[Article] Cox ready to throttle P2P, non"time sensitive" traffic

[Alex Dean]

Keep in mind the distinction between bandwidth and latency.   
Prioritizing traffic for applications which need low latency seems  
like a reasonable goal for an ISP.

"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes  
hurtling down the highway."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneakernet#Non-fiction

On Jan 29, 2009, at 2:56 PM, Bob Elzer wrote:

> Well said Enrique
>
> In fact I'm trying to do this on my own home network. (With not so  
> good
> success right now)
>
> I have a VOIP Phone, and I like to use P2P, so I'm trying to set up my
> network to Give High priority to My Voip, while slowing down the  
> P2P, I also
> what my regular browsing to have precedence over P2P too.
>
> When a bittorrent connection gets going, it can take up all the  
> bandwidth,
> leaving my browser to think I've lost the internet connection. LOL
>
> I'm still playing around with tc, but haven't found the right  
> solution yet.
>
> Roadrunner used to cut Newsgroups to a crawl after a certain amount  
> of data
> was transferred, no matter if it was prime time or a lull.
>
> Giving priority to stuff everyone wants, is a good idea, I don't mind
> waiting a little longer for my P2P to finish.  But not Too Long. :-)
>
> What I don't want is the Soup Nazi controlling the bandwidth.   NO  
> SOUP FOR
> YOU !!!
>
> Replace SOUP with your favorite Protocol.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: plug-discuss-bounces at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> [mailto:plug-discuss-bounces at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us] On Behalf Of
> kitepilot at kitepilot.com
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:45 AM
> To: stephen.p.rufle at cox.net; Main PLUG discussion list
> Subject: Re: [Article] Cox ready to throttle P2P, non"time sensitive"
> traffic
>
> I think that this is being taken out of context...
> I manage a small wireless network with around a hundred victims...
> er...
> CUSTOMERS!    :)
>
> Being a wireless network, we face challenges that wired networks don  
> care
> about, and when the traffic spikes, we have to "manage".
>
> Let me state in here that we don't do false advertising (in fact  
> most of our
> customers are word-of-mouth), and we explain people that we "shape"  
> the
> line.
>
> I am not defending Cox and I don't know what they are doing, but  
> having seen
> how "journalists" makeup overblown aviation news for the sake of  
> "yellowish
> journalism" (or sometimes blatant ignorance of the subject and  
> laziness to
> get informed), I don't have any doubt that they will grab a few  
> words from a
> manager, and run to the nearest keyboard to type away something that
> "sells"...
> Unfortunately, "truth" doesn't sell very well...
>
> With that said, and after donning my asbestos suit, I want to change  
> one
> word that probably got misplaced here: Throttle.
>
> For all I know (not much indeed), and from what I gather from the  
> obvious
> ignorance of the reporter (again, nothing new after I see how they  
> convey
> aviation "news") Cox is not doing "Throttling", Cox is doing  
> "Shaping".
>
> You cannot run a network pipe without some kind of management, or  
> everything
> is going to go Hell.
>
> The way this is done, is by inspecting packets to determine priority.
> VoIP packets will be expedited and FTP packets will be sent after.
> Latency is not an issue in an FTP transfer.
> Latency will kill a VoIP connection.
> At the expense or extending the FTP connection a few seconds.
>
> This is not unfair, this is necessary, albeit unpopular...
>
> And IS NOT TRIVIAL.
> In fact, it is complex enough when you can inspect the packets,  
> never mind
> if you are dealing with an encrypted connection...
>
> Finally, even though I don't prevent P2P in "my valley", I do severe  
> or
> throttle the outbound connections when they become a burden for the  
> network.
>
> Most of the network is used by rural people that simply doesn't have  
> other
> options.
>
> I can't just tell them that they can't use Internet just because Joe  
> Hacker
> downloaded the latest hacked motion picture and 37 thousand hackers  
> over the
> World are banging in the line THEY (my customers) PAY FOR! to get  
> their
> share...
>
> It's a limited resource.
> I explain that to my people too...
>
> Finally, please understand that I am not defending Cox.
> But I believe that the whole discussion is falling down the wrong  
> path.
> Enrique
>
> PS: Who knows here about shaping?
> I need help...   :(
>
>
>
>
>
> Stephen P Rufle writes:
>
>> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/01/cox-opens-up- 
>> throttle-
>> for-p2p-non-time-sensitive-traffic.ars
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/pipermail/plug-discuss/attachments/20090129/1f031b92/attachment.pgp