Gizmodo
As the amount of bandwidth we devour has skyrocketed, so has ISPs' need to police our appetites, even as they offer more bandwidth to whet it. We talked to the biggest ISPs around to get their official positions on traffic management and content filtering to see what's in store for your pipes. Here's where you find out which ISPs may screw you, and which ones swear to Giz they won't. Update: We've got new responses from AT&T and Speakeasy.
The scariest scenario is invasive "packet filtering," where companies look at what you're downloading and punish you for perceived misconduct. Comcast was the poster child for BitTorrent throttling before getting cozy with it to avoid an FCC smackdown, and AT&T infamously broached the idea of filtering its entire network for copyrighted content. Beyond packet filtering, there are two potentially more widespread ways big ISPs can try to bring down the Torrent mad: "Caps," already used by local ISPs such as BendBroadband and Sunflower, are set amounts you can download each month. Anything over that, like cellphone plans, means overage penalties. "Throttling" is the ability of the ISP to, any given moment, put the brakes on your connection when you're being too much of a resource hog. Here's where the ISPs stand on the tactics above and your pipes.
AT&T
We have said consistently that AT&T will not allow itself to become a policeman or enforcement agent on the Internet. We have also made clear that there is nothing inherently wrong with P2P applications like BitTorrent, which are advanced, and legal, technologies that are used and welcomed on our network... We do not block or degrade any P2P application to manage network congestion. At the same time, we feel that any company involved with the Internet should be concerned about illegal activity, whether it is identity theft or intellectual property theft, and should be prepared to cooperate in legal means of addressing such problems while protecting fully the privacy of our customers.Content filtering somewhat touchy, but there are indications they're backing off the idea after the huge outcry. When we pressed AT&T on the issue of throttling down overzealous pipe users, the company declined to comment. Hopefully that just means it is still deliberating the issue.
Update: AT&T wrote in with an additional statement: "We can't give you details on our specific network management techniques to handle times of high-volume" citing similar reasons as Time Warner, "but those techniques don't include degrading or blocking traffic."
Comcast:
Here's the statement we got pre-BT chumminess, though we now know that Comcast is moving to a more management style that'll temporarly slow all traffic, whether it's cracked copies of Final Cut Pro from your favorite P2P or YouTube, to a drip during congestion:
We have a responsibility to provide all of our customers with a good Internet experience and we use the latest technologies to manage our network so that they can continue to enjoy these applications. During periods of heavy peer-to-peer congestion, which can degrade the experience for all customers, we use several network management technologies that, when necessary, enable us to delay—not block—some peer-to-peer traffic.When we pressed about filtering, we got:
Comcast is not currently using or testing any filtering technologies. We agree that copyright owners have a right to protect their content. We work well with them under existing law and will continue to work with content owners to find solutions to help support their efforts around piracy. We cannot speculate on what AT&T is doing or how its technology works.
Time Warner
We talked to Alex Dudley, Time Warner's PR VP. In addition to referring to us to TWC's acceptable use policy, he told us that "we both reserve the right to manage our network and try and explain to our customers and others that it's important that we manage the network." As to how the system works, he says, "We haven't been pro-active in talking about what we may or may not be doing because it's proprietary" and to stave off "another ISP go[ing] in and market[ing] against that." Content filtering "is not something we've discussed in detail here" but Time Warner "supports AT&T's right ot manage their network anyway they see fit."
Verizon
This was most the straight up: "We don't manage our network by throttling, slowing or curbing service, either on DSL or FiOS." In reference to content filtering, we weren't given a new statement, but referred to earlier remarks by public affairs VP Tom Tauke that it is "reluctant to get into the business of examining content that flows across our networks," the most pro-active stance against content filtering. However, it's still no fan of the government stepping in: "These are decisions best made by network engineers and operators—not policymakers."
Speakeasy
They got back to us after we went to press, but here's what they had to say on network management: "Our position on this is that [we] attempt to manage our network to account for peak usage so that we do not need to throttle bandwidth of customers pending applications in order to keep our pipes unclogged." And on content filtering: "Speakeasy does not currently do any content filtering, and at this time we have no plans to filter content."
The Takeaway
Since BitTorrent became a rallying point for net neutrality advocates (and caught the attention of the FCC) ISPs have made a show of stepping back from P2P hampering to shield themselves from both nerd backlash and FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's steely gaze. Verizon and AT&T, for instance, both pointed me toward their corporation-friendly "P4P" file-sharing development initiatives for more effective downloading (at an unknown cost), and Comcast has touted its R&D with BitTorrent.
All of that's a pretty effective smokescreen for moving to more hardcore capping and throttling, allowing them to cry "We treat all traffic equally, neutrally even!" while nuking all of your traffic without prejudice. Most people downloading the hugest amounts are probably not paying for all that content. And note that everyone except Verizon left themselves plenty of hedge space on the issue. Time Warner says it doesn't talk about it because it's afraid others will use it in marketing; well, Verizon is kinda sorta using their total lack of filtering as an underground marketing thing already, which is especially effective when coupled with FiOS's insane speeds.
Even with ever-higher speeds, bandwidth will remain an issue for ISPs as they try to cram more and more HD content down pipes you're using to download movies, swap music and other increasingly bandwidth-intensive applications. So more management is going to go hand and hand with more bandwidth, make no mistake.
But it doesn't have to be a bad thing, if they're smart about it. They make a genuine movement to smarter protocols and management techniques that don't hose anyone's broadband (like that P4P stuff, if it's really open), but instead help everyone squeeze every last bit out of it as efficiently as possible. We can only hope.
Comments
All your downloads are belong to us.
I'm with Time Warner now, looks like I need to get with Verizon. Man, I wish FiOS would come to my street.
I just...I mean I don't see the reconciliation of this fact:
I pay for 5mbps downstream and 60gb combined bandwidth. That's what I PAY for.
If I want to use my 60gb as quickly as possible and hit my cap in the first couple days, that should be my choice, I've PAID for that share of the bandwidth. If I'm not able to do that, the pricing structure should have per-day caps or something.
I mean, it's like if I pay for 500 minutes per month of cell phone time, and I wanna talk for 4 hours a day. I've burned through my minutes in 2 days, but that's fine because it's within my plan and it's what I've paid for.
that's what gets me, i guess. If you offer a product and you can't support your users using that product WITHIN YOUR TERMS, you should change your terms before you start throttling people.
For the Canucks in the audience - Bell and Rogers throttle p2p bandwidth but there are ways around that.
Nice double-talk AT&T.
"We have said all along that the sky is blue, but we also believe the sky is a tye die swirl."
@Maksimir: Yes. You go with Teksavvy or some other ISP. :P
dude they can't stop my ddling of HD PORN!!!!!
For me, I've already experienced some form of throttling through my girlfriend's apartment. She uses Time Warner as her ISP, and when I turn on Bittorrent, BAM the internet IMMEDIATELY goes down, regardless of the content. It's frustrating to know that the internet is no longer open and free like it used to be. Companies should be encouraged to engineer faster networks rather than lagging behind the rest of the world in terms of technology just to save a couple of bucks.
Yep, Rogers(Canada) F me in the A. Check this nice letter they sent me... Bastards
[i233.photobucket.com]
@geodave: Comparing internet usage to cell phone usage doesn't really work. It's not like you're paying for AMR-HR or FR for 500 minutes, you're just paying for quantity.
The difference is, the ISPs are now trying to make you pay for quantity and speed. So there'll probably be a price difference for 100GB @ 8Mbps and 100GB @ 10Mbps. I don't dig that. If I pay for an 8Mbps line, I want full use of that line to my heart's content. If I pay for 100GB transfer, I want that delivered at the fastest network speed possible.
@CYG: Wow. You definitely download a lot. Trying to make a backup of the internet? jk
COX ROX!
Once I move out of my current apartment, or whenever they roll out FIOS TV in my area, Verizon is so getting my business.
I guess it's back to the days of actually leaving the house to bum cds off a friend.
Geez
blogs are getting more and more desperate for Digg homepages
Titles are getting more and more 'in your face'
Will be interesting to see if this works
Good Luck
[farm3.static.flickr.com]
@UofITom: Hmm, apparently places other than comcast already do combine speed and quantity into their plans. I was unaware. But I guess my point still kinda stands.
Well, it sounds like the users of Bend Broadband are planning a big public protest against their cap. I even hear that the competition in the area will be making it easy to switch services at that event. Let's hope it brings change to the policy.
AKA "How ISPs destroy your freedom and paid-for services when their hardware sucks too much"
Love the Jackie Gleason as "Smokey" pic.
@TheCyberBob:
Dude - Techsavy is dependent on Bell for their connection and throttle their network - though they have filed to the CRTC against this practice.
@CYG: Holy Moser - over 200 GB a month? That's a lot of porn.
comcast is still throttling bit torrent!
Go to tk2k.blogspot.com for my tests and statistics.
This is serious.
go to tk2k.blogspot for my stats with comcast and my problems
Yayyyy Verizon!
My area, Boston, has competition in theory... Comcast, RCN, Verizon FiOS. But 98% of the time when you move into an apartment building it is wired for one company or another, but never multiple. Faux-competition fo' sho'.
@Munch: Ha! Still funny.
These are not the downloads you are looking for. Move along.
@MIKEAWESOME: I agree. Yayyyy. Quite right. Absolutely. Insert other sentences you can imagine coming out of the mouth of a late 19th century british game hunter here.
Does anyone know if Telus does secret bandwith caps or anything like that? I am in Ontario if that matters... a friend of mine has downloaded like 160 GB in a week after signing up through Telus, though i think he may get charged crazy overages or something. I am waiting for my first bill to see if he gets screwed....
Has comcast actually stopped traffic shaping practices? They just bought out my cable ISP a few months ago, and since I have only been able to download torrents overnight as my roomates complain when their browsing slows down during the day
@FixBBB: Bend Over Broadband.
[rlyeh.chaotic-creative.com] - fulla starz.jpg
=shrug= The contract from my ISP said quite bluntly that if any use of Bit Torrents or online games like World of Warcraft were detected, they would void my contract & fine me $500.
(Good thing I have friends who dl the stuff I like to watch & are willing to burn me copies, no?)
You forgot Charter.
@wiredwizard: Wait. Games are against the rules now? I wasn't aware that that was so, as you aren't running a server...
Up here in Canada, a bunch of the big named companies like Bell and Rogers do not 'shape' the traffic or block P2P; however, they have chosen a capitalistic approach by taking their plans bandwidth caps and pushing them real low followed by charging an obscene overage charge for those who do not want to put up for the $100/month packages that contain normal bandwidth caps.
Can't beat piracy? Capitalize on it!
X-Box Live addicts are going to get a nasty shock if ISPs put ceilings on bandwidth. Those in-game chat sessions may sound like phone calls, but they're "downloads" too. And God forbid if you DL HD movies (or even HD trailers) through your 360 (or anywhere else). Oh, I can see a screwing coming. Maybe Microsoft will rare back and attack, seeing as how this could mess with a tidy little revenue stream.
@tk2k: Yeah, they don't go to the new plan til the end of the year.
X-Box Live addicts are going to get a nasty shock if ISPs put hard caps on downloads. Those in-game chat sessions may sound like phone calls, but they're "downloads" too. And God help you if you DL HD movies (or even HD trailers) from anywhere. Oh, I can see a screwing coming.
Sorry for the duplicate post. The "preview comment" function wasn't working on my browser.
Caps won't stick. AOL's whole business was based on time caps 12 years ago ("10 free hours!")... look at them now. They're nothing compared to their original size/power. Why? Because, caps are idiotic. It's like having access to a library, but only being allowed to look at one book per visit. It'll never stick long term. Look at cell phone service... all going unlimited. Going to caps would be a step backward. I can't imagine that any ISP who wanted to stay relevant and make money would consciously take a step backwards from the information age and set themselves up for total failure like that... at least not long term. The real solution is upgraded equipment. It's about time we upgraded as a nation; compared to the rest of the world, our internet access is both expensive and antiquated. Case in point:
Average Broadband speed/costs...
Japan 93mpbs - $34
France 44mbps - $36
Korea 43mbps - $42
Sweden 21mbps - $34
USA - 9mbps - $53
The US is 14th in speed among broadband nations, and 21st place when it comes to broadband cost. Our Mbit/s cost is 300% higher than leading nations like Japan. Caps won't help us personally or as a country. More importantly, they will hurt the businesses that are contemplating employing them in the long run as subscribers will seek out alternatives.
I'm also with TW, and their response disturbs me...I can understand if any provider wants to stop you from doing something illegal (child porn, etc), but it pisses me off that these companies are putting arbitrary caps to try to maximize profit.
They just weren't ready for xbox-live, torrents, nextflix, itunes, the internet in general...
You are lucky, in canada we are screwed no matter what we do. There are only two major ISPs Bell(dsl) and Rogers(cable), both have caps around 60 gb for the normal 7mbps connections (45 dollars or so) there are other ISPs however they have to rent their bandwidth from Bell or Rogers. Bell has started throttling all traffic including that rented by other ISPs. Rogers throttles their own, possibly others i am not sure, but the only other cable ISP i know of is extremely unreliable. Long story short there isn't throttle-free internet in Canada
anyone know embarq's status?
@Sora57:
These are not the downloads we are looking for.
Move along, move along.
Grrr... this is going to be a pain... What the ISPs really need to do is upgrade their hardware, not charge us for actually making use of the bandwidth we have.
@