. | |
| | | | | | | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: Fairshare hits users instead of protocols said by wierdo :... Most ISP terms of service specifically forbid users from running servers. It isn't right, but that's what most people agree to. In my case, I can spend an extra $40 or $50 a month and have that allowed. ... Such provisions probably are null-and-void and have been for years. However, if there are any remaining questions in your mind about that, just wait for a brief while longer. Whether it be by order, rule, or law -- the FCC policy statement is about to be enshrined. Either way you look at it: You can do anything on the net as long as its legal and doesn't harm the net. Rules set by a monopoly that restricts your rights will never stand.
»hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···51A1.pdf
PS: That said, this is a technicality. Most non-technical people who will attempt to run a server on these asymmetric lines will end up overloading the upload side because they don't understand how to control it properly. Having harmed the network, the ISP has every right to limit your behavior. So while the blanket TOS restriction is likely null and void, the advice given earlier in the topic to buy appropriate server service if you want to run a server or be a mass distributor of content should really be taken.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
| nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| the world moves on, we debate as the majority of the developed world moves towards more competition, more bandwidth and faster speeds, the major U.S. providers debate how much to inspect, throttle and interfere with customer's connections.
sounds like a sure-fire way to take back the lead in broadband - what do you guys think? | |
| | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: the world moves on, we debate I think it'll be as successful as Stacker was for doubling hard drive space. Useful for a brief point in time, and ultimately not worth the hassle. Why clog up your system when you can just get a bigger hard drive? Why clog up your network when you can just get a bigger pipe? | |
| | | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: the world moves on, we debate said by axus :Why clog up your network when you can just get a bigger pipe? Its all about the benjamins!
providers dont want to put more money in their networks, they want that money in their pockets.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
| Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA
| ISP's in the US are not smart... I'm not a p2p advocate but it is easy to see that doing a cap/over-use fee system will piss off a costumer base that has continually expected a lump fee/buffet style payment system. If ISP's were smart they would lobby Congress for net neutrality on the basis that if they are granted immunity as a dumb pipe provider, then it they wouldn't be sanctioned legally if any of their users get pinched p2p'ing or whatever else they do.
Right now, the dirty little secret for all the major ISP players is that they don't want to spend the money increasing their bandwidths and won't be forced to by their customers or their shareholders. Cap and overuse will be their cash cow as their user bases start to discover and sign on to higher bandwidth higher data volume applications and usage while they do nothing to increase and alleviate something they have been complaining about for years, small percentage high bandwidth users.
All this proves is that they really don't care about QOS since trying a distributed bandwidth system vs. their advertised speeds don't jive anymore. | |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Put the DPI makers out of business? Look, Sandvine -is- the enemy as long as it keeps trying to sell its products to do things that violate openness and freedom on the Internet. The ISPs are the enemy as long as they continue to buy and implement them in secret and in violation of Internet standards.
Once Sandvine decides that its highly advanced packet-forging, security-detection technology has a better place protecting private networks and individuals who want such protection; then the sooner we can embrace Sandvine (and its brethren Allot, Arbor, Cisco, and others).
ISPs -- if you don't like the way that the Internet works, then take it to the IETF or get out of the business.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| | |
|
|
Sandvine Jumps On 'Protocol Agnostic' Bandwagon
Fairshare hits users instead of protocols