Faggot ISPs throttling bandwidth (nothing new)

[Harrison]

http://broadband.mpi-sws.de/transparency/

The goal of our Glasnost project is to make access networks, such as residential cable, DSL, and cellular broadband networks, more transparent to their customers.

ISPs are increasingly deploying a variety of middleboxes (e.g., firewalls, traffic shapers, censors, and redirectors) to monitor and to manipulate the performance of user applications. Most ISPs do not reveal the details of their network deployments to their customers. We believe that this knowledge is important to help users make a more informed choice of their ISP. Further, such knowledge is also useful for researchers designing protocols and systems that run on top of these networks.

Everyone knows Comcast does it, most U.S. providers are...

[Drem]

So what are you gonna do about it?

[Harrison]

It doesn't affect me. (yet) It just pisses me off. This that "little" net neutrality issue that I HOPE you've even caught wind of. If not, stop wasting my time.

http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html

I suppose spreading awareness where possible. Contributing to the data collection etc. is all I really can do.

[Tikker]

http://broadband.mpi-sws.de/transparency/

The goal of our Glasnost project is to make access networks, such as residential cable, DSL, and cellular broadband networks, more transparent to their customers.

ISPs are increasingly deploying a variety of middleboxes (e.g., firewalls, traffic shapers, censors, and redirectors) to monitor and to manipulate the performance of user applications. Most ISPs do not reveal the details of their network deployments to their customers. We believe that this knowledge is important to help users make a more informed choice of their ISP. Further, such knowledge is also useful for researchers designing protocols and systems that run on top of these networks.

Everyone knows Comcast does it, most U.S. providers are...

that whole thing you quoted is just full of lolz

[Harrison]

Because you're one of the faggots sucking on the dick of the beast.

[Tikker]

no, my company doesn't do any of the throttling, nor do we have bandwidth caps, or over subscribed network


the lolz are referring to the complete lack of knowledge displayed by the original article, and well, you

[Harrison]

Yeah, it's a widely known issue that people just made up out of thin-air all this time! That's it!

[Gaazy]

Why bother caring. theres absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. fuck, I dont even know what it means and I cant see myself caring enough to try to understand what it means

[Drem]

Why bother caring. theres absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. fuck, I dont even know what it means and I cant see myself caring enough to try to understand what it means

Pretty much. My whole point was that. If you not gonna change it, don't whine about it. Nobody cares and obviously you're not gonna be able to do anything about it. Why waste the energy /shrug

[Harrison]

Hey, just let the world crumble around you. We're all going to die anyways.

[Tikker]

Yeah, it's a widely known issue that people just made up out of thin-air all this time! That's it!

no, you're missing the point

you don't actually know fuck all about networking at that level, and clearly the guy writing the article doesn't either

[Arlos]

Which article are you referring to, the one from Google supporting Net Neutrality, or the original one with tools of uncertain purpose? 'Cause there wasn't much "article" there in either case, honestly.

If it's Net Neutrality, remember I'm in favor of it (along with most of Google's hierarchy, basically), and you know my qualifications better than anyone else here.

-Arlos

[Tikker]

I'm not against net neutrality either

it's just when I hear people whining about policing and shaping of traffic when they really don't know exactly what it is that makes me giggle

[ClakarEQ]

I do not believe that net neutrality is possible. The prioritization of voice in of itself contradicts net neutrality and to put data traffic as a peer to voice would make VoIP systems perform poorly.

All you folks running your VoIP via your broadbands are in fact part of the reason why net neutrality will fail. So, out of you "educated folks" who is running VoIP at home?

The moment you VoIP users can't complete a call with near perfect quality like our old POTS lines, you'll bitch up a storm, and in that bitch session, what you will be saying is fuck net neutrality, put my voice traffic on the top and fuck all that other data. Once you "control" one aspect of the bandwidth, you are forced to control and LIMIT all aspects.

You will see as time goes on, net neutrality was dead before it started and our lust to implement technology before fully understanding its impact is our own failure.

I know what I'll get flamed with, but net neutrality is about saying site ABC is equal to site XYZ even though site XYZ generates 123 in cash, or who knows what. What this is really about is control of bandwidth and putting priority on what the supplier feels is important to their paying base. Today I'd say some of that is VoIP, tomorrow it could be streaming HD content, at the end of the day, it will be the un-educated broadband subscriber that will gladly throw away neutrality for the sake of watching The Family Guy when and where they want and/or to get cheap voice plans.

I think the ISP's have been doing market analysis on this for years. For example, DVR's, all you DVR lovers, IMO you are again part of the problem. Don't think for a minute that the "vision" was to actually keep DVR's in your homes, that was the drug dealer giving you a taste. I can promise you the intent was to generate money and statistics. These numbers will be used as a case against neutrality, why have a DVR at all when you can just go "On Demand" and stream the content from the provider directly. How can we supply all this wonderful content without controls and prioritization. How can we say John Doe doing a google search on a forgiving protocol is equal to Bob Smith streaming video that is unforgiving and required to have priority. DVR's and those that bought them fell into the "machine" and they didn't even know it.

This goes back to my point of people just accepting technology without the vision to see where it can go. This is why I don't have a DVR, VoIP, etc. Not all technology is a good thing.
/ramble off

[Tikker]

I don't think you're really on point clakar


net neutrality isn't really about comparing VoIP to P2P. that falls more under QoS

net neutrality would be more ISP_A prioritizing their VoIP traffic, but penalizing Vonage's VoIP traffic

this is really a 40 hour, week long discussion, but in general shaping and policing are just mechanisms to grade different types of traffic, and prioritize 1 class over another in cases of link congestion

what comcast (and some others) are doing in regards to P2P isn't shaping or policing. it's a complete other mechanism

[ClakarEQ]

I hear you but the excuses these companies will use are to the points I made. You, I, and several others here I'm sure do understand there is a difference between neutrality and shaping/prioritizing etc, however this is a very small minority, not just "here" but across the globe. I believe the ISP's will keep this area as grey as possible and use excuses like VoIP, streaming HD content, paying consumer majorities, etc all as pressure points to convince the GOV that NN is just not realistic.

If you prioritize any access or service you are throttling and controlling all others and the net effect is that once this is done, the sites and traffic can no longer be peers. So neutrality would be impossible. That is why I said NN was dead before it started.

As for Vonage vs Comcast re: VoIP, unless they place "vonage" in there IP packets I have a hard time believing that is reasonable. I know they could gather up all the IP ranges Vonage owns and just dump that range in a low priority bucket but that seems pretty fetched (possible though). That is an aspect of NN that I didn't recognize. I understood it as reduced priority not killing it altogether. Again I thought it was allowing traffic the ISP deems is important and throttling (or disallowing per your point) traffic it feels is not important. Johnny can get to his Comcast e-mail but porn.com just "LAGS and LAGS".

The disallowing part IMO would never happen and I don't know if that would be legal. Forcing Vonage to pay Comcast "tariffs" yes I can see that and the net result there is bad bad bad for the consumer.

What P2P has any ISP actually completely stopped? I wasn't aware of any except an attempt by comcast that was reversed (re: bittorents), perhaps I've misunderstood how far things have already gone.

[Tikker]

If you prioritize any access or service you are throttling and controlling all others and the net effect is that once this is done, the sites and traffic can no longer be peers. So neutrality would be impossible. That is why I said NN was dead before it started.

I don't disagree with that in general, but that's what happens in the case of congestion(ie, that's what shaping and policing are). what harrison and some others are whining about is companies artificially degrading certain traffic

As for Vonage vs Comcast re: VoIP, unless they place "vonage" in there IP packets I have a hard time believing that is reasonable.

why, it's not hard to do. you know where your VoIP traffic comes from, you just degrade all other VoIP with a simple access-list

What P2P has any ISP actually completely stopped? I wasn't aware of any except an attempt by comcast that was reversed (re: bittorents), perhaps I've misunderstood how far things have already gone.

they don't actually stop P2P but basically forge retransmit packet and send them back to the source
they're essentially just exploiting how TCP works