Slashdot Mirror


Will Providers Provide Equally?

theodp writes "Imagine the chaos if your power company could take money from Sony so that its appliances got a higher quality of juice - and thus worked a tad better - than those of Mitsubishi. The power system wasn't built that way, but ISPs have that very capability. It may seem like a dodgy competitive tactic, but Yankee Group analysts envision that broadband network providers could give precedence to their own revenue-generating services, possibly leading to the demise of the biggest VoIP player today, Vonage."

15 of 237 comments (clear)

  1. Getting around it... by PacketCollision · · Score: 5, Informative

    It seems to me that all one would have to do to get around this is to use SSL. ISPs wouldn't be able to lower the priority of such communications without affecting many other applications, such as VPNs. They could still do it based on IP, but not if the providers of a service used some large provider like Akamai.

    Anyway, regardless of whether it could be circumvented, and at what cost, the implication is still a further push away from the original spirit of the internet towards a network that is solely a means of extracting as much revenue from consumers as possible. I just wish it were more realisitc to create an ad-hoc network with all my friends...and their friends, etc. I think some day that is what the tech community will be forced to turn to someday, in order to retain the usability we have come to cherish.

    Of couse keeping this theoretical peer network free and uncommercial would be very tough, if it got popular. Call me paranoid, but I'm looking into affordable methods of connecting my friends directly together, using wireless technology and encryption.

    1. Re:Getting around it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      They could do it based on MAC address, different manufacturers have different allocations of MAC addresses.

    2. Re:Getting around it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      We can thank DEC for this almost ubiquotous feature on almost any network card. I believe it had to do with MAC addresses needing to be specifiable for the hardware, thus you had to be able to set the MAC address when swapping out a card, otherwise much pain ensued. Then you've got companies like Sun who set all the ethernet interfaces to be the same mac address on a machine based on the hostid. (type hostid, then run ifconfig to look at your mac address.. notice anything similar?).

    3. Re:Getting around it... by GPLDAN · · Score: 4, Informative

      Masking VOIP inside IPSEC or SSL would ultimately be pointless. In addition to the added latency of software encryption/decryption, you'd lose some functionality of VOIP, like the ability to transfer a call.

      Lots of people use H.323 and SIP and proprietary codecs and signalling. What is Comcast gonna do, hunt it all down and throw it in a low queue? With Teamspeak, you can just switch port numbers, foiling that.

      I see no legal difference between taking a competitors traffic and putting in a low queue, and simply blocking Vonage's entire IP range for the PSTN gateways totally. Poof, end of competition. The effect is the same, why not just be explicit and target individuals?

    4. Re:Getting around it... by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2, Informative

      OK first off MAC addresses are not seen outside your local segment unless a braindead protocal inserts them in the data portion of the packet. Corp envirnments can do QoS based upon mac they can even do vlan based upon mac but thats only because people dont have routers sitting in there cube to protect them from there corperate network in general. Your ISP cant and shouldent be able to look past your firewall and thats a good thing.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    5. Re:Getting around it... by slash-tard · · Score: 3, Informative

      To be most effective VOIP needs low latency, small packets, and low packet loss. It works best when you use QOS to to help the traffic have a higher priority.

      If comcast uses QOS for there own VOIP service then they will already have an advantage over anyone else on that same network. Calls will sound better, have less dead air and less echo. Using QOS also means you can still run your bittorrent session or ftp download and your voice packets arent going to be dropped.

  2. Power companies do this already by Moooo+Cow · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Imagine the chaos if your power company could take money from Sony so that its appliances got a higher quality of juice - and thus worked a tad better - than those of Mitsubishi"

    Actually, our local utility, BC Hydro does this already. They have lower rate schedules if you are a customer willing to be interruptible during peak demand. So, some commercial and industrial customers here do indeed have a "higher quality of juice" than others.

    --
    Slashdot is entertaining like pro wrestling is entertaining
  3. While a potential problem, not likely by CharlieHedlin · · Score: 3, Informative

    What is likely is that the cable companies phone service will work better anyways.

    While their phone service is going to be IP based, it isn't going to be Internet based.

    I live in an area where it is being beta tested, and I understand they are using an ATA with an integrated cable modem that installs at the phone box. This would allow them to tie into your wiring, provide real 911 service (the box isn't portable enought that you are likely to take it anywhere) etc.. It will use a diferent private addressing scheem and QOS end to end on their own gateway. Chances are it will use bandwith allocated seperately from the actual cable modems, so there should be no impact to other services such as Vonage or Broadvoice.

    For them not to do this would be crazy. They are going to be trying to take on the Bells, and while Vonage is great for geeks, I can cause it to break up with heavy file transfers.

    On the other side, the cable companies service which is currently being advertised is somewhere well in between the Vonage and SBC pricing.

  4. well, the carriers are doing it for the pipes now by swschrad · · Score: 3, Informative

    that Da ISH is built from, and there will be more classifications. you want higher priority, you pay more. there are multiple names for service priority, MPLS on ethernet, CBR/VBR/VBRnt on ATM, service levels on frame relay if a carrier implements them -- but it's real.

    ISPs buy what they want, and if it's not a dedicated point-to-point circuit, they are usually buying traffic-interruptable service like VBRnt or frame. remember, the Internet is best-attempt by definition already, and YOUR software has to deal with anything other than sequential packets sent at a constant rate of speed. you don't like that, stay on POTS, or upgrade your software.

    if you want PRIORITY service, with MPLS on the switching/routing end and higher classes of service like CBR availiable for a sub-circuit of an ISP's T3 to an upline, for instance, that can become possible quite easily. it gets more complicated if you want it beyond an ISP's reach, but it can be done sometime as soon as agreements are reached to allow it.

    the Bells are offering or tarriffing to offer such priority VoIP services now. for the Internet to offer it, you will need to have a protocol approved by IETF for it. propose or lobby against over there.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  5. Re:More dumb analysis by the Yankee group. by jonbrewer · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm not paying them to mess with my connection to their own advantage. If they started doing this I'd be on my way to another provider in a heartbeat.

    Really? Well, go read Norton's "The Art of Peering - The Peering Playbook" to see how providers mess with your connection to their advantage on a pretty regular basis.

    Good luck finding a provider that doesn't either a.) play this game themselves or b.) purchase wholesale bandwidth from an upstream who plays

  6. It's already happening by psoriac · · Score: 3, Informative

    Currently, the major backbone providers like Sprint et al are already providing QOS for VOIP services currently used by major corporations (i.e. Cisco) to communicate between offices. This hasn't propogated down to the ISP level yet but there's no reason it couldn't.

    Also, at the ISP level, Speakeasy already has a package that preferentially routes online game packets, providing better performance for subscribers. In fact Speakeasy toutes itself as the "gamer's ISP".

    --
    I browse Slashdot at +3, Funny
  7. Re:More dumb analysis by the Yankee group. by GPLDAN · · Score: 2, Informative

    Norton's paper is on financial and reciprocal negotiation strategies on ISP backbone peering. It doesn't say anything about queuing mechanisms at those peering points. The words "queue" and "qos" don't appear anywhere in there.

    I think what he meant by "mess with" (I'm guessing) is adjusting traffic priorities based on application data.

  8. Re:I don't think they want to do this... by DeepRedux · · Score: 2, Informative

    ISPs do not get their protection from common carrier status. They get it from the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA. This protects ISP from copyright violations committed by their customers, as long as the ISP follows the required procedures. The first is to register with the government as an ISP. Favoring their own services would not affect their Safe Harbor rights.

  9. Already happens in the Layer1 world by Tmack · · Score: 2, Informative
    CLEC's are already hampered by such practices, even though there are de-regulation laws prohibiting it. Basically, your CLEC orders a local loop from an ILEC. The ILEC has to provide it at the discount rate if idle facilities already exist without excessive new construction being required. The problem is, what "excessive new construction" actually entails is left somewhat to interpretation. What this leads to is that sometimes if the circuit orders that are refused due to "no facilities" or "requires new construction" are re-ordered a slightly different way (as retail), they are turned up in a short enough interval to prove that new construction/no facilities was in fact not a valid reason to reject the order. Circuit maintanence can fall into this category as well. If say, SBC has one of their customer's with a service affecting issue, they tend to be resolved quicker, with less hassle than if it is a CLEC circuit. They also like to play the game of "no trouble found, we will be billing you for this dispatch", after the circuit that was hard-down magically was restored about the same time their tech was out finding "nothing wrong".

    Tm

    --
    Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
  10. Common Carrier Status by Detritus · · Score: 2, Informative

    Most ISPs would not qualify as common carriers. Part of being a common carrier is offering a service to the public in a non-discriminatory manner. That means that you can't say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". If the New Hitler Youth for Nuking Gay Whales orders service, you have to give it to them. You can't disconnect them for being controversial, as long as they pay their bills and do not violate the law.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat