Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Businesses Google Your Rights Online

Google To Develop ISP Throttling Detector 198

bigwophh writes "Google has been very vocal on its stance for net neutrality. Now, Richard Whitt — Senior Policy Director for Google — announces that Google will take an even more active role in the debate by arming consumers with the tools to determine first-hand if their broadband connections are being monkeyed with by their ISPs."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google To Develop ISP Throttling Detector

Comments Filter:
  • Kinda hard to do (Score:5, Interesting)

    by R4nm4-kun ( 1302737 ) on Saturday June 14, 2008 @03:28PM (#23793627)
    It's not really that easy to make a tool that would determine 100% sure that the ISP is throttling your connection, many ISP's do limit the whole bandwidth, but this application would have to detect that only a certain type of trafic is limited.

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

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

    Something else, I don't think there will be a big success in bateling the big ISP's, as trafic rises, there is no way they can maintain the current bandwidth/price ratio, even with massive profit cuts and investments in infrastructure. ISP's are overselling at a massive scale, more than 100 times their banwidth capacity. (well, in the US it's possible to maintain current prices since it's one of the most overpriced countries in this domain).
  • by ark1 ( 873448 ) on Saturday June 14, 2008 @03:32PM (#23793679)
    I suspect the main aim here is to reduce ads injecting by ISP which would take away money from Google ads. Presenting it as throttling detection tool is just a way to make it more appealing.
  • Re:Legality Question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by notnAP ( 846325 ) on Saturday June 14, 2008 @03:32PM (#23793685)
    Yes, you could. Now if you were, say, paying for up to 5 Mbps Transfer rate and your ISP is limiting your bandwidth below that, your legal options become a little more muddled. The fact that your ISP is throttling one kind of traffic over another, or to one destination or another, is not necessarily part of the equation.

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

  • Why not caps? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by KasperMeerts ( 1305097 ) on Saturday June 14, 2008 @03:41PM (#23793757)
    Here in Belgium and other European countries, bandwidth is not throttled but capped. I can Bittorrent as much as I want, but I fall back to 1-3 kB/s as soon as I hit the 100 gigabyte barrier. This system is waaaay less underhand or hypocrite. FYI, I'm at 30.7 GB this month. It resets the day after tomorrow.
  • Re:Legality Question (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14, 2008 @03:46PM (#23793799)
    Yes, that's pretty much it. But on the flip side of things, should we expect to be able to run torrents 24/7-365? Or at what point is excessive bandwidth "excessive?"
  • Re:Why not caps? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Darkness404 ( 1287218 ) on Saturday June 14, 2008 @03:53PM (#23793847)
    Here in America though, the ISPs don't tell you anything. Some tell you that in the contract but it is always "excessive" bandwidth usage, never "100 GB" Or "300 GB" or per year, day, hour, etc. And all this when they are talking about "unlimited" in the same ad for the contract in which they say they have caps and can throttle you.
  • Easy to avoid.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Darkness404 ( 1287218 ) on Saturday June 14, 2008 @03:56PM (#23793881)
    Wouldn't this be easy for ISPs to avoid? Just un-throttle any connections to Google's servers? Just figure out where the test is being done and don't throttle that site. Easy.
  • by thermian ( 1267986 ) on Saturday June 14, 2008 @04:00PM (#23793929)
    I've found something quite fishy going on in the UK.

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

    Otherwise we get around 4Mb.

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

    Since this is usually accompanied by 'great deals' on 2mb packages, I smell several day old former fishies.
  • Re:Legality Question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jarjarthejedi ( 996957 ) <christianpinch@@@gmail...com> on Saturday June 14, 2008 @04:06PM (#23793961) Journal

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

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

    Hmm...anyone else getting visions of power company like pricing? You pay per gig (or something) a reasonable fee (such that the average person pays the same then as now), but if you use it during off hours you pay less. It's probably been thought of before but it might help, those torrents would be a lot cheaper to run during off hours, making normal usage faster during on hours.
  • Re:Kinda hard to do (Score:2, Interesting)

    by song-of-the-pogo ( 631676 ) on Saturday June 14, 2008 @04:36PM (#23794225) Homepage
    absolutely, i have been. i'm convinced that my ISP (charter) is throttling youtube specifically. i'll see speeds from youtube at less than 1/4 what i'll see from other sites (say, pulling apple trailers or watching flash content on any other site but youtube). it's been going on for ... i'm not certain how long, but a month at least? i'm trying to figure out to whom i should make my angry phone call. if i can find any viable alternative to charter in my area, i'm going for it.
  • Re:Easy to avoid.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Geekbot ( 641878 ) on Saturday June 14, 2008 @04:44PM (#23794275)
    Unless the software tool takes your bandwidth data and reports it book to Google servers to be analyzed in comparison to thousands to millions of other reports. This sort of meta-analysis is where Google can really shine. On one side of the deal, Google gets lots of information about network traffic. On the other side, the consumers get reliable information about their own network traffic. Definitely a sweet deal for google.

    If it is as simple as what you suggest it would be a great move for Google as the ISP's could unthrottle Google and Google would get superior network traffic over all of the smaller sites that don't have their own well used network-throttling-detectors.
  • Re:Legality Question (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cheater512 ( 783349 ) <nick@nickstallman.net> on Saturday June 14, 2008 @05:46PM (#23794753) Homepage
    They problem is that the ISPs over there are advertising it as unlimited interent.
    You pay a flat fee and you can download as much as you want.

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

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

    It is the next simplest solution and its extremely fair for consumers.
  • by Bashae ( 1250564 ) on Saturday June 14, 2008 @06:51PM (#23795195)
    I'm not british, but my phone carrier (they're the ones who decide on that, not the ISP) does exactly the same thing. For "stability" reasons, they cap DSL signals to a small fraction of what the line can actually achieve (a fraction which is often smaller than the advertised connection speed sold by the ISP). I had to threaten them to really get the upload bandwidth I'm paying for, and it's 100% stable (and I max it all the time).
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14, 2008 @07:10PM (#23795327)
    As a web-author myself, I consider ISP practices and proposals to insert their ads into my web pages criminal: such ISPs are creating unauthorized derivative works and distributing them for profit. As far as I am concerned, it is criminal copyright infringement by the ISP.


    And I need help detecting the infringement.

  • by aplusjimages ( 939458 ) on Saturday June 14, 2008 @08:01PM (#23795667) Journal
    Once the tool is ready how will Google get it to the masses? I'm talking about your average Joe Internet user. Let's face it, /. users will probably have this along with other nerd/geek/informed Internet surfers, but will that be enough noise to stop broadband corporations from throttling? Broadband companies will only care when average Joe starts complaining that he's paying for a service that isn't completely there.
  • FCC needs to step in (Score:2, Interesting)

    by sr8outtalotech ( 1167835 ) on Saturday June 14, 2008 @09:43PM (#23796421)
    The FCC really step in and say you guys need to come with a CIR in the context of best effort delivery and stick with it.
  • Re:Kinda hard to do (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rfunches ( 800928 ) on Saturday June 14, 2008 @11:31PM (#23797153) Homepage

    What makes Comcast incredibly underhanded is that they advertise the wonders of their fiber optic network...and falsely imply FTTH service with lines like "I actually feel the fiber optic light from Comcast."

  • by dilvish_the_damned ( 167205 ) on Sunday June 15, 2008 @04:30AM (#23798589) Journal
    Yay, some quotes from some Google guy. Nothing technical.

    First, you can bet your ass this is pretty damned hard not to get false positives, however I will admit before someone does it for me that the collective mind of Google is much smarter than I. I will not say it cannot be done. Its just unlikely ( still nothing technical ).

    I work for a company that provides software ( and firmware ) for the largest ( physically, and capacity wise ) commercial satellite in the world. It only moves IP packets ( plus meta ). I am not a sales person, I design, prototype, sometimes build the software that controls the flows. I certainly maintain a heavy hand in in it all technically, I have nothing to do with service level policies, other than providing feasible solutions.I feel somewhat qualified to tell you strait up that this 'net neutrality' thing is both a bunch of bullshit and that its prompted by "Board Room" level jealousy of profits.
    Before I get into the heavy of it I want to tell you that I feel that if you buy 1mbps you should get 1mbps. None of this "until you reach 15GB" crap... unless thats what you paid for.Unlimited should be without qualification unless they qualify it up front ( meaning its not "unlimited" ). Truth in advertising is the key here.
    But on the other hand, you want your VOIP calls to be clear, you want your game session to be non-choppy. You want your web pages to take temporary priority over your FTP session, oh yes you do.
    Likewise, you do not want the guy in the next cubicle to take up all of available bandwidth downloading [insert something big] over P2P or whatever you kids do these days to defeat fairness controls.Some of the legislation put forth in the name of neutrality would make it illegal for me to make it fair.
    When I first got into this business it was common practice to oversell by five times, I recently have had documents cross my desk that suggest it is common practice to sell it 80 times over. Given that providers like TimeWarner want to jack the max speed to 15mb for an extra 5 bucks, its no wonder that they then want to put into place caps on usage ( they didn't mean you should use it ).

    Oh wait, we were talking about neutrality. Right. So anyhow, you have groups trying to prioritize traffic, and then you have groups trying to tell the googles and the ebays in the world that they need to pony up some cash if they want fair access to the customers. This has nothing to do with QoS, this is extortion. We already have laws that cover this. Google is taking the wrong tact in the sense that they are trying to rally people behind them in demanding fair access, and I think they should be pressing criminal charges.

    Do not get me wrong, my satellite covers a large portion of Asia, it has nothing to do with what is being proposed right here with Net Neutrality, other than the fact that my Internet is getting messed with by largish companies and politicians that do not know much about the problems.

    Please... understand what you are proposing before you start pushing the badwagon.

    I want to be clear, I feel that legislated "Net Neutrality" is bad, it will not work out well. I feel that there are plenty of laws in place that should incarcerate corporations ( if only we could ) for the obvious laws they are breaking by trying to force popular internet sites to pay them for access to customers that are already paying them. I would like to get into honesty in advertising, and why its really up to you guys to fix this, but it would rather go in a book for I am long winded.
    Really guys and gals, we need some perspective on this, no one wants our internet messed with like this and if you leave it up to the corps and the elected, its going to get messed up. I am not sure what you expect to gain by this, but I am sure what you end up with is a pile of crap if it continues for too long. Please, we can apply laws that have been enforced for decades to cover this, its not mystery to us, its time we demystify it to everyone else.

    P.S. Isnt the posting editing window really small now?

    --dant

Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker

Working...