The coming exaflood, and why it won't drown the Internet

[techs]

http://technoflak.blogspot.com...fear-mongering-in.html
It is important that small businesses understand the stakes in this. Do you want to pay more for Internet service just so your customers are able to access your website with the same ease of your much larger competitor? Because those are the stakes in this fight. And it is not just a Washington fight, what the telecoms were unable to win at the national level they will try to gain at the local level unless they are stopped. So it is critical that small businesses stay active and continue to monitor developments

http://arstechnica.com/article...-coming-exaflood.ars/2

The coming exaflood, and why it won't drown the Internet

Eating his words
In December, 1995, Bob Metcalfe wrote a famous column for InfoWorld in which he predicted that the Internet would suffer "gigalapses" at some point in 1996. According to his scenario, the massive traffic of the time was building like a wave about to break on the unsuspecting villagers who had just begun to rely on this "Internet" thing for e-mail and some primitive web browsing. Fantastic failures would be the norm as overloaded networks struggled to push the bits along.

Metcalfe knew his networking; this is the man who worked on Ethernet and founded 3Com, after all. His column's call to arms certainly achieved one effect: it riled up a lot of network engineers who claimed that 1996 was in no way going to be the Year the 'Net Crashed.

And of course, it didn't. There were no gigalapses in 1996, and things have been chugging along more or less smoothly for another decade since.

In early 1997, after it had become clear that his predictions had proven considerably more apocalyptic than reality warranted, Metcalfe made his mea culpa. He took to the stage at the Sixth Annual World Wide Web Conference in Santa Clara to eat his words. Literally....




A great article on how the telecoms are trying to promote the idea the internet will crash if we don't give the telecoms the right to screw us.

 

[heyheybooboo]

What do we want?

Equal Packet Rights!

When do we want it?

Now and FOREVER!


We gotta protect our tubes and internets . . .

 

[brxndxn]

If it weren't for the Internet, no one would even know about Ron Paul...

If the Internet was regulated.. where Time Warner users could only easily see Time Warner sites without paying a fee, who knows what we would not be able to see?

 

[ElFenix]

so how do you feel about QoS?

Originally posted by: brxndxn

If the Internet was regulated.. where Time Warner users could only easily see Time Warner sites without paying a fee, who knows what we would not be able to see?

huh?

 

[Genx87]

I find it amusing people pay 40 bucks a month and expect to get the same QoS as Google.
Maybe if the end users paid the true costs of their use they'd like the idea of allowing ISP to shape traffic.

For instance a T1 circuit runs about 400 a month for 1.5Mbps up\down.

And just to let you know. I dont believe net neutrality will drown the internet either. But I believe net neutrality will hamper efforts to deliver higher quality services like VOIP and more bandwidth to the home. You have a small % of end users raping ISP bandwidth. To cope with that ISPs will need to invest a lot of money to make up for them so the other 98% of users can enjoy the service they pay for. Where if they were allowed to shape the traffic so these users couldnt rape the network for all they can. They could deliver on avg better serivce for the same costs.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
What do we want?

Equal Packet Rights!

When do we want it?

Now and FOREVER!


We gotta protect our tubes and internets . . .

Good idea, lets give email traffic the same priority as voip. Lets face it, some packets are more important than others.


Meanwhile, the telecoms are screwing us by dragging down the price of broadband.....

 

[StageLeft]

In most things we say capitalism should take over and I know that since I don't use tons of bandwidth, it's silly for me to pay as much as others, but couldn't an ISP still cut certain users back (as they do now)?

That said, the internet has been a historical boon and I'd hesitate to mess with something if it works.

 

[hellokeith]

Priority traffic already exists. Net neutrality is a joke (socialism/communism).

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
In most things we say capitalism should take over and I know that since I don't use tons of bandwidth, it's silly for me to pay as much as others, but couldn't an ISP still cut certain users back (as they do now)?

That said, the internet has been a historical boon and I'd hesitate to mess with something if it works.

Yes they can shape the traffic of certain bandwidth sucking applications like bittorrent. But when they do something like that, the net neutrality crowd screams bloody murder.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I find it amusing people pay 40 bucks a month and expect to get the same QoS as Google.
Maybe if the end users paid the true costs of their use they'd like the idea of allowing ISP to shape traffic.

For instance a T1 circuit runs about 400 a month for 1.5Mbps up\down.

And just to let you know. I dont believe net neutrality will drown the internet either. But I believe net neutrality will hamper efforts to deliver higher quality services like VOIP and more bandwidth to the home. You have a small % of end users raping ISP bandwidth. To cope with that ISPs will need to invest a lot of money to make up for them so the other 98% of users can enjoy the service they pay for. Where if they were allowed to shape the traffic so these users couldnt rape the network for all they can. They could deliver on avg better serivce for the same costs.

What the hell are you talking about, we get EXACTLY what we pay for with home broadband. Nobody expects to have an Internet connection like Google, most of the complaints are because we just barely get what we pay for. Home broadband is frequently unreliable, laggy, bursty, and has upstream/downstream bandwidth that is so asymmetrical that it barely qualifies as high speed if you're not just using it to watch videos on YouTube. Which is OK, since it's also pretty cheap.

Enough with this poor victimized ISP bullshit. ISPs make money selling broadband, period, otherwise they wouldn't do it. That's the reason these "Internet collapse" articles are stupid, and the reason rants like yours are silly. ISPs make money selling Internet access, so they build out their networks to sell more and better Internet...to everyone. The fact that this access isn't used exactly equally is simply another factor in their calculations...one which they seem to be dealing with just fine so far. They DO deliver higher quality services like VOIP and more bandwidth to the home, all the while dealing with users who "rape" ISP bandwidth.

The anti-net neutrality stance is a solution in search of a problem. That's the entire point of this article is that there is very little technical reason not to have network neutrality. Despite all the FUD coming from the industry, the rampant destruction of the Internet has yet to happen. But even if there ARE problems, there is no need to move to the extreme position taken by the telecommunications companies. Allowing things like privatization of traffic based on protocol and load on a large scale is NOT what they are advocating here. I'm not worried about Verizon (my ISP) giving VOIP traffic higher priority than BitTorrent, I'm worried about Verizon giving higher priority to THEIR VOIP traffic and dumping my Vonage traffic on the floor. They've used a lot dirtier tricks on their competition with voice already, you can't tell me that's not the first thing on their agenda if the law doesn't say otherwise. And don't kid yourself, THAT is what this network neutrality fight is about...it has nothing to do with qualify of service for the customer.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Priority traffic already exists. Net neutrality is a joke (socialism/communism).

Is there like an off switch for your geniuses or something?

As long as there are government sanctioned monopolies on the Internet, I don't think it's that unreasonable that the government regulates them to protect the consumer. In fact, the situation where the government allows private companies to do whatever they like with government blessing really would be communism.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Skoorb
In most things we say capitalism should take over and I know that since I don't use tons of bandwidth, it's silly for me to pay as much as others, but couldn't an ISP still cut certain users back (as they do now)?

That said, the internet has been a historical boon and I'd hesitate to mess with something if it works.

Yes they can shape the traffic of certain bandwidth sucking applications like bittorrent. But when they do something like that, the net neutrality crowd screams bloody murder.

I never quite got your position here. Since when are some applications good and some bad, and who decides which goes into which bin? The idea that we're bad consumers unless we don't use our Internet connections is one of the sillier aspects of this whole business. I don't agree with some of the net neutrality stances either, but why should I be punished because I use my Internet connection to download Linux distros off of BitTorrent while my neighbor uses his to talk on Vonage? If it's a matter of giving priority to time sensitive data, that's fine...but that should be the line. Anything else is no business of the ISPs. They aren't letting me use their network out of the goodness of their hearts, I'm PAYING for a service and I'd prefer it if they didn't half-ass it because it's too hard to do it right.

And honestly, that's a stupid argument anyways. Everyone loves to rag on BitTorrent, but is it REALLY sucking so much bandwidth that it's going to cripple the Internet? Sure, it uses more bandwidth than email...but the Internet has grown a lot since email was first around. And so far it's kept up pretty well...is there ANY evidence, ANYWHERE, that ISPs have anything to complain about?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87
I find it amusing people pay 40 bucks a month and expect to get the same QoS as Google.
Maybe if the end users paid the true costs of their use they'd like the idea of allowing ISP to shape traffic.

For instance a T1 circuit runs about 400 a month for 1.5Mbps up\down.

And just to let you know. I dont believe net neutrality will drown the internet either. But I believe net neutrality will hamper efforts to deliver higher quality services like VOIP and more bandwidth to the home. You have a small % of end users raping ISP bandwidth. To cope with that ISPs will need to invest a lot of money to make up for them so the other 98% of users can enjoy the service they pay for. Where if they were allowed to shape the traffic so these users couldnt rape the network for all they can. They could deliver on avg better serivce for the same costs.

What the hell are you talking about, we get EXACTLY what we pay for with home broadband. Nobody expects to have an Internet connection like Google, most of the complaints are because we just barely get what we pay for. Home broadband is frequently unreliable, laggy, bursty, and has upstream/downstream bandwidth that is so asymmetrical that it barely qualifies as high speed if you're not just using it to watch videos on YouTube. Which is OK, since it's also pretty cheap.

Are you trying to make my arugment? Net neutrality is one of the reasons why home users have bursty and inconsistent services. Why? Because 2% of the user base is sucking up 90% of the bandwidth. And yes, people who scream bloody murder expect the same level of service on their traffic as a google. Which is a seperate issue from raw bandwidth.

Enough with this poor victimized ISP bullshit. ISPs make money selling broadband, period, otherwise they wouldn't do it. That's the reason these "Internet collapse" articles are stupid, and the reason rants like yours are silly. ISPs make money selling Internet access, so they build out their networks to sell more and better Internet...to everyone. The fact that this access isn't used exactly equally is simply another factor in their calculations...one which they seem to be dealing with just fine so far. They DO deliver higher quality services like VOIP and more bandwidth to the home, all the while dealing with users who "rape" ISP bandwidth.

At a much higher cost on both ends.

The anti-net neutrality stance is a solution in search of a problem. That's the entire point of this article is that there is very little technical reason not to have network neutrality. Despite all the FUD coming from the industry, the rampant destruction of the Internet has yet to happen. But even if there ARE problems, there is no need to move to the extreme position taken by the telecommunications companies. Allowing things like privatization of traffic based on protocol and load on a large scale is NOT what they are advocating here. I'm not worried about Verizon (my ISP) giving VOIP traffic higher priority than BitTorrent, I'm worried about Verizon giving higher priority to THEIR VOIP traffic and dumping my Vonage traffic on the floor. They've used a lot dirtier tricks on their competition with voice already, you can't tell me that's not the first thing on their agenda if the law doesn't say otherwise. And don't kid yourself, THAT is what this network neutrality fight is about...it has nothing to do with qualify of service for the customer.

I have already stated above that I dont believe net neutrality will destroy the internet. But that doesnt mean there is some serious issue with somebody paying 40 bucks a month destroying the connection for the hundreds of other users.

I will give you a perfect example of our current situation. We have ~150 users using our internet connection. Outright blocking is not allowed by the higher ups. However they complain about the performance issues of the internet. What we are going to do is install a device like a packeteer which is going to shape the traffic so when the marketing dept decides to watch a Twins game via the net they dont bring our internet connection to a grinding hault. Why I ask, cant ISPs do the same?

I dont buy your argument the majority of the crowd is truely worried about verizon hurting vonages VOIP traffic. The majority of the people you hear blab about this are complaining because they are worried it will limit their 40 dollar a month connection.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Skoorb
In most things we say capitalism should take over and I know that since I don't use tons of bandwidth, it's silly for me to pay as much as others, but couldn't an ISP still cut certain users back (as they do now)?

That said, the internet has been a historical boon and I'd hesitate to mess with something if it works.

Yes they can shape the traffic of certain bandwidth sucking applications like bittorrent. But when they do something like that, the net neutrality crowd screams bloody murder.

I never quite got your position here. Since when are some applications good and some bad, and who decides which goes into which bin? The idea that we're bad consumers unless we don't use our Internet connections is one of the sillier aspects of this whole business. I don't agree with some of the net neutrality stances either, but why should I be punished because I use my Internet connection to download Linux distros off of BitTorrent while my neighbor uses his to talk on Vonage? If it's a matter of giving priority to time sensitive data, that's fine...but that should be the line. Anything else is no business of the ISPs. They aren't letting me use their network out of the goodness of their hearts, I'm PAYING for a service and I'd prefer it if they didn't half-ass it because it's too hard to do it right.

And honestly, that's a stupid argument anyways. Everyone loves to rag on BitTorrent, but is it REALLY sucking so much bandwidth that it's going to cripple the Internet? Sure, it uses more bandwidth than email...but the Internet has grown a lot since email was first around. And so far it's kept up pretty well...is there ANY evidence, ANYWHERE, that ISPs have anything to complain about?

I think when you see specific applications eating up the majority of your bandwidth it is a good start.

The numbers I have heard tossed around is bittorrent and other p2p traffic can eat upwards of 70-90% of a networks bandwidth.


A quick search on google just to find a source gave me this

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2005/04/67202


Today, CacheLogic estimates that P2P applications consume between 60 percent and 80 percent of capacity on consumer ISP networks. The fastest growth in P2P usage is coming in Asian nations with high broadband penetration rates, Parker said.

The average size of traded files is growing, too, Parker said, and today exceeds 100 MB. In one period of observation, which took place just after a much-anticipated film release, CacheLogic found that 30 percent of peer-to-peer traffic at one ISP was from a single 600-MB file.


So yes, there is a legit gripe when a small amount of users consume the majority of the networks resources.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Just wait... let the U.S. legislators allow traffic shaping, and huge telcos will do whatever they want to U.S. consumers... It's not like history doesn't already show what happens when this type of demented corporate consolidation takes place... meanwhile, the rest of the world will laugh and point fingers, while shaking their heads, saying "Look, the U.S. is falling behind in yet another field"...

Asian internet users already have 10x more bandwidth available, the speeds and prices offered to consumers in Japan, South Korea etc. are humiliating for any U.S. internet statistics.... are you telling me those people don't use, VOIP, P2P and so on???

Yep, this will work wonders....

 

[Genx87]

Asian countries lacked the infrastructure the United States built over 100 years ago. You will find fiber to homes in exburbia in the United States. Hell my parents place had fiber upto the cable box in 2000. But the majority of the consumers in the US are running off infrstructure put in the ground decades ago. Some can be running on lines 80+ years old.

And I cant tell you what other countries do in terms of regulating their traffic.

As for the other countries laughing. They already do that and that is with a forced net neutrality.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Skoorb
In most things we say capitalism should take over and I know that since I don't use tons of bandwidth, it's silly for me to pay as much as others, but couldn't an ISP still cut certain users back (as they do now)?

That said, the internet has been a historical boon and I'd hesitate to mess with something if it works.

Yes they can shape the traffic of certain bandwidth sucking applications like bittorrent. But when they do something like that, the net neutrality crowd screams bloody murder.

I never quite got your position here. Since when are some applications good and some bad, and who decides which goes into which bin? The idea that we're bad consumers unless we don't use our Internet connections is one of the sillier aspects of this whole business. I don't agree with some of the net neutrality stances either, but why should I be punished because I use my Internet connection to download Linux distros off of BitTorrent while my neighbor uses his to talk on Vonage? If it's a matter of giving priority to time sensitive data, that's fine...but that should be the line. Anything else is no business of the ISPs. They aren't letting me use their network out of the goodness of their hearts, I'm PAYING for a service and I'd prefer it if they didn't half-ass it because it's too hard to do it right.

And honestly, that's a stupid argument anyways. Everyone loves to rag on BitTorrent, but is it REALLY sucking so much bandwidth that it's going to cripple the Internet? Sure, it uses more bandwidth than email...but the Internet has grown a lot since email was first around. And so far it's kept up pretty well...is there ANY evidence, ANYWHERE, that ISPs have anything to complain about?

I think when you see specific applications eating up the majority of your bandwidth it is a good start.

The numbers I have heard tossed around is bittorrent and other p2p traffic can eat upwards of 70-90% of a networks bandwidth.


A quick search on google just to find a source gave me this

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2005/04/67202


Today, CacheLogic estimates that P2P applications consume between 60 percent and 80 percent of capacity on consumer ISP networks. The fastest growth in P2P usage is coming in Asian nations with high broadband penetration rates, Parker said.

The average size of traded files is growing, too, Parker said, and today exceeds 100 MB. In one period of observation, which took place just after a much-anticipated film release, CacheLogic found that 30 percent of peer-to-peer traffic at one ISP was from a single 600-MB file.


So yes, there is a legit gripe when a small amount of users consume the majority of the networks resources.

I'm still not getting what the complaint is about. Bandwidth exists to be used, that's why you have high speed internet in the first place. The fact that one application might use a lot of bandwidth is irrelevant, the only concern should come from people using TOO MUCH bandwidth, not just using bandwidth at all.

My whole problem with this is it never is presented as certain users and/or programs using so much of the bandwidth that they are crippling the network and imposing costs far beyond what they pay for their service. Instead, usage at all is considered bad behavior...users and applications are ranked by how much bandwidth they use, and those at the top are declared "evil", regardless of their actual impact on the network. It's a network, it's SUPPOSED to be used. You think I'm paying Verizon $50/month so I can check my email faster?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87
I find it amusing people pay 40 bucks a month and expect to get the same QoS as Google.
Maybe if the end users paid the true costs of their use they'd like the idea of allowing ISP to shape traffic.

For instance a T1 circuit runs about 400 a month for 1.5Mbps up\down.

And just to let you know. I dont believe net neutrality will drown the internet either. But I believe net neutrality will hamper efforts to deliver higher quality services like VOIP and more bandwidth to the home. You have a small % of end users raping ISP bandwidth. To cope with that ISPs will need to invest a lot of money to make up for them so the other 98% of users can enjoy the service they pay for. Where if they were allowed to shape the traffic so these users couldnt rape the network for all they can. They could deliver on avg better serivce for the same costs.

What the hell are you talking about, we get EXACTLY what we pay for with home broadband. Nobody expects to have an Internet connection like Google, most of the complaints are because we just barely get what we pay for. Home broadband is frequently unreliable, laggy, bursty, and has upstream/downstream bandwidth that is so asymmetrical that it barely qualifies as high speed if you're not just using it to watch videos on YouTube. Which is OK, since it's also pretty cheap.

Are you trying to make my arugment? Net neutrality is one of the reasons why home users have bursty and inconsistent services. Why? Because 2% of the user base is sucking up 90% of the bandwidth. And yes, people who scream bloody murder expect the same level of service on their traffic as a google. Which is a seperate issue from raw bandwidth.

Enough with this poor victimized ISP bullshit. ISPs make money selling broadband, period, otherwise they wouldn't do it. That's the reason these "Internet collapse" articles are stupid, and the reason rants like yours are silly. ISPs make money selling Internet access, so they build out their networks to sell more and better Internet...to everyone. The fact that this access isn't used exactly equally is simply another factor in their calculations...one which they seem to be dealing with just fine so far. They DO deliver higher quality services like VOIP and more bandwidth to the home, all the while dealing with users who "rape" ISP bandwidth.

At a much higher cost on both ends.

The anti-net neutrality stance is a solution in search of a problem. That's the entire point of this article is that there is very little technical reason not to have network neutrality. Despite all the FUD coming from the industry, the rampant destruction of the Internet has yet to happen. But even if there ARE problems, there is no need to move to the extreme position taken by the telecommunications companies. Allowing things like privatization of traffic based on protocol and load on a large scale is NOT what they are advocating here. I'm not worried about Verizon (my ISP) giving VOIP traffic higher priority than BitTorrent, I'm worried about Verizon giving higher priority to THEIR VOIP traffic and dumping my Vonage traffic on the floor. They've used a lot dirtier tricks on their competition with voice already, you can't tell me that's not the first thing on their agenda if the law doesn't say otherwise. And don't kid yourself, THAT is what this network neutrality fight is about...it has nothing to do with qualify of service for the customer.

I have already stated above that I dont believe net neutrality will destroy the internet. But that doesnt mean there is some serious issue with somebody paying 40 bucks a month destroying the connection for the hundreds of other users.

I will give you a perfect example of our current situation. We have ~150 users using our internet connection. Outright blocking is not allowed by the higher ups. However they complain about the performance issues of the internet. What we are going to do is install a device like a packeteer which is going to shape the traffic so when the marketing dept decides to watch a Twins game via the net they dont bring our internet connection to a grinding hault. Why I ask, cant ISPs do the same?

I dont buy your argument the majority of the crowd is truely worried about verizon hurting vonages VOIP traffic. The majority of the people you hear blab about this are complaining because they are worried it will limit their 40 dollar a month connection.

And *I* don't buy that it's all so the angelic IPSs can protect their consumers from the evil people abusing their service. Were that the case, ISPs would get rid of their ridiculous "unlimited" plans and just charge people for usage. That would completely solve the problem, and it would be a lot easier, cheaper and more accurate than packet shaping. Packet shaping is a good solution for an organization like a business or a university that doesn't charge the people who use the Internet, but it's a dumb solution from a technological standpoint for ISPs in general to use.

Personally, I think the "overuse" issue is dramatically over hyped by ISPs. The percentage of users who use many times the average bandwidth is probably not all that significant. And in any case, you're talking like bandwidth is a finite resource that we need to conserve, when it's obvious that the growth of the Internet is not going to be handled by packet shaping, it's going to be handled by more bandwidth. Which ISPs have been constantly adding to deal with new Internet usage patterns.

I agree that it's a little unfair for someone to abuse an unlimited plan, but that's the ISPs fault for selling a stupid product. You can't tell someone they have unlimited bandwidth and then bitch and moan when they USE that bandwidth. Tiered pricing is an easy solution to the problem, without giving the ISPs all the power net neutrality is trying to avoid. ISPs are businesses, there is no reason to expect them to act with the best interests of their consumers in mind, and allowing them to do whatever the hell they want with everyone's traffic is giving them way too much power to abuse. Especially because there are better solutions to the problems out there.

 

[charrison]

Rainsford,

Unlimited internet works well for the majority of customers. Per byte billing would just cost most customers more without any real benefit. However it does yeild an all you can eat buffet for those willing to abuse the system. What we consumer pay for broadband is a heck of deal and we cannot expect to have our lines running at 100% capacity 24/7 without paying alot more. So ISPs resort to using caps, bandwidth shaping, higher priced tiers and other tactics to deal with these customers that do have excessive use. This of course has nothing to do with net neutrality.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: charrison
Rainsford,

Unlimited internet works well for the majority of customers. Per byte billing would just cost most customers more without any real benefit. However it does yeild an all you can eat buffet for those willing to abuse the system. What we consumer pay for broadband is a heck of deal and we cannot expect to have our lines running at 100% capacity 24/7 without paying alot more. So ISPs resort to using caps, bandwidth shaping, higher priced tiers and other tactics to deal with these customers that do have excessive use. This of course has nothing to do with net neutrality.

That was kind of my point, actually. Unlimited internet works fine for most customers, and more importantly, it works well for the ISP as well. I believe overusage is a red herring when it come to net neutrality, for the very simple reason that not only are there perfectly reasonable ways of dealing with the problem even in a neutral network, but I don't believe those customers cause as much trouble as Comcast and friends would have us believe.

Net neutrality is about how an ISP or backbone operator deals with traffic in general, NOT in how they deal with specific users. Anti-net neutrality positions almost always involve "traffic shaping" applied to EVERYONE, no matter how much or how little bandwidth you use or what you use it for. To use the evil BitTorrent example, folks would limit my BitTorrent speed even though I only use it to download a Linux distro on occasion because it's a bad protocol. Anti-net neutrality is trying to solve the wrong problem, and doing so in such a technologically inept way that I have a hard time believing there isn't an ulterior motive.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: charrison
Rainsford,

Unlimited internet works well for the majority of customers. Per byte billing would just cost most customers more without any real benefit. However it does yeild an all you can eat buffet for those willing to abuse the system. What we consumer pay for broadband is a heck of deal and we cannot expect to have our lines running at 100% capacity 24/7 without paying alot more. So ISPs resort to using caps, bandwidth shaping, higher priced tiers and other tactics to deal with these customers that do have excessive use. This of course has nothing to do with net neutrality.

That was kind of my point, actually. Unlimited internet works fine for most customers, and more importantly, it works well for the ISP as well. I believe overusage is a red herring when it come to net neutrality, for the very simple reason that not only are there perfectly reasonable ways of dealing with the problem even in a neutral network, but I don't believe those customers cause as much trouble as Comcast and friends would have us believe.

Net neutrality is about how an ISP or backbone operator deals with traffic in general, NOT in how they deal with specific users. Anti-net neutrality positions almost always involve "traffic shaping" applied to EVERYONE, no matter how much or how little bandwidth you use or what you use it for. To use the evil BitTorrent example, folks would limit my BitTorrent speed even though I only use it to download a Linux distro on occasion because it's a bad protocol. Anti-net neutrality is trying to solve the wrong problem, and doing so in such a technologically inept way that I have a hard time believing there isn't an ulterior motive.

THere is nothing inherently wrong with bittorrent, however more often than not is a protocol of choice for many that do abuse the system. So to manage this, bittorrent often gets some bandwidth shaping. This is the reality of how a scarce resource gets dealt with.