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]
posted Jan 29th 2009 9:14AM
Four words - SSL tunneling.
FACT!
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.
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.
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.
@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?
Not Cool.
I wonder if some other ISPs like Verizon FIOS are heading in the same route?
So far it seems Verizon is content to sit back with their big o' network and watch.
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.).
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.
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.
@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.
Interesting comment. I didn't look at it from that view.
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.
but my torrents! what about my sweet, innocent torrents?!?!?! lol
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.
screw you cox!
So aptly named, they are.
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!!!!!!!
COX suckers!
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,"
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)
mo' money mo' problems
"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?
@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.
do you think he got his $.65 for that review?
This is such bullshit.
Please not Time Warner...
From your mouth to God's ears.
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?
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...
Because here at Engadget, that's the way we roll.
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!
but how can you play WoW if that 5 meg daily patch now takes 3 days to download?
Not to mention, that patch is distributed over a BT-like P2P system designed by the BT author.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sounds alot like Rogers here in Canada...
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.
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!
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.
I tested months ago to see if they were throttling bit torrent transfers and the online test came back positive.
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
Then they came for MEAT!'s tinfoil hat.
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.
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.
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...
I agree, most torrent transfers aren't "Needed" the same night I don't think, I'd rather have it a bit slower and just take an extra day or few hours etc. and have my Netflix, on demand etc. work smoothly and fast with no hiccups.
BUT, if they do throttle it, I might be considered to subtract the extra 10.00/mo I pay for higher download speeds. I guess we'll see what and If/When it happens...what transpires.
I'm a Cox customer, and I never have problems with streaming or video games. I get low latency in games, I stream Netflix movies in HD, and I download at 1 to 1.5 mbps. So essentially, all this says to be is we're going to slow your file downloads for no reason. I've never had problems with bandwidth when gaming or streaming video.
Does anyone else see these policies as a slippery slope in terms of managing and allowing/denying access to various internet resources? The way I see it, along with ATT and Comcast's agreement with the RIAA, this is only a first step in controlling and management what and how people use the internet. To me, that's a scary thought.
I agree with you entirely. This kind of control is a scary precedent. If I pay for internet for no other reason than to download huge files, then that is the service I expect, and I expect it to be fast.
Cable One has an Acceptable Use Policy as well. No heavy downloading from 4PM to 12AM or they cut service speeds down. American ISPs are a joke, especially cable providers nowadays. The more people utilize bandwidth, the more they are punished for it.
Thank God I have FiOS!!!
Since I stream all my porn if I was a Cox Subscriber I would be not worried much.
I lived in the Chicago Area and had Comcast up until this last Summer. I worked at home and from the Summer of '07 to the Summer of '08, I would have TONS of dropped calls. I checked everything on my end, and all was well. I would lose my internet connection at times all together and then I couldn't work at all. I have spent sooooo many hours on the phone with Comcast with them telling me that there wasn't a problem at all, all the while them telling me to check all of the stuff that I already did. I would ask them to ping my modem and then they would say something like, "Huh... (long Pause)" or "That's weird...(another long pause)" only to have them tell me that there was a "Partial Node Outage in my area reported"... Yeah. Right.
Now I live in Phoenix and have Cox and my connection is REALLY fast. Seeing this makes me very worried. I rely on my Internet Connection to do my Job (I work for a Helpdesk and do lots of RDP'ing, Some File Sharing, and use a VOIP), and if ANOTHER company is going to mess with my PREMIUM (Translation = $$$$) Connection just so that they look more appealing to new customers that want to watch video on Hulu or YouTube, or even if they just want to download a legal video or song is TOTAL BS. This is not right. It is not MY fault that companies can't keep up with their promises. If they need to adjust their infrastructure to provide a better service for all, so be it. But, NO ONE should be "Punished" for their activity on line. No matter legal or illegal. We all pay for a service. This is just another way for them to get out of their Service Agreement and still make money from us.
This is not the same as Comcast's policies at all. What this is, is QOS. What the policy says, if I'm not mistaken having read it a couple of times is, basically, if there is congestion on a segment they will prioritize time sensitive traffic such as VOIP. They are not throttling all the time like some other carriers or permanently slowing other protocols.
The amount of bandwidth on any given segment is finite. The way I read this, it's actually not a bad thing.
Now if they start doing things like giving priority to their VOIP over Vonage or Skype, then I'll have a big problem with it, but as of yet there is no indication of that.
Oh, and as far as I can tell, YouPorn videos are included in "time sensitive" traffic.
No worries, guys. Soon enough, in response, out will come the wrappers that encapsulate your PPP downloads into what look like "streaming video" packets :P Seriously, taking advantage of these throttling rules will be easy -- it won't be impossible to make SFP transfers look more like VOIP calls, you know?
I fucking hate COX. They suck COX! First they "amp" up our bandwith, only to whittle it away with throttling. What a drag dood! Hurry up Verizon, come to Oklahoma with that fiber!
Bye bye, net neutrality.
everyone does and should have there own opinions....
1.) If you want to control the internet and the markets available on it, this is where you start.
2.) When this becomes standard enough, you will see big guys paying money to snuff out the small guys and legit service being shoved out of the way so that the NAME BRAND HERO can have his way with your wallet, for people like me, this is something to fear, this is not good for the open source comunity, this is not good for small business owners and this is not good for the customer because in the long run how will you know what your options are when they are regulated before you can see them, THIS IS HOW IT STARTS. and its a sad day people.
3.) The internet is designed to connect and serve you, not to slow and filter you. remember this when you tell stories about what the internet was like to your grand kids.
THANKS COX and all that follow.
I wonder if Apple movie rentals/purchases count as high-priority "streaming video". Technically, the movies are downloaded, not streamed, but the performance is just as critical.
If I rent a movie I want to "watch instantly" with no skipping/pauses while watching, and I worry about how policies like this would affect me.
I believe this is a more appropriate picture:
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/01/down-with-drm.jpg
P.S. wheres the wall paper sized version of this? (1900x1200 plz)
Do these ISP's even take into account the usage distribution of their customers? R&D makes a better infrastructure and that's what's needed. If you need to make cuts and adjustments to accomodate any information exchange, you ain't built it right. I, like many of you, use the internet for more than whackin' it and watching assholes do Napoleon Dynamite imitations. I have a job in entertainment and need to transfer gigormous files often. This is the way the internet will become less of an encyclopedia and communications service and instead turn into a Roman-era donkey show for knuckle-dragging, popcorn gobbling peasants.F*ck unregulated industry.
Great, being in Cox's Kansas Test market used to be a good thing because we got the new cool toys first.
Cox shut off my service 4 times for torrenting NBC/Universal content. Then I found out GE owns Cox and NBC/Universal.
Damn you Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin! Why are you so tempting?!
Cox is a private company. GE doesn't own them. Do some basic reasearch.
Uh, I don't think so....? (And not to mention that almost any ISP will send you a DMCA notice for file-sharing.)
"The company is private, 98 percent controlled by the octogenarian daughter of Cox, Anne Cox Chambers, and the two children of her late sister Barbara Cox Anthony. The CEO and chairman is Anthony's son, James C. Kennedy."
Hey Cox and Comcast!!! FUCK OFF!!
bullshit
I think if they want more bandwidth they should implement a way to benefit others. Such as the way the power company would pay to have your car generate electricity for the power grid. How about they take my bandwidth when the network needs it, but reimburse me for it. After all I'm paying for a connection speed and if i don't get it i should get back some of the money.
#$@#%$#$%@#$!!!!!!!!!!!! I guess its time to like at UVerse...thanks cox
San Diego speed test:
oops, link didn't attach...well my Ping is 72, DL is 21718 kbps, upload is: 5965 kbps at 10:19 am PST
Is that good? (I know they haven't throttled yet) at least I don't think. LOL
I just switched from Cox to Verizon FIOS yesterday. Just in the nick of time, it seems...
If you want constant bandwidth, get a dedicated line. I'm paying $500/mth for an unlimited 3/3 connection. Don't bitch about $70/mth for a 10/1 line! If you want bandwidth, pay for it. If they were to sell you a connection they could guarentee you, you'd all be at 2 mpbs, if they slow you down temporarily, suck it up.
I knew it! My speeds have been dropping for days! I called in to Cox before the ice storm hit me in Arkansas and they stated that "I was using during peak times", though it was past midnight.
Screw COX!
If someone has ten movies streaming across that, that Internet, what happens to my own personal Internet?
Why is there a picture of a truck? It's not a truck, it's a series of tubes.
It doesn't take a super fast connection for, video streaming, online gaming, or voip.
So basically if you buy a connection to do anything more bandwidth heavy than those mentioned above you might as well just get the slower package because they will be throttling your connection to the same speed of the slower package if not slower. The whole thing is just a way to hide them controlling your connection as simple QOS management.
Even if it was simply a change to affect QOS, this still means they can't keep up with the speed they advertise. And If you are going to promise a certain speed to someone, they should be able to download whatever they want whenever they want at that speed at all times. It's the ISP's fault if they can't keep up with bandwidth usage because they promised more than they can give.
The people above are all right. All these companies are working to shape the internet to make the most profit. Slowly but surely they are doing it. The nets growth is only going to be a fraction of what it could be for the human race if this continues.
As a Cox customer in Kansas and a regular BitTorrent user... I am NOT happy about this. However maybe it will help my Netflix and Hulu streams a bit. If I see significant improvement there I might not care as much. Something tells me that this is actually intended to be more of an anti-piracy measure than a "quality of service" measure. Sounds like pressure from the RIAA and MPAA to me.
Well, I just got my letter in the mail yesterday, we'll see how this goes.
I live in Arkansas and recently our internet service through Cox has been terrible. Pages load incompletely and slowly. Watching a missed TV show on the web is almost unbearable. What's my solution? The guy from AT&T comes to the house this Friday to install Uverse and Internet. It's been a good run Cox, but you hurt me deep this time.