Comments on: Cox to try coaxing the Internet into submission

Cox Communications plans to implement a testing period of bandwidth management plan to fight congested Internet traffic.

[Daddio2009]

In my neighborhood, Cox's local loop is always congested...even during the day. They won't increase backbone bandwidth because they think they're the only show in town. Now, Verizon's fiber-optic network (FIOS) has glassed-up the 'hood, and I am switching to FIOS in 3 weeks (I guess there's a lotta local demand)...and getting 20/5 speed...and no (or minuscule) congestion. Cox is too old time technology...but still way better than Verizon's other Internet services...

[joshbroton]

I don't like what precedent this sets. I don't think ISPs should have the right to tell me what I am doing on the internet is less important than my next door neighbor, even though we pay the same!

[sjkfl]

If one is running P2P downloading the Encyclopedia Britannica or downloading every anime movie ever made, and they're paying the same price for internet service as me, why should they get to hog the entire pipe and leave me with a trickle? Their neighbors should be given the opportunity to have a satisfactory experience.

Maybe they should move your bandwidth hogging to the overnight hours when the neighborhood isn't trying to surf the web? An acquaintance had the idea that the ISP should be like the electric company and charge a lower rate for bandwidth at night when demand is lower to encourage bandwidth hogs to not run during the day. Or maybe like the cell phone company and have a limit during high demand periods and no limit during low demand periods.

IMHO, it seems to me that the people crying the loudest about "net neutrality" and "I want unlimited bandwidth" are the ones hogging all the bandwidth.

[joshbroton]

I don't like what precedent this sets. I don't think ISPs should have the right to tell me what I am doing on the internet is less important than my next door neighbor, even though we pay the same!

[mythrilfan]

Such... Cox.

[mmntech]

Simple solution to this problem. Just don't use COX.

[tm_anon]

Better solution to the problem. Increase the bandwidth already.

Burying cables not only lets you do less work for maintenance, but by having them in the ground, there's more support for a larger amount of cables. Fiber Optics do have weight to them, if they're buried, there can be more fiber optic cables.

If they're kept inside a noncorrosive pipe and run through sewer lines across the US, like telephone lines should be, along with power lines, then not only would these services go down much less, but there could be a much larger flow of information without a huge increase in cost for the ISPs, the timber from the poles used to hold them up in the air could come down, fallen trees would no longer cause outages for large numbers of customers at a time and ice storms wouldn't be any worry at all.

It would require one massive investment in the beginning. After that, the prices for customers could drop to near zero because of the decline in need for maintenance.

Of course, there are other benefits, such as getting rid of the eye sores that currently fill the skylines and getting rid of lots of the reasons power, telephone or internet goes out.

Of course, very few people think in the long-term these days.

[c|net Reader]

Your dream doesn't quite match reality. The scheme you describe assumes that once laid, there will be no problems with the buried lines. Corrosion aside, there are problems like temperature variations which weaken connections; freezing and thawing, which can break connections, wires, fibers, and sewer pipes; construction and repairs in the area; earthquakes; etc. The high initial cost must also be borne by consumers for years.

[chash360]

A Wireless Mesh network will answer both issues. Granted it would incurr a bit of inititial switching/routing latency at the beginning of every connection (not much more than placing a phone call), but it can still be done in a manner that provides more bandwidth without running cables everywhere. You still get fast throughput once a connection is routed. There is no running out of spectrum issues, if a sufficient block of the soon to be released analog TV spectrum were assigned to unlicensed wireless broadband usage, in addition to the short range wireless bands that are already available. By reusing frequencies dynamically we could have a network that never runs out of bandwidth, provided that the end user devices that use the network are required to carry and route several times more 'channels of traffic' than it provides the single user to consume. This way every person who purchases such a device and uses it, actually adds more bandwidth capacity to the network instead of consuming it. By dynamically routing data based upon physical location (GPS Routing/Addressing) and best connection, even problems areas (power outages, sun spots, etc.) can be routed around without disrupting the network as a whole. GPS addresses can not be faked, (if you verify the signals with actual measurements to neighboring devices), and provide a level of security not possible today. You could know for a fact that you are connected to the website you intend because it would be addressed to a physical location (say the street address of the business you are dealing with). Fewer wires and sites to maintain (basically only for long distances, and in low population density areas). Best of all, unlicensed means no service provider bills, you buy the device, and all you pay for is the electricity to run it. The cost of this network, much less. The FCC must designate the spectrum, and provide the specifications and standards for devices that use it (one time cost), and most of the rest is end users buying the devices (should not cost more than current cell phones, its nearly the same functionality). The FCC can still collect money from manufacturers for testing and certify standards compliance for the devices vs. licensing spectrum to monopolies and telcos (who just pass on the cost, with a heavy markup, to the consumer).

[ecotopian--2008]

All this means is COX is going to fail. Those companies that build out 21st century infrastructure will succeed. The rest, like COX, will become history. Unlimited bandwith is the future. We are already far behind Asia in this respect.

[AppleSuxLeo]

Glad I don`t have Cox service...they really suck Cox , after reading this article.

[xcal78]

They sucked long before this article. :)

[xcal78]

This isn't anything new. Cox was throtting bandwidth years ago. I've never heard anything good about Cox in the last 8-10 years. ComCast is another one who's horrible.

[fleurya]

I wonder how much it'll cost to get your website on the "time sensitive" list, and how long it'll take companies to start bribing Cox. Or maybe Cox is already soliciting under the table deals.

It's only a matter of time.

I agree about someone getting faster serivce for the same price. Cox should have to put together something outlining exactly how much of your usage was timesensitive and not time sensitive, and create an appropriate pricing structure. This, of course, would be way too exmensive to implenemt and they would have to abandon it altgether.

I hope they get run out of town on a rail.

[Ordonator]

I don't understand something here. I thought this was illegal. These cable companies are acting like spoiled five year old children and the FCC is just a nagging but ineffective authority figure. The FCC says "no, no, no" while companies like Comcast and Cox grin and say, "but we're not" with their fingers crossed behind their backs.

I'm not really against network management, and maybe that is because I'm not a file-sharer. But I do find this kind of plane sight disregard for federal regulations a little discomforting.

[richardlau68]

If Cox is allowed to subjectively filter traffic within their network, it establishes a dangerous precedent for two reasons.

1) Your ISP will determine what you can and can't see on the Internet by limiting your connection performance to areas of the Net they don't deem worthy. Your favorite Internet locations may appear on Cox's preferred "time sensitive" list today, but what happens when it's not there a week, a month a year from now.

2) ISPs like Cox have a monopoly on the market, so it's becoming increasingly more difficult to find suitable alternatives to their service. As a result they can implement whatever service policies they like, and the majority of their customers are stuck with them.

The FCC stopped Comcast from doing this last year, and the current administration appears to be a big supporter of net neutrality, so I'm hoping the latest announcement from Cox doesn't go unnoticed.

I thought the following article had an interesting take on this...

http://www.newsadmin.com/usenet_commentary/commentary_02092009.asp

[pratik1988]

just got more info on this latest gadgets and technologies at
techonova.com

[KamilionSchnook]

Uhh, hold up, guys.

What they're talking about is Layer 7 Quality of Service.
This is a *VERY* normal thing to do on a network -- take a look at the linksys DD-WRT or Tomato firmware's QoS settings.

Here's the thing. They're not the ones deciding what's time sensitive. *Your* computer is.

When packets leave your edge router, they're marked with a TOS byte (Type of Service) that identifies it as interactive traffic or non-interactive traffic. They're also marked with a ECN (Explicit Congestion Notification) tag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explicit_Congestion_Notification

Therefore, Cox is using simple language to inform people they're going to be supporting *STANDARD TCP/IP ROUTING FUNCTIONS THEY SHOULD ALREADY HAVE BEEN SUPPORTING FOR YEARS.*

This is actually kind of a good thing.

(By the way, most Bittorrent clients already mark their packets as low priority non-interactive traffic.)

[BobF4]

Someone else already made this point.

Companies like Cox (with this time sensitive division), and Time Warner (with thier usage-based pricing with extremely low caps based on downloaded items) are getting away with this for one reason and one reason only. They are the ONLY game in town. And who is to blame for that? Our local counties/parishes, cities, villages, and towns. Years ago, when the cable TV industry was very young, they allowed cable companies to sign exclusivity agreements whereby another cable company would not be allowed into a market. That practice amounts to almost sanctioned monopolies in some areas, and, should be stopped to promote free and open competition between cable companies.

Perhaps it is time to deregulate the cable TV industry, much like the telephone industry was a few years ago. Imagine if Cox, Comcast, AND Time Warner ALL serviced one city, say, the size of Buffalo, NY? Cable rates would be lower, and there would be a much wider range of choice in channels, and services, offered. Just MAYBE we in the US would get the type of upload/download speeds that broadband users in Asian countries currently enjoy!

[johndporter]

People keep saying Cox can do this because they're "the only game in town".
Where is this true? It's certainly not true in my neck of the woods - Cox is up against Verizon and RCN (formerly Starpower)... and possibly Comcast as well.

I also caution people to look at the total customer experience when choosing a provider. I was with RCN for many years until I decided, recently, to take advantage of Verizon's hot deals on FiOS. What a mistake! RCN always treated me well; they're a small, regional company. They have weaknesses typical of a small company. For example, their support hotline is only up from 9-5, five days a week. A big company like Verizon, with their 24x7 help desk, was tempting. Reality: Verizon suffers from too-big syndrome. I had some problems in the transfer of my phone number (I had the three-way package), and Verizon was completely unable to sort it out. I had to talk to half a dozen different departments (going through endless phone menu trees) and none of them knew what the others were doing. It was a frustrating mess. After 3 days of no resolution (and no phone), I said, Screw it, and called Cox.

What a breath of fresh air. Cox is large enough to have their act together, yet small enough to offer personal, customized service and support. They handled all of my issues in a timely, successful manner, and most amazingly, you can reach a live human on their help line 24x7. This is something neither the juggernaut Verizon nor the scrappy RCN were able to do. Cox also didn't give me any BS about why they couldn't install my service on the appointed day, as Verizon did.

So, I don't know - maybe if you watch a lot of high-res video streaming, or play WoW constantly, or some such, Cox's bandwidth offerings might be insufficient. I don't do that, and I've had only positive experiences with them. They even diagnosed and fixed an *inside-the-house* phone line problem (red/green reversed) which I've had for years, at no charge.

Take this as one data point.

I don't really have an opinion on the whole net neutrality issue. I hope KamilionSchnook is right, and it's just about respecting ToS markers already in the packets. I do want to clarify one thing: the post above says Cox is going to "discriminate between Internet content." This is misleading. They are going to look at the protocol of each packet, and possibly other "meta-data" such as ToS markers. Yeah, at the data link layer, this info is "content", but it is not content as the user thinks of it. They're not going to look at the URL of your http request, and slow down accesses to playboy.com relative to other sites, for example. I do think it's strange that they consider email a time-sensitive protocol, however. Email is the ultimate NON-time-senstive protocol! I hope that's simply a mistake.

[simstick]

If you conduct business from home email might be important.