Slashdot Log In
Bell's Own Data Exposes P2P As a Red Herring
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Jun 26, 2008 08:52 PM
from the just-wanted-to-say-canadian-throttling-front dept.
from the just-wanted-to-say-canadian-throttling-front dept.
dougplanet writes with news from the Canadian-throttling front: "As ordered by the CRTC, Bell has released (some) of its data on how torrents and P2P in general are affecting its network. Even though there's not much data to go on, it's pretty clear that P2P isn't the crushing concern. Over the two-month period prior to their throttling, they had congestion on a whopping 2.6 and 5.2 per cent of their network links. They don't even explain whether this is a range of sustained congestion, or peaks amongst valleys."
Related Stories
[+]
Bell Canada Ordered To Justify Traffic-Shaping Practices 140 comments
somecanuckchick writes "The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has ordered Bell Canada to justify its traffic-shaping practices. The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission on Thursday told the company it has until June 23 to make public data that was marked confidential in a May 29 filing. Bell had said it needed to keep quiet the information, which details the level of internet traffic and possible congestion on its network, for competitive reasons."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
How funny (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyone else find it funny that the article links to a video in it's "rgbFilter podcast"? Could it be that the explosion of streaming video is one of the real causes of network congestion, not a few "copyright infringes"? Never!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly what role P2P plays in the five percent is an entirely different matter.
Harm done. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bell's data shows that unrestricted P2P creates no congestion in better than 95% of their networks. Schemes to "filter" P2P will slow down 100% of their networks. It is obvious that either:
My bet is on #2.
Parent
Re:Harm done. (Score:5, Insightful)
While I would also tend to vote #2 here, those two options are not mutually exclusive.
=Smidge=
Parent
Re:Harm done. (Score:5, Informative)
You're completely incorrect because you're completely ignoring Bell's criteria for a line being considered congested.
First, their thresholds: They consider anything over the following utilization thresholds to be congested:
DS-3 61%, OC-3 84%, OC-12 and OC-48 90%.
Second, they determine usage and congestion by taking samples every 15 minutes. If five samples return percentages over those limits in a 14 day period, the line is considered to be congested for the entire 14 day period.
Their percentages are actually not all that bad; they're a useful guideline for when it's time to turn on another link. Their methodology for MEASURING the usage, on the other hand, is completely flawed. A two-hour long DDoS attack one afternoon might mark a slew of lines as congested for two entire weeks.
Further bolstering the fact that they've chosen their measurements to make the issue seem worse than it appears is that despite the supposed congestion on a given percentage of their lines, they only have about 4000 ATM cell loss events network-wide each month. This is out of the trillions of ATM cells flying around their network every month, they only drop a percentage so small that my calculator resorts to scientific notation trying to calculate it.
In short, they've pretty much made up the issue. Their figures when taken at face value don't indicate significant congestion (5% of lines congested? Why not just purchased a handful more lines?), when examined based on their methodology appear to be garbage data, and when compared against actual packetloss caused by congestion, is proven to be completely non-existent. Bell has zero actual network congestion, their own ATM loss data backs that up.
Disclaimer: I'm not a network engineer, and so I might be talking out of my ass. But I think that common sense can play a role here; their methodology makes it trivial to declare a line as congested, and having 4000 instances of ATM cell loss on a network in a month with millions of customers (and trillions of ATM cells sent per month) doesn't seem particularly bad.
Parent
Re:Harm done. (Score:5, Interesting)
I am a network engineer. 90% is a really high threshold for calling something congested. Also, 15 minute averages are better than a lot of measurements I've seen, but are far from perfect - lots of "microburst" type activity can cause a noticeable loss in performance over a much shorter period than that.
Bittorrent-type flow patterns do tend to cause microburst issues - it might be that Bell CA needs to implement some more fine-grained measurements to see whether the thresholds are still the right ones for them.
Parent
Re:Harm done. (Score:4, Interesting)
By destroying P2P traffic they are doing it to some traffic that has a large part of the traffic volume in their networks and see what happens. P2P has probably been chosen as a legitimate target since it has a considerable amount of "illegal" or "gray" data which in turn means that the number of companies that are affected and buying services from the ISP is lower. Which in turn means that the risk of costly legal suits are held at bay.
So the P2P corruption is mostly a test, not the real deal.
The true reason is that they want to keep the customers to themselves and just tell their customers that they will only get good video if they buy it from them and not any independent vendor.
And this means that everybody has to sit and watch the movies and TV channels that the ISP provides and nothing else - with injected commercials and other crap.
Parent
Re:How funny (Score:5, Funny)
(or is 5 percent a lot?)
I would say that depends on if it's the five percent I am in.
Parent
And in other news... (Score:5, Interesting)
An ISP in Japan will also soon be throttling [arstechnica.com] their user's bandwidth.
Yes, they are creating an upload cap of 30GB per day. Not per month, per day .
I for one, welcome our Japanese ISP bandwidth capping overlords! Please?
Parent
Re:And in other news... (Score:5, Funny)
-2, Jealous
Parent
Re:How funny (Score:5, Informative)
Delays occur whenever anything is waiting in an output queue instead of being immediately transmitted. This could happen at very low average utilization levels if multiple sources all try to send data across a link simultaneously [formortals.com]. The delay time is a function of the number of bytes waiting to be transmitted and the transmit speed.
Retransmission delays occur when the output queue gets full, the router drops additional packets as they come in, and the TCP connection hangs until the retried packets come through (700ms for the first one, much more for subsequent dropped packets). To avoid compounding the problem, output queues on routers are typically sized to something a fair bit less than 700ms.
Parent
Re:How funny (Score:5, Informative)
Kristof Obermann, he used to work at Arcor one of the bigger ISPs and phone companies in germany. He now works as a professor.
Besides, it's not like twice as much bandwidth costs twice as much money. Besides there's always redundancy. So in case one line breaks, you'll be at 100% peak utilisation. And then you will have problems as you will loose packets.
If those situations would exist, ISPs would use the TOS fields. Packets belonging would just be dropped more likely in case of a network overload. Nobody notices a missing packet at a download as the server will continue sending packets and the missing one eventually gets retransmitted a few seconds later. Missing packets are a _lot_ more noticable at web-browsing or interactive sessions.
Parent
Glad to hear this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Glad to hear this. (Score:5, Informative)
It was so obvious, we know ISP's are the worst kinds of businesses, they oversell the bandwidth massively on the customer end and yet their backbones are pretty hardly ever used so they just end up cheating the consumer. It's basically extortion.
Parent
Re:Glad to hear this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Overselling bandwidth is necessary, its called statistical multiplexing.
Capping transfer per month at ridiculously low levels is not necessary though, they get plenty of money to pay for what people use, and lets face it, this is a quasi-socialist ISP environment, people who barely use their connections are paying for those who use the connection all the time.
Might not be fair, but the ISPs have nothing to complain about, they have been taking peoples money without having to provide much in return to most of them for a long, long time.
Parent
Re:Glad to hear this. (Score:5, Interesting)
Capping transfer per month at ridiculously low levels is not necessary though, they get plenty of money to pay for what people use, and lets face it, this is a quasi-socialist ISP environment, people who barely use their connections are paying for those who use the connection all the time.
Might not be fair, but the ISPs have nothing to complain about, they have been taking peoples money without having to provide much in return to most of them for a long, long time.
The traffic is from, for example, Teksavvy (ISP) customers to the Teksavvy backbone. Bell is just an intermediary.
Parent
Re:Glad to hear this. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Glad to hear this. (Score:5, Insightful)
I know everyone's debated this topic before, but why wouldn't we (as a nation) buy out Bell and convert it into a federally-mandated non-profit ? It's precisely the kind of long-term asset that benefits society as a whole - a perfect candidate for socialization.
34 billion dollars, in the grand scheme of things, ain't all that much when 34 million citizens stand to benefit. That's $1000 per Canadian, but that 4 billion in annual profit would come back to us, which means the purchase pays for itself in 8-9 years. There's no finance minister that can squeeze that much money that quickly; certainly not the inbred albino monkeys we've had lately.
Parent
Re:Glad to hear this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, this private one is working perfectly fine isn't it.
Parent
Re:Glad to hear this. (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people would not switch over "traffic shaping" either — not even most slashdotters.
Ultimately this comes down to whether ISPs are free to control their network, if it annoys customers...
Re:Glad to hear this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Switch? WHERE TO, for crying out loud.
It's not like you have any real choice in the cartel they formed. It's a bit like crime syndicates splitting up the areas, you get the west coast, I take the south...
Parent
Re:Glad to hear this. (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
In comparison... (Score:4, Interesting)
In comparison, the tiny Netherlands with all that cheese and those cows seems to have a lot of consumer ISPs to choose from. Here's a partial list:
Alice Comfort
Argeweb
12move
Abel Telecom
CompuServe
Concepts
DDS
Domestix
EDPnet
Fiberworld
Filternet
GreenOnline
HCC Net
Het Net
InterNLnet
KPN ADSL
Orange
Planet ADSL
Primus
Qfast ICT
Quicknet
Scarlet
Solcon
Speedlinq
SpeedXS
Studenten.net
Supersnel ADSL
Tele2 ADSL
The One Hosting
Tiscali ADSL
TweakDSL
Unet
Vastelastenbond Internet+bellen
xsDSL
XS4ALL tip
ZIEZO.biz
Even bloody Compuserve (yes that one!) will sell you 20down / 1up ADSL for 19.95 euros a month. For another 5 euros a month they'll add PSTN phone termination and a DID. 30 euros monthly for 20 mb down is most typical now. And little traffic shaping if any, to my knowledge.
In fact providers such as XS4all make a political statement against such practices, when they can under legal and contractual agreements, as they do with their statement of privacy too.
For more complete info: http://adsl.startpagina.nl/ [startpagina.nl]
Parent
Re:Glad to hear this. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Glad to hear this. (Score:5, Funny)
False.
Since when has "and LIKE IT!", in relation to the customer, ever entered into any telco (or OPEC) executive's mind?
Parent
The agenda: The internet makes cable obsolete (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, the day when you can ditch cable altogether is very very near (okay already here for me). Even without pirating anything. Seriously, the networks know the way the wind is blowing. Everything will start going online- it already is. Sure, the cable companies want to bring you the "on-demand" world, but they want to own it. But they're losing control and they're scared and they are starting to do stupid stuff... "WHAT? you watched Netflix ALL NIGHT?? ARRGGHHhh..."
They are realizing they have two businesses- content delivery and connectivity. Now they have to compete with the likes of Apple, Google, and Netflix for the former (among others). Recording industry 2.0. Their business model is a genereation away from being obsolete (well half is). The other half is just fine, and they really should have split the company along those lines, but probably can't for regulatory reasons, at least without further damaging the TV business.
The best course of action is clearly to blame the pirates and bury their heads in the sand.
Parent
Re:The agenda: The internet makes cable obsolete (Score:5, Interesting)
And they got mighty supporters. Imagine someone being able to create a network without having to shell out millions if not billions just for the infrastructure. In fact, a halfway well off person can start an internet TV network.
A worldwide TV network, just to make matters worse (for those that oppose it, that is).
Can you see how not only established TV networks but also governments don't really like that idea? It's already bad enough that Al Jazeera spills counterpropaganda against Fox, now imagine anyone being able to do that. Worldwide.
I could well see that some governments don't really like that idea one bit.
Parent
Re:The agenda: The internet makes cable obsolete (Score:4, Interesting)
It's brilliant, because your revenue is proportional to how much you distribute the content. Low interest content generates little money, but little cost, and vice versa for the popular stuff.
It still seems like a novelty because the video quality is absolutely hideous, but a few generations from now it will be very good, and decades from now, our eyes will be the limiting factor and quality won't even need to improve further. We're basically there with audio already (too bad so many people still think 128k mp3s sound good).
This is 1.0. In the future, everyone gets their own TV show. If you get really popular (for free), you better believe you'll be able to get a cut of that ad revenue too. Why? Because You Tube is going to have a lot of competition....
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I knew it!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I knew it!! (Score:5, Funny)
get 'cher fresh hot torches here! can't go to an angry mobbing without fresh hot torches!!!
Parent
Re:I knew it!! (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no justice like angry mob justice.
Parent
Re:I knew it!! (Score:5, Funny)
DmncAtrny: I will write on a huge cement block "By accepting this brick through your window, you accept it as is and agree to my disclaimer of all warranties, express or implied, as well as disclaimers of all liability, direct, indirect, consequential or incidental, that may arise from the installation of this brick into your building."
DmncAtrny: And then hurl it through the window of a Sony officer
DmncAtrny: and run like hell
Parent
Nothing new (Score:4, Insightful)
1) ISP's oversell network
2) network gets congested
3) P2P is a lot (politically) easier to target than streaming video, because they have support from the media industry, so abuse P2P as needed to solve congestion problem
4) PROFIT !!!
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Funny)
1) RTFS
2) RTFA
3) Discover that existence of anything more than tiny pockets of congestion is just a bunch of bullshit, and that not only have you been lied to about P2P being a problem, you've been lied to about the whole goddamned problem
4) PRICELESS
Parent
Let's see... (Score:5, Funny)
2. Throttle customer bandwidth.
3. ?
4. Profit!
Business for the 21st Century 101.
Re:Let's see... (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Advertise unlimited Internet (ie: get lots of paying customers)
2. Throttle customer bandwidth (ie: don't use all that money to upgrade systems and screw customers)
3. Profit! (ie: Actual Profit)
Parent
Article is pure shit (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/06/25/tech-caip.html [www.cbc.ca]
Is "I told you so" appropriate? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've said it before, saying it now. There is NO reason to believe anyone in business who cannot show WHY they need legal help, or rights to invade your privacy to protect their business. There has never been proof by the **AA that file sharing is harming their businesses. There has never been proof by any ISP that P2P is harming their businesses. Without proof, what they wish to do is nothing less than criminal.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=592247&cid=23904147 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=588163&cid=23844923 [slashdot.org]
Sure, they can say, oh it's our network and that's what we are going to do with it, however, in the interests of the national GDP/economy we have to consider ISP infrastructure as vital to the economy now, both of the US and the world. Any shenanigans on how it is run are of vital business interest to business concerns other than the ISPs themselves.
P2P is simply being used as the pike that gets network monitoring in the door. No, I have no actual proof of that, but if it were the danger that it is said to be, there would be plenty of evidence. Some of that evidence would be people complaining on the Internet about how slow their ISP is.
Now, add to that the fact that these same ISPs have a vested financial interest in using more of your bandwidth than you want them to in order to provide the triple-play and quadruple-play service packages that stock holders are counting on for revenue.
There are the two reasons for finding something to blame/fear in order to ease the pain of making the changes to the network at consumer's costs. Sure, some think that right, but they squandered the money/tax incentives etc. they have already been given and still do not provide anything much better than they used to.
They have a technological problem and need someone/something to blame. For better or worse, they chose P2P because it's already scapegoated by the **AA. I don't think this plan is going to work out so well.
Just my opinion
Re:Is "I told you so" appropriate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you explain how decreased usage decreases costs?
I pay for 10Mbit/s. The equipment needed to provide that service does not turn off when I'm not using it. The infrastructure required to support that service has to still be there, in service, awaiting my desires to use it. How does that reduce costs?
You seem to want to justify the practice of overselling your capacity - a business practice that needs to stop. ISPs have been getting away with it for a long time because of the shared nature of Internet resources and networks in general. The recent story where too many people watching sports videos caused some ISPs to think they were being attacked with DDoS is exactly what happens when you oversell your infrastructure. IMO most ISPs have built their networks poorly and cheaply and have to catch up with requirements when they get caught out. When I say poorly and cheaply, read that as centralized and without scaling in mind at the planning stage. Admittedly, virtualization and other new technologies can help improve this, but that is the nature of technology based businesses: you have to upgrade often to stay relevant. It is clear that there is not enough infrastructure to support triple-play and quadruple-play services. An argument that touches on the problems not readily apparent to the North American consumer is here http://innerdaemon.wordpress.com/2007/05/12/while-verizon-fiddles-with-fios-strategy-apple-has-triple-play/ [wordpress.com]
Here is a note about one of the major problems for large ISPs http://gigaom.com/2007/05/07/comcast-smartzone/ [gigaom.com]
Back to the point. The above links and my comments are clearly indicating that ISP do not want you to use LESS bandwidth, they want you to use more but only when connecting to their content services. Blocking and limiting P2P means you will be more likely to use their content services. Triple and quadruple play is a way for them to help ensure that. Read up on net neutrality issues a bit. That little problem is all about ISPs trying to milk their infrastructure for double the money they should get. It will also allow them to make their content cheaper to consume as well as give them a mechanism to sell you special content packages so they get MORE money for what you now enjoy freely for the cost of your connection.
Now, your comment indicates a belief that ISPs are trying to make money by me not using the bandwidth while everything else on the Internet says their stock holders are being told how much content they are going to sell their users. There is a bit of a difference of opinion between you and what seems to be happening in the real world.
Yes, trying to write quickly enough to be useful here means editing and rewrites are often not pragmatic. I'm not sure it was a nonsensical rant, but you are welcome to that opinion.
Parent
Re:Is "I told you so" appropriate? (Score:5, Funny)
Nah, it's just a mortal sin. Along with 6 other vices that are today pretty much a "required skills" list for any upper management position.
Parent
Re:Is "I told you so" appropriate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Question: who do you think foots the bill when a content creator decides to use BitTorrent to distribute their bytes?
Answer: it's not the content creator. It's the ISPs (.. it should be the "peer", but broken ISP pricing models make it the ISPs).
It's the users who paid the ISP for the bandwidth they use.
Parent
To add to the corus (Score:3, Interesting)
I suggested in the last slashdot report that isp's like Bell should be forced to disclose, using standard measurement methods, the specs on their system so I will know what I am buying. There is no magical mysterious tech here on this thing called the internet. Bell and others should be forced to disclose and not be allowed to fleece their customers with smoke and mirrors. Just like when buying stereo equipment, the law does not allow those companies to misrepresent peak and continuous power etc., There is absolutely no difference. I want what I pay for and I should have ways to see if I'm getting it.
Seeing as it appears Bell was giving us a song and dance and I'm sure others have done similar. I will now take this a step further. This would ensure they are giving us what they claim to be selling. I suggest their networks be monitored by a regulatory body directly. I would even suggest a public channel be open so customers may check for themselves. As a start, why not something similar to the Internet Health Report website for example http://www.internethealthreport.com/ but of course tailored to the individual ISP' internal networks. How else are consumers to know if they are being lied to or cheated regarding this product they are being sold. The public are discovering albeit slowly that internet is just another product and service. Plugging the holes stops misrepresentation just like the power available from my stereo amplifier.
load of BS (Score:5, Informative)
In revealing the details, Bell explained in an accompanying letter that "while these numbers may seem low to the average lay person, they are significant to network traffic engineers such that it is important to consider the number of congested links in the proper context." - of-course, the context being that Bell would like to make more money from various throttling schemes as well as from their new IPTV stores.
If only a single link in the network is congested, end users may still experience slowdowns or dropped connections, the company said, - of-course, especially if you throttle these connections.
because the situation is similar to the road system -- where if one major artery is backed up, all connected roads will also have problems. - of-course they conveniently omit the fact that the Internet is designed to route around damaged/congested areas.
Re:load of BS (Score:5, Insightful)
Hold it! The internet was designed to route around congested and/or damaged/interrupted areas. It's anything but that anymore.
The internet is no longer the redundant, resilent network it was. It turned from something with the notion of "working, no matter what it costs" to "cheap, no matter if it's working". In other words, from something the DARPA made to something that has to make profit.
That's why you have "backbones", which by their very definition are an anathema to the idea of a redundant, resilent network (single point of failure). And that's why whole areas go black when one of those precious things breaks down.
Sure, the internet itself and the protocols used do support such a thing. All it takes to route around congested and problematic areas is to add links, "edges" if you want. That would be a solution that allows the internet to exist the way it is, because any kind of congestation can be solved that way. Almost trivially so. But that costs money, so this solution doesn't even get any consideration.
Parent
They rob bodies, too (Score:4, Interesting)
Having been paid in full to have an ailing father's Bell service switched over, a friend of mine is now having to fight Bell to get some money back. They cashed the cheque immediately, then, after his death used their direct deposit privilege on the old boy's bank account to pay themselves twice.
And they're making the family deal with the problem through the bank rather than refunding or crediting the phone bill of the survivor.
If Bell Canada had a totem, it would be a rabid, starving rat.
Bank needs to repay you. (Score:5, Informative)
The bank needs to repay you the money they let Bell steal.
If a bank allows money to be withdrawn from an account of a deceased person, then the bank is liable to put the money back WITH interest and penal charges.
Once a person dies, the bank needs to legally freeze the account to prevent any deposits or withdrawals (esp. withdrawals).
Only the estate or the nominee can withdraw (not deposit) ALL the money from the account in one single operation.
Nope, the bank cannot unilaterally close and send you a check for the same. If you are the legal heir, you need to either prove by way of nomination OR successor OR court orders asking the bank to pay you the money.
The check that the bank cashed and the Direct Debit, if both happened AFTER your dad died, are not valid. In a court you WILL prevail, plus the bank has to pay a nasty fine.
But BEll cannot be held liable. You were not in a contractual relationship with Bell.
Order the bank in writing stating facts and giving them 7 days to repay you with interest.
If the bank fails to respond, file a criminal case stating fraud, and simulatenously ask the court to rule in your favor citing your dad's death certificate and date of debit.
The court usually will not want to hear from the bank because if the debit happened AFTER death then any legal arguments are moot.
Get a court order making the bank pay you.
If you want to play real nasty, send the order by ordinary post undistinguishable from other letters (after all banks hide their rate increases in same way) to the bank's registered office (NOT the branch). Those morons at the registered office will have no clue and throw away the letter. (Assuming you have given a deadline to pay you from date of letter do next steps).
Approach the court again whining pitifuly (yes it pays) that the Holy Judge's order was disobeyed (get the same judge) by an unruly bank.
The judge will ask what you want to do next.
This is most important: Now the culpability of the bank is established as defying court orders (your money now plays a second role. Judges don't like to see anyone defying their orders). Request the court grants you permission to seize and auction the bank's nearest branch's assets to get your money back. The judge will accept this.
Go with a sheriff and his posse to the branch, and now you are legally authorised to rob the bank. You can shut down the doors, throw out customers, restrain staff, seize cash from tills, auction PCs on the spot (better yet, arrange a few friends to be there for the auction to get bank's PCs at HUGE discounts). Sell ALL their stuff to get your money back: Remember, your goal is to first bankrupt the branch. Don't seize cash. Seize the hardware, valuable furniture anything that the bank needs to run its branch. Sell it on doorfront with sheriff standing by for a dollar or whatever you like.
The bank will try to move mountains to get the order overturned. So do it quickly, very fast. Get some 100 friends to suddenly appear, bid for the assets, and block the traffic to prevent their lawyers from reaching you to serve you a STOP SALE order they can get from a sympathetic judge.
Good luck
Parent