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).