Another Side of Net Neutrality

[Patranus]

My main complaint is with advertising. They use this saying that goes something like this "Up to 50 times faster than Dial-up!". Well you will be lucky if you can get 5 times faster than dial-up!

Bolded part addresses your complaint.
Though I will agree that if you are going to advertise speed the advertised speed should be closer to benchmarked speeds for the particular package/rate being advertised.

 

[zsdersw]

99% of Bittorrent traffic is for ILLEGAL DOWNLOADS.
Bittorrent accounts for 35% of all internet traffic.
1% of the users use Bittorrent.

See the problem?

No one is assuming anything.

I'd like to see where you got the bolded information. I'm assuming you're pulling it out of your ass.

 

[Genx87]

Spoken like an ISP industry lobbyist.

I'd say spoken like somebody who knows wtf they are talking about. But the typical knee jerk reaction of most people when presented with information they dont like is to character assassinate.

 

[Genx87]

Why should they be permitted to throttle bittorrent? Because they're assuming it's being used for illegal purposes?

I'd say because empirical evidence is showing that type of application has a small % of users consuming the majority of network resources. What you are essentially saying is if somebody buys a 3 lane car they should be allowed to clog up our highways just because they bought the car and pay their taxes. Go get a car or vehicle that is too big for the road and see how fast the state issues you a ticket or impounds the vehicle. We need road neutrality!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Patranus]

I'd like to see where you got the bolded information. I'm assuming you're pulling it out of your ass.

I have read that it is anywhere between 1% and 4% (4% being world wide).

If you can find a different number and publish it with a link do it.
There are numbers that I have read in the past.

Regardless, even 4% is a blip interms of total users.

 

[zsdersw]

I'd say spoken like somebody who knows wtf they are talking about.

Lobbyists know what they're talking about; it's what makes them effective.

But the typical knee jerk reaction of most people when presented with information they dont like is to character assassinate.

ISPs are using bittorrent as an excuse for not improving their networks.. period.

 

[spidey07]

I'd say because empirical evidence is showing that type of application has a small % of users consuming the majority of network resources. What you are essentially saying is if somebody buys a 3 lane car they should be allowed to clog up our highways just because they bought the car and pay their taxes. Go get a car or vehicle that is too big for the road and see how fast the state issues you a ticket or impounds the vehicle. We need road neutrality!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Internet really is like a series of tubes and your data is like a big dump truck. And bittorrent is more like a 1000 semi convey that wrecks at every intersection leaving fire and destruction and slowing down everybody.

 

[zsdersw]

I'd say because empirical evidence is showing that type of application has a small % of users consuming the majority of network resources.

Incorrect.

 

[spidey07]

Lobbyists know what they're talking about; it's what makes them effective.



ISPs are using bittorrent as an excuse for not improving their networks.. period.

Do you have any idea how much the providers are constantly upgrading their networks? Any idea? Bandwidth usage doubles every 24 months. That means you essentially have to double your entire network capacity every two years. There is plenty of upgrading going on.

And no amount of capacity upgrades can deal with long queue depths, that's what quality of service does is manage queue depths and delivery based on application so that all applications perform well.

 

[Patranus]

Let me guess, zsdersw is butt hurt because he downloaded something illegal and is getting/got sued because of it.

 

[Genx87]

Lobbyists know what they're talking about; it's what makes them effective.

Spidey07's knowledge about networks >>>>>> you. And it is showing bigtime in this thread. In fact most thread where these net neutrality dufu's come out of the woodwork it is a display of ignorance.

ISPs are using bittorrent as an excuse for not improving their networks.. period.

Are you under some impression bandwidth > all????
Road analogies are great for the internet. I bet you hate all of those traffic control mechanisms as well. Like stop lights, driving lanes, smart lanes, mass transit, switchable lanes. In your world the govt should build bigger and bigger stupid roads and let us drive with no priority or control mechanisms at all.

One of the best tools to improve networks is QoS. You support action that would destroy that.

 

[spidey07]

Incorrect.

Nope. He's correct. The general rule is 10% of customers consume 90% of the resources and most all of it is peer-2-peer. This is empirical data from their operation and planning systems. I could post it, but wise men say don't post crap that could end your consulting engagement.

 

[Genx87]

Incorrect.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/83907-Study_44_Of_Internet_Traffic_Is_Peer_to_Peer.php

 

[cubby1223]

ISPs are using bittorrent as an excuse for not improving their networks.. period.

And this right here is why you have zero credibility in your arguments.

 

[zsdersw]

Let me guess, zsdersw is butt hurt because he downloaded something illegal and is getting/got sued because of it.

Nope.

 

[zsdersw]

http://www.multichannel.com/article/83907-Study_44_Of_Internet_Traffic_Is_Peer_to_Peer.php

Nowhere in that does it say that 44% is bittorrent. P2P is a lot of things, not just bittorrent or illegal file sharing.

Streaming media and web browsing add up to nearly the same percentage.

 

[zsdersw]

http://gigaom.com/2008/04/22/shocking-new-facts-about-p2p-and-broadband-usage/

Not a day goes by without someone bemoaning the evils of peer-to-peer networking, painting visions of a network apocalypse brought on by pimply-faced file stealers. And to make their case, naysayers typically present some hard-to-argue-with stats. This week, however, we came across a set of numbers that show more traditional video sources (streaming and flash video, for example) are now an increasing component of bandwidth on consumer-focused broadband networks.

As part of the research I’m doing for another piece, I had a long conversation with Danny McPherson, CTO of Arbor Networks, which makes all sorts of network-management and traffic-shaping tools. Arbor is used by dozens of ISPs around the planet and, as a result, McPherson is privy to details about traffic flows and usage patterns across many broadband networks.

McPherson shared with me some interesting stats and facts about broadband usage and peer-to-peer networking usage patterns. Given that Arbor makes a living selling its technology and products to carriers, it is prudent to maintain a degree of skepticism about the numbers. That said, they are nevertheless interesting enough to share.

On fixed and mobile broadband networks where consumer services are provided (i.e., NOT interprovider or typical dedicated Internet access for commercial enterprises):

- 10 percent of subscribers consume 80 percent of bandwidth.
- 0.5 percent of subscribers consume about 40 percent of total bandwidth
- 80 percent of subscribers use less than 10 percent of bandwidth

This supports the arguments made by some of the larger ISPs, including Comcast. In a recent interview, Comcast Cable CTO Tony Werner told me his company would try and deal with the tiny number of subscribers who use most of the bandwidth by slowing down their connections during peak times. (Personally, I find that to be a distasteful solution, and I believe that folks should learn from newer ISPs like Free.fr and better architect their networks so they can provide more bandwidth for all — without imposing any penalties.)

The P2P stats are the ones that came as a complete surprise. Like you, I have read many reports that suggest P2P applications account for the majority of the traffic on high-speed networks. But McPherson’s data suggests otherwise:

- 20 percent of traffic is P2P applications

- During peak-load times, 70 percent of subscribers use http while 20 percent are using P2P

- Http still makes up the majority of the total traffic, of which 45 percent is traditional web content that includes text and images. Streaming video and audio content from services like YouTube accounts for nearly 50 percent of the http traffic. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone — streaming TV shows from Hulu and videos from YouTube have been on a major upswing, as noted by our colleagues over on NewTeeVee.

So, what do you make of these numbers?

 

[Genx87]

Nowhere in that does it say that 44% is bittorrent. P2P is a lot of things, not just bittorrent or illegal file sharing.

Streaming media and web browsing add up to nearly the same percentage.

Web browsing is still less but look at the upload consumption lmao. P2P is what we are talking about with Bittorent. Bittorent just happens to be the most well known and widely used. Either way I am willing to bet the p2p that consumes more than web browsing on the downside and 3/4ths of packets on the upstream represents far less of the network users than the web browsing crowd. The web browsing crowd most likely represents 100% of users.

 

[crownjules]

- 10 percent of subscribers consume 80 percent of bandwidth.
- 0.5 percent of subscribers consume about 40 percent of total bandwidth
- 80 percent of subscribers use less than 10 percent of bandwidth

These numbers state then that 90.5% of subscribers use 130% of the bandwidth available. Hrmmm...

- 20 percent of traffic is P2P applications
- During peak load times, 70 percent of subscribers use http while 20 percent are using P2P

This is why when you see stats you need to ask questions, because statistics can be cleverly manipulated to paint whatever picture you want. 20 percent of traffic... how is that being measured? Are you saying 20% of internet packet traffic is P2P or the traffic generated by 20% of internet users is P2P? Two very different meanings for the same sentence.

The second statement doesn't tell us much at all. The assertion of the ISPs is exactly what it's saying - that a minority of users generate P2P traffic but that it's volume is much larger in comparison to all the other internet users.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Supporting Net Neutrality is a step backwards to the stone age of The Internet. Best effort everywhere, crackly voice, crappy latency, choppy video, etc. Not the smooth experience necessary for all the different applications, which not surprisingly, have different delivery tolerances. Allowing traffic shaping and QoS ensures ALL applications perform their best. Net Neutrality wants to prevent all that and essentially stop and even retard the advancement of technology and The Internet.

Providers don't care where your traffic is going. They only care about providing the best network possible for voice, video and data applications.

In the sense of ISPs being able to say that my bittorrent traffic is a DSCP value of 1, while my game packets are a DSCP of 3, and VoIP/video content is DSCP of 6 is one thing and I agree with.

The problem is if providers go beyond a simple QoS enhancements to create different classes of customers (say Google/M$ vs small business vs individual), and assigns higher priority to higher profit margin customers then I have an issue. That was an example (and might not be the best), but I have issues when it goes above and beyond creating a more efficient internet.

Classifying data based on it's needs, so those needs can be met is a good thing. It ensures stuff like VoIP doesn't get screwed over by lots of downloads (which if a packet is lost, it can be resent). As long as access to the internet isn't restricted by it (having "2+ internets" so to speak).

 

[Gunslinger08]

It's a double edged sword when the government gets involved.

Good: They can prevent ISPs from prioritizing only certain things (ex. you get 20mbps to TV Network A's streaming site, but 2mbps to TV Network B's streaming site, because TV Network A paid your ISP for priority access) or blocking certain things.

Bad: They can compel ISPs to block certain things.

The problem with a purely competition based market for ISPs is the large cost associated with building a network. There's only 1 high speed provider available in my area because I don't live in a very high population market. If that ISP decides to start blocking or slowing a service I use regularly, I don't really have any recourse by switching to their competitor. I can cancel my account, but then I have no access at all. No other ISP is going to spend the money to provide my home with high speed access, because the ROI is so low and they won't recover their investment for a very long time.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Do you have any idea how much the providers are constantly upgrading their networks? Any idea? Bandwidth usage doubles every 24 months. That means you essentially have to double your entire network capacity every two years. There is plenty of upgrading going on.

And no amount of capacity upgrades can deal with long queue depths, that's what quality of service does is manage queue depths and delivery based on application so that all applications perform well.

Exactly.

Take any real networking course (Cisco CCNP level gets into it), and one of the first things that they show you is why just increasing bandwidth will NOT fix the problem. ISPs using QoS is good for the internet, because not all traffic is the same and it should be treated as such.

OP P2P applications have controls built in that ensure that all the data gets there. In a P2P world, it doesn't matter if data is retransmitted (outside of using more network resources). With real time data (video/voice), that is not able to happen. A packet that is lost in a VoIP conversation is lost. There is no retransmitting. Why should people using P2P type applications (or any application that has built in checks to ensure all data is there) screw over traffic that cannot resend data?

If you knew how QoS worked, you would know that it just ensures that high priority traffic gets out first. That doesn't mean P2P won't get out, just that it will be put as traffic less important. Guess what? It is less important.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

It's a double edged sword when the government gets involved.

Good: They can prevent ISPs from prioritizing only certain things (ex. you get 20mbps to TV Network A's streaming site, but 2mbps to TV Network B's streaming site, because TV Network A paid your ISP for priority access) or blocking certain things.

Bad: They can compel ISPs to block certain things.

The problem with a purely competition based market for ISPs is the large cost associated with building a network. There's only 1 high speed provider available in my area because I don't live in a very high population market. If that ISP decides to start blocking or slowing a service I use regularly, I don't really have any recourse by switching to their competitor. I can cancel my account, but then I have no access at all. No other ISP is going to spend the money to provide my home with high speed access, because the ROI is so low and they won't recover their investment for a very long time.

That is my only concern about allowing ISPs to categorize traffic.

 

[zsdersw]

If you knew how QoS worked, you would know that it just ensures that high priority traffic gets out first. That doesn't mean P2P won't get out, just that it will be put as traffic less important.

I do know how QoS works, and I never said P2P would be blocked.

Guess what? It is less important

Who gets to make that determination? The consumer, the government, or the ISP? Correct answer: the consumer.

 

[ch33zw1z]

That is my only concern about allowing ISPs to categorize traffic.

Same here..