To Throttle or not to Throttle? June 19, 2008

Canadian Telco’s have decided that a small number of users (10% according to some figures) are abusing the Bell Acceptable Use Policy and using too much bandwidth. These users are spoiling the Internet experience for the others who are dutifully abiding by the spirit of the policy. Technologies allowing Deep Packet Inspection are being used to throttle – or shape, which is such a better word – Internet traffic.

All the discussions on the topic that I have seen have revolved around the ethical merits of throttling, or the violation of contractual agreements, or privacy rights infringed. But how do the Telco’s go about deciding what constitutes abuse?

No one appears to know exactly how much internet traffic is too much. The type of traffic being throttled is typically that created by peer to peer networks such as those taking advantage of BitTorrent downloads. This assumes that all such downloads are for illicit purposes, and therefore should be discouraged. Bell Canada is very careful to not make that assertion.  All they say is that they want to maximise the experience for all users.

Bell Canada offers the “Total Internet Max” browsing experience for CDN$89.95 a month. This includes 100GB of usage per month. They also provide usage insurance of CDN$10.00 a month for an additional 30GB of activity.

How does the user know how much bandwidth has been consumed? The information is located online, of course, the irony of which should be obvious. The user is using up their bandwidth to find out how much bandwidth they are using. Technically, surcharges could be incurred during this investigation.

How do you know if are incurring the wrath of the Deep Packet Inspectors? Well you don’t. Unless you are downloading something huge using a BitTorrent service, in which case, you will be throttled. Sorry, your traffic will be throttled.

The information made available online when you sign up for a Sympatico Internet account makes no mention of the shaping or throttling of Internet traffic. Speak to a representative and they make no mention of it either.  In fact, the representative I spoke with, charming as she was, knew nothing about this and had to speak to her supervisor. The latter said Bell does not throttle traffic. I was finally transferred to Customer Service who said the only people able to answer my question were in Tech Support, but I need an account to talk with them.

It was finally agreed that my telephone account was sufficient to let me through. The Tech Support rep, again a charming individual, informed me that the shaping takes place in peak hours defined as being between 6 and 10PM.

I also took a look at the Bell Acceptable Use Policy, which is far ranging. I encourage everyone to read it. Transmitting chain letters is not allowed, for instance. Paragraph two is the one used to justify the shaping of traffic:

Restricting or inhibiting any other user from using or enjoying the Internet, impairing the operations or efficiency of the Service or creating an unusually large burden on our networks, or otherwise generating levels of Internet traffic sufficient to impede other users’ ability to transmit or receive information.
In summary, my major objections to Bell (and Rogers) shaping of Internet traffic are:

1. Numbers are not made available defining what constitutes the shaping of traffic
2. No one is informed about the rules governing shaping
3. No information is made available defining the load and traffic we are being saved from.

Do the owners of the road have the right to determine how much traffic flows through their property? The answer is probably yes.

What rights do users have? Or what rights should the user expect to have?

Links:

Bell Acceptable Use Policy

The different types of traffic being generated on the Web are described in this very interesting (though a bit geeky) article. Note the article dates from 1998!

Fiber to the door June 18, 2008

According to a story in Wired News, Verizon is expanding its investment in Fiber Optic lines to the door. They are bringing 50mbps to the consumer and are already experimenting with 100mbps. Prices range from US$89.95 in New York, to US$139.95 a month in California.

Meanwhile, the powers that be in Canada are throttling our service. Wait, a correction is in order, they are throttling the service of the 10% of the users who are abusing their agreements, so the rest of us can continue taking advantage of the 5 to 16mbps they are providing. Bell Canada is promoting their new fiber optic service with speeds “up to 16mbps” at a price of CDN$84.95.

Which makes more business sense? Throttling back your clients? Or increasing the bandwidth?

I suppose from a strictly dollars and cents issue, throttling may be less expensive. The work is done at the server level with new technologies purchased for this purpose. ComCast in the U.S. has set the precedent.

Installing Fiber, on the other hand, requires planning and foresight.  The logistics for the installation are daunting.  Verizon has set that standard. While the rest of the Telco’s sit and watch, Verizon is providing its customers an incredible experience, and is setting the stage for new and enhanced features.

The future, if one is to believe the pundits, is that the Internet will become the be-all and end-all of everything. Our TV will come from there, our files, pictures, music, will all be stored online, available from anywhere, anytime. The Cloud, as it is referred to, will conquer all. In which case, we will need much faster access and more bandwidth.

The choice is to follow the lead set by ComCast or that of Verizon.

Social Networks June 14, 2008

Facebook, My Space, Orkut, and so many more. A comprehensive list is available on Wikipedia.

There is a lot of talk about the demise of eMail in favour of communicating exclusively through social networks. What fun! Log into Facebook, see what your friends are doing, saying, what pictures they have posted, the bits of brilliance emanating from far and wide. Ok, so there goes 30 minutes or more. I have 36 friends on Facebook. Paltry compared to the 360 of one of my friends. How do they keep up with the shenanigans of 360 people?

And what if some of their friends are members of some of the other networks. Do they log in to see what their friends are doing there? Do they get notified of their activities through – GASP! – eMail?

This does not make sense. Don’t get me wrong. I do see the value of the networks. You can reconnect with people you have not seen in ages. Keep in touch with far (and not so far) flung friends and relatives. Sure beats receiving annual updates from people, and more importantly, having to write annual updates. And LinkedIn is proving that social networks can be a very valuable business tool.

But there is something truly amiss with social networks. I am on Facebook and logged in before writing this. I had 17 invitations to take part in various activities and read all sorts of posts from my friends. I had to install SuperWall, and FunWall, and splash something, and an updated version of Shockwave, and… sorry I got lost in there somewhere.

I have now watched countless videos my friends thought I would enjoy. Apparently guessing the right answers to the Are You Irish section makes me a true blood Irish with great knowledge of Irish history. My knowledge of movies is very poor, as is my knowledge of TV shows I never watched, and I am apparently quite smart and… was that a beautiful sunny day outside?

New companies are popping up as aggregators of social networks, while others are creating social networks of social networks. Who has time for this? Far from killing eMail, social networks might just help spur on eMail as the simplest means of communicating between friends.

Now if we could only do something about all that unwanted mail.

Programming and the restricted user June 13, 2008

I run a couple of networks for clients. We have elected to restrict all users. No installation of programs and so on. One of the benefits of this strategy is that there have been no infections on the desktops or the network. Makes my job a lot easier. This is not a control issue. Users can still change their desktops and personalise their environment. Just no installation of programs.

Microsoft has very cleverly allowed programmers to install .ini files and other elements of a program that need to be modified in the user section to which even the restricted user has access. So why do companies insist on placing these files in either the Windows or Program Files folders? Or in its own folder in the root directory?

Some programs require that the registry be modified for each user that logs into a computer. This creates its own nightmare scenario. Filezilla, for instance, creates an XML file where all these parameters are saved. Clever solution. But then the Site Manager in Filezilla requires the user to have limited access to the Filezilla folder which begs the question – WHY? I do not mean to pick on Filezilla. Wonderful program. And they are by no means the only culprits.

It would surely be simpler to place these files in locations that are managed by users and do not require an administrator to intervene.

I have not had a clear answer from anyone.

Programming: must be complicated June 13, 2008

I figured out the other day that programming computers must be very tough.

We are all very fond of bashing Microsoft. But if you think about it, they have managed to create an operating system that works on over 80% of the computers out there. This is not a closed loop where they control the hardware environment. It is wide open and out of Microsoft’s control.

Microsoft also attempted to make things easy for the end user. Drag and drop utilities from anywhere to anywhere, an interface that encourages sharing between applications and so on. The side effect of this ease of use has made computers vulnerable to viruses and trojans. And before you start commenting on the security of the MAC, be aware that attacks on the MAC are beginning to appear and the operating system is showing the same vulnerabilities as Windows.

Microsoft has begun locking down the computer. Each lock-down appears to reveal another potential point of entry, which is followed by another patch and so it continues. And again, the MAC is subject to the same list of patches, as is the Linux operating system.

Adobe has also been subjected to some issues recently as well, with Adobe Acrobat showing potential vulnerabilities, as has Flash. Sun’s Java environment has joined the list. All these programs keep releasing new versions and patches, which creates a non-ending spiral of updates to correct vulnerabilities.

We are not talking about one company having these problems. The list is getting longer each day and includes the leading software companies: Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, Symantec, Mozilla, and on and on. It seems that no one is immune to this, and we cannot blame Microsoft for the problems faced by all these companies.

The programmers in these companies are very smart people. And the companies seem to know what they are doing. It just must be really difficult to program.

Screen Resolutions March 28, 2008

Apple was recently sued because they appeared to misrepresent the number of colours that could be displayed on their monitors. They settled the suit. But it does beg the question of all other LCD monitors on the market.

I recently purchased an LG 22″ LCD monitor. According to an article on About.com, I have to read between the lines to find out whether the monitor is 6 or 8bit. This does make a difference since I do a lot of photography (in case you missed the link on the right). The main reason I made the purchase was the amazing 10000:1 contrast ratio advertised by LG. I was sure this would reveal my pictures in all their true brilliance.

But LG does not reveal the bit-depth of their monitors. They do provide the specification of 16.7million colours, which according to the About.com article, means that I have an 8-bit screen.

Why don’t these guys just publish this information?

Gremlins: 2 September 13, 2007

The company moves to a new location and in the process, acquires a new ISP. Mail settings are changed so that the outgoing mail (SMTP) goes through the ISP servers. Two months later, no one can send mail. The error message revealed by Outlook Express was Error 0×800CCC0F

ISP’s are wonderful people. And tech support is an awful task when you do not have access to a computer. The list of offenses are as follows:

1. The anti-virus checker is blocking the SMTP
2. The firewall is blocking the SMTP
3. The router is blocking the SMTP
4. Your incoming mail server has a conflict with the outgoing mail server

To support the first argument, we were referred to Google where a search of our error message revealed an article from 2004 in which an anti-virus program was blocking the SMTP server. Hopefully, there have been a few updates since then.

Why would anybody in their right mind turn off the virus checker? Even if the virus checker is blocking things, surely the solution lies elsewhere. Ditto for the firewall. Change the settings, but please do not turn off the firewall.

In their defense, the tech support people are attempting to pinpoint the source of the problem. Turning off the virus checker, then the firewall allows them to eliminate possible areas of conflict. My issue is that tech support seems to gravitate to these tow elements of a computer all too readily without looking at other possible sources.

Keep in mind that this is a business, and that the ISP has provided a business DSL service as opposed to a home service. This should be a technically superior service, coupled with technical support that understands, or is at least sensitive to the needs of the business customer.

Below is a flowchart outlining the list of suggestions made by the technical support rep I spent 1.5 hours with. This is only a partial list, but I thought I would include only the parts that had positive outcomes.

The ISP does not provide support for router? What?? On a business account? I am not sure why the tech support rep would even ask if the computers were connected through a router. I did mention that none of the computers on the network could send mail. I even mentioned that none of the 7 users could send mail. At this point, the tech support person is anxious to get me off the phone. After all, the problem is not with the modem, and therefore not with the ISP. Or is it?

By now, you are, I am sure, at the edge of your chair wondering how this issue was resolved.

After much search, gnashing of teeth, and conversations with my favourite tech support person at Premiere System Solutions, the issue was resolved by modifying the MTU setting in the Linksys router the client is using. The number was lowered to 1454.

What is an MTU you ask? BroadbandReports.com provides a brief, but excellent description on their site. Also aptly described on Wikipedia. MTU stands for Maximum Transmission Unit. A conversation on a network between computers is very similar to one between two people. You talk, receive confirmation that the other party has understood what you said when the receiving party nods their head. You then release the next salvo of information. One computer on a network (such as the internet)sends out a piece of data -called a packet- then waits for the other computer to acknowledge receipt of said packet. Once acknowledged, the first computer sends the second packet, and so on, until the conversation is complete and all the data has been sent from the first to the second computer.

A conversation between two people is pretty open and free. One person talks, gets interrupted, and so on. Computers, on the other hand, live in a rigidly regulated world. The computer transmitting the information, gets to do so in packets of a particular size. Routers (which direct traffic traffic from a computer through the internet) have to handle the packet sizes efficiently. Too big, and the router hiccups. Too small, and the router is deluged with traffic. And one compuer may not interrup another. Very civilised.

The optimal size that has been decided upon for the internet is 1500. The routers available at the retail store all default to a packet size of 1492.

So why did we have to change our packet size to 1454?
Why 1454? and not another number?

The second answer first: 1454 was selected because of a conversaton going on in the Speed Guide forum.

Why did we have to change it? My guess is someone changed something at the ISP. Running these networks is a complicated affair. There are many vendors involved all updating diferent parts of the system. Who knows what changes were made where. You can be sure that the frontline workers in tech support were not informed about the changes, not that anyone is ever fully aware of the effect the changes will have.

From start to finish, this process took 3 telephone calls, and 2.5 hours to complete.

Gremlins: 1 September 13, 2007

The computer starts losing time. Windows Media player refuses to play anything. Does not seem to recognize its own presence. Weird and wonderful messages appear on the screen.

The client suspects that the CMOS battery is dead. The computer, as he put it, was going wonky. The clock could not synchronize with any of the many atomic clocks that are out there.

Through the usual set of tests and retests, the problem was eventually narrowed down to the Windows Firewall. It was not turned on, and worse, refused to turn on. No clear message, just would not turn on.

The Microsoft Knowledge Base revealed many articles, but only one that was of particular interest: KB-914230 titled “You cannot turn on or turn off the Windows Firewall setting on a Windows XP Service Pack 2-based computer”. Who comes up with those titles anyways?

The resolution is to repair the Winsock registry key. And no, you don’t have to go into the registry, just repair it through a friendly command prompt: netsh winsock reset. The cause of the problem is that the netfw.inf file is not updated on the computer. The obvious question is: Why not? The answer can be found by searching the Microsoft Technet site. Search for netfw.inf. Have fun.

The computer has to be rebooted once the command is run.

The only problem that remains, is it still loses time, but at least it synchronizes. We now have to establish if the problem is Windows based, or if the crystal that maintains time in the computer has indeed, gone “wonky”.

Update September 18, 2007
You know when you go to a party and ask the I.T. person all sorts of questions? You know when the I.T. person says keep your computer up to date? You know when you ignore all those prompts from Microsoft about updates being ready for your computer? Well, sooner or later, something in your computer will go “wonky”.

In this case, Windows was up to date, but the BIOS was not. Updating the BIOS fixed the issue. Good thing, since I could not find the CMOS battery anywhere! Also took the opportunity to update all the other applications in the computer.

Lenovo has taken a page from Microsoft. They provide a small utility that you can run that will update your computer. Cool.