backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 36 comment(s) - last by cscpianoman.. on Apr 25 at 7:33 PM

Critics question the ISPs' sincerity

Just weeks after announcements of an agreement with BitTorrent and an end to its policy of “data discrimination,” Comcast unfolded plans for a peer-to-peer “Bill of Rights” together with content-delivery firm Pando Networks. The two also announced plans to meet with a number of other ISPs, as well as other P2P firms and industry experts, to draw up specific rules clarifying how users can use P2P applications, and how ISPs can manage that use without overwhelming their networks.

Specifically, the “Bill of Rights” seeks to define what kind of control ISPs have to manage P2P data travelling over their networks, with the outcome set to find agreed-upon industry practices.

The announcement comes amidst what seems to be a general panic amongst ISPs, many of which claim to be overwhelmed by P2P traffic. With traffic surveys reporting figures that are literally all over the place – depending on the survey, P2P traffic comprises of anywhere from 25% to 90% of all internet traffic globally – many ISPs chose to implement systems to control and manage P2P traffic flow.

Last year, Comcast was called out by the Associated Press and forum users at DSLReports.com, who found the company using an aggressive form of traffic management that actively prevented or delayed users’ P2P activity. After the resulting FCC fiasco, late last month Comcast promised to stop the practice, announcing plans to work with BitTorrent, Inc. to make P2P more efficient.

Comcast says it will deploy a test installation of Pando’s Network Aware technology on Comcast’ s fiber-optic backend, in order to better gauge and analyze P2P traffic. Pando says it will conduct similar tests with several other ISPs as well, and while it didn’t give specific names it did say that testing would cover cable, DSL, fiber, and wireless internet providers.

“We hope to get other industry experts, ISPs and P2P companies together this spring and publish the 'P2P Bill of Rights and Responsibilities' later this year,” said Comcast CTO Tony Werner.

Pando CEO Robert Levitan said he hopes to share the gleamed data with ISPs and the P2P community, in order to “learn how to more efficiently deliver digital content.”

While the announcement gathered heavy support from trade groups like the Distributed Computing Industry Association, which represents P2P and social-networking companies, and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, a number of advocacy groups expressed discontent.

“Slick press releases by a dishonest would-be gatekeeper do nothing to protect consumers,” said Marvin Ammori, who serves as the general counsel for media-reform group Free Press. A P2P Bill of Rights works against progress towards true network neutrality, the need of which “remains urgent.” Comcast’s announcement is “little more than the fox telling the farmer, 'I'll guard the henhouse, you can go home.' And that's all the attention it deserves,” he said.

“The The FCC should do its job to uphold the existing bill of rights for consumers and should do so quickly.”

Gigi Sohn, co-founder and president of advocacy group Public Knowledge, called a Comcast-Pando deal “ludicrous,” before noting that Comcast should solve its other problems before it “starts pretending to solve the problems of the internet that it helped to cause.”



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Issue...
By cscpianoman on 4/22/2008 11:19:57 PM , Rating: 5
This isn't an issue of P2P traffic, this is a issue of Comcast and others not updating their infrastructure. I pay for 10Mbps down and I expect it. The amount of data I transfer is my prerogative, not theirs. If they update the network infrastructure, like they should have been doing for years, they shouldn't have a problem.

P2P aside, internet traffic is going to increase whether comcast wants it to or not. There are more people getting connected and thankfully, it appears there is also more competition on the way. (Thank you Verizon) I hope in the next few years this will go by the wayside and we will begin to hit in the 100Mbps up and down.




RE: Issue...
By someguy123 on 4/23/2008 6:23:08 AM , Rating: 2
I just hope people do the smart thing and switch over to other unlimited services if they're available in their area if it really gets out of hand. I'd much rather pay for a slower speed and get what I payed for instead of paying for higher speeds and hoping I'm not throttled. If comcast and other companies using this throttling software don't lose customers they'll just continue to throttle more aggressively until they do so.

right now my area doesn't seem to be getting throttled (getting full download speeds on p2p), but when it does I won't hesitate to demand a refund and leave.


RE: Issue...
By FITCamaro on 4/23/2008 8:19:23 AM , Rating: 3
It's doubtful that they'll lose customers. Because consumers don't have a choice. You get cable or DSL. And generally, even throttled cable is faster than DSL. Sure there are some areas where FiOS is an option. Well, its not really an option its what the neighborhood uses, just happens that almost anyone on FiOS is happy with it.

As long as the current system of government allowed monopolies for an area exist, there will be no competition or choice to go to a different cable company without moving.


RE: Issue...
By clovell on 4/23/2008 11:30:51 AM , Rating: 2
I suppose, then, that you've been stuck at 10 mbps for at least a decade then, eh?

Let's drop the populist propaganda. I'm all for getting what you pay for, but this entire logic is pure garbage. I've seen cable expand quickly in a variety of areas - heck, I remember entire cities with zero cable or dsl that now offer 6-10 mbps service - including many rural areas.

The problem is, assuredly more complex than Big Greedy Company X wants to screw you as much as it can.


RE: Issue...
By cscpianoman on 4/25/2008 7:33:56 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going to disagree with that only on the basis that every company, whether comcast or microsoft, is a greedy entity because that is the nature of business. The only reason they do good things for the customer is to get on everyone's good side so they pay more. If the is a high revenue/cost ratio a company will do whatever it is. Unfortunately for cable companies it takes a lot of money to invest before you see any returns. They also have the advantage of little to no competition and a small media front. The only things you hear about Comcast are the good things they dispel to you on their networks. It takes visiting a techie site before you see the greasy underpinnings of the company. They don't upgrade because they can get away with it. Pure and simple.


RE: Issue...
By dragonbif on 4/23/2008 12:11:03 PM , Rating: 2
I have to tell you all they you are funny ignorance is bliss but it makes you mad anyway. It seems you really do not know how most of your ISP’s work. If you read carefully your terms and agreements you find that you are on a “shared bandwidth” so when you purchase your 10Mbps from cable you share it with all the other users on that section on the network. Do you really think you are going to get the full 10Mbps that costs less then and would be faster then a “dedicated” T1 line? It’s the same for DSL and any fiber company out there; if you do not buy a dedicated line then you are on a shared bandwidth network.

Let me put it to you this way; if you are hogging 1Mbps of the 10Mbps bandwidth and it slows down the other users of that bandwidth (up to 1000 connections) then the ISP has to make sure that the others get equal access by slowing “throttling” you down. That is why ISP does not allow for you to set up a server on this type of network (though some do it anyway) and if you are doing P2P that protocol is for the most part making your computer an ftp sever. So now you have a sort of server running on a network that it is not permissible on so what is the ISP to do? They could cut you off but they would loose customers or, they could just throttle you down and keep you paying and keep their other customers happy. It is a win win for them because they really did not do anything wrong they just slowed down a sort of server and being that server are not allowed they did nothing wrong from their stance.

If you really want to use P2P and not worry about your ISP pissing you off then all you have to do is pay another $100 and get a business dedicated line. Of cores the bandwidth is going to be 1Mbps down and 600Kbps up not that you are ever going to use that much bandwidth. I sure you can get a smaller line if they offer it such as 850Kbps or 475Kbps and that costs less.

In conclusion you have to remember your ISP has to pay for their connection also and for 10Mbps of bandwidth they could be paying $40,000 or more. Then add in the 5 field techs whose pay is $50,000 a year each then the 3 call techs for $30,000 and anything else involved. Updating or increasing their bandwidth may not be any option. They get what lets say 49.99 per user (1000) for 12 months that comes to $599,880 per year. Cut that up with their other expenses and you don’t have much left. Before crying about cost and bandwidth to your ISP you should go after the ones that they get it from such as AT&T and Verison who own most of the bandwidth in the world.


RE: Issue...
By dragonbif on 4/23/2008 12:28:40 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry sorry, I was just told about a few typos in my post…

The first line should be, I have to tell you all that you are funny, ignorance is bliss….

Also that part about a dedicated line, it depends and what your business needs are but your up could be more then your down such as 1Mbps up and 800Kbps down or they both could be the same.


RE: Issue...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/23/2008 7:04:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In conclusion you have to remember your ISP has to pay for their connection also and for 10Mbps of bandwidth they could be paying $40,000 or more. Then add in the 5 field techs whose pay is $50,000 a year each then the 3 call techs for $30,000 and anything else involved. Updating or increasing their bandwidth may not be any option. They get what lets say 49.99 per user (1000) for 12 months that comes to $599,880 per year. Cut that up with their other expenses and you don’t have much left. Before crying about cost and bandwidth to your ISP you should go after the ones that they get it from such as AT&T and Verison who own most of the bandwidth in the world.


And for the coup de gra, numbers being pulled out of thin air to make your argument look more solid. Well played !


RE: Issue...
By dragonbif on 4/23/2008 9:52:18 PM , Rating: 2
LOL where would I get those numbers from? They do not post what people get payed and what people pay for internet is diffrent. I just was saying that the ISP has a limit to the number of poeple it can have on one shared bandwidth and that they have to pay for all of the bandwidth they get from their provider. Just so you know 39.99 is what I pay for my 5Mbps so I just added $10 because 10Mbps is not offered.


RE: Issue...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/24/2008 12:31:22 AM , Rating: 2
ISP's are generally owned / run by multi billion dollar multimedia conglomerates. Your argument, regardless of the accuracy of the numbers, is flawed. The profit margins are several times higher than you are making them out to be.


My P2P "Bill of Rights"
By oab on 4/22/2008 9:11:45 PM , Rating: 1
All internet traffic will be treated equally, and delivered to consumers as the customer wishes.

There are no "tiered speeds", beyond a "global" or "neighbourhood" limit based on total usage (first come, first served system limited only by the hardware that is used at the node), therefore all speeds are (for example) 18mbps, and that might drop depending on usage and, and throttles are applied universally across the node, with no "data discrimination".

The only "cap" that exists, is bandwidth cap that a user might use:

lite = 10gb -------------------- $15
regular = 50gb --------------- $25
heavy = 100gb --------------- $35
maximum = 100gb+ --------- $45
stupidly large = 1500gb+ --- $95

Basically, you only get billed based on the bandwidth you take up. Therefore grandma wouldn't impact the network at all (because looking up a recipe online takes in effect 0 bandwidth, and 0gb transfer), so she gets a $15 at the end of the month. A heavy downloader would obviously use more would get billed accordingly.

Therefore, if you use 20gb one month, you pay $25, 60 the next month you pay $35, and 2 the month after that, you pat $15.

If you want to be *really* generous, unused bandwidth will be "rolled over" to the next month (so, if you use 5gb one month, 5gb the net month, and then use 20gb the third month, you will only pay $15, as you have accumulated 10gb in "credit data transfer" that is applied as soon as you go "over quota".




RE: My P2P "Bill of Rights"
By Fnoob on 4/22/2008 9:22:30 PM , Rating: 4
unused bandwidth will be "rolled over"

BAWwwahahhaaaa!!

I could buy a lottery ticket with better odds of that happening!


RE: My P2P "Bill of Rights"
By oab on 4/22/2008 10:29:51 PM , Rating: 2
AT&T did it with their cell-phone plan, and that had not a single chance of ever happening but then it happened precedent exists in a similar style market of 3 or 4 carriers controlling everything.


RE: My P2P "Bill of Rights"
By Some1ne on 4/22/2008 9:40:31 PM , Rating: 4
1. I think you are saying bandwidth where you mean to say throughput (i.e. "bandwidth cap", "unused bandwidth", etc.).

2. I don't agree. If I pay for a 1.5 Mbps connection from my ISP, I am paying for 1.5 Mbps of bandwidth, and the amount of throughput I realize with that bandwidth is irrelevant, and should not affect my bill. If I pull 1.5 Mbps of content from P2P networks 24/7 with my connection, than that's none of my ISP's business, because their job is to provide the bandwidth (i.e. to give me a 1.5 Mbps link, and to ensure that it is consistently capable of operating at 1.5 Mbps), not the throughput. If that places too much of a strain on their network, then they should increase their network capacity, and raise their prices accordingly to cover the cost of the new infrastructure.


RE: My P2P "Bill of Rights"
By oab on 4/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: My P2P "Bill of Rights"
By joex444 on 4/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: My P2P "Bill of Rights"
By MPE on 4/22/2008 10:22:32 PM , Rating: 2
Do you even know what 'socialist" mean?
You call him a socialist when he just gave you the quintessential capitalist answer to a problem - free market.
Wow!!


RE: My P2P "Bill of Rights"
By oab on 4/22/2008 10:42:26 PM , Rating: 2
"Socialism refers to the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state."

-- From Wikipedia


RE: My P2P "Bill of Rights"
By TomCorelis (blog) on 4/22/2008 10:28:21 PM , Rating: 5
It took years for us to finally reach unlimited service. I'm not prepared to give up my all-you-can-eat buffet.


RE: My P2P "Bill of Rights"
By oab on 4/22/2008 10:41:14 PM , Rating: 2
That's another way for a carrier to stand out from the crowd. Until the Bell fiasco of late in Canada, lots of small resellers had "unlimited usage, 5mbps speed", and it was truly unlimited usage, and they do fairly well for themselves.

ISP's like Teksavvy or Wireless Nomad already have truly unlimited plans, so the market wouldn't be dead (if the FCC had any bollocks to stand up to AT&T/Verizon that is to force re-selling of DSL capabilities).


RE: My P2P "Bill of Rights"
By ZaethDekar on 4/23/2008 5:36:13 PM , Rating: 2
My ISP is giving us 5MB connection with unlimited usage. Also when we had multiple problems the first few months of that connection (We were some of the first on it) we got 6 months of double speed for the same price (due to not many people being on it).

We also only pay about $55 a month. Not too shabby for where I live.


Here's an idea....
By jon1003 on 4/23/2008 1:33:38 AM , Rating: 4
How about just don't oversell your network? Invest in upgrades before rolling out new service or lining your pockets when you can't support it. Pretty simple, but since they have a monopoly on the lines they can do whatever they want.




RE: Here's an idea....
By clovell on 4/23/2008 11:32:59 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly.


ComCRAP-tastic
By aznguy0028 on 4/23/2008 2:32:50 AM , Rating: 2
this is the most BS news i have read in such a long time. an ISP complaining about their networks being overloaded due to P2P. a worthy "lol" indeed. people pay their hard earned cash for a service that they were promised and people would expect to have that service rendered to them regardless of situations. If this Bill of Crap goes through (which i doubt), im switching ISP's.




RE: ComCRAP-tastic
By FITCamaro on 4/23/2008 8:23:08 AM , Rating: 2
To who? DSL? Won't be any faster and won't necessarily be free from throttling either. Do you live in a neighborhood where you have a choice of cable companies?

Besides, this "Bill of Rights" is them wanting all ISPs to agree on standard practices. If all the ISPs agree that throttling is standard practice, eventually all companies will do it.


RE: ComCRAP-tastic
By Golgatha on 4/23/2008 10:14:03 AM , Rating: 2
We need low-latency wireless at 10 Mbps or better for there to be any real competition. At least in KC, MO we have Mediacom, Comcast, and AT&T to choose from.


ISPs and business
By ATWindsor on 4/23/2008 11:50:56 AM , Rating: 2
ISPs are one of the few company-types I know where high demand for the product you are selling are made into a problem, instead of an opportunity.




RE: ISPs and business
By Reclaimer77 on 4/23/2008 7:11:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ISPs are one of the few company-types I know where high demand for the product you are selling are made into a problem, instead of an opportunity.


Awesome point.


Sounds like lipstick on a pig to me.
By Integral9 on 4/24/2008 10:23:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Specifically, the “Bill of Rights” seeks to define what kind of control ISPs have to manage P2P data travelling over their networks, with the outcome set to find agreed-upon industry practices.


Who says they should have any control at all? The last time I checked I was paying for an internet connection at speed, not an internet connection at speed except for protocols x,y, and z.

Once they do this to P2P traffic, what's going to stop them from doing this to the rest of the protocols out there? Who's to decide which protocols and when they should be throttled? I like how to put the perverbial "Lipstick on the Pig" here by calling it a "Bill of Rights" like it's something for the customer when it's purely not.

The problem here is the coaxial network Comcast delivers and as a result of only having two wires, customers have to share bandwidth. But to remain competitive with FIOS, Comcast as oversold their network and as a result of that they have to throttle the traffic. Now they would have us believe it's a problem that encompasses the Internet and not something specific to their network and customers. But in reality the issue will only be resolved when Comcast upgrades its network and it will only be resolved for Comcast. Comcast wants up to believe it a problem with the Internet because they want other ISPs to throttle the traffic as well so they won't have to throttle so much or get the crap sued out of them or loose their customers.

Files are eternally growing larger, network speeds are increasing, content is increasing, HDDs are increasing in capacity and somehow Comcast thinks they can maintain the status quo with their outdated coaxial network.... Fat chance cable guy... fat chance indeed.




By Reclaimer77 on 4/24/2008 1:16:26 PM , Rating: 2
Well said !

I believe in capitalism and the American way. However I realize when all ISP's , or any service for that matter, gets together and decides and agrees upon ways to handle the customer... well nothing good can come of that FOR the customer. Its ethically wrong and it hurts competition. Anyone remember reading Atlas Shrugged ???


A P2P "Bill of Rights" is BS
By amanojaku on 4/22/2008 11:35:34 PM , Rating: 3
Dear ISP;

I'm not paying an Internet Service Provider (ISP) for HTTP access. I'm packing for INTERNET access. I can do what I want as long as it's not illegal (child pornography, hacking, sending malicious packets, downloading illegal $h1t even though we do it anyway, etc...) Available bandwidth isn't MY problem, it's the ISP's . It (yes, "it," not "they") shouldn't give me a pipe that's faster than it can support if every other customer is doing the same.

I don't need a bill of rights to give me what I already have. And if you put that in my ToS I'm dropping you like a hot rock for some other rock.

Sincerely,
Pissed Off




The beginning of the end
By Cheapshot on 4/23/2008 2:32:21 PM , Rating: 3
The fact that this subject is being formally met by Industry leaders to construct boundaries is the first sign of a downward spiral to end users.

Total freedom "for some" to use P2P software how one chooses is the current starting point for this debate. From there we sit back and watch as we lose (fill in the blank/use your imagination) over the coming months/years.

I can't help but think that ISPs are complaining that people are using thier service for what they want to, and not what the ISPs want them to. 25 to 90% of 100% is being used for P2P... well... ok... does that not mean that people want to use the service less for email and more for P2P? ...and why do they really care?

Comcast tells me I have this much BW I can use... ok... its not likely I will exceed that number since comcast controls that limit.

This is like the Virginia DOT saying that the Beltway is used by people going to and from work 90% of the time, and that they would rather them use the road for going to resturants and the movies.




Your bandwith isn't my concern.
By Reclaimer77 on 4/23/2008 6:16:52 PM , Rating: 3
This is why we need formal net neutrality. My ISP's bandwidth problems are not my concern. I'm paying x amount for x amount of bandwidth. In fact most broadband services use the word " unlimited " in black and white on the contract. I know mine is an " unlimited " cable service.

What people don't understand about Net Neutrality is that, since day one of the internet being born, we already had Net Neutrality. The Internet was open and unhindered. Only recently have ISP's started tampering with our data streams. So now, because of these practices, we need formal federalized Net Neutrality.

Are we still driving on one lane dirt roads ? No. Because there are WAY more cars driving and they go much faster. If ISP's are being " overwhelmed " by their consumers use of the service the answer is to EXPAND their networks and bandwidth. Instead they get to maximize their profits by making the customer the bad guy, instead of investing their capitol to meet the demands and growth of the consumer market. Bad economics 101.

This bill of rights is indeed a farce. Its ashame it had to come down to this, but it looks like this is the one area we actually need the government to step in and federalize and formalize a Net Neutrality bill.




Yea right
By FS on 4/22/2008 9:04:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
After the resulting FCC fiasco, late last month Comcast promised to stop the practice , announcing plans to work with BitTorrent, Inc. to make P2P more efficient.


They didn't stop anything, in fact, the others are following their footsteps too which is a sad news for the consumers. http://torrentfreak.com/gazelle-running-on-gazelle...




wtf
By dare2savefreedom on 4/22/2008 9:57:22 PM , Rating: 2
wtf,

They should change their name to comCap

All comcap customers should unite and have a boycott day where
we make true the phrase:

All your hammers are belong to us




go away comcast
By crleap on 4/23/2008 12:36:54 PM , Rating: 2
screw them. why is using the internet how we want a "problem"? They make it sound like 90% of traffic being used for WHAT SUBSCRIBERS WANT TO USE IT FOR is a problem?! That's like pizza hut saying it's a problem if 90% of the people are ordering pizza instead of pasta. Well, maybe that's what we want from what's available?




"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki