Nflight
11-11-2007, 12:37 AM
http://www.dailytech.com/More+ISP+Confess+We+Throttle+P2P+Traffic/article9544.htm
As more sophisticated tools for traffic shaping are unveiled, the question soon becomes which service providers aren't throttling customer traffic
Adding itself to the small-but-growing list of ISPs (http://www.azureuswiki.com/index.php/Bad_ISPs) that admit to traffic shaping, Canada-based Bell Simpatico has confessed to using “traffic management” on heavy users “during peak hours.”
“We are now using a Internet Traffic Management to restrict accounts,” wrote (http://www.supportcommunity.sympatico.ca/pe/action/forums/displaysinglethread?rootPostID=10138051&returnExpertiseCode) an unnamed forum administrator on Bell Simpatico’s support forums. According to the administrator, Bell Simpatico’s traffic shaping affects an unmentioned number of applications and protocols, including BitTorrent, Gnutella, Limewire, Kazaa, eDonkey, eMule and WinMX.
A Bell Simpatico Manager chimed in immediately afterwards, explaining that “there continues to be phenomenal growth of consumer Internet traffic throughout the world” and that “Bell is using Internet Traffic Management to ensure we deliver bandwidth fairly to our customers during peak Internet usage.”
According to the Manager, the bandwidth cap was introduced sometime last year and “doesn't affect the vast majority of [Bell’s] customers.” One concerned user asked if the traffic management will be removed as network capacity increases, to which the administrator replied that he “can’t answer this question,” and noted that it would be decided as the issue arises.
Internet service providers have found themselves under an increasing burden as bandwidth-intensive internet services like online video and file-sharing have proliferated. While the true volume is unknown, many think that 30%-50% of all internet traffic is P2P-related, with a recent survey (http://www.ipoque.com/media/news/ipoques_2007_p2p_survey_to_be_presented_at_technol ogy_reviews_emerging_technologies_conference_at_mi t.html) from traffic-management company Ipoque (http://www.ipoque.com/) pushing that number towards an astonishing 90%.
In response to this, many providers have employed a variety of techniques to limit customers who are deemed to be using more than their “fair share,” a tactic that has been the subject of much debate as part of the controversy surrounding “network neutrality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality).”
While traffic shaping is by far the most common, a few companies have employed more exotic methods: Comcast is thought to impose an invisible 600 GB bandwidth limit (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/72450) on its “unlimited” internet service, and a recent study conducted by the AP found that the ISP impersonates BitTorrent clients (http://www.dailytech.com/Comcast+Screws+with+FileSharing+Traffic/article9337.htm) for the purposes of interfering with their connections.
As more sophisticated tools for traffic shaping are unveiled, the question soon becomes which service providers aren't throttling customer traffic
Adding itself to the small-but-growing list of ISPs (http://www.azureuswiki.com/index.php/Bad_ISPs) that admit to traffic shaping, Canada-based Bell Simpatico has confessed to using “traffic management” on heavy users “during peak hours.”
“We are now using a Internet Traffic Management to restrict accounts,” wrote (http://www.supportcommunity.sympatico.ca/pe/action/forums/displaysinglethread?rootPostID=10138051&returnExpertiseCode) an unnamed forum administrator on Bell Simpatico’s support forums. According to the administrator, Bell Simpatico’s traffic shaping affects an unmentioned number of applications and protocols, including BitTorrent, Gnutella, Limewire, Kazaa, eDonkey, eMule and WinMX.
A Bell Simpatico Manager chimed in immediately afterwards, explaining that “there continues to be phenomenal growth of consumer Internet traffic throughout the world” and that “Bell is using Internet Traffic Management to ensure we deliver bandwidth fairly to our customers during peak Internet usage.”
According to the Manager, the bandwidth cap was introduced sometime last year and “doesn't affect the vast majority of [Bell’s] customers.” One concerned user asked if the traffic management will be removed as network capacity increases, to which the administrator replied that he “can’t answer this question,” and noted that it would be decided as the issue arises.
Internet service providers have found themselves under an increasing burden as bandwidth-intensive internet services like online video and file-sharing have proliferated. While the true volume is unknown, many think that 30%-50% of all internet traffic is P2P-related, with a recent survey (http://www.ipoque.com/media/news/ipoques_2007_p2p_survey_to_be_presented_at_technol ogy_reviews_emerging_technologies_conference_at_mi t.html) from traffic-management company Ipoque (http://www.ipoque.com/) pushing that number towards an astonishing 90%.
In response to this, many providers have employed a variety of techniques to limit customers who are deemed to be using more than their “fair share,” a tactic that has been the subject of much debate as part of the controversy surrounding “network neutrality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality).”
While traffic shaping is by far the most common, a few companies have employed more exotic methods: Comcast is thought to impose an invisible 600 GB bandwidth limit (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/72450) on its “unlimited” internet service, and a recent study conducted by the AP found that the ISP impersonates BitTorrent clients (http://www.dailytech.com/Comcast+Screws+with+FileSharing+Traffic/article9337.htm) for the purposes of interfering with their connections.