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."
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:QOS (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, prioritizing some traffic isn't, in theory, the same thing as throttling other traffic. To me, "throttling" suggests that they're saying "traffic using protocol X cannot use more than Y kbps," whereas "prioritizing" would be ensuring that, "whenever we have to choose between delaying protocol X or protocol Y, we always delay protocol X."
Now there are still potential issues with implementation, which protocols you chose to prioritize, and outright abuse for other purposes (such as promoting your own services or degrading competing services). However, in abstract, I don't think it's an absolutely awful idea.
Re:"time sensitive"? (Score:4, Interesting)
No way in hell should FTP or BitTorrent have the same priority as VoIP.
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.
That is exactly the kind of argument you will be dragged into the minute you choose one thing over another. You just can't make generalizations over which type of traffic is more "important".
Re:So.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Time Warner has been able to provide me with consistent bandwidth that is not infringed upon by my neighbors downloading large files ( ok, so its usually me downloading large files not infringing on my neighbors bandwidth ).
So if Cox's competition can do it, why can't they?
If Cox cannot deliver what they advertise why can't they be sued for false advertising?
If Cox would just upgrade their infrastructure they wouldn't have this problem, not only that but they would have happier customers and less upset former customers.
So the basic idea of business that Cox seems to be unable to comprehend is that if they invested in their business then they would actually get more customers.
Instead Cox is going the MBA route of if they f*ck the customers then the customers will bend over and take it or leave.
Re:So.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
On the overselling, why should they be allowed to be anything less than totally honest? Again, just because its internet doesn't make it special.
As a further point, if you expect them to do it correctly you must have been dealing with some cable company other than mine.
Re:QOS (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess it depends on what you are used to. The Cox web page doesn't seem to want to tell me much. The highest speed I found mention of is 15Mbit so I'll go with that.
If that is the case, they *are* ripping people off from my perspective. Unless they're offering it for very cheap prices, of course. In which case "you get what you pay for" applies, obviously.
No provider where I live even mentions throttling. I've never in the years I've had my current 20Mbit (14-15 effectively as it's ADSL and I'm a bit far out) experienced not getting it maxed out when downloading. They just don't seem to be overselling their bandwidth. And I hear no stories of any provider doing it.
I'm considering switching to my cable company's 50Mbit offering. Mainly for the upstream speed. No throttling of any kind there either, and I haven't found anything but praise for the delivered speed in forums.
No word about actually offering it commercially for a good while, but they currently have a customer up with a 1Gbit connection for testing purposes. They've been struggling with the capacity of the equipment at the residence, but have logged 920Mbit effective with it.
I guess comparing the US market to that of a small country like mine isn't really fair. But I can't quite get a grip on why it differs so much in this area. The speed is the major selling point here. They've been upping it gradually over the years, while keeping subscription rates static (though offering cheaper low speed subscriptions for those that want that). None of the commercials make a huge point about how cheap they are, but they do climb all over eachother yelling about the maximum speed they offer.
Cox P2P auto blocking mechanism (Score:3, Interesting)
I tried to submit this here, but it's still pending after a week.
Cox has an auto blocking mechanism for P2P.
http://videotechnology.blogspot.com/2009/01/cox-blocked.html [blogspot.com]
Re:You're gonna flag me down anyways... (Score:2, Interesting)
Try this. Take a LARGE file, and transfer it locally across your LAN. While you're doing that, try your VoIP, WoW, whatever. You may find it's a bit difficult. Throwing a random 'Read more about X so I sound smart, as if I've read about it,' doesn't mean anything. If you look heavily into corporate network infrastructure, I think you'll find a lot more traffic shaping going on that you think.
For the record, it's FLAMEBAIT, not FLAMEBATE. Learn how to spell, you ignorant ass.
Re:Don't confuse things! (Score:3, Interesting)
The end game on that is a lose-lose proposition. When dial-up was still popular this over-subscribed broadband plan was workable.
It still is 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.
They have, maybe not as big an upgrade as you want, but they have had to compete with other ISP's offering 6Mbit, etc.
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.
No it isn't. An ISP's VoIP and video is most likely going to stay inside their network where they can control the QoS and never touch their transit links where they cannot control the overall QoS. As long as the QoS is applied evenly, no problem. Don't confuse the issue!
P2P can also degrade cable networks where a neighborhood is contending for a small uplink speed.
What they want is carte blanche to tell you what data you are allowed to send and receive. period. no arguing.
This is the real issue.
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.
But they can, for the average user. It is only when you get a group of heavy P2P users flooding pipes and routers does it become a problem. Why should the casual use subsidize your 24/7 P2P traffic? You are being just as greedy as the ISP. The ISP should cap you... as long as they were upfront about it. If you don't like it, go to another ISP have has bigger transit connections. You might pay more, but that is how things go.
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.
Okay, what if their "triple play" extra features went over a special network, just for their traffic... a sort of internal peering. No QoS, no shaping, no capping, just peering to their internal servers. Peering is a perfectly acceptable way of handling network traffic. Would you still be pissed if their VoIP services had 40-60ms less latency than their competitors?
Let's keep the definitions clear. I see no problem with peering. I see no problem with QoS, as long as it is applied evenly.
We need to be clear on what neutrality is. Neutrality should be about a company purposely punishing a competitor's traffic to their own advantage.
Re:"time sensitive"? (Score:3, Interesting)
I have QoS set up on my home router, and I love it. I do a lot of VoIP calling. When I do P2P, I always try to upload at least three times what I download. It feels like the moral thing to do. All this uploading used to interfere with my VoIP quality until I installed Tomato firmware on my Buffalo router and configured my QoS. Since then, I've been uploading at 80% of my bandwidth cap and VoIP sounds great.
The point is that I upload more since I installed QoS, and it annoys me less. I honestly wouldn't mind if my ISP installed something similar, especially if this led them to give up the frightening idea of charging by gigabytes for "heavy users" like me.
Re:Choice (Score:3, Interesting)