I love how Ashit Pie's argument is "Hey just give them the benefit of the doubt" when telecom companies are some of the most despised companies by consumers in the country.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Take Action and Defend Net Neutrality (Debate On Now)
- Thread starter SweetNicole
- Start date
I love how Ashit Pie's argument is "Hey just give them the benefit of the doubt" when telecom companies are some of the most despised companies by consumers in the country.
Michael O'Reilly and Brendan Carr are the other two commissioners that voted for the repeal.
Good. All 3 of these tools should be identified.
I'm in the UK, but I just wanted to say that this decision is total and utter bullshit.
The UK BBC's take on it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42348041
The UK BBC's take on it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42348041
Wtf is the point of the FCC now? Why even have an overlooking body if it's just a corporate lapdog? Dismantle this trash.
Can you fill a filthy Scandinavia as to why you're not surprised?
Basically one of our senators is Marco Rubio, the man who has tried repeatedly to repeal NN. I have little confidence my reps will do the right thing and save NN.
No NJ on this list? I am shocked i tell you, shocked, not kidding.
This is disgusting and depressing, be we cannot give up.
Use this link https://www.battleforthenet.com/#widget-learn-more from the OP to tweet at each and every Congressman and tell them to overrule this decision with a "Resolution of Disapproval."
Tweet @ them all. Flood them all.
Use this link https://www.battleforthenet.com/#widget-learn-more from the OP to tweet at each and every Congressman and tell them to overrule this decision with a "Resolution of Disapproval."
Tweet @ them all. Flood them all.
Not totally true... The last time they tried to attack P2P by blocking ports or payloads, P2P developpers answered by changing the software to have changing ports and encrypted traffic.
If they want to get rid of P2P, they basically have to block all traffic between people, because P2P can disguise as encrypted http for example.
That could be done without neutrality. Though that would kill online games, personnal broadcasting (from media to surveillance), vpn, basically anything that is not asymmetric traffic between customers and companies.
Or cost an awful lot with far from 100% efficiency on packets identification (my time in researching this problem is several years out of date, but I'm pretty sure there haven't been a breakthrough in this)
It's awfully hard to see the difference between A and B sharing a file with P2P and A watching an encrypted video broadcast from B (such as a surveillance feed)
Not a surprise by a mile...
I somehow hope EU will stand on this matter (it's unpredictable, sometimes great, sometimes a lobby groups paradise too).
The time will come for riots. Right now we need to see them in court.
Don't fall for this. This is a classic Republican play. Ruin a government program as further proof government doesn't work and we should let corporations run things.
The average person couldn't give a fuck about this, tbh. Any more effort than a frownie face on twitter and yeah fucking right.
I worked a call center a few months ago for the EFF making calls to local people urging them to fight against net neutrality repeal. It's heartbreaking listening to how stupid the average person is regarding this issue. Soul crushing, in fact.
You're... Actually right. They've been doing this with USPS for ages. I was dissected by being so appalled.
Its kinda like the EPA atm where Trump has elected a climate denier in charge.
America is one big corporate lapdog, really. The 99% are just fleas them.
If only what you said is true :( ISPs have long stopped identifying P2P traffic with ports, and encryption has never been a problem for them. With pattern recognition tools it is easy to find out which client is using P2P applications, then apply traffic shaping to the said client to limit the transmission. You are correct that an encrypted connection between A and B using P2P protocol is virtually indistinguishable from an encrypted video stream, but under the P2P scenario A is also actively uploading data to B, C, etc (peers contributed most), downloading data from D, E, etc, and doing round-robin to F, G, etc. (random peers), leaving a quite distinguishable trace to ISPs. You may want to check a paper here.
Also, ISPs in the United States, before the FCC ruling, throttled 50% of P2P connections; after the ruling the percentage dropped to 3%, then rose back to 12% in recent years. ISPs do have the intention and technologies to block P2P traffic, and it will become worse after Net Neutrality is gone.
I take it by P2P you mean things like file sharing, but isn't online play very similar albeit with much smaller data transfers appearantly?
Do ISPs also hate online multiplayer games or is that something that would be not affected?
Do ISPs also hate online multiplayer games or is that something that would be not affected?
man i wouldnt wanna be ISPs if they pissed off people like Bliizard Activision or any other major Game company, or the Game industry in general
Well, far from easy. At the time of the article you posted, I was working with two ISP from two countries and a backbone router maker to work on this, and if it was that easy, I doubt they would invest so much in research... I could have been one of the author of the article :) Though I was more into identifying attacks and not P2P at first (but P2P identification was an obvious backproduct).
That's true. But that's not something ISP can totally check/implement with ease (it's different when you can run normally an algorithm and when you have to decide on which packets are delayed and which are not in a nanosecond with limited memory ressources available).
You can obviously identify that someone has probably a peer-to-peer traffic (with limits... what about videoconferences? A streamer that also downloads?), though at some cost. But once you've guessed A is doing P2P, which packets are you throttling? All of them, including those that come from for example online streaming? I doubt it's commercially sound.
Imagine that everybody use a ssh tunnel for data, each ISP will basically see a huge traffic from their clients to a limited set of IPs. Every kind of traffic will be going through the same link, encrypted and shuffle. Good luck.
No doubt, I don't discuss this. But what's interesting is how protocols can change to disguise themselves more to avoid throttling. And that will be done, if there's a need.
Besides, the server-client model for distribution is old and not adapted for current network (peering capacity issues). It would be expected that Youtube, online TVs and the like to use more and more P2P because it's efficient. So you'll need to distinguish traffic on the payload and not the behavior, and that's definitively a no-go...
Last edited:
Currently, packet size (among others) can be a tell, but no doubt you can disguise P2P to mimicking online play.
Edit: to be more precise, currently, it may not be the same protocol, not the same ports, not the same payload size, not encrypted (with often identifiable payload) and not the same network topology.
But P2P can adapt protocol, port and payload size. It could disguise the content, but providers can't do real payload inspection for all packets, and can't keep a whitelist up-to-date. And identifying topology can be a hard problem in practice (and P2P can partly change its topology too).
Last edited:
Hmm, yeah, but that wasn't really what I wanted to know, more like if ISPs have a reason to throttle online play P2P connections too, as in "if it's P2P it gets throttled", you know, maybe because they can't really differentiate between these things or just can't be bothered to, idk, but it's a curious question imo. And I also don't think they fear the wrath of the mighty gaming industry, they could just sell a gaming pack for 59.99 for these kind of services. Possibly...
PS: your edit is also interesting and a likely scenario for sure, I was just curious how this may or not may affect gaming.
It's probably hard to say right now I guess?
Last edited:
Well, depends.
Currently, they can see the difference between sharing/streaming and online play and probably implement easily. So it would be their call (I fully expect more expensive options to get a lower lag, though... Pay to improve your online experience... though it's already the case)
If sharing is throttled and not online play, people sharing will try to disguise their traffic to avoid throttling. At this moment, ISP may have to choose to throttle nothing or everything. Hard to tell what they'll choose.
As for not being in conflict with EA and the like, I've seen ISP fighting Google (with e.g. Youtube) so...
Edit: they hate nothing, btw, and surely not P2P sharers (they were probably the best clients for larger plans at first). It's just they have the opportunity to play some against others to earn more money.
Thanks for the answer, that's kinda how I see it too (but I'm just guessing here I don't have much knowledge about these things)
And yeah, I didn't mean literally "hate", could have worded that better probably. ;)
there are nations like portugal that already killed NN, they extra charge for facebook i heard.
![mg]](https://s2.postimg.org/vss0tyxnt/zzzz.jpg[/mg])
Last edited: