The Hole ISPs Dig When They Choose Throttling Over CapacityPeople starting to notice how obnoxious the Rogers network can be... ( old news - 12:31PM Friday Apr 06 2007) tags: bandwidth · cableFor years we've tracked how Canadian cable providers are at the forefront of using caps and traffic throttling to avoid having to invest in infrastructure upgrades. Shaw was one of the first providers to throttle the entire BitTorrent application, and fellow cable operator Rogers has long been playing traffic shaping cat and mouse with "bandwidth hogs." Techdirt points to a report by Michael Geist that explores how all encrypted traffic over the Rogers network suffers because of their efforts to stop BitTorrent file traders. Actually, it goes like this: Rogers began by throttling BitTorrent on the application level. BitTorrent client developers responded by integrating encryption to help mask the traffic. Rogers then upgraded their traffic shaping hardware to do sophisticated deep packet inspection while also slowing encrypted traffic. Users then started using free VPN software SecureIX (see our report) to try to thwart detection. Of late, it looks like Rogers has started limiting upstream bandwidth available for VPNs as well. And on and on it goes. Of course, other ISPs engage in similar tactics. We've been wondering when the throttling of BitTorrent would become fodder in the network neutrality debate (particularly now that there are "legit" BT stores), and Geist takes the plunge: "If true, this form of network interference - implemented with virtually no transparency and now affecting basic Internet services such as email - demonstrates why a dedicated consumer complaints commission is a good start, but a place to complain is not enough. The solution lies in creating mandatory net neutrality provisions to ensure that essential communications tools such as email are not surreptitiously degraded." Obviously this wouldn't happen if Rogers faced real competition in all markets. The problem could also be avoided if Rogers upgrades capacity and used traffic shaping only in egregious consumption situations (a la Comcast) or not at all (a la Time Warner Cable). The company is not hurting financially. Faster speeds mean nothing if users can't use them.
Related:- Comcast: The New Broadband King
- Comcast's Faster Speeds Have Many Users....Downgrading?
- Time Warner Cable Beats Back AT&T, Verizon
- Charter DOCSIS 3.0 Within Months
- Insight Tests 100Mbps
- Bright House Latest To Deploy Powerboost
- Comcast DOCSIS 3.0 Hits Pacific Northwest In December
- Martin, Comcast, Continue Lover's Feud
|
 brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Miami, FL | If you can't live with it depart with it If you complain so much about the service jump ship! | |
|  | 
twizlar
I dont think so.
Premium
join:2003-12-24
Brantford, ON
 ·Mountain Cable
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
edit:
April 6th, @12:19PM
| Re: If you can't live with it depart with it Thats all well and good, however Rogers and Shaw have a Monopoly of their coverage areas. Lots of places which aren't able to be served by ADSL technology or extremely poor ADSL coverage.
Whats funny is all of the smaller ISPs do no such throttling. You would think these huge corporations would have pleanty of money for upgrades and bandwidth.
--
AMD Athlon64 4000+ @ 2723mhz - mountaincable.net wireless Intarweb |
Ipods SUCK | |
| | | mrbueno
join:2002-08-03
US
| Re: If you can't live with it depart with it I own smaller ISPs. I can assure you, many of us do this.
Users at some point have to realize that prices are low and margins are lower. Many of us don't want to play the transfer cap game, so throttling high demand users is a solution.
When business has bent over backwards for the last 12 years to drop the price of consumer bandwidth it has cost us in the realm of profit margins. Many broadband ISPs are taking a $200 to $400 loss on the front end hoping to see profit in 12 to 24 months.
DS-3's are not $19.95 per month. Sorry. Low prices are due to the high over-subscription rates we have been able to maintain as users went from occasional web surfing on dial-up to occasional video watching on broadband. Now the trends have changed to many people running dedicated servers (bittorrent or otherwise). This low price Internet ideal that people are holding on to is almost impossible to maintain when I go from a 20:1 subscription rate down to 5:1. Essentially the overhead in this case has increased nearly four times. Those aren't hard numbers, but you get the idea.
You are not paying for a dedicated and unlimited connection. If you are being told otherwise, then they should change their marketing.
We have a policy of letting people know exactly what is and is not allowed on our network. If they don't like that, they can go deal with someone who will lie to them. It won't be me. | |
| | | |
twizlar
I dont think so.
Premium
join:2003-12-24
Brantford, ON
·Mountain Cable
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Re: If you can't live with it depart with it I should have said ALOT of the smaller ISPs HERE do not throttle. There is a big difference between capping certain users or having upfront caps to providing a service and blanket throttling protocols and services simply because your infrastructure or pricing model doesn't cover it. Don't be shady and say up front you have an alloted amount per month etc. There is no REAL reason to throttle for a company like rogers except that their infrastructure can't handle it. They ALREADY have KNOWN monthly caps so using the excuse that bandwidth is expensive isn't really a valid one when everyone is capped the same. They simply don't want to pay for needed upgrades on their crowded network. There are alot of differences between having an unlimited connection and being able to use your connection to its ability anytime you want. Why should I pay for 6mbit cable if I can only ever use half or so of that at any given time because their network is so poor. This has nothing to do with a need for unlimited/dedicated bandwidth. I should be able to get ~95% of my throughput whenever I need it for a download or service.
--
AMD Athlon64 4000+ @ 2723mhz - mountaincable.net wireless Intarweb |Ipods SUCK | |
| | | | | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: If you can't live with it depart with it There's also a difference between throttling some to manage capacity, and throttling in order to avoid spending money on necessary upgrades in the face of video demand. | |
| | | | | |
twizlar
I dont think so.
Premium
join:2003-12-24
Brantford, ON | Re: If you can't live with it depart with it Deffinately. | |
| | | | | | mrbueno
join:2002-08-03
US
| You guys have missed my point and here in lies the problem with the modern consumer mentality and businesses desire to market to it. Bit Torrent is a dedicated server, kazaa, limewire, bearshare, these are server apps. The current system they have was never meant for this.
They should do the smart thing and create a new system to accomodate these new consumer desires and charge accordingly. | |
| | 
dadkins
Merry Whatever
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA | Some people live to complain... even after leaving!  | |
| | 
Persona
Premium
join:2004-07-07
Gravenhurst, ON | The only real alternatives for high speed service, in a given area in Canada, are DSL through Bell - provided you live in a supported area and a single Cable provider...that's it. | |
| | 
deadi
Premium
join:2001-08-26
Perry, OH | Thats really a bold statement considering there is no real choice in most places.
--
We learn through the exchange of information, tell me more...... | |
| | | | | | | 
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: If you can't live with it depart with it said by ke4pym  :said by deadi :Thats really a bold statement considering there is no real choice in most places. There is -always- a choice. You can choose to have what you've got, or nothing at all. Nothing is always an option. But one most people won't take and the companies of the world know this. Dude, you have reviews for two different ISP's and two different VOIP providers.
You don't even have the room to say "nothing at all" is a choice. There are people out there that have uses/obligations that can't be satisfied with "nothing at all" as an option. If this ISP is all that they have to work with, and they use their market stance to offer shoddy service, then people are at a disadvantage and don't really have any other option, do they?
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: | |
| | | | | ke4pym
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Verizon BroadbandA..
 ·Packet8
·Vonage
| Re: If you can't live with it depart with it said by DaSneaky1D :You don't even have the room to say "nothing at all" is a choice. There are people out there that have uses/obligations that can't be satisfied with "nothing at all" as an option. If this ISP is all that they have to work with, and they use their market stance to offer shoddy service, then people are at a disadvantage and don't really have any other option, do they? Sure I do. Nothing at all is a choice for me as well. However, I'm realtivly content with my service providers, so I continue to pay for my choices. If I weren't and I felt that dialup or changing my lifestyle as to not rely or have use for the internet meant doing away with it, then that is a choice (one I'm willing to make, if it came to it).
People, anymore, refuse to go to the extreme of voting with their wallets by not having any service at all. And, as I said before, the companies know this. So that gives them all the room in the world they need to screw you in the current climate in the US. | |
| | | | | | gefflong
join:2003-02-18
Aledo, IL
| Re: If you can't live with it depart with it Some of us don't have the luxury of being able to say "no."
I, for one, use my connection for work. If I disconnect, I don't work. I don't work, I don't make money. I don't make money, I have no place to live. I think you get the idea.
If an internet connection is nothing but a luxury, I would agree... having none is an option. However, for those of us who work and make money with our connection, we don't have a choice if there's only one company. | |
| | | | | | | 
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA | Re: If you can't live with it depart with it YEP. | |
| | | | | | |
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou | And you are exactly the type of person I was thinking of. | |
| | | | | | | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| Not intending to be snitty, but if you are dependent upon broadband for your business, those costs better be in your business model or you are in trouble. If you are depending upon consumer grade connections for something that puts bread on the table, perhaps you should be a fan of any internet access provider.
As a business person, you do realize there is a plethora of choices for connectivity that existed long before the consumer "broadband internet experience", right?
In either case, it still appears that you can work without a connection to the internet. So many possibilities of doing something and transmitting the data from point a to point b without the internet come to mind.
In principle I agree with you.
said by gefflong :Some of us don't have the luxury of being able to say "no." I, for one, use my connection for work. If I disconnect, I don't work. I don't work, I don't make money. I don't make money, I have no place to live. I think you get the idea. If an internet connection is nothing but a luxury, I would agree... having none is an option. However, for those of us who work and make money with our connection, we don't have a choice if there's only one company. | |
| | | | | | | | 
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
| Re: If you can't live with it depart with it Depends how you "work" from home. Company I worked for kicked all the workers out of the office to save on office leasing costs.
One day, they said "now you're teleworking. No we don't pay for your internet access at home. Since you're saving on your gas mileage, fork up the internet connection cost. No we don't care that working on a customer grade connection is violating a TOS."
And I know of at least 1 other company that did the same thing. And I'm not talking 10 user employees. Our office had over 500 people, and we had over 100000 employees worldwide.
In my case, I had the choice to work on a basic $40 cable, or cough up an additional $150 a month to get a business grade cable or DSL connection. Hard to swallow if you ask me.
--
"the two most abundant things in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity." (Harlan Ellison) | |
| 
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Mission Viejo, CA
clubs:
| Typical So they jump through all these labyrinthine hoops and spend all kinds of $$$$ to thwart users from using what the cable co. considers excessive bandwidth, but by the same token, they refuse to invest in infrastructure to support the existing consumer base? Sounds like the Canucks have been taking notes from the American telcos/cable cos. If they're not careful, they may just end up in the broadband penetration toilet where the U.S. currently resides. Meanwhile the poorest 'hood in 3rd world cesspools has FIOS. 
--
The Toll
| |
| 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
edit:
April 6th, @12:23PM
| You can't build networks to satisfy the hogs, ... ...you build them for the average user and you throttle the hogs or boot them off. No matter how fast you make your network or how much bandwidth you provide, the abusers will always find a way to eat up all available bandwidth. Unless, of course, you move to the pay-by-byte model. Then everyone, except the non-rich hogs, will be happy with speeds.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| |
deadi
Premium
join:2001-08-26
Perry, OH | Re: You can't build networks to satisfy the hogs, ... Yes, you build to support all your users. My provider, and most others do not seem to have a problem with this. Mis-management?
--
We learn through the exchange of information, tell me more...... | |
| | | | | | | jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS
| Re: You can't build networks to satisfy the hogs, ... Actually he is partially right here. They should expand their capacity, but they shouldn't do it for those who routinely download gigabytes of material a month and strain the system. I'm not talking about 50 or even 100gigs. I'm talking about those users who download 300-400gigs a month every month.
--
Bush bashing is old. How about more solutions instead? | |
| | | | | | | | | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| Educate yourself.
»www.ipsphereforum.org/index.html
Far from limited to ILECs...pay per use is coming as soon as the logistics are figured out. (S)/he is correct.
Pretty tough to build a business where customers pay less than the costs to serve them (even on average). Incorrect signals produce long term problematic results (fiscally as well as engineering wise, which are fiscally as well).
I think you are on to something...and it probably addresses the "network neutrality" issue as well. All ISPs should build a model that satisfies their direct customers at a price point that their customers are satisfied. Obviously there are customers that are willing to pay for more bandwidth, such as yourself, and should do so if your demands exceed the "average person". Business rates in telecom have always been driven under similar ideals...the network is engineered for peak usage at x connectivity/quality, which was/is in turn driven by the business user. The internet pricing model, as far as consumer dsl/cable is still far from that model from a pricing perspective, but from an engineering perspective,
the network is designed to meet the needs of the people paying for premium connectivity (dedicated lines / higher priority), not the average consumer.
Even the smallest of ISPs have followed this model since dial up days in my recollection. | |
| | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| said by deadi :... Mis-management? not mis-management, it's probably cheaper and easier to throttle than it is to increase capacity.
Why build capacity to serve new customers when you can throttle existing customers and squeeze the new ones into the same bandwidth? I'll answer my own question: NO COMPETITION. | |
| | karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Well, if the pay per byte model is so good, why don't any of the major ISP's do it? I remember back in the 80's, I used to pay about 5.00 an hour for compuserve access, but I could use as much bandwidth as I wanted.
The reason that pay per byte will never happen is twofold.
First: There is no 'minute' cost for using your connection. Unlike a phone call (switched network), where a phone call ties up a circuit for x amount of time, a packet based network doesn't use any 'resources' if it's not being used. So the concept of charging by 'time' is meaningless.
Now, charging per byte. Granted, the pipes are a finite resource. The limiting factor is how much data the equipment can handle, AT ANY INSTANT. Unlike oil, or other 'physical' resources, the limit on an internet connection is not 'how much' (i.e. if you're not using 100% of your bandwidth, it's lost) but how much per user. If I travel 100 miles, my car uses about 3 gallons of gas. So, I'm out about $7.50. However, if I download 100GB, my 'pipe' didn't consume any 'resources', but I DID use a percentage of the total pipe.
To put it in numbers, if a particular node can handle 100mb/sec, in a perfect world, that node would move about 30TB of data every month. In a typical 500 user node, that means every person could download about 60GB per month. And, if every user DID download 60GB/month, the incremental cost to the ISP would be, umm, ZERO.
We don't live in a perfect world, so some users do 500GB/month, and others do 1GB/month. If the ISP's were to charge 'by the byte', then 500 people at 65.00/month, would mean that the ISP would charge you $1.00 per GB/month. Now, I have NO PROBLEM paying $5.00 for a 5GB/month plan, but the ISP would never do that.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
| | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| Re: You can't build networks to satisfy the hogs, ... Of course there is no minute cost if its pay per byte or pay per bit, that would make it a "byte" or "bit" cost.
As much bandwidth as you wanted in the 80's was more than likely over dial up and not even close to as much bandwidth one may want over broadband. | |
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| said by karlmarx :Well, if the pay per byte model is so good, why don't any of the major ISP's do it? Because the marketing departments fear the customer attrition that would result if the rest of the market doesn't follow suit in charging for actual data transferred.said by karlmarx :First: There is no 'minute' cost for using your connection. Unlike a phone call (switched network), where a phone call ties up a circuit for x amount of time, a packet based network doesn't use any 'resources' if it's not being used. So the concept of charging by 'time' is meaningless. That's why you don't bill by time  said by karlmarx :Now, charging per byte. Granted, the pipes are a finite resource. The limiting factor is how much data the equipment can handle, AT ANY INSTANT. Unlike oil, or other 'physical' resources, the limit on an internet connection is not 'how much' (i.e. if you're not using 100% of your bandwidth, it's lost) but how much per user. If I travel 100 miles, my car uses about 3 gallons of gas. So, I'm out about $7.50. However, if I download 100GB, my 'pipe' didn't consume any 'resources', but I DID use a percentage of the total pipe. Huh???? If you download 100 GB, you are most definitely consuming resources.said by karlmarx :To put it in numbers, if a particular node can handle 100mb/sec, in a perfect world, that node would move about 30TB of data every month. In a typical 500 user node, that means every person could download about 60GB per month. And, if every user DID download 60GB/month, the incremental cost to the ISP would be, umm, ZERO. Actually, it's 62 TB/mth...don't forget duplex That 100 Mbps connection needs to be paid for somehow. And in reality, to pay for that connection, the ISP most likely requires a lot more than 500 paying customers. Hypothetically, let's use 5000 customers to cover the ISP's expenses, so now you're talking about 6 GB/mth (12 GB full duplex) of transfer. Now, a large majority of customers won't use anywhere near 6 GB/mth, so the ISP is able to over-subscribe their network to lower the costs to the customers across the board. But what happens if only 10% of the customers transfer 100 GB/mth? That right, the network reaches a choke point. So now the question becomes, how do you pay for network upgrades without charging an exorbitant amount of money for your high margin customers (simple web surfing and e-mail)? Simple, charge the customers that drove the need for network upgrades more money.said by karlmarx :We don't live in a perfect world, so some users do 500GB/month, and others do 1GB/month. If the ISP's were to charge 'by the byte', then 500 people at 65.00/month, would mean that the ISP would charge you $1.00 per GB/month. Now, I have NO PROBLEM paying $5.00 for a 5GB/month plan, but the ISP would never do that. You're right, an ISP can't afford to do that. But ISPs could charge for a connection (e.g. $19.95/mth) which includes a specified amount of data transfer per month (e.g. 5 GB), and then bill per MB or GB (e.g. $2.95/GB) above and beyond the initial service offering. Very similar to cell phone and long distances plans | |
| | | | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: You can't build networks to satisfy the hogs, ... said by karlmarx :We don't live in a perfect world, so some users do 500GB/month, and others do 1GB/month. If the ISP's were to charge 'by the byte', then 500 people at 65.00/month, would mean that the ISP would charge you $1.00 per GB/month. Now, I have NO PROBLEM paying $5.00 for a 5GB/month plan, but the ISP would never do that. You're right, an ISP can't afford to do that. But ISPs could charge for a connection (e.g. $19.95/mth) which includes a specified amount of data transfer per month (e.g. 5 GB), and then bill per MB or GB (e.g. $2.95/GB) above and beyond the initial service offering. Very similar to cell phone and long distances plans
Having a flat limit and a stated cost when you exceed it is not IMO a far method to charge for the network usage UNLESS you use a CONGESTION PRICING model. This is based on the concept that the network is a time limited resource (ie: There is only so much available at any time and not using some of it NOW will not increase how much you have LATER) and you should set your charge rates so that they are lower when you have less usage and higher when the usage is higher (ie: When there is not enough resources to service all the demand). If you look at the referenced Phone Rates, they count not only actual usage but WHEN the usage occurs (ie: Unlimited/Untimed usage on Weekends/Evenings) so that you only charge against the Limits when the resources are scarce.
IOW: Why should I be charged for doing more than my 5GB/m "allocation" if I only do it at times when my usage has no impact on the network? | |
| | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| Re: You can't build networks to satisfy the hogs, ... Because if you are going to bill bytes per month, then bill bytes per month. The ISP's costs aren't reduced during minimal times of use why should yours be? If you want that model, then expect your "connection" charge to be higher than my guesstimate of $19.95 and closer to the $40 or $50 that a lot of people pay now. | |
| | | truocchio
join:2004-07-05
Miami Beach, FL
| First: Time is not an issue with a per bi/yte charging. You first point is meaningless.
Second: The model would look more like the current cellular model with a minimum plan for up to XXXX bytes then then YY for each additional bi/yte. Along with all of the other pricing variations that are out there and probably some new ones.
The reason it probably wont happen is the operational logistics of counting the total "used" bytes because of issues such as overhead, computer generated traffic, viruses, spam, etc. It would just be a complete mess at the operational and customer support level.
Imagine calling in and arguing about how many bites and bytes you actually consume with tech support....ah! | |
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| Re: You can't build networks to satisfy the hogs, ... said by truocchio :logistics of counting the total "used" bytes because of issues such as overhead, computer generated traffic, viruses, spam, etc. That's part of doing business on the Internet. Do you really want to distinguish between requested packets and acks to your TCP packets? Customer education could be a concern, but over time it would transition into a non-issue. Additionally, if a customer's connection is generating that much random traffic, viruses, spam, etc., then the ISP should block and/or remove them from their network.said by truocchio :Imagine calling in and arguing about how many bites and bytes you actually consume with tech support....ah! Why would it be any different than complaining about minutes used on your cell phone plan? Granted, you aren't going to list every bit transferred on the internet service bill, but numerous tools exist that can be implemented with statistics made available to the customer to enable them to monitor their traffic usage. Look at all of the data centers around the globe and how customers are billed and enabled to self-monitor their usage (exclude 95% billing mechanisms, although that could be another mechanism to bill customers vice per byte). Customers can log into their account and view up to the minute stats on various relevant information at anytime they choose, including data transferred. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: You can't build networks to satisfy the hogs, ... said by KoolMoe :So if you annoy a wealthy neighbor and he decides to set some packets to 500k and ping your connection repeatedly for a week, you'll be cool with paying for that bandwidth, right? KM Do the American thing and SUE! | |
| | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| Wow, pinging with 500K packets....that's interesting. How is that any different than my annoying neighbor calling me on my cell phone and using my minutes? I suppose you don't want to be responsible for the TCP overhead involved in your connection to eh net either? | |
| | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | It won't make the provider happy, because the majority of customers don't use many bytes. It's better for them to get $40 from 1000 people, than $10 from 900 and $100 from 100. | |
| | |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| 
gatorkram
Spelling and Grammer impared
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
clubs:
·Suddenlink
 ·Cirtex Hosting
| said by TK Junk Mail :...you build them for the average user and you throttle the hogs or boot them off. No matter how fast you make your network or how much bandwidth you provide, the abusers will always find a way to eat up all available bandwidth. Unless, of course, you move to the pay-by-byte model. Then everyone, except the non-rich hogs, will be happy with speeds. I am more than willing to pay by the gig (not the bit or byte) but they better include a fair amount in my normal flat fee, and they also better make my pipe one hell of a lot faster. If I am going to pay by the gig, I don't expect to have to wait a month to get what I want.
The funny thing is, in most data centers, they don't even count your downstream amounts, only outbound. For $50 a month, I bet I could get a web hosting account that includes a ton more of bandwidth than I get now.
Boy do I wish my isp had as many competitors, as web hosts do. Just think of the broadband utopia we'd live in.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death! | |
| playboy2000
join:2005-05-30
Calgary, AB
·TELUS
| bit torrent is flawed Bit torrent is an application that simply does not work well with today's internet infrastructure. The internet, is still ultimately a client-server environment, and the cost of trying to properly decentralize it would be huge.
I personally really like Comcast's burst speed idea, it provides quick bursts of upstream data when you need it, and keeps bit-torrent from destroying the network. Personally, I wouldn't mind if my ISP (Shaw cable) gave me 2mbit burst upload speed (up to 45 seconds), and reduced my sustained upload to 128k (down from 1mbit).
Remember, bit torrent is still largely pirated material, so pointing out the legitimate uses for the program is a moot point. | |
| | 
Sir
@mindspring.com
| Re: bit torrent is flawed Legitimate uses for Bit Torrent is NOT a moot point. Your contention would mean that every time a new use for bandwidth is invented there would be a corresponding increase in price. Instead, imagine this crazy scenerio: Data is data. Period. If I want to waste my bandwidth pinging 1 million different hosts at the same time, who cares. I paid for a 'pipe' to send data. I am going to send data. If the ISPs can't make money.... Hmmmm? Maybe charge more? | |
| | | playboy2000
join:2005-05-30
Calgary, AB
·TELUS
edit:
April 6th, @10:24PM
| Re: bit torrent is flawed said by Sir :
Legitimate uses for Bit Torrent is NOT a moot point. Your contention would mean that every time a new use for bandwidth is invented there would be a corresponding increase in price. You make it sound like a new instant messaging system . We are talking tens of thousands of terabytes every day running across the internet in one of the most inefficient manners possible.
said by Sir :
Instead, imagine this crazy scenario: Data is data. Period. If I want to waste my bandwidth pinging 1 million different hosts at the same time, who cares.
I paid for a 'pipe' to send data. Your argument leaves out the fact that (continuing your example) those million hosts wouldn't be obligated to ping you back every time you pinged them.
said by Sir :
I am going to send data. If the ISPs can't make money.... Hmmmm? Maybe charge more?
You would shit a brick if your ISP sent you a bill for $500.
I won't claim that I don't use a lot of bandwidth, nor that all my activities involve legit activities, however, I understand the infrastructure available to me and download accordingly.
usenet and private FTPs FTW. | |
| | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: bit torrent is flawed said by playboy2000 :said by Sir :
Legitimate uses for Bit Torrent is NOT a moot point. Your contention would mean that every time a new use for bandwidth is invented there would be a corresponding increase in price. You make it sound like a new instant messaging system . We are talking tens of thousands of terabytes every day running across the internet in one of the most inefficient manners possible. In one of the most cheapest, and least profitable to the internet giants. Who will pay $400 for a 200 gig traffic a month dedicated server? | |
| | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by playboy2000 :Bit torrent is an application that simply does not work well with today's internet infrastructure. How so? If it didn't work, we wouldn't be talking about it.
It works great in this environment IMO. It may not work if internet pricing changes. "Distributed" distribution works much better than single server distribution from a cost perspective. Same manner as distributing CPU cycles on cheap machines to solve a problem may be cheaper than buying a monster server (SETI as an example). If the cost is deemed inexpensive enough to people, they will donate CPU cycles, or in the case of BT, unused bandwidth. As power costs increase and people turn off their PCs more, donating CPU cycles are directly affected by a cost. Once financial signals are sent for bandwidth utilization, I suspect BT will become less viable, as it currently exists.
said by playboy2000 :The internet, is still ultimately a client-server environment, and the cost of trying to properly decentralize it would be huge. Not sure I understand this. The cost of doing anything isn't huge, it is as distributed as the internet. No 1 company bears the costs, although we seem to be heading towards a smaller number of companies through their own choice.
When was the internet centralized? Would you elaborate?
said by playboy2000 :I personally really like Comcast's burst speed idea, it provides quick bursts of upstream data when you need it, and keeps bit-torrent from destroying the network. Personally, I wouldn't mind if my ISP (Shaw cable) gave me 2mbit burst upload speed (up to 45 seconds), and reduced my sustained upload to 128k (down from 1mbit). Send the idea to sales and marketing. I am certain they like that type of direct information from customers (cheaper than conducting user surveys)
said by playboy2000 :Remember, bit torrent is still largely pirated material, so pointing out the legitimate uses for the program is a moot point. Perhaps, but I disagree. I don't see the reason for eliminating BT or *any* hosted content is relevant to discussion. The internet provides the mechanism for PEOPLE to be producers of content, whether local to their family and friends or the general public. Of course control of that content becomes an issue for mass media companies, cable companies, telephone companies, governments, etc...a whole nother discussion really.
If the model is "client-server", the internet is truly destined to be little more than a new television distribution model with more fine-tuned advertising and interactivity and more content. That's a shame. In many ways, this web-based crap is certainly prettier, but certainly less valuable in terms of people actually talking to each other and sharing ideas.
The telcos and cable companies have certainly gambled on the "internet distribution" method based on the asymmetrical models they have deployed. As more independent ISPs are absorbed, it become a self-perpetuating myth. They are both sorta "investing in the future" with going along with the flat price model at the moment. It mirrors fuel in a manner. Everyone bellyaches, but most customers will continue driving even when given a choice. The LD companies figured out the business model of "customer apathy" back in the 90s as well. Sadly, we really don't generally vote with our dollars (or local currency) until there is a real competitive environment. | |
| | | playboy2000
join:2005-05-30
Calgary, AB
·TELUS
| Re: bit torrent is flawed I just picked off the major points to discuss:
said by xsiddalx :"Distributed" distribution works much better than single server distribution from a cost perspective. From your perspective, or the perspective of your ISP and every single carrier between you and the person your exchanging data with?
said by xsiddalx :Same manner as distributing CPU cycles on cheap machines to solve a problem may be cheaper than buying a monster server (SETI as an example). If the cost is deemed inexpensive enough to people, they will donate CPU cycles That has no relevance
said by xsiddalx : or in the case of BT, unused bandwidth. unused? Isn't this about ISPs refusing to upgrade their networks in order to create more bandwidth that would just be sucked up by bt instantly anyways? Initially the bandwidth was un used, but with the average joe running bt nowadays, there is a shortage in systems designed for more download than upload.
said by xsiddalx :Not sure I understand this. The cost of doing anything isn't huge, it is as distributed as the internet. No 1 company bears the costs, although we seem to be heading towards a smaller number of companies through their own choice. When was the internet centralized? Would you elaborate? They are called peering points. Take away any of the critical peering points such as New york, Chicago, Amsterdam, LA/San Francisco and London (among others) and the entire internet would slow to a crawl. Additionally, at such peering points, colocation centers and such also exist. Furthermore, you commonly hear about how a single fibre cut can take an entire region offline, due to the centralized nature of the internet and the costs associated with redundant links anywhere near the 'last mile'
said by xsiddalx :Send the idea to sales and marketing. I am certain they like that type of direct information from customers (cheaper than conducting user surveys) At the moment, traffic shaping is solving the problem, but it may come down to that in the future.said by xsiddalx :If the model is "client-server", the internet is truly destined to be little more than a new television distribution model with more fine-tuned advertising and interactivity and more content. As technology progresses, the bandwidth may provide more decentralized for things such as personal websites and FTP servers, however, major centralized locations will always exist. Everything humans seem to do, have centralized aspects to them and there is no escaping it.
said by xsiddalx :The telcos and cable companies have certainly gambled on the "internet distribution" method based on the asymmetrical models they have deployed. As more independent ISPs are absorbed, it become a self-perpetuating myth. They are both sorta "investing in the future" with going along with the flat price model at the moment. It mirrors fuel in a manner. Everyone bellyaches, but most customers will continue driving even when given a choice. The LD companies figured out the business model of "customer apathy" back in the 90s as well. Sadly, we really don't generally vote with our dollars (or local currency) until there is a real competitive environment. Nice to see we agree on a few points. | |
| |
|
|
·