Cox to Begin Throttling FTP, P2P, and Usenet Next Month

[SonsOfLiberty]

http://www.slyck.com/newspics/TrafficShape2.jpgCox to Begin Throttling FTP, P2P, and Usenet Next Month
January 28, 2009

Whenever we read about an ISP throttling P2P or BitTorrent, there's nothing new there. ISPs have been managing P2P networks for years. Of course the highest profile case of this was with Comcast, who was caught 'delaying' BitTorrent uploads. Comcast has since been forced to adopt a 'protocol agnostic' approach to network management by the FCC. Cox Communications, however, seems to be taking P2P networking, and in a strange twist, usenet newsgroups, straight on in their new bandwidth policy.

When we look at Comcast's old bandwidth policy, it was directly targeted against upstream bandwidth. That's because there are fewer resources dedicated towards such bandwidth, and it's more expensive to operate. Now, clog that with BitTorrent, VoiP, and regular web traffic, there's a certain degree of validity to Comcast's claim - but clearly taking a Gatling Gun to BitTorrent wasn't the solution.

So now Cox Communications, the 2nd or 3rd largest ISP depending on who you ask, will introduce their own delaying tactics in the war against spiraling bandwidth. Those lucky enough to live in Cox's Arkansas or Kasas, and use BitTorrent, P2P or newsgroup technology will be the test market for this new program.

"In February, Cox will begin testing a new method of managing traffic on our high-speed Internet network in our Kansas and Arkansas markets. During the occasional times the network is congested, this new technology automatically ensures that all time-sensitive Internet traffic – such as web pages, voice calls, streaming videos and gaming – moves without delay. Less time-sensitive traffic, such as file uploads, peer-to-peer and Usenet newsgroups, may be delayed momentarily – but only when the local network is congested. Our goal is to ensure that customers continue to experience the consistently fast, reliable Internet service they’ve come to expect from Cox."

Although there is an appeal pending between Comcast and the FCC, the general policy regarding bandwidth management has become 'protocol agnostic'. Cox appears to be clearly prioritizing certain types of traffic over P2P traffic - a move that might draw consumer rights groups in for round 2 of the network neutrality wars.

What's interesting about this move is that the newsgroups are included in their management policy. The newsgroups have been able to slip by and under the radar thanks to their once relative small size compared to P2P and BitTorrent technology. This has changed dramatically over the years, thanks to simplified technology and growth via word of mouth. However, the newsgroups are a download-only technology (as far as the end user is concerned), and should face less bandwidth scrutiny than the BitTorrent protocol – but we’ll know for sure soon enough.

:source: Source: Cox Communications Managment Might 'Delay' the Newsgroups (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9983/Cox+to+Begin+Throttling+FTP%2C+P2P%2C+and+Usenet+Next+Month) | http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9983/Cox+to+Begin+Throttling+FTP%2C+P2P%2C+and+Usenet+Next+Month

[Cabalo]

what they are doing is traffic shaping.
in europe it's a known tactic for many ISPs and it's getting harder by the day to belong to one of them that actually doesn't shape your traffic.
i don't see the big news there.

[SonsOfLiberty]

Hmmm, I guess you've never heard of "Network Neutrality?"

Since you see NO news in this, I suppose this is not any interest to you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

[Cabalo]

you do know that most civilized countries have authorities that monitor the behaviour of the ISPs. I assume you do.
And when such authorities allow these techniques to be used, there's not much you can do than to move on to another ISP.
It's not by pure coincidence i never had an ISP that throttled my connection. But i can tell you, for your information, that it's a common practice by many ISP's throughout europe.

thanks for the old news, but couldn't bother click the link as i'm well aware of its meaning.

[SonsOfLiberty]

you do know that most civilized countries have authorities that monitor the behaviour of the ISPs. I assume you do.
And when such authorities allow these techniques to be used, there's not much you can do than to move on to another ISP.
It's not by pure coincidence i never had an ISP that throttled my connection. But i can tell you, for your information, that it's a common practice by many ISP's throughout europe.

thanks for the old news, but couldn't bother click the link as i'm well aware of its meaning.

Good for you :blink: People pay for a service and ARE entitled to recieve it...so I just be throttled because I want to download the newest Ubuntu distro? Stupid. Besides you can't really comment if you don't read the links now can you?

[Cabalo]

i said to myself i wouldn't be posting again at this thread, as you are totally misinformed.
But, as a closing comment of mine, you are just a naïve socialist who knows very little about the interests behind this.

i won't bother pay attention to this thread and read about people who think that news are only at the U.S.

//end :wave:

[SonsOfLiberty]

i said to myself i wouldn't be posting again at this thread, as you are totally misinformed.
But, as a closing comment of mine, you are just a naïve socialist who knows very little about the interests behind this.

i won't bother pay attention to this thread and read about people who think that news are only at the U.S.

//end :wave:

If you actually made sense I could reply....I misinformed...hmm, as I said you couldn't be arsed to read the links so I must be informed :shifty: As I said, people pay for a service and should get that service, and switch to what ISP? Almost all ISP's employ a throttling of some sort, so which one should I move too?



Although there is an appeal pending between Comcast and the FCC, the general policy regarding bandwidth management has become 'protocol agnostic'. Cox appears to be clearly prioritizing certain types of traffic over P2P traffic - a move that might draw consumer rights groups in for round 2 of the network neutrality wars.


The FCC ruled that throttling was "illegal" so this is why this is news, the FCC said NO, but they continue to do it...

[Aucto]

As I said, people pay for a service and should get that service
Sorry bro, but the service is given with certain preconditions. They determine the nature of the service, and you determine whether they get your money. They try to provide most favorable service for the most amount of people. That may require diminishing the quality of the service (throttle) for a few (pirates) for the benefit of the many (non-pirates). There are trade-offs in every decision. If the customers begin to desire a more 'neutral' connection to the internet and unlimited bandwidth usage (i.e. for file sharing), then, as long as the customers are given a choice between an ISP that does and an ISP that doesn't throttle, the ISPs will change accordingly or go out of business.

Simple as that. There is no moral issue if there is competition between ISPs who throttle and ISPs who don't. The customers are still free to decide. If a little kid is selling lemonade that is way too sour, do you punish her for her poor service... or do you just buy lemonade at Martin's? Do you buy the little kid's lemonade and then cry to the government to "make her sell lemonade that tastes better"? Or do you just go to Martin's, enjoy their lemonade, and watch the inept kid fail at her first business?

So just change your ISP and watch Cox's stock value decline. That is, if this Bittorrent protocol is as popular as you allege. (For some reason I doubt Cox is making the wrong financial decision.)

[SonsOfLiberty]

As I said, people pay for a service and should get that service
Sorry bro, but the service is given with certain preconditions. They determine the nature of the service, and you determine whether they get your money. They try to provide most favorable service for the most amount of people. That may require diminishing the quality of the service (throttle) for a few (pirates) for the benefit of the many (non-pirates). There are trade-offs in every decision. If the customers begin to desire a more 'neutral' connection to the internet and unlimited bandwidth usage (i.e. for file sharing), then, as long as the customers are given a choice between an ISP that does and an ISP that doesn't throttle, the ISPs will change accordingly or go out of business.

Simple as that. There is no moral issue if there is competition between ISPs who throttle and ISPs who don't. The customers are still free to decide. If a little kid is selling lemonade that is way too sour, do you punish her for her poor service... or do you just buy lemonade at Martin's? Do you buy the little kid's lemonade and then cry to the government to "make her sell lemonade that tastes better"? Or do you just go to Martin's, enjoy their lemonade, and watch the inept kid fail at her first business?

So just change your ISP and watch Cox's stock value decline. That is, if this Bittorrent protocol is as popular as you allege. (For some reason I doubt Cox is making the wrong financial decision.)

No it's not, in a agreement, ISP's say, "unlimited and gives your speed (which is not throttled), for example 1.5mbps, so you should get that speed.." after it says it right in the contract you sign. Still you have a point, but the whole point is this: the FCC said no to throttling but they still do it. Were to I allege BT is that good? Hell ed2k is older than BT and still going :D BTW I'm not with Cox, or Comcast. Throttling shouldn't happen, and when the companies, which they will all eventually (and there will be no ISP's to turn to) do is circumvent what the FCC says. Cox and Comcast have already went downhill because of all the news. My ISP which is the most notorious of them all is not throttling me at least or any of my connections on whatever service I use. But so it's okay to throttle me if I download Firefox from there FTP?

[Aucto]

... Government draws the line. Business steps over the line. Government yells at Business. Business doesn't stop. Business gets sent to his room. It's like a mom, her son, and a cookie jar, ffs.

[WHiKWiRE]

cox :lol:

[ruby651]

Aucto may have a point, but I sure as hell don't want to be subjected to any more of Cox's now-laughable ads about their "blazing fast" internet service. As one of the "lucky" Kansas customers, I've noticed that ng downloads during the day are down from the usual 9.3mbps to 6 and often 5 with a whole lot of fluctuating. I must admit, I've noticed no change in speed after 11PM, when I do the majority of my downloading, anyway.

[SonsOfLiberty]

cox :lol:

:lol: very much so :lol:

[cromags]

The FCC ruled that throttling was "illegal" so this is why this is news, the FCC said NO, but they continue to do it...

I'm with you on this one, and I think these large ISP figure that if they're persistent enough consumers will eventually roll over and accept the situation.

While their marketing & pr staff invent different catch phrases, Cox is doing the same exact thing that got Comcast in trouble with the FCC. The current administration here in the States is very supportive of net neutrality, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed that they'll deal with Cox in due time.

What these guys are doing is very dangerous... they're subjectively discriminating against specific Internet services (FTP, P2P, Usenet, etc.) and dictating what you can & can't see on the Internet.

Of greater concern is that these companies are monopolizing the market, and it's becoming more difficult to find alternative providers, so most of their customers are stuck with their policies whether they like them or not. I'm not a Cox customer, but if any one of these large ISPs is allowed to get away with traffic filtering, they'll all follow suit.

For what it's worth, I thought the following article had an interesting take on the matter...

http://www.newsadmin.com/usenet_commentary/commentary_02092009.asp