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!

Canadians Find Traffic Shaping "Reasonable"

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the if-only-they-knew-what-it-is dept.

Networking 291

gehrehmee writes "A recent Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll on ISPs' use of traffic shaping suggests that 60% of survey respondents find the practice reasonable as long as customers are treated fairly, while 22% believe Internet management is unreasonable regardless. The major Canadian Internet and phone service provider Rogers, meanwhile, compared 'person-to-person file-sharing to a car that parks in one lane of a busy highway at all times of the day or night, clogging the roadways for everyone unless someone takes action.' Is there a lack of education about the long-term effects of traffic shaping on free communication? Or are net neutrality advocates just out of touch?" The poll found that only 20% of respondents had ever heard of traffic shaping. The article is unclear on whether the "60%" who found the practice "reasonable" are 60% of all respondents — most of whom don't know what they are talking about — or 60% of the minority who know. If the former, then the exact phrasing of the question is the overwhelming determinant of the response. At the CTRC hearings, which wrapped up today, Bell Canada executives revealed that the company "slows certain types of downloads [P2P] to as little as 1.5 to 3 per cent of their advertised speed during 9-1/2 hours of the day."

cancel ×

291 comments

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

Using the truth to bolster a lie (5, Insightful)

plover (150551) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701921)

This isn't a question about Net Neutrality at all. This is a question about network management. If you asked people this question: "Do you think data being consumed in real time (video, phone calls, etc.) should have higher priority than data being transferred for later use?" the answer from a reasonable person is likely to be "yes". And it's not a bad answer.

The actual Net Neutrality question is: "Do you think Rogers Cablesystem should be allowed to degrade Vonage's VoIP traffic if they don't similarly degrade Rogers' own VoIP traffic?"

The real problems come from confusingly bad articles like these, where people are being mislead to believe network management is the same as net neutrality. That's the lie that is being used to skew the statistics of public opinion. And it doesn't help that P2P proponents try to use the same lie to claim some mythical rights under the guise of net neutrality, either. If a router has a choice between discarding one packet or another, it's disruptive to fewer people if it throws away the VoIP packet. That's traffic shaping 101, and has nothing to do with network neutrality.

Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie (2, Funny)

plover (150551) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701949)

it's disruptive to more people if it throws away the VoIP packet.

Oops, fixed that for me.

Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28702123)

Oops. Fixed that for me.

- Yer Pe Dantikbehturhaff, Sr.

Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie (0, Troll)

bytesex (112972) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702007)

If I may be so kind as to play the devil's advocate here, you might also rephrase the question as: do you think that people who think of themselves as l33t h4x0rs but who really just like to download shitloads of pr0n, music, software, gaming-data and movies at the expense of everyone else, should be given preference over those who would like to use the internet responsibly and who cannot believe that such arbitration would necessarily lead to the curbing of the freedom of speech ? Because that is the undertone I can just feel oozing out of the write-up here. O, it's about big bad companies who want to make a buck over all of our backs and potentially use their power to wedge out the competition ? Excuse me then - may they die in a fire !

Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28702041)

do you think that people who think of themselves as l33t h4x0rs but who really just like to download shitloads of pr0n, music, software, gaming-data and movies at the expense of everyone else, should be given preference over those who would like to use the internet responsibly and who cannot believe that such arbitration would necessarily lead to the curbing of the freedom of speech ?

I think I speak for all of us when I say WTF are you talking about?

Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie (5, Insightful)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702139)

And to you I say: Perhaps everyone who pays for X Mbps should be able to obtain it 99% of the time. Minor degradation for 1% of the day is fine, but significantly overselling bandwidth when you *know* the usage patterns of your customers will require a bigger pipe for substantial portions of the day is irresponsible.

When you have unspecified traffic shaping in play, you distort the free market: How do I compare two providers of a 10 Mbps connection when they don't say what the practical speed will be (and largely can't: I've seen cable modems run reliably at 10 KB/s or less in some areas that were massively underprovisioned, while the same company provided 24/7 1 MB/s connections less than a mile away).

Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28702311)

Perhaps the model of charging X amount for X speed is flawed then.

Originally when it was sold like this it didn't really matter as people noticed the speed when they downloaded large files etc, but lets say they were only using that full speed 10% of the time.. this allowed the ISP to resell at a 10:1 contention ratio with no problems.

Nowdays people are using more and more of that contentioned bandwidth.. sure its getting cheaper for the ISP, but they've started all these plans on the basis that people wouldn't be using their connection to its full capacity, 100% of the time.

Now the ISP is stuck because they have pricing that has to go down to compete, along with user making MORE use of the same bandwidth allowance and you have the ISP wondering "how the hell are we going to afford to upgrade our backhauls now??"

IMHO the data AND speed billing model (found in Australia) works well as there's no need for net neutrality because the end user pays for the data they pull over their link as well as the speed they're given it.

Sorry to drum up an old analogy but think of it this way:

The internet is a series of highways.
The speed you can browse the internet is a car: either a slow cheap scooter or an expensive ferrari.
The data you use while browsing the internet is fuel for your vehicle.. having a faster vehicle doesn't mean you're going to use more data/petrol than a slower on, but you definatly have the ability to.. and if you want to drive everywhere at top speed thats no problem as you're the one paying for the fuel.

In Canada/USA/Europe and other locations the current model is broken.

The ISP is the one that is putting the fuel in your car for you.. you just pick a car and the ISP says they provide a fast car and unlimited fuel, back 5 years ago hardly anyone was driving around at top speed ALL the time. Yet over time the usage has increased and the ISP is having to hand our more and more fuel while the cars are expected to cost less.

Anyway, long explanation but I hope it explains the difference between the data and speed vs just speed model.

Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie (3, Informative)

Stunning Tard (653417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702605)

Perhaps the model of charging X amount for X speed is flawed then.

...

In Canada/USA/Europe and other locations the current model is broken.

You are misinformed, Rogers already uses a "data and speed billing model". E.g. Their regular plan has a 60GB monthly cap with overage charges. (I'm a customer). So now, with the cap system in place, they need to back the f*** off the traffic shaping agenda.

Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie (4, Insightful)

ElSupreme (1217088) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702655)

Sounds like the ISPs problem. Not mine. I bought a 6MB connection so they should give me a 6MB connection. If they are oversaturated then the ISP fucked up I shoudn't have to suffer.

Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28702455)

Perhaps everyone who pays for X Mbps should be able to obtain it 99% of the time.

How far downstream does that X Mbps go? This is exactly what the net-neutrality advocates are against: the idea that some company could pay for connections to their site to get better performance than connections to some other company that paid less. Every connection has two end-points, and both of those ends has paid for a level of service. Which one gets honoured?

Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie (1)

wireloose (759042) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702485)

In most of the country (at least in the US) you are rather limited on broadband access. There is typically a cable provider in the area, and many of them do not offer Internet access. There is typically a telephone provider that can provide you service, but even the big ones don't offer Internet access everywhere. [I live in a city-burb of Chicago, in a high-end neighborhood, and though I get dozens of leaflets from AT&T every year about cheaper, faster access, they don't offer it at my house. Go figure.] So most people in the US don't necessarily have a lot of choice.

The second piece of this is that if you want to always pay the cheapest rate, you're going to get shared, multiplexed service. If you want dedicated bandwidth, it's probably available to you. Just ask for business class service, which will give you a guaranteed rate. Of course, you're going to pay significantly different costs for guaranteed rates.

Finally, you have the option to complain as a customer to your provider, and to rally support with other consumers. Do it. Meanwhile, *everyone* knows that home Internet service is a multiplexed service, even if they don't know the term. It's like your subdivision street. Your provider will gradually increase bandwidth as the "street" gets busier. However, it makes little sense to invest $100,000 in a vault upgrade or add a $200/mo charge to their operation when 98% of a 100-home subdivision is barely using the bandwidth, and 1 or 2 users are constantly consuming all available bandwidth. They should pay for the upgrade. But they'd rather complain. The provider's obvious option is to shape them. Most of the time, that just means lowering priority for certain classes of traffic such as file sharing protocols (Gnutella, eDonkey, etc.) compared to interactive protocols such as http. Few bother to do rate limiting. Mostly, they just shape so that when the network is operating near capacity, the interactive stuff gets priority.

Meanwhile, no one else wants to bear the cost burden of increasing bandwidth just so Joey-down-the-block can share files with his buds across the planet. If my provider told me that they have to increase the costs in our area because Joey's complaining, I'd laugh and tell them to charge Joey.

Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie (1, Flamebait)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702475)

That's not even close to what the op was implying. Go strawman/recycle republican talking points elsewhere.

The reality is, traffic shaping when used to stifle your competition, is anticompetitive by definition. This is a problem. Nobody has an issue with not having enough bandwidth, but it's very easy to go from managing a lack of bandwidth to anticompetitive and definitely tempting for large corrupt companies.

Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702047)

The real problems come from confusingly bad articles like these

I wonder just how often this statement is true, or perhaps I should be careful with what I wish for. Some might say it's unfair to say but isn't it time journalism is rendered strictly as entertainment only? I mean sure there is occasionally some journalist that actually tries to report the truth, but it's really no secret that more often it's about luring readers to see the ads using sensational headlines and too often just plain lies.

Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702287)

I mean sure there is occasionally some journalist that actually tries to report the truth, but it's really no secret that more often it's about luring readers to see the ads using sensational headlines and too often just plain lies.

Well, the journalists have probably figured out that plain lies works for the advertisers, so they figure they'll get in on the act, too...

Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28702447)

Welcome to Slashdot. Do you want fries with that sophism?

Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28702055)

When you are asking yourself if you should shape other people's traffic because there isn't enough bandwidth, then the answer isn't to prioritize realtime protocols. The answer is to add bandwidth. You oversold your bandwidth (which is fine) and miscalculated the usage (not fine). That is YOUR fault. The bulk traffic user is just using the service that he paid for and he does not deserve to be throttled. What is inside his IP packets is none of your business.

Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie (5, Insightful)

Blymie (231220) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702059)

The problem is, that this *is* about network neutrality as well.

What happens when someone wants to start offering cable TV over the net? It's already started, and that's much more bandwidth intensive than P2P. It is also completely legal, to boot! In Canada, you can rebroadcast OTA TV without paying anyone a dime, currently.

What happens when someone starts to offer live video streaming, aka movie downloading, legally?

Heck, what about video game patches, add ons, downloads of Linux distros, etc, etc, etc. All of these are entirely legal, and all of them can use P2P.

Bell's silly contention is that P2P somehow causes severe bandwidth issues. In reality, they take objection to ALL bandwidth intensive applications. They've stated so in the past, with comments like "only 5% of users use P2P, everyone else only checks their email and views a few webpages a night". To them, a "few webpages" means looking at Google news, and barely using anything bandwidth intensive like YouTube. The real issue here is that Bell vastly oversells its bandwidth.

Throttling in *any way* causes issues with Network Neutrality. An ISP is a pipe. Provide $x bandwidth, with $y data cap, and GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY. Anything else is entirely, completely, and fully dishonest.

Hell, Bell and Rogers sell movie rentals, TV access, cable and the like. To them, any way they can make bandwidth intensive applications look bad, is a big, massive boon to their business.

Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie (4, Insightful)

plover (150551) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702213)

Heck, what about video game patches, add ons, downloads of Linux distros, etc, etc, etc. All of these are entirely legal, and all of them can use P2P.

The difference is that you're not sitting at the end of the pipe watching your P2P bits arrive, while the phone and video and streaming audio users are. If your phone service has to compete with your P2P service, which would you rather have go badly?

If you are downloading a distro, and at the same time you place a VoIP phone call, what do you do if the audio is all broken up? Do you pause the torrent client to get better phone service? I do*. Now, put the torrent client in your neighbor's house, where you don't have have the ability to pause your neighbor's download when you want to use the phone. Is it fair?

And before you cry "but the bandwidth! the bandwidth! I paid for the bandwidth!" bandwidth is NOT the same as capacity. If you want a guarantee of capacity, sign a contract to rent a fiber between you and your server. Otherwise, you have to deal with the fact that it's a multi-use, multi-user network, it's shared, and there will be packet loss when it's saturated.

* well I did when I had Vonage.

Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie (5, Insightful)

Blymie (231220) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702573)

Essentially your argument is "You should not be using the full speed your modem provides".

That's all you're arguing. I could saturate that speed using torrents, using edonkey, using netflix, using youtube, simply clicking on a download link for a webpage, or even updating security patches to a new XP box! It's an invalid argument, hands down.

Plain and simple, Bell oversells its bandwidth. Most dialup ISPs used to have a 1/10 ratio when selling to subscribers. Good ISPs used to have 1/5. I suspect Bell is somewhere in the 1/1000 range, or even 1/10000.

If Bell was *really* concerned about their client's experience, they'd use packet shaping to ensure that P2P had a *lower priority* over SIP and other protocols. They don't, however, because they have a vested interest in ensuring that bandwidth heavy traffic is not used on their network, because:

1) it competes with all of their other businesses! Bandwidth usage = competition with TV, Video downloads, etc
2) it would require them to invent in technology upgrades
3) it makes sure that other ISPs can not compete with Bell as effectively

Keep in mind that there is almost NO competition here in Canada. If Bell was *competing* for subscribers, they'd to their best to ensure that their service was better than the next door over. They don't, because their only competition is the cable company, who also does not compete.

After all, with only two players in the market, why compete?

The same sits true for cellular services in this country, which is replied to with absurd statements of how we are 'spread out'. Absurd, the have a few low-grade, old tech towers strung in the open places, but other than that, our population density is just as high as any place else.

This is about a lack of competition, pure and simple.

Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie (2, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702595)

what do you do if the audio is all broken up? Do you pause the torrent client to get better phone service? I do*.

I do what all Competent IT/Networking people do. I set up my router to give VoIP top priority so it self throttles, I never have a problem with P2P breaking up my VoIP or web-surfing.

It seems the reality is that most of these Cable broadband companies are simply lacking in competent IT, networking and Executive staff.

Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702641)

Thing is it doesn't just kill P2P when saturated. Sure I'm fine with my TCP torrent getting lower priority than a UDP VOIP call but that isn't what happens. No what happens is that the ISP kills or throttles to death anything that looks like a torrent because they designed their network poorly and have found that changing usage patterns are costing them more when it comes time to pay for their upstream connection.

Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28702079)

""Do you think data being consumed in real time (video, phone calls, etc.) should have higher priority than data being transferred for later use?" the answer from a reasonable person is likely to be "yes". And it's not a bad answer. "
Yes, it is a bad answer. If person A and person B are both paying X dollars / unit for their Inet service, there is no justifiable reason on earth that person A's VoIP or streaming traffic should be given priority over person B's traffic. If it doesn't work without this favoritism, too frakkin' bad. Don't use it.

Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie (1)

Sobrique (543255) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702415)

I'm not so sure - I don't care in the slightest if my P2P client is running at 1000msec of latency, if it's getting a decent overall throughput. I care much more if my VOIP client is.
Don't mind prioritization in that sense, as you're making the services I notice the responsiveness of, more responsive. Which is fine. What I don't accept though is that you'll be shutting off my download when you make a phonecall - I don't find that reasonable at all.

Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28702149)

I only use P2P services on an occasional basis, roughly once a week at maximum. Why should my particular traffic be singled out for special throttling if it does not contribute to the degradation of the network as does heavy and continuous P2P usage? For me, the practice would indeed be unfair and discriminatory.

Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie (5, Insightful)

phoomp (1098855) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702155)

60% agree with the question.

20% understand the question.

Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie (5, Informative)

seasleepy (651293) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702157)

The comments on Michael Geist's blog [michaelgeist.ca] indicate that the polling went rather like you expected.

Interestingly, just prior to the release of the survey, one of the people who was called over the weekend (the survey was conducted July 9 - 12th) contacted me to report:

I took a Harris-Decima phone poll over the weekend and their questions about traffic shaping could be roughly summed up as "Did you know that your neighbour's movie downloading is slowing down your Internet?".

Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28702511)

A movie download? In my internet?

Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie (4, Interesting)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702261)

The actual Net Neutrality question is: "Do you think Rogers Cablesystem should be allowed to degrade Vonage's VoIP traffic if they don't similarly degrade Rogers' own VoIP traffic?"

That's your take on it, but it's not necessarily the right way to look at the problem. Some of us think ISPs should not be allowed to unfairly degrade specific protocols. It's one thing to shape traffic in a way that guarantees reliable service for all users, but some ISPs like to degrade P2P in ways that are not in proportion with actual impact on network resources.

I recall seeing a post by an ISP employee who bragged about degrading P2P performance down to unusable levels (something like 1% of available bandwidth shared among all of the ISPs users) and laughing at the fact that customers might think the problem was on the peer's side rather than the ISP's side. I find that despicable, and a true violation of the principle of net neutrality.

Re:Using the truth to bolster a lie (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702557)

You nailed it on the head hard.

99.9978% of the time Traffic shaping is not for keeping those damned evil P2P users down but to screw with a competing service. Comcast in my area screws with ALL VoIP traffic except their own. Broadvoice and Vonnage in Michigan is crap compared to the same service in DSL. it's because Comcast found a way to screw up VoIP, increase the retention time in the modems for data packets. Jitter goes through the roof. Because their VoIP goes into their equipment, it does not get jacked, but anything that goes out that ethernet port get's a delay.

I am so tired of service companies treating the customer as a damn nuisance that needs to just go away.

AS LONG AS THE CUSTOMERS ARE.... (2, Insightful)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701935)

treated fairly.

Kind of a key point there folks. I'm guessing 20 or so percent of respondents said "Yeah, right. They won't "treat us fairly" so what's the point." I'm also guessing the other 15% or so said something along the lines of "I like cheese".

Don't use so many caps in your subject line, it's like screaming at a baby who is hungry.

Re:AS LONG AS THE CUSTOMERS ARE.... (0, Offtopic)

lena_10326 (1100441) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702135)

I like cheese too.

Why not? (1)

Eternauta3k (680157) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701937)

Bell Canada executives revealed that the company "slows certain types of downloads [P2P] to as little as 1.5 to 3 per cent of their advertised speed during 9-1/2 hours of the day

Hey, that's fine by me. Force people to download when it won't affect other people. It's either that or pay a small fortune for a service with guaranteed bandwidth.

Re:Why not? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28701983)

Why not? Because I pay for an Internet connection, not a web and email connection. Who are you to decide that my use of the internet is less important than yours?

Re:Why not? (3, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702119)

Bell Canada executives revealed that the company "slows certain types of downloads [P2P] to as little as 1.5 to 3 per cent of their advertised speed during 9-1/2 hours of the day

Hey, that's fine by me. Force people to download when it won't affect other people. It's either that or pay a small fortune for a service with guaranteed bandwidth.

You do realize that by using P2P to get my Warcraft patches & Ubuntu ISOs that I am reducing the load normally incurred by going all the way to California for them, don't you?

Look up content distribution networks (CDN) and see how they helped reduce traffic on the internet. Now think about how P2P allows people to be 'kinder' to everyone who uses the internet. By shaping the traffic, you are telling me to go back to the old way when I would request 1 GB of data from across the country and everyone along the way would have to make room for my traffic.

A method was developed to better manage traffic in the big picture. Now ISPs are actually discouraging this technique! ISPs don't want quick efficient traffic on their lines (which is what occurs when you're down the street from me and we're sharing data for a large ISO) so they want to shift the load back out to the entire internet. "Stupid" does not begin to describe this.

It's all about the benjamins (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702437)

or I guess the Bordens in Canada. They also get to sell fatter pipes to the companies you download from rather than have you use a P2P solution that doesn't put a huge load on expensive dedicated corporate lines. Add to that the various media lobbys that have convinced everyone that everything that is P2P is copyright infringement, and there you go.

Also, if I'm downloading media to watch I still need to keep up with the rate at which I'm watching it. So the guy that uses a protocol that streams it to him and pulls 1GB over 2 hrs gets preferential treatment even though I need 1GB every two hours for my watching I do offline? I agree with others in the thread: ISPs should have to provide reasonably close to the quoted speed for your connection. Blaming everything on congestion when the "congestion" is 24hrs a day is bogus. It isn't traffic peaks it is lack of capacity to deliver what you sold.

That's called time-of-use metering (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702125)

And it's not what the ISP is advertising.

Invasion of the opinionated idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28701945)

People who use car analogies to appeal to people who would otherwise not understand a thing about the topic are demagogues and need to be shut up.

Re:Invasion of the opinionated idiots (5, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701969)

People who use car analogies to appeal to people who would otherwise not understand a thing about the topic are like that asshole in the white Escort who sat in front of me at the light this morning yapping away on his cell phone, too oblivious to notice that the light had changed.

So, p2p blocks the highway, and youtube does not? (2, Insightful)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701957)

I mean, there are a few other things on the internet that use a little bandwidth.

I would suggest that everybody who puts something on youtube that gets more than 100 views has to pay extra tax. In addition, their upload gets downgraded for the next 3 months. That'll teach them for making the internet a popular tool for sharing information!

On a more serious note: I suggest we block all traffic between copyright lobbyists and internet providers... that should solve the problem rather quickly.

Re:So, p2p blocks the highway, and youtube does no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28702067)

Well, to put it simply, yes. Certain applications can wreck havoc on the a network. Youtube, while bandwidth intensive, doesn't open 1000's of outgoing connections. Nothing against P2P, but it is a very intensive protocol. Simply capping it to 90% of your max upload speed can keep VoIP humming along just fine.

Would you rather a 911 call be interrupted so that you could upload Rick Roll to someone? The line has to be drawn somewhere now that we have "Triple Play" services with Video/Phone/Internet.

Re:So, p2p blocks the highway, and youtube does no (2, Informative)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702571)

The default for uTorrent is to open only 90 connections. Total. Across all torrents.

Anybody who's got 1000's of outgoing connections has either radically screwed with their settings without having a clue what they're doing, or has a dozen or so computers on a local network, all running uTorrent.

Either that, or they're running uTorrent, Limewire, eMule, and every other P2P client on one computer at the same time.

In all of the above cases, the user is a moron, who has no clue how computers actually work. But they probably think "Hey! I'm 1337! I have a home network!"

Terrible Analogy (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701967)

The major Canadian Internet and phone service provider Rogers, meanwhile, compared 'person-to-person file-sharing to a car that parks in one lane of a busy highway at all times of the day or night, clogging the roadways for everyone unless someone takes action.'

I'm not a customer of Rogers but I do know that Comcast and Cox cap you at your cable modem (and I'd bet Rogers does too) ... so a better analogy might be:

'a car that parks in its own lane of a busy highway with a lane for every home at all times of the day or night, clogging that lane for themselves unless they take action.'

And the best analogy would be:

'a single person driving nonstop cars in their own personal lane of a busy highway at all times of the day or night, clogging that lane for themselves because they paid for the lane and they're going to fucking use it.'

If you can't support 5Mb/s don't advertise 5Mb/s! And don't sell people plans with that written on it if you can't support everyone doing it! Oh? You've discovered people will shell out a lot more money for better connections so you like to be able to advertise 5Mb/s? You don't say ...

Re:Terrible Analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28702147)

Maybe you should read the contract that comes with the 5Mb/s, you dipshit. If you want dedicated 5Mb/s, it's gonna cost you up the ass, no matter which provider it comes from.

Re:Terrible Analogy (1)

mrsquid0 (1335303) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702403)

The problem is that these companies are advertising that people will get 5 Mb/s and relegating the "or less" part to the fine print. Most customers are going to interpret that as an internet transfer rate of 5 Mb/s. What the communications companies should be doing is writing, in big, easy to read print, that 5Mb/s is the maximum rate and that the true rate will be significantly less under normal conditions.

Re:Terrible Analogy (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28702191)

"If you can't support 5Mb/s don't advertise 5Mb/s! And don't sell people plans with that written on it if you can't support everyone doing it! Oh? You've discovered people will shell out a lot more money for better connections so you like to be able to advertise 5Mb/s? "

I do not know how this comment got a score of 3 but this is plain stupid. Since the beginning of telecommunications networks have been sized in a statistical fashion. Guess what!, if every mobile phone tries to call at the same time the network can not support the traffic! Wow! Should TelCos stop selling phones because they can't actually support everyone using them at the same time?

Do you think that the backbone of your company/university/high school (probably high school in your case) can support providing 10Mbps to each computer in the network? Nope! Sorry, not a chance.

Re:Terrible Analogy (1)

Targon (17348) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702243)

There are many ways to look at it, all of them somewhat legit and acceptable to a good sized group of people. For starters, an ISP will generally go on the idea that they need enough bandwidth to handle the average amount used. This is not on a per-user type of basis, but across their customer base. Now, if you get 5 megabit/second service, chances are that you will be downloading at 5 megabit speeds SOME of the time, but not all of the time. The same thing goes for upload bandwidth. Now, if you are using 5 megabit ALL of the time, something is probably wrong.

And that is the primary concern that ISPs will have, the amount of bandwidth used should be for your personal use. The moment you get into the P2P stuff, and when you leave your computer on all the time, chances are that you are uploading more than you are downloading. In essence, for your residential grade service you are using more bandwidth than is "fair". It isn't about download bandwidth, it is about sustained bandwidth usage.

So, you may be entitled to your 5 megabits worth of speed, but if you are using that much for too long, that may very well be an indication of illegal activity as well. How many games can you REALLY buy for digital download where you will be downloading at 5 megabit ALL the time? How about a 10 or 15 megabit connection? Most download sites also have a cap on download speeds, so you have to be doing multiple transfers at once to fully saturate the connection.

SHARING of files when you are not doing it legally is not considered valid under fair use. I have yet to find a case where I can saturate a 10 megabit link for an extended period of time(over 24 hours) without doing something wrong on a residential connection. Running your own web server for example is not covered under a residential class service, even though it will work technically, you have not signed up for providing a commercial service for that price.

So, again, at 5 megabit, the average should be at around half of that since the chances that everyone is using max bandwidth at once is fairly low. While some are downloading, others are not transferring anything at all. If an ISP finds bandwidth is being maxed out, until they can lay more fiber, or license more, they have to put some limits in place so that the majority get an acceptable level of service. No service provider could possibly meet demand if every customer were running their connection at max usage.

Even in a larger LAN environment you see cases where one workstation might saturate the connection to the Internet, and unless that person has a VERY good reason for using that bandwidth, the others in the office are effectively being denied proper access. Doing a blanket restriction of 1 megabit would make it so EVERYONE is getting slowed down, or loses enough productivity where it isn't worth it. The idea that you SHARE resources is there, and if you are going to saturate the network with a download, that is fine here and there, but not for an extended time, and not on any sort of continuing basis. And so, that is why ISPs MUST use a sort of "fair usage" type of rule.

If you are the sort of person who REALLY wants to run their connection that way, there are business plans that are available that probably will not be subject to that sort of rule. If you pay $40/month, don't expect to get treated the same as someone who is paying $150/month.

Re:Terrible Analogy (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702363)

There is nothing stopping the ISP from advertising 0.1 or 0.5 or 1 megabit guaranteed with 5 megabit burst, it wouldn't confuse their average customer anymore than their current advertising, and it would be somewhat more likely to be true.

So I don't expect the same service as someone paying more than I pay, but I do want some reasonable statement of the actual service being provided, not something that is very nearly a lie.

Re:Terrible Analogy (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702627)

Running your own web server for example is not covered under a residential class service, even though it will work technically, you have not signed up for providing a commercial service for that price.

That would depend on who your provider is, wouldn't it? A webserver on Teksavvy residential service is completely allowed. Bell, on the other hand, doesn't support it. That's not to say they won't let you do it....just that if it causes problems, they'll tell you off.

Re:Terrible Analogy (1)

locofungus (179280) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702255)

If you can't support 5Mb/s don't advertise 5Mb/s! And don't sell people plans with that written on it if you can't support everyone doing it! Oh? You've discovered people will shell out a lot more money for better connections so you like to be able to advertise 5Mb/s? You don't say ...

The problem is that different people have different requirements.

I've just gone through my logs for May and I'm averaging 70Mb per day. Yes, my usage would comfortably fit on a POTS 56k modem.

But I don't want to go back to that. I like downloads happening almost instantly etc.

My connection is also "unlimited" in that I can (and do) stay connected all the time.

Now I will agree that the way these packages are advertised is ambiguous. IME however, that ambiguity is resolved in the small print, usually with something along the lines of "usage must be reasonable".

Tim.

It's a more Canadian solution. (2, Insightful)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701975)

You know, we're sort of a strange breed up here.

In some cases, sharing music is legal in Canada, and the whole thing is treated as a much different issue than in the US. If you get a letter from the ISP, it's just informing you that there was something downloaded on your connection, rather than a lawsuit. Some time over the next few weeks, in fact, I'll be securing someone's wireless connection because they got just such a letter even though they don't use P2P.

This sort of think continues that sort of idea. Rather than destroy everyone's bandwidth, or charging the p2p folks insane fees, silently controlling when the traffic goes through works for everyone. The regular folks get good internet during peak times, and the p2p people get good internet during the trough times, and they don't get massive bills in the mail.

Re:It's a more Canadian solution. (2, Insightful)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702197)

And the p2p people get screwed during peak times because they're considered second class. Like say you need a critical patch for a server during business hours.

Re:It's a more Canadian solution. (1)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702237)

If it's that critical, download it from the vendor instead of using bittorrent.

Re:It's a more Canadian solution. (2, Insightful)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702639)

On second thought, if it's that critical, download it with your business internet connection, rather than your 29.99 home dsl line.

Re:It's a more Canadian solution. (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702361)

That's not quite how it works. Sharing music is only legal because downloading it is illegal, and a judge said that both parties can't have made the copy, especially since one party was automated. His non-car analogy was that a library "makes available" books and a photocopier. But if you decide to go beyond fair use and photocopy dozens of books in full, it's your fault, not that of the library who made it possible. You don't get sued because how can the RIAA gather enough evidence for a subpoena, if sharing the files isn't actionable, only downloading them, but downloading them from an authorized distributor would NOT be actionable? They can't, so when the judge told them that they have to sue for downloading, not uploading, they gave up and ran back to their American masters to get Canada put on the terrorist list even though our piracy rate is 1/2 of any other country on the list, and probably lower than the USAs! Also, ISPs send you a letter instead of suing because they want you to not use bandwidth. They can't sue you anyways because it's not actionable for THEM, it's not THEIR music. While they COULD report you to the CRIA with their evidence, I cannot imagine the enormity of the backlash if CBC/A-Channel/etc ran a bit about how Bell was illegally spying on customers and giving their data to the CRIA so they could sue the customer and make them stop using up the bandwidth they bought.

Re:It's a more Canadian solution. (1)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702625)

I'm sorry, I sort of zoned out there after you were wrong on the first point.

Sharing music is quasi-legal in Canada because of a levy paid on recordable media.

Here's a better poll question (4, Insightful)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702027)

Do you think Bell and Rogers should invest some of the money into increasing bandwidth that they oversold thousand times over, instead of giving hundreds of millions in executive bonuses and lobbing politicians?

Re:Here's a better poll question (2, Funny)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702649)

Do you think Bell and Rogers should invest some of the money into increasing bandwidth that they oversold thousand times over, instead of .... lobbing politicians?

I don't know about you, but I kind of like the idea of lobbing politicians. Kind of like dwarf tossing, only less politically incorrect.

And more satisfying.

I'm not buying it (2, Interesting)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702029)

It's like asking the general public whether it's better to use an oropharyngeal airway or nasopharyngeal airway. There's no way a random group of people get what traffic shaping and net neutrality really mean. I look at our customers, even the ones who can grasp technical topics, you have to keep it really simple. They had to skew those questions to get answers on that topic, there's no way.

Polls can be missleading. (2, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702031)

Depending on who makes the poll questions and what the questions are you can get different answers from the same group of people.

Do you think the individuals who use most of the bandwidth should be limited so you can afford cheaper bandwidth?

Do you think the government should put a limit on how much bandwidth you use?

Most ideas come with trade offs. Depending on the views of the poll writer you can get their bias in the questions.

Re:Polls can be missleading. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28702183)

statistics can prove anything, 85% of all people know that!

Win the battle, lose the war (1)

squoozer (730327) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702053)

I don't see how traffic shaping can really work over the long term especially if the main reason for it is to try to stop an activity like P2P which for the most part is in a legally grey area at best. I could understand the ISP offering to route certain types of traffic with a higher priority (assuming you can identify that type of traffic) but something like P2P traffic could be made to just hide amongst the other encrypted traffic.

I'm sure this is already being done but spotting probably P2P traffic should be fairly easy since the source and destination will probably be in residential netblocks. You could even use the IP address range filter used to stop spamming. Of course this would catch VOIP as well but I don't suppose most ISPs care all that much.

Competition (4, Insightful)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702063)

Quite simply this practice would go away if our telephone companies actually competed. I live in Halifax and we have excellent but still expensive internet via the cable company. Yet I have never seen an advertisement that really compared the differences between local cable and local dsl (huge around here). It is almost like they are afraid to compete. Prices haven't changed in years except to go up a tiny bit. Yet if the cost of bandwidth and equipment has plummeted why haven't prices plummeted? In a competitive environment this should be a huge opening for someone to come along and get a price war going. If my Cable internet company made any profit when I paid $40 a month ten years ago then their costs should now be a few dollars per month. Plus it seems that there is a huge opportunity to leap frog them with either wireless or fiber.

Consumers overpaying for connections (2, Interesting)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702065)

Baring in mind that most consumers are clueless, mentioning traffic shaping will mean nothing to them, especially if the connection seems reasonably quick to them. You can't miss what you never had in the first place, and with traffic shaping, it makes the network providers get away with a worse service for the same money the consumer pays in subscriber fees. They make lots of profits, and they have zero will to invest in the network because it's easier to fleece the consumers instead. The politicians are guilty of being technologically ignorant and allowing this fraud to take place.

This is normal in Australia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28702069)

I can't think of any ISP in Australia that offers true unlimited data download. Optus Cable used to be when it was first introduced -- my friend up the road was the only person in the neighbourhood to actually have it, and boy did we get some sweet speeds. We would download at about 2mb/s all day every day, and never heard boo. Then within a few years, new accounts were shaped after 40gb, but he still had unlimited. Then, he was forced to have his traffic shaped after 40gb as well. Soon enough for the same price as unlimited download, your speeds would be shaped to 64kbps after downloading 12gb.

My personal experience is going from dial up to ADSL (256/64) with a 40gb/month limit, with shaping to 64/64 if I went over that. This was with iiNet and was awesome -- we were paying about $55/month, and it was a great and reliable service. Now we pay $65/month to get 150GB/month on an ADSL2+ connection. However, it ends up being 110gb off peak (1am-7am), which is fine if you know how to set up limits for your downloads, but still it begs the question, "Why?" Well, obviously because they're a business who is trying to make the most profit possible while using as little resources as possible, but because of the advertising for the plan, the ISP (TPG) became inundated with customers, and their proxies were over-run accordingly. These issues are all fixed now though, but for a good 6 months, the connection was shaky at best.

Ah, good old opinion polls (4, Insightful)

Tridus (79566) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702097)

Most of these things are pretty worthless. Last year the provincial government of New Brunswick put out a report about self-sufficiency. They then did a poll about it.

I got called as part of that poll. They asked me if I had heard of the report, with a bunch of answers (read it, read some of it, heard about it, know it exists, never heard of it). I answered "heard about it". The next question the pollster asked was "do you agree with the findings?"

"I haven't read it and thus have no idea what the findings are" would be a pretty rational response, considering I just said that I hadn't read it. Not an option. The options were agree/disagree. I argued with the person on the phone for quite a while over that. Unsurprisingly, the results came out and found that while almost nobody read the report, most people agreed with it. Of course they did, the title sounds like something they should agree to!

(There was a similar story about a question where they asked "do you support more health care spending even if it means running a deficit?" Most people said yes. Later in the poll they asked people what a deficit is. Most of the people who said yes to the earlier question couldn't answer. So, people are quite happy to agree with something when they have no idea what it is.)

This is the same type of nonsense polling. Most of the people asked have no idea what the issue is, but throw words like "reasonable" and "treated fairly" in there, and of course they'll agree with it. If you don't know what traffic shaping is, why would you ever disagree with being treated fairly?

Ever worked for an ISP? (4, Informative)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702117)

I once did voluntary work at a small community ISP. We only had a few hundred users at most but so many people used napster and then gnutella that we had to implement traffic shaping.

The reality is that if you do not, then badly configured clients with no upload limit set will saturate whatever bandwidth is available if the user is sharing something popular. In our case that number of requests coming in prevented people from being able to access their webmail so we started traffic shaping based on port.

Not a perfect solution since some people put their client on port 80 which we did not shape but largely it worked since we had lots of download bandwidth coming in, but were much more restricted on upload due to using ADSL lines. At the time an ADSL line was too expensive for most people so this way we could all share one and split the cost (£3 per month).

Anyway, we found that without traffic shaping everything ground to a halt, with it we could provide a balanced service for everyone. When you step into the person who wants a cheap net connection and has no need to use tons of bandwidth traffic shaping becomes a reasonable tool to ensure they can always get what they pay for.

Since most ISP's declare they will do this in their terms and conditions and they usually tell you the contention ratio of users to bandwidth I do not see how people can really object. If you want to always use the full possible bandwidth then buy an internet account with a 1:1 contention ratio. I know these are ridiculously expensive, but that is because the vast majority of people do not need this.

Re:Ever worked for an ISP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28702253)

The rule of thumb is: If you have to look inside the IP packet, you're doing it wrong. Ports are part of the IP payload, not the IP header. They're inside the envelope, so to speak.

Port or protocol based shaping always implies an assessment of value, which is beyond the authority of an ISP. You can use fair queuing algorithms to avoid throwing away packets of low bandwidth users.

Re:Ever worked for an ISP? (2, Informative)

citizenr (871508) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702275)

The reality is that if you do not, then badly configured clients with no upload limit set will saturate whatever bandwidth is available if the user is sharing something popular

you mean they will saturate THEIR upload that they paid for.

In our case that number of requests coming in prevented people from being able to access their webmail so we started traffic shaping based on port.

so ISP was overbooking so badly it couldnt handle the traffic, that ISP should upgrade, shrink speeds it sells or just die

Re:Ever worked for an ISP? (2, Informative)

Tridus (79566) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702325)

"so ISP was overbooking so badly it couldnt handle the traffic, that ISP should upgrade, shrink speeds it sells or just die"

Just to be clear, you really think any ISP is going to be able to afford to have dedicated speed so that every user can max out their connection, all the time?

Residental Internet is nowhere near expensive enough to pay for that.

Re:Ever worked for an ISP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28702419)

So, you expect that for every utility that the provider must have capacity for every single user to saturate their connection 100% of the time? Apart from being completely unfeasible from a technical and financial point of view, that would result in there being such a huge amount of wasted capacity. All services are sold to an expected level of use. Ever heard of a brown out?

In the case of these residential Internet plans the subscriber certainly did not pay for unlimited guaranteed maximum bandwidth. They paid for burstable rates for up to the advertised speed but the capacity is shared. It is possible to get a guaranteed pipe, but you're going to be paying significantly more for it. But if that's what you want, go ahead and shell out the cash.

Re:Ever worked for an ISP? (1)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702591)

You obviously did not read the entirety of my comment and know nothing about the terms and conditions under which and ISP's sell access.

Almost every ISP sells the same bandwidth over and over again up to the number of times in they declare as the contention ratio when you sign up. ie - 1:50 contention ratio (standard residential last time I checked) means they will sell the same bandwidth 50 times. The bandwidth they quote is the maximum available bandwidth if you were the only person using it.

If you do not like this, get internet with no contention ratio (1:1). This is usually known as a leased line and is vastly more expensive as the only people who really need guaranteed bandwidth 24/7 are businesses. Even where I work we subscribe to SDSL with a contention ratio of 1:20 since we do not need all of our bandwidth all of the time.

I did however just read on the following link that apparently in the US ISP's are less likely to declare the contention ratio when you sign up than they are in my country (UK). If this is the case maybe you should complain to the FTC or whoever about this since it is a very important piece of information to know when you sign up to an internet account.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contention_ratio [wikipedia.org]

Re:Ever worked for an ISP? (1)

stonertom (831884) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702327)

The fairest system I've seen (it's open source, but I can't remember what it's called) shaped based on packets. Kinda in a $bandwidth/$users = Guaranteed amount each gets. If the upstream pipe is free then you get more than the guaranteed amount. The only ISP I've seen that claims they do this (or any other packet shaping TBH) was UK Free Software Network (now they seem to not offer unlimited). BTW: If anyone know the program I'm talking about, a link would rock :)

Re:Ever worked for an ISP? (3, Funny)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702501)

At the time an ADSL line was too expensive for most people so this way we could all share one and split the cost (£3 per month).

An ADSL line costing £3/mo was too expensive? When was this, like 1700?

it's carefully orchestrated propaganda (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28702137)

In this morning's free "Metro" newspaper we get in Toronto, there was an article about that. Guess what the title of the article was? And cover page mind you.

"Canadians don't mind Internet traffic cops: Poll"

Well, duh, Internet traffic cop is NOT the same as Internet traffic shaping. Now if they had asked questions like: "would you be affected if your ISP charges you more to access certain content or website?" then only an idiot would say "no". I guess it's all in the wording. If they had shown you this picture, what would you have said?
http://www.enigmacurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/net-neutrality-as-cable-company.jpg [enigmacurry.com]

The article went on to say that "54 per cent said they did not know whether traffic management affected them personally". So more than half had no idea and we use their opinion for legislation?

Full article on Metro Toronto (Flash) [metronews.ca]

AC

get your analogies straight (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702151)

Rogers, meanwhile, compared 'person-to-person file-sharing to a car that parks in one lane of a busy highway at all times of the day or night, clogging the roadways for everyone unless someone takes action.'

Close but no banana. There's one severe disparity in that analogy. They're not parked cars. This example makes it look like the resource is being wasted, unused, and entirely withheld from others that need it. I'd go for that comparison if it were a car that was driving on that highway. I might have to concede that they have a rather large gas tank and have been driving in circles around the bypass ring all day long, consuming resources continuously that others need only a small portion of, but the used analogy here is just fraud.

This is just getting back to the people getting kicked out of the all-you-can-eat-buffet for eating too much. Now there's an accurate analogy.

Re:get your analogies straight (1)

Jorth (1074589) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702295)

Still one of the proudest moments of my life when I was 16, was being asked to leave a Pizza Hut with my best mate in a shopping mall in the UK because every time they brought a new pizza out we devoured about half of it immediately :P sadly my eating-fu has diminished massively since =(

p.s. I'm only 26, so yeah, this ranks up there in great achievements!

Don't sell service you can't consistently provide (2, Interesting)

seekret (1552571) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702153)

When it comes to traffic shaping I am a firm believer that the companies should not be overloading their connection. If an ISP advertises a certain rate they should not be relying on most people not using the Internet except during prime time as an excuse to promise service they can't actually provide. P2P has many applications and it's only going to get bigger so the ISPs need to start adapting by either not accepting more customers than they can currently handle during all hours of the day at the maximum advertised connection speed, or upgrading the network to accommodate the uses of P2P technology. Traffic shaping is the primary reason I use DSL. My ISP never throttles my bandwidth even if my upload is running at 80% 24/7.

Charging by the Gigibyte... (3, Interesting)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702161)

...would give the ISPs a financial incentive to speed your music and video downloads along. But you'd never support such an outrage, would you? Because then you'd actually have to *pay* for downloading all your "tunes" and movies.

Re:Charging by the Gigibyte... (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702251)

Well, I would, and I've been on board with that for a while. Paying for actual usage is the best way to solve the problem. People don't like it because they have this idea of "unlimited" Internet from back in the dial up days. It's an outdated model when people have connections capable of such high speeds.

Now in order for that to actually get some support, you need net neturality to go along with it. The whole thing falls apart if its $1/GB unless you download from ISP approved companies.

Re:Charging by the Gigibyte... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28702367)

Usage fees are ridiculous when throughput is all that matters. This is just a money grab, and to respond to the troll who obviously implied all those who download large amounts are criminals was kind of obnoxious.

Re:Charging by the Gigibyte... (2, Insightful)

mrsquid0 (1335303) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702429)

This would be a good idea, if the charges were reasonable. Charging $1/Gb is unreasonable. Charging something like $0.05/Gb would be reasonable and I suspect would be widely supported.

More Propaganda (1)

gx5000 (863863) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702175)

More Propaganda...
Only dogs now what to do with poles...and this one deserves it.
We DO MIND Traffic shaping...
But what the heck can we do about it ?
Month after month our bills get higher and our download cap gets smaller...
We need to open up the market to more competition so badly.

Re:More Propaganda (1)

mrsquid0 (1335303) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702449)

What we really need is regulation, with teeth.

Obviously they didn't get a proper sample (1)

keneng (1211114) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702229)

Obviously, they didn't get a proper sample of people because I would imagine more people would disagree with traffic-shaping if they understood it's true purpose was to undermine net-neutrality and keep most of the bandwidth in the hands of the old big-boys club using every Canadian taxpayers' money to build their monopoly infrastructure. There is real injustice going on. That's O.K. though. Given time, all this abuse of power(in this case internet bandwidth controllers) will come to light. When the ISP big boys club put up resistance to the natural flow of information, the BIG BAD ISP CLUB will be smacked right down eventually.

BIG ISP CLUB BOYS...get ready for a global smacking down because I suspect you won't have to wait for long.

LOL (4, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702239)

The major Canadian Internet and phone service provider Rogers, meanwhile, compared 'person-to-person file-sharing to a car that parks in one lane of a busy highway at all times of the day or night, clogging the roadways for everyone unless someone takes action.'

I'm glad I'm not in Canada, because Rogers is either phenomonally stupid or a bunch of lying asshats. Rather than a car parked on a busy highway, it's more like a convoy of SUVs full of people travelling from Chicago to St Louis for the all star baseball games. They're using the highways for what they were designed for. It's not the convoy's fault that I-55 is only four lanes for most of the way, and it's not P2P users' fault that Rogers hasn't kept their infrastructure up to date.

We're not just looking at text-only web pages and sending email on a 33k modem any more, we're streaming videos, downloading Linux ISOs, and swapping files via P2P.

It irks me that the corporates consider P2P to be evil; not all P2P is piracy. I know independant musicians who depend on P2P to get their music out.

Re:LOL (1)

joelmax (1445613) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702355)

Rogers is a bunch of lying asshats... I am stuck with them until October of this year, then my contract is up (Thank god)... good news is coming for New Brunswick though. Starting mid-next year, Bell is rolling out a true fiber optic network in Saint John and Fredericton, I can't wait to get my hands on that... although god knows what Bell is going to be putting on there for monitoring/shaping hardware... although I would take Bells traffic shaping over Rogers any day...

Re:LOL (4, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702397)

I'm glad I'm not in Canada, because Rogers is either phenomonally stupid or a bunch of lying asshats.

Thankfully, that's an "or", not an "xor", because there's no reason to think that they aren't both true.

Real poll result (2, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702249)

The most likely real meaning of this poll: about 50% of those surveyed have no clue what the pollster is talking about, but since the poll question says "customers are treated fairly", respondents think that it's reasonable to be fair.

For instance, "Would you be in favor or against reasonable restrictions of the use of DHMO?" often returns an answer that approves of the restrictions not because the respondent knows anything about the restrictions or DHMO but because those restrictions were described as "reasonable" in the question. That's sort of thing is one of the standard techniques for getting polls with the answer you want.

So what you're saying is.... (1, Insightful)

mr_nazgul (1290102) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702305)

What they're saying is that the people that use p2p are expected to wait until 3 in the morning to get a decent connection. I don't think so.

If I pay for a 5Mb/s connection with unlimited downloads, I should be able to GET 5Mb/s no matter what I do at what time. If I want to be a leech for 24/7. Hey, that's what I paid for. For example some days you'll open up a p2p connection to download some new video you heard about when you get home from work, as it's unlikely you'll be able to use my machine off peak hours (Sorry! Work, family and sleep get in the way of off peak times). That download SHOULD take 1 hour and without being slowed down to 5-6 hours.

I expect to get what I pay for at all times. Peak hours are called that because it's when MOST people are awake and home and actually have free to to use their connection. Off peak hours are for vampires and grue's.

If I pay for a 10Mb/s connection with a cap of 100GB usage, that's what I should get. If I want more, I pay more. But I should GET what I pay for. Here's another car analogy.

I'm not buying a corvette to find the engine acts like a pinto during certain hours.
I'm paying for a specific speed. It should be my choice if I want 100GB (1/2 tank gas) or 200GB (Full tank). If I want a faster speed with a lower or higher cap, let those that use, pay, but GIVE them what they pay for.

Re:So what you're saying is.... (2, Insightful)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702487)

If I pay for a 5Mb/s connection with unlimited downloads, I should be able to GET 5Mb/s no matter what I do at what time. If I want to be a leech for 24/7. Hey, that's what I paid for.

That is the nail, right there, taking a knock to the head. I have no problem at all with ISPs imploying traffic management, if they are honest about the way that they do it. Unfortunately there is a competitive disadvantage being honest - if an ISP sells "5Mbit, with the following traffic management" then they'll lose customers to the ISPs that claim "5Mbit completely unlimited" even if said other ISPs are managing traffic the same way.

Basically the ISPs need to stop selling contended services as if they are dedicated services. But that won't happen until they are forced to because no one ISP will want to risk being the first. The only way to make them all do it at the same time is to legislate which would in itself be a waste of time because they'd find a loophole next week and their customers would be back to square one.

They own the network. Deal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28702315)

They own the network. They will charge whatever they want, and you will pay it, or go elsewhere. You don't have to like it. All this whiney crybaby bullshit with all the propeller heads thinking they are entitled to god-given unthrottled broadband is starting to piss me off. They own it; you rent it. They are the ones that have invested the money into this backbone. Not you. You are a leech.

Re:They own the network. Deal. (1)

mrsquid0 (1335303) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702469)

Wrong. A lot of the money that has gone into the "pipes" (at least in the US) came from the government or from deregulation of fees.

The real need for shaping is in the upstream... (3, Interesting)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702393)

Torrents aren't typically a problem because they're downloading huge files. This is what the network is designed to do, and the end user expects to set-and-forget so it could reasonably have a time frame of 'tomorrow'. The part that's contrary to the design is the uploading of huge files. You're not supposed to be doing that. Chances are, you even signed a contract that said you wouldn't run a 'server' of any kind.

The business model needs to adapt. However, I don't think it is very honest to blame the ISP for expecting you to play by their terms. We should be lobbying for change, perhaps at the legal level or perhaps by seeking/creating alternatives.

You leet's out there need more upstream, and your ISP needs to start seeing you as a data provider, and a lot of this will get better much sooner. Until that happens, please limit your P2P upload rate to something minuscule and give the rest of us a fighting chance to have access to a speedy network.

Plane Analogy (4, Informative)

castironpigeon (1056188) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702407)

I don't like the car analogy. How about this one? An airplane has 100 seats. The airline sells 200 seats. The airline complains when 200 people show up because, clearly, the airplane has only 100 seats and the airline's hands are tied in the matter. However, they do propose a solution, noble and helpful businesspeople that they are. If everyone pays a little more they'll scrap the whole airplane idea and hire a couple of charter buses to get everyone where they need to go.

In a related poll... (1)

pig-power (1069288) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702517)

"Pollsters found that most users fully understood how
important traffic lights are to proper traffic shaping"

What About Laparoscopy and Trocar? (1)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702577)

A recent Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll on ISPs' use of traffic shaping suggests that 60% of survey respondents find the practice reasonable as long as customers are treated fairly, while 22% believe Internet management is unreasonable regardless.

Hmmm, I wonder why it didn't report on people's views on the use of laparoscopy in cases where the risk of trocar injuries is elevated?

Oh! I know! Because that is a question for surgeon's to answer, not the general public.

The major Canadian Internet and phone service provider Rogers, meanwhile, compared 'person-to-person file-sharing to a car that parks in one lane of a busy highway at all times of the day or night, clogging the roadways for everyone unless someone takes action.'

Why P2P? Who not YouTube? Why not all large downloads? Why not all small downloads? What precisely is it about the kind of bits that makes them different than other kinds of bits? If I use P2P to download a 180 meg Debian netinst bundle using bittorrent, is that better or worse than a person who is registered for a couple dozen podcasts on iTunes?

And you, you fools. You keep arguing against capping, against tiering, against anything that would enable ISPs to charge for the number of bits. So they are left with no alternative but the sneaky one that the general public doesn't understand. Argue against them using "unlimited", argue for full disclosure of bandwidth limits, but arguing against the limits themselves is what is causing them (admittedly, happily) to jump back to traffic shaping. This is partly your fault.

Well (2, Insightful)

Bender Unit 22 (216955) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702603)

If it is slowing down downloads etc a bit to make sure voip and other things works then I really don't care.
As long "a bit" isn't slowing things to a crawl 27/7 perhaps like 20% during peak hours. Then I'd rather have a cheap throttled internet connection where time critical packages are getting through fast.

Of course in the real world until now, what I have seen from a few ISPs is that traffic like unencrypted bittorrent are barely getting through 24/7, until you force encryption on or run it through a VPN tunnel.
My former ISP had a acceptable speed on my 20 megabit ADSL. But still when I forwarded all traffic in a VPN to a hosting center the speed on all protocols increased, torrent, http, ftp etc. even though most of the destinations had more routes to go through.
So I guess in theory it could work but the implementation is often much different.

The other shoe... (3, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702615)

"As long as all customers are treated fairly in the way they are affected, most believe that traffic shaping is a reasonable approach for ISPs (Internet service providers) to take," said the survey.

That first clause, "As long as all customers are treated fairly", is the tricky bit.

I'm willing to bet... (1)

lordsid (629982) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702635)

I'm willing to bet that poll question was a little more suited to the results then they are letting on.

When you qualify that poll question "Is traffic shaping reasonable?" with "as long as the customer is treated fairly" it means something completely different then the reality of the situation. If the ISP's get their way they won't give a shit if it's fair to the customer so long as they don't start loosing business.

So the poll question may be "fair", but the reflection of reality certainly isn't going to be true.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?