‘Canada needs Net traffic lights’
p2pnet news view Advertising | P2P:- P2P is a technology, not an activity.
- File sharing is an activity uses P2P technology.
- P2P is about sharing content and resources with peers.
- The internet has always been about sharing resources with peers.
- Bandwidth is a resource.
In the beginning it was military computer peers. Then it was academic researcher peers. Now it’s the consumer public peers.
Many ISPs emulate the original internet and peer with each other to save on transit data thereby clearing the internet highways for traffic is not generated locally.
Empirically, closed access (non P2P) detracts from a country’s economy by artificially restricting trade and encouraging grey marketing or pirate marketing of products.
I blogged last week how the CRTC in Canada is taking submissions from the public on throttling DSL connections.
Consumers feel it’s because the Telcos want to push their own content onto users (which of course is not throttled.)
Users also unrealistically expect $20.00 per month entitles them to 6.5 mbps for the entire 730 hours.
The CRTC receiving evidentiary submissions from industry experts, lobbyists, big iron sales people but so far I haven’t seen a single net economist give evidence.
Being Australian, I guess my input is not really warranted for what Canadians consider to be an internal countrywide matter.
Unfortunately, the rest of the world is watching Canada, and the RBOCS/Bells and large carriers are awaiting the outcome – sitting on the edges of the chairs whilst they do so.
Will the CRTC give them a precedent that will allow them lobby their own governments for similar treatment resulting in being able to implement packet prioritization ensuring higher corporate profit margins ????
Any economist would tell you throttling should depend on several things:
Are all services being throttled identically? ie, if P2P is being throttled, are the Video on Demand services also being throttled an equal amount?
If not, an obvious case of abusing their position as dominant market player by Bell may need to be investigated.
The solution to the problem is quite simple.
If Bell Canada is not prepared to peer with all ISPs and insists on applying to utilize DPI for throttling only P2P traffic, an as a result, the CRTC finally acceds to their request, then:
The CRTC needs to mandate DPI traffic management across all ISPs with each DPI activity being monitored by the CRTC and logged in a database.
- The database needs to collect – network segment traffic flow, reason for throttling – % of throttling.
- The throttling needs to be reset to zero as soon as traffic conditions warrant it.
- Any unfair throttling needs to be logged by CRTC for anti-competitive displinary action (fines).
Canadian users don’t all seem understand the need for traffic management, so I’ll revert to an analogy —->
If all traffics lights were always green at all intersections, there’d be a high number of collisions, specifically during morning and evening rush hours.
Eventually, traffic would stop flowing altogether.
Traffic lights are therefore recognised by the public necessary to ensure a smooth transition from point of departure to the destination.
The timing of traffic lights alter per hour, and sometimes per minute, depending on the traffic flow in other parts of the city grid.
Sometimes there’s more demand on the East West axis, and therefore North-South traffic needs to wait longer for the lights to change.
The timing is calculated by computer database, and over-sighted by human operators, who curiously are Government officials.
Adding freeways changes traffic patterns (in many cases improving the flow for a limited period until the population catches up) but traffic lights are still needed at the on and off ramps to regulate the traffic flow.
Bandwidth throttling should be managed in exactly the same manner.
Ambulance traffic, fire and police get first priority followed by mass transit vehicles, thereafter minibuses, motorcycles with single seater V8 sports cars coming last.
In the Internet World this translates to:
Why am I selecting Video on Demand as one of the most required items for throttling? Because the model is extremely net unfriendly and is the least important content.
1000 – 3000+ kbps (.TS MPEG) is required to be streamed by a single host to a single client.
This example utilizes a T3 connection for every 5 clients.
A T3 wholesales in the USA for $3,000 (USD) per month.
If each client is watching a 90 minute movie, a T3 is only capable of delivering 2433 movies per month or essentially, a wholesale bandwidth price of $(USD)1.23 per movie.
However, P2P delivery of the same movie at 750 kbps with every ISP in Canada being mandated to peer (without exception) would deliver the same movie to a user for the bandwidth cost of approximately $0.21 cents
ISPs in Canada have absolutely no hope of competing on a commercially level playing field basis with Bell Canada —- unless the delivery of on demand video content is either delivered via P2P or Bell Canada is instructed to throttle VoD.
Utilisation of a P2P software solution to deliver the video through a client like MIRO can be monetized for those desiring to deliver video on demand.
The downside is transport stream DRM would need to be revisited in conjunction with developers who can add a flag into file sharing programs.
Unfortunately, the one downside of this proposal is DPI be utilized in the execution of the proposed throttling.
Checks and balances need to be put into place to ensure a private users data is never revealed.
While I realise this isn’t within the CRTC bailiwick and involves the privacy commissioner, I’m fairly sure the following methodology would satisfy all parties as it doesn’t in any way alter the current status quo.
This can be achieved by each transaction on a network being allocated an incident number by the ISP. With only the ISP capable of relating incident number to user IP or User login details.
The importance of a CRTC database with every throttling action logged is to ensure dominant market players do not continue to abuse their market dominance to the detriment of Canadian users and the Canadian economy.
NB In Australia of course, references to Bell or Bell Canada should be transposed in readers minds with the name ‘Telstra’.
Tom Koltai – p2pnet
[Koltai is an economist in Sydney Australia. He's says he's been online for 26 years, has run several ISPs and, "lobbied governments in four countries to prevent Internet restrictive usage legislation from being enacted". He says he's a strong believer in P2P, "as being a technological requirement to fully exploit the convergence of telephony with computers and remove the last barriers to human communication and interaction".]
Follow p2pnet on Twitter.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
July, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Have you read this?
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/a-radical-new-router
There are alternatives to throttling, which will be abused, no doubt it will be abused and no doubt CRTC will do next to nothing to stop the abuse.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Thanks Robert. Fascinating Article.
We experimented with something similar in 1998 in Haifa. Unfortunately we couldnt squeeze more than 64 million addresses into memory simultaneously – so the project didnt proceed.
The problem is that if you have to keep state for a flow session – then you need to keep both the source and destination addresses in memory. (Although Cisco/Juniper memory has come along way since 1998).
Interestingly – with P2P this becomes less of a broblem if one uses the Hash file as the identifier. Then you need to keep only one hash file in memory and several destinations with packet sequence.
So then you have a cross between Squid, an Akamai cache and a router.
Of course this would mean that the entire network would need to become P2P.
That probably wont happen in the short term but it’s where we are heading.
Interestingly, I disagree with you that it will be a problem. Overlay networks are already proving that traffic shapping (DPI based) is actually a superior network delivery model with considerably less packets lost.
Yes no doubt there will be some abuse by the Telcos, but I have seen enough exciting stuff coming out of “labs” in the last 12 months to convince me that we are very close to giving the Telcos some of their own back.
As an example – I give you the concept of Hutchinson Telecoms Trading as 3. They are offering 4000 minutes per month of skype to skype phone calls via GSM cell phone circuits (for $10.00 per month) and the quality is digital phone quality – not normal voip net (packets dropping) quality.
There will be similar options being offered by other phone companies in the not too distant future, becasue if they don’t, upstarts like 3 Mobile will steal all of their users.
In Australia many users are now buying prepaid data only sim cards and using skype on their jail-broken phones.
And these same prepaid data cards have interesting options – that allow extreme speed when connected to your pc via wi-fi.
I mean data at 20 mbps+
I could give you more examples – but then the comment would be longer than the article.
There is a very interesting PPT here… http://www.dcia.info/activities/p2pmssv2008/8-4%20PacketExchange.ppt
which although is a commercial presentation still tells a very interesting story about exchange level packet loss and its decrease with the wide uptake of peering.
(For those without the latest version (2007) of MS-Powerpoint – could I suggest that you download and then print to a pdf before viewing. There’s some java or a script in one of the slides that makes office 2003 powerpoint hang.)
July 13th, 2009 at 10:28 am
@ Tom:
I’d take anything emanating from the DCIA with several huge teaspoons of salt.
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/15628
Cheers!
July 13th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Agreed Jon, however go take a peek at the PPT. It’s a commercial basically – but they have done their research and the results are well presented.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:47 am
@ Tom:
I’d like, herewith, to formally amend my earlier comment. Forget teaspoons of salt: I wouldn’t touch the DCIA, or anything emenating from it in any way, shape, manner or form, with a barge-pole.
Cheers!
July 13th, 2009 at 11:01 am
@ Jon
You are only attacking the DCIA because Kazaa is suing you.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:09 am
^^ Actually, it isn’t Kazaa, it’s Kazaa boss Nikki Hemming. Sharman was in there too, but dropped out, leaving it to Hemming.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5230776.stm
But I was critical of the DCIA long before Sharman went after me.
Cheers!
July 13th, 2009 at 11:22 am
its actually more like 90USD/mo Tom…
July 13th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
This is probably one of the most ridiculous table I’ve ever seen. I seriously cannot stop laughing right now. Mr. Koltai is like a little king who decided what was important and what was not. Big Lolz @ ”Why am I selecting Video on Demand as one of the most required items for throttling? Because the model is extremely net unfriendly and is the least important content.”. Read that Video on Demand is not TwOdotZeRoZZZ enough for Koltai. But this is just one of the decisions Mr. Koltai has made the night he wrote this piece of ****. Not only is he all-in for extreme application-based throttling, he’s now introducing website-based throttling. In an unprecedented decision, Mr. Koltai decided that Rapidshare was less important than most of the sites. Most of the sites are in turn less important than eBay, ‘corporate traffic’, and military. HAHAHAHAHAAH. So basically, this is not net neutrality or net non-neutrality, it’s net militarization and corporatization. No wonder this article has been written by an economist, his own priorities are clearly observable in this list. This basically puts the internet to the service of war and corporate billionaires. Note also that corporate p2p is less restricted than consumer p2p – so basically, if you are Microsoft torrenting your last WaReZzZz that’s all good, but if you’re a small player than forget it, you’re not CoRpOratz enough to be in da club.
But Mr. Koltai has all prepared this table to blind the whole public and he’s included some good charity on top of it so normal people get completely fooled by its intentions. In fact Mr. Koltai thought about the people, he’s a man of the people actually. He ackowledges us a 100% service 24/24 for : 911 calls and medical stuff. Wow, he should not have been an economist, he should be a contender for the Nobel peace prize. Just think about all those families, those little childrens who will be saved by this great decision of Mr. Koltai to let us have access to 911 calls anywhere, anytime. Mother Theresa can go back to work if she want to do as good as Mr. Koltai.
You know what there are millions of http websites, let’s do a 1-by-1 analysis of each case and decide what percentage we cut from them. I have a website called emuwiki.com Mr. Koltai, can you show me how much percentage of bandwith you’ll cut to my website ? I certainly don’t fall in the AES encrypted corporate traffic, that’s too bad so I’ll get at least 10% bandwith throttling. Maybe we could even ramp it up to 20% since after all, I’m sure you’ll find the content on my website much less important than the other websites’ content. It’s even possible that some websites have contents that are as less web-friendly as video on demand, so we might even cut them at 90% like we’ll do for video on demand, right ?
July 13th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
EXCELLENT COMMENT, EmuWikiAdmin. This is EXACTLY what I think. What a stupid and table…
Giving such rights to ISPs will only lead to various InternetS… Use this ISP to go to that site, use that other ISP to have faster access to youtube, etc.
The gov needs to put them in their place once and for all.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
I don’t know about in Australia, but in a lot of Canadian cities, the traffic lights are manually-timed and not centrally-controlled, leading to clock drift and much citizen grumbling about lights being timed so you hit every red light possible along the way.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
I dont understand why I as an internet customer should have to worry about using FTP or any kind of encrypted traffic during “high peaks” in the day. If i want to transfer something i’ll transfer it. I dont think its fair that because congestion can occur at certain times of the day, my traffic gets throttled to the point its unusable. I dont mean downstream traffic I havent ever had a problem with that, my problem is when I need to transfer gigabytes of models, animations, textures, maps, sounds practically an entire game to my american counterparts for collaboration. This is the primary use of my upstream traffic. I rarely ever upload for any other purpose. If I am allotted 500 kb/s upstream traffic please to explain to me how its fair that 24/7 I get 60 kb/s upstream? Your analogies are far from the reality of an average Canadian consumer.
Let me repeat I dont upload, except for my own work. I upload large amounts of files simultaneously via FTP to secure servers offshore and in the US okay the rare occasion I share files with college/univ friends via dc++ on private hubs. Why is it fair that the only time I need to upload, I cant because of so called congestion? Is my internet Service provider giving me the quality of service I was offered? No they arent. This traffic management BS is more than a headache, its actually stifling my ability to innovate with people around the globe. I invite you to come use my internet service and wait about an an hour to upload 80 MB. Tell me if that doesn’t deter you from creating content.
July 13th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
“Why am I selecting Video on Demand as one of the most required items for throttling? Because the model is extremely net unfriendly and is the least important content.”
Why there are no global multicast networks? I can’t get it. Multicast networks permit efficient one-to-many communications.
Because then ONE stream entering the ISP network is distributed to hundreds of ISP customers.
If no customers at an ISP are interested in the stream, the stream will not be delivered to the ISP at all.
This should save enormous amounts of bandwidth.
I am curious whether one could distribute large files that way too (e.g. a Linux ISO). All that is needed is a repeat re-streaming of the file (but with more redundant error-correction).
July 13th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
“Users also unrealistically expect $20.00 per month entitles them to 6.5 mbps for the entire 730 hours.”
If ISPs can’t deliver the stated speed at the stated price for the entire month, then why are they offering it? When I signed up, I don’t remember anyone telling me “Ok, your speed is 6Mbits, but you won’t actually be allowed to use that all the time.” Yes, there were disclaimers buried in the fine print, but in my opinion, that doesn’t count. Any terms that substantially alter the contract that you’re signing should be clearly stated up front.
What possible reason could a user have for signing up for faster internet service unless they intend to USE that speed? ISPs are eager to get people to take higher speed service because the faster the account, the more money they can charge. They actively encourage people to sign up for faster accounts and then do everything in their power to avoid actually delivering what the marketing promised. How is that not false advertising?
Can you name any other industry where a company is allowed to sell you a service at a fixed price, but you’re not actually allowed to use that service to the full extent? Can a painter offer a contract for painting your house and buried in the fine print is a clause that states that they can abandon the job at any time if they feel that it’s taking too much paint to finish?
How about this: ISPs create realistic service tiers based on the speed that they actually CAN deliver for the entire month and charge people based on that?
What’s that? Nobody would pay these prices if ISPs told the truth about what they could actually deliver? So in other words, they have to lie to get people to sign up. Again, how is that not false advertising?
July 13th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Reader’s Write is right about this, ISPs have lied. They advertised unlimited packages that they now pretend not to be able to respect (and even this pretention is false since they still make profits). Mr. Koltai uses his classic argument of the price of a T3 line. I don’t think Bell buys his internet 1 T3 line at a time, sorry I don’t buy this argument at all.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
@Emuwikiadmin – You are right – Bell doesnt buy the Internet in T3 chunks – but the smaller ISP’s that CRTC are trumpeting provide “competition” to Bell, do – therefore the pricing must be based on the weakest link in the chain.
@ RW – What possible reason could a user have for signing up for faster internet service unless they intend to USE that speed?
Well RW, a motor car is capable of travelling at 245 km per hour. (OK – mine is) Yet I have a great deal deal of difficulty in finding roads on which I can drive the vehicle at those speeds.
Does that mean that the car manufacturers are in league with the police to ensure that I can never get the real value of the engineering under the hood (5.4 litre V8).
Your argument is that the ISP’s are singularly responsible for throttling your speed – and my argument is that the Internet drops packets at routers all the way along your path.
I suggested last week that users traceroute the IP number that they are connecting too and see how many routers are connected between A and B. There are lots of points of failure (after the ISP).
Motor vehicles are artificially slowed down for reasons of safety and improved traffic flow.
The Net is doubling in size every year.
Think about that.
If yuor family doubled in size every year – how long would it be before you could not afford to move into a new house so that everyone gets their own room?
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
2 4 8 16 32 64 128
No-one has the money to be able to build a 128 bedroom house in the suburbs – besides – it wouldnt fit on the quarter acre block.
Now lets look at the example of typical 2.3 kids per house family.
The kids grow up, go to school, invite friends over. Occassionally the population at the house swells to 6 or even 10 inhabitants for short periods of time.
The house, the neighbourhood and society can tolerate that. So can the Internet.
The Internet connection is designed to deliver a maximum speed – it was never designed to provide that maximum speed 24×7 for all users.
In the beginning P2P was being utilised by a small subset of users.
1998 2.7% of the world connected. .00000187% (of the worlds population) using P2P.
2008 49% of the world connected. 29.400183% of the world using P2P software.
The analagy is that everyone in your home town decides to drive their entire family to a Macdonalds at 6:00 pm this evening.
They then camp there for 24 hours – demanding instant service, water closet use and legal parking.
Should we sue Macdonalds because it takes them 48 minutes to deliver your order from when you entered the queue?
If it rains, should we sue them for not providing a Tent over all the cars?
No – commonsense prevails – Dad says – looks like a crowd family – why dont we go to Burger King instead.
Your question is why don’t we sue MacDonalds because they cant serve 3 million hamburgers a second.
In the real world that situation cant exist – Traffic lights – mounties and a number of crowd control restrictions would leap into play before the 3 million got to MacDonalds.
Hell, the national guard would be called out.
Yet because you cant see the 3 million on the net all trying to get to the same server as you, you believe that:
a) they dont exist
b) It’s the isp’s fault and he should have installed a 45 lane drive-through
c) You have more rights then everyone else
d) That Macdonalds has no right to advertise Burgers for 50 cents if they cant deliver 3 million burgers per second.
The reality of the net is that everything is delivered via queues. It’s a packet network. When the queues get too long, packets are dropped to shorten the queue – this means that you are forcibly ejected from the queue and have to go to the back and start all over again queueing for your burger packet.
—-
You said – Nobody would pay these prices if ISPs told the truth about what they could actually deliver? So in other words, they have to lie to get people to sign up. Again, how is that not false advertising?
The ISP’s do tell the truth. Why not post the terms of your agreement here –
I am sure that somewhere in there are the words – “this service is provided on a best efforts basis and is not a provision of a guaranteed service level.” – havent read your terms and conditions? Well go and read them.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Hiya Tom:
I’m starting to wibnder if you’ve been hired as an ISP spokesman.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
@lando calrissian
If I am allotted 500 kb/s upstream traffic please to explain to me how its fair that 24/7 I get 60 kb/s upstream? Your analogies are far from the reality of an average Canadian consumer.
Now this is a different kettle of fish – if you can never get 500 kbps upstream yet your ISP is claiming that you can – then he is misleading his customers. I would suggest a complaint about the ISP tot he relevant body about fals and misleading advertising.
However – I would firstly write to the ISP and ask if he is throttling your connection permanently.
The other consideration that many dont consider is that net bots are constantly trolling IP number ranges searching for BitTorrent and file sharing active ports. when they find one, the IP number is quite often treated to a denial of service attack.
This is essentially outside the control of your ISP and impacts upstream bandwidth quite considerably.
If your uploads are on a bittorrent port that these net bots are trolling for – then it nay well be that you are an innocent victim of media-defender and dtect.net.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
@ Jazz.
Nope – I promise that no ISP has hired me. However, I was however an ISP for several years and now choose not to be in that business because of the constant technical overhead.
Growing bonsais and doing the occassional consulting gig is a far quieter and less stressful lifestyle.
I blog about these subjects because I have been analysing the growth of P2P for a considerable time and am aware of it’s effect on the networks.
Unfortunately – when ISP’s say “but we can’t keep up with all the p2p traffic” no-one believes them.
I do.
I just thought I would post from the position of impartial observer that understands both side of the equation.
I have multiple ISP accounts because of course in Oz – Internet is capped monthly. Between all my caps – I get a massive 60 GB per month.
My averages (across the entire month) upload speed is 21 kbps and my average download speed is 32 kbps.
I can get higher – but if I self throttle, the streams are more constant with less stopping and starting. If I go to the limits every month – I get less total GB.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
@adminemuwike
But this is just one of the decisions Mr. Koltai has made the night he wrote this piece of ****.
That’s one way of looking at it – or you could consider that it is a careful analysis over months of observation of rising traffic trends from DPI (monitoring only) equipment located at several exchanges worldwide – (which it is).
The selection is based on Economic benefit to the community, as opposed to non-economic benefit to an individual.
Apart from that, I understand that you don’t like my conclusions in the table.
The throttling recommendations are based on what is best for the economic viability of net utilisation.
You downloading the latest torrent has a hedonic economic value to only you and ayour family/friends.
Ebay for example is the only source of income for millions of soho single mother families.
Rapidshare has no economic value whatsoever except to the owners of the site and as a viable alternative to content industry and ISP attempts to throttle P2P.
Unfortunately, because Rapidshare does not employ multi-cast or P2P software delivery – it has a hedonic value to again only the downloader and immediate family, just as Video on demand.
The reason for Government and military prioritsation is that without efficient communications Military and Government are unable to function efficiently to defend you, the taxpayer.
Notwithstanding I dont personally think much of quite a few legislative decisions, the facts are that without Government we are a basically reduced to a rable with no leadership and consequently would be left with no infrastructure for maintaining order or communications.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
@Reader’s Write Says:
July 13th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
I donât know about in Australia, but in a lot of Canadian cities, the traffic lights are manually-timed and not centrally-controlled, leading to clock drift and much citizen grumbling about lights being timed so you hit every red light possible along the way.
Lobby your local member.
Get those traffic lights synchronised. Use terms like – “an impediment to efficient transport of commerce leading to an increased cost per item on the supermarket shelves and subsequent hyper-inflation adding to the deficit – resulting in the current crop of politicians probably not being re-elected.”
That might get some action.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Haha, he’s bringing back the ’single mother families’ this is unbelievable. We see the fundamental problem here; it is that Mr. Koltai overrates anything that’s economic compared to anything that’s not. So if you’re listening to music and enjoying it, or if you’re reading a biology e-book for free and educating yourself, Mr. Koltai will cut your bandwith. However, if you buy your e-book, then you become more important to his eyes. The guy who’s reading Wikipedia to learn new things, he’s in fact educating himself, but not as much as the guy who buys ”If you want closure in your relationship, start with your legs” for 5$ on Amazon, this guy’s got it; he’s our priority. He deserves full bandwith.
Mr. Koltai is not different from many economists; they can’t see beyond the numbers. For them if it is not attached to a payment of some sort, it’s not even considered. What they don’t realize is that non-economic activities (or activities that do not involve money transfers – I personaly still consider these as economic) are sometime a good indicator of performance. For example, if my grandfather wanted to know what a Bryophyte is, he had to go to the library, spend money on gas to get there, spend hours searching in plant biology books. Of course he was generating economical activity; the gas station guy and the library girl sure would not loose their jobs; but it was not a very performant economical activity. Now if I want to know what a Bryophyte is, I can just google or google-wiki it, and I get the answer in less than a second. Now Wikipedia is free, Google is free to use too. But society just saved 2 salaries and some CO2 emissions. Damn if that’s not economic what is it ?
Why would the Internet give priority to corporations instead of individuals ? Mr. Koltai has yet to bring any argument supporting the corporations. What do they have that is so important to give them priority against the individuals; what is our goal as humanity : happy corporations or happy individuals ?
And when he says that the reason for military prioritisation is that they are there to protect us, I feel like I’m reading a pro-war 7-years-old american boy defending the military. After all the lies about the weapons of mass destruction, after the majority of canadian population said they do not support Canada’s military interventions, I don’t think you’ll convince anyone that the army is a big priority for canadians.
I do like this discussion because the themes that are brought to the table are very clear : Mr. Koltai is a right-wing extremist. Military prioratisation, corporations, block anything that’s free; these are the common ideas brought by corporative people in any of their debates.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:00 am
@ Reader’s Write : July 13th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
âWhy am I selecting Video on Demand as one of the most required items for throttling? Because the model is extremely net unfriendly and is the least important content.â
Why there are no global multicast networks? I canât get it. Multicast networks permit efficient one-to-many communications.
Because then ONE stream entering the ISP network is distributed to hundreds of ISP customers.
Excellent point.
The first multi-cast network was the Mbone back in 1992 and was a raging success waiting only for bandwidth to catch up to the technology.
Todays Multicast attempts are being promulgated by several academic (http://www.internet2.edu/multicast/) and commercial institutions (eg: http://www.multicastmedia.com/) and once a reliable (rmt) standard has been agreed (http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/rmt-charter.html) will eventually be the delivery methodology of choice for the current free to air networks.
TVUplayer is a P2P platform that is a form of multicast.
I consider that all of these solutions are preferable to Single user download of video content at anything over one eighth of the network capacity per month.
But the answer to your question @RW – Why are there no Global Multi-cast networks?
Becasue the content companies like to get paid for their content on a staggered day / country / date / release basis.
Ibn other words – if all content was ubiquitously available globally on the same dayfrom the same multi-cast broadcaster – suddenl;y theior economic model for delivering different prioced content i.e.:
Cinema release in America 80% of library value
Cinema in Australia 3% of Library value
Dvd in America 21% of Library value
Cinema release (dubbed) in Europe 65% of Library value
Airlines in Europe 3% of Library value
DVD in Ausrtralia 5 of Library value
Cable networks in USA 3% of liobrary value
etc
etc
Becomes just one Cinema release + Multicast.
The profitability of content is its many different release versions.
If the Internet kills Broadcast TV, Cable Networks and DVD’s – which it is doing – then that immediately takes 50% of a catologue value away from the content industries traditional distribution chain.
So actually – they dont want to license their current content catalogue for multicast until it becomes deep catalogue – usually three years to five years old.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:09 am
@ EmuWikiAdmin
So if youâre listening to music and enjoying it, or if youâre reading a biology e-book for free and educating yourself, Mr. Koltai will cut your bandwith. However, if you buy your e-book, then you become more important to his eyes.
Crap. That’s not what I said.
What I said the need of the one NEVER EVER should be considered in preference to the needs of the MANY.
That includes Video on Demand but specifically excludes http browsing of your wiki, go and check the chart (with the exception of heavy email periods I have specifically excepted http browsing from throttling.)
Buying is E-commerce and pays the bills – so that is good for the many.
Yes I think Ecommerce generally needs to take economic preference over Rapidshare downloading of the same content.
I dont know what business you are in (Wiki is not a buisiness it’s a community educational service) but somewhere there has to be a dollar or two billed or else you would not be able to continue.
It might be user donations, it might be click through advertising – but somewhere in the chain someone has to actually bill a dollar to be able to donate, to be able to pay for the clickthrough.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:26 am
@Tom:
I’m being very sincere here… You need to give on the analogies!!
Stick to straight, factual explanations, as you’re obviously much, much better at that than creating analogies.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:34 am
Any-one that disagrees with the concept that money makes the world go round should conduct a little experiment.
Step one. Find a soup kitchen (salvation army or similar). Object of the exercise – get a bowl of soup.
Step two. Go to a restaurant. Object of the exercise – get a bowl of soup.
Which one was easier?
Which one gave something back to the community in taxes and jobs?
Which one is more likely to save a human life?
There are two sides to every economic and anti-economic imperitive argument.
You see, my stance is that content needs to be paid for somewhere in the chain or else the tap gets shut off.
I dont agree with the content industries excessive profit model when combined with litigious actvity.
I consider File-sharing to be a valid and important part of developing a community following for content.
But if all content was always delivered free always – then there would be a gradual lessening of quality content.
Therefore for every file shared there has to be at least two purchasers of the product.
Truism:
a) So some people will always buy their content.
b) Some people will always download their content.
But readers have to agree, the consumption of content is an individual personal choice but when that personal choice actually stops the internet from operating because too many are choosing option B and consider that the entire internet should be devoted to them for a measly $90 per month (thanks @surfer, someone else said 20 per month a few days ago…..) in preference to sociologically and economicaly required ecommerce, then I say – turn that person off or throttle their internet until they can learn to be a responsible:
a) Net Citizen.
b) Global citizen.
BTW, nowhere have I said – dont download. Nowhere have I said dont fileshare. All I have said is that the Net needs to be apportioned on an economic basis or it will cease to function.
Anyone that disagrees with that is a Luddite, and errr, quite possibly worse.
Why do I keep posting on this topic ?
Because you guys are not allowing your fellow netizens to enjoy their “bit” of the net and your greed is stifling the economy.
Sort of like the content industries greed is also stifling the economy.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:43 am
”That includes Video on Demand but specifically excludes http browsing of your wiki, go and check the chart (with the exception of heavy email periods I have specifically excepted http browsing from throttling.)”
Yeah, so basically you did cut it of 10% in the most crucial hours when people can learn (after their breakfast and after their dinner). These are the moments of the day when the sugar level inside the brain is at its highest and thus people have the energetic ressources and have greater attention. And you didn’t cut the commercial equivalent (ebay, AES corporate traffic). So you are saying that buying a 0.99$ PlayBoy lighter on eBay has priority over learning biology on Wikipedia.
”What I said the need of the one NEVER EVER should be considered in preference to the needs of the MANY.”
Anyone could agree to this general principle but you are totally not convincing that your table helps us reach this goal. How can you evaluate that 0.99$ transactions on eBay make more people happy than learning biology or re-watching an episode of Lost ? Why do you prioritise TVUPlayer compared to YouTube. TVUPlayer would make people 15% happier than YouTube ? Never heard anything like this.
”Buying is E-commerce and pays the bills – so that is good for the many.
Yes I think Ecommerce generally needs to take economic preference over Rapidshare downloading of the same content.”
You’ve put those sentences next to each other, yet they totally contradict one another. In the first sentence we learn that you care for people being able to pay the bill. In the second sentences, we learn that you would however throttle their attempts at getting free content (that is, not having bills at all).
”I dont know what business you are in (Wiki is not a buisiness itâs a community educational service) but somewhere there has to be a dollar or two billed or else you would not be able to continue.”
I’m in the business of providing free content to the world at the expense of my own pocket. I believe so much in knowledge preservation that I decided to pay myself dedicated servers that are far from being covered by the cash coming from click-through advertising, but I did that because I believe knowledge should be free, accessible, and correctly preserved. However, our society is against the idea of free and freedom; in fact every structures in society has been made in your economical perspective and those structures pull down free initiatives such that it’s harder for us to reach our objectives. But I don’t care; I decided that I would fight those difficulties because I wanted the end-product to be really free (not free like Google who manages the biggest ad network ever – not free like Wikipedia who gets donations – free. ). I will never ask for any kind of recognition for the sacrifices I’ve made. The only thing I ask is to the corporate bandwith throtthlers, the old mans in our governments who understand nothing about the digital world, and CRTC officials who were probably alive when the phone was invented, to all of you, please, do not put an additional obstruction to people like me who believe in true freedom and true free culture. Please do not choose what we will have preferential access to – let us choose for ourselves. If you need speed; throttle everything equally, and advertise correctly that when you buy a 6mbits/sec line at Bell, it’s actually a 3mbits/sec line in the evening.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:12 am
@EmuWikiAdmin
Well put.
Almost a good enough post to end the topic on.
Almost.
YOU are “in the business of providing free content to the world at the expense of my own pocket. ”
Ummm. Could you share with us where the money for your (much appreciated) philanthropic activities came from?
Was it from your day job where the majority of agreements, contracts and communications were via email ?
Good. So we have discovered that there would be no free without email.
Therefore for the two busiest email hours of the day Email should rule over http.
I didnt a***pluck those numbers they came out of research on dropped packets at exchanges.
Learning Biology is important for the planet.
Being able to earn money to pay for the computer so that you can browse biology is slightly more important.
Which came first – the money or the net ?
OK – no more analogies…..
July 14th, 2009 at 1:35 am
Research tells us what we’re ready to hear from it. I can make a research and come to the conclusion that we should throttle everything equally and that this is the only way to avoid interest conflicts.
My day job is to be a neuroscientist. It relies on emails existing, not being unthrotled equally with the rest of content.
Knowing which came first does not make sense. Horses came before car, we preferred cars.
July 14th, 2009 at 2:14 am
@EmuWikiAdmin
Why do you prioritise TVUPlayer compared to YouTube. TVUPlayer would make people 15% happier than YouTube ? Never heard anything like this.
I didnt say 15% happier.
Youtube is client server model.
One server to multiple clients one at a time.
a P2P implementation of youtube would save approximately 18% of the current bandwidth utilisation on the Net.
Ergo – TVUplayer is friendlier to the net than Youtube. PROVIDED all ISP’s peer.
Without Peering – P2P is an excellent idea awaiting legislative mandated peering to arrive.
The Server-client model is dead; is a bandwidth hog and is irresponsible net etiquette.
On Horse and cars
First came the horse, then the horse drawn carriage and then the car. But that is an innaprpriate analogy.
I said money or the net ?
Money pays for the net. The net provides some free content.
With more money the net will grow
That means more free content.
ergo – to obtain free content you first need money.
Once equipped and connected – the information flows.
On an economic basis there needs to be copyright protections to protect commercialisation.
On a different eceonomic basis there needs to be drastic refinements made to copyright legislation and overly protective regimes to allow a free flow or open access to content ensuring a more highly educated populace which results in a better bottom line on the GDP scale which ensures a far high lifestyle experience for the citizens of any country that follows that reasoning.
Emuwikiadmin, you are not wrong to provide information for free.
You are wrong to consider that your free information is more valuable than the 99 cent playboy lighter – IF the vendor of that lighter is an underpaid soho family business trying to eke out a living.
You are quite right – there are a lot of trades on Ebay that would not seem to benefit anyone (except ebay fees collection) however the reality is – that we are not all on the same standard of living. For example the yearly wage in Burundi is $200 per year. There a 99 cent lighter is a big deal.
The net is a wonderful economic leveller if used correctly.
The net is basically the 21st century Robin Hood taking from the rich and giving to the poor. But ONLY if the packets arnt dropped.
Please reign in your own “viewer requirements” for your wiki for five minutes to consider the effect of dropped packets on someone from Tuvalu, Cooke Islands, Guatamala etc sitting in an internet cafe with only half an hour of internet time per month, because someone only paid them 99 cents for their hand-painted playboy cigarette lighter.
Your argument about all applications being equally throttled is emotionally based and fails to consider those that are less fortunate than you. Of the worlds 3 billion internet users less than 50% have the unfettered access that you apparently enjoy.
If we dont do somehting about preventing packet loss, those numbers will get worse.
Remember, Internet traffic doubles in size every year.
July 14th, 2009 at 2:41 am
It amazes me that anyone would even consider going as far as to make some hypothetical chart, arbitrarily detailing what kind of activity “deserves” to be throttled, how much, and when. This represents a mind that has lost touch with why that network came to exist in the first place.
All this talk about “dividing up” internet use just reinforces the need for more capable networks that can simply handle everything properly, without all the fucking around.
You can keep trying to make it a question of science, technology, physics, mathematics, or any combination of the four. None of this justifies the fact that the backbone providers created the entire “economics of scarcity” scenario by overselling, continuing to oversell, and failing to live up to their end of the deal.
They advertised services and features they’re not delivering.
They took the money and didn’t reinvest in the infrastructure.
Now they’re saying their customers are responsible for the mess.
…Get real!
July 14th, 2009 at 2:48 am
Enough with the meaningless analogies. ISPs in Canada charge more then $20 a month and they advertise speeds that users are not able to use. Then they blame filesharers, people who watch Youtube, VOIP etc for the loss.
@Thomas Koltai
Your argument about all applications being equally throttled is emotionally based and fails to consider those that are less fortunate than you. Of the worlds 3 billion internet users less than 50% have the unfettered access that you apparently enjoy.
If we dont do somehting about preventing packet loss, those numbers will get worse.
Since when is Canadian internet access so unfettered? If you want unfettered access try the more populous regions of east asia where a download can hit 3mbs in a matter of moments. How do these more populous regions manage this unfettered mindblowingly fast internet? The more you hear and see the more it seems that Canadian telecoms are ripping Canadians off.
July 14th, 2009 at 3:10 am
This is pretty typical; corporate mentalities using the orphan, the widow, or the poor people as an argument to restrict freedoms. It’s not like they did anything against unequal distribution of richness in the first place.
I don’t say my free information is more valuable than the 99 cents lighter; I say it should be equally prioritised. _You_ are saying that the 99 cents lighter has 100% priority versus 90% for my free information. I don’t think any philosopher in the world could ever ever find any argument to prioritise one or the other, even in pure theoritical terms. Yet our 0.99$ philosopher Mr. Koltai allows himself to choose.
Don’t put the blame for the unequality of Internet access on file sharers and free information advocates, this is ludicrous. The lack of Internet access in poor countries is completely correlated with the lack of computer access – so even if file sharers would stop it all at once tommorrow morning, there wouldn’t be ‘more’ Internet in poor countries. The unequality of Internet access is simply a symptom of the unequality of richness distribution, a problem that has nothing to do with file sharing. Altough I am sure you have an analogy to illustrate how downloading Lost using bittorrent prevents a poor India child from receiving his breakfast. That wouldn’t even surprise me considering how demagogic you have been in your last comments.
July 14th, 2009 at 3:34 am
@J Only 3 Mbps ? those poor Asians. Why, here in australia, if you stand facing the East, under the right cell tower at 4:00 o’clock on a Monday morning you can get 21 Mbps. Why ?
Because the Infrastructure has been built and is economically controlled (high access costs) to keep the riff raff out.
It’s easy to build a network that delivers as promised to the vast majority of the world.
It’s difficult if that vast majority suddenly all start using file sharing for 730 hours per month flat out.
In all the comments above, I don’t think I have seen one comment from a corporate data user from a high bandwidth connected TCP-IP customer that has complained.
It would appear that all the complaints except for @lando calrissian (who detailed his gripe with facts) are actually the people that want everything for nothing and don’t want to share their toys.
Last Analogy of the day: You can lead a horse to water…….
That’s all I can do boys and girls – present the real situation as it exists – warts and all. It is up to you what you do with that information.
Continue flaming me if you feel that will get you a better more better and faster access regime.
Continue blaming the ISP’s if you think that will get you a higher access speed for longer.
But as a summary, I have tried to present a rationale for self regulation. I have presented a likely DPI outcome if all ISP’s dont peer.
I have attempted to present cogent argument for why the net is suffering increasing levels of packet loss.
Your choice as the reader is to decide:
A) He’s off his tree, been smoking too much gunja.
B) He has some valid points but I still think I can get an all you can eat internet buffet for less than the price of a decent meal
C) If I as an Internet user only have four hours per day of free time for media consumption (BEA figures), then why would I need to download more than 120 hours of video content per month ?
D) He’s right – I’ll slow down my torrenting by 50% and see what happens.
E) We’ll show those Bells – install 29 dB omni directional 802.11(n) on every roof and share away……. truly unfettered – as a community.
Hell go the whole hog – start a community Radio and Television station whilst you’re at it.
Oh by the way – if you all elect to do E). I will be interested in what happens to the build out of the network after 1000 plus peers can all see each other.
Oh you mean Koltai that we will get congestion ?
Yep – thats what I mean.
Simple Koltai – we’ll just add more bandwidth.
You cant. 802.11(N) is a spectrum fixed limited amount of bandwidth. You could however break up into small nets with different SID’s for each cell group of users and connect by backhauling through directional Yagi antennas. But the bottleneck will be at each backhaul point.
Okay well then we’ll just turn of all the peeples that dont want to donate for upkeep.
And then what ?
Well then we’ll turn off all the short people under 5′6″.
And then what ?
Well then we’ll turn of all the tall people over 5′8″.
And then what ?
Ahhhh shit, I dunno, complain to our local member ?
July 14th, 2009 at 7:43 am
Hey Jazz & Tom:
Jazz, wibnder? I like it.
Tom, “impartial observer” …
Hardly. In fact, it’s almost ‘Methinks thou doest protest too much’.
Cheers!
July 14th, 2009 at 8:10 am
“@ RW – What possible reason could a user have for signing up for faster internet service unless they intend to USE that speed?
Well RW, a motor car is capable of travelling at 245 km per hour. (OK – mine is) Yet I have a great deal deal of difficulty in finding roads on which I can drive the vehicle at those speeds.
Does that mean that the car manufacturers are in league with the police to ensure that I can never get the real value of the engineering under the hood (5.4 litre V8).”
Bad analogy because the majority of people have no reason to drive that fast, nor would most of them have the skill to properly control their cars at that speed.
“The Net is doubling in size every year.”
And of course that’s completely the fault of the users, right?
Every few months, ISPs increase the service tiers that they offer. From 5Mbit, to 10Mbit, to 15Mbit, etc. Are you trying to tell me that this has nothing to do with increasing bandwidth on the net? ISPs can’t realistically support the speeds that they sell now, but still the shareholders are rubbing their hands together in anticipation of offering even faster speeds for even larger fees, which will only exacerbate the problem.
They want to charge people for a service that they can’t actually use.
Why can countries like Japan offer 100Mbit service to their customers, but here in America, ISPs are complaining that they can’t handle the bandwidth from people with 10Mbit accounts?
“You said – Nobody would pay these prices if ISPs told the truth about what they could actually deliver? So in other words, they have to lie to get people to sign up. Again, how is that not false advertising?
The ISPâs do tell the truth. Why not post the terms of your agreement here -
I am sure that somewhere in there are the words – “this service is provided on a best efforts basis and is not a provision of a guaranteed service level.” – havent read your terms and conditions? Well go and read them.”
Burying important limitations in the fine print of the agreement is deceptive advertising. The speed and the price are clearly advertised in big, bold print, but yet the user has to dig through several paragraphs of standard disclaimers to discover that what they’re agreeing to is NOT what the marketing promised.
I don’t know about Australia, but here in the US, companies aren’t allowed to run deceptive ads that leave out important information which couldn’t reasonably be determined from the ad by the average person, or that would affect a person’s decision to buy that product/service. Please see this page;
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/adv/bus35.shtm
Personal story: The Subway sandwich chain stores used to run specials where you could get 3 foot-long sandwiches for $12. A while back, they stopped running these specials and made the price of most of their sandwiches $5 each. The other day a friend and I passed a Subway store with a banner on the side of the building advertising any 3 regular sandwiches for $12. That was the extent of the banner. Since they haven’t had that price in a while, we decided to stop. As soon as we got inside we noticed a sign on the counter that said you had to buy a $1.50 soda to get the 3 for $12 deal. Even though the price still worked out to be cheaper than the normal $15 for three sandwiches, we turned around and walked out in disgust. It was obvious that they hoped the banner would lure people into the store and that once they were there, they’d accept the extra cost of the soda. That’s false advertising.
July 14th, 2009 at 9:21 am
@Jon – Last week I was told off for not answering all of the readers questions – this week Im being told off for attempting too.
OK – Next week I will just cherry pick the questions I want to answer…..
@RW – I like the Subway analogy.
If we combine the Subway analogy with lando’s backhannel detailed gripe – I think there is a real case to put to the Fair Trade Business Board – or whatever you cannucks happen to call it.
Truth in advertising is a fair and reasonable expectation for all consumers.
All ISP adverts should say: P2P throttled here as demand warrants (or other relevant mandatory wording).
But as per the Shaw evidence yesterday – they didnt realise that video streaming would be so big.
In the world of Geek (+friends) P2P is now invisible and non DPI-able. The ISP’s werent ready for that either.
My entrie diatribe has been based on the fact that the P2P traffic is becoming invisible.
DPI does not work for about 14% of the traffic right now. Next year it will be 28% of the traffic and the year after that 56% of the traffic.
As soon as a couple more smart programmers work out how to deliver P2P via unused address space, changing IP numbers every thirty seconds – with multiple lateral tcp sessions – ISP’s will be stuffed.
All the more reason for consumer education to start now.
Now as to to driving at 245 kmph, – here in Australia we used to have unlimited speed limits in the Northern Territory. If you could dodge the Roos, camels and donkeys you could drive as fast as you like. Now alas, the only place in the world where you can do that legally is Oklahoma – I believe – although, I have been overtaken on the German Autobahns when I was sitting on 240 by big green A8 (Audi) police cars and ignored by them because everyone in the left lane was going at least that fast.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:40 am
@Thomas,
You know that only 4% of the internet providers are not Rogers or Bell in Ontario? So those whom are purchasing T3 lines from Bell, account for only 4% of the ISP totals.
Does this affect your analysis?
July 14th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Good call Jon on the impartial statement by Tom and your own resulting comment heh.
This is the second time I’ve seen cars and roads used as an internet analogy. The argument by ISP’s is that it doesn’t matter how much they slow you down, in the end you still get all the bits that make up the file your downloading. It’s been noted that throttling can reduce speeds by a much as 90% and Tom’s own table has similar values. Let’s use that car analogy he and many ISP’s like so much, but this time put it into something that actually resembles reality.
I want to drive from City-A to City-B which are 600 km apart. The speed limit between these two points is 100 km/hr. That means it should take me approximately 6 hours to make the trip. Now imagine that because I drive a Ford, the speed limit at which I can drive is reduced by 90%. All other brands of cars still get to go the full speed limit. Should I be happy that I’ll still get to my destination eventually, even if it now takes me 60 hours instead of 6 hours? I await your justification as to why ISP’s should be allowed to specifically target P2P and throttle it 24/7 after reading my analogy.
PS: To clarify, the top speed a car can actually go (245 km/hr in your example) is completely irrelevant as far as the cars/roads analogy goes. The NIC in my computer may be capable of 1000 Mbps, but I don’t expect to get that speed from my ISP. That would be totally silly. I do expect to get the bandwidth that was advertised however, same as I expect to be able to go 100 km/hr when it says I can and not get punished for doing so.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
@Robert – Ummm, no – we have to go with the flow – so to speak – if the CRTC are using those 5% of ISP’s to justify the word “competition” then we can use those ISP’s bandwidth costs. Weakest link = highest priced Wholesale service. (This actually works in our favour as the higher the price – the less effective the competition can be in an monopolistic Telco environment and the less reason the monopolies should be granted special favours.
@ iratepirate. There used to ba a Joke about an Aussie that visited his cousins ranch in Texas, and upon arrival, the Texan started explaining how long it took to drive the boundary of his ranch. The aussie replied – Yer, I had me a car like that once – bloody model T. I got rid of it and bought meself a Toyota.
On a serious note. You guys are starting to get the hang of the analogy thingie.
OK Ford huh ? Well, I would say that was unfair discrimination UNLESS your ford was a monster truck and took up two lanes and prevented other people from passing, in which case I could understand the restriction.
I like Monster trucks – but they do tend to stuff up the high speed highway thingie.
And 245 is not irrelevent. With a radar detector, a good GPS with live speed camera updates – a little bit of speed is good if you ever feel the need. Of course, no-one actually speeds or file shares. So this is a moot discussion and Bell should be told that they cant use DPI unless they peer with everyone.
July 14th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
@Tom:
Every week I read one of these posts, the comments, and your responses, and every week it’s the same stuff. You extrude analogies in profusion and try to talk about economics, while ignoring the reality of what is going on.
The net is growing and will always continue to grow, yet instead of investing profits in infrastructure, monopoly ISPs like Comcast should keep the money and use throttling to keep their networks afloat? Meanwhile, they should continue to oversell, advertising “unlimited” connections that if their customers have the audacity to try and utilize, are somehow arrogant consumerists. How does this make any sense?
There are very straightforward solutions for ISPs:
1. Stop signing up new customers they cannot service.
2. Stop advertising “unlimited” connections when the connections are not, in fact, unlimited.
3. Use the money currently being raked in from $60, $70, $100/mo. charges to (gasp!) invest in the network.
Throttling is, at best, a “stop-gap” solution. The net is going to continue to grow, but by following your recommendations, ISPs don’t have to bother with that – they can just keep throttling any traffic their customers actually use so they can continue providing an inadequate experience for a higher price to more people. Sounds great.
It’s becoming increasingly difficult to see your posts as anything other than excuses for dishonest, shortsighted corporate behavior.
July 14th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
OTTAWA – Most Canadians support the idea of Internet traffic management as long as all users are treated fairly, a new poll suggests.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090714/national/poll_internet_traffic
and if that is how THEY all now conduct your dishonest polls then no wonder so many people think THEY are con men, liars rather..
AND WHAT DID BELL, Rogers AND THE OTHER BIG CORPORATE INTERNET GIANTS PAY THEM ALL TO LIE HERE TOO?
NOTE: This is a hypocritical and dishonest poll firstly again.. for the reality is that most Canadians firstly still do not EVEN know if they are actuality getting their promised internet upload and downloads speeds FROM THEIR ISP.. even because they still firstly do not know how to measure the speed.. so now their polled opinion does not count much when their real ignorance FACTOR IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. Here you all do need first to check the computer’s network speed at http://www.acanac.ca/speedtest/
ONLY THEN YOU CAN ASK MOST CANADIANS WHAT INTERNET SPEED THEY WERE PROMISED BY THEIR ISP COMPARED TO WHAT THEY ARE actually GETTING ..
THEN ONE CAN NOW HONESTLY ASK THEM ALL IF THEY ARE SATISFIED WITH THE INTERNET TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT OF THEIR SPEEDS .. and give me, us all an honest poll.
CRTCâs Farcical hearings on Internet speed control
Rogers, Bell, Videotron, Shaw all only care about one thing.. maximum profits.. motivated by maximum greed.. finding an excuse to charge the customer for more.. and that they have done with their regulating, capping⦠and no one cares about what the consumer thinks, the CRTC included.
Many Other citizens have agreed with the truths that I have written even that the ISP providers themselves are the main reasons the internet is congested and that they the ISPs are also guilty of false, misleading advertising to get customers too.
âInternet throttling benefits customers: Rogers, Shaw â I cannot help but notice that Big Business in Canada wants ALL the power. Power to limit what Consumers can and cannot access on the Internet. They throttle our speeds at their whim, they want to inspect every data packet we upload or download and they want to make criminals out of us all, while at the same time charging us extra money to purchase blank media for copying . Yet at the same time they fill our inboxes with Spam. 9 out of every 10 emails I get are Spam trying to sell me something or con me out of my money. They fill websites with Bots to follow every click of our mouse to âbetter tailor our individual likes & dislikesâ, while completely removing our right to privacy without threat to prosecution or fines. We have far too much to lose people if we let these Corporate archaic monopolistic behemoths win this one.â
“Of course the Rogers would say this. Their only interest is controlling access, gouging customers, lying about speeds, eliminating competition and holding onto their monopoly. Anything a Telco/ISP has to say should immediately be taken as the exact opposite of what is good for the consumer. We need Net Neutrality and we need it RIGHT NOW”
âThe BEAN counters will be in the back room checking to see how they can squeeze another 2 cents out of any decision coming from this meeting.â
â what about just giving me what I pay for. How can our government let them charge us for a service and then not provide that service?â
âItâs time for our ISPâs to refund us for the speed that they claim to provide but we are unable to get. Letâs see⦠I should be getting âup toâ 10 Mbps and I am only seeing 500 Kbps⦠itâs time for Rogers to cough up! Anything less than 80% of their claim should be considered as misleading the customer and the ISP should be held accountable for this infraction.â
July 15th, 2009 at 5:02 am
@ Canada
Much of what you said has legs (especially the Commercial “intelligent advertising tracking bots”)
Internet users should measure their total up and down for the month and ask for a refund if warranted.
If enough do – the ISP’s will be forced to respond either Technically or economically.
@ Steelwolfe, I am replying out of courtesy. I continue to regurgitate the sdame story in different ways because that it the only way to get it through to some readers that the Internet cant handle 3 billion peopkle conneted at 6 mbps all downloading “The Tonight Show”.
I dont care how much you attempt to demean my posts and comments. The facts are that P2P is growing waaaay faster than anyone can provision for it.
Does that mean that there are not other reasons for internet packet loss (see Canada’s comments above) – No.
Can those bots be controlled ?
Yes – they simply wont be invited onto Internet-2 without incredibly expensive routing costs attached. It’s that simple.
What is internet 2?
The layer ontop of the current layer, but artificially smart enough to know that a DoS or RSTP packet or Net Bot shouldnt be allowed to pass the gateways.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
“@Thomas Koltai – @ Steelwolfe, I am replying out of courtesy. I continue to regurgitate the sdame story in different ways because that it the only way to get it through to some readers that the Internet cant handle 3 billion peopkle conneted at 6 mbps all downloading âThe Tonight Showâ.”
If that’s the case, why are ISPs continuing to increase the speeds they offer to customers? You’ve never attempted to answer this question.
“@Thomas Koltai – I dont care how much you attempt to demean my posts and comments. The facts are that P2P is growing waaaay faster than anyone can provision for it.”
So, the simple act of running a P2P program magically erases any and all limits on a person’s internet account, including the speed that they can upload and download at? Funny, it doesn’t work that way for me…
P2P users can only use as much bandwidth as the ISP provides to them. If the ISP only provides 1.5Mbit, then that’s as fast as they can download. If the ISP provides them with 10Mbit, then they can download at 10Mbit. It’s monumentally naive to think that someone is going to sign up for a high speed account and not want to use it. I’m not going to pay for unlimited long-distance phone service unless I plan to make a lot of long-distance calls. I’m not going to pay for premium cable movie channels unless I plan to watch a lot of movies. I’m not going to pay for high speed internet service unless I plan to download a lot of files.
Here’s an analogy for you;
Two brothers, Bob & Jim, build a bonfire and to get it going, Bob pumps gas onto it. The fire quickly grows out of control and it’s determined that they need to do something. So Jim gets a water hose and starts trying to put it out. He’s not having much luck and declares that the fire is completely out of control and that spraying it with water is useless. Bob agrees and can’t figure out why it isn’t working. Jim continues spraying the fire, but it’s just not going out. After a while, Jim puts down the hose and says he needs to take a break. Bob replies “Good idea, I need to go get some more gas anyway.”
So I ask you again, why do ISPs keep offering higher tiers of service when they can’t even support what they offer now? And how is this not “pouring gas on the fire”?