Verizon Says They're Embracing P2PAnd is in fact working to make (at least legal) P2P more efficient ( old news - 09:25AM Friday Mar 14 2008) tags: competition · Fileswapping · business · bandwidth · networking · Verizon FIOS · Verizon Online DSLVerizon says they're embracing the use of P2P traffic on their network, and have in fact been working with Yale researchers and P2P developers to make P2P transfers on their network more efficient. Under the banner of the P4P Research Group (pdf), the research has focused on making a protocol that saves transit time by only serving file parts from local peers to reduce hops, according to the Associated Press: In a traditional P2P network, if a Verizon customer downloads a file, only 6.3 percent of the data will come from another Verizon customer in the same city, said Doug Pasko, senior technologist at the company. In the "P4P" trial, 58 percent of the data came from nearby Verizon users, vastly reducing the company's cost of carrying the traffic. Does serving from local peers only reduce the total number of peers? It's not clear, because this is little more than a press release just yet. The full data on their research is set to be revealed this afternoon, but the company pre-briefed CNET, who has more detail on the system, and some pretty bold claims: Verizon broadband subscribers also saw a benefit when the P4P protocol was used. Customers using Verizon's all-fiber network called Fios saw movies downloading on average twice as fast as when they used the traditional P2P software. Some customers saw as much as a 6x improvement in download speeds, Pasko said. Before FiOS users rush to the Pirate Bay to download the latest AXXO release, note that Verizon says they'll only be using this technology for "legit" P2P content distribution. That said, Verizon has stated they won't be blocking or impeding traditional P2P use. The embracing of P2P is a welcome decision in the light of Comcast's effort to throttle upstream P2P traffic (legit or not) and AT&T's decision to implement piracy filters that probably won't work.
Related:- Symmetrical FiOS Will Hit More Markets Monday
- Symmetrical FiOS Expansion Official
- 20% of Comcast Users To See DOCSIS 3.0 in 2008
- AT&T, Verizon Get Their GPON On
- Comcast Tells FCC To Butt Out
- Comcast Gets Investigated While Cox Gets Free Pass
- Time Warner Cable To Start Per-Gigabyte Fee Trial On Thursday
- Was FiOS a Good Idea?
|
 
ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
clubs: | Good news.... That's great to hear and would be even better if I lived in Verizon country.  | |
| |  | russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| Re: Arrrr Matey said by MattE  :It won't be long before the bittorrent client authors figure out how P4P is accomplishing this and enable the option themselves. While Verizon's probably patented their method (everyone patents everything nowadays), it's not hard to count the hops to a destination, or look up the owner of the peer's netblock, or even guess based only on latency. | |
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: Arrrr Matey said by russotto : it's not hard to count the hops to a destination, or look up the owner of the peer's netblock, or even guess based only on latency. Im sure thats patented. Automatic+look up+make determination of efficieny=patent | |
| cahiatt
Premium
join:2001-03-21
Smyrna, GA | I like... It's nice to hear an ISP working on a means to make the traffic more efficient to reduce load versus just trying to cut people off.... | |
| axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Cox HSI
| good idea It sounds like a good way to sidestep network neutrality issues: create an application that people want to use, which favors your network, to replace another application people would want to use, which slows down your network.
The biggest use I could see would be for TV shows; lots of people want to watch them, but the website viewers are kind of slow or low quality. | |
| TIGERON
join:2008-03-11
Pacifica, CA | Go Verizon despite the fact that Verizon DSL is slower than Comcrap, at least Verizon is honest about what they are doing. | |
| 
AbBaZaBbA
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Long Beach, CA
| restrictions? I would also imagine they may restrict excessive uploading to other verizon hosts only. That 15mb upload on fios is HUGE. The problem is that with downloading you are limited by hard drive size and actually having to FIND what you want. But with uploading you can just download one torrent and let it seed for a week and max out your 15mb upload the whole time. | |
| | Tikker_LoS
join:2004-04-29
Regina, SK | Re: restrictions? local bandwidth is almost never the issue, it's the transit/peering costs which cause the ISPs to hate P2P
if it's all done locally, they wouldn't care if you kept your pipe full 24/7 | |
| | | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: restrictions? said by Tikker_LoS :local bandwidth is almost never the issue, it's the transit/peering costs which cause the ISPs to hate P2P if it's all done locally, they wouldn't care if you kept your pipe full 24/7 Maybe they will use Sandvine to make sure you can't peer off the Verizon net. 
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| 
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| Multicast ...has been around for years, handling this exact situation for quite some time. Yet ISPs continue to avoid it, for reasons unknown to mankind.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer. | |
| | 
spamd
Premium
join:2001-04-22
Rockford, IL | Re: Multicast Well with IPTV on the horizon they will have to embrace multi-cast.
--
When everything is coming your way, you are in the wrong lane. | |
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | Re: Multicast No they dont, they can just throttle and point to "upto" clauses in the TOS. | |
| | | | espaeth
Misanthrope
Premium
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | Re: Multicast Multicast IPTV streams would most certainly be separate from the HSI traffic, the same way that MSO VoIP services are segmented off today. | |
| | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | Re: Multicast Yes, but only the "partner" IPTV provider of the telco would get the QOS guarentee/tagging. Net Neutrality here we come. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | Re: Multicast How about a torrent with 300 peers? | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | Re: Multicast Torrents can be streamed, with traditional swarming to make up for lost blocks. Its not rocket science. Only question is, will the power ever allow their holy multicast IPs to land in the hands of consumers? | |
| 
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
·Cruzio Internet
edit:
March 14th, @10:23AM
| Sounds like blocking If they only accept packets from local peers, that effectively makes those packets unavailable for the peers from other networks ...
That is violating network neutrality and stinks of proprietary network technology.
--
Vista ~ Less functional every day! | |
| | 
MattE
Obama '08
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
 ·Corporate Colocation
| Re: Sounds like blocking said by gaforces :If they only accept packets from local peers, that effectively makes those packets unavailable for the peers from other networks ... That is violating network neutrality. The article says in the lab, their torrent received 58% of the total data from local, on-net clients. They're not refusing anything.
This is a brilliant way to avoid net neutrality issues, increase the performance of bittorrent downloads for their end users, and save the ISP money. | |
| | |
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | Re: Sounds like blocking Ok, I'm kind of skeptical of this but I'll withhold further comment till we get more information.
It sounds too good to be true ...
--
Vista ~ Less functional every day! | |
| | | | 
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
·Comcast
| Re: Sounds like blocking said by gaforces :Ok, I'm kind of skeptical of this but I'll withhold further comment till we get more information. It sounds too good to be true ... This was exactly my first response.
My second response: as long as users are free to choose, then who cares? If it's better, users will flock to it. If it's not, then they'll ignore it.
So, TEN THUMBS UP TO VERIZON.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. | |
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| said by MattE :This is a brilliant way to avoid net neutrality issues, increase the performance of bittorrent downloads for their end users, and save the ISP money. What about pirated content? Will this only specific infohases (torrents), or only specific DRMed, proprietary p2p clients controlled by Big Media?
The only thing thats this sounds like it will be used for is WOW updates and other corporations that see p2p as a way to increase their profits by offloading distribution charges (fat internet connections) to others. | |
| | | 
Anon123
@comcast.net
| Comcast uses sandvine not because of peering issues but due to the bandwidth limitations of DOCSIS 1.0/1.1 on the upstream. They would most definitely care if you still saturated your connection since it could potentially impact other subscribers when you eat up all the upstream bandwidth for your node (the traffic still has to go back to the headend and to the ibone...) | |
| | | |
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
| Re: Sounds like blocking said by Anon123 :
Comcast uses sandvine not because of peering issues but due to the bandwidth limitations of DOCSIS 1.0/1.1 on the upstream. BZZT, sorry Mr. Anonymous, but you know that is not true.
Comcast already provisions the modem, and can control the upload speed dynamically (as evidenced by upload PowerBoost).
They use Sandvine because it injects forged packets that make it difficult for consumers to notice that Comcast was not delivering the upload bandwidth that they were obligated to provide. Meanwhile, they could still "appear" to compete with FIOS and DSL when clearly, they they have an inferior product.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. | |
| | | | |
Anon123
@comcast.net
| Re: Sounds like blocking Yes they can control the upload speed up to what 16QAM currently handles (~10mb). But with cable's toplogy you know that 10mb is split across anywhere from 250-1000 homes.
Since CDV requires available upstream bandwidth as well you start to run into a problem with limited resources and want to make sure you're upstream bandwidth isn't being eaten by P2P connections that can sometimes stay connected for days at a time.
When DOCSIS 2.0/3.0 rolls out I think it will be less of an issue since you'll have 3x as much bandwidth per upstream. Some people will probably disagree but there is no throttling on the downstream at this point and new modulation profiles will make the upstreams bandwidth potential look a lot more like the download bandwidths potential. | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
| Re: Sounds like blocking said by espaeth :said by funchords :Comcast already provisions the modem, and can control the upload speed dynamically (as evidenced by upload PowerBoost). Powerboost doesn't adjust the upstream speed in the way you are suggesting. It's a fixed ruleset: Transmit at {x} bits per second for {y} bytes, after which rate-limit to {z} bits per second until traffic falls below {#} bits per second. Right -- but that ruleset is applied at the headend (it has to be, since PowerBoost is enabled based on node conditions as well as individual conditions).
That's why I said what I said. It's sadly ironic. They didn't need Sandvine's injected RST's at all -- they have everything they need to constrict the upload on a spigot-by-spigot basis right at the headend.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. | |
| | | | | | | espaeth
Misanthrope
Premium
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·voip.ms
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Re: Sounds like blocking said by funchords :Right -- but that ruleset is applied at the headend (it has to be, since PowerBoost is enabled based on node conditions as well as individual conditions). I think you're reading too much logic into how it actually works. In order to avoid collisions on the upstream channel, DOCSIS 1.1+ systems use TDMA to dole out time slices to cable modems who request them so that they can transmit. You basically end up with a "bucket" of timeslots to dole out based on the TDMA configuration. The size of each timeslot is a function of the upstream channel capability (9megabit on DOCSIS 1.x systems) divided by the number of timeslots per second the CMTS is capable of jmanaging.
The timeslots in the bucket get divided equally amongst every device requesting a time slot up to the rate limit they are provisioned for. So for Powerboost you will be allowed to grab 2mbps worth of timeslots as long as there are sufficient timeslots in the bucket, and after {x} number of bytes you will be scaled back to a maximum of 384kbps or 768kbps worth of timeslots from the bucket.
Keep in mind that all this is a highly specific instruction set baked into an ASIC to maintain performance. The more complicated the instruction set, the more expensive the ASICs are to produce so network manufacturers try to keep things as simple as possible. The various conditions you refer to really boil down to the two simple resources: free timeslots in the bucket, and the limit of how many timeslots can be allocated to each modem every second. When enough CPE devices start requesting time slots the division of the bucket of resource across all modems is less than the powerboost rate, and can even be less than the non-boost max limit.
said by funchords :That's why I said what I said. It's sadly ironic. They didn't need Sandvine's injected RST's at all -- they have everything they need to constrict the upload on a spigot-by-spigot basis right at the headend. Well, sort of. The "dials and knobs" you have to work with are pretty limited overall on hardware-based network routing equipment. They would pretty much be limited to throttling the speed of the entire pipe as the CMTS doesn't have the smarts to perform the same heuristical analysis as the Sandvine appliance, and there is no way for Sandvine to inject information into the control plane to let the CMTS know which packets to throttle. The interaction would basically need to be the same as the provisioning system that handles establishing the parameters of your connection if you upgrade or downgrade service. So basically they could set it up that if you max your upload for more than {t} amount of time, they will reprovision your upstream connection to {x} kbps. Making that many configuration changes can be risky, and would likely present a greater risk to the overall stability of the network than the current Sandvine implementation. | |
| | | | | | | |
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
| Re: Sounds like blocking said by espaeth :They would pretty much be limited to throttling the speed of the entire pipe as the CMTS doesn't have the smarts to perform the same heuristical analysis as the Sandvine appliance, and there is no way for Sandvine to inject information into the control plane to let the CMTS know which packets to throttle. Last item first: invent one.
As for the rest of the quote -- at that particular moment, do we care that it throttles the speed of a customer's connection? Wouldn't it be more neutral (not to mention less surreptitious, less privacy invasive, more in keeping with Internet Standards) to manage upon an account overall rather than to pick on a protocol in use on the account?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
edit:
March 17th, @03:31PM
| said by espaeth :said by funchords :Right -- but that ruleset is applied at the headend (it has to be, since PowerBoost is enabled based on node conditions as well as individual conditions). I think you're reading too much logic into how it actually works. Absolutely I am -- on purpose. Richard Bennett actually gave me this idea, because he was arguing about the inability for an MSO to dynamically cap or throttle users at the cablemodem end. He totally failed to mention the head-end, which prompted me to ask "what about the head-end?"
In short, his answer was that it could work -- it's just not what happened. Here Comcast (et al) ignored a tremendous opportunity and used Sandvine instead. (I'm still of the thought that Sandvine was some senior-manager's decision and it lacked the consensus of the senior engineers that I know work for Comcast.)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. | |
| | | | | | | | 
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| Blocking is the ISP preventing peers from connecting (a la Comcast). This is a client protocol which seeks out peers which are closest, preferably on the same local network, and is not controlled by ISP packet inspection, spoofing or filtering.
Big difference. Huge in fact. Massive.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
Mr_Northside
@nauticom.net
| Damn Straight It's good to see VZ being proactive to the the whole P2P situation, rather than reactive.
Also in the whole AP story Verizon states quite clearly:
"Verizon does not accept the role of network police agency," the company said.
Now THAT'S what I'm talking about.
Happy to see they've starting rolling out fiber for FiOS in my neighborhood. | |
| 
Lumberjack
Premium
join:2003-01-18
Newport News, VA | Making P2P efficient is like... ... getting a Hummer to run at 80mpg.
--
»www.fairtax.org | |
| 
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs: 
| Why do I get the sense that executives at other isp's are cheering this decision?
It's a bit like citibank saying that they're now welcoming all the nations bank robbers to their banks instead of the competitions.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
| |
See 9 replies to this post | |
ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
clubs: | This will help Comcast.... They won't have to worry about using Sandvine as the p2p's will just cancel and move to FIOS. No network capacity issues when your customers are cancelling their service. | |
| | | | |
ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
clubs:
·ViaTalk
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: This will help Comcast.... said by funchords :said by ptrowski :They won't have to worry about using Sandvine as the p2p's will just cancel and move to FIOS. No network capacity issues when your customers are cancelling their service. You can't get loans to finance upgrades when your revenue is falling like a stone. Very true! Hard to keep spending money rolling out those Docsis 3 upgrades when FIOS cuts into their subscriber base.
Maybe they shuold sue the FCC over the 30% cap. Oh wait... | |
| | | | | kelso
join:2007-04-06
Ashburn, VA
| p4p vs p2p The p4p concept makes sense if your a verizon fios customer.
(accept data with a good upload rate)
But, why would someone else (say a comcast customer) want to run this ?
(turn down a good 2M verizon pipe for a slow 768k comcast pipe)
So, if it's a new protocol, wouldn't it need to be good for everyone? ie, so everyone would want to use it. | |
| 
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
edit:
March 14th, @11:10AM
| The Wolf in Sheep's Clothing Folks, this is simply competition rhetoric designed to hurt Comcast and follow the public relations campaign around gaining market share of broadband.
Do you really think Verizon likes the idea of their content customers (who pay by the Mbps) to move all their distribution to residential CDN p2p system (under a flat fee).
BUT!!!! Verizon MUST GET FIOS MOVING and gain market share and will do this any way possible.
Once they get it, things will change. Bet on it.
My, my Grandma, what big teeth you have...
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik | |
| | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| Re: The Wolf in Sheep's Clothing said by telcolackey :BUT!!!! Verizon MUST GET FIOS MOVING and gain market share and will do this any way possible. Ah yes, competition is a wonderful motivator, isn't it?
That's exactly how it's supposed to work.
As for your "doomsday scenario", I don't Comcast disappearing anytime soon. | |
| |
Meh37
@verizon.net | I don't think Comcast has needed much help to hurt themselves up to now, so they'll probably continue not needing any from Verizon. | |
| 
MikeG
Premium
join:2004-10-02
Hamilton, ON
·Mountain Cable
·Bell Sympatico
| Sandvine The Sandvine system (PPE 8200) already has this ability.
quote:
File-sharing traffic today continues to dominate service provider networks despite earlier suggestions that Peer-to-Peer (P2P) traffic would diminish with emerging online services and ongoing industry pressure. This popular technology has become a mass-market application and remains a key driver for broadband adoption in today’s competitive market. And the application of this technology is now broadening with leading commercial organizations already adopting P2P for legitimate content distribution.
The implication is clear – service providers must use intelligent approaches to manage P2P traffic that preserve the subscriber experience while achieving bandwidth savings. Sandvine’s Intelligent Traffic Management solution meets this important challenge with unique P2P routing technology that:
Reduces transit costs by keeping subscriber P2P traffic within the service provider’s network
Improves the subscriber experience through enhanced P2P performance
»www.sandvine.com/products/p2p_element.asp
--
Success is measured by effort.
Discover Hamilton | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | Re: Sandvine I dont think Comcast has that feature on. | |
| |
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
| MikeG -- yes, but that feature got little interest for buyers. Truth is, if Comcast used it, they might have avoided getting caught.
It still is a bad deal, though. That's like searching Google.com for something and getting your answer back from Comcast.net.
(The forgery involved, however, is freekin' brilliant!)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. | |
| 
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
Gainesville, FL | Here's an idea... And it would work especially well with FIOS.... uncap the upload for Verizon users. That certainly will encourage the traffic to stay local.
--
09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0 | |
| | |
|
|
Arrrr Matey