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!

Google To Develop ISP Throttling Detector

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the if-choking-please-call-for-help dept.

The Internet 198

bigwophh writes "Google has been very vocal on its stance for net neutrality. Now, Richard Whitt — Senior Policy Director for Google — announces that Google will take an even more active role in the debate by arming consumers with the tools to determine first-hand if their broadband connections are being monkeyed with by their ISPs."

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

Why blame niggers? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23793457)

Quote "Google will take an even more active role in the debate by arming consumers with the tools to determine first-hand if their broadband connections are being monkeyed with by their ISPs". Monkeyed with? Just for once, for a SINGLE FUCKING TIME, can we leave the niggers out of this? Please??

Parent modded insightful? (1, Offtopic)

fractalVisionz (989785) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793721)

Whomever modded the parent as insightful needs to learn to read the entire comment and the subject. This is pitiful. I just hope meta moderation works.

Re:Why blame niggers? (0)

Maxhrk (680390) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793731)

Quote "Google will take an even more active role in the debate by arming consumers with the tools to determine first-hand if their broadband connections are being monkeyed with by their ISPs". Monkeyed with? Just for once, for a SINGLE FUCKING TIME, can we leave the niggers out of this? Please??
black people are not only monkey around here.

How convenient (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23793459)

Oh sure, Google freeloads off all the ISPs and is now developing a tool to detect when ISPs fight back. ...what, you say, Google pays for its bandwidth already? They haven't just hacked their servers into the Internet? Hmmm, maybe the ISPs lied then...

Re:How convenient (1, Insightful)

Xanius (955737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793993)

I for one appreciate your satire...too bad the mod that made you a troll only heard a whoosh sound.

let me guess (1)

thermian (1267986) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793483)

This to be followed by googles entry into the ISP market?

Re:let me guess (1)

Afecks (899057) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793551)

They have already tried, I think [unstrung.com] .

Re:let me guess (2, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793563)

Well if they do, then they can probably sign me up as a customer. If Google can act on the idea of a 100% neutral Internet and become an ISP, many people will head to them. But I don't think Google will expand into the physical world much just because of how everything they do has to deal with the Internet as more of an OS then it being a physical computer. But if Google becomes an ISP, I might just have to sign up after this.

Re:let me guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23793597)

I don't expect it. The move makes perfect sense without Google entering that cut-throat market. It is a way to ensure that users know who they need to complain to when a Google slowdown is caused by the users' ISPs throttling Google traffic. Directing the users' ire at the ISPs is much cheaper than paying off ISPs.

Re:let me guess (4, Funny)

Paiev (1233954) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793641)

You're behind the times. They already offer internet [google.com] . I use it in my home; let's me browse /. while I'm on the toilet.

Re:let me guess (4, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793967)

Sure it works, but the bandwidth is crap.

Re:let me guess (4, Funny)

coopaq (601975) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794765)

Maybe the somebody needs to clear the logs.

Or flush the streams...

eh... I'm tired of all these shitty jokes.

Re:let me guess (1)

Kamokazi (1080091) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794457)

I heard that service pissed off a lot of customers. You can join the FOOLS and try it if you want to (like my friend APRIL)...I'll use a different series of tubes to get my data in and out.

Re:let me guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23795037)

Gee, that was SUBTLE. And I'm totally NOT being SARCASTIC.

What, where, why, how? (when?) (5, Funny)

Deltaspectre (796409) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793497)

FTA:

What:
Throttling detector

Where:
The interwho

Why:
Because ISPs like to throttle to give Papa Joe and his daughters a healthy feed of myspace and rain hellfire upon Torrenting Sam and his goon squad of seeders

How:
No details

When:
Who knows?

Is there an award for understatements? (5, Funny)

paiute (550198) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793521)

"We were pretty well known on the internet. We were pretty popular. We had some funds available."

Still, good on them for coming to a fork in the road - one to eviltown and the other to goodville - and choosing wisely.

Re:Is there an award for understatements? (5, Funny)

Asmor (775910) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793639)

You seem to be mistaken, they chose goodville.

Re:Is there an award for understatements? (1)

blankinthefill (665181) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794037)

Google: still trying to prove that big companies don't HAVE to be evil!

Re:Is there an award for understatements? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23794109)

How does this make them "good"?

If they were building highways and intentionally decided to not build an off ramp near your store your going to do something!

Re:Is there an award for understatements? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23794333)

"We were pretty well known on the internet. We were pretty popular. We had some funds available."

Still, good on them for coming to a fork in the road - one to eviltown and the other to goodville - and choosing wisely.
Saying something that far out modest is actually the opposite of modesty, they are being conceited. They damn well know they are at the top and pretending to be ridiculously modest when you're in such a position is a form of egotistical masturbation. There is probably some psychological term for that, although I don't know what it would be.

Re:Is there an award for understatements? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23794805)

egotistical masturbation. There is probably some psychological term for that, although I don't know what it would be.
Playing with old one-I?

MOD PARENT UP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23795221)

you retards... she makes a damn good point

ISP throttling (5, Funny)

ForexCoder (1208982) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793601)

And watch the ISPs throttle this download to 1 byte/minute

Re:ISP throttling (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794031)

And how the hell are they supposed to send fractions of bits?

I'm not buying a new router, damnit!

Re:ISP throttling (1)

AsmCoder8088 (745645) | more than 6 years ago | (#23795251)

And how the hell are they supposed to send fractions of bits?
It is not necessary to send fractions of bits to achieve such a rate of 1 byte/minute. Simply by waiting 1 minute to send 1 byte you are achieving the goal of 1 byte/minute and not having to deal with fractions of bytes.

Legality Question (1)

One-FISH- (1152639) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793611)

Remind me if i'm wrong, but if i'm pay for say...a 5 Mbps Transfer rate and my ISP is limiting my bandwidth below that, couldn't I take them to court?

Re:Legality Question (5, Funny)

Asmor (775910) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793657)

I'm sure there's stuff in the legalese of the contract you signed which says that that number's an upper limit and you should just be happy they give you any bandwidth at all, you filty customer.

Re:Legality Question (5, Insightful)

TihSon (1065170) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793775)

...you filthy customer. The most concise phrase I have yet heard to describe how I feel dealing with Canadian Telcos and ISPs.

Re:Legality Question (3, Insightful)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793921)

"...you filthy customer. The most concise phrase I have yet heard to describe how I feel dealing with Canadian Telcos and ISPs."

More like: ...you filthy customer. The most concise phrase I have yet heard to describe how I feel dealing with any big company.

Re:Legality Question (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23793799)

Yes, that's pretty much it. But on the flip side of things, should we expect to be able to run torrents 24/7-365? Or at what point is excessive bandwidth "excessive?"

Re:Legality Question (4, Interesting)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793961)

Yes, that's pretty much it. But on the flip side of things, should we expect to be able to run torrents 24/7-365? Or at what point is excessive bandwidth "excessive?"
Ethicly (not legally, that's a lot more muddled...which is sad) I'd say that excessive bandwidth is anything over what the ISP told you they'd give you. If you want to run torrents 24/7 365, but you keep your per second bandwidth use under what the ISP told you they'd sell you, then I'd say you're not using excessive bandwidth.

When it comes to bandwidth the total amount really doesn't matter (despite what the ISPs would have you believe). It's the amount per second, or, more reasonably, minute, that is the real determining factor. If I use 300 Gigs of bandwidth, but do so in 10 gigs a night, at the times when every normal person is asleep, over the course of the entire month that's going to have far less of an impact on my neighbors than if I used 30 Gigs on the first of the month during the waking hours.

Hmm...anyone else getting visions of power company like pricing? You pay per gig (or something) a reasonable fee (such that the average person pays the same then as now), but if you use it during off hours you pay less. It's probably been thought of before but it might help, those torrents would be a lot cheaper to run during off hours, making normal usage faster during on hours.

Re:Legality Question (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794257)

The pricing model used by most broadband providers is designed for simplicity, rather than any real representation of value. A pricing scheme that changed according to demand would be better; users could specify how much they're willing to pay at what times, and the ISP could evaluate all the customers' bids and allocate the bandwidth auction-style.

This pricing model would make sense; bandwidth is priced according to the actual laws of supply and demand, rather than whatever the ISP feels like charging.

That's why ISPs won't do it.

Re:Legality Question (4, Informative)

vux984 (928602) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794435)

This pricing model would make sense; bandwidth is priced according to the actual laws of supply and demand, rather than whatever the ISP feels like charging.

That's why ISPs won't do it.

Because most customers are doing just fine the way it is. The customers getting 'screwed' are the ones that want to transfer 1000s of GB per month for 35$ flat rate.

If the ISPs ever actually switched to a supply/demand pricing model, with tiered bandwidth, guess what, the same customers that are moaning about getting 'screwed' now by throttling, are going to be moaning that their internet costs $1500/mo when they they run torrents at 25down:2up Mbps 24x7.

Meanwhile 'regular' people will be complaining because they don't understand their up/down ratios, why bandwidth costs more going in one direction than the other, why they had to pay $5 extra one month when they didn't do anything out of the ordinary.... except update windows to sp3... and according to the MS page, thats only a 97kb download.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=68C48DAD-BC34-40BE-8D85-6BB4F56F5110&displaylang=en#filelist [microsoft.com]

In effect: everybody loses.

Re:Legality Question (3, Interesting)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794753)

They problem is that the ISPs over there are advertising it as unlimited interent.
You pay a flat fee and you can download as much as you want.

The catch is either in the fine print or its omitted completely.

Its illegal in Australia but legal in the US to do that.
Thats why nearly all our net plans have fixed quotas (sometimes with on and off peak) and your shaped after reaching the limit.

It is the next simplest solution and its extremely fair for consumers.

Re:Legality Question (5, Insightful)

spazdor (902907) | more than 6 years ago | (#23795111)

I will happy pay for my bandwidth by the gigabyte if it is sold at market value. If they set up their pricing to reward lighter use or off-peak use, I will change my downloading habits to take advantage of it.

The ones really being "screwed" under the current model are the light users, who push a good 2 or 3 megabytes a day to check their email and the weather report, don't call tech support very often, and are paying $60 a month to subsidize us compulsive downloaders.

Re:Legality Question (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23794453)

Actually a lot of ISPs in India offer this. Its more like the US cell phone model .. 1 GB per month .. 6 am -9pm and unlimited bandwidth at night. Great for torrents. (Costs around the equivalent of 15-20$ a month).

Re:Legality Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23794325)

Are we talking about excessive excesses or just normal excesses? Or is it fair to assume all excesses are excessive excesses?
I'm just saying...

on the bandwidth thing (2, Interesting)

thermian (1267986) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793929)

I've found something quite fishy going on in the UK.

We currently have an 8Mb line, and I do mean 8, it gets to that speed quite often, especially in transfers from my university machines, other Janet sites, and other good download locations.

Otherwise we get around 4Mb.

Ok, all fine, but now UK ISP have started talking about max 2Mb lines in my area, and several have 'tested' my line and found it cannot go above 2mb, even when I clearly can get much greater speeds then this, and have before and after their 'test'.

Since this is usually accompanied by 'great deals' on 2mb packages, I smell several day old former fishies.

Re:on the bandwidth thing (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794551)

Once you're beyond a few hops it's really impossible to say what the bandwidth issues are. If you can get 8Mb to reasonably local servers then that's what your ISP is giving you. Once it's passed their routers it's really not anything they can do anything about.

Re:on the bandwidth thing (3, Informative)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794783)

Unless the fast speeds are coming from their peering partners while the true internet comes via a 56k modem. ;)

Re:on the bandwidth thing (1)

iangoldby (552781) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794829)

There's no mystery here. The test is usually done by BT, who are notoriously conservative over what they say your line is capable of. The huge benefit to them is that by setting their standards so low they find there are very few lines so slow that they would consider them to be faulty...

If you're getting 8 Mbps on a line BT says is capable only of 2 Mbps then be grateful I say.

(Also, be careful to distinguish modem sync speed, which is the 2 Mbps that BT are talking about and the 8 Mbps that you actually get - distinguish them from the actual throughput, which cannot be higher than your sync speed and is frequently much less due to bottle-necks elsewhere on t'internet.)

Re:on the bandwidth thing (2, Interesting)

Bashae (1250564) | more than 6 years ago | (#23795195)

I'm not british, but my phone carrier (they're the ones who decide on that, not the ISP) does exactly the same thing. For "stability" reasons, they cap DSL signals to a small fraction of what the line can actually achieve (a fraction which is often smaller than the advertised connection speed sold by the ISP). I had to threaten them to really get the upload bandwidth I'm paying for, and it's 100% stable (and I max it all the time).

Re:Legality Question (-1)

dfm3 (830843) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794047)

I'm sure there's stuff in the legalese of the contract you signed which says that that number's an upper limit and you should just be happy they give you any bandwidth at all, you filty consumer.
There. Fixed it for you.

Re:Legality Question (4, Interesting)

notnAP (846325) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793685)

Yes, you could. Now if you were, say, paying for up to 5 Mbps Transfer rate and your ISP is limiting your bandwidth below that, your legal options become a little more muddled. The fact that your ISP is throttling one kind of traffic over another, or to one destination or another, is not necessarily part of the equation.

How ironic that my feelings on the matter so closely match the quote "What we've got here is failure to communicate... Now I don't like this any more than you do."

Re:Legality Question (1)

mattmcm (1143125) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793701)

Not likely. A lot of ISPs generally stick "up to [speed]" in their terms and conditions, which gives them a get out of jail free card when it drops below that.

Re:Legality Question (4, Funny)

Asmor (775910) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793907)

It's not really a bad thing, either.

I mean, they can't possibly guarantee you a certain speed. Try explaining to Joe Perv that even though he has the capability of 20 MbPS, the server that has his Chinese industrial accident porn can only deliver at 20 bPS.

There's enough reasons to sling vitriol at unethical ISPs, but advertising "up to [speed]" isn't one of them.

Re:Legality Question (4, Funny)

spazdor (902907) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794273)

Chinese industrial accident porn


You have made this entire thread worthwhile.

Re:Legality Question (3, Funny)

u38cg (607297) | more than 6 years ago | (#23795013)

And Google Zeitgeist is going to be raising a few eyebrows next month...

Re:Legality Question (4, Informative)

Xest (935314) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794941)

It is if they're the ones stopping you reaching the speed they advertised.

How would you feel if hard drive manufacturers didn't give you all the drive space they advertised or if your new sports car couldn't really run at the advertised max speed all the time? oh, wait...

Seriously though, living in the UK where we have ADSL max and I get advertised as being allowed up to 8mbps broadband but living in an area I can only get 2mbps is one thing. When the ISP then only lets me have 512kbps if I'm lucky half the time despite me getting shafted harder than most people the rest of the time it's a whole different matter, it's a kick in the nads. They really need to rethink their business plan if not only can they not supply what they're selling, but if they then can't even supply 1/4th and can in fact only supply 1/16th of what they're selling and even less than that with some ISPs.

Re:Legality Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23795245)

How would you feel if hard drive manufacturers didn't give you all the drive space they advertised
"Up to 300GB(SI)"

Re:Legality Question (4, Informative)

marquis111 (94760) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793867)

That's why consumer Internet connections are so much cheaper than business-grade internet connections riding on T1's and the like -- cable modems, DSL, EVDO connections, etc are almost always sold as "up to xxxbits/second". On the other hand, true T1's, T3's, etc, are sold as a guaranteed speed and very often with an SLA and penalties for non-performance of the speed. Of course, even T1's with guaranteed speed only guarantee the speed for the ISP's portion of the journey into the Internet "cloud".

Re:Legality Question (2, Informative)

rezalas (1227518) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794369)

You don't pay for 5Mb download speeds, you pay for UP TO 5Mb speeds. There is the difference - speed is not promised.

However before we call all ISPs evil for throttling bandwidth, lets look at the facts. 5% of the userbase on average for an ISP provides for (usually) over 80% of the usage. Now, cables have a maximum capacity of bandwidth (that copper going out your wall? Yeah, theres a limit). If your ISP did not perform any form of traffic shaping you wouldn't ever reach your 5Mb speed, not even in bursts. Throttling has been going on since the beginning, have you ever bought a real router? Not the walmart linksys ones, but something on the level of a cisco 2800 or higher, they all boast a large list of features - traffic shaping is one of them for a very very good reason and has been since the beginning.

Oh, and I get my info from being the devil - aka, I manage the throttling for an ISP.

Kinda hard to do (5, Interesting)

R4nm4-kun (1302737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793627)

It's not really that easy to make a tool that would determine 100% sure that the ISP is throttling your connection, many ISP's do limit the whole bandwidth, but this application would have to detect that only a certain type of trafic is limited.

I think Google is afraid it's youtube dreams are being squashed by evil ISP's. Google more than sure doesn't give a cent about P2P applications, so their app probably will only work for http throttling, namely flv streaming/youtube.

Sorry for the google bashing, but this doesn't seem like google is as much interested in defending the poor customers against the evil ISP's as it's trying to defend it's own commercial interests.

Something else, I don't think there will be a big success in bateling the big ISP's, as trafic rises, there is no way they can maintain the current bandwidth/price ratio, even with massive profit cuts and investments in infrastructure. ISP's are overselling at a massive scale, more than 100 times their banwidth capacity. (well, in the US it's possible to maintain current prices since it's one of the most overpriced countries in this domain).

Re:Kinda hard to do (5, Insightful)

Asmor (775910) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793667)

Sorry for the google bashing, but this doesn't seem like google is as much interested in defending the poor customers against the evil ISP's as it's trying to defend it's own commercial interests.
And in this case their interests align with the customers' interests, against the evil ISPs.

Re:Kinda hard to do (4, Insightful)

lanc (762334) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793835)

this doesn't seem like google is as much interested in defending the poor customers against the evil ISP's as it's trying to defend it's own commercial interests.
absolutely. but still - ever been pissed off because youtube is kinda slow lately?

Re:Kinda hard to do (2, Interesting)

song-of-the-pogo (631676) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794225)

absolutely, i have been. i'm convinced that my ISP (charter) is throttling youtube specifically. i'll see speeds from youtube at less than 1/4 what i'll see from other sites (say, pulling apple trailers or watching flash content on any other site but youtube). it's been going on for ... i'm not certain how long, but a month at least? i'm trying to figure out to whom i should make my angry phone call. if i can find any viable alternative to charter in my area, i'm going for it.

Re:Kinda hard to do (4, Insightful)

David_Hart (1184661) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793895)

Yeah, well it's their fault. The ISPs have been receiving fees from consumers for years that was supposed to be earmarked towards infrastructure upgrades. The only ISP that seems to be actually investing any money is Verizon with their FiOS service. Comcast has been doing nothing but riding the coat tails of technical innovation of being able to push more bits through the same old pipes. However, that is maxing out as evidenced by their HD service. They are compessing HD to the point where there is picture drop out and obvious compression artifacts. This is also why they are limiting bandwith.

David

Re:Kinda hard to do (5, Insightful)

Comatose51 (687974) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794089)

"Sorry for the google bashing, but this doesn't seem like google is as much interested in defending the poor customers against the evil ISP's as it's trying to defend it's own commercial interests."

That's when you know when you can really trust someone, when both parties' interests are aligned. Trusting someone's good intentions has a long history of disappointment.

Re:Kinda hard to do (5, Insightful)

iangoldby (552781) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794673)

many ISP's do limit the whole bandwidth, but this application would have to detect that only a certain type of trafic is limited
Sorry to jump on you (you were just the first to say it), but please can we be clear:

Net neutrality is not about giving all types of traffic the same priority. You can have a neutral net in which VOIP packets have a very high priority, HTTP packets a slightly lower priority, and bit torrent packets are bottom of the pile.

Network neutrality is about giving all traffic of the same type the same priority regardless of its source. In other words, in a neutral net ISPs would not make deals with certain content providers to prioritise their traffic.

It is really important that everyone understands this. Some of the organisations who are against net neutrality are using the argument that it is only sensible to prioritise protocols such as VOIP (prioritisation by type, which most people would agree with), when what they really want is to extract money out of the content providers by prioritising traffic by source.

Why is prioritisation by source such a bad thing? Because it turns the 'old internet' on its head. Whereas at present anyone can be a content provider, in the brave new world of a non-neutral net only large organisations can afford to pay the ISPs to deliver their content at an acceptable speed.

Re:Kinda hard to do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23794789)

I think Google is afraid it's youtube dreams are being squashed by evil ISP's. Google more than sure doesn't give a cent about P2P applications, so their app probably will only work for http throttling, namely flv streaming/youtube.
Of course, as some of us know that YouTube and the likes are a direct threat to Comcast's On Demand Video.

Hate when people attempt to prevent the inevitable!!!

Re:Kinda hard to do (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794831)

Where have you been for the last 2 years or so?

Google is very much opposed any kind of tempering, not just tampering which affects them.

Also keep in mind that they have the some of the smartest brains on the planet (outside of the NSA) and it is possible to check for many different kinds of tampering.
Its a very safe bet that the tool will do a extremely good job.

Re:How about this then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23795049)

A client app that connects to a Goggle app that starts two downloads, each with CRC data. One download is a large html text file over port 80. The other could be the same file, but downloaded with a MIME type for video or other binary file, downloaded over a port suspected of being throttled.

Compare download times. Check the CRC against the port 80 html file to see if it was altered (ISP ad injection).

I think you would have a pretty good idea if something was being throttled or ad injected then.

Of course, embarrassed, shifty ISPs could then monitor for the Google test app and allow just that to go through unaltered and unthrottled.

Re:Kinda hard to do (2, Insightful)

AySz88 (1151141) | more than 6 years ago | (#23795149)

Google more than sure doesn't give a cent about P2P applications, so their app probably will only work for http throttling, namely flv streaming/youtube.
Why wouldn't they care about P2P? If they can keep P2P tech evolving until it's mature enough to distribute Youtube videos on them, that translates into free bandwidth and service. I think there's already a lot of movement towards this - see P4P [wikipedia.org] , Vuze [wikipedia.org] , even NASA TV [digimeld.com] is piloting peer-to-peer distribution of its broadcast.

Good news for China (0)

MagdJTK (1275470) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793673)

I bet the people in China can't wait to download this!

What do you mean "it's not available from Google.cn"?

Potential money loss for Google (5, Interesting)

ark1 (873448) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793679)

I suspect the main aim here is to reduce ads injecting by ISP which would take away money from Google ads. Presenting it as throttling detection tool is just a way to make it more appealing.

Re:Potential money loss for Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23793837)

I'm sure it will also data mine your internet connection while it's running, logging all the traffic to and fro. Oh wait, do no evil. huh.

Re:Potential money loss for Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23794445)

Either way, I prefer it.

Pathchar anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23793695)

Whatever happened to VJ's pathchar?

Why not caps? (5, Interesting)

KasperMeerts (1305097) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793757)

Here in Belgium and other European countries, bandwidth is not throttled but capped. I can Bittorrent as much as I want, but I fall back to 1-3 kB/s as soon as I hit the 100 gigabyte barrier. This system is waaaay less underhand or hypocrite. FYI, I'm at 30.7 GB this month. It resets the day after tomorrow.

Re:Why not caps? (2, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793847)

Here in America though, the ISPs don't tell you anything. Some tell you that in the contract but it is always "excessive" bandwidth usage, never "100 GB" Or "300 GB" or per year, day, hour, etc. And all this when they are talking about "unlimited" in the same ad for the contract in which they say they have caps and can throttle you.

Re:Why not caps? (1)

BungaDunga (801391) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794489)

Or, like Comcast I believe, the limit was in mp3s. As in "You can download the equivalent of xxxx songs in a month." I vote bandwidth caps should be given in Libraries of Congress.

Re:Why not caps? (2, Insightful)

Fumus (1258966) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793927)

It's all cool when the caps are reasonable, but I have a feeling they would end up with a 50GB cap on a 10mbps connection and require you to pay $1 for each GB over the cap.
Or worse. After exceeding your limit, you'll be stuck with 4KB/s for the rest of the month.

Re:Why not caps? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794143)

The only high-speed connection available where I live is 5Mbps with a 35GiB monthly cap (35GiB total for upload+download) at 45$/month, with a 10$/GiB fee over the cap.

Don't like it? There's always dial-up at 25$/month with no monthly cap.

The upside? The nice little notice at the bottom of the monthly usage page:
"Please note that at night time (00:00 to 07:59), traffic isn't calculated so you can do your massive downloads without risking going over your monthly cap."

Re:Why not caps? (1)

Fumus (1258966) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794253)

At least you can download during night without the caps kicking in. My ISP (only one available where I live) dropped download caps just last year and I'd never want to go back. Not only are the prices steep, but the caps were insane. 5GB for 512kbps, 10GB for 1mbps and 20GB for 2mbps. The prices are around $29, $45 and $60 accordingly.

Re:Why not caps? (1)

cyberchuck.nz (1307417) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794195)

$1 for each GB over the cap. Or worse. After exceeding your limit, you'll be stuck with 4KB/s for the rest of the month.
Here in NZ, our DSL plans either:
1 - Go down to "dialup speeds" (though I think in the interests of fairness, most ISP's just throttle you down to 64kbps).
2 - You pay something like 2c per MB over (so about $20 for 1GB)
3 - Some ISPS give you the option to purchase another "block" of MB at the high speeds

So you are about right with your estimations - but I don't know of many people that actually max out a 50GB plan. I used to have a 10GB plan and would never get above 7GB.

Re:Why not caps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23794335)

And that would be perfectly fine. Even a 1GB cap would be acceptable, if it is a clear condition of the contract. If any particular cap is too low for the price, that's for the market to decide. The information what you get for your money is a key prerequisite to a functioning market economy. The other key ingredient is competition. Regulation can stifle or nourish competition. That's what's really fundamentally broken in the US, where most people seem to think that monopolies are a sign of success and not the result of competitors failing due to artificial barriers to entry.

Re:Why not caps? (1)

who knows my name (1247824) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794313)

At my university we have a very fast connection, but with a cap of 30GB a month. I usually can use 25Gb of that up in a week... I literally get disconnected after that, so I am (effectively) buying bandwidth. However, I have to have an academic reason to have a bigger limit - any suggestions?

Re:Why not caps? (1)

fotoguzzi (230256) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794703)

You need to download multi-spectral 3-D scans of large paintings for an art-history class.

Re:Why not caps? (1)

ZERO1ZERO (948669) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794785)

Look at saving your bandwidth - set up an agressive squid proxy to cache everything from the last 2 months ( @ 25GB/w = 200+GB, not a lot) or something.

But 25GB a week? ~4GB a day? That's 10 hours of TV download (350MB epidodes)each day. I would say that was quite a lot.

Re:Why not caps? (3, Funny)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794685)

Here in Belgium and other European countries, bandwidth is not throttled but capped. I can Bittorrent as much as I want, but I fall back to 1-3 kB/s as soon as I hit the 100 gigabyte barrier. This system is waaaay less underhand or hypocrite. FYI, I'm at 30.7 GB this month. It resets the day after tomorrow.

Free market capitalism, eh? It's just crazy enough to work. We should try that here. :)

Re:Why not caps? (5, Informative)

Kenz0r (900338) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794923)

Here in Belgium and other European countries, bandwidth is not throttled but capped. I can Bittorrent as much as I want, but I fall back to 1-3 kB/s as soon as I hit the 100 gigabyte barrier. This system is waaaay less underhand or hypocrite. FYI, I'm at 30.7 GB this month. It resets the day after tomorrow.

Free market capitalism, eh? It's just crazy enough to work. We should try that here. :)
I live in Belgium too, and I strongly disagree with parent. Our internet access may be neutral, but they're slower (4Mbits down / 400Kbits upload is the common standard for our adsl), and we're mocked by almost every other Western-European country for our traffic capped.
Seriously, the biggest provider (a partially state-owned company, which has the entire nation's telephone net infastructure) charges 41 euros (61 usd) for 12 Gigabytes of traffic per month. Twelve, that's nothing! If you want to buy an extra pack of 5 Gb, it costs another 5 euros. Our internet providers would make a terrible model to follow, capped internet is almost just as terrible as a non-neutral net.

Easy to avoid.... (3, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793881)

Wouldn't this be easy for ISPs to avoid? Just un-throttle any connections to Google's servers? Just figure out where the test is being done and don't throttle that site. Easy.

Re:Easy to avoid.... (4, Insightful)

Asmor (775910) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794105)

I suspect it'll be a bit more sophisticated than that. I don't know a whole lot about networking, but I suspect it shouldn't be too hard to fake a connection so that it's difficult to distinguish it from a torrent. Thus the only way to "cheat" on the test would be to unthrottle all torrents, and in that case you're not really cheating anymore, are ya?

Of course, as has been said earlier in the discussion, Google's likely most interested in the effects of throttling on their own applications, notably Youtube. So if they only test connections to Youtube, then it either forces ISPs to be caught red-handed or unthrottle youtube, a win-win situation for Google.

Re:Easy to avoid.... (1)

vidarh (309115) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794125)

You're assuming the tool would only test connections to Google. There's no reason to assume that.

Re:Easy to avoid.... (2, Insightful)

centuren (106470) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794193)

Wouldn't this be easy for ISPs to avoid? Just un-throttle any connections to Google's servers? Just figure out where the test is being done and don't throttle that site. Easy.
If the ISPs take that approach, and Google then releases their method & code, problem solved: we just all start testing and have our connections not throttled.

Without knowing just what Google is going to produce, we need more information before deciding on how effective it's going to be one way or the other.

Re:Easy to avoid.... (3, Interesting)

Geekbot (641878) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794275)

Unless the software tool takes your bandwidth data and reports it book to Google servers to be analyzed in comparison to thousands to millions of other reports. This sort of meta-analysis is where Google can really shine. On one side of the deal, Google gets lots of information about network traffic. On the other side, the consumers get reliable information about their own network traffic. Definitely a sweet deal for google.

If it is as simple as what you suggest it would be a great move for Google as the ISP's could unthrottle Google and Google would get superior network traffic over all of the smaller sites that don't have their own well used network-throttling-detectors.

Re:Easy to avoid.... (1)

myrdos2 (989497) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794315)

Then I suspect Google's web accelerator will become a most excellent service to use.

Re:Easy to avoid.... (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794361)

If I where to make such a program I would do it through bit torrent program and have peering clients test each other. They are looking for injected packets, just keep track of the results on the tracker and you should be able to figure out whats going on where.

not necessary... (5, Informative)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793947)

Comcast recently announced they bumped upstream bandwidth from 384kbit to 1mbit (FiOS pressure, anyone?) and they've also said they won't monkey about with p2p, right?

Well, funny thing then that when my bittorrent client inched above 45-50kB/sec (less than half of the new limit, which is 125kB/sec), shortly thereafter ping times exploded from 20-25ms to 300-500ms. On a second occasion, it went up to 1000ms to 3000ms. Even if you throttle back to, say, 20kB/sec, ping times stay the same. They don't drop until you stop the client completely. Seems to take about 10 minutes for the throttling to kick in. It's so bad that ssh latency goes up to 5-10 seconds, and the web interface to my p2p client completely stopped working.

The same thing happened with eDonkey, so either they're going off traffic volume, or they're detecting any p2p traffic.

Re:not necessary... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23794073)

Or your router/modem sucks at p2p, which is far more likely. Get a proper QoS system going.
Bittorrent clients only use that limit you set as a guideline. More often than not, it will be above it, and during a download I haven't seen it go below the cap.
Though, Comcast does have that RST packet thing going.

Re:not necessary... (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794171)

Comcast recently announced they bumped upstream bandwidth from 384kbit to 1mbit...
Wow, I actually learned something on Slashdot today! After reading this, I went to Speakeasy's Speed Test [speakeasy.net] and tried it out. Sure enough, my upload speed is now 1 megabit/sec.

This is great news. For quite a while Comcast would keep bumping their download speed cuz it makes for better marketing - but anything above 4mbps doesn't make a significant difference for me (most of the time). But when I have to work from home, being able to upload at 1mbsp instead of 384kbps makes a HUGE difference.

It's also great if, say, I have to help my mom or sis by connecting remotely to their computer (e.g. VNC over SSH, RDP).

We've had it for years (1, Informative)

Troglodyt (898143) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794023)

The Swedish Post and Telecom Agency has had a tool for testing your connection available to the public at http://www.bredbandskollen.se/ [bredbandskollen.se] for a few years. It's open source and you do the test in your browser.

Re:We've had it for years (2, Informative)

MetalBlade (918113) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794639)

The Swedish Post and Telecom Agency has had a tool for testing your connection
That's not the same thing. That test is used to measure the bandwidth, while the tool Google is developing is used to see if your ISP throttles some types of traffic (for example bittorrent) or not.

Re:We've had it for years (1)

brianjlowry (1015645) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794755)

I'm glad you explained that b/c I was having a really hard time understanding that site. I just pushed the big colorful buttons and it either checked my bandwidth or installed a virus. Either way it looked pretty and didn't do what I was hoping it would do.

Re:We've had it for years (1)

Alias777 (841435) | more than 6 years ago | (#23795267)

Translator, anyone?!

Check it, your ISP throttles!... (3, Funny)

lattyware (934246) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794343)

... use Google TiSP [google.com] instead!

And the point? (3, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794381)

Its not like the ISPs are denying it anymore.

Sure, you find out for sure, and and then what? In a lot of areas the 'hi-speed market' is a monopoly.

Fight boys, fight (1)

UnixUnix (1149659) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794545)

And then we do what?... DDoS them off the Net?! :-O

Why Should An ISP Care If You Use Encryption (2, Insightful)

Easy2RememberNick (179395) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794791)

What I don't get is why an ISP would care if you encrypt things.

  If you use encryption on your torrent connection you'd think that would be good for an ISP, if they're required by law to block people from downloading movies and songs but they can't see it since you're encrypting everything that should get them off the hook.

  Bell Canada just seemed to just say screw this and started to throttle all encrypted traffic. Although they said it was because of bandwidth issues.

  I say for an ISP ignorance is bliss!

Google is funny that way (1)

Duncan Blackthorne (1095849) | more than 6 years ago | (#23795083)

Ever notice that Google sometimes does squicky, evil things, but then they turn around and take the side of Net Neutrality and spend time and effort on a project like this? Interesting..
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?