/ Cory Doctorow / 7:30 am Mon Jul 6, 2009

Canadian ISPs say identifying traffic is inevitable, no, wait, impossible

Michael Geist sez,
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission hosts long-awaited network management hearings this week, pitting Canada's telecom and cable companies against a broad range of consumer, creator, and technology groups in a fight that may help clarify whether Canada has - or should have - net neutrality laws.

My weekly column notes that as the Commission weighs the various claims, it would do well to consider the testimony it heard just a few months ago during the February new media hearings.

For example, Shaw Communications's network management submission states "traffic management is necessary to ensure that Shaw's customers continue to have access to fast, reliable and affordable service." It adds the "traffic shaping process uses deep packet inspection (DPI) technology to identify packets that are associated with P2P file-sharing applications and to slow those packets down, limiting the amount of available capacity P2P traffic consumes."

Yet when CEO Jim Shaw was asked about the prospect of identifying traffic during the new media hearings, he told the Commission, "we can only tell you how many bits are coming in or out. We don't know what kind of bit it is. It could be anything from an e-mail to a porno. We don't know that. We spend no time trying to figure out what bits are going to your house. We just don't know."

Perhaps foreshadowing the outcome of the net neutrality hearing, MTS Allstream acknowledged "when a commercial interest attempts to violate the principle of openness, as it is defined by the open culture movement, there tends to be a very dramatic and forceful rebuking."

CRTC Net Neutrality Hearings Open Amid ISPs' Conflicting Claims (Thanks, Michael!)

7

  1. According to Isenberg, the cheapest and best alternative is simply to build out dumb capacity: to overprovision by as much as 100 percent. The “bandwidth is scarce” argument plays right into the hands of the major ISPs, which can use it to start charging a premium for crucial services that run across their networks. If they simply built out the networks to the point of abundance, they couldn’t make all this extra money.

    Research on Costs of Net Neutrality by David Isenberg

    Assuring Scarcity by Bob Frankston

  2. We need to remind ISPs and telcoms that “their” networks run on an infrastructure that uses easements on “public” lands.

    Seems to me that if local politicians had half a brain and a a**hole they could ensure that easement contract ensure network neutrality!

    Bandwidth is scare is a retarded and tired argument.

    Start investing in your infrastructure or perish!

  3. @1 good point.

    Technology is moving in many directions, however. Bandwidth is getting cheaper but so is computer processing power.

    DPI will most likely happen unless there are mechanisms to protect consumers from it (i.e. choice or legislation). It can be used for good and bad… If everybody in a neighborhood with the same ISP start watching HD streaming television shows at the same time right now you’d notice some major problems. Using DPI to prioritize different traffic can make the Internet much smarter allowing packets to be prioritized based on content (streaming, static, voip, etc). However, it can be used for evil purposes such as decrypting ‘secure’ traffic on the fly, monitoring unsavory (for the particular policital faction) content, etc.

  4. The ‘Bandwidth is a scare’ argument may apply to fixed networks.

    Let’s look at mobile networks for a moment – Broadband access via WCDMA is growing. There are limited resources in a 3G network in the radio side; cell congestion etc. What operators are looking at now is using DPI in their core network to control the QoS based on -service-. Traditionally QoS control is E2E in a mobile packet core network; that is negotiated QoS on the bearer level all the way from the radio to the service provider side.

    With DPI, operators can upgrade or downgrade the bandwidth of a service. A service could be anything from YouTube to Quake 3 Live Arena. The argument is that when the network is congested, premium paying subscribers should have their services running at a “premium” quality.

    It is only normal for operators to do what they can to ensure that the data rates are sustained. The issue is that the technology is very powerful and could easily be used for anti competitive behavior. One could argue “If I purchase broadband accesses, I should be able to do anything I like on there without the operator messing with my packets”.

    What we need is awareness from the government and consumers. A – The government provide the legislation and B – The consumers ensure that the market is driven by healthy competition. The only issue with point B is where you have a monopoly.

    One reason small startups can provide the world with the most innovative products and services is because of the open and free nature of the Internet. We must ensure that this is preserved. On the other hand DPI may have it’s place when used responsibly to provide that competitive service.

  5. – CRTC Neutrality hearings begin with conflicting claims that their exists adequate capacity by the ISP, or they do really lack capacities, to allow everyone unrestricted, unhindered download access presently?

    – CRTC to look at how Internet traffic is managed to avoid congestion – THE TRUTH, REALITY? is that Bell seems firstly to have some of the CRTC personnel in their back pocket so this hearing is a farce?

    – CRTC to look at how Internet traffic is managed to avoid congestion- Secondly Bell Canada’s major ISP ongoing lying distortion to the news media, CRTC, others , undeniable breach of their past contractual obligations to it’s own customers too, that their need for capping the internet downloads was due to the internet congestion traffic it now still faces as an internet service provider is now due solely to the vast P2P , Torrent, downloads is still a A FALSEHOOD, A FALSE SCAPEGOAT, A LIE AND NOT THE REALITY, NOT THE TRUE FACTS. In fact BASICALLY Bell’s congestion problem was due to BELL’S OWN FAULT, due to the fact that Bell had lied, and had oversold FROM THE START, INITIALLY their OWN internet capabilities services to ALL OF it’s customers, others. Because Bell NOW even had obtained many of it’s customers under lies, false statements, false pretence, Bell also now should not even be allowed to keep all of it’s own customers it now had obtained as well. Bell’s congestion problem was initially, undeniably, really due to the truth that it’s own internet system initially were never adequately, fully designed, upgraded to be used as a high speed internet system to all the customers as advertised, rather Bell’s ISP in general was and it is still mainly a low speed internet system Canada wide. Bell needs to be forced to disclose fully, in the truth to all persons in Canada about it’s actual internet capabilities, even telecommunications, iPhone in all areas now as well. You really cannot continue to grow a business based on lies, distortions, falsehoods, even if it is Bell. Additionally Bell monopolistically, falsely is capping all of the internet downloads is to allow the future expansion usages of iphones, and for downloading of customers movies rented from Bell.

  6. The ‘Bandwidth is a scare’ argument may apply to fixed networks. Let’s look at mobile networks for a moment

    Or, invest in upgrading to HSPA+ that delivers 42Mbps down and 22Mbps up, per user.

    It is only normal for operators to do what they can to ensure that the data rates are sustained.

    You mean like overprovisioning?

    One could argue “If I purchase broadband accesses, I should be able to do anything I like on there without the operator messing with my packets”.

    Yes, that’s pretty much the definition of a dumb network — aka the end-to-end principle.

    Using DPI to prioritize different traffic can make the Internet much smarter allowing packets to be prioritized based on content (streaming, static, voip, etc).

    Smart networks are brittle and subject to the economic calculation problem. ISPs cannot imagine in advance what their customers will use their bandwidth for. All that ISPs can do, without damaging their network, is to increase the total amount of bandwidth available — aka overprovisioning.

    Conveniently, this also happens to be the least expensive option for any ISP. (The only reason to choose DPI / QoS is political, not practical.)

Comments are closed.