dslreports logo
 story category
Vuze: FCC Should Investigate Cox
Company takes P2P discrimination 'personally'

P2P video delivery company Vuze, who was part of the original FCC complaint against Comcast for throttling P2P traffic, has now taken aim at Cox via the company's official blog. Last week we reported that Cox would soon be implementing a network management system that would de-prioritize non-time-sensitive Internet traffic during peak congestion. Cox previously implemented the same packet forgery system that got Comcast in trouble with the FCC, but Cox evaded media criticism -- in part because they didn't lie about doing it.

Vuze General Counsel Jay Monahan calls the new plan "odd and troubling," and requests "close scrutiny by the FCC of Cox's activities affecting peer-to-peer traffic." As we mentioned last week, the new system takes specific aim at P2P traffic -- even though it's sometimes used for legitimate video delivery, like CNN's use of the Octoshape P2P plugin to power their video streaming service. "We take that personally, and think you should too," says Monahan, continuing:
quote:
While Cox may consider our content and business to be unimportant or of lower priority, all of the content we deliver through the Vuze HD Network is delivered using our bittorrent-protocol-based technology. That means that when you're downloading Vuze content using Vuze, whether its a PBS documentary, the latest episode of "Pink" or some great user published content, it will automatically be classified as "non-time-sensitive," and thus may be subject to delay at Cox's sole discretion. Suffice it to say, our 10 million users who access over a petabyte of Vuze HD Network content every month care about "delay" of their content.
Cox may still have a date with the FCC and the media criticism gauntlet, given their plan remains vague, and the determination of what's "time sensitive" seems relatively arbitrary. There's also no indication of what kind of congestion needs to occur, or how long a customer may find targeted traffic de-prioritized. Some of that's likely because Cox is only now testing the system in parts of Kansas and Arkansas, and probably hasn't fully hashed out specifics.
view:
topics flat nest 

jchambers28
Premium Member
join:2007-05-12
Peculiar, MO

4 edits

jchambers28

Premium Member

network management

I thinks cox's new network management system really sucks. My service is working fine if it ain't broke don't fix it. If you have too much congestion buy more bandwidth and upgrade the network case closed.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: network management

said by jchambers28:

I thinks cox's new network management system really sucks. My service is working fine if it ain't broke don't fix it. If you have too much congestion buy more bandwidth and upgrade the network case closed.
Always the solution for those who don't worry about cost - until the price goes up. Then they have a new complaint to voice.

NetAdmin1
CCNA
join:2008-05-22

1 recommendation

NetAdmin1

Member

Re: network management

said by FFH5:

Always the solution for those who don't worry about cost - until the price goes up. Then they have a new complaint to voice.
Yeah they do, but in that case they need to shove it. The huge disconnect between what people pay and what people get needs to be made known. Speeds certainly have gone up, but the prices associated with them haven't. I wish I could get a free upgrade of my car every couple of months the same way we get internet speed upgrades for little to nothing.
gtoken
join:2003-12-28
Fort Smith, AR

gtoken

Member

Re: network management

You act as though the consumer is somehow trying to dupe the ISP. Its was the ISP that supplied all the upgrades at no extra cost. There was no arm twisting. Now they at backhandedly taking it all back (and then some). I have been perfectly happy with COX for many years but I have noticed my DL speeds getting slower and slower. What good is an advertised 7 or 9mb package if its going to be up the ISP to determine what or when you get that speed. I am now wondering if I should just cut my service back to their slowest/lowest price package because that's about all I'm getting anymore. Why pay for a service when you cant have it whenever you want it?

NetAdmin1
CCNA
join:2008-05-22

NetAdmin1

Member

Re: network management

said by gtoken:

You act as though the consumer is somehow trying to dupe the ISP.
I don't believe that for one minute. However, I do believe that the customers have inadvertently been lead to believe that the costs of their service are much lower than they actually are because of the upgrades. When you get more for less, it is usually because it costs the company less to give you more. Not the case with bandwidth, especially when you still have the same amount of bandwidth as you did before the upgrade in speed.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Re: network management

Actually, it does cost less...Moore's law comes to mind...every 18 months the price to transmit a bit of data over fiber optic lines is halved.

Oh wait, we're talking about last-mile coax here AGAIN. That's rather expensive to upgrade, and in the presence of little-to-no competition it ain't gonna happen.

Comcast used to have 4/512 as their premium tier I believe $5 per month higher and several years later, they're running 8/2 here on the exact same technoogy: DOCSIS 1.1. Welcome to the wonderful world of Comcast and qwest, where duopoly reigns and nothing gets done.

NetAdmin1
CCNA
join:2008-05-22

NetAdmin1

Member

Re: network management

said by iansltx:

Actually, it does cost less...Moore's law comes to mind...every 18 months the price to transmit a bit of data over fiber optic lines is halved.
Moore's Law does not apply to data transport. You are thinking of Butter's Law of Photonics which states the cost of a bit over fiber decreases every nine months (you were close). There's also Nielsen's Law which say end user bandwidth double roughly every 21 months.

Butter's Law, however, doesn't apply to end user, only enterprise and large service provider backbones. And Nielsen's Law only works to the extent that capacity is available; it doesn't work so well once you have reached capacity and the provider is forced to roll out upgrades.

jchambers28
Premium Member
join:2007-05-12
Peculiar, MO
·Comcast XFINITY

jchambers28

Premium Member

Re: network management

I got a I.M. from coxengr regarding my comment about the new network management. Here is what he states.

Re: "I think cox's new network management system really sucks. My service is working fine if it ain't broke don't fix it. If you have too much congestion buy more bandwidth and upgrade the network case closed." That's great, as sounds like you're not in a part of the network where we have congestion. Congestion only occurs in small minority of our served areas - so for most people, this will be a non-event".

He makes it sound so innocent

N10Cities
Premium Member
join:2002-05-07
0000000

N10Cities

Premium Member

Re: network management

I guess he won't be P.M.ing you anymore. P.M. means 'private message'...

cameronsfx
join:2009-01-08
Panama City, FL

cameronsfx to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

said by jchambers28:

I thinks cox's new network management system really sucks. My service is working fine if it ain't broke don't fix it. If you have too much congestion buy more bandwidth and upgrade the network case closed.
Always the solution for those who don't worry about cost - until the price goes up. Then they have a new complaint to voice.
Hey, they had no problem jacking prices. Cox needs to provide what they advertise. I'm not getting 20/3 right now. More like 15/2.5. Sometimes 10/2 during the day.
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Miami, FL

wierdo

Member

Re: network management

said by cameronsfx:

Hey, they had no problem jacking prices. Cox needs to provide what they advertise. I'm not getting 20/3 right now. More like 15/2.5. Sometimes 10/2 during the day.
And you need to learn to read. The 20/3 is an "up to" and includes their estimate of what Powerboost will get you. In most markets, the highest tier is 15/1 (or is it 15/1.5?)
Rob_
Premium Member
join:2008-07-16
Mary Esther, FL

Rob_

Premium Member

WTF?

Yea, I agree, as long as pages and stuff downloads fast, why manage it. I think this is about control. I want all of my stuff to have top priority. especially those evil evil torrents.

There are legit ways of using torrents too.

I'm a frequent user of IRC as well, what's next? surf and check email only? shit, I can dew that on dial up!

-Rob

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

1 recommendation

SpaethCo

MVM

This is the problem with this Net Neutrality crap

Latency and packet loss breaks real-time applications.

Latency and packet loss slows bulk transfer applications like P2P.

It shouldn't be that hard to make the call that broken has a greater impact than slow. In the event of congestion you have to make some decisions about how to deal with it -- safeguarding real-time apps should be no more controversial than giving someone having a heart attack more priority than a kid with the flu in the ER.

NetAdmin1
CCNA
join:2008-05-22

NetAdmin1

Member

Re: This is the problem with this Net Neutrality crap

Network neutrality done right makes that distinction. In the beginning the NN argument recognized that distinction. Originally it was about preventing providers from putting the screws to companies so that their site received better QoS for a price; it also was about preventing providers from giving one company or service an edge over another service, like giving Vonage preferential treatment over Packet8. It was never about preventing reasonable QoS such as giving voice and video preference over P2P and FTP. The only requirement is that if you gave one class QoS preference, you have to do it for all providers.

Obviously that got hijacked and NN has turned into the bullshit that it is now.

IPingUPing
N4BFR
Premium Member
join:2002-08-30
Atlanta, GA

1 recommendation

IPingUPing to SpaethCo

Premium Member

to SpaethCo
I think you are right on. It seems like Vuse's biggest complaint is not the in protecting of their customers (who get their content free). They are worried about the potential loss of P2P as a distribution network and the potential costs to their business model if everyone did this in having to purchase their own bandwidth for their service (free is a tough business model to beat!).

I am all for the people who want to trade old barbershop quartet songs via P2P. I have a hard time supporting someone's shaky business model. It's that and the illegal downloaders that have soured P2P's viability.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords to SpaethCo

MVM

to SpaethCo
said by SpaethCo:

Latency and packet loss slows bulk transfer applications like P2P.
But it breaks real-time applications of the same peer-to-peer technology -- like VOIP and video streaming.

Quit discriminating against a protocol.

Any application that needs "safeguarding" won't make it on the Internet, anyway. VOIP has proven itself without needing any of this prioritization nonsense.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 recommendation

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: This is the problem with this Net Neutrality crap

said by funchords:

VOIP has proven itself without needing any of this prioritization nonsense.
Then why are they complaining to the FCC about Comcast's SDV?

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords

MVM

Re: This is the problem with this Net Neutrality crap

said by FFH5:
said by funchords:

VOIP has proven itself without needing any of this prioritization nonsense.
Then why are they complaining to the FCC about Comcast's SDV?
Who is 'they' in that question?

This inquiry has two areas of interest AFAICT:

1. Is CDV contributing to the bandwidth crunch on Comcast's CMTS ports yet is kept uniquely exempt from its consequences?

2. Is CDV properly classified, regulated, and taxed?

As for issue #1 -- This is a fairness question of the principle of network management. I don't think anyone seriously thinks that CDV alone is a major contributor to bandwidth issues, but neither is any other VOIP provider's service. Yet CDV gets rather bulletproof preferencing (wholly unnecessarily in my guess, since the thing is on and off the net in just a few hops). Comcast can avoid this issue by not using the same frequencies for HSI as it uses for CDV.

As for issue #2 -- I'm no expert here. From my armchair QB and completely lay-position, I'd like to see the whole thing go "common carrier." I have no idea why Comcast wants to be Verizon nor do I understand why Verizon wants to be Comcast. Comcast = Entertainment = Not a Utility, Verizon = Telecom = Utility and why mix these two? Comcast ought to let the Copper finally rot and Verizon ought to be in the business of turning all the Comcast's and other entertainment providers, ISPs, CLECs, etc. of this world into interconnected choices in a large menu for consumers with a steady and a utility-like guaranteed rate of return. (I'm really not in my area of expertise here so if I'm way wrong, be nice please.)

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3 to funchords

Premium Member

to funchords
said by funchords:

But it breaks real-time applications of the same peer-to-peer technology -- like VOIP and video streaming.
Then perhaps Vuze should have re-thought their business model before betting the proverbial farm on the bittorrent protocol? There are plenty of video distribution methods that are succeeding and aren't using P2P for distribution.

If bittorrent went away tomorrow, Blizzard and P2P pirates would complain, no one else would notice nor care.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords

MVM

Re: This is the problem with this Net Neutrality crap

said by Matt3:
said by funchords:

But it breaks real-time applications of the same peer-to-peer technology -- like VOIP and video streaming.
Then perhaps Vuze should have re-thought their business model before betting the proverbial farm on the bittorrent protocol? There are plenty of video distribution methods that are succeeding and aren't using P2P for distribution.
Fine, but it should live and die on its own merits. We don't need an ISP stacking the deck.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

1 recommendation

SpaethCo to funchords

MVM

to funchords
said by funchords:

Any application that needs "safeguarding" won't make it on the Internet, anyway. VOIP has proven itself without needing any of this prioritization nonsense.
I disagree.

There are clear types of traffic that are mitigated using specific equipment and techniques even at the carrier level. Of course I'm speaking of Denial of Service attacks.

I know you like to make a point that P2P isn't bad because it obeys relevant standards and RFCs. By that argument, HTTP GET DoS attacks are also great network citizens. Botnets complete full TCP handshakes, respond to delayed ACKs, and do session setup and teardown per protocol rules. Ironically if you look at packet captures of HTTP Denial of Service attacks and standard P2P transactions, they bear more similarities than differences.

Sometimes you have to slap a muzzle on certain types of traffic for the greater good.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords

MVM

Re: This is the problem with this Net Neutrality crap

I see, P2P = DDOS attack.

Good grief, that's weak.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: This is the problem with this Net Neutrality crap

said by funchords:

I see, P2P = DDOS attack.
Not in intent, just in outcome.

At its base, a distributed denial of service attack is a coordinated parallel effort to generate traffic to bring about the unavailability of a network resource. P2P is a coordinated parallel effort to distribute content which has the ability to starve resource ability. Clearly the intent of P2P is different, but the central control and coordination combined with the goal of consuming maximum allowed resources from each host make it resemble distributed DoS traffic.

Parallelization of any shared resource tends to be an issue; it's the cause of rush hour traffic (common employer start/stop times), long retail lines (gift-giving holidays), cell phone network availability (particularly during disaster events). P2P lacks the randomness of user-initiated or even user-scheduled transactions.

Parogadi
What? Stop Looking At Me Like That
Premium Member
join:2003-03-31
Racine, WI

Parogadi

Premium Member

Re: This is the problem with this Net Neutrality crap

So by your reasoning being slashdotted, dugg or goon rushed also = DDOS.

Thing is they don't, this is all the whining of a megacorp local monopoly that doesn't want to spend a dime to upgrade their network capacity which is their biggest cash cow. It costs nextto nothing over the course of the year for i all to keep going compared to the money they make off of users.

Add it up, it costs insignificantly more to transmit a gig at 1Mbit then 100Mbit in terms of cash, but it does in time as one of them will finish in 1/100th the time.

Sure it costs them a little on the backbone but seriously, they can't offer up in network speeds of 1Gbit? The places that already do that don't seem to have any issue with running the in network speed that high. Why? Simple, the majority of the transfers in network will finish long before theres ever any noticeable "congestion" in the network. Just look at how the Japanese are handling it, fast as they can in network, but link to non Japanese sites is limited by the under sea cables, which I'll concede are much more expensive to lay and maintain, yet still offer speeds lie 24Mbit over the undersea cables that link them to the outside world.

So what is it? are all users everywhere trying to DDOS their poor little ISP or is the ISP giving us the hard shaft by squeezing us dry just to advertise speeds they know they can't actually offer to everyone any part of the time?

IMHO they need instead of advertise their minimum guaranteed speed, which if you drop below it should get you the month's bill waived. This would work great as they could say the minimum speed is say 2Mbit symmetrical and get the network to 1Gbit symmetrical so that when the capacity is there you have full access to that speed.

For business lines, just assure them a higher symmetrical speed. With today's tech theres no reason this can't be done.

With speed like that it opens up a vast new level of uses for the internet.

Where does it stop? I think once we hit 1Gbit symmetrical to the home we'll have probably hit the practical maximum anyone could need for most future applications online, it's not like everyone will downloading live feeds of the output of the LHC, but it will allow for thing like MMORPGs to take on a whole new level of play instead for the click on this now click on that auto fight scheme we have now.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords to SpaethCo

MVM

to SpaethCo
said by SpaethCo:
said by funchords:

I see, P2P = DDOS attack.
Not in intent, just in outcome.

At its base, a distributed denial of service attack is a coordinated parallel effort to generate traffic to bring about the unavailability of a network resource. P2P is a coordinated parallel effort to distribute content which has the ability to starve resource ability. Clearly the intent of P2P is different, but the central control and coordination combined with the goal of consuming maximum allowed resources from each host make it resemble distributed DoS traffic.

Parallelization of any shared resource tends to be an issue; it's the cause of rush hour traffic (common employer start/stop times), long retail lines (gift-giving holidays), cell phone network availability (particularly during disaster events). P2P lacks the randomness of user-initiated or even user-scheduled transactions.
P2P doesn't work any differently in this regard. But I'll tell you this, the longer we have people throttling it or capping connections, the more YOUR VERSION of the tale remains true.

Increase the bandwidth to handle the demand, and P2P becomes just as bursty as HTTP. Again, it's about demand -- not about a protocol. They're attacking P2P, so users are moving to client-server (NNTP, HTTP) and the traffic profile is still long and steady.

Every upload -- be it a peer or a server -- has an unsatisfied downloader attached to it. Speed up the network sufficiently, and the number of unsatisfied downloaders at any one time is reduced because the transfers are completed faster.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP to funchords

Member

to funchords
P2P is network abuse. Plain and simple.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords

MVM

Re: This is the problem with this Net Neutrality crap

said by SuperWISP:

P2P is network abuse. Plain and simple.
You ought to have T-Shirts and bumper-stickers made, Brett.
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Miami, FL

1 recommendation

wierdo

Member

Re: This is the problem with this Net Neutrality crap

said by funchords:
said by SuperWISP:

P2P is network abuse. Plain and simple.
You ought to have T-Shirts and bumper-stickers made, Brett.
He's often right, but only because either a) servers are specifically disallowed in the provider's TOS or b) most p2p software is poorly written crap and due to the extremely large number of simultaneous connections on relatively bandwidth constrained links causing TCP's built-in congestion management mechanisms to fail, thus causing enormous queues on routers and a crapton of dropped packets and jitter.

What's worse is the self-righteous assholery that gets bandied about when a provider who is experiencing the effects of the user's shitty software dares to do something about it to help the rest of their customers who just want to check their email or make a phone call.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords

MVM

Re: This is the problem with this Net Neutrality crap

Brett might actually be right for his situation -- Brett sells a very capable type of Internet access that for most of his subscribers is behind a NAT and bandwidth-divided on the assumption that heavy two-way file transfers aren't part of the network's load. That's a private internet in my book. It's not completely representative of the open Internet -- in statistics, Brett's network would be an outlier. Yes, very importantly, this is clear from the original signing of the deal.

None of that is true for the incumbents whom Brett defends yet who would very much like to completely put him and his kind out of business.

I don't want to see any across-the-board legislation affect network's like Brett's private and protected network. Now Brett (I think) offers other options that are more like the open Internet. But most of his customers are part of the net that offers nearly all -- but not all -- Internet access.

A lot of Brett's friends possibly aren't as good as Brett is about describing the limits of his offer. I deal with WISP customers ever week who wonder why they can't do this or that on their connections -- they're clueless as to the limits.

I admire Brett, even though I'm a lying thief "lobbyist" (and worse) in his eyes.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP

Member

Re: This is the problem with this Net Neutrality crap

My network is not an "outlier." It follows the same best practices that most ISPs follow. Yes, we do oversale; that's the only way to keep broadband prices reasonable for consumers when wholesale prices are high. And, yes, we do NAT; it increases security dramatically and also saves customers money because getting large blocks of IPs is expensive. Finally, we do offer access to all of the Internet. However, we have rules of behavior that require that users do not disrupt the network or hog bandwidth. They clearly state that P2P -- as a behavior -- is not allowed.
Expand your moderator at work

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

1 edit

funchords to wierdo

MVM

to wierdo
said by wierdo:

b) most p2p software is poorly written crap and due to the extremely large number of simultaneous connections on relatively bandwidth constrained links causing TCP's built-in congestion management mechanisms to fail, thus causing enormous queues on routers and a crapton of dropped packets and jitter.

What's worse is the self-righteous assholery that gets bandied about when a provider who is experiencing the effects of the user's shitty software dares to do something about it to help the rest of their customers who just want to check their email or make a phone call.
Separating my Brett love-note from the rest of this message.

As to B) above, you don't know what you're talking about. TCP's congestion management mechanisms are just fine, thank you, and P2P software obeys their signals. The number of connections is of no effect since routers work on the IP header. If someone is digging deeper than that, and clogging up the network as a result, then they own that problem -- not TCP, the application, or the user.

As to self-righteous assholes, I think your house is dirty. That thing in the frame is not a portrait, it's a mirror.

••••••••••••••••••
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Miami, FL

1 recommendation

wierdo to funchords

Member

to funchords
said by funchords:
said by SpaethCo:

Latency and packet loss slows bulk transfer applications like P2P.
But it breaks real-time applications of the same peer-to-peer technology -- like VOIP and video streaming.

Quit discriminating against a protocol.

Any application that needs "safeguarding" won't make it on the Internet, anyway. VOIP has proven itself without needing any of this prioritization nonsense.
Maybe they should have chosen to use a protocol actually intended for real time streaming rather than bulk data transfer.

POB
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium Member
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA

POB to SpaethCo

Premium Member

to SpaethCo
said by SpaethCo:

[...]safeguarding real-time apps should be no more controversial than giving someone having a heart attack more priority than a kid with the flu in the ER.
That is quite a beautiful theory you've got there, but in the real world when the flu is given priority over chest pains/heart attack, there are significant real world repercussions to the entity having made the distinction as to which was more serious. Talking about broadband providers there is no such incentive. Just the decision as to which decision will generate more revenue and provide the least amount of service to subscribers.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx to SpaethCo

Member

to SpaethCo
Agreed. Honestly relying on consumer internet connections for even somewhat mission-critical streaming applications which would be better handled on a server in a datacenter anyway, is just a bad idea. P2P should be used for single-user-to-single-user transfers if those transfers are latency/quality sensitive. Bulk downloads (FTP style ISOs etc.) are fine too.

Vuze should work fine if P2P "takes what's left" of bandwidth. Unless they're streaming in which case oversubscribed last-mile connectivity breaks as the service becomes more popular. Not a good thing.
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

cancel the account

let the cable company know you don't want your broadband screwed with, and that means caps, data limits, etc, etc... so now they've lost a customer!

cancel the account!
cable companies know when they lose a customer.. that money is gone... not to come back until they change their policy and don't let them sweet talk you into retention.. they must have this sense of loss to have a little respect the customer. it's your money!

Black_Fox
join:2008-12-18
Norfolk, VA

2 edits

Black_Fox

Member

Re: cancel the account

All I want to know after reading this is if my gaming connection to servers over a long period of time counts as non-time-sensitive. If it does I will stop calling their techs for my random high latencies, some of which end in time outs, and 40% average of advertised speeds that I pay 100% for every day and just cancel my service. Some days I have 27Mbps, others I have as low as 5Mbps with nothing changing, and everything in my home being at least triple checked. If this is the answer the techs cant or wont give me then I'm finished. This is frustrating, since the main reason I have broadband is to play on-line games, most of which only need 256k to work properly.
»s265.photobucket.com/alb ··· lideshow
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP

Member

Neither odd nor troubling - except to Vuze

Cox's bandwidth management plan makes perfect sense. Users don't know how to do traffic management, but they do get impatient when interactive or time-critical activities get slow. It's a great value added to have the ISP do this for you.

Vuze is annoyed by this sort of prioritization because it has based its business plan on (a) setting up users' computers as servers and taking bandwidth from the ISP; and (b) taking priority over the other tasks on those users' links, thus taking advantage of the users.

If Vuze were paying its freight for bandwidth, the prioritization scheme would help it. But because it's trying to take bandwidth from ISPs by setting up the machines of flat rate Internet customers as servers, its little free ride might end. So, it's asking the government to require ISPs to give it free bandwidth.
hwobu
join:2009-02-08
Columbus, OH

hwobu

Member

Re: Neither odd nor troubling - except to Vuze

said by SuperWISP:

If Vuze were paying its freight for bandwidth, the prioritization scheme would help it. But because it's trying to take bandwidth from ISPs by setting up the machines of flat rate Internet customers as servers, its little free ride might end. So, it's asking the government to require ISPs to give it free bandwidth.



I see where you're trying to go with this, however, I feel the need to point out a non sequitur.

First and foremost, when it comes to non-cellular internet access in the USA, the price point is not based upon usage, but rather is based upon the available maximum bandwidth, whether it is used or not. (And I am aware of some ISPs attempts to bilk their customers through spurious usage fines. This isn't the issue at the moment.) This is the case whether the account is commercial or residential.

Second, Vuze is not asking to receive priority service on Cox's network, they're only asking to not be downgraded from 'Best Effort' to a less than 'best effort' when their customers are located on Cox's network based on communication protocol used to deliver their goods to their customers.

Thirdly, the FCC has already made it clear with Comcast in regards to P2P communication, and previously with other carriers and VoIP traffic, that interfering with their customers' internet communication would not be tolerated. The FCC only provided a single exception, and that is in the case of illegal activity.

Fourthly, when it comes to QOS & and traffic prioritization, the industry standard and accepted practice is to consider all traffic BE (best effort) unless there is a specific need to give that traffic higher priority on the network. To place any traffic (regardless of the claimed reason) into a lower priority traffic queue than BE traffic will effectively render that traffic nearly blocked. This near-blocked state is a result of several factors. The first is that these same companies normally design their networks with a higher over-subscription rate, resulting in a higher incidence of uplink saturation than would be considered acceptable at other companies. The second is that QOS prioritization only truly affects traffic when the utilization is high. Thirdly, the bulk of internet traffic (regardless of network) is and should be classified as BE. This BE traffic will commonly fill any available capacity when over-subscription is involved (especially at higher ratios).

Your argument, on the other hand seems to imply that we should all have to pay for each segment that internet traffic has to traverse to reach its destination. And there is a way to achieve this scenario, by accessing the internet through a dial-up ISP using a long distane call (most people avoid this situation when possible). While telco's and ISPs would certainly be pleased with the resulting financial windfall from charging per link per packet for the internet. This setup would not be beneficial to the customer in any way shape or form and certainly wasn't the intention of either Congress or the FCC according to all available documentation and official statements of opinion or position from either party, including but certainly not limited to the Telecommunications ACT of 1996 as ammended.

Thomas
mingus2012
join:2009-01-13

mingus2012

Member

cancellation...

cannot cancel, as we have NO OTHER SERVICE available in NW Arkansas. I got my internet connection cut off and was informed of some game company threatening Cox due to my downloading of some game that I DON'T EVEN HAVE. I reset, called the co., got back online, and now my speed is drastically reduced and P2P will no longer connect, PERIOD. I also noticed files being accessed and settings being reset. Hmmm, is it legal to dig in my private files without notifying me, then to deny me access without notifying me? What are my options, and do I have any recourse? Screwed again, I bet, although my high speed and cable and phone bills are all paid on time and always have been. I am buying a service, not borrowing it with stipulations. This amounts to illegal search and siezure, does it not? What are my rights as a consumer here, if any?
And I love the snarky tone of the helpers here, as though to be of any value you must have disposable income and a vast knowledge of IP and computer technology. I'm a musician, not a techie. I come here for help, not attitude.
hwobu
join:2009-02-08
Columbus, OH

1 edit

hwobu

Member

Re: cancellation...

said by mingus2012:

cannot cancel, as we have NO OTHER SERVICE available in NW Arkansas. I got my internet connection cut off and was informed of some game company threatening Cox due to my downloading of some game that I DON'T EVEN HAVE. I reset, called the co., got back online, and now my speed is drastically reduced and P2P will no longer connect, PERIOD. I also noticed files being accessed and settings being reset. Hmmm, is it legal to dig in my private files without notifying me, then to deny me access without notifying me? What are my options, and do I have any recourse? Screwed again, I bet, although my high speed and cable and phone bills are all paid on time and always have been. I am buying a service, not borrowing it with stipulations. This amounts to illegal search and siezure, does it not? What are my rights as a consumer here, if any?
And I love the snarky tone of the helpers here, as though to be of any value you must have disposable income and a vast knowledge of IP and computer technology. I'm a musician, not a techie. I come here for help, not attitude.
I feel your pain and agree that there are many ISPs out there that have been acting less than ethically where customer traffic is concerned. As for the change in computer settings on your computer and digging into the files on your computer, this is not the kind of action that ISPs normally engage in. It is, however, the type of thing that viruses and spyware normally do.

With all of the traffic on P2P and its inherently unstructured deployment, there has been a propensity for crackers (the correct term for what is commonly known as a hacker) and other cyber-criminals to use this to their advantage and they have included this malware what they share. They have also made torrent files that look like the legitimate version to fool people into downloading infected files.

My only suggestion at this point is to make sure your anti-virus and anti-spyware software is up to date. Then do a full scan of your entire system (have any removable thumb drives, you may use, attached, this will allow the to be scanned at the same time to prevent re-infection).

I hope this helps,

Thomas