Slashdot Mirror
ISPs Hate P2P Video On-Demand Services
Scrumptious writes "CNET is running an article that highlights the problems associated with video on-demand services that rely on P2P technology to distribute content. The article points out that ISPs who throttle traffic on current generation broadband, and negate network neutrality by using packet shaping technology, are hindering any possible adoption of the services offered nervously by content companies. Many broadband consumers are unaware of how hindered a service they may receive because of the horrendous constraints enforced by telephone network operators. This was a topic widely covered in 2006 in the US, but is now practiced as a common method within the United Kingdom."
Depends how they filter the traffic. If they specifically say "traffic from domain yyy.tld has higher priority" then it's against network neutrality. Instead, they may do "if traffic has the evil bit set, it has higher priority", which can then be considered as a type of traffic that's filtered less, it isn't considered network neutrality. In the latter case, others can simply flip the magic bit and their traffic also gets carried with higher priority.
But don't just think this is happening in the UK. It's happening in Canada as well. Shaw cable has installed Ellacoya packet shapers that throttle BitTorrent traffic (mostly uploads, since uploads are the weakness of cable broadband). Rogers cable (the other big cable ISP - Shaw for the west, Rogers for the East) has started throttling encrypted connections to counter the encrypted BitTorrent traffic. Of course, there are other ISPs out there - like DSL providers and smaller cable companies that don't throttle.
Of course, I suppose it's only a matter of time until people realize that for the service they're getting, they could save tons using dialup... (especially dialup-over-cable and other services) which may just end up giving them *more* bandwidth for what they're doing. (It's a common argument I hear - cable's better because it's faster, so why pay for 1.5Mbps when you can get 10Mbps. However, if you're doing stuff that the cable provider dislikes, the slower connection may be faster because they don't do throttling...).
(15:41 GMT (EST+5) May 22, 2007) [http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html] they have over 3x the ammount of people.
now with the cell phones its a given the cost would be cheaper for one the coverage area is smaller and there more people to charge in this one area. its simple economics.
They didn't promise you what you thought they did, nor did they sell you it. They sell you a connection "up to 5Mbps" which is true, but they did not anywhere (unless they DID, as some ISPs have) say that you had the right to use it at maximum speed at all times - in fact in most any acceptable use policy/terms of service document you read you will find significant verbiage saying you can't.
If they don't tell you ANY of that in any of their documentation, they are misleading you and your complaint is valid. But I highly doubt that you will find many ISPs that don't have a well-written TOS/AUP document.
...Steve
Your cable modem is 5 years old?? My cable modem started being spotty when it was 1.5 years old... a tech came out, and he said that they routinely replace that model of cable modem for other customers when it gets to be 1 year old (I guess they don't make them like they used to...). It turned out the tx/rx power levels were just a little too low, and we found a splitter we could remove, which boosted the power levels up to acceptable levels. But he said that it's getting more routine for cable modems to degrade over time, and need to be replaced.
It should be noted that TFA is talking about British ISPs.
In finest Slashdot tradition, I didn't read TFA. However, there are honest ISPs in the UK who make clear what the limits are, and offer unlimited packages for more money. I'm on an unlimited package and paying about $60/month (versus ordinary ADSL packages at the same nominal speed, which go from free - $30/month these days), and given the amount of stuff I download and upload I would really know if there was a limit.
What I'd really like is SDSL though, and afaik that is not available at all unless you go to very high business rates.
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
As the article mentions the UK situation I figure it's worth pointing out some facts to balance the whinging of those who claim the problem is nothing more than ISPs overselling bandwidth.
In the UK the provision of ADSL broadband is dependant upon purchasing capacity from BT that effectively costs £250/Mbs per month.
That means a per GB cost to the ISP of about 70p ($1.40) on top of the £8.40 ($16.80) per month tail charge BT impose.
Customers expect to be able to use p2p and other heavy bandwidth services for £20/month or less and have no traffic management systems in place.
The fact of the matter is that ADSL has always been offered as a contended service even though ISPs have tended to try and run things so that this was not always apparent.
Now that more customers are using lots of bandwidth it is simply not possible for that to continue - customer's will have to face the reality of a contended product.
Those who do not want to face this do have a choice - leased lines are still available and offer guaranteed bandwidth. Of course they come at a price that reflects this.
cable modem is just a electronic box. There is no real technical reason for them to degrade with time. If they are not properly made, then yeah but that goes with any electronic devoce. Properly made with rated parts it should run forever.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on