What ISP Transparency?All Comcast debate seemed to do is deliver new caps... ( old news - 09:17AM Sunday Nov 02 2008) tags: legal · competition · fcc · business · networking · net-neutrality · consumersTipped by TamaraB  While a lot was made in the mainstream technology press about how Comcast's ongoing scuffle with the FCC over throttling BitTorrent resulted in a "new age of ISP transparency," things haven't really changed all that much. ISPs like Cox are still doing the exact same P2P choking Comcast got in trouble for with nobody really noticing. Other ISPs like T-Mobile and Sprint continue to simply bury vague legalese in their acceptable use policies that give them the right to restrict your service however and whenever they see fit. Consumer advocacy group Free Press last week apparently noticed things really haven't changed: "The reality is that consumers have no way of knowing how their Internet usage is being altered, tracked or redirected by their ISPs. Terms of service agreements contain the vaguest language that corporate lawyers can devise -- further stacking the deck against the consumer. It took years to uncover Comcast's illegal behavior and NebuAd's intrusive technology. And it could take years more to uncover the next hidden harm." The group is calling upon the FCC, which may be under new leadership shortly, to require that ISPs be completely transparent about exactly how they're throttling, blocking, selling or otherwise tinkering with subscriber traffic. So far, the FCC's refusal to set solid rules on this front has only really helped carriers. While Comcast may have gotten some bad press from their run in with the FCC, they saw no fine, no new rules were constructed, and the door was simply opened for carriers to implement very transparent, but often unreasonable, caps. Related:- Wednesday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
- Verizon's Open Development Initiative? So Far It's A Joke
- Comcast Denies Unfair VoIP Discrimination
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Time Warner Cable: Let's Not Talk About Net Neutrality
- Small ISPs Want FCC To Ban ESPN 360 Model
- FCC Greenlights Centurytel/Embarq With Wimpy Conditions
|
  LiamJunket Premium join:2002-03-03 Ocean City, NJ
·Comcast
4 edits | Free Press lives in some fantasy world
Free Press:Free Press wants the FCC to require Internet service providers to publicly disclose the minimum broadband speed guaranteed -- not just the maximum potential speed offered. If FCC ordered such a requirement, the ISP response would be something like the following added to the TOS: quote: Tier: 8000/1000 kbps Min download 0 kbps Max download 8000 kbps Min upload 0 kbps Max upload 1000 kbps The above details supplied courtesy of Free Press & the FCC.
Transparency won't change the facts that NO ISP can guarantee a minimum speed at all locations all the time. And NO ISP will add a minimum speed that isn't qualified by dozens of lines of legalese about "how long an interval" and "acts of god" and "verified by independent 3rd party collection of data", etc.
Face it, we live in a world where people and organizations(like Free Press) sue at the drop of a hat and NO COMPANY is going to leave themselves open to that by not including paragraphs of legalese in any contract with the consumer. Even if an ISP did everything the Free Press wants, they'd still sue the minute any group of users experienced a problem that wasn't 100% perfect all the time.
And if an ISP actually did agree to establish a published and guaranteed minimum speed, we would end up with a bunch of vigilantes using some so-called public interest group supplied measurement tool to flood the network with traffic that would become a self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words, they would cause the problem they are seeking to measure.
-- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   Camelot One Premium,MVM join:2001-11-21 Sarasota, FL clubs:
·VoicePulse
| Re: Free Press lives in some fantasy world said by dadkins :For kicks, I downloaded something via VUZE(Azureus BT client). I was pulling ~2MB/sec(MegaBytes/second)... yeah I'm on Comcast! *MY* Comcast connection seems to work ok. It was my understanding that downloads were working fine, it was the uploads they were jacking with. And since most BT trackers atleast TRY to force you to maintain a 1:1 ratio, not being able to upload eventually cuts you off from the downloads. (not to mention forcing people to be a leech) -- Intel Q6600 @3400Mhz/GA-EP35-DS3P/2x 2048Mb G.Skill/Seagate 750.10/EVGA 8800GT's SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler | |
|  |  |  |   dadkins Can you do Blu? Premium,MVM join:2003-09-26 Hercules, CA
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Free Press lives in some fantasy world People talk about this, but I haven't seen it in a while. Note my upload speed pictured on DUMeter, 430 - 490kbps. For that particular download, I'm doing ok.
A few days ago, for a different download on VUZE, my upload was 1.2mbps - for quite some time! Even after the download was finished.
As I said, *MY* connection seems to be doing ok. -- Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|  |  |  |   Combat Chuck Too Many Cannibals Premium join:2001-11-29 Erie, PA
| Trackers cannot force you to maintain a 1:1 ratio. They have no control over what your client actually does short of denying you new contacts. With newer clients all the tracker really does is get you up and running quickly.
For instance, using Azureus with Azureus distributed database /decentralized tracker, peer exchange, and the Mainline Distributed Hash Table plugin, all I need is a torrent file or magnet link and if the swarm is of any size at all, within an hour I'm up and running even if the tracker is completely dead. And you say set the private torrent bit? All that will do is bring forth a client that lies to the tracker and ignores the private bit.
Either way it is in the swarms best interest that it continue to upload to a peer that is uploading at a very slow rate than to totally cut off such an individual. -- The worlds elusive, remember where love's the leaf faith, the river what's born as flame dies in ember see for yourself! | |
|  |   tubbynet reminds me of the danse russe Premium join:2008-01-16 Chandler, AZ
·Cox HSI
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·FrontierNet Intern..
| The group is calling upon the FCC, which may be under new leadership shortly, to require that ISPs be completely transparent about exactly how they're throttling, blocking, selling or otherwise tinkering with subscriber traffic. So far, the FCC's refusal to set solid rules on this front has only really helped carriers. While Comcast may have gotten some bad press from their run in with the FCC, they saw no fine, no new rules were constructed, and the door was simply opened for carriers to implement very transparent, but often unreasonable, caps.
no mention of speeds in the article. obviously no corporation is going to explicitly state the speeds that a user is going to get. however, this group is advocating for transparency in network management techniques when it comes to applications that tend to have high-bandwidth consumption. more and more people are worried about the network neutrality issue because it is only a small jump from forged packets to "tiered" access.
since the isps are not going to provide this information willingly, this group is trying to push them in the direction to do so. i agree that we have become a very litigious society. however, when there is no other way for corporations to be forthright with the consumer, what other action is there?
you of all people should *appreciate* this TK. being the staunch conservative believing in the free market economy, it is the right of the end user to make the decision (with his wallet) what isp to choose. if the isp is not *honest* with the user regarding the network management techniques (maybe honesty is a bit rough, more like open and forthcoming), then the end user can't make the well informed decision that the free market economy hinges on. 
q. -- "The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers."
~ Caroll Quigley - Tragedy and Hope | |
|  |  |   LiamJunket Premium join:2002-03-03 Ocean City, NJ
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Free Press lives in some fantasy world said by tubbynet :no mention of speeds in the article. obviously no corporation is going to explicitly state the speeds that a user is going to get. They did mention speeds:
»www.freepress.net/node/45366
Free Press wants the FCC to require Internet service providers to publicly disclose the minimum broadband speed guaranteed -- not just the maximum potential speed offered. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|  |  |  |   dvd536 as Mr. Pink as they come Premium join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Free Press lives in some fantasy world I'd LOVE to see a "At least ####kbps and up to ####kbps" on ISPs and when they don't deliver, a days credit for every day the minimum isn't being delivered. after all when my bill comes, i don't get to pay "Up to $59.99/month" -- When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|  |  |  |  |  amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22 Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Free Press lives in some fantasy world said by dvd536 :and when they don't deliver, a days credit for every day the minimum isn't being delivered. Sounds complicated to me. How will they verify that you're being honest that you didn't get what they promised as a minimum? Some people are interested in the maximum. How will that be verified? (I.e., the maximum is a useless number).
What you describe sounds like metered billing. It would be less nebulous about how to prove attainment. And, the provider would have an incentive to provide all you're willing to pay for.
Mark | |
|  |  |  |  |  jester121
join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL
·ViaTalk
| You can have that now! It's called a T1 and they're about $400-500 per month depending on how far away from the CO you live. They come with a Service Level Agreement (SLA) which spells out precisely what ping times, throughput rates, and reliability you can expect, and how you will be compensated if the SLA is not met.
Oh wait -- you want a $40-50 service? Sorry, no SLA for you.
 | |
|  |  |  |  |  k1ll3rdr4g0n
join:2005-03-19 Homer Glen, IL
| said by dvd536 :I'd LOVE to see a "At least ####kbps and up to ####kbps" on ISPs and when they don't deliver, a days credit for every day the minimum isn't being delivered. after all when my bill comes, i don't get to pay "Up to $59.99/month" Actually according to that TOS you sign, they could pretty much throttle you to dial-up speeds and still be legally in the TOS; simply because the TOS is so wrapped in "legalese". I'm sure the lawyers that are playing poker in back will have a field day with it.
It will be interesting to see how all this evolves, I guarantee that in a couple of years once streaming media gets yet another explosion and people start getting $2,000 ISP bills...ISPs will quickly rethink the whole caps idea when people start saying "yeah I'm not going to put up with this crap" and either: drop internet altogether, goto the competition, or just buy a T1 (hey they have been coming down in price so it could be an affordable reality for the average consumer).
I personally find the "cap" issue funny in terms of legality. They don't have a physical meter like the electric company (water company is kinda the exception...because well I don't know exactly how you are charged for that) so there is no way they can "legally" prove that customers went over a cap. They can show server logs all day long, but a smart judge would just say "lets see a picture of a meter, don't have one? How do I know you didn't just make this data up?". | |
|  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| said by tubbynet :then the end user can't make the well informed decision that the free market economy hinges on. There's always the "try it risk free for 30 days and get your money back if you aren't satisfied" option. If ISPs are falsely advertising their services, then I agree with you that the free market economy can be twisted and the advertiser should be required to rectify the advertisement. Regulations are already in place to prevent/correct false advertising and protect the consumer. | |
|  |  |  |   major marco Res Firma Mitescere Nescit Premium join:2003-02-13 Stepford, CA clubs:
1 edit | Re: Free Press lives in some fantasy world said by openbox9 : Regulations are already in place to prevent/correct false advertising and protect the consumer. Yes, some State laws of select States address fraud perpetrated upon consumers, however those laws are only as good as the AG who has the inclination to enforce them.
Case in point: California has both a vigilant AG, as well as a Dept of Consumer Affairs, to protect consumers from questionable business practices, but what about elsewhere. A State like Floriduh has very little consumer protection laws. In those cases, federal law kicks in where State law is silent, and, the federal arm responsible for enforcing that protection is the FTC which, in the past 8 yrs, has been about as useful as tits on a bull. -- The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
| |
|  |  |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA | Re: Free Press lives in some fantasy world FWIW, I'm a happy Floridian consumer so Florida's consumer protection laws must not be too bad. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |   major marco Res Firma Mitescere Nescit Premium join:2003-02-13 Stepford, CA clubs:
| Re: Free Press lives in some fantasy world said by openbox9 :FWIW, I'm a happy Floridian consumer so Florida's consumer protection laws must not be too bad. Well gee, I wasn't aware that you spoke for the entire State. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA | Re: Free Press lives in some fantasy world You attempted to do so for two states. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   funchords Hello Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Washington, DC | I see a lot of complaints coming from the eastern side of Florida (mostly speed and latency). | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  Skippy25
join:2000-09-13 Hazelwood, MO | Maybe I am crazy, I would have to look it up again, but didnt AT&T just do this very thing?
They provide speed ranges, which include a minimum and a maximum. Or did I misinterpret something? | |
|  |  Sammer
join:2005-12-22 Pittsburgh, PA
1 edit | said by LiamJunket :Free Press: Free Press wants the FCC to require Internet service providers to publicly disclose the minimum broadband speed guaranteed -- not just the maximum potential speed offered. Transparency won't change the facts that NO ISP can guarantee a minimum speed at all locations all the time. And if an ISP actually did agree to establish a published and guaranteed minimum speed, we would end up with a bunch of vigilantes using some so-called public interest group supplied measurement tool to flood the network with traffic that would become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Well I tend to agree with you I think the minimums would be around 90 kbps. IOW broadband ISPs would only guarantee higher than dialup speeds and even that as you suggest would include legalese disclaimers. | |
|  |  bicker
join:2007-05-10 Burlington, MA
| TK Junk Mail is absolutely correct. People aren't willing to pay enough to have the kind of ISP service many of them want, so no provider is going to be willing to offer such service. When people are consumers, they want socialism; when people are taxpayers, they want libertarianism; and when people are investors, they want profits. No two of these extremes can co-exist with either of the others. | |
|  |  |   funchords Hello Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: Free Press lives in some fantasy world said by bicker : When people are consumers, they want socialism; when people are taxpayers, they want libertarianism; and when people are investors, they want profits. Awesome thought! | |
|  |  |  amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22 Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: But what are the accusations based on? said by Noah Vail :Wasn't the COX throttling charge base on ... I'm on Cox (1500/256kbs). I've been using BitTorrent all weekend. My upload speed has been consistently in the 20-30kbs range. I changed all the client settings I could find. Disabled my router's QoS.
It's fine with me. I consider BT to be a usefule *low* priority option. I use QoS to throttle it relative to my VOIP and web-browsing activities. I don't fault an ISP for doing the same thing at a higher level.
Mark | |
|  |  |  Skippy25
join:2000-09-13 Hazelwood, MO
| Re: But what are the accusations based on? Of course you don't fault them. It is in YOUR best interest not to.
However, for the rest of the world, we don't want ISP's to do anything with our packets other then send them on at the fastest possible way they can.
You want to let the market to sort it out, then let the market sort it out. They do nothing to impede traffic and be the dumb pipes they are and should be. As their network suffers because they choose not to make improvements customers will go elsewhere and thus relieve the strain on their system. | |
|  |  |  |  Skippy25
join:2000-09-13 Hazelwood, MO 1 edit | Re: But what are the accusations based on? Oh that's right.... many customers dont have that luxury (a choice).
So maybe they should be regulated into doing what they should be doing. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  Skippy25
join:2000-09-13 Hazelwood, MO
| Re: But what are the accusations based on? I understand QoS I support routers/swithes on a daily basis.
Regardless, they should be the dumb pipes they are and stop trying to manage it to protect the content they deliver.
As I said above, the network should be up and running and let it be managed by the natural congestion that is there by being utilized. If they want to have more customers then they need to increase capacity or lessen the bandwidth available to their customers. However, under no case should they be allowed to throttle or prioritize any packet for any reason.
If they feel someone is abusing their network then lower their tier or remove them from it. Of course they better have this clearly outlined. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22 Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: But what are the accusations based on? said by Skippy25 :they should be the dumb pipes they are and stop trying to manage it to protect the content they deliver. When BT users stop using QoS (to lower BT priority), and let their network connections be "dumb pipes" I will understand your position.
Mark | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |   funchords Hello Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: But what are the accusations based on? What?
This isn't about QoS good or QoS bad -- this is about who gets to decide.
The Internet standards say that the end users get to decide, not the ISP.
You are right that users do set their prioritization generally correctly. There are standards that have been sitting on shelves for years that would enable the ISPs to carry that classification right on into their own network -- in other words, BT would have lower priority, just as it should (most of the time).
They just need to enable some way for users apps to pass on the IP DSCP or TOS marking. Comcast or AT&T, both with 20% of US Internet users each, would lead the entire tech industry into enabling their apps to use it! Everyone else would just follow. -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
|  |  |  |  |   funchords Hello Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Washington, DC | I personally confirmed on Cox. Glasnost is reliable. Vuze was the outfit that gave some rather confusing output -- it wasn't dishonest, it just wasn't very useful. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |   funchords Hello Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Washington, DC | Re: But what are the accusations based on? They were forging RSTs on the tail of a data transfer request, they were using Sandvine.
My best information is that they completely stopped. | |
|  |  |   MacLeech The one and only Premium,MVM join:2001-07-14 SoCal
1 edit | Re: cable companies should say min and max speeds!! said by mikedz4 :I think cable companies should state the minimum and maximum speeds. It might take a while but if they survey each node they can tell how slow people and how fast people are going on each speed tier. Then when you call the agent would say: "ok bob, you are on node 12569. We just finished testing the speeds on that node last week, for people who choose the blazing fast internet package for $75/month, the minimum speed over a 3 weeks period was 20 mbps down and 3 mbps down, the maximum speed was 50 mbps down and 10 mbps down thus you can expect an average speed of 35mbps down and 7 mbps up." See that wasn't hard, was it. Just may take some work. How would "they" test speed? To a particular website or raw data throughput measured on an interface?
Would you filter out slow speeds caused by slow computers, bad modems, or other possible customer caused issues?
What if half the node has good speeds and the other half doesn't? | |
|  |  jester121
join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL | Thank God you're not in charge of an ISP. | |
|  | |  |
|
|