| Doesn't address the fundamental problem Attempting to use latency measurements for the purpose of congestion management is an interesting idea, but it fails in practice because latency is caused by more factors (average packet size, packet rate, etc.) than just congestion.
What's worse, uTorrent doesn't address a fundamental problem: P2P, even if throttled, is still fundamentally a mechanism which is used to shift bandwidth costs from content providers to ISPs' last miles, multiplying those costs as much as a hundredfold in the process. No ISP should allow P2P on its network unless the content provider (or the customer, if it really wants to donate that much money to the content provider) is paying for the full cost of the upstream server bandwidth. |
|
| And what makes anyone think that the majority of users will adopt uTP as their client. This client's developers admit it could slow P2P transfers. And P2P users are not well know for their public mindedness. |
|
|
|
 VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | That was exactly what I was thinking when reading this |
|
approval from:
Van 
hemzer
SoCalDude
Pv8man
gpmoo7
and 1 more
thumbs down from:
fAcEtIOUs
| reply to SuperWISP
Bandwidth is not finite, stop treating it as an exhaustible commodity because its not. Its infinite. Bandwidth should never be throttled, shaped or manipulated in any way.
If the ISPs have trouble handling it then they obviously are in the wrong business.
I really wish here in Canada and North America we had a structure like the Scandinavian countries, France, S. Korea and Japan. The infrastructure should be put into public trust (where it belongs) whereby the state provides a level playing field to ISPs to compete on. Create legislature where lobbying is punishable by law. Upgrade the entire country to fiber.
Then we will see if bandwidth is finite in face of competition... Money grubbing scum (current ISP's)..
Information is no longer a luxury, but rather a right in today's information saturated society. Therefore ISPs current archaic practices are outdated, adapt or be killed. |
|
 NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | reply to SuperWISP
The fundamental problem, in my book, is greedy cheap ISPs who want to charge through the nose and provide as little service as possible. When will ISPs learn that their job is simply to provide the connection between point A and point B, then get the heck out of the way?
--
To all liberals: I am NOT one of your parents, so get the heck out of my wallet. It's time for you to grow up and take some personal responsibility for taking care of yourselves, which means not relying on the government to give it all to you. |
|
 Mr FelFlynn LivesPremium
join:2008-03-17
Louisville, KY
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| said by NOVA_Guy:When will ISPs learn that their job is simply to provide the connection between point A and point B, then get the heck out of the way? At this rate, not in our lifetime.
--
One time a person asked where the F button was on their keyboard. I told them they would find it next to the U button. |
|
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
| reply to SuperWISP
said by SuperWISP:What's worse, uTorrent doesn't address a fundamental problem: P2P, even if throttled, is still fundamentally a mechanism which is used to shift bandwidth costs from content providers to ISPs' last miles, multiplying those costs as much as a hundredfold in the process. No ISP should allow P2P on its network unless the content provider (or the customer, if it really wants to donate that much money to the content provider) is paying for the full cost of the upstream server bandwidth. No, it shifts bandwidth costs from the content providers to the end user. The ISP is already getting paid for the use of that bandwidth by the end user.
The problem for the ISP is that more people are actually USING that bandwidth that they're paying for instead of just letting it sit there going to waste. |
|
 IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK | reply to SuperWISP
said by SuperWISP:Attempting to use latency measurements for the purpose of congestion management is an interesting idea, but it fails in practice because latency is caused by more factors (average packet size, packet rate, etc.) than just congestion. What's worse, uTorrent doesn't address a fundamental problem: P2P, even if throttled, is still fundamentally a mechanism which is used to shift bandwidth costs from content providers to ISPs' last miles, multiplying those costs as much as a hundredfold in the process. No ISP should allow P2P on its network unless the content provider (or the customer, if it really wants to donate that much money to the content provider) is paying for the full cost of the upstream server bandwidth. I think it's well established how much you dislike your customers using the bandwidth you sell them due to the extortionate price you pay for backhaul. ISPs know how much bandwidth they want to allocate customers in both directions and control usage as they need to.
How much bandwidth do you budget per customer at peak times? I am reckoning it's 30kbps or less. |
|
chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to denigtor
Bandwidth is infinite like the work force is infinite. More are humans are always showing up, but there is still a finite number at any given point in time, and this is why we still all get paid despite there being 6 billion humans on the planet right now.
Back on the subject of broadband: high population density (as found in these countries) makes deploying broadband a lot easier and a lot cheaper, but both the US and Canada has large areas with low population density and this raises costs when attempting universal deployments. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Chimera
While the population density argument has some validity in rural areas (ie most of SD,WY,ND, etc), it does not explain why many metro areas are still paying $65/month for 5Mbps down/512k up. There is not a significant difference in population density of many well handled (broadband) European cities and many US metropolitan areas. So in US metropolitan areas the differences in population density is really a wash. |
|
chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to Lazlow
Re: Doesn't address the fundamental problem Lazlow, you are right about Metro areas which ought to have been setting up muni fiber for the last half a decade or more to stay ahead. I think it's a shame that this never happened and never will, but that's how the system works.
I was simply pointing out that a national policy like South Korea, Japan and Finland have can't really work for the US because of the issue of population density. Any attempt to have the federal government funnel money into denser urban areas areas (notably blue states) is normally met with a tremendous amount of resistance and never happens. This is one reason why our extremely expensive national broadband policy is focusing not on improving connections for a large number of people cheaply, but instead connecting areas that are extremely sparsely populated. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to Ignite
said by Ignite:I think it's well established how much you dislike your customers using the bandwidth you sell them due to the extortionate price you pay for backhaul. ISPs know how much bandwidth they want to allocate customers in both directions and control usage as they need to. How much bandwidth do you budget per customer at peak times? I am reckoning it's 30kbps or less. In the case of WISPs, it's not just about bandwidth on the ISP's upstream. 802.11 doesn't deal well with the contention caused by BT. It slows down the air interface, causing issues for everyone even when there's plenty of bandwidth to spare on the wireline backhaul.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  |
|
JimFPremium
join:2003-06-15
Allentown, PA | reply to denigtor
said by denigtor :
Bandwidth is not finite, stop treating it as an exhaustible commodity because its not. Its infinite. Bandwidth should never be throttled, shaped or manipulated in any way.
Anything is infinite for those who don't have to pay for it. Otherwise, I suggest you brush up on your economics. |
|
 sivranBack to Opera againPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Van
Three things: uTorrent is possibly THE most popular torrent client, uTP will likely be on by default, and many users never change the defaults.
Think ALL torrent users are savvy geeks that tweak the hell out of everything they use? Think again. We're just the vocal minority. Well, now, anyway.
--
In dadkins' memory, Think outside the Fox... |
|
1 edit | reply to denigtor
said by denigtor :
Bandwidth is not finite, stop treating it as an exhaustible commodity because its not.
Oh? Then please, please tell me, O Omniscient One, how I find some of this infinite bandwidth. As an ISP, I am currently paying more than $100 per Mbps per month -- wholesale -- for mine. And my customers are currently exhausting it during prime time. |
|
| reply to bt
The ISP is already getting paid for the use of that bandwidth by the end user.
Not true. Our end users agree that they are buying their connections solely for their own use. And they agree to limits on their duty cycles. If they did not, we'd have to quintuple our prices or meter by the bit. |
|
 swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | reply to SuperWISP
said by SuperWISP:No ISP should allow P2P on its network unless the content provider (or the customer, if it really wants to donate that much money to the content provider) is paying for the full cost of the upstream server bandwidth.
1. No ISP should be allowed to discriminate by protocol.
2. The monthly bill is indeed full payment for upstream traffic. The ISP offers a certain bandwidth down and a certain bandwidth up, the customer accepts the offer and whatever they agree on is the price. If ISPs are not charging the full cost, why not? If they are not providing a good approximation of advertised and agreed-on rates, there needs to be regulation to force them to.
said by SuperWISP:P2P, even if throttled, is still fundamentally a mechanism which is used to shift bandwidth costs from content providers to ISPs' last miles, multiplying those costs as much as a hundredfold in the process.
So according to you, if NIN release a song for free, they should pay for all the bandwidth to distribute it instead of bandwidth being paid by the people actually sharing it? But wait, the fans are "content providers" too in this scenario, just as the original releasor is. And they are paying for all the connectivity they use, just as the content creator did to release it in the first place. In fact they're paying up to 100x the rate, according to you.
But if the cost per byte on the last mile is 100 times the cost for the original source to move the same amount of data, then we need to look at how the ISPs get away with overcharging so much. |
|
1 edit | said by swhx7:1. No ISP should be allowed to discriminate by protocol. Sorry, guy, but our customers want us to discriminate by protocol. For example, they want VoIP packets to be prioritized. And we are going to do it for them because it improves their experience. If you don't like it, don't subscribe to our service.
said by swhx7:2. The monthly bill is indeed full payment for upstream traffic. No; it's full payment for what my customer and I agree that the customer is buying. Which, in this case, is at a certain maximum bit rate with a limited duty cycle. You have no right to interfere with my relationship with my customers, who find the service to be very satisfying and economical. So, butt out. |
|
| reply to swhx7
said by swhx7:But wait, the fans are "content providers" too in this scenario, just as the original releasor is. And they are paying for all the connectivity they use, just as the content creator did to release it in the first place. It's quite audacious of you to pretend to know the details of the agreements between me and my customers. The fact is that residential customers aren't paying for all they can use. Rather, they agree to use the link only for certain purposes, not to exceed a maximum duty cycle, and not to operate servers. For this, they get a reduced rate. If they want to pay a rate that's about 5 times as high, they can buy an unrestricted connection. |
|
