Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA | reply to W8ASA
Re: Thorttling? Heh Heh
Network neutrality doesn't mean network and bandwidth management isn't allowed. |
|
cvrefugee
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Corona, CA
| said by Cabal  :Network neutrality doesn't mean network and bandwidth management isn't allowed. Then the ISPs should be upfront about their practices so consumers have a choice. |
|
gatorkram
Spelling and Grammer impared
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
clubs:
 ·Embarq
 ·linode
| reply to Cabal
said by Cabal :Network neutrality doesn't mean network and bandwidth management isn't allowed. Most ISPs in this boat, also have data useage caps in place. It seems to me, they should wait for those caps to be broken before they start blocking users from any particular program, or protocol, or activities.
It seems to me, they want to say they have good caps, and then in the hidden shadows, they block what they think is a small and quiet minority, who wouldn't dare shine the light of day in their own direction.
Looks like they were wrong.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 |
|
W8ASA
Tieng gi vay?
join:2000-07-31
Dayton, OH
clubs:
 ·magicjack.com
·AT&T Midwest
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Vonage
| reply to Cabal
I think that if a customer purchase a certain bandwidth/speed, then he should be allowed to use that speed. Of course, speeds will vary as more users are online on a particular node (like cable in the evenings), but an ISP should NEVER throttle a user on purpose. If I ever became aware that my connection was being throttled (no, I never abuse it, by the way), I would immediately fire my ISP. I've paid for the speed: Now, let me use it.
--
Microwave and RF Components at www.ohiomicrowave.com |
|
gatorkram
Spelling and Grammer impared
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
clubs:
·Embarq
·linode
| said by W8ASA :I think that if a customer purchase a certain bandwidth/speed, then he should be allowed to use that speed. Of course, speeds will vary as more users are online on a particular node (like cable in the evenings), but an ISP should NEVER throttle a user on purpose. If I ever became aware that my connection was being throttled (no, I never abuse it, by the way), I would immediately fire my ISP. I've paid for the speed: Now, let me use it. Sadly, firing your isp isn't always a good option. Taking your money and running just saves you, but leaves everyone back there to suffer.
A lot of people in this world act like this. Save themselves, everyone else be damned. It might even be human nature.
Sometimes I think we need to stand and fight for the better good of everyone. I think this is one of those issues.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 |
|
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou | reply to Cabal
If they can forge a RST packet, then they can set BT traffic to a low priority, yet still let it pass "per protocol"
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: |
|
W8ASA
Tieng gi vay?
join:2000-07-31
Dayton, OH
clubs:
·magicjack.com
·AT&T Midwest
·RoadRunner Cable
·Vonage
| reply to gatorkram
You make an excellent point, and I agree with you. Running only solves the short-term problem. Standing together as a group of millions of users worldwide might get more attention - if indeed this affects that many.
I don't know how widespread this actually is, and I suppose there is no way to find out.
--
Microwave and RF Components at www.ohiomicrowave.com |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to Cabal
said by Cabal :Network neutrality doesn't mean network and bandwidth management isn't allowed. I wasn't aware faking data packets and purposefully disconnecting your customers fell under the realm of management. |
|
LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06
Felton, DE
| said by Thaler :said by Cabal :Network neutrality doesn't mean network and bandwidth management isn't allowed. I wasn't aware faking data packets and purposefully disconnecting your customers fell under the realm of management. Well, what would you consider management?
--
Fighting on the Internet is like winning the Special Olympics. Win or lose, your still Retarted! |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to DaSneaky1D
said by DaSneaky1D :If they can forge a RST packet, then they can set BT traffic to a low priority, yet still let it pass "per protocol" That would only be true if the inspection probes were in-line, which they most likely are not. The typical deployment scenario would be to mirror key infrastructure ports to the Sandvine probe and allow it to inject packets out of band. Since the probe is not part of the data path it can't throttle the traffic in the method you are suggesting. |
|
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | reply to W8ASA
Watch out, you might be accused by the right-wing wackos on this site of socialism, or worse, communism.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to LeftOfSanity
said by LeftOfSanity :Well, what would you consider management? Probably anything else that doesn't degrade your customer's connection. Farking with their data doesn't exactly scream "Quality of Service" to me. |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to Cabal
I think you are walking a very fine line on that statement.
What if they did this "management" to stop or slow data because it competes with them? Say they have a search portal they want you to use so if you try to go else where they "manage" your traffic so your experience is not what it should be. What about a voice service?
They can interfere with any packet they so choose and call it "management". Sure we can call it management as dropping every 3rd packet at the headend will create a lot less traffic wouldn't it? Point being is that the word management can be just as abused as the word "unlimited". And flat out forging packets to accomplish "management" is wrong regardless of the reason for it.
If they want to "manage" their network then it is an ALL packet management scheme or none. And to do that withoout saying one packet is more important than another. If they can't handle the bandwidth during peak times and that is why they need to manage it, then EVERYONE should be throttled to X kbps (or X %) during peak times. If they want to "manage" the amount of bytes you can download a month per caps then EVERYONE should have that limit until a fair and reasonable throttling occurs on your account. But even then no outright blocking. |
|
LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06
Felton, DE
| reply to Thaler
said by Thaler :said by LeftOfSanity :Well, what would you consider management? Probably anything else that doesn't degrade your customer's connection. Farking with their data doesn't exactly scream "Quality of Service" to me. Define QoS then? |
|
LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06
Felton, DE
| reply to ieolus
said by ieolus :Watch out, you might be accused by the right-wing wackos on this site of socialism, or worse, communism. Nazi. 
--
Fighting on the Internet is like winning the Special Olympics. Win or lose, your still Retarted! |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to Thaler
said by Thaler :[Probably anything else that doesn't degrade your customer's connection. Farking with their data doesn't exactly scream "Quality of Service" to me. QoS is about differential queuing of traffic. When prioritizing access to a finite resource something has to lose. |
|
LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06
Felton, DE
| said by espaeth :said by Thaler :[Probably anything else that doesn't degrade your customer's connection. Farking with their data doesn't exactly scream "Quality of Service" to me. QoS is about differential queuing of traffic. When prioritizing access to a finite resource something has to lose. My point exactly.
--
Fighting on the Internet is like winning the Special Olympics. Win or lose, your still Retarted! |
|
Jigglyware
Gelatin based computing
join:2006-01-09
Kenosha, WI | reply to espaeth
True, but I would hope losing in the QoS sense would be equivalent to being put on hold for the next available operator, not being hung up on.
Guess how the cable companies are handling it? |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| said by Jigglyware :True, but I would hope losing in the QoS sense would be equivalent to being put on hold for the next available operator, not being hung up on. The important factor here is that the application they are sending resets to deals with the disconnect gracefully. Peer to peer file sharing programs have sessions constantly opening and closing as they transit various chunks of the content. Just like lost/discarded TCP packets are retransmitted, closed sessions will eventually attempt to reestablish if they are still seeking content.
- They're not shutting down your download connection sessions (except if the upload comes from one of their subscribers with the limited upload pipe)
- Upstream sessions are left alone while you're downloading so you can maintain a reasonable ratio
- After you go into pure seeding then a portion of your sessions are pruned to minimize the impact on the network as you sit in "infinite upload" mode.
If this were a single TCP session like an HTTP transfer or FTP transfer then all of these "getting hung up on" analogies would be more suited. For P2P file sharing apps the disconnect is non-fatal and doesn't result in transfers that have taken place before the disconnect being scrapped / unusable. |
|
b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA
·Comcast Formerly ..
2 edits | reply to Cabal
said by Cabal :Network neutrality doesn't mean network and bandwidth management isn't allowed. I am ok with network and bandwidth management, if a user is consuming excessive bandwidth, then cut that user off.
Blocking a protocol is just plain stupid, because there are plenty of legitimate uses for any protocol just as there are plenty if illegitimate uses for more "standard protocols" like HTTP and FTP.
So what is next?
Are they going to block FTP? (I can download plenty of pirate programs and movies from FTP sites)
Only allow you to access certain web sites via HTTP? (I know a few websites that have direct HTTP downloads of full apps and movies)
This is the direction we are heading.
Is this what you want? |
|
