Cox Communications and "Congestion Management" 282
imamac writes "It appears Cox Communications is the next in line for throttling internet traffic. But it's not throttling of course; Cox's euphemism is 'congestion management.' From Cox's explanation: 'In February, Cox will begin testing a new method of managing traffic on our high-speed Internet network in our Kansas and Arkansas markets. During the occasional times the network is congested, this new technology automatically ensures that all time-sensitive Internet traffic — such as web pages, voice calls, streaming videos and gaming — moves without delay. Less time-sensitive traffic, such as file uploads, peer-to-peer and Usenet newsgroups, may be delayed momentarily...' Sounds like throttling to me."
So.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Explain to me why my gaming or surfing should suffer because you want to download/upload XXX_Donkey_Love.WMV from thepiratebay, again?
QOS (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like QOS to me.
The summary sounds fine (Score:3, Insightful)
The same technology may give them the capability to do all sorts of mischief, but I don't see a problem with prioritization based on application. If they prioritize their own VoIP but somehow keep dropping or delaying Vonage packets, that's a problem. That's just an example, of course.
Re:So.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It shouldn't.
They sold us both a product with a given set of expectations, in this case a reasonable amount of bandwidth. We should both be able to get what we paid for.
Or, put another way, why should my porn download suffer for your Warcrack addiction?
Or, put yet another way, why should either of us give a damn how over sold or under financed Cox is? They should give us both the product they advertised, sold, and (almost) delivered.
umm.. Not Throttleing (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm.. thats not throttling, it applying QOS (Quality of service) Throttling would slow your traffic all the time, where as this applies prioritization to data that needs it. Packets have a qos field that says the priority they should be given..
Im glad there is a telco that will respect QOS - I've wasted a week with a voip problem, only to learn that the telco was shaping traffic and discarding everything above 3mb without paying attention to QOS Flags.. Allstream charges more for this!
Re:"time sensitive"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, put another way, why should my porn download suffer for your Warcrack addiction?
Because, done correctly, it provides a massive improvement in service for games and voice, with a small reduction in service for downloaders.
As for them overselling, if they had to be totally honest about how much bandwidth is available to each customer, they would have to say 'Total Bandwidth / Number of Customers = Your alotted bandwidth'. It would be next to nothing, and even more meaningless than the ideal maximums that they use for advertising now. That being said, perhaps they should be forced to make that data available to prospective customers, it would certainly influence my choice.
Re:The summary sounds fine (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the problem. As soon as they start "managing congestion" with anything other than the bandwidth they sold us, it becomes an issue. When my Vonage VoIP packets are getting delayed, is it because of Cox or because of greedy bandwidth hogging porn downloaders and music file sharers? I'll wager that Cox says it's not because of them. There is no way to view why or when they "manage congestion" so users will never know, and the product and service sold to them is incapable of being verified as fit for purpose.
Something tells me that this is not right, and should be taken to court. I just can't figure out on my own how to win.
It is QOS but they better do it right (Score:5, Insightful)
If they don't want egg on their faces, they better do this right.
They better be completely transparent about what does and does not get priority.
They better be completely transparent about any "special rules" like "no more than 128kb/sec will get preferential treatment" - that's more than enough for 2 simultaneous 2-way audio channels.
They better be completely transparent if they make "additional priority traffic" a premium-charge option.
They better use common sense when determining what is and is not "priority." "If it looks like real-time, treat it like real-time unless the customer is above his real-time quota, then use more discerning measures" is a good rule of thumb. Another good rule of thumb is "only throttle as much as necessary, no more" so that bits fly without delay during times of no congestion.
They better listen to their customers and be willing to admit if they make a mistake.
If they fail do do all of these, they will get some major backlash.
Re:"time sensitive"? (Score:2, Insightful)
OK, so you would be happy paying the same price for a 128 Kbps connection or something? Then everyone could use their fully bandwidth all the time (and never any more than that).
How is this bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as the P2P apps and file transfers can run at full speed when nothing time sensitive is using the network, this is the RIGHT way to do things.
Re:"time sensitive"? (Score:5, Insightful)
How many of your neighbors have to create ~96kbps VoIP stream to innundate the local uplink? It's probably not even possible. How many people using BitTorrent would it take to do the same? Not very many. If you're pulling 7Mbps from a torrent, isn't it reasonable that the ISP makes sure others still have bandwidth available to them? From their description, their prioritization is pointedly vendor-neutral, ie they aren't preferring their own video application over Hulu, or some such competitor. How is this unfair to you?
Re:Well that... (Score:5, Insightful)
If by good you meant 'pathetically obvious', then perhaps yes.
Fine with me * (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as they're using QOS techniques instead of throttling parts of the network that are not under duress, it's fine with me. As long as they're not prioritizing one party's packets over another's of the same protocol (Vonage vs Cox's self-branded VOIP) it's fine with me.
It seems foolish to expect a consumer ISP to provide 100% of the advertised bandwidth 100% of the time. If you need it, there's a certain expectation that you can get a professional line with some established guarantees there. It's widely known that the bandwidth is oversold, and while it's their responsibility to work out some of the congestion, it's not their responsibility to provide bandwidth for 100% of their customers to be uploading at 100% of their available bandwidth.
Re:"time sensitive"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even big pipes can get congested. P2P programs can generate 100's of connections for each client. For VoIP, it is just a single connection. Why have the router process 2,000 packets of P2P for one connection of VoIP? The router should make sure time sensitive things like VoIP get the priority so people that use VoIP can use it without getting crammed out by P2P traffic
The people that browse and have Vonage expect the same level of service as someone that is running P2P 24-hours a day.
I think the discussion of net neutrality keeps getting confused. Maybe confused on purpose. For what reason I am not sure. It seems to me that making sure that, known, time sensitive traffice *should* get priority. Isn't that what TOS bits are for in the IP stack?
You're gonna flag me down anyways... (Score:4, Insightful)
NOT ALL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT IS BAD YOU FUCKTARDS!
Why is it that every form of bandwidth throttling is seen as evil? There are some good, legitimate, reasons for managing traffic flow across a network. While most of the pukes on Slashdot may be hugely inconvenienced by having their latest pirated copy of software X, or DVD rip of 'I love it in the ass' over BitTorrent slowed down, there are people who are trying to use the same pipes for more normal activity. Who cares if it takes an extra five or ten minutes to download that file. I'm much more annoyed when a VoIP call, or streaming video gets choppy.
Whether you mod me -1 Troll or -1 Flamebait or not, you know you agree with me, at least in part.
Re:So.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So.. (Score:4, Insightful)
As for them overselling, if they had to be totally honest about how much bandwidth is available to each customer, they would have to say 'Total Bandwidth / Number of Customers = Your alotted bandwidth'.
Yeah, I think some of the complaints about "overselling bandwidth" can be slightly silly. It's as though people assume that ISPs are going to just drag a cable to your house that connects directly to "the Internet" without going through any switches or routers or anything else that could become a bottleneck at any point.
I do believe that when an ISP advertises a X Mbps connection, you should be able to test your connection to nearby servers and find that you're getting something very close to X Mbps almost all the time. If they say you have "unlimited" usage, then they shouldn't be allowed to turn around and say, "Well, you've gone over your 10 GB cap, so we're cutting you off." Expecting ISPs to guarantee a X Mbps connection to everything all the time as though you had a direct X Mbps connection to whatever server you want to connect to-- it's just not going to happen. That's not how this stuff works.
Re:QOS (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I came in here to make just this point. File sharing is rightly low priority traffic, and if their bandwidth is getting tight during internet rush hour, I'd expect them to prioritize accordingly.
Honestly, would you rather your downloads slowed down fractionally, or your streaming music/video/phone getting unbearably choppy? Extra lag in your online games? Yuck.
Though yea, if they start throttling it all the time and just constantly saying, "Whoa boys that traffic is sure mighty high today HA HA HA," then yea, they need to pay.
(Disclaimer: I have only Cox and AT&T where I live, and I hate both of them for various reasons, but Cox is awesome compared to, for example, Comcast).
Re:"time sensitive"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes because you calling your grandmother to chit chat using VoIP is far more important than me sending Magnetic Resonance Imaging files to India via FTP.
If you need guaranteed bandwidth, you buy it. We receive hundreds of MRIs per months at work and we don't have a residential DSL. We have an optical fiber link (GigE) with an ultimate "Internet" (for what it's worth in a BGP world) link around 300mbps 95-percentile. Guess what, we get our contracted bandwidth... All the time. It's not exactly cheap though, but then we're not downloading porn torrents...
Re:time sensitive? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm no more interested in the quality of another customer's service with this product than any other -- when I go out to eat, I'm not going to let them overcook my steak to be sure they get your souffle just right. Why should this be different?
They didn't sell you a steak and me a souffle. They sold us both a buffet. All of the other customers get their food as normal, but I'm a big fat guy. Instead of taking my plate, sitting down, and eating, I stay up at the buffet and eat there without even putting the food on my plate. I'm in the way of others trying to get food and eating most of it myself. Now the management is going to make me get in line to eat rather than stay at the buffet.
If you want your steak, you've got to get a dedicated line.
P.S. Hometown Buffet is gross.
Re:QOS (Score:3, Insightful)
So you think that if young people had to live in their parents' basements in 2000, they won't have to now because the economy is so much better off?
Re:Don't confuse things! (Score:5, Insightful)
The end game on that is a lose-lose proposition. When dial-up was still popular this over-subscribed broadband plan was workable. The traffic generated by file sharing, email, web browsing etc. could be handled in this manner. The trouble is that ISPs did not update or upgrade the 'tubes' to handle the traffic that they themselves intended on selling to users. All this crap about bundled services (triple-play and Quadruple-play) for the last 5 years is about ISP's selling you streaming content and high-bandwidth content. To claim that they need to 'manage congestion' while trying to sell data content is absolute BS. What they want is carte blanche to tell you what data you are allowed to send and receive. period. no arguing.
We tend to forget that they have this plan to sell you streaming data that has to fit in the same damned pipes as the data you are using now, that they claim are not big enough to handle some file sharing. I call bullshit. The ISPs cannot force the Internet to be how it used to be. Rich Internet content, web 2.0, streaming content... all of this is ruining their original over-subscription network configuration plan. Now, the very same ISPs that are complaining about congestion are fully into planning and implementation of bandwidth intensive services they want to sell you. What they want is for you to only use bandwidth on data services that you have purchased from them. They are double dipping on this, and there is no other way to see it.
Re:"time sensitive"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes because you calling your grandmother to chit chat using VoIP is far more important than me sending Magnetic Resonance Imaging files to India via FTP.
Sure is. In fact, you are stating as much by choosing to use residential cable service to do it. If it's that important, pay for a guarantee.
Re:Fine with me * (Score:2, Insightful)
As the airline industry is one of the most recognizable services that is also oversold, imagine if the above statement were true. Can you imagine how you would feel if you & your spouse/significant other were in a snowy airport waiting for the flight that was taking you to the port city where you were going to board a cruise and the desk attendant said "Being as we've overbooked this flight, we're going to allow first class passengers, passengers headed to medical or business destinations, and families traveling with children to board. All others will be seated on a later flight without any additional compensation. Thanks for again for flying with Cox, where we're proud to live up to our name."
Re:So.. (Score:3, Insightful)
On the overselling, why should they be allowed to be anything less than totally honest?
I think it's you who's not being totally honest by pretending to be mislead about the overselling, and wishfully pretending your $40/month cable bill entitles you to saturate that connection 24/7.
I've read the Comcast agreement. I've skimmed the Cox agreement. I don't see anywhere where it says you can saturate that connection. I don't even see much advertising that would mislead a less-technical user into thinking that.
Can you cite any actual examples of dishonesty on the part of an ISP?
Re:"time sensitive"? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about where you live, but in Phoenix they have these sensors above most traffic lights that are sensitive to emergency vehicle lights (or something.) Guess what they do? They change the light to allow emergency traffic through. I guess if you really want to get to your destination unimpeded by other traffic you could build your own road. Or you could just use emergency services in an emergency.
I realize that the internet isn't a society funded project but why is everyone so concerned with "getting whats theirs" at everyone else's expense anyway? Because that IS what we're talking about here. Not Cox having the ultimate network that is impossible to saturate - because we know there are applications that will use whatever is possibly available. Consider the alternatives here.
1) Lower bandwidth caps for the same price
2) Much higher prices to pay for massive infrastructure upgrades and higher risk deployment investments.
3) A pay for use service that heavily charges for usage above a certain limit.
4) Enforced monthly bandwidth caps (Which cox does have - and at least for me, do not enforce)
In scenario 1 I would be negatively impacted. Why? I use my internet more heavily after hours for downloading and uploading. I would be limited all the time because of peak usage trends.
In scenario 2 I would be negatively impacted because I would have to pay a hell of a lot more than I do now despite my low network impact during said peak times (IE - when it is a problem)
In scenario 3 I would be negatively impacted because I would get charged out the ASS for bandwidth usage because I use my connection during non peak times. While it does probably cost more, it doesn't interfere with anyone else and it doesn't require massive network upgrades like you're demanding either.
In scenario 4 I might well be limited to only using my connection for work and no file transfers, because I work from home. I have to be available to transfer large files every now and then because sometimes it's required.
In all of the above scenarios, i bet they apply to most other people too. Heavy file transfers during peak usage are already going to be slowed down - I don't think you'll notice much difference if the routers shuffle packet priorities in the buffer because cox has a pretty outstanding network already. other downloads are usually on a "start it and forget it" basis. You can seed your crap overnight - it doesn't matter that much.
Whatever. I'm done trolling this post. Those that get it already get it. those that don't wont. and those that don't give a fuck have bigger problems.