Slashdot Mirror


App To Keep ISPs Honest About Bandwidth Caps

alphadogg writes "A browser-based app developed by Georgia Tech researchers is designed to help Internet users make better use of their bandwidth – and to make sure ISPs are holding up their end of the bandwidth bargain. The Kermit app, which is being shown off Wednesday (PDF) at the CHI 2011 Conference on Human Factors in Computing in Vancouver, emerges at a time when service providers are starting to place bandwidth caps not just on wireless services, but on wireline services, too. AT&T, for example, is putting such caps in place this month for its DSL and U-verse customers. At least initially, such caps aren't expected to affect all but the very heaviest bandwidth users."

26 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. Browser based? by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How is a browser based app going to keep track of all TCP/IP traffic?

    Also, Kermit is a terminal emulator. Pick a different name.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Browser based? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~marshini/files/kermit.pdf

      That's the actual paper on it. You have to read it to get the info as to how they really did it - via DD-WRT with RFLOW. Your suspicions are correct though - they can't do it with just a browser.

    2. Re:Browser based? by drpimp · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ms. Piggy ??? Seems apropos for seeing who the bandwidth hog is.

      --
      -- Brought to you by Carl's JR
    3. Re:Browser based? by JWSmythe · · Score: 2

          I'm getting visuals of a line of Cheerios(tm) being carried by ants from the front porch to the WYSE terminal in the front yard.

          This cold medicine works wonders for the imagination. The doctor said take the cough syrup "as needed". I'm through three bottles just today.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  2. Vote with your wallet! by spaceplanesfan · · Score: 2

    Instead of using such app, just choose a provider that doesn't cap you.
    Or al least just slows down the connection speed if you are over the cap, but doesn't charge you extra.
    I can't forget the times my internet access was metered, back in dial-up days. Don't want that nightmare again for any price and any cap.

    1. Re:Vote with your wallet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't have a choice in voting. Sure there's the "option" of moving and going to a location that has choices for broadband internet access but my wallet doesn't have that kind of voting power.

    2. Re:Vote with your wallet! by Desler · · Score: 2

      Yes, because most people can afford to just pick up and move so they can switch ISPs.

    3. Re:Vote with your wallet! by hedwards · · Score: 3

      And that seems reasonable? For all intents and purposes if you have to move out of state to change ISPs it means that it's impossible. Very few people would argue that it's a functioning market if the only way to imagine competition is to have people competing nationally. I could also move to Korea or Sweden, both of which apparently have better connections than I do, I'm not sure that it would be reasonable to suggest that I therefore have the option of getting the fastest speeds on the planet, just because I could move to where ever that is at the time.

    4. Re:Vote with your wallet! by profplump · · Score: 2

      You essentially can't live in a place without wireline telephone service, thanks to the universal service mandate. We decided as early as 1934 that it was vital to provide all people with communications services at a reasonable price. Why that mandate hasn't been extended to modern Internet service yet is beyond me.

  3. Re:Exactly by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Also the steam users, netflix users and itunes users? The pirates arn't the only ones that have an insatiable demand for bandwidth.

  4. Re:Exactly by xMrFishx · · Score: 2

    "Stealing" bandwidth, funny. Also funny that it's "Pirates" doing it, not just consumers using what they paid for. QQ

  5. At least initially... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "...such caps aren't expected to affect all but the very heaviest bandwidth users."

    Last month, I used 350gb of traffic; all of which was legitimate, split between services like NetFlix for television and movies, Steam for gaming, iTunes for music and podcasts, and the rest of normal day-to-day traffic. I may be on the extreme end for most people at this point in time, but the point is that technology keeps moving, and eventually usage like mine will be the norm, not the exception.

    What the bandwidth caps will do is stifle technological progress. To use the required car analogy, they are like putting a 40mph cap on the newly-invented automobile, simply because few, if any, people need to go that fast. At some point, people did need to drive 40mph, then 50mph, then 60mph, and so on and so forth. It will work the same way with internet usage, and that is why bandwidth caps are such a serious problem. A decade ago, most of the country was still on dial-up, and the ideas of streaming video, social media, and the proliferation of modern media over the internet were still in their infancy. 150gb then would have been, literally, an unreachable amount of data to consume in a month. However, times change, and today 150gb is next to nothing for someone who uses the internet to its current full potential.

    So many people may look at these, if they notice them at all, and say, "Who cares? I don't use that much data." But the point is that they don't use that much data now, and this is an attempt to keep them from using that much data ever.

    Because let's not mince words about this. Infrastructure is fairly expensive, but once it is in place bandwidth across it is extremely cheap (often approaching as low as 3 cents per gigabyte, according to several studies). Corporations like AT&T and Comcast aren't doing this because the bandwidth usage is expensive. They are doing it because they are terrified of a future where consumers don't need their multiple services anymore. If you can get your television, movies, music, games, e-mail, social contacts, phone service, etc. all through your internet connection, there will be zero incentive to pay for locked-down cable television and movie rentals, and highly priced telephone service. They are not about to let that happen, and this is a major salvo in their war on that.

    That's what people need to be aware of with this. It's not about the cost, it's about controlling the flow of information and stifling technological progress to secure corporate profits. And nobody should stand for it.

    1. Re:At least initially... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 2

      Games often clock in at many GB, and a moderately enthusiastic gamer might well be buying more than one each month, especially with the big flashy promos that Steam tends to do - it's not going to use your full allowance unless you're reinstalling on a new system (a valid use in itself), but I can quite see that it'd make a dent. A few people in the house with both Steam and Netflix accounts adds up pretty quickly, even if not all of them are buying games every month.

      As for updates - if you're forced to play on a limited subset of servers because your ISP doesn't give you enough bandwidth to download patches, I'd say that's a prime example of bandwidth limits hurting the legitimate consumer.

    2. Re:At least initially... by OverlordQ · · Score: 4, Informative

      Last month, I used 350gb of traffic; all of which was legitimate, split between services like NetFlix for television and movies, Steam for gaming, iTunes for music and podcasts, and the rest of normal day-to-day traffic.

      1 HD movie a day for a month from Netflix will top out at about 135 GB.
      Buying one new AAA game a week on Steam for a month is 40-45 GB.
      A 384kbps stream 24/7 for an entire month would only be 125 GB

      I think the Internet turns everybody into hoarders, they download/stream things they have very little intention of ever watching just because it's there.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    3. Re:At least initially... by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 2

      Except for OTA with antenna, everything I watch on television is streaming, mostly from Netflix. Between me, my wife, and my 4-year-old, we watch 4-6 hours a day, and about half of that is in HD. It really doesn't take much.

      My extreme likelihood of going over AT&T's 150GB cap caused me to move back to Time Warner's cable internet service, which for now, at least, doesn't have caps. I hate Time Warner, but since those are my only two broadband choices, it wasn't a tough choice.

    4. Re:At least initially... by LostAlaska · · Score: 2

      My ISP in Alaska just went from quasi unlimited (until they tell you it's limited) to officially capped. The top tier that costs nearly $200 month gives you 120GB of transfer @ 22MB/4MB. Before the cap on average I used about 70GB a month with my plan, my same plan with the caps imposed was 20GB a month. When I called my ISP 'GCI' the person on the phone outright told me the only way anyone uses that much bandwidth is if they are a thief using torrents. When i asked about watching HD movies streaming, and downloading games on steam, and system updates, and video skyping with my sister over seas they threatened to cancel my account. I'm now paying nearly $200 a month for CAPPED INTERNET. My other choices which I have tried is ATT WIMAX which would drop it's connection about once an hour and I couldn't get over a half MegaBit on downloads and my upload was under 100kilobits. So I tried ACS DSL which is about $70 a month for unlimited use @ 3MB/512KB. Their latency was actually worse than the WIMAX when it was working. Doing trace routes the speed on the hops inside of Alaska were great at under 30ms, then it hit their main facility that links via fiber to the lower 48 and the pings went up over 1000ms so streaming constantly stuttered and skype was almost unusable since we were cutting each other off because of the 1 to 1.5 seconds lag in the conversation. So now I pay almost $250 a month for premium cable TV, a phone line and 120GB capped internet access. I rarely watch Cable TV (use HULU or NETFLIX for the few shows I want to watch) but GCI requires you have 'premium' cable if you want to increase your internet speed and cap amount. The phone (digital, comes with a analog to Digital conversion box so it also goes over the digital cable line) is a joke that I've never plugged in since I have a cell. So really i'm paying almost $250 a month for internet access with a 120GB cap, the rest of their 'convenience' bundle is a joke that I never use. Just another way to prop up their old tired way of doing things at GCI. Check out http://assets.gci.com/2011/01/packages_anchorage111_01.gif if you want to have a laugh.....

    5. Re:At least initially... by Ichijo · · Score: 2

      What the bandwidth caps will do is stifle technological progress.

      Actually, it will encourage the development of bandwidth-conserving technologies.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    6. Re:At least initially... by icebraining · · Score: 3, Interesting

      'round here, when we still had caps my ISP had a policy of limiting heavily (20GB/month) during the daytime, and not counting the traffic during the night (1 to 9 am).

      Of course, everyone had their download managers and P2P apps (eMule, at the time, was the most used) scheduled to only transfer data during those hours.

      It worked pretty well; the ISP had the lowest RTT of all during the day and you could transfer way more data per month.

  6. Re:Exactly by Moryath · · Score: 2

    Not to mention the MMO's and other applications now sending around their updates via Torrent protocols.

    And the people who telecommute.

    Or use Skype.

    Or use a lot of Hulu Plus.

    I don't torrent, and yet my "usage" always seems to be about 2/3 of my ISP's cap. Just wait till apps get even hungrier, in 2 years time everyone will be hitting cap and either getting PO'ed or start dropping those services... which is what the ISP monopolies want so they can force people back into cable TV, pay-channels, etc.

  7. An option for those who don't have ISP choice... by g0bshiTe · · Score: 2
    If you are one of those that are unfortunate enough to not have a choice of ISP either due to only 1 in your area or all in your area with caps, how about emailing compaines that have streaming media, if you have an account with them. How far do you think these caps would go, if half of Netflix userbase suddenly dropped their service, because they were capped on the data amount their ISP let them have.

    I can see the email now.

    Dear Netflix,
    I regret that I must terminate my account with you, due to my ISP having a cap on the amount of bandwidth I can use per month. Though my family and I have enjoyed your streaming services for N months now, we simply can not sacrifice our day to day net usage for streaming content.
    In the future we may be able to reopen an account, but as of this time there is only 1 ISP in our area, we have no other choices for service.

    Thank you
    Joe Capped

    Is it just me that thinks that if Netflix, or ESPN, or whoever sells streaming subscriptions gets a few thousand emails like this that they wouldn't start putting pressure on the ISP's?

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  8. Re:An option for those who don't have ISP choice.. by Desler · · Score: 2

    What Netflix is doing is lowering the quality of the video they stream so people don't use as much data. They do this now for Canadians who face far stricter caps right now. Secondly, how exactly is Netflix going to put pressure on the ISPs? They are extremely tiny compared to the ISPs especially when it comes to political clout. Why exactly do you think AT&T, Time Warner, Comcast or Verizon are going to care that Netflix might lose customers to caps?

  9. Re:AT&T Customer by MBCook · · Score: 2

    I received an email, however they told me to check my usage on their site.

    I went to their site and was told they didn't know my usage, so I didn't need to worry about it (it actually said that). I found that a bit disquieting.

    I'm not heavy user. The most I do is go on occasional Netflix binges watching a bunch of TV episodes in a row. It's very unlikely I'd actually hit the cap. But if it's going to be enforced against me, I want to be able to see what I've used.

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  10. Block advertizing by starfishsystems · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most protocols are dedicated to a specific function. It used to be that you wouldn't run a network application unless it was doing something that you specifically wanted it to do.

    That expectation has changed significantly over the past decade, and not for the better. Now your choice of operating system or application is taken as an implicit invitation for it to use your network connection in ways that are not necessarily intended for your benefit at all. That's why it sometimes makes sense to configure a separate firewall device even for personal use. You can't, theoretically, prevent a proprietary protocol from tunnelling whatever data it likes, but you can at least perform a practical kind of triage over the traffic passing across your network.

    As the Web becomes an increasingly general transport for applications, it becomes a network management exercise in its own right. And the concepts are similar to firewall management. Given that I'm paying for my system resources and my network bandwidth, I certainly don't want to waste them transporting and processing content that isn't valuable to me. Advertizing is not valuable to me. Therefore, I block it, just as I block any protocol that isn't valuable to me. As a consequence, I get very high signal-to-noise in my use of the network.

    My ISP should be grateful.

    --
    Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
  11. Re:bandwidth tracking prog advice needed by CaptKeen · · Score: 2

    Does anybody know any good FREE programs to keep track of bandwidth usage? Something like NerWorx by SoftPerfect. I tried it and I liked it but for some reason it is tracking my usage incorrectly, I think by like a factor of 8 or 10. I couldn't figure out what the problem was.
    Any advice is greatly appreciated.
    Thanks!

    There are two different units of measure at play here. Network bandwidth is measured in bits, or bits/second. PC storage is measured in bytes, where each byte is made up of 8 bits.

    When your provider sells you a connection of, say, 1.544mb/sec - thats megaBITS not megabytes. You need to divide by 8 to come up with your connection speed in bytes.

    Storage on a PC is based around a byte, which is 8 bits. The network usage captured is correct - it was simply displaying it in bits, not bytes.

    --
    --
  12. Re:An option for those who don't have ISP choice.. by camperdave · · Score: 2

    Netflix Canada solves the problem by not having any content worth streaming. No Star Trek. No Lost. Almost no Battlestar Galactica. No Star Wars, no Gilligan's Island, no Hogan's Heroes, no V, no Breaking Bad, no Corner Gas, no Survivorman, no Babylon 5, no Jurassic Park, no Rambo, no James Bond, no Columbo, no Simpsons, no Futurama, no Pirates of the Caribbean, no Get Smart.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  13. Re:An option for those who don't have ISP choice.. by Gumbercules!! · · Score: 2

    Here in Australia, where we have had caps for as long as I can recall, we have streaming services that are integrated with the ISPs who quota, so the streamed movies are not metered against your quota (they are in the "free zone", etc). The major movie streaming players have deals with the major ISPs so this is a non issue.

    You can use Steam in the same way (non-metered). Also, they host repos for Linux distros, etc, so yum or whatever don't count against your quota, either and some of the nice ones even let Windows updates through for free.

    Pretty much the only high bandwidth thing that is not free is, unsurprisingly, bittorrent.

    I have a 1TB a month quota. If I could even download 1TB of torrents a month, on my crappy DSL connection (I am a long way from a phone exchange), I'd be laughing. However even if I could, there's no way I could find 1TB a month of legit torrents.