ISPs Hate P2P Video On-Demand Services 231
Scrumptious writes "CNET is running an article that highlights the problems associated with video on-demand services that rely on P2P technology to distribute content. The article points out that ISPs who throttle traffic on current generation broadband, and negate network neutrality by using packet shaping technology, are hindering any possible adoption of the services offered nervously by content companies. Many broadband consumers are unaware of how hindered a service they may receive because of the horrendous constraints enforced by telephone network operators. This was a topic widely covered in 2006 in the US, but is now practiced as a common method within the United Kingdom."
ISP hate users that use bandwidth (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't really blame the ISP's as providing full bandwidth to all would be overly costly and ridiculous given the original traffic patterns but they are going to have to adapt to the new data patterns of their subscribers or lose to those who will provide it.
Traffic shaping is net neutral (Score:5, Insightful)
ISP's will not discriminate against packets based on their origin.
ISPs need to do traffic shaping to remain competitive. Let's not try and take away any truly valuable tools from them in our fight to keep the Internet free.
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Problems of False Advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, if you sell someone a car and tell them it gets 1000 mpg, but in reality this is only achievable when the car is pushed, don't be surprised when they call you out for fraud when it doesn't perform as advertised.
In my opinion these state-sanction monopolies need to be checked hard, and held accountable for every single dollar given them for fiber upgrades that have never materialized despite huge budget and schedule overruns.
multicast (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ISP hate users that use bandwidth (Score:5, Insightful)
They could also charge for transfer used above an allowance (as most hosting companies do).
No, they want to carry on pretending that they are providing a service that they are actually not providing so that all the suckers (also called customers) will be willing to pay for higher bandwidth. If they realised that supposedly higher bandwidth services would just improve page download times a little bit, most people would be quite happy with sticking to the cheapest 1mbps ADSL they can get.
Re:Traffic shaping is net neutral (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to say, I really don't care for the attempt in the summary to rally the Slashdot troops around the call of Net Neutrality, when NN really doesn't have anything to do with it.
Re:Traffic shaping is net neutral (Score:3, Insightful)
ISPs vs Consumers (Score:4, Insightful)
They've been collecting extra money for years by selling us bandwidth we haven't used. They should use that as investment in more capacity to cover their obligations.
This is just another whining ploy by ISPs to force Network Doublecharge, claiming "Qos" is necessary because increased capacity won't work.
Just like in the 1990s the telcos tried to charge everyone extra for "data lines" and "data modems" because they were finally forced to deliver the local loop signal they sold, and were legally required to deliver for decades, but had cheaped out to make extra profit. And just like they whined that they couldn't deliver lots of DSL, or any other whining to protect their cartels from investing their perpetually record profits into delivering the product they're selling.
They're lying again, even the little ones who just want to be in the club with Verizon and AT&T. They should get kicked in the ass again, just like before. Every time that boot flies at them we finally get some innovation and improvement, even though they don't get their guaranteed exorbidant profits.
Re:No way...Cox Comm in SD does it (Score:2, Insightful)
This $hit pisses me off. I went YEARS with no break in services (ok, except during very heavy rains when ALL of cable went out). So one day I decide to try out Limewire. Things are good for a few months. THEN! I start dropping connection all the time. I call their tech support and they SWEAR they don't traffic shape. "Your cable modem is 5 years old, it's time to buy another one", is what I'm told. Bull$hit. I couldn't go 2 DAYS without a dropout when I had Limewire and/or XBOX360 (playing on-line).
I have since moved my gear and computer, and now, 3 months later, I am back to before where it never drops. The difference? No P2P. There's simply no other way to explain it.
The only way I think I could prove it is if I could packet sniff on the outbound side of the cable modem. The activity light never stops, but I lose connection. Rebooting instantly gets connectivity back to the defauly gateway...the only educated guess I can provide is that they drop your IP off the leased list, and reconnecting renews your IP.
Re:No way (Score:2, Insightful)
Fact is- they make a profit or they go out of business. Either bandwidth gets cheaper or you will be paying more for service in the future as these bandwidth intensive applications come on line.
Re:Traffic shaping is net neutral (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see how being competitive has anything to do with it when, in most cases, there is no competition to compete against.
Welcome to the desert of the real (Score:5, Insightful)
For years, they've been touting high speed connections, trying to upsell Joe Average to 3, 4, 5, 6 mbit service. They know full well that the vast majority of Joe Average's internet usage is viewing web sites, sending emails, and streaming porn ten minutes at a time. In other words, they're selling him 6 mbit service for images and text down, text and clicks up. They know Joe Average is only actually using his pipe for a few hours a day, when he's not at work and not asleep.
Of course, they've succeeded in getting a lot of people to pay more money for more bandwidth that they don't actually use almost ever. Which, in a surprise to no one except the ISPs, means that new services are cropping up that actually use the bandwidth people have been sold.
So now they don't like it. Whoops.
It is to be hoped that enough people - enough Joes Average - want to use the new services like VOIP and "legitimate" P2P that the ISPs will actually face market consequences for overselling bandwidth, throttling upstream speeds, and shaping traffic to favor the stuff that's ISP-approved.
A few geeks bitching about asynchronous connections and random throughput caps just doesn't make a dent in Charter's bottom line. A bunch of people being told that despite CBS' promises, they can't download Survivor 2718: Mariana Trench because their ISP won't let them may actually bring some pressure.
Overselling is a great profit method right up until people start trying to use what they've bought. Ponzi schemes are always terrific moneymakers until your suckers^W customers try to cash out.
Re:It's simple, really (Score:3, Insightful)
But it's not my problem, as a customer of my ISP. They've sold me 6mbps/1mbps service, with no caveats about where I'm getting data from or sending data to. In my case, I actually had to sign a contract to this effect.
At that point, I frankly don't care what their costs are for providing me bandwidth. They should presumably have figured that out before selling it to me at the price I'm paying.
Note that I'm not anti-corporation, nor do I feel they shouldn't be making money, nor do I feel ripped off if they've got record profits every year: I agreed to pay what I agreed to pay because it was worth it to me. But, by the same token, they agreed to provide what they agreed to provide because it was worth it to them. I am expected to hold up my end of the deal by paying my bill every month, they're expected to hold up theirs by providing the promised service.
Re:Traffic shaping is net neutral (Score:3, Insightful)
How cute for you but I think that VoIP traffic is completely unnecessary. I already pay for a land line phone as required by my DSL. However, I don't like to pay for videos and I think that your VoIP calls should be able to take a backseat to my 4mbit download of porn from http://empornium.us/ [empornium.us]
See how that works?
ISPs shouldn't oversell their bandwidth (mine doesn't seem to as I get exactly what they advertise) and it's THEIR fucking problem when people start using the bandwidth for more than e-mail, CNN, and the occasional 1.5MB download from CNET.
Re:Traffic shaping is net neutral (Score:2, Insightful)
Both source discrimination and type discrimination are that: DISCRIMINATION. They have been discriminating by another factor for years (direction: upload/download) and it's NASTY that I can't upload my web site under reasonable time.
it's just economics (Score:2, Insightful)
Most users don't need the kind of service which slashdot users expect. If users are prepared to pay more, there are options for them - AAISP [aaisp.net.uk] is one example. However the vast majority don't want to pay more than around £15-£25 ($30-$50) per month which (given the margins involved - BT take £8 per line and then wholesale bandwidth at what works out at around £.90 per GB IIRC) simply doesn't allow the ISPs to provide a decent amount of bandwidth.
When it comes down to it, they'd rather have 150,000 customers paying £15 and using 500MB per month than 10,000 customers paying £30 and complaining that they get shaped at 30GB.
Re:They oversold, so they hate it (Score:5, Insightful)
Because people don't like surprises on their bill, don't want to estimate how much they've used, don't want to be calculating the cost of everything they want to do, and don't like to screw around with a complicated connection when simpler ones are available.
Re:No way (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you mean "customers trying to get what they think they are paying for". I agree that this is mainly the ISP's fault for making misleading claims, but a wise customer will realize there is a difference between guaranteed service and "best effort" service. Guaranteed service costs more.
Re:The Problems of False Advertising (Score:2, Insightful)
When the advertisment says "Up To 5 Mbps" and you get 2 Mbps, they are providing what is advertised. In reality, they are guaranteeing you won't get more than 5 Mbps. They count on the fact that consumers either ignore the "Up To" or read it to mean "very close to". It is certainly misleading, but not misleading enough to be illegal.
The problem with your car analogy is that fuel economy is measured / estimated by the EPA. In your scenario either the EPA reported a wrong number (and you "innocently" reported what you thought was accurate information), or you misreported the EPA's information (which is a subtly different kind of fraud).
But along that line of thought... Perhaps broadband needs regulations to ensure that providers supply realistic numbers or make some minimum guarantee. If my mortgage company is required to tell me the "worst case" of how much I will be paying over the next 30 years, why shouldn't my ISP be required to tell me that "due to limited capacity, your 'Up To 5 Mbps' service may provide only 500 kbps at times." Or maybe there should be a law that says they may not advertise an "Up to X Mbps" connection unless they are willing to guarantee at least a tenth of that speed 99% of the time.
Re:ISP hate users that use bandwidth (Score:1, Insightful)