h4x0r3d Premium Member join:2003-04-13 Oxford, MS 1 edit |
h4x0r3d
Premium Member
2007-Nov-16 11:20 am
.hmm | |
|
| gaforces (banned)United We Stand, Divided We Fall join:2002-04-07 Santa Cruz, CA
1 recommendation |
gaforces (banned)
Member
2007-Nov-16 11:52 am
Resistance is futileBy the time all these net neutrality issues get worked out in the courts and the FCC, thier efforts of blocking will have been wasted, as it will be circumvented by the internet community.
They waited too long to attack p2p properly, it is now an established protocol used by legal content providers that are in direct competition with the cable networks.
You will be assimilated ... | |
|
W8ASABiet Noi Tieng Viet Khong? join:2000-07-31 Dayton, OH
1 recommendation |
W8ASA
Member
2007-Nov-16 11:21 am
Thorttling? Heh HehSorry, couldn't resist... ISPs have no business forging TCP packets. They're not law enforcement, and forging the packets is just plain wrong. Internet neutrality? What's that? | |
|
| Cabal Premium Member join:2007-01-21
2 recommendations |
Cabal
Premium Member
2007-Nov-16 11:29 am
Re: Thorttling? Heh HehNetwork neutrality doesn't mean network and bandwidth management isn't allowed. | |
|
| | cvrefugee Premium Member join:2003-09-15 Riverside, CA |
cvrefugee
Premium Member
2007-Nov-16 11:32 am
Re: Thorttling? Heh Hehsaid 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. | |
|
| | gatorkramNeed for Speed Premium Member join:2002-07-22 Winterville, NC |
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. | |
|
| | W8ASABiet Noi Tieng Viet Khong? join:2000-07-31 Dayton, OH ·Time Warner Cable
1 recommendation |
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. | |
|
| | | gatorkramNeed for Speed Premium Member join:2002-07-22 Winterville, NC |
gatorkram
Premium Member
2007-Nov-16 11:46 am
Re: Thorttling? Heh Hehsaid 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. | |
|
| | | | W8ASABiet Noi Tieng Viet Khong? join:2000-07-31 Dayton, OH ·Time Warner Cable
|
W8ASA
Member
2007-Nov-16 1:06 pm
Re: Thorttling? Heh HehYou 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. | |
|
| | | | | ieolusSupport The Clecs join:2001-06-19 Danbury, CT |
ieolus
Member
2007-Nov-16 3:06 pm
Re: Thorttling? Heh HehWatch out, you might be accused by the right-wing wackos on this site of socialism, or worse, communism. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: Thorttling? Heh Hehsaid by ieolus:Watch out, you might be accused by the right-wing wackos on this site of socialism, or worse, communism. Nazi. | |
|
| | | pfak Premium Member join:2002-12-29 Vancouver, BC |
pfak to W8ASA
Premium Member
2007-Nov-17 2:15 am
to W8ASA
What if there are no alternatives after you've "fired" your ISP?
What if the only game in town is *insert ISP name here*? | |
|
| | |
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" | |
|
| | | SpaethCoDigital Plumber MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN |
Re: Thorttling? Heh Hehsaid 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. | |
|
| | Thaler Premium Member join:2004-02-02 Los Angeles, CA
1 recommendation |
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. | |
|
| | | |
Re: Thorttling? Heh Hehsaid 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? | |
|
| | | | Thaler Premium Member join:2004-02-02 Los Angeles, CA |
Thaler
Premium Member
2007-Nov-16 3:10 pm
Re: Thorttling? Heh Hehsaid 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. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: Thorttling? Heh Hehsaid 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? | |
|
| | | | | | Thaler Premium Member join:2004-02-02 Los Angeles, CA |
Thaler
Premium Member
2007-Nov-17 1:06 am
Re: Thorttling? Heh HehQuality of Service. Network matinence rather implies a matinance (or improvement) of service quality. How disconnections/interference/forging somehow maintains and/or increases the quality of the service is beyond me. | |
|
| | | | | | | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2007-Nov-17 9:26 am
Re: Thorttling? Heh HehManagement, not maintenance | |
|
| | | | | SpaethCoDigital Plumber MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN |
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. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: Thorttling? Heh Hehsaid by SpaethCo: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. | |
|
| | | | | | |
to SpaethCo
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? | |
|
| | | | | | | SpaethCoDigital Plumber MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN |
Re: Thorttling? Heh Hehsaid by TheBarbarian: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. | |
|
| | |
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. | |
|
| | b10010011Whats a Posting tag? join:2004-09-07 united state 2 edits |
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? | |
|
| dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come Premium Member join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ |
to W8ASA
said by W8ASA:Sorry, couldn't resist... ISPs have no business forging TCP packets. They're not law enforcement, and forging the packets is just plain wrong. Internet neutrality? What's that? If they cripple the apps using the most bandwidth then the providers don't have to maintain their networks and more profit goes to them pockets! | |
|
| KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to W8ASA
i think the world is still under the illusion that P2P is only for piracy.
it should be noted that the largest use of legal P2P in the world atm is probally the WoW Patcher which is really just BT in a fancy dress. | |
|
|
Free RideI'm just waiting for FiberIdiot to reply how much he hates Vuze getting a free ride on ISP's backs. | |
|
| FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ
2 recommendations |
FFH5
Premium Member
2007-Nov-16 11:30 am
Re: Free Ridesaid by Enlightener:I'm just waiting for FiberIdiot to reply how much he hates Vuze getting a free ride on ISP's backs. I'll substitute for him. Vuze is just trying to provide their product while limiting the costs of providing traditional servers and the associated bandwidth costs. And they use P2P because that way they can transfer those costs to the ISPs. Their request to the FCC is just their way of getting the government to enforce their extortionate demands. | |
|
| | gatorkramNeed for Speed Premium Member join:2002-07-22 Winterville, NC
1 recommendation |
gatorkram
Premium Member
2007-Nov-16 11:33 am
Re: Free RideBoth them, and their end users, are paying someone for the bandwidth they are using. Both should be able to use it how they wish. | |
|
| | | |
Re: Free RideBut if it were standard servers they would be paying much more for their bandwidth. | |
|
| | |
to FFH5
I would argue that P2P should be seen as a good thing for ISP's. If the protocol can account for transaction cost, members of a swarm within an ISP can trade packets locally without having to have backbone long haul traffic. | |
|
| | | ••••••••••••••••••••• |
| | dadkinsCan you do Blu? MVM join:2003-09-26 Hercules, CA 4 edits
1 recommendation |
to FFH5
Paid videos even. |
said by FFH5:said by Enlightener:I'm just waiting for FiberIdiot to reply how much he hates Vuze getting a free ride on ISP's backs. I'll substitute for him. Vuze is just trying to provide their product while limiting the costs of providing traditional servers and the associated bandwidth costs. And they use P2P because that way they can transfer those costs to the ISPs. Their request to the FCC is just their way of getting the government to enforce their extortionate demands. I'm paying for my connection, download *AND* upload - nothinhg HERE is getting a free ride! MANY Open Source softwares also use this method of delivery. Are they to suffer also? » torrent.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/» torrent.fedoraproject.org/Yeah, BT is all piracy... huh? *ALL* BT uploads are abuse. WoW Patch anyone? VUZE - Free Legal, and paid Legal, media delivered by way of distributed bandwidth - great idea! I download xxxMB HD video from 20? 100? peers and each only has to upload a small portion(makes so they're all off their network(s) sooner) is bad? I have that same Legal file available for others to get *PARTS* of is not going to kill the network! It's not like I will be uploading the whole multi-hundred MB thing to hundreds or thousands(millions?) of peers... 1:1 is fair. 1:1 can be accomplished rather easily - without trashing my upload. BUT, with Sandvine, many will have to suffer - even people NOT on Comcast(those peers on other ISPs wanting parts from me/us) because I cannot upload these Legal items. This whole Sandvine BS is getting stupid! EDIT: Another point that Sandvine is damaging(Yeah! Damaging!): Many people/trackers will cut you off for not uploading. Look! I like getting items fast. No! I do NOT want to get cut off from fast LEGAL files! Killing off the paid files via BT... Just might persuade some to go a less legal route to get things, huh? | |
|
| | ThespisI'm not an actor, but I play one on TV. Premium Member join:2004-08-03 Keller, TX |
to FFH5
And they use P2P because that way they can transfer those costs to the ISPs users who pay for the bandwidth. Fixed that for you. ISP's don't want to just sell bandwidth, they want to oversell bandwidth. If everybody actually uses what they pay for, that business model crumbles... | |
|
| | | jester121 Premium Member join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL
1 recommendation |
Re: Free RideSo you'd cut off your nose to spite your face? The logical conclusion of not overselling is $100+/month broadband service.
I'll live without BT, thanks very much. | |
|
| | funchordsHello MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA
1 recommendation |
to FFH5
said by FFH5:...they use P2P because that way they can transfer those costs to the ISPs. Ummm, no. It's the customer's bandwidth. The customer has paid for it (usually in advance). They are transferring the costs to the customer, and the customer is willing to do this in exchange for lower prices on the product. This is why Skype is so inexpensive (often free)! | |
|
| | | |
asdfdfdfdfdf
Anon
2007-Nov-18 1:26 pm
Re: Free RideExactly. Costs are not being forced onto the isp, they are being willingly borne by the users of vuze, who are paying the isp for their transport.
Thankfully there are a number of people on this thread who understand this.
Perhaps HCT is willing to explicitly admit that it isn't copyright infringement, but rather a general contempt for the whole idea of peer to peer networking, that is motivating him? | |
|
| fiberguy2My views are my own. Premium Member join:2005-05-20
2 recommendations |
to Enlightener
said by Enlightener:I'm just waiting for FiberIdiot to reply how much he hates Vuze getting a free ride on ISP's backs. Why don't you eat the peanuts from me behind.. | |
|
|
A novel way to fix the problem!Rather then use Sandvine to steal bandwidth from paying customers, so you can give more of it it to those living in areas where FIOS exists, why not IMPROVE YOUR NETWORK?
It's a well known fact that the cable companies give their subscribers that live in areas where FIOS is available MUCH faster speeds.
With taxes and fees, I pay well over 50 bucks a month for my Internet. That's more then I pay for electric, gas, telephone, trash pick up and cable TV. That's the HIGHEST utility charge I pay!
Yet, companies like Comcast want to give me LESS, while at the same time constantly raising my rates.
If you weren't the only game in town for me, I'd drop you in a second! | |
|
| •••••••••••••••••••• |
|
What next????Get the FTC to prohibit buisness and airlines form cutting off passengers who are too drunk. To me if one not can live by the TOS, tough luck. I do fault Comcast on one thing, the need to stop pulling punches. I I was CEO of comcast I Put the Hammer Down on Peer to peer. I make crystal clear to use comcast HSI one need to abide by the TOS if the net is being degraded by your upload we going to put limits on upload. If you can't live by the TOS comcast will come a pull the cable. Comcast have the right to refuse service to anybody. | |
|
| ••••••••••••••••• |
|
advertising issues"So will the FCC do anything? Probably not...FCC majority has made it clear that anything outside of a total traffic blockade will be considered "reasonable network management." I agree that the FCC will do nothing. However, I believe that Comcast & Cox could be slammed by the FTC. They do no advertise that they will interfere with network traffic. A Comcast commercial has little mice running around at super speed, I don't see them being interfered with. Leave the lines alone. | |
|
|
anomynous
Anon
2007-Nov-16 2:32 pm
so, ignore the aborts??Was just sitting here wondering if I could get my linux based NAT/router to simply drop/ignore the aborts...
Or better yet, do 'something' in response to an abort to try to determine if it was 'spurious' or real... | |
|
| SpaethCoDigital Plumber MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN |
Re: so, ignore the aborts??said by anomynous :
Was just sitting here wondering if I could get my linux based NAT/router to simply drop/ignore the aborts... Every single person running the file sharing client would need to do so, since the resets are sent in both directions. You'd also break normal application functionality in the process of blocking RST marked packets via iptables. | |
|
|
Zork
Anon
2007-Nov-16 2:33 pm
Vuze Wants FCC To Act On ISP P2P ThrottlingI am the network administrator for a small wireless ISP and we made the decision to block P2P after getting slapped with seize and desist letters from Microsoft and the MPAA in less then a week. I have no problem with P2P, but I'm not going to fight Microsoft. Regardless of the decision P2P will stay blocked until ISP's are shielded from corporate lawyers. | |
|
| ••••• |
TheMG Premium Member join:2007-09-04 Canada MikroTik RB450G Cisco DPC3008 Cisco SPA112
|
TheMG
Premium Member
2007-Nov-16 3:29 pm
Band-aid solution.Throttling P2P traffic is only a band-aid solution to cover up a problem caused not by P2P but by the ISP itself.
The real solution would be for ISPs to improve their infrastructure to support higher network loads, stop over-subscribing bandwidth, stop giving more speed increases than they can really handle, and set soft caps with over-usage rates that are automatically added to the bill.
Unfortunately all they seem to care about is $$$$$$$$$$$$. Rather than being honest and providing a high quality service they try to push every penny they can out of what network they have.
That's what I like about TekSavvy (Canadian DSL provider). Their prices are fair, network is not over-subscribed, they are up-front about anything they do. Their prices and bandwidth caps (200GB for premium service) are well calculated so the customers and the ISP are in a win-win situtation. Sure, their profits are not exorbitantly high unlike the "big players", but they value customer satisfaction over anything else. If only all ISPs could be like that... | |
|
Ignite Premium Member join:2004-03-18 UK |
Ignite
Premium Member
2007-Nov-16 7:20 pm
Bitcaps AND Throttling?What kind of crappy ISP both tells you how much data you can use and decides on the manner in which you may use your data up to this cap?
Absolutely pathetic, I've no major issues with ISPs throttling, or with them applying bitcaps. I do however think it's cheap and pathetic both applying a bitcap then restricting how customers can reach it.
Ridiculous. | |
|
| |
Re: Bitcaps AND Throttling?If they are complaining about bandwidth so much why do they sell user unlimited packages? Sell a variety of speed packages with a unlimited upload and download. Why lie to the customer and tell them you get 10mb connection with unlimited data uploads/downloads then cut them off since they exceded an acceptable amount of use? Why do you think webhosting site have a unlimited amount of traffic? In which the customer who signed up for this plan understands its terms before they paid for it. | |
|
ReformCRTCSupport Your Independent ISP join:2004-03-07 Canada |
dumb pipeWhy can't the ISPs just stick to being a dumb pipe? | |
|
|
|