Cox follows Comcast down the data discrimination road

It's a sad day for Cox internet subscribers, 'cause if the FCC or some other almighty agency doesn't step in soon, your traffic could be slowed. The carrier has just announced a rather significant update to its data management policies, as it lays out plans to test a system next month that will "give priority to Internet traffic it judges to be time-sensitive, like web pages, streaming video and online games." We're also told that "file downloads, software updates and other non-time sensitive data may be slowed if there is congestion on the local network." Thankfully, "streaming video" was listed in the category that'll supposedly get first dibs on available bandwidth, but one always has to wonder what kind of juju is going on behind closed doors when a plan such as this is announced. If all goes well in the Kansas / Arkansas test markets, the system could be rolled out to all Cox internet customers (business users notwithstanding) by the year's end. Lovely.

[Via HotHardware]

[Ryback @ Jan 29th 2009 9:18AM]

Four words - SSL tunneling.

[Flaystus @ Jan 29th 2009 9:44AM]

FACT!

[jeffoxiam @ Jan 29th 2009 9:45AM]

Are you sure SSL will prevent any "slowing"? It seems like it would be obvious that I'm doing "file downloads" if I'm maxing out my 10Mbit connection. If so, that 11 dollars a month to a certain usenet server is going to start paying off even more.

[nerdtalker @ Jan 29th 2009 10:08AM]

Four other words: "edge to edge encryption."

'nuff said. Keep in mind, Cox was doing the same thing as Comcast and also using Sandvine almost the whole time. Somehow, however, Comcast took the fall and ended up getting bigger headlines. Cox is just lagging behind implementing something else. Something else which, contrary to Comcast, isn't protocol-agnostic, and isn't going to pass FCC oversight.

[OneLove @ Jan 29th 2009 11:42AM]

This is not right. They advertise a 12Mbps connection, you pay for a 12Mbps connection and then you get a 3 and 4 Mbps connection mostly? How is that legal? I am thinking about going to DSL.

[Harkonian @ Jan 29th 2009 3:14PM]

@Nate If I am paying for a 12mb/s connection how is my using 12mb/s an abnormally high amount? How 'bout instead of bitching about how much bandwidth I am using, the cable companies actually sell me the amount of bandwidth I'm allowed to use?

[Melvin @ Jan 29th 2009 9:20AM]

Not Cool.

I wonder if some other ISPs like Verizon FIOS are heading in the same route?

[Flaystus @ Jan 29th 2009 9:47AM]

So far it seems Verizon is content to sit back with their big o' network and watch.

[ZennZero @ Jan 29th 2009 9:23AM]

This sound more like QoS and less like bandwidth throttling. If handled correctly, this could be a good thing, as it may significantly improve performance of latency-sensitive applications (VoIP, games, etc.).

[aaron @ Jan 29th 2009 9:36AM]

agreed... this actually could be a very good thing and something all providers should do provided they actually do it right and dont limit things. really in the grand scheme of things who cares if it takes an extra hour or two to download your torrent if it meant your streaming video and gaming connections were more reliable.

[kal326 @ Jan 29th 2009 9:50AM]

So what if I don't use VOIP and could give a rats ass less about streaming video and just want a large legitimate perfectly legal download to go as fast as possible? Pulling a linux distro off a bit torrent link or downloading iso's from Technet Plus in my opinion shouldn't be jacked with so my neighbor can watch crap on Youtube or Hula without a hiccup.

[Dorf @ Jan 29th 2009 9:57AM]

@kal326

Supply and demand dude. There are way more people who care about video and online gaming then there are downloading *legal* torrents... The needs of the many outweigh the needs....... yeah, you get the point.

[Izzy @ Jan 29th 2009 12:19PM]

Interesting comment. I didn't look at it from that view.

[brokenkeyboard @ Jan 29th 2009 1:47PM]

The problem is that QoS IS bandwidth throttling, it just depends on what application you're using.

In an ideal world, benevolent network engineers would be in charge of all the QoS settings, and they would carefully weigh the needs of the VoIP users and the bit-torrent users, and would decide on the optimal balance which would give all users a fair share, make the most efficient use of the available bandwidth, and generally run things in a way that benefits everyone. That kind of efficiency would generally be a good thing.

In the real world, QoS means that the ISP wants to throttle your torrents to 1k/sec so that they don't have to upgrade their infrastructure, since they basically over-loaded their networks with too many customers and too little capacity, and now they're trying to cover for it by limiting specific applications.

If I actually trusted the ISPs at all, QoS would be great. But I suspect that this is really just bit-torrent throttling, made to sound like its for the common good of all.

All I want is an ISP who will move my bits from A to B without interfering with them, but it seems like there are fewer and fewer of those left.

[Esteban @ Jan 29th 2009 2:21PM]

but my torrents! what about my sweet, innocent torrents?!?!?! lol

[Nate @ Jan 29th 2009 2:49PM]

They're running a business. I don't like it, but I get it.

In internet services there is always a situation where a small percentage of users accounts for an abnormally large percentage of your cost. If you don't like it, buy business grade services. Have fun with that.

[Paul @ Jan 29th 2009 9:25AM]

screw you cox!

[derX @ Jan 29th 2009 9:31AM]

So aptly named, they are.

[Chird @ Jan 29th 2009 12:38PM]

Yeah, for the first time ever I'm actually relieved to be a Time Warner subscriber. Can't stand em and their unreliable service, but as long as they aren't further capping my already ridiculous cap, I'm cool.

Even still though, I hate Time Warner and plan to switch to FiOS as soon as Verizon gets on the ball and brings it to my region.

HEY VERIZON!!!!!! ROCHESTER NEEDS YOU!!!!!!!

[JayC @ Jan 29th 2009 9:27AM]

COX suckers!

[Tarnation @ Jan 29th 2009 9:28AM]

I guess the Engadget people are happy they can watch streaming episodes of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

"Thankfully, "streaming video" was listed in the category that'll supposedly get first dibs on available bandwidth,"

[zsoldier @ Jan 29th 2009 9:35AM]

They said they are "Testing" it. Cox is very much a customer service oriented company. If they get more complaints about poor service when the system is put into place then before having the system, then it's very likely they would retract it. (i.e. Getting more calls into the call center costs them more money and usually means less happy customers)

[Jay Voorhees @ Jan 29th 2009 10:43AM]

mo' money mo' problems

[obo @ Jan 29th 2009 12:19PM]

"Cox is very much a customer service oriented company."

What fucking universe are you living in, and how much shit do I smoke to get there?

[Smoke_Dawg_187 @ Jan 29th 2009 1:26PM]

@obo

He's obviously an employee of Cox to be writing something like that. Sounds like something Belkin would do, pay people to comment with counter spin.

[losifreak107 @ Jan 30th 2009 12:14AM]

do you think he got his $.65 for that review?

[Joey100 @ Jan 29th 2009 9:32AM]

This is such bullshit.

[chambo622 @ Jan 29th 2009 9:35AM]

Please not Time Warner...

[granny down east @ Jan 29th 2009 11:41AM]

From your mouth to God's ears.

[Clasifyd @ Jan 29th 2009 9:36AM]

I don't really see this as being that big of a problem, so maybe I'm just ignorant to the situation. I would much rather have my games and streaming video queued higher at the cost of slower file download speeds. Besides, it looks like that's only when there's network congestion, anyhow. Why does everyone have their panties in a twist?

[kkavanagh @ Jan 29th 2009 9:42AM]

Human nature, Clasifyd, human nature...
People like to complain first when they think they are going to lose something, then look at it to see if it really impacts them.
I think this has the potential to help in the long run...

[Jeff the Trombonist @ Jan 29th 2009 9:42AM]

Because here at Engadget, that's the way we roll.

[jimjobe @ Jan 29th 2009 9:42AM]

I'm glad someone can finally tell us the right way to spend our time on the internet. Not downloading worthless files....no.....what's important is watching youtube videos and playing WoW.

Thanks Cox!

[brian @ Jan 29th 2009 9:50AM]

but how can you play WoW if that 5 meg daily patch now takes 3 days to download?

[nerdtalker @ Jan 29th 2009 10:10AM]

Not to mention, that patch is distributed over a BT-like P2P system designed by the BT author.

[alexhrose71 @ Jan 29th 2009 9:43AM]

Ohhh NOOzzz !!! torrents are going to move slower !!!!!

Welcome to the 21st century where everyone is a whiney bitch complaining about free stuff not arriving quick enough.

Get a grip, prioritization of game and video data over porn torrents makes A LOT OF SENSE.

[MEAT! @ Jan 29th 2009 9:53AM]

First they came for the porn torrents, but my name is alexhrose71 and I don't watch teh pron, so meh.

Then they came for high-data-rate services like VNC, X11 forwarding, and SCP, but my name is alexhrose71 and I can't even spell "horse" right, so meh.

But then they made a deal with NBC, CBS, HBO, and Time Warner Music, and nows my internet is br0ken unless I upgrade to the premium package! Where are all the "whiney bitches" to help me? T_T I can't even cry as I watch my pr0n, cuz the download's going at 4 KBps.

[Jake @ Jan 29th 2009 9:58AM]

Dillweed:

Just because someone downloads a lot of data, that means it has to be porn?

Some of us download legitimate large files. You know, like movie files from Amazon Video on Demand (not the crappy streaming application, the download to the desktop files), the Playstation store, XBox Live, iTunes, etc. Those are my go-to movie rental outlets, and the files are LARGE.

Cox isn't throttling just to augment your enjoyment of WoW and YouTube. This is strategic. Slowing file downloads allows them to impact the user experience for services just like the ones I use (or Vudu, or any number of other services) -- because those DIRECTLY COMPETE WITH COX VIDEO ON DEMAND.

This is predatory competition, not "prioritization of game and video data over porn torrents." Slow file downloads make for frustrated customers of services that rely on file downloads -- potentially driving those customers to Cox services, instead.

It's BS. As a Cox customer, I won't stand for it if my use of legitimate, paid, data-intensive services is compromised.

[mykich @ Jan 29th 2009 11:41AM]

Jake is exactly right. If you look at the case made against Comcast when they began throttling torrents the CEO of Vuze came before the FCC to testify that Comcast's actions were a direct move against Vuze and other online video providers that use torrents to provide their service. You have to look at this from the perspective of you're not being GIVEN something that will improve your video streaming, but that one aspect of your service is being taken away or significantly diminished. ANY time your provider decides to build a barrier between you and the content there's cause to be concerned. If everyone takes the same ignorant viewpoint that you do this will surely be the first restriction of many to come. The path between "net neutrality" and the free market it a tight one... but this is certainly a step in the wrong direction.

[Adam @ Jan 29th 2009 1:59PM]

Its not going to take 3 days to download your patches or torrents FROM WHAT THEY SAID they will throttled big dls/low priority items during times of high usages so if you need to get an update or a program through whatever means find out what time that there is low usage. I don't like this I pay for 9mb and I except 9mb. I think cox needs to increase there network infrastructure. The US a a whole is lagging far behind as far as available bandwidth is concerned.

[SOOPERGOOMAN @ Jan 29th 2009 9:43AM]

Sounds alot like Rogers here in Canada...

[helloUser @ Jan 29th 2009 10:11AM]

Uh.....way off. Rogers would lower the bandwidth, regulate traffic, throttle speeds and charge a premium. I'd actually prefer faster downloads prioritized for things that actually demand priority; movie or audio streams being two major examples. I dont mind waiting an extra second or two waiting for a website to open, or even an extra half hour or whatever for a large file to download, in such cases there is usually extra time to wait for a download to finish, but not on streams.

[Blacksheep @ Jan 29th 2009 9:51AM]

I'm a Cox customer and while I would like less internet slow downs/drops for online gaming, but overall I think this will be a bad policy as I do more then play games and I rarely stream video.

One of my major problems here is with the test market, Kansas and Arkansas, seriously? How many people have broadband out there. Isn't their internet already lightening fast due to smaller amounts of users on their network?

I live in RI, the second most densely populated state in the nation, and the states around me are overcrowded and use Cox as well. They should test it here as our network slows down every night between 5 and 9 due to a massive influx of users home from work. This is the market to test it in, we would know if it doesn't work!

[Martin @ Jan 29th 2009 11:12AM]

Because if it DOESN'T work, they want to piss off as few customers as possible. That's the whole point of a pilot: testing infrastructure while mitigating risk of losing customers due to low satisfaction.

[Twist @ Jan 29th 2009 9:52AM]

I tested months ago to see if they were throttling bit torrent transfers and the online test came back positive.

[lanejasper69 @ Jan 29th 2009 1:16PM]

Hey Twist, how do you check speeds/throttling etc.? is it just a website like dlsreports or whatever? I want to test mine.

thanks!!

L

[Dorf @ Jan 29th 2009 9:59AM]

Then they came for MEAT!'s tinfoil hat.

[LameDuck @ Jan 29th 2009 10:09AM]

Tinfoil hat? Apparently, you haven't been screwed over by Comcast and their policies like most of us have. That company shovels so much shat I'm starting to think it's ran by the Poopsmith.

[hexydes @ Jan 29th 2009 10:08AM]

This is why I am with my local community cable company. They want my business badly, and would never dream of doing this, because their customers would leave in droves. Eventually, if the major cable companies screw with people too much, then other options will spring up, and the major ones will just collapse.

[numerwan @ Jan 29th 2009 10:10AM]

Hey... if the pipes are completely congested btwn 4-7pm every single night... Id rather them throttle back the File Downloads over EVERYTHING... I know, your man-meat seems a little bigger by Downloading your bit torrents at 500 mbps... But ill set my DLs to run as I sleep... Streaming netflix hulu and playing xbox is what i would like access to now..

Comcast will throttle everything... So, I'm gonna say Cox still has one-up on comcast...