View source for Jan19,2011

== Net Neutrality and DPI ==

[http://www.deeppacketinspection.ca/isps/shaw-communications-inc-shaw/ Shaw has DPI well deployed.] Telus doesn't.

* Vince (or maybe Vint) Cerf - worth reading - still working for google.  Pro-net neutrality.  Notes that Canada is more regulated than the U.S.  What will happen here if IPSs unduly throttle traffic?  There is regulation on wired-line but Wild West on wireless traffic.  Supposedly you can't throttle it unless meet a bunch of conditions.

* U.S. ''can'' apply restrictions to wireless (as opposed to wired-line) e.g. different tiers of wireless browsing.  Discriminating on maybe just protocol.

* problem is metering end users - deep packet inspection was originally just for billing management.  Usage-based billing DPI aficionados - Telus does not use DPI; Shaw said usage-based billing is a new revenue source.  Economic measures over technical measures.  Small IPSs being forced into usage-based billing.  For example, execulink out of Kitchener has not laid its own infrastructure, so it's getting hit hard.  Having your own fiber better - avoid colocation costs.  
* business model of providing the actual infra vs providing services (e.g. hosting, phone service, content) that uses it.  Large ISPs doing it all; maybe better if the infra became a public utility.
* Cranbrook has two providers - one did their own 4 Gig wireless, the other went with Telus.  NOw the city is doing its own tunneling in order to help its local businesses.  Cranbrook only has 20-30k residents. 
* What would it take to deploy fiber in Victoria? 
* Maybe will be a good thing for WIMAX
* Now, not so many small ISPs left e.g. uniserve, islandnet.
* Chris Parsons is a doctoral candidate at UVIC working in Deep Packet Inspection.  If it has to do with digital networks or surveillance, he's in there.  Majoring in PoliSci.  MA in philosophy (I think) and 7 years in IT.  He is dogging Rogers about their traffic management solutions.  If encrypted or maybe thought peer to peer, they will throttle or drop the connection.  Letter sent to CRTC - Rogers updated their policy.  Now they say you must use appropriate known port numbers.  You can go to a web page of theirs and see the full list of port numbers and registered programs.  As if many end users could do this!
[http://www.rogers.com/web/content/network_management Roger's network management policy]
* Jay noted that at one point Telus was going to embrace PGP for throughput improvement.
* Comcast maybe moving to P4P.  Don't look at any content.  Can set up nodes within their own network.  Avoids cost, congestion.  Maybe is why ISPs still using usenet servers when instead can use something like google groups for messages.
* Why Rogers such a draconian policy?  Ties to media companies.  Rogers is at the forefront of pushing triple and quad plate bundles - phone + cable + digital TV + movies.  Rogers online is not really too good (small selection compared with e.g. Netflix; streaming instead of download)  If you sign up for netflix over Rogers, you will get a hugely higher bill.
* Bell is at the forefront on protecting phone environment. Wants to choke out DSL resellers.
* Would be cleaner/better if the business of making and selling bandwidth was separated from the business of selling content - otherwise there is too much possibility of unfair competition.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS DOCSIS 3.0] would be hugely better - $150 new cable modem per subscriber - don't have to lay anything - it just works.  But the large infra-owning ISPs aren't doing this - they'd rather charge for scarcity than increase supply.
* docsis hacking is a possible way to piggyback on extreme internet bandwidth.
* Amsterdam city consortium has rolled out its own infra.  Any ISP can come in & hook up to the terminators.
* Ownership of the infra should probably come back to the govt - like public right-of-ways.  Need to move away from the facility-based competition.  Based on owning infra is the competition, rather than on providing serivce.
* Usage-based billing will force providers to build or get out.
* Considering the pipes analogy: IPSs have other ways to make money than e.g. natural gas companies and their pipes. E.g. websitehosting, 10$/month wordpress.
* Shaw filed a complaint with the CRTC against netflix saying they are a broadcaster.
* Chris wants random audits of compliance with CRTC terms.  Now only individual complaints result in checks.
* Do the ISPs actually give you what they promise (in terms of bandwidth)?  If can prove not, can nail them for false advertising.
* What he'd like to see:
** Website showing what the ISPs promise, side-by-side
** Crowdsource what is actually happening.  Needs a tool for this.
* Maybe the tool could be a hackathon project.  Jay will send what he's got for requirements (buried in some long email thread) to Kris.
* Can '''you''' measure and test if an ISP is throttling? Contact [http://twitter.com/caparsons Chris]
* Kris did a similar kind of test by repeatedly downloading a large file and timing how long it took.  Graphed it out & sent it to his ISP as a complaint as it showed he was not getting anything like the maximums they'd promised and mere days later it was improved 3x. !!!
* If Chris could get the data, armies of lawyers such as the folks at [http://www.piac.ca The Public Interest Advocacy Centre] and [http://www.cippic.ca CIPPIC] (mostly lawyers plus Kris) would chase down the violating ISPs.
* CRTC is pressured a lot by the government (and by interested parties who push the govt to push the CRTC).  Small ISPs have complaints; large ISPs are asking for increased permissions.
* CRTC hearings are interesting in that the system is set up such that the public telcos pay the public advocate costs up to some amount.  The net neutrality hearings blew way past the typical amount.  Chris gets included in a lot of the work because (a) he's interested and (b) as a student, he's an inexpensive resource.
* One person asked: Could the ISPs being purposely injecting latency into a particular user's connection?  Conclusion was that this is not likely.
* In North American especially AT&T the problem is signal congestion rather than bandwidth congestion.  Apple phones were always calling in their location, then shutting down to conserve battery life.  4.2 upgrade to iphone ameliorates this by calling in less frequently.  AT&T claimed victory, but really it was just Apple fixing their OS.

[http://www.teraspan.com/ Teraspan]

[http://saveournet.ca/ Save Our Net]

ISPs having us pay for mild upgrades is like buying a car and having to pay per mile traveled. Or to add a gas tank to your Pinto.

(In regards to net neutrality/DPI ) "You can only cry or laugh or drink" - @caparsons