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

[Eric Shubert]

Nicely said. I agree.

kitepilot at kitepilot.com wrote:
> 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


-- 
-Eric 'shubes'