Why Do Broadband Providers Always Sound Like Gangsters Selling Protection?
from the kneecappings-for-bittorrent-users-are-next dept
Canadian broandband provider Shaw has hit back at Vonage's complaint earlier this week about the "tax" Shaw levies at susbcribers who choose to use anybody's VoIP service but its own. The company says it merely offers users the optional "opportunity" to get better quality of service for their VoIP calls. While the fee may be optional, the language Shaw uses to describe it sounds exactly like a movie gangster trying to sell protection, saying "You know, it would be a real shame, if some of your packets were to get, you know, dropped..." It's the same type of rhetoric we've heard from other providers about competing VoIP services, as well as the claims from telcos that all they want to do is offer paying content subscribers a smoother ride to end users. Of course, others are more upfront about how they want to extort money from content providers. At least those people are honest about how they want to squeeze the dollars out.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Uhmm... Basic concept of IP traffic eluding you?
Deal with it.
The reason that VoIP sucks is easy to sum up, in one word: codecs.
If you want to build a VoIP system that operates well within the constraints of a consumer-grade IP network, you have to use a codec that implements "loss encoding" (transmit M blocks of data, any N (N less than M) of which will suffice to recover the original data), and "bandwidth scaling" (if you receive only L packets (L less than N), you can reliably recover a lower quality representation of the original signal)
So far, the codecs most typically used for VoIP (uLaw, ilbc) are completely unresilient to packet loss or delay. Cellular codecs (gsm) work better, and you can even do better at a cost (g729). However, none of them were really designed with severe "jitter" in mind.
So, to use the available lame codecs over consumer grade IP (which works just fine for viewing web pages!), you'll have to purchase optional QoS improvements. You call it extortion? I call it the laws of physics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uhmm... Basic concept of IP traffic eluding
The article is simply drawing lines between the ISP's behavior and having random thugs break stuff to the point you can't run a business if you don't pay some other guy money. He's right, it's sleaze. This isn't a technical issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uhmm... Basic concept of IP traffic eluding
This is a technical Issue as well as a business issue. The bottom line is that ISP's scale their network to handle typical user traffic. Today, the typical user does not require jitter-free packet clasification. The need for this alters the scaling of the network and therefore costs money.
If you want first class service to make sure voice works, pay for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uhmm... Basic concept of IP traffic eluding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
VOIP is just another data stream....PERIOD
If VOIP is based on PCM encoding, which takes analog signal, ie voice, to data, it should only take 64kbps bi-directional....voice frequency sampled at 8000 per second then encoded to 8 bit word....8000 x 8 = 64k....
it doesn't take all that much....
ISP should work on their network bandwidth and reliability instead of working on prioritization...it's just stupid....
that's why I love Japanese NTT fiber optic DSL....upto 100mbps network...at the installation, tested at 80mbps from NTT to the modem.....Korean and Japanese ISP are some of the fastest offered to home users....no need to "prioritize" data packets....and they don't have VOIP taxes eventhough ISP offers VOIP on their own....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: VOIP is just another data stream....PERIOD
Yes, it is only 64kb/s + overhead, but, that is not the issue. The issue is that it is usually about 50 to 100 packets per second. Now that is a considerable amount. In addition, VoIP, unlike web traffic, is sensitive to jitter. What is jitter? Well, jitter means that packets do not always arrive at their destination in the same order they left. This is NOT a problem for many web apps, but, I'm sure you can see how this would be a problem for a real-time protocol like VoIP. Not much time to reorder packets :-)
So, do you want/need jitter free, constant packet delivery? Well, PAY FOR IT. This type of service requires great expense at the ISP level. Now, we can say, hey, they should make their networks able to handle it anyway. Ok, sounds good, now everyone's bill can go up to support a minority group....
I hope this helps folks understand that VoIP is NOT just another data stream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: VOIP is just another data stream....PERIOD
I pay $40 buck a month for my cable ISP.
I am home for ~12hrs a day, and ~8hrs are spent sleeping. The remaining 8 hours are split between all other activites which means I spend about 1hr a day actually using my internet connection and that includes my VoIP calls.
With that said, Rod, I think I already am PAYING FOR IT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: VOIP is just another data stream....PERIOD
I completely agree that you pay for a level of service that allows you to browse the web and even download files. But, until you have worked around VoIP as I have, you will not understand how tight a network must be to support it. It requires a whole different level of service to work correctly all the time. This costs ISP's money and therefore, they must charge for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: VOIP is just another data stream....PERIOD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: VOIP is just another data stream....PERIOD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: VOIP is just another data stream....PERIOD???
On the contrary. First of all, your math makes no sense. X kbits/sec already includes data over time, idiot. This is what is referred to as BANDWIDTH.
A minority Group??? So, I suppose you must think that the web is for html or ftp only, right?
Besides, what about your flameworthy arguement over "jitter." Does this include online gaming as well? After all, if the packets don't arrive in order [jitter?] then multiplayer gaming would never work.
You are misinformed; clearly; since you don't even understand what bandwidth is. Go Jitter yourself.
-Professor HighBrow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: VOIP is just another data stream....PERIOD
"I hope this helps folks understand that VoIP is NOT just another data stream."
Dear Rod:
VoIP is just another data stream. PERIOD. I was using PGPfone back in 1997 when I was in college to chat with my gf (full duplex) for free over the internet. We were tied to our respective computers (and maybe our universities offered far more reliable connections than today's public offerings), but make no mistake, VoIP is EASY. It is just another data stream, and it has worked quite well when implemented properly at the software level. And no I will NOT "PAY FOR IT" Mr. Brainiac -- it costs the ISPs nothing to just NOT prioritize it for anyone. If THEY want their service to be at a certain higher quality, then they should be billing THEIR users the higher rate. Fucking Telcos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: VOIP is just another data stream....PERIOD
Thank you for taking the D**k out of Rod.
I wonder if "Rod" posted just to get a rise out of fellow readers...
--Prof. Hi B
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: VOIP is just another data stream....PERIOD
The quality back then was not great, the echo was so bad you did not know if your were listening to yourself or the other party. The hardware and software has improved a lot since then, and they have developed technical solutions to improve all of this. But I don't think that Shaw or any of the Tel-cos participated in this improvement, in fact when I asked Shaw if they would consider providing VOIP back then they didn't believe VOIP was a viable business, just a novelty.
I guess it is viable now if they can somehow suck money out of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: VOIP is just another data stream....PERIOD
Voip isn't half as sensitive to random delays & packet loss as online gaming software and MILLIONS of Counterstrike players have NO TROUBLE sending more data, faster than Voip demands.
And Gee, ISP's aren't trying to FUD more money out of online gamers...
I'd ascribe 90% of the problems with Voip to the codecs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not just VOIP that we're talking about...
Sure, VOIP can be viewed as a (slightly) special case, but broadband providers appear to be interested in shaking down anyone that they possibly can. An article discussing BellSouth's moves in this direction noted that...
"BellSouth has discussed its idea with MovieLink, a film-download service. [Bill Smith, BellSouth CTO] called MovieLink an example of the kind of company that wants customers to have a good experience and would view costs incurred in the strengthening of BellSouth's Internet capacity as worthwhile."
The original artivle is linked from my blog post (the protection racket link below); I think that we can probably agree that movie downloads are a more straightforward case. The service provider is paying for bandwidth to connect them to the internet at or near a certain speed, as is the end user...why should either of those parties pay anything more if their bandwidth usage stays within the throughput/volume that they've already agreed to?
My belief is that if I've paid for 3Mbit/sec down and the server that I'm connecting to can support passing data to me at that rate, then my ISP has no right to throttle that connection based on what I'm using the bandwidth for.
Incidentally, the quote above brought exactly the protection racket image that you mentioned into my head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
VOIP is easy to get right - overencode
For years now, people have posted binary files on newsgroups, knowing that some portions will be lost, making the file unusable for downloaders. The solution is simple - PAR volumes, which send additional information, such that some of the original files can be missing, and you can still recover and use 100% of the original file.
Once VOIP providers realize that they can do the same thing with the right Codecs, a great deal of the quality problems will disappear - the underlying network is NOT BETTER than before, but the software is smart enough to deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i have voip and dont have any voice quality probs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An ISP pays for X bandwidth for a city. In peak times for that city, Y mbits of bandwidth are used and the ISP has to rent a pipe for that much bandwidth. That pipe is not full at all times, sure. However, the ISP has to account for the worst and make due accordingly. Now, lets add VOIP. The circuit was as close to max beforehand. After all, too much excess would be a waste of money. You are adding another load of packets to that pipe, and those packets will not deal with travelling the countryside out of order too well. Codec issues or not, people want a phone conversation to be as smooth as ever, if not more so. That means a lot of bandwidth has to be available for phone calls at any time, and that's going to mean more money for a bigger pipe.
Even 3kbps for only 1000 customers at any given time might be the difference between a a single DS3 and dual DS3s. Add the hassle of load balancing... What about 10,000 customers? OC3's are pricey I will guess.
And as far as quality, so you have GSRM and 3kbps up/down...have you ever dropped a call? Ever had static or a break up of the voice clairty? At least once, and customers may accept that with cellular being "new," but people pick up a phone and do not tolerate such interruptions -- if you spent enough on advertising and technical support to get them to add it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
VOIP
Think about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Retarded folks...
First, VoIP uses a lot more traffic than the bitrate would imply. The IP overhead can be several times what the actual bitrate is, so you could easily be using 200kbps with a 15kbps codec. This is because the packets you send have to be extremely short -- more than a few ms of latency produces a very noticeable delay. You can't buffer up 5 seconds of data, and you can't use error correction for anything, since the overhead is too high. Obviously, you have to send lots of packets every second, and a small hiccup once in a while will totally ruin your call.
As far as online gaming is concerned: it's not nearly as sensitive to delay or jitter. Games predict motion quite well, and a few lost packets are not too noticeable. A phone call is much more difficult for the network to handle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gangster
[ link to this | view in chronology ]