 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| reply to ISurfTooMuch
Re: I think it's interesting... said by ISurfTooMuch:said by espaeth:If they can support the speeds they advertise for all but one application, is reducing the level of service for everyone still the best option? That makes no sense. Speed is speed. For example, 6/768 is 6/768 no matter what app is using it. Either you support a speed or you don't. To use an analogy, roads have posted speed limits. In order for statistical multiplexing to work, you can't be having apps use the connection 24x7. Name another legitimate app that has the same traffic profile as P2P?
said by ISurfTooMuch:Besides, throttling BT is only today's problem as far as speed is concerned. What happens if Netflix begins to offer set-top boxes for movie downloads? What happens if someone develops a box to stream live TV channels over the Internet to subs' televisions? I'll bet that being able to watch channels that aren't widely available on cable or satellite will be popular with segments of the population. Or maybe video calling will become popular. The point is, these things will eat up lots of bandwidth. What will companies like Comcast do? Throttle all of them? They don't need to throttle them all. For downstream only traffic like watching movies those transfers have a fixed duration. You download while you watch the movie or cache the movie, and then you're done. Same thing with video calls, unless you plan on having some kind of strange 24x7 video call going with someone.
Again, the issue is infinite duration transfers with P2P, where the app will keep generating traffic indefinitely as long as it is running. |
|
| Although movie downloads have a definite end, they have usage patterns that create problems in that usage will not be spread out evenly during the day. Many people will want to watch during the evening hours, so usage will spike during that time.
And streaming of live television and radio does not have a definite end. People will often leave a TV on for the better part of a day, even if they aren't watching it. They might even leave the set-top box on when they turn the TV off for the night, so data will still be coming in.
And I didn't even mention uses like audio/video surveillance, such as setting up cameras and mics to keep tabs on children and elderly family members. Once people figure out that an Internet connection can be used in that way, it will take off like gangbusters. And that kind of usage is almost all upstream data. Just wait and see the reaction when a company like Comcast tries to clamp down on that. It'll be a PR nightmare. |
|
|
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:Name another legitimate app that has the same traffic profile as P2P? Internet radio. Streaming video. Both of which are in direct competition with Comcast's own high-profit services.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by RadioDoc:said by espaeth:Name another legitimate app that has the same traffic profile as P2P? Internet radio. Streaming video. Both of which are in direct competition with Comcast's own high-profit services. Neither has the same profile.
1) The traffic is all downstream where capacity is greater (45mbps vs 9mbps)
2) The traffic is all in a single TCP session.
Internet radio is 128-192kbps. *yawn*
and unicast Internet video in its current form will never be able to scale large enough to matter. (There's not enough capacity at the content source for it to deliver anything other than niche content to a subset of standard TV viewers)
High definition video (HD-DVD / BluRay) did ~$250 million in sales last year. Next gen HD discs only comprise about 0.5% of the disc rental market, with DVD being the other 99.5%.
Internet video did ~$134 million. It's not a big enough chunk of users to worry about; the content providers will have scaling issues far before it becomes a problem for ISPs. |
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | said by espaeth:1) The traffic is all downstream where capacity is greater (45mbps vs 9mbps) 2) The traffic is all in a single TCP session. Internet radio is 128-192kbps. *yawn* and unicast Internet video in its current form will never be able to scale large enough to matter. (There's not enough capacity at the content source for it to deliver anything other than niche content to a subset of standard TV viewers) High definition video (HD-DVD / BluRay) did ~$250 million in sales last year. Next gen HD discs only comprise about 0.5% of the disc rental market, with DVD being the other 99.5%. Internet video did ~$134 million. It's not a big enough chunk of users to worry about; the content providers will have scaling issues far before it becomes a problem for ISPs. You are assuming that everyone runs BitTorrent full-on. That's nice for your argument, as it is the most egregious p2p offender and the main talking point of your industry's assault on non-captive media, but does not address streaming media's continuous usage profile (both up and down, by the way, since it's not confined to just Shoutcast and many folks originate). I still assert that this is just a test and if Comcast can get their current "network management" procedures past the regulators it will be a very short walk to interference with other, less shady services. Like Netflix, Amazon and now Apple iTunes video downloading and streaming.
As many others have pointed out, there are much less draconian measures available for limiting BitTorrent upload bandwidth, as Cablevision has shown, but that does not really get the anti-competitive field plowed for future high-profit, captive crops. The best way to defeat your competitors is to prevent them from getting to your customers. That's where this is heading.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:said by ISurfTooMuch:said by espaeth:If they can support the speeds they advertise for all but one application, is reducing the level of service for everyone still the best option? That makes no sense. Speed is speed. For example, 6/768 is 6/768 no matter what app is using it. Either you support a speed or you don't. To use an analogy, roads have posted speed limits. In order for statistical multiplexing to work, you can't be having apps use the connection 24x7. Name another legitimate app that has the same traffic profile as P2P? said by ISurfTooMuch:Besides, throttling BT is only today's problem as far as speed is concerned. What happens if Netflix begins to offer set-top boxes for movie downloads? What happens if someone develops a box to stream live TV channels over the Internet to subs' televisions? I'll bet that being able to watch channels that aren't widely available on cable or satellite will be popular with segments of the population. Or maybe video calling will become popular. The point is, these things will eat up lots of bandwidth. What will companies like Comcast do? Throttle all of them? They don't need to throttle them all. For downstream only traffic like watching movies those transfers have a fixed duration. You download while you watch the movie or cache the movie, and then you're done. Same thing with video calls, unless you plan on having some kind of strange 24x7 video call going with someone. Again, the issue is infinite duration transfers with P2P, where the app will keep generating traffic indefinitely as long as it is running. that's not the issue it's peak hours when all people are using there pc on the net |
|
