Cable Packet Shaping Causing Slowdowns 356
knorthern knight writes "To counter P2P programs that encrypt their traffic to evade detection, Rogers Cable in Canada has apparently started degrading all encrypted IP traffic, according to a post on Michael Geist's blog. How many of you log in to work over a VPN or ssh-tunnel? How many get usenet news or email over an encrypted connection? This could be a problem for Rogers Cable customers. Geist, who teaches at U of Ottawa, has 'been advised that the University computer help desk has received a steady stream of complaints from Rogers customers about off-campus email service.'"
Who said you were supposed to use your connection? (Score:5, Insightful)
We have known for years that they have been overselling bandwidth and then cutting you off when you use more than their "unlimited service" will permit without telling you any concrete numbers of what that is.
I would guess that very few people use SSH, VPNs, or other encrypted connections that require the speeds to which we have become accustomed. They don't want that 10% of users on their residential network anyway and they will be happy to have you move to their commercial service packages if you so desire.
I complain that I have to use DSL and pay for land line service that I rarely use but at least my ISP (visi.com) doesn't give a shit what I do (they allow you to run servers, use all your bandwidth, and offer static and reverse).
I feel sorry for those that don't have more of a choice
Why aren't the companies smarter? (Score:5, Informative)
So why not simply SEGMENT your network and put those heavy users on their own block? If you're that worried about P2P crap, they're probably sharing amongst themselves anyway. This would make it easier for you.
So why not offer GRADUATED pricing levels? 2 GB/month for $x. 5 GB/month for $2x. 10 GB/month for $10x. You could even break it down to traffic that stays on your own network and traffic that reaches the Internet.
The whole thing about the opposition to "Net Neutrality" is about extracting the MAXIMUM profit from the existing infrastructure with the minimum of technological advancement. Fuck that. We have the technology right now to make this a non-issue in almost every case. They just don't want to use it because there is a chance they can make more money by crippling the system.
Re:Why aren't the companies smarter? (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason for this is because they want to sell an "unlimited" package to people who will only use 2GB/month. Most people want to have unlimited traffic even if they have no concept of the amount of traffic they need.
Ummm, it is not "unlimited". (Score:5, Informative)
No. They want to ADVERTISE an "unlimited" package so that people will leave their graduated plans and come over to the "unlimited" provider.
Whereupon the "unlimited" provider throttles encrypted communications. And whatever else for someone going over the maximum of the "unlimited" plan.
[i]Most people want to have unlimited traffic even if they have no concept of the amount of traffic they need.[/i]
Not really. Most people would rather save a bit of money. So the companies use deceptive advertising.
I'm saying that we need to force them to get rid of the deceptive advertising. There's no TECHNOLOGICAL reason for it.
They can sell "unlimited standard usage" packages that throttle connections after 2GB/month.
They can sell "unlimited gamer" packages that throttle connections after 5GB/month.
They can sell "unlimited pro" packages that throttle connections after 10GB/month.
The reason that they don't is that they can save MONEY by being STUPID and selling a single "unlimited" package and fucking with the connections so that things such as encrypted sessions are dead slow. It's about them being lazy. That is it.
Re:Ummm, it is not "unlimited". (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So why not offer GRADUATED pricing levels? 2 GB/month for $x. 5 GB/month for $2x. 10 GB/month for $10x. You could even break it down to traffic that stays on your own network and traffic that reaches the Internet.
The reason for this is because they want to sell an "unlimited" package to people who will only use 2GB/month. Most people want to have unlimited traffic even if they have no concept of the amount of traffic they need.
In Uruguay, we have 2 ISPs: the state-run AntelData, and privately owned Dedicado (thanks to some shady 3rd world deals that created a duopoly).
The state run company is now advertising some tiered service levels (I'm writing this on the 1 Mbps ADSL with a 10 Gb/month soft cap with a surcharge if you go over that), and have some pretty good advertising detailing the amounts of stuff you can do with each service (the 1 Gb/month, 3 Gb/month, 10 Gb/month and 256 kbps and 1 Mbps unlimited services)
The priv
Why not pay as you go? (Score:5, Interesting)
So why not offer GRADUATED pricing levels? 2 GB/month for $x. 5 GB/month for $2x. 10 GB/month for $10x.
Why not just pay directly for the bits themselves?
$1 per GB per month [say].
So that if you used 17.79 GB for that month, then your bill would be precisely $17.79.
It's pretty much the way the long distance companies have being doing it since time immemorial.
And if upstream bits are more precious than downstream bits, then bill accordingly: Say, $2 per upstream GB per month, and $0.50 per downstream GB per month [or whatever].
It's not at all clear to me why the free market [in the form of PRICING] can't take care of this stuff naturally.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the consumers are ignorant.
Re:Why not pay as you go? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why aren't the companies smarter? (Score:5, Insightful)
The solution of course is for EVERYBODY to use encryption all the time for everything. Not only would that make ISPs unable to selectively enforce arbitrary levels of service, but it would also make the whole Internet more resistant to malware and spying by governments and corporations. I wonder whether this idea would work technologically? Governments most likely would make it illegal however.
Re:Who said you were supposed to use your connecti (Score:3, Informative)
As for all the other stuff, there are lots of smaller DSL ISPs here, just they don't have advertising budgets as Rogers is a mega corporation here. They own radio stations, cable tv networks, cable tv distribution, voip, internet and cell phones. They can get away with it.
Don't forget the ball team! (Score:3, Funny)
And the Blue Jays - the only product of theirs I like.
Re: (Score:2)
They also offer pagers as well.
(offtopic: the Jays actually look like that no matter how well they do this year, they will still finish 3rd in their division, whats up with that?)
Re:Who said you were supposed to use your connecti (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, some major companies out there have several thousand "work at home" employees that are required to use VPN. Most of these people are in sales type of jobs, but plenty others are required to use VPN to connect to Exchange servers to access email from home.
Considering MS Exchange and dialup don't really mix, these people often have to have broadband to do their jobs efficiently. Seeing how not having VPN with an exchange server is a security risk, I can't really see any alternatives for these work at home types other than to switch to the provider who downgrades them the least.
Keep in mind these people are often working on company laptops who are locked down completely and couldn't install P2P software even if they wanted to.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps if I meant "very few people with influence" it would have made more sense. If a company (who chances are you buy a daily product of every day) notices that its employees can't do its job because of another company... Well they might say something either to the other company or to another press related group.
Of course I think I forgot to mention the company I'm referring (vaguely) to is in the States and their sales reps are r
Re:Who said you were supposed to use your connecti (Score:3, Interesting)
These guys need to be sued.
DSL companies should use it in their ads.
On the other hand, I want shaping that I control (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:On the other hand, I want shaping that I contro (Score:2)
Re:On the other hand, I want shaping that I contro (Score:2, Informative)
Re:On the other hand, I want shaping that I contro (Score:2)
If you have a modern, and very cheap, Linksys router there is some very good (free, as in beer) 3rd party software you can use to reflash your router to be far more capable than the standard software it comes with. I think those are some of the abilities it includes.
Re:On the other hand, I want shaping that I contro (Score:2)
Re:On the other hand, I want shaping that I contro (Score:2)
Traffic shaping is the only way to really do that, but if you have a simpler goal, there is a quick, easy solution. The simpler goal is not to have ssh get absolute priority but to instead have good response most of the time. The easy solution to this is to use p2p software that allows limiting its own maximum b
Illegal? (Score:2)
Purposely sabotaging your product against a segment of people is deplorable.
Re: (Score:2)
No, there really aren't. The entire net neutrality debate is over whether there should be prohibiting these practices here.
Re:Illegal? (Score:5, Informative)
Throttling based on content type is called packet shaping, and it's been done in the US and elsewhere for many years. Nothing about the net neutrality legislation would affect that, and anyone who says otherwise is confused or trying to deliberately mislead.
Throttling based on source, where content of the same type from different sources receives different priorities, is what the net neutrality legislation is about. In other words, any ISP can choose to tone down streaming video traffic so that all their customers can use basic web and email services. No ISP should be able to block video streaming from Google but allow video to stream from Microsoft, just because Microsoft paid them money. (Unless that was clearly advertised to the ISP's customers before they signed up, that is.)
In this case, it sounds like the ISP is throttling all encrypted content, regardless of its source or destination, so the net neutrality concept doesn't apply at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I know in the US there are laws prohibiting companies from gimping their products like this. The specific laws escape me at the moment. Does Canada have anything similar?
Not that I am aware of, Ottawa is more interested in taxes. The only reason the Canadian government would do something is if the CRTC controlled it, maybe they are experimenting with Rogers/Shaw to see what consumers will tolerate?
I have noticed Shaw is blocking some video streaming as of late. And occasionally seems to throttle me aft
Misnomer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am very much an opponent of any kind of packet shaping and a strong supporter of stronger net neutrality. If ISPs feel that they need to throttle customers, they should do so based on bandwidth used (and possible which time of the day the bandwidth is used), and not on the type of information transmi
Re: (Score:2)
Pff. The first thing that everyone will do is turn on their 'interactive' flag for all traffic and we will be back where we are today.
Traffic shaping makes sense. VOIP traffic and other interactive applications SHOULD have priority over background-type operations. This is the way all well designed systems should work - your OS should give priority to screen redraws over virus scans.
As far as P2P traffic, there are ways to suss that out even if you are running it over encrypted sessions by using a variety of
Re: (Score:2)
ISP shaping doesn't make sense because different customers use different protocols. The problem is quickly demonstrated in this very article. Why shouldn't a user be able to prioritize his SSH traffic? What about encrypted VOIP packets? Or online game packets? Allowing users to
Re: (Score:2)
Encrypted VoIP packets are still recognizable as VoIP packets (SRTP vs RTP). What is happening with P2P is that it is deliberately being tunneled through another protocol to try to conceal it's nature.
Content neutral
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Take the case of Portland State University - all bitorrent traffic to the dorm subnet is "throttled" to 20k. Not each connection, the whole subnet. Although it isn't blocked in the strictest sense, it might as well be because a 20 meg file takes a week to download.
That, of course, in addition to the occasional bouts of 800+ms ping times to their gateway.
Re: (Score:2)
the dorm subnet is "throttled" to 20k. Not each connection, the whole subnet.
That's not throttling, that's 100% bona fide mechanical asphyxiation! I guess the "shaping" part could be compared to being drawn, quartered, eviscerated, immasculated, beheaded and having your entrails burned... yeah that's shaping all right...
Morons (Score:3, Interesting)
Canada has problems in this area... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Thanks Shaw!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Dont believe me that Shaw isn't VoIP... The next time your Shaw internet stops working, try using your Shaw digital phone... IT STILL WORKS.
Re: (Score:2)
Dont believe me that Shaw isn't VoIP... The next time your Shaw internet stops working, try using your Shaw digital phone... IT STILL WORKS.
Not really, it is VoIP at least in the loose sense. Voice over IP...
Remember that little black/gray box is more than a simple little converter, it has MANY - MANY channels, built in QoS, heck, it runs a OS with a web server! In theory, they could use it to get to your inside network or redirect your traffic through their own monitoring devices... and all trivial to
... But these are essential (Score:5, Informative)
There are reasons why p2p systems have started encrypting their traffic. Due to popular discontent with bandwidth throttling, they are trying to classify their traffic with a group of services that cannot be removed without breaking the functionality of the internet for that service provider. So their ideal solution to that is to break the functionality of their internet connection?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Throttling is not acceptable for telecommuting.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I regularly use scp to transfer files with nontrivial size between my home office and my employer's network; if my ISP throttled this traffic, then I wouldn't have any reason to pay for their highest upload speed. Fortunately I live in an area with multiple high speed internet providers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, streaming UDP based protocols have to be the highest priority, otherwise VoIP and similar applications won't work.
Ultimately the only logical way to handle this sort of thing is going to be through service tiers or other non-Net neutral mechanisms.
Re: (Score:2)
Content neutrality is a different sort of beast. There are sound technical reasons for not having content neutrality because the technical requirements of different sorts of traffic are different. If I am a consumer I WANT my VoP traffic to have priority over my file trans
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Great. According to HIPAA, all patient related medical information must be encrypted. I like the fact that my ISP is "neutral" and "clobbering" important medical information. Not quite OMGTHINKOFTHECHILDREN, but close. Why should grandma's refresh on the "crosswords galore" website have priority over, say, an encrypted conference between 2 hospitals?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, for many services a bandwidth-throttled (but hopefully still low-latency) secure connection isn't exactly a big limitation. Your online banking site or that terminal session you were running are hardly bandwidth hogs. Downloading large attachments over a secured connection i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Three words.
Deep Packet Inspection.
Re: (Score:2)
Telecommuter (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
brownout heavy users during peak times (Score:5, Interesting)
During non-peak times, when you can carry every bit at maximum speed, do it.
During peak times when you can't, then, for the next few minutes or hours, cap everyone at X bits per second, Y bits per minute, Z bits per 5 minutes, and so on so the leeches-of-the-moment get throttled down and people putting less immediate demand on the system don't notice any change. X should be as close to the normal maximum as possible. Y should be less than 60X or Z should be less than 300X, or both. This way, people just doing normal web browsing won't be impacted but I'll be slowed down if I dare to download all of kernel.org during a busy period.
If you combine charging extra for minimum guaranteed per-second bandwidth and charging extra for high-volume-per-month users with peak-demand throttling, then you can raise revenue and/or discourage people from demanding all-you-can-eat lobster buffet service at cup-o-noodles price.
Do NOT discriminate based on the content of the traffic, especially if you do not know what kind of content that is, i.e. because it is encrypted. That encrypted connection is probably me working from home thank you very much.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They may have enough total bandwidth for everyone to download 3GB/month, but set up so the "burst rate" is much higher a mere 10 kbps. Their customers could download an Ubuntu iso in a couple of hours, but only a few times over the course of a month. (but then again, how many times do you really need to download that iso during the month?)
So for typical usage it is indistinguishable from unlimited, a word itself that has come into the ISP w
If everyone flushed their toilets at one time (Score:3, Insightful)
If EVERYONE tries to use their phone at the same time, there are problems. Remember trying to make a cell call anywhere in greater New York City on 9/11? Nevermind the destroyed equipment, the demand on each cell tower was just too much.
Even today, on busy days like Mother's Day, it's hard to get a long-distance call between certain cities on certain carriers. It's not as bad as it used to be thankfully.
Other businesses do the same
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I certainly wouldn't eat there more than once. Perhaps the owner should consider putting the price up, or building a second floor, according to the laws of supply and demand.
Then again I guess there's a certain percentage of the population that enjoys being bul
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the real problem is that ISPs started throttling p2p users who were consuming all of the available bandwidth and the "geniuses" who just had to have free tunes and movies and software said, "Well, we'll just encrypt all our traffic. That'll show 'em!"
Yeah, that showed them alright. Now everyone is paying for the parasites...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, well in my area both the cable and DSL providers advertise "DOWNLOAD MOVIES IN MINUTES!!!1!!" get all the greatest tunes! Lightning fast games blah blah blah.
Basically, saying they endorse lots of file sharing-like activity in the ads and not just implying faster surfing, but more, and bigger downloads as part of the point of their service.
Which makes tying the ads with the false unlimited claim less forgivable.
But, pretty much everybody should be aware that all telcos and all cable companies ar
Re:brownout heavy users during peak timesPROBLEM (Score:2)
Do that, and suddenly you can't advertise those peak speeds any longer that you are so fond of comparing to your DSL competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Use measures to defeat your ISP's snooping (Score:3, Interesting)
Sadly, some people really don't understand that the internet is NOT anonymous and that you must use other measures to achieve a reasonable degree of security.
Re:Use measures to defeat your ISP's snoopiREALLY? (Score:2)
But you don't mind giving us a web-site to find you at (anu.nfshost.com) that tells us your interest is in making paedophilia more accepted in society, or all the other tracks you've left on a simple Google search.
Civil rights my arse (Score:2)
FFS.
don't blame (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want to kill P2P. I am no fan of cable companies or the RIAA or the MPAA. But don't blame network admins when they have to fight back on this stuff!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not why P2P is encrypted (Score:3, Informative)
If we had strong network neutrality legislation, it wouldn't have been necessary.
Re:don't blame-But I Do! (Score:2)
Why is your business more important than my business. I might be distributing my newest song via P2P, while other people are engaged in other business. My filesharing is as impo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they had a choice:
"The campus network is for academic and research uses only. Any student or faculty found using this network for recreational uses or found using file sharing applications can and will be banned. Students and facult
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit it was "underhand[ed]." When it first happened we - I mean they - blocked the ports in question. But only until they could figure out how to shape the traffic and bring some usability back. At that point, the entire thing was written up in the university paper. No secrets. Nothing underhanded whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
Just auth your users (whether it be on a physical port or otherwise), and tell them you're providing them X GB per month, and Y GB per day, before they're tripped down to 56k-connection-land. If they're hitting their daily/monthly quota regularly, lower the quota for them permanently. Of course you need to have a process in place to grant higher quotas to those who need them, or investigate why someone's hitting their quota all the time if they're on vacation, etc.
For a Uni this
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. There's no way for the IT department to say "sorry, you're in 56k land now" when the student is complaining to his/her parents/dean/professor/pope that they can't get their homework done on our network even though they pay $20k a year in tuition. The only way to limit individual network ports is to do it on a moment-by-moment throttling, not "use it up, you're screwed until the first of next month."
2. It takes a lot more than downlo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a practical matter, it does on my network. I'm not the RIAA and I don't lose any sleep over people sharing their 12 gig music collection 24/7. But I know quite well what the vast majority of P2P traffic is on university campuses. I'd be willing to bet the same is true of home users, too. What's your guess?
Maybe the answer really is to simply bandwidth cap each network jack. I'm not a network admin, so I don't know what's involved in that, but that sounds fair. Nob
How do the know it is encrypted? (Score:2)
Encrypt it All (Score:5, Interesting)
And if they slow it all down, sue them for not providing the level of service they promised when you signed up. The whole unlimited, high-speed broadband thing is such a fraud anyway, it deserves to land in court -- preferably sooner, rather than later.
This is Cute (Score:5, Funny)
Michael Geist
This site is temporarily unavailable. Please notify the System Administrator
And just how are you supposed to to that?
Re:This is Cute (Score:5, Funny)
Post it to slashdot. Obviously the sysadmin is slacking off, so that probably means he is reading slashdot.
This won't fly. (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, I know that many employees of my local and state governments use VPNs daily. If their VPN connections get any slower, they will be well-nigh unusable. This is essentially a lower-stakes version of NTP wanting to cripple every congressman's BlackBerry. Our monopolies seem to be forgetting rule #1: don't piss off your regulators!
Solution: Encapsulation (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe they should just (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like I have read over and over about how North America is like pretty much at the bottom of the ladder of high speed Internet service compared to the rest of the world with the exception of places in Africa.
I think I read places like France and Korea have gigabit service pretty much nation wide.
WHY is the (used to be) world leader of technology and one of the richest nations on Earth (USA) still dragging it's feet and living in the past? I know so many people that are STILL running 54k dialup modems at home but their actual throughput averages around 48k. And they are paying an average of $30 a month for such sorry service! Not to mention, frequent disconnects, busy trunks in the evenings, etc..
How pathetic.
These companies have no interest in providing a quality service, their only interest is milking their customers for as much as possible as long as they can. They'll continue to use antiquated and archaic equipment to provide substandard service until they are FORCED to by either massive equipment failures or court order.
Re:Maybe they should just (Score:5, Interesting)
You answered your own question.
The entire telecom industry is an absolute scam. Nothing comes close.
Go work in telecom for a while and you will be amazed. The focus is never on providing service or creating new products. It's always "how can we maximize return on our existing customers and infrastructure" and "how much can we leverage this incremental improvement"?
Invent something that costs 1/1000th of a cent to deploy and use? Let's price it at 10cents per use.
Handheld makers invent a technology that lets customers play music on their phones? How can we block them from loading their own music so that they must buy it through our storefront?
Convert your network to be digital, so now you can carry data as well as voice? Oh.. hold on there. It costs us less to move data than voice, but we should be charging 100-200 times more for this great new feature.
Don't let any ISVs run a service over your network. That's revenue that you should be getting from your customers directly. Yes, it would make our service more useful, but you can't have anyone else interacting with your customers.
I could go on and on for days (and I was only in it for four months!) It's an absolute scam.
Heath-care and banking are just blips on the radar compared to the telecom scam Goliath.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It already exists. It's called WiFi. And why do you think those telcos have been fighting it tooth and nail?
Re: (Score:2)
Workaround? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They keep pulling this crap and you KNOW it's going to happen, brother. So long as the overhead is faster than the artificial throttle, someone is going to do it.
What about gaming? (Score:2)
Why? (Score:2)
But even if they were right (which they're not) why is it the ISP that is getting all moralistic and judgmental in the face of what their customers want to do?
Its not like the Music Industry's loss affects their sales. In fact, I'd think their sales would suffer much more as a result of clamping down.
Its similar but more stupid than gas stations refusing
Weird... I was right. (Score:2, Interesting)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=187990&cid=155 02121 [slashdot.org]
Guess I was right this time. What will be neat a couple of years down the road now is the slow conversion of all traffic to encrypted streams, and I guess we'll see how the ISPs react to this. Maybe *gasp* actually not lie and sell guaranteed bandwidth?
Evolution (Score:2)
I'd bet the pricing will be about $9/600MB, making it cheaper to goto the movies then to download them.
But, as a bonus, all those bots will get huge bills and people will finally have a reason to remove them. And t
Some test results (Score:5, Informative)
Length: 10,485,760 (10M) [text/plain]
18:52:39 (539.62 KB/s) - `test.dat' saved [10485760/10485760]
wget https://autocast.ca/test.dat
Length: 10,485,760 (10M) [text/plain]
18:53:03 (560.59 KB/s) - `test.dat.1' saved [10485760/10485760]
No slowdown on https downloads at this moment from this location.
scp test.dat odin.canadacast.ca:/root/
test.dat 100% 10MB 97.5KB/s 01:45
scp odin.canadacast.ca:/root/test.dat .
test.dat 100% 10MB 602.4KB/s 00:17
No slowdown on that either.
Upstream rate is 97.5% of this cable modem's capability (800kbps)
This is on a saturday, at 7:10pm local time.
Not quite peak usage time of day but not 3am either.
This does not prove anything of course.
I've only failed to prove that there is traffic shaping, I have not proven that there is no traffic shaping.
Maybe I'll try again at a known peak traffic time.
Sounds like Marriott hotels... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am able to confirm that their traffic is mistakenly being considered rogue
OK, it's your network and if you have no competition, I guess you can do whatever the heck you want. However a few questions spring to mind:
1) Why can't you charge more? I would assume