John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
 ·CenturyLink
| reply to rradina
Re: Utilization
said by rradina  :In other words, is BT starving other traffic or are the ISPs trying to delay bandwidth upgrades by reducing the BT service level? What percent of customers use BT? If BT was eliminated by an ISP, would those customers leave? This is EXACTLY the problem...BT and similar programs will "suck down" the whole pipe if they are left unthrottled and unshaped. Even ONE customer can seriously disrupt a network...
The day Bram coded the ability to open 10,000 simultaneous connections (or more), was the day he put the "noose around his neck".
--
A is A |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| said by John Galt :said by rradina :In other words, is BT starving other traffic or are the ISPs trying to delay bandwidth upgrades by reducing the BT service level? What percent of customers use BT? If BT was eliminated by an ISP, would those customers leave? This is EXACTLY the problem...BT and similar programs will "suck down" the whole pipe if they are left unthrottled and unshaped. Even ONE customer can seriously disrupt a network... The day Bram coded the ability to open 10,000 simultaneous connections (or more), was the day he put the "noose around his neck". How can one customer with a 5/10/15Mbps pipe wipe out an ISP's infrastructure? Granted, 10,000 connections per user could quickly get very stressful if the ISP has equipment in the middle that needs to track state but one user shouldn't be able to strain bandwidth any more than the same user with several simultaneous FTP or HTTP downloads. |
|
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
·CenturyLink
| said by rradina :Granted, 10,000 connections per user could quickly get very stressful if the ISP has equipment in the middle that needs to track state... I think you answered your own question...
A network is much more than "just" bandwidth.
--
A is A |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
| that is the sillyiest argument i have ever heard... blame the protocol?
why don't we blame html or some other tcp/ip for ruining the network?
Bittorrent is not the problem! People like to share content, or in other words they are looking online for services that are not provided by typical industries. As long as people like you take your outdated one way data flow concepts and apply them to everyone else, you are missing the whole information age!
The business model you are preaching is outdated just like haveing your newspaper sent to your house, or like traditional analogue TV signals! People of the future demande interactivity, which has a prerequisite for 2 way data flow! |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to rradina
With FUD. If you convince people it can/can't be done, then everyone will think that's the truth.
One user can not "suck down the whole pipe", unless that pipe is of the crack variety... which is obviously being used here.. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC | reply to backness
I demand you click the spell check button!  |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| reply to rradina
said by rradina :How can one customer with a 5/10/15Mbps pipe wipe out an ISP's infrastructure? Because it's not just one customer.
ISP's sell a standard residential package under the assumption that you aren't going to be using all your available bandwidth all the time. Bittorrent breaks that assumption because it does just that. So either the ISP's find ways to mitigate the bandwidth gobbling effects of BT, or they have to make connections more like a leased line.
Have you checked the price of a T1 lately?
--
gau gau |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2 | reply to Matt
i was in a hurry  |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| said by backness :i was in a hurry I was just teasing you. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| reply to Combat Chuck
That's why I asked the question -- how many use BT? If only 2% use it and they consume 70% of the bandwidth (I'm skeptical about these figures but they aren't mine...that's what the article claims to be the top end...), then there's a disconnect. However, I'm not sure this won't always be the case. If not BT, it would be FTP. If not FTP, it would be UseNet. That's why I asked the second question. If BT was banned, what would be the total network utilization? Would it be 30%, 50% or would it still be 100% because BT is so pervasive that it starves other protocols?
I also thought the Internet 2 proved that QOS doesn't work. They eventually just added more bandwidth and made everyone happy. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| reply to Combat Chuck
Oh -- I forgot to add one thing. Do ISPs assume a T1 "leased line" customer will use their bandwidth 100% of the time or do they also oversubscribe their backbone to the Internet?
Also -- why would FTTN/FTTH and DOCSIS2 projects provide 15Mbps, 30Mbps or even greater speeds if they didn't intend people to use it? Do they assume these will only be used in "burst" situations? I can't imagine browsing ever needing burst rates this high. If they provide the bandwidth, people will use it. |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| said by rradina :If not BT, it would be FTP. If not FTP, it would be UseNet. That's why I asked the second question. If BT was banned, what would be the total network utilization? Would it be 30%, 50% or would it still be 100% because BT is so pervasive that it starves other protocols? I don't know what the utilization would be but the reality is BT is much more efficient at maximizing the amount of bandwidth it uses and your not going to find anyone worth believing that will say that FTP can push the massive amount of data per second that a torrent can.
said by rradina :Do ISPs assume a T1 "leased line" customer will use their bandwidth 100% of the time or do they also oversubscribe their backbone to the Internet? I'm not sure but I imagine that they do oversell to a certain extent; but they're going to be much more conservative about it if up-times and speeds are guaranteed by the contract.
--
gau gau |
|
envoid
join:2002-12-21
Duluth, GA
| reply to John Galt
said by John Galt :A network is much more than "just" bandwidth. It's not a big truck you just dump something on.... it's a series of tubes!! |
|
envoid
join:2002-12-21
Duluth, GA
| reply to Combat Chuck
said by Combat Chuck :Have you checked the price of a T1 lately? The price of the T1 is mostly the installation/maintenance of the line and SLA (repair speed). It doesn't have much to do with the data speeds anymore. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| reply to Combat Chuck
Even though BT uses multiple connections to mitigate speed-robbing latency, the architecture attacks the last 20% of bandwidth and solves the central server bandwidth problem by multiplexing streams from multiple peers. Unless you're willing to say that FTP is not at least 80% efficient at consuming bandwidth, it would still lay waste to an ISP's backbone if everyone used it at the same time.
My original question still stands. If not BT, what?
So far arguments for banning/shaping/throttling BT are similar to blaming SUVs as the reason our gas prices are so high. Granted, SUVs aren't as efficient as a car but if they were gone, does anyone believe the SUV folks wouldn't still need to drive something that consumed almost as much gas?
In my opinion, the real issue here is the backbone providers fear being relegated to a dumb pipe. The technology to move a lot of bytes is cheap and mature. As a result, the price of bandwidth is cheap and competitive. As HSI nears its maximum penetration potential, revenue growth will only be achieved by raising prices or stealing customers. Even then, opportunities for revenue growth will be marginal. At some point, a backbone provider will not be able to survive without diversifying. |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| said by rradina :Unless you're willing to say that FTP is not at least 80% efficient at consuming bandwidth, it would still lay waste to an ISP's backbone if everyone used it at the same time. How many people are going to set up FTP servers if they can't use BT? Not many. Then even if you do set one up there's the issue of advertising to the world that it exists. BT makes it trivially simple to serve files, find others serving the file you're trying to download, and keeping the download going when someone serving disappears.
As always reality trumps the lab results.
--
Early to rise, early to bed;
Makes a man healthy but socially dead. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| This is a literal response to a conceptual proposition. I'm asking a conceptual question and have offered FTP as a conceptual example of what might happen in a BT-free world. To believe that your literal response to a conceptual example "trumps the lab results" doesn't convince me of anything.
Let me ask it this way -- do you believe in a hypothetical BT-free world that something else won't step in to consume nearly as much or just as much bandwidth? My argument is BT isn't the problem just as SUVs aren't the reason why we're paying $3+/gallon for gasoline. BT, unfortunately, is the most current argument used by backbone providers to spread FUD.
Consider the braniacs at ATT who are "tired of VOIP getting a free ride on their system" even though as bandwidth hogs go, VOIP is not much more than a 56K modem.
The question is whether or not ATT is allowed to govern VOIP traffic and favor IPTV unless your VOIP provider pays a premium to ensure QOS. Using the Internet2 as an example, I propose that it won't take long for everyone to pay a fee and at some point, everything will want priority and we'll be back to what we have today (best effort for all traffic). When this happens, the backbone providers will add more capacity but by that time all the B.S. premium fees will be in place and we'll be spending $50/month for VOIP.
I think such a scenario is not all that far from paying Guido a 5% sales fee to ensure the reliability of your pizzeria's cheese deliveries. The significant difference is that right now what ATT is planning is legal. |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| said by rradina :I'm asking a conceptual question and have offered FTP as a conceptual example of what might happen in a BT-free world. To believe that your literal response to a conceptual example "trumps the lab results" doesn't convince me of anything. When talking real world issues, real world results always mean more than that that is theoretical.
I'm not arguing VOIP, I'm not arguing net neutrality. I'm saying BT is breaking an assumption that all residential service providers have made. To sit there and say, "well if everyone set up FTP servers and everyone knew about everyone else's FTP servers, they'd flood the connection too so the argument isn't valid" is ridiculous because people aren't going to set up FTP servers and the servers that are set up aren't going to be known to but a relative handful of people.
Quite frankly I'm not even sure what your point is anymore short of arguing that FTP can technically have a high throughput and has been around for a while so therefore Bittorrent isn't a problem; totally ignoring years of real world use of FTP on the internet.
--
Early to rise, early to bed;
Makes a man healthy but socially dead. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| Holy cow. I apologize but I can't help myself. At this point, a Jethro Tull song is running through my head.
Original Message: ...What's the utilization if BT is completely removed?...
1st Response to you: ...If BT was banned, what would be the total network utilization?...
2nd Response to you: ...My original question still stands. If not BT, what?...
3rd Response to you: ...Let me ask it this way -- do you believe in a hypothetical BT-free world that something else won't step in to consume nearly as much or just as much bandwidth?
Since you cannot address the point, I'll do it. My point is, BT is a scapegoat. If BT wasn't around, something else would lay waste to pipes as long as ISPs keep adding last mile speed increases. They cannot keep doing that without adding bandwidth to the backbone. Net neutrality seeks to ensure that we add bandwidth, not fancy management schemes and fees.
If you still mention FTP in your response, don't expect another from me. |
|
