tcope

Premium Member

join:2003-05-07

Sandy, UT tcope Premium Member Issue? Don't know the broadban state in the UK but this sounds more like marketing then any real change to the customer. That is, is bandwith an issue now with the PS3? If not, what would more broadband give the customer? Also, PS4s probably won't consume as much bandwidth for awhile any way.



Personally I'm sticking with my PS3 as it's still a great machine and I don't want to be forced into paying a fee for online use.



ohreally

@uk.net ohreally Anon Re: Issue? said by tcope: Don't know the broadban state in the UK but this sounds more like marketing then any real change to the customer





None of this sounds sinister - is it just prioritising gaming traffic (rather than downloads)? No one is stuck with either of these ISPs, it's quite easy to move to one that isn't signed up to Sony if you disagree with the network prioritisation (which many UK ISPs practice in some form or another - mostly either traffic shaping specific protocols and prioritising others, rather than giving priority to specific services or companies). Virgin Media and EE (a joint venture of Orange and Deutsche Telekom) operate in the UK and are available to pretty much everyone - Virgin Media owns its own cable network and EE uses BT's telephone network.None of this sounds sinister - is it just prioritising gaming traffic (rather than downloads)? No one is stuck with either of these ISPs, it's quite easy to move to one that isn't signed up to Sony if you disagree with the network prioritisation (which many UK ISPs practice in some form or another - mostly either traffic shaping specific protocols and prioritising others, rather than giving priority to specific services or companies).

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 Member Re: Issue? Prioritizing ANY traffic de-prioritizes ALL other traffic.



The ONLY time prioritizing traffic helps is if the network is congested. Any other time the switches and routers will send out every single packet it receives as fast as it possibly can.

34764170 (banned)

join:2007-09-06

Etobicoke, ON 34764170 (banned) Member Re: Issue? said by Skippy25: Prioritizing ANY traffic de-prioritizes ALL other traffic.



The ONLY time prioritizing traffic helps is if the network is congested. Any other time the switches and routers will send out every single packet it receives as fast as it possibly can.





Exactly, and that is a reality in broadband networks based on high levels of over subscription. No, it does not.Exactly, and that is a reality in broadband networks based on high levels of over subscription.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 Member Re: Issue? First off, It is IMPOSSIBLE to not move something down if you are moving something else up on the priority level. You could very well get to the point that certain packets are completely dropped or ignored because the ones with higher priority are overwhelming the network. And if you are going to tell me that is not true, then you have absolutely no clue about networks.



Second, if by prioritizing something you are not causing the first thing to happen (delay the sending of other packets in favor of the "special" ones), then there was absolutely no reason to prioritize to begin with. You want to argue this point with me too?



AnonPoster1

@redstation.co.uk AnonPoster1 Anon Re: Issue? Cable modems are capable of achieving speeds greater than the provisioned service level agreement speed (128mb/s for docsis 3). This difference is where the bandwidth for the PS4 will be offered. Lets say the current provisioned speed for a consumer's internet access is 40mb/s download and the maximum is 100mb/s on the modem owned by the consumer. An ISP may determine that the market is most profitable at a 40mb/s speed and will choose to provide that. This leaves 60mb/s of unused bandwidth that has a future value much like currency does. If it is not invested in doing some task the value of the service will degrade in comparison to other companies offering gradually higher speeds. The proposal is to modify the file the ISP sends by TFTP to the modem to include a rule for the traffic sent by the PS4 to use the separate bandwidth for the PS4. This is already done by many ISPs with internet based cable services.

34764170 (banned)

join:2007-09-06

Etobicoke, ON 34764170 (banned) to Skippy25

Member to Skippy25

You said de-prioritize. It does no such thing. Of course packets will be dropped when a network is congested!

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 Member Re: Issue? Semantics and you know what I meant and that I am correct.

34764170 (banned)

join:2007-09-06

Etobicoke, ON 34764170 (banned) Member Re: Issue? No, you're not.

Kamus

join:2011-01-27

El Paso, TX 1 recommendation Kamus to 34764170

Member to 34764170

said by 34764170: Exactly, and that is a reality in broadband networks based on high levels of over subscription.





Here is the thing:



Last mile providers have been growing at a pace that has been completely dwarfed by the speed at which their backbone capabilities have been growing.



Sure, back in the dial up days they would easily saturate their networks because the backbone really couldn't keep up with demand.



But now? You have got to be kidding me. We're at a time where 100g Ethernet already has a replacement. There is simply no way in hell a last mile provider has a congested network unless they haven't been upgrading at all over the last 5 years. (and in most cases they don't even have to light up new fibers, let alone deploy new ones)



Just consider for a moment that the rate at which fiber throughput is growing is about 2 times faster than Moore's law, and you'll understand how absurd your premise sounds when you consider that broadband speed has been growing at a snail's pace for the last 5 years, and in some cases even longer than that. Over subscription? That's so retro... reminds me of the late 90's.Here is the thing:Last mile providers have been growing at a pace that has been completely dwarfed by the speed at which their backbone capabilities have been growing.Sure, back in the dial up days they would easily saturate their networks because the backbone really couldn't keep up with demand.But now? You have got to be kidding me. We're at a time where 100g Ethernet already has a replacement. There is simply no way in hell a last mile provider has a congested network unless they haven't been upgrading at all over the last 5 years. (and in most cases they don't even have to light up new fibers, let alone deploy new ones)Just consider for a moment that the rate at which fiber throughput is growing is about 2 times faster than Moore's law, and you'll understand how absurd your premise sounds when you consider that broadband speed has been growing at a snail's pace for the last 5 years, and in some cases even longer than that.

34764170 (banned)

join:2007-09-06

Etobicoke, ON 1 recommendation 34764170 (banned) Member Re: Issue? That's the way broadband networks are provisioned; not a single provider will ever provision dedicated capacity for each user or anywhere near it. The issue isn't the backbone. That is completely irrelevant and an area they can easily upgrade and provide enough capacity. The issue is the last mile network and how it is provisioned and maintained.

Bengie25

join:2010-04-22

Wisconsin Rapids, WI Bengie25 Member Re: Issue? said by 34764170: not a single provider will ever provision dedicated capacity for each user or anywhere near it.



Example. Say an ISP's peak usage is 120gb/s. Since they already need the equipment for 100gb and they're over 100gb, they can probably handle 200gb/s.



See, you don't need dedicated bandwidth to the Internet, just to your trunk. Now there is no congestion.



Yes, theoretically, everyone could peg their connection at the same time, but there is also the possibility that you will fall through the Earth because electromagnetic repulsion stopped working for a bit.



Statistics and averages are fun. There are a few ISPs with dedicated bandwidth to the trunk. Once you're at the trunk, you need only worry about averages.Example. Say an ISP's peak usage is 120gb/s. Since they already need the equipment for 100gb and they're over 100gb, they can probably handle 200gb/s.See, you don't need dedicated bandwidth to the Internet, just to your trunk. Now there is no congestion.Yes, theoretically, everyone could peg their connection at the same time, but there is also the possibility that you will fall through the Earth because electromagnetic repulsion stopped working for a bit.Statistics and averages are fun.



Anonymous_

Anonymous

Premium Member

join:2004-06-21

127.0.0.1 Anonymous_ to Kamus

Premium Member to Kamus

said by Kamus: said by 34764170: Exactly, and that is a reality in broadband networks based on high levels of over subscription.





Here is the thing:



Last mile providers have been growing at a pace that has been completely dwarfed by the speed at which their backbone capabilities have been growing.



Over subscription? That's so retro... reminds me of the late 90's.Here is the thing:Last mile providers have been growing at a pace that has been completely dwarfed by the speed at which their backbone capabilities have been growing.



before you could only get 30 to 40mbps out of 50mbps peak hours



i.e 3PM to 9PM Yes cable was over sold on my node before they changed from 4 bonded channels to 8 bonded channelsbefore you could only get 30 to 40mbps out of 50mbps peak hoursi.e 3PM to 9PM

Anonymous_ Anonymous_ to 34764170

Premium Member to 34764170

said by 34764170: said by Skippy25: Prioritizing ANY traffic de-prioritizes ALL other traffic.



The ONLY time prioritizing traffic helps is if the network is congested. Any other time the switches and routers will send out every single packet it receives as fast as it possibly can.





Exactly, and that is a reality in broadband networks based on high levels of over subscription.

No, it does not.Exactly, and that is a reality in broadband networks based on high levels of over subscription.

which is the worst you can have Most ISP have you locked at "Best effort " prioritywhich is the worst you can have

jjeffeory

jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04

Bullhead City, AZ jjeffeory to ohreally

Member to ohreally

Sounds like a Network Neutrality issue waiting to happen to me.



buzz_4_20

join:2003-09-20

Biddeford, ME 1 recommendation buzz_4_20 Member Indeed... This is the bull sh** that everyone saw coming.



This is why Net Neutrality should be held up.



Having Premium's based on ISPs isn't doing anyone any favors.



tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA tshirt Premium Member Re: Indeed... I guess those "dumb pipe" owners, aren't so dumb after all.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 Member Re: Indeed... No their still dumb, they are just desperate to try and stay relevant.

FactChecker

Premium Member

join:2008-06-03 FactChecker Premium Member Re: Indeed... I think it depends.. Some apps are more resilient to packet loss than others (e.g. video) and some apps are extremely aggressive with the network (bad adaptive video, p2p, etc). I see the slippery slope here, but as a customer I would some capabilities around application performance.



tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA tshirt to Skippy25

Premium Member to Skippy25

said by Skippy25: No their still dumb, they are just desperate to try and stay relevant.

Note: Their OWNERSHIP is now relevant.

Kamus

join:2011-01-27

El Paso, TX Kamus Member Re: Indeed... said by tshirt: Note: Their OWNERSHIP is now relevant.



So I've come to the conclusion that we need to be the owners of the network, and I think i know exactly how we'll be able to own it. And if It's not my idea that comes to fruition, it will be something really similar to it. Exactly, It's all about who actually owns the network.So I've come to the conclusion that we need to be the owners of the network, and I think i know exactly how we'll be able to own it. And if It's not my idea that comes to fruition, it will be something really similar to it.



kba4

join:2001-10-23

North Canton, OH Asus RT-AC66

kba4 Member neutrality? I'm not seeing the issue here. We're talking about a game system you have to pay for to own, and a network (PSN) you have to have the game system to access. It's Sony's network and system. We happily pay money for it and somehow Sony's placing controls on it violates some sort of vaguely-defined version of net-neutrality?



We're not talking about a public resource here, it's a closed network used by a proprietary game system. Get over it.

elefante72

join:2010-12-03

East Amherst, NY 1 recommendation elefante72 Member Re: neutrality? While I think in an uncapped world, traffic prioritization (that you pay for or the co) makes sense for a premium experience, in a capped world you are saying that the guys with the big $$$ can buy essentially prioritization or worse not count against you cap, giving them a HUGE advantage no different than Bud dropping $5m a minute on a superbowl ad. The little guys and innovation will be drown out by big $ and as you know with big $, forced ads will follow.



Just yesterday TWC app for Xbox they are saying that doesn't count against your cap which is utter bullshit. Seeing there isn't TWC caps yet in most of the country, they are setting that up and I think that they should be fried for this.



They are trying ever little way to make more money (not that I blame them), and once the seal is broken, they will control what you can use and I don't like that one bit.



kba4

join:2001-10-23

North Canton, OH Asus RT-AC66

kba4 Member Re: neutrality? first off the TWC cap part is indeed reality, it's an optional product called Essentials and it's for people that don't use their HSD for anything major and want to save $5 or so. customers must ask for this, it is not heavilly advertised because TWC knows most customers would rather have an uncapped connection.



second, comparing the PSN to a superbowl ad is a fallacy due to the fact that you don't pay budweiser to watch the superbowl, it's OTA free. the PS3 costs money, is not something that just appears connected to your TV and HSD; you pay for every portion of it and just because you need an ISP to access the PSN does not entitle you to a full free ride, it's still Sony's network you connect into and they should be allowed to do with it as they see fit. you may not like it but this is capitalism and if customers choose, they can simply go elsewhere.

jjeffeory

jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04

Bullhead City, AZ 2 edits jjeffeory Member Re: neutrality? Do you work for TWC?



What you fail to realize is that no one has a problem with Sony doing what they want to on THEIR network. THEIR network isn't the problem. Sony's network, however, doesn't include the Internet. The Internet is the "Middle Man" that all data must go through to to go from one host ( Customer) to another host ( PSN, Google, et cetera) in order to access content. This is of course unless Sony has PSN servers located on each ISP such that all data is isolated to that ISPs' network (which is what Netflix is trying to get ISPs to do), or each ISP has a dedicated connection to Sony's PSN. Otherwise, data from two hosts will flow over the internet. If the customer's ISP favors one type of traffic ( Gaming for instance) over another, they are violating Network Neutrality principles. "Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication." So really, Sony wouldn't be violating the principle, the ISP would. Sony may WANT their traffic prioritized, but they wouldn't be doing the actual deed of shaping traffic. The ISP would.



Edit:



Just thought of a third scenario, where an ISP takes a portion of their aggregate bandwidth from their internal network and permanently sets that aside for dedicated PSN use effectively creating another network in their network whose data is always segregated from the rest of the traffic. This is how I imagine what I've read about how Comcast does their VoIP phone service works....



In this scenario, the ISP would have a private network to the internet, and ultimately to the PSN and wouldn't be violating Neutrality.



kba4

join:2001-10-23

North Canton, OH Asus RT-AC66

kba4 Member Re: neutrality? I do work for TWC but that shouldn't be important. I only know one type of traffic to be prioritized on the TWC network, and that's TWC-owned content (digital phone, twctv, etc.). Mainstream http/ftp/etc. traffic is treated equally from everything I've heard. The PSN is only as large as Sony can afford, and no single ISP should be compelled to help Sony get bigger. If Sony can't afford their endeavor, then it's their own fault, not the player, and certainly not the ISP. Expanding such a network will cost money somewhere, and one possible solution is a VPN of sorts so a player on a fast connection but with poor routing to the PSN can get there faster.



The main issue here is we're talking about a game system, used for entertainment purposes, connected to a residential ISP, most of which if you read the TOS are also for entertainment purposes. Netflix is a similar product to the PSN: on the one hand you have Netflix offering a great product and an even better product under the guise of 'your ISP has to partner, we'll even foot the bill for a local CDN', but from an ISP standpoint this storage takes up real estate, uses power and bandwidth, and in the end does very little for their own business goals, especially if the ISP is also a Video provider.



As is the case with everything else in life made for entertainment value, if you want better, then you gotta pay for it. The Internet is not a public utility guaranteed by our constitution. It's an awesome resource and costs money to maintain. Most mainstream users connect through an ISP which manages everything from their IP address and Default Gateway/DNS server to their speeds.

jjeffeory

jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04

Bullhead City, AZ jjeffeory Member Re: neutrality? From your response, it's obvious that you don't understand the issue at hand, TWC the ISP is a dumb pipe. That's all it needs to know. It pushes data from it's customers to where they want to go. The rest is irrelevant. The customer is already paying for their connection to the internet. Sony is paying to be connected to the internet. That's it.

Bengie25

join:2010-04-22

Wisconsin Rapids, WI Bengie25 to elefante72

Member to elefante72

said by elefante72: While I think in an uncapped world, traffic prioritization (that you pay for or the co) makes sense for a premium experience It's actually cheaper to add bandwidth than add QoS. The processing power to handle QoS at the loads ISPs handle, dwarfs the cost of just adding the needed bandwidth to get rid of congestion.

Bengie25 Bengie25 to kba4

Member to kba4

If it's a closed network, then they can GTFO of public land and make their own country where they can lay their infrastructure.

34764170 (banned)

join:2007-09-06

Etobicoke, ON 34764170 (banned) Member Re: neutrality? You have a real sense of entitlement.

Bengie25

join:2010-04-22

Wisconsin Rapids, WI Bengie25 Member Re: neutrality? You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

34764170 (banned)

join:2007-09-06

Etobicoke, ON 34764170 (banned) Member Re: neutrality? But it does.

Bengie25

join:2010-04-22

Wisconsin Rapids, WI Bengie25 Member Re: neutrality? Hand an ISP $1tril, give them access to government lands for nearly free, they make over 100% margins, then they manipulate politics to keep out the competition, and somehow I'm entitled to wanting them to leave public land because they're going QQ about competition?



I leave it at that.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 to kba4

Member to kba4

It is not a closed network any more than my connection to this website is a closed network.



If it runs across the internet using publicly accessible IP addresses then it is part of the internet and thus in no way what so ever closed or private.



MxxCon

join:1999-11-19

Brooklyn, NY ARRIS TM822

Actiontec MI424WR Rev. I

MxxCon to kba4

Member to kba4

You don't see a problem where If I buy ps4 my games download at full throttle but if I buy xbox1 or ooya consoles my game downloads will be coming in at 100kb/sec?

And it's not because source does not have enough capacity but because my ISP would be de-prioritizing my traffic..

34764170 (banned)

join:2007-09-06

Etobicoke, ON 34764170 (banned) Member Re: neutrality? The ISP is NOT de-prioritizing your traffic. You're making shit up.



MxxCon

join:1999-11-19

Brooklyn, NY MxxCon Member Re: neutrality? With those kind of deals they very well might be.

jjeffeory

jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04

Bullhead City, AZ jjeffeory to kba4

Member to kba4

...speaking of vaguely defined...



This is absolutely a Network Neutrality issue. The ISPs give the console access to the internet. The data sent from those consoles traverse the open "internet" and then get to "Sony's" network.



If the ISP is prioritizing gaming traffic over all other traffic on their portion of the network, that is a neutrality violation by definition.

elray

join:2000-12-16

Santa Monica, CA elray Member Where do I sign? Finally, someone gets it.

34764170 (banned)

join:2007-09-06

Etobicoke, ON 1 edit 34764170 (banned) Member Re: Where do I sign? If only he went there. That would be great.



pinklizard

@ohio-state.edu pinklizard Anon the logical result of net neutrality Incumbent providers are used to being in complete control. This usually entails vertical integration, proprietary technology, and limiting consumer choice. Eventually innovation will create new products that are outside the old system and people want. AOL used to be the majority of users and content.



As online video becomes mainstream net neutrality will be bypassed by excluding in house IPTV from caps. U-Verse TV shares bandwidth with the "internet" service. If you have multiple TVs on your data service will slow down to make room on the VDSL link. There is no logical or technical difference between a STB connecting to a multicast stream and an app on a PS4 doing the same. Even on legacy HFC systems, in house TV is favored by allocating only a few channels for IP traffic. We already see YouTube buffering because some ISPs want to double dip.



Net neutrality is unfortunately not feasible. The most contentious traffic (video) takes up a lot of network capacity and threatens traditional revenue. Only competition will force companies to stop trying to collect monopoly rents.

Bengie25

join:2010-04-22

Wisconsin Rapids, WI Bengie25 Member Bad ISPs Any decent ISP won't need to reserve bandwidth. Congestion is not an issue on any decent network, unless you're special and use some sort of wireless for Internet, or New Zealand and are far from the rest of the world.