Another ISP Content Block That Isn't
from the settle-down-people dept
When word got around last week that some BellSouth DSL users couldn't access MySpace, we noted that the swift online reaction (or overreaction) illustrated that ISPs who did block popular sites wouldn't be able to get away with it for very long -- particularly with the heightened awareness of net neutrality. Apparently Cox didn't get the memo, as users that install security software from a company called Authentium it provides them haven't been able to access Craigslist for several months. Since part of the Cox media empire's business is based on classified ads, some have jumped to the conclusion that Cox must be actively blocking Craigslist, but as Broadband Reports points out, the reason -- as in the BellSouth-MySpace case -- is more likely error or incompetence than malice. So while crying wolf every time a broadband user can't reach some site might highlight people's reactions should ISPs actually begin blocking sites, it really doesn't help the cause of net neutrality to associate its proponents with knee-jerk, and ultimately baseless, reactions. In any case, the idea of internet providers actually blocking sites completely is pretty slim -- they'll just use traffic shaping or other technologies to throttle them to the point that they're useless.
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
But shaping may be a bluff...
I cannot imagine they have the spare engineers available to actually implement this idea.
Ergo, this is a pure bluff: "I'm going to pay a bunch of money to hurt you if you don't pay us off!"
This makes no sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But shaping may be a bluff...
As for individual sites, they can do that as well. This isnt science fiction, its doable now. They just need to turn it on and start tuning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yay for drama
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blocked!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Dude, if you're going to make a joke on a site with lots of nerds, atleast make it technically accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In any case, the idea of internet providers actually blocking sites completely is pretty slim -- they'll just use traffic shaping or other technologies to throttle them to the point that they're useless.
that makes one wonder though...if this has been going on for several months and as you say the idea of internet providers actually blocking sites completely is pretty slim dont you think they would have fixed this issue by now? maybe, released a patch or a workaround or something along those lines, instead of just keeping quiet and not doing anything to resolve the issue. no action on the part of cox for several months does make it seem as if they are doing it on purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think the point's still valid, though, since several sites are publishing "COX BLOCKS CRAIGSLIST!!!!" posts with the usual drama.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re:
No, Howard Stern sucks. He takes a big payday (don't blame him for that), and expects all of his listeners to follow him to Sirius where they get the "privilege" of paying to listen to him "doing sub par radio" (Direct Stern quote)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re:
Streaming for free on Indie1031.com from Noon to 2 PST (GMT-8 for the rest of the world), Windows Media or MP3 formats.
He was lead guitar for the Sex Pistols, plays music from his own collection, plays live himself, and has occasion guests that would never grace Howard's domain, from the Richard Branson to the Suicide Girls.
Be brave and check out some real radio for a change.
PS: I'm just a fan, I'm not getting paid to say this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, I still think the telcos won't cover the labor cost to turn on the shaping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Net Neutrality and QoS - some basics
1. Carriers sell me my 3mbps DSL and Sell my target site its 155Mbps (or whatever), so in theory, its all paid. However, in reality the business model assumes I will *on average* use much less than 3Mbps, and in a way the carrier sells the same bandwidth multiple times.
2. To be able to meet an agreed (or acceptable) level
of service, the amount of "overbooking" is limited, and
sensitive to the nature oif the traffic involved. So if I
raise my average consumption and "really" try to use
the 3Mbps I think I paid for all the time, the carrier
has to do less overbooking. In other words, in such a
case, It is more expensive for the carrier to stand up
to the promised service I am getting.
3. So - what to do? Raise consumer price to account for
my higher-than-expected consumption, even tough
it is within my already-promised 3Mbps? hard. So -
4. Caririer wants to raise the price of the target sites
that "cause" this more-than-expected average
5. Also (carrier says), these target sites make lots
of money, and the price per Mbps they pay is the
same as less heavy users - they can afford it, let
them pay.
6. So, in my mind, this is not a sinister lets-block-sites
play (tough it may become so someday). This is more
about trying to charge as much as possible. Since
everyone buys the same thing - Bps - it LOOKS
better to charge more if I claim there are Classes of
bits, each with a different price
So, as the average site becomes more multi-media heavy, and the average consumption rises on this conversation, this directly impacts the carrier's traffic model, and if forced to live up to some agreed SLA, more Bandwith must be given to me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Net Neutrality and QoS - some basics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(apologies for typos etc - am a bit dyslexic)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shaping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shaping - not necessarily a bluff
Main issue of uing it is the logistical cost for configuring the "right' shaping to apply.
However, using some standard gradess (Say "bronze", "silver" "gold' and 'Platinum') and applying them per user is relatively easy, so I think ISP's/Carriers can do this, if allowed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What can I Do
P.S.Soon, people will be paying for air to breave. Or Die
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Booooooring
[ link to this | view in chronology ]