Slashdot Mirror
Google and Friends Release Net Neutrality Measuring Tools
angry tapir writes "Google and a group of partners have released a set of tools designed to help broadband customers and researchers measure performance of Internet connections. The set of tools, at MeasurementLab.net, includes a network diagnostic tool, a network path diagnostic tool and a tool to measure whether the user's broadband provider is slowing BitTorrent peer-to-peer (P-to-P) traffic. Coming soon to the M-Lab applications is a tool to determine whether a broadband provider is giving some traffic a lower priority than other traffic, and a tool to determine whether a provider is degrading certain users or applications. 'Transparency is our goal,' said Vint Cerf, chief Internet evangelist at Google and a co-developer of TCP/IP. 'Our intent is to make more [information] visible for all who are interested in the way the network is functioning at all layers.'"
"Putting caps on traffic allows ISP's to maximize their over subscription and cater to people that want low cost Internet service."
I realize you're talking in theory.
But now that Comcast has capped traffic, have they provided a new, inexpensive tier of service? Or has their prices gone up? Can you name any company that capped traffic and then lowered prices?
Seems to me capping traffic is simply a way to stay revenue neutral, and reduce costs. Let's not pretend it's for any other reason.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Who posts a Bandwidth Tester on Slashdot and then expects us all to be able to use it at once... Cheers
After RTFS, my first thought is that all the major ISP's will reverse engineer the tools, such that their traffic 'bandwidth shaping' methods will actually prioritize these packets, so that end users wind up getting lied to (that their network traffic isn't being slowed down AND that they are getting a faster internet connection than they actually are).
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
"Go with someone else"
Because that is *totally* possible in Comcast markets.
I think the more sane of those arguing against throttling are those who point to the ISPs' advertising, which is often at best misleading and at worst fraudulent.
~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
Why deprioritize at all? Give everyone using the pipe at a given moment an equal portion of the available bandwidth. Divide it up evenly by customer, not by application. One person doing p2p shouldn't affect another person's Vonage phone call or vice-versa.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
I fully agree with your first sentence. QoS is a necessary part of any network management plan, and it deserves to be seen as a tool like any other.
But it doesn't follow that QoS is always good if applied without prejudice. For example: A network that doesn't give adequate priority to anyone's VOIP is no more desirable than a network that gives priority to one VOIP supplier. (If you want VOIP services that is.)
QoS and Net Neutrality are two different things, but both affect consumers in a particular way. The nice thing is that, where available, market forces do a lot to mitigate against bad QoS policies. Net Neutrality, on the other hand, usually implies collusion between telcos and other industry allies.
This means that when someone creates an undesirable QoS scheme, we can (theoretically) vote with our wallets. But when Net Neutrality is challenged, we usually have no recourse but the force of law and regulation.
It's true that QoS can be used as the mechanism by which Net Neutrality is thwarted, but the problem is not the filtering per se; the problem is collusion between industry allies to limit choice and undermine the end-to-end network model.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Only if you have all of them available. In my area with cable modem service, it is only dial-up (3 KB/sec average, baby!!) no DSL, no FIOS, ISDN, IDSL (144Kb/sec both ways), and satellite. :(
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
so it's greedy to expect an ISP to deliver to you the service they advertised and that you've paid for? don't confuse your own solipsism & selfishness with other people's being greed. right now you're saying that VoIP should have priority over P2P because presumably "ordinary" people like you use VoIP but don't use P2P (a rather questionable assumption). so just because someone else's internet usage patterns are different from yours, your traffic should be given priority over theirs, even though you both pay the same monthly rate?
you also seem to be the one confusing the issue of file-sharing with so-called "bandwidth hogs." first of all, congratulations on buying into (or trying to perpetuate) the ISP's scapegoating of power users and file-sharers for their poor service--i'm sure all those Asian countries with cheap, symmetric high-speed broadband connections don't have file sharers or power users. secondly, even if we assume that a broadband provider has to oversell in order to remain profitable (an unlikely case), why could a simple bandwidth cap be implemented regardless of the type of traffic one has? protocol discrimination and deep packet analysis (which simply adds more network overhead) is not necessary even if you're trying to perform damage control after having over-sold by too much.
at our office i use BitTorrent maybe once a month to download 30-40 MB Photoshop brush sets, or an 18 MB Ad-Aware install file (the LavaSoft site requires you to sign up for Trialplay, and give out your personal information and CC# to get the Anniversary edition), and only very occasionally an up-to-date Windows XP disc image (700~800MB). on average, our monthly BitTorrent traffic totals less than 100MB on a 10Mbps connection.
on the other hand, we're a record label so we listen to band demos all day long, and these days most of it is done via MySpace, which is very convenient; we can see how many plays each artist has received that day, what shows they've played recently, and just gauge their popularity more easily. it also cuts down on the demo CDs being pressed/burnt/shipped, which is good for the environment. however, this means we're streaming music all day long (from 9 AM to 5 PM). assuming the average audio quality frm myspace is 96kbps, that's about 330MB of traffic from streaming audio alone, not to mention all the banners, photos, and other graphics on these bands' MySpace pages.
so if 2 people each consume, say, 500~600MB of network bandwidth each day, but one person uses it solely for BitTorrent while the other uses it solely for sending large files via e-mail, why should the BitTorrent user's network packets have lower priority than the e-mail user? how is he being greedy or asking others to subsidize his bandwidth?
ISPs have no business dictating how a broadband subscriber uses his internet connection. if they want to throttle people's connections after a bandwidth cap is exceeded, fine--don't advertise the service as unlimited, make the cap clear to your customers, and apply it equally to everyone regardless of whether they're an old grandma who's watching the Food Network in HD on her cable TV, or if it's a teenager downloading the latest Slackware ISO via BitTorrent.
lastly, if an ISP cannot meet the demands of their customers, they need to do one of two things: a.) upgrade their infrastructure to increase network capacity, or b.) don't oversell so much. the basic concept of overselling is sound. on average not everyone is going to use 100% of their pipe 100% of the time. but it's up to the ISP to calculate what their average network usage is going to be, and provide enough total network bandwidth so that the network doesn't become saturated during peak hours. what you don't do is try to scapegoat power users for your own miscalculations and continue to oversell while trying to dictate how the public uses the internet.
most countries are offering faster broadband at lower costs, following the usage trends that are shifting towards high bandwidth applications
You should use the apostrophy in the correct place, so what you really want is SDn'tRTFA.
I think it's great to measure connection speeds and all, but isn't it a little redundant? We already know Internet Providers are limiting and degrading certain types of traffic. The question isn't IF they are, it's how we get them to stop doing it. Incidentally, that might just happen if Obama, a supporter pushes legislation through holding ISPs accountable for non-neutral networks.
You've just been scammed! Enjoy the rewards of boosting some clipclown's unique visitor count so he can sell his domain next week. Eh? Wha? Orly? Yeah dude. sascha@ucimc.org owns 10 domains, all registered in the past 3 weeks, one of which is your beloved article header. Did you really think this product would do anything other than capitalize on your fear that your ISP is screwing you? Money made, hand in pocket with massive funds. Site soon to vanish. Oh surprise surprise. Let's call this news. Ya'll just as lazy as the next captcha authentication method.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.