Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Verizon, Comcast Say They Are P2P Friendly

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the also-that-if-she-buys-kippers-it-will-not-rain dept.

Data Storage 158

An anonymous reader writes "Verizon and Comcast announced they will not 'block or throttle Internet traffic delivered via peer-to-peer networks' — essentially proclaiming that they are now P2P friendly. The decision came as a result of a test conducted with Verizon and Pando Networks, testing the benefits of a P2P/ISP partnership. During the test, the amount of P2P content delivered to Verizon subscribers from inside its network grew from 2 percent to 50 percent. This shows ISPs need to work with P2P companies to improve content delivery and manage traffic. Verizon also announced it will be looking at ways to use P2P technology to deploy new features on FiOS TV." Just the same, read on for one approach to mitigating likely tightening restrictions on P2P network use.Another anonymous reader writes "RIAA/MPAA have recently been targeting torrent aggregators like PirateBay, because the aggregators are the vulnerable components of the BitTorrent protocol. A new open-source project to thwart such attacks was announced on p2p-hackers and released yesterday:

Cubit, a new open-source p2p overlay, enables the Azureus BitTorrent client to look up torrents via approximate keyword search... Cubit completely decentralizes the lookup process through an efficient, light-weight peer-to-peer overlay that can perform approximate matches. It performs searches without relying on any centralized components, and therefore is immune to legal and technical attacks targeting torrent aggregators."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Right... (5, Insightful)

wolf12886 (1206182) | more than 6 years ago | (#23506448)

I'll believe it when I see it.

Re:Right... (4, Informative)

kernelphr34k (1179539) | more than 6 years ago | (#23506698)

I'm a FIOS customer, and have yet to see any issues with my torrents and disconnects, or any speed or BW issues. It does help to have a 15mb/15mb connection, but still. Curious to see how these companies will handle the P2P load. . .

Re:Right... (5, Funny)

grayshirtninja (1242690) | more than 6 years ago | (#23506802)

Exactly. ISPs are friendly to P2P traffic like alligators are friendly to chickens.

Re:Right... (5, Insightful)

jeiler (1106393) | more than 6 years ago | (#23506910)

Oh, believe it. Verizon and Comcast will be very friendly to P2P--just as soon as they can figure out a way to make a buck off the transaction.

Re:Right... (5, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#23507310)

Oh, believe it. Verizon and Comcast will be very friendly to P2P

Why is everybody giving Verizon grief? Comcast I understand, but Verizon? To my knowledge Verizon has never throttled or limited any of their DSL or FiOS offerings. I've seeded torrents 24/7 for months on end and never heard a peep out of them. I run a server (sshd and vpn) for my own personal use -- they've never complained about that either. According to Cacti, in the last year I've uploaded 1.3 terabytes and downloaded 741 gigabytes. Not one word out of Verizon this entire time.

Recall when Verizon fought the efforts to subpoena the identity of one of their customers who was accused of using p2p to pirate music. Recall Verizon's statements saying that they didn't believe in content/copyright filtering and didn't want to "police" the internet.

I don't approve of all of their business practices (there's a special place in hell reserved for Verizon Wireless) but the Verizon Online guys are on our side -- at least for the moment. I don't think they deserve to be lumped into the same category as Comcast.

Re:Right... (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 6 years ago | (#23507912)

In the first week I got Verizon DSL (years ago) I downloaded around 40GB worth of stuff (tv shows, movies, etc). I filled my hard drive. Never heard anything from them. They're good people. I haven't had the same experience with Comcast... :-/

Re:Right... (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#23508194)

In the first week I got Verizon DSL (years ago) I downloaded around 40GB worth of stuff (tv shows, movies, etc). I filled my hard drive. Never heard anything from them. They're good people.

Yeah, I hadn't realized that my bandwidth totals were that high until I looked at them right now. Verizon is offering a great service as it stands. I hope they keep it that way.

Re:Right... (1, Flamebait)

DarkNebula (881729) | more than 6 years ago | (#23509202)

... I downloaded around 40GB worth of stuff (tv shows, movies, etc). I filled my hard drive. Never heard anything from them. They're good people.
I still don't get why the general consensus around here is that downloading TV shows and movies from each other should be legal. Can someone explain the reason of why it shouldn't be considered a form of stealing? (From this viewpoint the "They're good people" thing is kind of funny considering I view it as someone calling them "Good people" for letting them steal things)

Re:Right... (2, Funny)

0111 1110 (518466) | more than 6 years ago | (#23509646)

Can someone explain the reason of why it shouldn't be considered a form of stealing?
The difference between copyright infringement and stealing is like the difference between taking a photo of someone without their permission and kidnapping them. Or maybe the difference between kidnapping someone and cloning them from a stray hair. In one case the victim is quite aware of the "crime". In the other case it is difficult to even find a "victim" at all.

Re:Right... (0, Flamebait)

DarkNebula (881729) | more than 6 years ago | (#23509914)

It costs money to make the movies, and people get paid for it, so I guess I think that people should pay to own the movie. Is this the start of a paradigm shift of information? I would love to see the world because "open sourced".

Re:Right... (1)

Torvaun (1040898) | more than 6 years ago | (#23509892)

Would you have a problem with someone using MythTV or Tivo or something like that to record a show from TV? Why is using bittorrent to record that same show from a different source worse?

Agreed on movies, though, which is why I don't do it.

Re:Right... (1)

nanoflower (1077145) | more than 6 years ago | (#23508382)

If you really transferred that much over the course of a year then you wouldn't have had an issue on Comcast either. Even with the new limits they are discussing (250GB/month) you are looking at limits of around 3TB per year. So having a combined upload/download of about 2TB isn't going to cause you an issue on Comcast (so long as you spread your transfers fairly evenly over the course of the year.)

Re:Right... (3, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#23508582)

If you really transferred that much over the course of a year then you wouldn't have had an issue on Comcast either

Except I never would have been able to transfer that much because they have (had?) this nasty habit of conducting man-in-the-middle attacks to reset seeding connections.

For fairness I should probably point out that I likely had similar traffic numbers when I was with Roadrunner and they never complained about it either. I ditched them not because of limits that they had or may have -- I ditched them because I got tired of dealing with pauses and slowdowns when trying to stream live video.

I live in a major college town -- Roadrunner rocks during the school breaks -- once the kids come back you start to notice a real degradation of service during peak hours and even (occasionally) during off-peak ones. It varies depending on which neighborhood you live in but in some of them it's damn near unusable for anything other than basic surfing/gaming during peak hours.

It got better for browsing/gaming once they started traffic shaping/prioritization -- but they don't seem to discriminate between an http transfer for live streaming video and a non-interactive HTTP/FTP download or NNTP transfer. All bulk transfers suffer -- which makes live streaming video a PITA during periods of congestion.

Re:Right... (2, Insightful)

jeiler (1106393) | more than 6 years ago | (#23508630)

Why is everybody giving Verizon grief?

Cynicism. When referring to large corporations, cynicism has rarely steered me wrong--though I'm glad to hear your experience with Verizon has been so positive.

Re:Right... (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#23508858)

though I'm glad to hear your experience with Verizon has been so positive.

Oh, it hasn't been all positive dealing with them. Verizon Wireless dicked me over in a major way and Verizon Landline is busy nickel and diming people to death (you'd think they'd be DROPPING landline rates to keep people from switching to VoIP/wireless, but there you go)

I'll never do business with Verizon Wireless ever again and it's not likely that I'll ever pay for a landline again unless I wind up having a large family or someone with a medical condition living in my house. It's just not worth paying for living by yourself.

All that said though, Verizon Online has been great. Rock-solid service (no outages in 4+ years of service), no throttling, no limits. Here's your internet connection -- it goes up to X Mbits down and Y Kbits up -- do whatever you want with it. That's how it should be, IMHO.

Re:Right... (3, Funny)

street struttin' (1249972) | more than 6 years ago | (#23508738)

in the last year I've uploaded 1.3 terabytes and downloaded 741 gigabytes.
Slacker.

Re:Right... (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#23508926)

Slacker.

Hahaha, you find me a (legal) torrent that will peg my connection 24/7 and I'll be happy to seed it for you. I primarily seed Linux distros, but they are typically seeded well enough that they don't peg my connection most of the time -- even with tons of upload slots available.

Re:Right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23509234)

Oh, believe it. Verizon and Comcast will be very friendly to P2P

Why is everybody giving Verizon grief? Comcast I understand, but Verizon? To my knowledge Verizon has never throttled or limited any of their DSL or FiOS offerings. I've seeded torrents 24/7 for months on end and never heard a peep out of them. I run a server (sshd and vpn) for my own personal use -- they've never complained about that either. According to Cacti, in the last year I've uploaded 1.3 terabytes and downloaded 741 gigabytes. Not one word out of Verizon this entire time.


Recall when Verizon fought the efforts to subpoena the identity of one of their customers who was accused of using p2p to pirate music. Recall Verizon's statements saying that they didn't believe in content/copyright filtering and didn't want to "police" the internet.


I don't approve of all of their business practices (there's a special place in hell reserved for Verizon Wireless) but the Verizon Online guys are on our side -- at least for the moment. I don't think they deserve to be lumped into the same category as Comcast.

Agreed. I never have any trouble from Verizon. My only complaint is that I cannot understand their customer support. It's usually a mix of Indian and Spanglish.

Re:Right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23509076)

Whether you believe you can or cannot, your right. -Henry Ford

Wow, even your sig needs a grammar nazi.

Your is possessive.

You're is you are.

That's just sad.

Even 100% is not good enough... (3, Insightful)

nweaver (113078) | more than 6 years ago | (#23506460)

ISP conflict will remain, it will just become more subtle and more neutral.

You see, 50% is not good enough from the ISPs viewpoint: That still requires just as many bits crossing the ISP's boundry as if the content provider used UNCACHED HTTP.

In practice, many (most?) ISPs use transparent HTTP caches, so having 50% of the data stay internal is still no good, as on popular files (eg, a big youtube video), 99% of the traffic stays internal for HTTP.

Even PERFECT P2P requires at least one outbound copy for each inbound copy, so a PERFECT P2P system will require 2x the traffic crossing the border when compared with HTTP thats cached.

Re:Even 100% is not good enough... (5, Informative)

CyprusBlue113 (1294000) | more than 6 years ago | (#23506688)

I don't think you quite understand what is being talked about. A truly perfect P2P system would only need 1 copy period to come in to an ISP. Now you will never see much anything close to this, but it can definately be a *much* better situation than it is now.

Re:Even 100% is not good enough... (2, Interesting)

Workaphobia (931620) | more than 6 years ago | (#23507184)

Even better would be if the user could submit torrents to their ISP's local hub for download at fiber optic speeds, and then simply transfer the result from there once per household. Any bandwidth consumed by this non-last-mile torrenting on the customer's behalf would be attributed to the customer's account and charged accordingly.

Hell you could do the same thing for other non-P2P services that ISPs typically don't like customers using. Turn every account into a hosting agreement with various limitations.

Re:Even 100% is not good enough... (1)

CyprusBlue113 (1294000) | more than 6 years ago | (#23507280)

If most torrents transferred were legal, sure. This goes beyond what I see being ISP land services though, due to size etc. However I will use WoW as an example, if that client determined peers based on shared traceroute information (try to find peers with similar near hops), it would be a MUCH nicer experience for both the user, and the provider.

Re:Even 100% is not good enough... (1)

gripen40k (957933) | more than 6 years ago | (#23508744)

Usenet is a good example of how files can be delivered to multiple users rather efficiently. The major downside is that you won't have the wide selection that torrents offer. See here [wikipedia.org] for more info

Re:Even 100% is not good enough... (3, Informative)

bconway (63464) | more than 6 years ago | (#23507482)

In practice, many (most?) ISPs use transparent HTTP caches, so having 50% of the data stay internal is still no good, as on popular files (eg, a big youtube video), 99% of the traffic stays internal for HTTP.
No they don't. Start here [lagado.com] .

Confirmed today: Comcast, Verizon (DSL + FiOS), Time Warner, and Speakeasy.

Re:Even 100% is not good enough... (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 6 years ago | (#23509214)

confirmed they do or confirmed they don't?

Re:Even 100% is not good enough... (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#23507572)

hat still requires just as many bits crossing the ISP's boundry

Something tells me that the "boundary" isn't a major issue for a Tier 1 provider like Verizon or AT&T.

Oh goodie! (4, Insightful)

snarfies (115214) | more than 6 years ago | (#23506478)

Jeepers, no more bandwidth throttling? Thanks Comcast!

How much extra will you be charging us for that?

Re:Oh goodie! (2)

grayshirtninja (1242690) | more than 6 years ago | (#23506874)

It will cost you your soul. Just sign on the dotted line for unlimited bandwidth and no more throttling!

Re:Oh goodie! (2, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 6 years ago | (#23506980)

...for unlimited bandwidth and no more throttling!*
There. Fixed it for you.

Re:Oh goodie! (1)

QuantumLeaper (607189) | more than 6 years ago | (#23507248)

Now if Comcast stops screwing around with all the other traffic, I will be happy. My web browsing has hit a brick wall in last couple months, its been getting slower every month this year. My 'speed' is 10Mbps but its currently slower than when I first got cable, which was 2.0Mbps, average right now it is about 1.8Mbps. Last year I had a different cable company which was a good, Insight and Comcast traded areas and my city got the short end of the stick. Now if I could just get DSL, I would be happy.

Re:Oh goodie! (1)

u-235-sentinel (594077) | more than 6 years ago | (#23509424)

Jeepers, no more bandwidth throttling? Thanks Comcast!

How much extra will you be charging us for that?


they won't charge more. They will simply terminate your Internet because you must be using more than you paid for right?

Unlimited Use for a flat monthly fee means something else... really... we're not kidding.... honest ;D

Re:Oh goodie! (2, Informative)

icebike (68054) | more than 6 years ago | (#23509582)

Well Comcast is still resetting bittorent for me.

Tested this morning with http://broadband.mpi-sws.mpg.de/transparency/bttest.php [mpi-sws.mpg.de]

Still multiple resets. Yes, torrents do complete, but much more slowly than on my neighbors ASDL which has half the speed rating of my comcast connection.

So they lie.

I'll believe it when... (4, Interesting)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 6 years ago | (#23506492)

My torrent stops registering massive packet forgery and my uploads stop getting throttled to 1/5 the original speed after 5 seconds from initialization. As well as my web-browsing speed, and my gaming speed, and my windows/ubuntu updates speed...

Re:I'll believe it when... (5, Informative)

frooddude (148993) | more than 6 years ago | (#23506674)

If you're on Comcast that speed change could just be the effects of Speedboost. They give a short term bump in throughput for each new transaction.

I rarely get good torrent speeds unless I'm dealing with a highly transacted image. Like a new release of ubuntu.

Re:I'll believe it when... (2, Insightful)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 6 years ago | (#23507220)

They give a short term bump in throughput for each new transaction.
A long term downgrade in throughput beyond the first transaction you say?

Re:I'll believe it when... (3, Interesting)

DCstewieG (824956) | more than 6 years ago | (#23507654)

To be honest it's actually a pretty fair way for Comcast to serve the majority of customers. When downloading a normal file off the internet, you get way higher that the 6 mbps you're paying for. For files smaller than 20MB or so, they fly down the line. For the rest, you get knocked back to 6 after 10-15 seconds.

Now ignoring the fact that yes, the state of broadband in the U.S. sucks and 6 mbps being "good" is unfortunate, SpeedBoost is actually a nifty thing.

I had Comcast (Chicago area) and actually didn't notice the problems people talk about while torrenting. I don't know if it's because of tighter competition here or not. I now have WOW and am paying a little less for pretty much the same thing.

Re:I'll believe it when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23508184)

Ignoring the fact that very few people actually care about having really fast internet helps to keep you from looking like a whiny little bitch.

Re:I'll believe it when... (1)

Yfrwlf (998822) | more than 6 years ago | (#23510084)

I now have WOW and am paying a little less for pretty much the same thing.

You're forgetting to add on the cost of your time spent playing WoW though and the subsequent wounds from your lover.

Re:I'll believe it when... (1)

Joe Snipe (224958) | more than 6 years ago | (#23510076)

A long term downgrade in throughput beyond the first transaction you say?

That's not really fair; funny, but not fair. The "short bump" has a throughput that is higher than the speed you are paying for, and then it gets throttled back to the speed defined in your SLA. Comcast is guilty of many other shady practices, let's stick with those instead of resorting to slander and negative spin, shall we?

Re:I'll believe it when... (1)

nairb774 (728193) | more than 6 years ago | (#23507460)

I believe that speed boost has something to do with the drop off. Right at the time of the drop off the ping times go upwards of 5 seconds. I can see this happening when speed boost turns off as a little bit backs up - but the system does not seem to recover for minutes. When the ping times do come down the upload speed is all over the place - somewhere between 15 and 40kb. If I manually cap at 34kb I never have the ping time jump and it happily hums a long with out problem. BTW 35 is the upper limit - as anything at this or higher causes the bounces.

Re:I'll believe it when... (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | more than 6 years ago | (#23507592)

Sounds like your on the standard 384 up plan in which case you would need to throttle your torrent client to aprox 35-40kb to not saturate your outbound connection.

Re:I'll believe it when... (1)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 6 years ago | (#23509020)

6Mbs/768Kbs actually. 35-40kbs upload is the highest I've ever gotten consistently. 450kbs download is the highest I've ever gotten on massively seeded & peered torrents (2000+). There's another connection that is wireless in the area that I tried to connect to (also from comcast) and got the same exact results. I have to throttle my torrent uploads to 10-15kbs in order to just get the webpages to load within 5 minutes a piece (frequently still getting a "cannot connect to" error or half the webpage graphics not loading). If I shut down the torrent program and wait 5-10 minutes the webpages load almost instantly.

Re:I'll believe it when... (1)

Kelz (611260) | more than 6 years ago | (#23508448)

About 2 seconds after I start U-torrent, refreshing google times out. I can't do ANYTHING else if I'm torrenting, at any speed (usual speeds are 40KB up, which is far far less than I have available). I live in San Jose.

Comcast (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23506522)

At the same time Comcast announced a $10 increase of their Internet Service Bill since the P2P Friendly service is very costly.

Re:Comcast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23507444)

fuck this i downloaded a torrented object and crapcast behaves the exact same killing it off several times and then after it was downloaded killing off all seed connections

Bell Canada needs to fix their practices as well (1)

wildem (1267822) | more than 6 years ago | (#23506624)

Their P2P throttling down to 30 KB/s is down right filthy. I wish something would be done on our front as well.

Re:Bell Canada needs to fix their practices as wel (2, Informative)

aclarke (307017) | more than 6 years ago | (#23508438)

If you're around Ottawa or feel like going there, there's a "Net Neutrality Rally" on May 27: www.netneutralityrally.ca [netneutralityrally.ca] .

My ISP (Teksavvy) emailed me a couple hours ago saying apparently most of the Teksavvy staff is taking the day off to go to the rally so please only call in with tech support questions if it's really important.

That's pretty cool if you ask me.

- Andrew.

Cubit (2)

bendodge (998616) | more than 6 years ago | (#23506640)

What would really be great is if Cubit would eliminate all the nasty tracker ads. They are very annoying for people like me who are just after software, not porn.

And looking at the current batch of lawsuits, I'd say now is the time to start supporting Cubit in all the major clients (I'm thinking particularly of KTorrent...) So please work on it if you have the skills, and bug people who do if you don't (that would be me).

Re:Cubit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23507922)

Adblock Plus, ever heard of it? I haven't seen ads on web pages in ages, including torrent sites.

Re:Cubit (1)

monxrtr (1105563) | more than 6 years ago | (#23508936)

Adblock Plus doesn't prevent ads being sent from ad servers (just prevents ads from being displayed), nor the wasted bandwidth. How much (as in percentage) traffic is generated by tracking users and sending individually tailored advertisements?

Re:Cubit (1)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 6 years ago | (#23509132)

Are there any plugins/addons for firefox that actively prevent the ads from being loaded onto your computer? This would really help with bandwidth issues as well as helping to prevent some malware I would imagine.

Throttling - Caps (4, Insightful)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 6 years ago | (#23506652)

Most consumer level service comes with an Acceptable Usage Policy. Mine says that (this is paraphrased) "At the sole discretion of big cable company (not comcast), users may be terminated for abuse or excessive usage".

So, we'll move from throttling to arbitrary caps. Maybe after XXGB your speeds are cut to 1/10th. Or maybe (like my cable company), they can just say "Well, we don't want you as a customer any more".

Explicit caps? We can complain or not subscribe if they're low- I'm for that if somebody is downloading 300GB+ per month, using my node. But the idea of "Well, you downloaded 'too much'" is just as bad as lying about throttling.

Re:Throttling - Caps (1)

u-235-sentinel (594077) | more than 6 years ago | (#23509496)

Most consumer level service comes with an Acceptable Usage Policy. Mine says that (this is paraphrased) "At the sole discretion of big cable company (not comcast), users may be terminated for abuse or excessive usage".

So, we'll move from throttling to arbitrary caps. Maybe after XXGB your speeds are cut to 1/10th. Or maybe (like my cable company), they can just say "Well, we don't want you as a customer any more".

Explicit caps? We can complain or not subscribe if they're low- I'm for that if somebody is downloading 300GB+ per month, using my node. But the idea of "Well, you downloaded 'too much'" is just as bad as lying about throttling.


This happens much more often than I believe Concast is willing to state. Otherwise there would be a mass class action lawsuit against them.

They say it's only .001% of their customers that will be terminated. So if that's the case, what are the odds of two on the same block being terminated? How about the odds of three? Yeah I'm serious. Three people on my block were terminated within a couple months of my family being terminated. So .001%? I don't believe it.

Soo P2P Friendly... (1)

hyperz69 (1226464) | more than 6 years ago | (#23506654)

In the same way that Yearning for Zion was Family Friendly.

old tech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23506702)

i was just wondering, if either ISP
route "multicast" to their customers?

my DSL connection doesn't understand "multicast".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicast

Lies! (1)

gozu (541069) | more than 6 years ago | (#23506722)

I don't believe any of it. Where is the proof? Nowhere, that's where!

Lying bastards.

What is P2P? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23506730)

I hope it's not this kind of P2P. [slashdot.org]

The article meshes with my experience (4, Informative)

dave562 (969951) | more than 6 years ago | (#23506814)

I've been a Verizon DSL subscriber since the late 1990s, back when they were still GTE. They have had constantly good service and great uptimes. I started using torrents about a year ago and have never had any problems. I have one running at home right now. On my 1.5/384 line I'm getting about 170k down and 40k up, constantly.

It has been my experience that in some ways DSL is superior to cable. I remember when cable first came out everyone who got it thought it was great. Then their neighbor got it, and their other neighbor got it, and suddenly it became obvious that the entire neighborhood was on one shared pipe and a single bandwidth hog could ruin it for everyone. It doesn't seem like much has changed in the last decade. With DSL you can count on getting the bandwidth that you pay for but the peak available bandwidth isn't as high as cable. On cable you might get some really high peak speeds, but the cable networks haven't been designed to sustain high transfer rates for long periods of time.

Re:The article meshes with my experience (5, Insightful)

hal9000(jr) (316943) | more than 6 years ago | (#23506998)

If it were only so simple. At some point, all your DSL connections are aggregated somewhere and that aggregation point becomes the bottleneck.

The WAN technology doesn't make that go away. There could be any number of reasons why you haven't suffered any depredation such as population density, the profile of your neighbors, etc. It could just be that neighborhood hasn't reached saturation yet.

I used to have DSL and I found my connection would degrade noticeably in the late afternoon and evening simply because we had a lot of people in the area connected with lots of kids.

The last mile is just one point of depredation. The in-home connection experience is going to get bad. I would hate to live in a city and use wireless simply because of contention on the airwaves. Hell, when I first got FiOS, I had to convince the tech that the reason for the poor performance was because the Actiontec router they provided and a neighbors were on the same channel, 6, causing contention. I moved mine to channel 11, a non-interfering channel, and wah-lah, performance problem solved.

Re:The article meshes with my experience (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 6 years ago | (#23507234)

I must be lucky, or maybe Verizon knows what they are doing when it comes to residential data circuits.

Re:The article meshes with my experience (5, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#23507530)

At some point, all your DSL connections are aggregated somewhere and that aggregation point becomes the bottleneck.

It seems like every time we have this discussion that someone repeats this half-truth and gets a +5 out of it. Yes, DSL connections are aggregated somewhere. But that's not the whole story.

There's nothing technical stopping a telco from having a 1:1 contention ratio if they deem it in their best interests. Contrast that to cable -- the only way to attain a 1:1 ratio on cable is to segment the network into insanely small slices or devote more channels on the coax plant to HSI services. DOCSIS 2.0 only offers ~42Mbits of downstream -- assuming 5Mbit connections (the standard for Roadrunner around here and actually quite low compared to other areas) it only takes nine people to completely saturate the downstream pipe.

Even without a 1:1 contention ratio it's going to take a lot more than nine customers to peg the backhaul connection from your local DSLAM.

I used to have DSL and I found my connection would degrade noticeably in the late afternoon and evening simply because we had a lot of people in the area connected with lots of kids.

As with anything, YMMV. I've never seen a slowdown in six years of working with Verizon and Frontier (a smaller telco based out of Rochester). I have seen them occur on Roadrunner -- in some neighborhoods around here it's downright painful when the college kids are in town.

Re:The article meshes with my experience (1)

swm (171547) | more than 6 years ago | (#23507552)

If it were only so simple. At some point, all your DSL connections are aggregated somewhere and that aggregation point becomes the bottleneck.
True in principle, but anecdotal reports (like the GP) consistently indicate that users do better with a point-to-point link to a switch at the CO than with a single LAN segment shared by the whole neighborhood.

Remember, cable modem service was piggy-backed on the existing cable TV network. I've read accounts on Slashdot of cable companies provisioning just one (or maybe two) SDTV (AKA 6 MHz) channels per LAN segment for cable modem.

Users used to be limited by 56Kb/s modems, and that constrained the content providers too: there's no point providing a firehose if your users have to drink through a straw. In that environment, cable modem was adequate.

But now many users have broadband connections, the content has grown up to match, and shared LAN segments just don't scale.

Re:The article meshes with my experience (5, Informative)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 6 years ago | (#23507568)

I moved mine to channel 11, a non-interfering channel, and wah-lah, performance problem solved.

It's voilà [wiktionary.org] , damnit!

Re:The article meshes with my experience (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23508310)

wah-lah


The term is spelled voilà, or do you just hate the French so much. :)

Re:The article meshes with my experience (1)

Patrick_Meenan (1254428) | more than 6 years ago | (#23508368)

Yes, but it is a LOT cheaper for an ISP to increase their capacity on the back-end than it is to push it all the way out to the last mile.

Re:The article meshes with my experience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23508544)

The problem you get with WLAN is the same as with cable: may peoeple sharing "analog" bandwidth, i.e. some frequency range in a shared medium. If there is no proper mechanism to fairly share that medium, usability suffers. With DSL, your lines all terminate in a DSLAM, with hundeds or thousands of subscribers, each with their own copper line (and only little crosstalk). It's much easier to enforce some level of fairness with a large number of users aggregated, because one or two bandwidth hogs don't really make much of a difference with hundreds of users, but if there are two in a neighborhood on the same cable that is just enough for a few dozen "average" users, with modems that essentially work like unswitched ethernet and grab as much bandwith as they can, things go downhill quickly.

Re:The article meshes with my experience (2, Informative)

Blkdeath (530393) | more than 6 years ago | (#23510126)

If it were only so simple. At some point, all your DSL connections are aggregated somewhere and that aggregation point becomes the bottleneck.

Yes, all ISPs have that very same bottleneck and it's typically extremely large. The coaxial cable running through many residential neighborhoods quickly reaches saturation similar to that of an old 10Base2 Thinnet network where if a small handful of computers are using lots of bandwidth at once the collision rate goes up and the available bandwidth to all homes in that segment (typically hundreds, if not thousands) find saturated links and slowed browsing.

However the "bottleneck" at the ISP level - the famous defense of the cable aficionados, is usually extremely large to the point where it would take hundreds or thousands of users saturating their individual links in order to slow the connection appreciably.

When you can remove the smallest bottleneck, that being the last mile, you are able to issue a higher guaranteed level of service to each individual segment of your network (nee, each individual user).

The best comparison of cable versus DSL is water. Bandwidth travels through pipes, as it were, just like water. Now, the source of that water coming into the house is very generous and operates at a pressure level higher than that of any individual fixture. Now, when you have a water line that branches off to the washer, two toilets, the shower, the kitchen sink, dishwasher, and two bathroom sinks you can see how easy it is to saturate the link. Anybody who's ever been in the shower when someone turned on a clothes / dish washer or flushed a toilet knows first hand what I'm talking about.

Now, the new(er) solution to this age old problem is a method of plumbing that sends a single water pipe to each and every fixture in the house. The pipe is straight and dedicated. This means when you're showering and some insensitive bonehead flushes the toilet you'll be safe from scalding.

Now, one could say that the bottleneck exists in the water main, be it 4", 5", 6", 8", whatever (which is a significant order of magnitude more pressure-filled than any home supply), or the large supply pipes that feed the individual mains; somewhere to the order of 12" and higher, or the filtration station that pumps the water into the entire system or even the lake, stream or underground well that feeds the filtration system in the first place. But in all likelyhood the reason you're being burned in the shower or losing water pressure while trying to hose off your car is because somebody else in the house has used up more than their fair share on you.

The long and short of it is this; the last mile is the biggest, most problematic, most expensive bottleneck to cure. It's easy enough to add a new OC line in a data centre but it's a much more prohibitive task to upgrade several thousand individual homes.

Re:The article meshes with my experience (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#23507218)

I agree, I have ahd superiour customer service, never experienced any throttling at all.
In fact, they even lowered my rate, mid-contract when they changed there rates overall. Most places have a disclaimer saying new prices aren't for current customers.

So I don't understand where the hate for Verizon comes from.

Re:The article meshes with my experience (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 6 years ago | (#23507312)

I agree on their customer service with regards to billing. I've been with them since the days when 384k was considered "platinum" service. They don't even offer "platinum" service anymore but my account is flagged as a platinum DSL customer. No matter where I go, I get their highest available speed for $34.99 a month... the same price I've been paying since the late 1990s.

Technical support is alright. They had some provisioning problems with their 3mb lines for a while. The initial provision was for 1.5mb and then they'd have to get the okay from Genuity to get the full 3mb. I moved to a couple of different places in a short period of time. Every time I moved they screwed up the provisioning and wouldn't believe me when I told them, "I've been through this twice before. Just call Genuity and get the line properly provisioned." Yet even dealing with their skepticism they still resolved the issue within 48 hours.

Re:The article meshes with my experience (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#23508046)

They had some provisioning problems with their 3mb lines for a while

My experiences with Verizon (for all their services, ISDN, DSL, POTS, centrex, etc, etc) is that the actual ordering/provisioning process is a PITA. You place your order with one department who hands it off to another department who may hand it off to yet another department before it's all said and done. The left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing and some of the customer service people clearly hate their jobs and can't be bothered to even hide their annoyance with you when you run into problems.

I had to go through a three week long nightmare to get my DSL switched to dry-loop when I ditched POTS. Their system couldn't handle it easily because I wanted to port the landline number to my cell and keep the DSL service as dry-loop once the dialtone was gone. Similarly, I had another long battle getting my speed upgraded to 3.0 after a local tech told me the line would support it (their database said it wouldn't -- her line tester said it would). Once they got the service setup properly though I never thought about it again -- it "just works".

If they could cut out some of the bureaucracy and have better internal communications I think they could give the cable industry a real run for their money. They usually have a superior product -- for some strange reason they don't seem to advertise it as aggressively as the cable company does. I've never understood why that is.

Re:The article meshes with my experience (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 6 years ago | (#23508232)

Verizon provisioning sucks, but it has been pretty much my experience that provisioning EVERYWHERE sucks no matter who you go with. The one exception has been UUNet, currently MCI/WorldComm/Verizon Business. Those guys are on it.

Re:The article meshes with my experience (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#23508414)

Verizon provisioning sucks, but it has been pretty much my experience that provisioning EVERYWHERE sucks no matter who you go with

Yeah and that's something that the telco's really need to improve. I've been around the telco culture ever since high school. I'm familiar enough with their procedures to put up the provisioning headaches. I also have enough contacts among the local techs that I can generally bypass the Business Office to get things done faster -- though I try not to abuse this unless I'm facing a service outage and the Business Office isn't being responsive enough.

The problem is that not everybody has that experience or those contacts. And Grandma doesn't understand why it takes 7-10 business days to get her DSL hooked up when Time Warner can (usually) just give you a self-install kit that isn't particularly hard to figure out. I don't think the telco's can ever be that responsive but there's no reason why they couldn't cut that 7-10 day window down to 1-2 business days if they wanted to spend the money to hire more people. There's no reason why they couldn't coordinate orders better between their various departments.

Re:The article meshes with my experience (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 6 years ago | (#23509784)

I don't think the telco's can ever be that responsive but there's no reason why they couldn't cut that 7-10 day window down to 1-2 business days if they wanted to spend the money to hire more people. There's no reason why they couldn't coordinate orders better between their various departments.

How much of that do you think has to do with the union culture in the telcos? Could it have something to do with the combination of being unable to get rid of positions and being unable to fire inefficient people? I've always had the sense that they have some really outdated processes, but those processes can't be streamlined because it would involve either moving people or getting rid of people. My experience has been that no matter what industry you are dealing with, if they are unionized they are going to fight change at every turn as some sort of knee jerk reaction.

Fuck the 'friendly' submitter (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23506918)

He's obviously a spinmeister working for the company.

When people buy a product or service they expect it to work reasonably. It's like saying that a car that doesn't anymore explode into flames is now 'friendly'... The word he so boldly uses don't even appear on the FA. Save your spam for eggs and bacon.

I believe in actions, not words and hope more people would follow suit.

Re:Fuck the 'friendly' submitter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23507098)

I'll have the spam, spam, spam, eggs, spam, spam, bacon and spam please.

ta3o (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23506934)

succeeses 3ith the

A truce? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23507004)

Does that mean I should stop throttling their 'traffic' when one of their vehicles is the only one behind me on a single lane road?

Re:A truce? (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 6 years ago | (#23507994)

That's the most awesome idea I've ever heard. Slashdotters unite! Slow them pesky comcast trucks down! You never know what could be in those things! Could be something bad. Better not let them drive around.

riiight (4, Insightful)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 6 years ago | (#23507030)

Verizon, Comcast Say They Are P2P Friendly
Kind of like how Microsoft says that they are F/OSS friendly?

Hmmm... (2, Interesting)

wpiman (739077) | more than 6 years ago | (#23507048)

I have Verizon FIOS, which has an Actiontec router with a puny 1k NAT table. Whenever I played Team Fortress, this would overflow the NAT table when I did a server refresh and the router would be unusable for 4 minutes. This was designed to prevent peer to peer applications from clogging their network. Their network doesn't look for P2P traffic, it just kills it at the endpoint.

Interestingly enough, this Team Fortress issues seems to have resolved itself in the last week and a half. I imagine this is due to a Team Fortress update, as I did not update the firmware in my router-- but this is an extreme coincidence.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#23507246)

Get a new router?
I ahve Verizon and don't have any of those problem you mention. Did you contact support?

Re:Hmmm... (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 6 years ago | (#23507582)

This is a very well known issue w/ Verizon FIOS ActionTec routers. It was affecting at least 2 different versions of them. And if you want both TV and Internet over FIOS you pretty much need their gear.

I had the problem too and stopped playing TF2 shortly there-after. I don't know if/when they actually fixed it since I just don't play it anymore.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#23508118)

This is a very well known issue w/ Verizon FIOS ActionTec routers. It was affecting at least 2 different versions of them. And if you want both TV and Internet over FIOS you pretty much need their gear.

Stupid question, but I've never had a chance to see a FiOS connection up close: Can you put the FiOS routers into a bridge mode and get the globally valid IP directly on your PC? The first thing I've always done with my DSL connections is put the router into bridge mode and run pppoe/pppd on my Linux box.

I'd much rather have the full power of iptables and the HTB packet scheduler [luxik.cdi.cz] at my disposal than use their router. I'd hate to think that I won't have this option when FiOS hits my area.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 6 years ago | (#23508778)

To the setup has similarities to a Cable internet setup, except for the fact that the Router isn't just a router but also something that controls the cable boxes. And when the fiber reaches your house there's a large converter box (with battery backup) that splits out the signal to phone lines and Coax (for TV and Internet).

  • Fiber line to your house
  • Large box near your fusebox converts optical signal from fiber to coax
  • Coax line runs to Splitter
  • Splitter distributes cables to to both the Actiontec router and subsequent TVs
  • Actiontec router's admin UI shows the TVs you have hooked up

I don't recall which authentication method it uses, though I doubt it's PPOE.

There's supposedly a way you can use the Actiontec as a bridge, keep your TVs working, and bypass the overflow bug but it's a pain.

Verizon also used to offer an option to run a ethernet line from the large conversion box but they stopped doing that at one point.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#23509024)

There's supposedly a way you can use the Actiontec as a bridge, keep your TVs working, and bypass the overflow bug but it's a pain.

How do they plan on offering commercial services if you can't (easily) bypass their router and use your own? That would be a deal-breaker for me -- I want control over my connection -- not some badly designed NAT box sitting in front of me.

I don't recall which authentication method it uses, though I doubt it's PPOE.

They aren't using any authentication on DSL anymore. It's still PPP but you can enter any username and password that you'd like and it will happily establish a connection. One wonders why they even keep PPP in the loop, given the overhead of PPPoE -- probably inertia more than anything else.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 6 years ago | (#23509970)

Perhaps the commercial version uses different equipment? I don't know.

The problem is/was only a pain to fix if you want both Internet and TV. People without Fios TV had a much easier time plugging in their own equipment.

I think it was if you didn't have TV and your techs hooked you up with Ethernet running from the switch box then you were in the clear (could use any hardware you want). And if they would only run coax then you could still use your own hardware and just keep theirs to do (I guess) auth.

As it stands, I don't know what the current status of everything is. They hooked us up some months ago and the only problems we had were with Team Fortress 2.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

YojimboJango (978350) | more than 6 years ago | (#23507798)

I had the same problem and found that the problem was caused by the old pos modem that AT&T sent me. There is a easy fix, a moderate fix, and a hard fix.
The easy way is filtering the server results by ping / Run and type in: regedit.
      2. Navigate to: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Valve\Steam\.
      3. Create a new string value registry setting named CafeRate.
      4. Give the CafeRate regkey a value of 10000 and progressively decrease the value until the issue is resolved. A rate of 3000 should be considered the minimum value.

There, now get back in the game.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

YojimboJango (978350) | more than 6 years ago | (#23507846)

I had the same problem and found that the problem was caused by the old pos modem that AT&T sent me. There is a easy fix, a moderate fix, and a hard fix.
The easy way is filtering the server results by ping less than 100. Some days when the connection is really good I'll have to set it to less than 50. But normally this will fix your problem.
The moderate way is to head into your steam options and knock your connection speed down a few notches. It won't really effect your game play, but it will let the game know to ease up on your network a bit.
The hard way is a registry fix. 1. Go to Start > Run and type in: regedit.
2. Navigate to: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Valve\Steam\.
3. Create a new string value registry setting named CafeRate.
4. Give the CafeRate regkey a value of 10000 and progressively decrease the value until the issue is resolved. A rate of 3000 should be considered the minimum value.

There, now get back in the game.
Stupid html :( Edit stupid html skills :(

Re:Hmmm... (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 6 years ago | (#23509460)

I'd go incompetence before malice. Many of 2wire's gateways (2700 series particularly) have the same problem, possibly worse. Go above maybe 300 incoming/outgoing connections and the modem will either lock up (requiring a hard reset), restart on it's own (takes about a minute to get back running), start dropping connections one at a time, then lock up (hard reset needed), or (this one is really odd) drop all current connections, restart, resync, but it'll temporarily forget about the connection profile and run the connection at the maximum speed possible on the line for about 20-30 minutes, then it goes back to normal. It's just generically stupid design work AFAICT.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

Jouster (144775) | more than 6 years ago | (#23509546)

The Actiontec FiOS router actually has a built-in automatic firmware updater. At any rate, if it really bothers you, just replace the router with your own.

--J

I call "Bullshit" on Comcast (4, Informative)

Duncan Blackthorne (1095849) | more than 6 years ago | (#23507250)

..and here's the proof (as of just a few minutes ago), courtesy of the Glasnost test:

Is BitTorrent traffic on a well-known BitTorrent port (6881) throttled?

* 2 out of 2 BitTorrent transfers were interrupted while uploading (seeding) using forged TCP RST packets. It seems like your ISP hinders you from uploading BitTorrent traffic to our test server.

* The BitTorrent download worked. Our tool was successful in downloading data using the BitTorrent protocol.

* There's no indication that your ISP rate limits your BitTorrent downloads. In our tests a TCP download achieved minimal 713 Kbps while a BitTorrent download achieved maximal 720 Kbps.

Is BitTorrent traffic on a non-standard BitTorrent port (4711) throttled?

* 2 out of 2 BitTorrent transfers were interrupted while uploading (seeding) using forged TCP RST packets. It seems like your ISP hinders you from uploading BitTorrent traffic to our test server.

* The BitTorrent download worked. Our tool was successful in downloading data using the BitTorrent protocol.

* There's no indication that your ISP rate limits your BitTorrent downloads. In our tests a TCP download achieved minimal 661 Kbps while a BitTorrent download achieved maximal 741 Kbps.

Is TCP traffic on a well-known BitTorrent port (6881) throttled?

* There's no indication that your ISP rate limits all downloads at port 6881. In our test, a TCP download on a BitTorrent port achieved at least 713 Kbps while a TCP download on a non-BitTorrent port achieved at least 661 Kbps.

* There's no indication that your ISP rate limits all uploads at port 6881. In our test, a TCP upload on a BitTorrent port achieved at least 1353 Kbps while a TCP upload on a non-BitTorrent port achieved at least 1403 Kbps.

P2P friendly. Specific protocols not? (5, Insightful)

HumanEmulator (1062440) | more than 6 years ago | (#23507340)

If you read the article carefully, this is not about allowing unfettered P2P on their networks at all. They are deliberately obfuscating the issue. They leave the door open for blocking, filtering and "shaping" (ie. TCP resetting) any protocols they want. This is kind of like Verizon Wireless proudly announcing "We are radio phone call friendly" when the issue is whether to support GSM or CDMA.

Verizon's senior technologist talks about "working with P2P companies", which is radically different than allowing anyone to write a P2P networking app that does (fill in the blank.) Then goes on to say that work needs to be done on P2P DRM.

All in all, the tone of the article seems to confirm that the fight for network neutrality is far from over.

It doesn't matter (3, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | more than 6 years ago | (#23507890)


In the final analysis, protecting aggregators won't matter unless we get genuine 'net neutrality. The ISPs will switch to a 'whitelist' of content providers. In other words, if you want your content delivered, you will pay, become a 'partner', host ISP banner ads or whatever. All others will grovel with the lowest QoS. This sidesteps accusations of throttling 'undesirable' services. Everyone gets throttled and will have to pay to get out of jail.


I don't think the big ISPs have anything special against P2P services (that they don't have against anyone else). They just want to extract money out of them. With big players like Google, Yahoo, and MSN, that's easy to do. There's advertising revenue that can be quantified and the ISPs can skim off of. P2P just happens to be a big enough consumer of bandwidth that the ISPs would like them to pay to play as well.

Sure (1)

Ender77 (551980) | more than 6 years ago | (#23508096)

Didn't they also say that they were only blocking p2p traffic at peak busy hours? Then they were caught doing it all the time? Action speaks louder than words.

Not just about inter-ISP traffic (1)

UnderCoverPenguin (1001627) | more than 6 years ago | (#23508442)

It's not just about inter-ISP traffic, the ISPs are concerned about the traffic in their own networks as well. P2P among an ISP's customers puts a load on the internal network, especially inter-region traffic.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23508532)

I try to run a small business from my house, and Comcast terminates my TCP connections after they upload somewhere between 5MB and 7MB of data. It can be hard to scp software upgrades to a client computer under these circumstances.

I have called them on it and they say that it is part of my usage agreement, which they have the right to modify without notifying me.

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 6 years ago | (#23509544)

which they have the right to modify without notifying me.
I am pretty sure they can't legally do that. They might put it in the contract, but I am pretty damn sure that cannot be legally enforced. Get a lawyer.

RIAA Illegal Investigators (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 6 years ago | (#23508916)

Does this mean that if you stay within the Comcast network that MediaSentry can't illegally find you any longer?

P2P CDNs don't count (1)

marxmarv (30295) | more than 6 years ago | (#23509278)

It irks me that ISPs get away with claiming that encouraging local premium content caching on customer-owned equipment is "P2P", or "friendly" for that matter. Then again, we're not the target audience of this; telecom regulators and legislators are.

Robert X. Cringely once said that wireless telcos are in the business of creating billable events. What you see here is broadband ISPs desperately trying to do much the same. By convincing governing types that the P2P the public wants is faster fulfillment of paid-for premium content by donating hardware and cycles to the cause, those continuing pressure for proper net neutrality are somewhat discredited.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?