Israeli ISPs Caught Traffic Shaping Without Admitting It
from the this-will-backfire-again-and-again dept
For many years, in the US, there were claims that Comcast was doing traffic shaping on its network, slowing down or even blocking certain types of traffic. Despite increasingly sophisticated evidence, Comcast always denied it, until the Associated Press finally presented proof. Comcast still tried to dance around on definitions, but finally came clean. In response it got a wrist slap from the FCC (which it's fighting in court), but it has become a lot more transparent in its traffic shaping/filtering practices. There just isn't any logical reason why any ISP should be less than forthcoming about these issues.Slashdot points us to the news that a new study of Israeli ISPs shows that, despite denying it, many are traffic shaping P2P traffic, often using deep packet inspection. Apparently, Israel's Communications Ministry is already looking into this and determining if it requires any action on its part. It makes you wonder why ISPs think it makes sense not to explain what they're doing to customers.
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
Filed Under: isps, israel, traffic shaping, transparency
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Dumped Comcrap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dumped Comcrap
I envy you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dumped Comcrap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dumped Comcrap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hulu is a much better product as a direct access system, as is youtube. It would be very silly as a P2P system. Cheaper, but sort of stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They also made the choice to not be associated with legitimate customers doing legitimate things in ways that could expand their business. 'Course, they don't need to worry about that, since they've a defacto monopoly in many areas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
'They' I'm assuming you mean Comcast, and by blocking p2p traffic all the while advertising their networks are the fastest available is the definition of a thief. They're stealing from their customers by forcing them to pay a premium for a service that has hidden restrictions of use. Advertising an unrestricted service and then placing restrictions on it that the company will never divulge unless forced to by a federal lawsuit, but still charge the same premiums is theft - pure and simple. THAT is a horrible system to base a business around.
"Hulu is a much better product as a direct access system, as is youtube. It would be very silly as a P2P system. Cheaper, but sort of stupid."
Wonderful, we're not talking about direct access systems we're talking about peer networks, which you apparently know nothing about. The whole point of P2P systems is to allow peers to host content for other peers, thus eliminating the need for the content provider to incur the cost of having to provide the server space and bandwidth to host and distribute said content. If companies like YouTube and Hulu were able to host trackers and let their users distribute content via p2p their costs would be reduced incredibly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Any ISP that isn't doing some form of traffic shaping and analysis is negligent in managing its infrastructure. Traffic shaping isn't a euphemism, it's a methodology often involving devices built and dedicated for the purpose. Now the purposes for which they use that methodology and the disclosure surrounding it is a whole other matter.
If a business uses them for political, legal or value-judgment purposes, as opposed to typical and customary network management and defense, the absolutely need to disclose that. Customers (businesses and consumers) have a right to know exactly what they can expect.
Traffic shaping and deep packet inspection sound nefarious to people who don't understand what they are. They are not evil on their face. That they can be misused does not mean they aren't legitimate and necessary for infrastructure hygiene. This is where the myth and assumption of unlimited bandwidth runs headlong into operational realities. Bandwidth has to be managed and defended carefully and consistently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just like any telco that isn't eavesdropping on its customers' conversations is negligent in making sure it's system isn't being "misused", eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That seems to be inconsistent with your previous position then and a sign of a failed argument stemming from a weak thought process.
BTW, the black helicopters are waiting for you.
Personal attacks and insults won't make your argument any less invalid either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deep packet inspection and throtteling.
As for throttling that is a good thing for ISPs that because of over-subscription they can put more people in a node and don't have that node overwhelmed. But for consumers is a bad deal they don't get what they paid for not even a little.
P2P(Distributed Computing) is used and becoming even more used in other places. It is not just filesharing.
Fedora and Ubuntu both are using by default the GNU Telephony SipSwitch that is P2P based AT&T would love to throttle that I'm sure.
Medical research and development too are seeing P2P use.
http://nrlweb.cs.ucla.edu/publication/show/17
And there is experiments to develop a new internet on top of these one that will render any type of censorship ineffective.
http://osiris.kodeware.net/
Deep inspection is just a nudge to people start encrypting everything.
Law enforcement will be annoyed, but the real loosers may be companies that sell target ads.
You can't trust others with your information, we need governments but never should trust those in power to do the right thing those who do will pay a great price for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
P2P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
p2p effects
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: p2p effects
They can say what they want the truth is I paid for that bandwidth as a customer and I will use it like I want.
ISPs should not be aware of the contents. The only people trying to still something is the ISP creating something that don't exist.
P2P is not forced upon others is used in agreement with the guy who paid for that bandwidth.
So now ISPs will say that people cannot use the bandwidth they bought is that it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: p2p effects
Traffic shaping starts on P2P because P2P represents the biggest part of peak traffic for most ISPs. Someone downloading (or sharing) at their peak bandwidth continuously for a long period of time isn't the traffic pattern of most internet users, and as such, they work to make sure that an average user still gets decent response time and access to the internet.
The connection for most ISPs is guaranteed only from the CO (central office) to your modem. It isn't assured beyond that point. You are subject to all sorts of network restrictions, routing issues, and yes, shaping (it happens all over the place in different ways) to assure the average user the level of service they are use to.
Remember: They aren't limiting your PERSONAL bandwidth, they are limiting on a network basis. Your personal agreement doesn't enter into the game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: p2p effects
Tier 1 ISPs do that? nope, they don't pay for bandwidth, Tier 2 ISPs almost don't pay for bandwidth and below that is where it gets uggly.
IPX and peering agreements don't exist?
Is YouTube being traffic shaped too because of costs?
Traffic shaping is being yielded as a weapon to take money from people right now because it doesn't have any supervision.
More, traffic shaping is used to increase oversubscribing not to manage peak limits and those valid arguments about traffic are being used as excuses to do it.
And ISPs know that P2P will be the new usage pattern and the fact is that they don't like it because there is no way to monetize that traffic. They all will have to enter into peering agreements and that part of the business(traffic selling) will end.
That is why they want traffic shaping and are using it so much, because they want to discriminate traffic not manage it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: p2p effects
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bandwidth Shaping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IXP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Exchange_Point
"The technical and business logistics of traffic exchange between ISPs is governed by mutual peering agreements. Under such agreements traffic is often exchanged without compensation. When an IXP incurs operating costs, they are typically shared among all of its participants. At the more expensive exchanges, participants pay a monthly or annual fee, usually determined by the speed of the port or ports which they're using, or much less commonly by the volume of traffic which they're passing across the exchange. Fees based on volume of traffic are unpopular because they provide a counterincentive to growth of the exchange. Some exchanges charge a setup fee to offset the costs of the switch port and any media adaptors (gigabit interface converters, small form-factor pluggable transceivers, XFP transceivers, XENPAKs, etc.) that the new participant requires.
"
Unless ISPs are getting dumber nobody is paying heavily for traffic these days.
More the last I checked the cost of bandwidth was declining rapidly.
http://www.telegeography.com/cu/article.php?article_id=30312&email=html
And P2P according to last year survey was only 20% of the traffic has anything changed?
http://gigaom.com/2008/04/22/shocking-new-facts-about-p2p-and-broadband-usage/
And if DSLreports is to be believed P2P declined even further this year.
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Arbor-Tier-One-Network-Traffic-Way-Down-104953
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ISP globaly
The French are preparing themselves for the future.
80 cents a month the is really costly for ISPs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ISP globaly
That would at least buy me dinner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Traffic Shaping.
Is about creating artificial barriers to others so some can exploit that to make money.
Nothing wrong with that if it was based on competition not strong arm others into it.
There is no reason economically(cost) or technical to shape any protocol or service. But there is a commercial interest in doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Traffic Shaping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The French showing the way.
How did they do that?
Not with traffic shaping or caps that is for sure.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/the-coolest-isp-in-the-world.ars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]