dslreports logo
 story category
BitTorrent CEO Takes On Bandwidth Hog Myth
But Larger Point Is Missed Underneath Sales Pitch For UTP

The seemingly relentless ISP march from simple flat-rate pricing to low caps and overages isn't just bad for your wallet -- it's bad for any content company or digital distribution platform, given it will constrain the consumption of digital goods. That's why it has been odd to see Silicon Valley startups and other companies whose business models are harmed by meters so quiet about the metered threat. While most of Silicon Valley remains somewhat oblivious, Netflix has been speaking up lately after opening business in heavily capped and metered Canada.

BitTorrent's CEO Eric Klinker has also now chimed in in a new piece at Gigaom, debunking the idea that such pricing is necessary to ensure that "bandwidth hogs" don't ruin the party for everyone else. Klinker trots out the over-used broadband/highway metaphor to make his point:

quote:
It’s the same for your ISP’s network. On your ISP’s network, “rush hour” is called “peak time,” with congestion usually occurring between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. The capacity required to handle these peak times sets the cost benchmark.To continue with the highway analogy, would rationing gas or capping miles on everyone’s odometer solve rush hour traffic? No, of course not. People would still prioritize use of their car and precious miles to get to and from work. They might take fewer road trips on the weekends when the roads are already clear. Rush hour would still exist, and the road would be no cheaper to build or expand. Likewise, bandwidth caps won’t relieve congestion at peak times.
Klinker goes on to use his platform to sell the company's new uTP protocol as the solution for network congestion, then proposes congestion-based pricing (suggesting users should download Netflix films overnight) as one possible alternative. Unfortunately this swerve causes Kilinker to miss several broader points, such as the fact that AT&T is imposing caps to handle "congestion" they've yet to even prove actually exists, after executives repeatedly insisted their DSL and FTTN platforms didn't see significant congestion, on peak or off. There's also no mention by Klinker that AT&T's plan to impose overages really isn't about congestion at all -- it's about protecting U-Verse IPTV revenues from Internet video.

So while it's great that BitTorrent has woken up to some of the disingenuous rhetoric used to sell the idea of low caps and high overages, it's not particularly clear the company understands the entire affair is a bit of a con put on by companies protecting legacy business models from a revolution in content distribution. That protectionist behavior should be BitTorrent's top concern, not highway metaphors.
view:
topics flat nest 

gigahurtz
Premium Member
join:2001-10-20
USA

gigahurtz

Premium Member

He makes a good point

I don't know much about how ISPs are charged for bandwidth, but if that is correct he makes a good point. If people are capped, they will still use their connection at the busiest times of the day, therefore nothing will change in how much the ISP is changing, but what they're charging the consumer will change.
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

BlueC

Member

Re: He makes a good point

He's 100% correct. This has been my argument the entire time regarding UBB.

The capacity issues out there are 99% of the time related to peak hours (7pm-10pm). UBB will do NOTHING to solve this problem.

I'd rather have a user on my network saturate their connection from 2am-6am (4 hours) than have a user saturate their connection from 8:30pm-9pm (30 minutes). Obviously I can't force people to use their connection at certain times, but I'm seeing more and more users reserve their heavy downloads for off-hours. They've figured out the benefits (getting better throughput at off-hours).

UBB is to generate additional revenue. I have yet to see a logical argument that proves it helps reduce congestion.

I have no problem with ISPs doing peak/off-peak type billing. That, in my mind, makes perfect sense. I would think it would be perfectly reasonable to say in a given month, a user is limited to specified monthly allocation during peak hours, and have usage be unlimited during off-peak. I honestly think this type of method would push the heavy users to schedule their downloads at hours that wouldn't affect other users. This is extremely easy to do with P2P, Usenet, etc. It would more than likely make a noticeable impact on peak hours. You'd see things even out.
BlueC

BlueC

Member

Re: He makes a good point

And I realize this does nothing for Netflix.

Netflix isn't as big of a problem in my mind. The streams are limited in size, no one can saturate a 50mbps connection with netflix (unless you're running many streams, but why would you?).

P2P, Usenet, etc can easily saturate large connections. Shifting that type of usage to off-hours would make an improvement.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin to BlueC

Member

to BlueC
said by BlueC:

He's 100% correct. This has been my argument the entire time regarding UBB.

The capacity issues out there are 99% of the time related to peak hours (7pm-10pm). UBB will do NOTHING to solve this problem.

I'd rather have a user on my network saturate their connection from 2am-6am (4 hours) than have a user saturate their connection from 8:30pm-9pm (30 minutes). Obviously I can't force people to use their connection at certain times, but I'm seeing more and more users reserve their heavy downloads for off-hours. They've figured out the benefits (getting better throughput at off-hours).

UBB is to generate additional revenue. I have yet to see a logical argument that proves it helps reduce congestion.

I have no problem with ISPs doing peak/off-peak type billing. That, in my mind, makes perfect sense. I would think it would be perfectly reasonable to say in a given month, a user is limited to specified monthly allocation during peak hours, and have usage be unlimited during off-peak. I honestly think this type of method would push the heavy users to schedule their downloads at hours that wouldn't affect other users. This is extremely easy to do with P2P, Usenet, etc. It would more than likely make a noticeable impact on peak hours. You'd see things even out.

But that's not even necessary for the large providers. They spend the absolute minimum to upgrade their networks and their capex has been dropping year after year.

Most importantly, throttling users at peak time does nothing but delay the upgrade cycle. But after that delay the cycle has to be resumed at the exact same pace. So the provider has to return to their normal capex while their users suffer from throttled connections at peak time. It's totally nonsensical.

Bandwidth is so cheap nowadays for the largest providers, and they are so incredibly profitable, there's no excuse for them to use congestion as an issue.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to BlueC

Member

to BlueC
"UBB will do NOTHING to solve this problem."

That's because the companies who are adding UBB view it as a revenue stream. The smaller companies that truly could justify UBB are not. If they did they would use the income to increase their capacity and not to increase their bottom line.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to gigahurtz

Member

to gigahurtz
said by gigahurtz:

I don't know much about how ISPs are charged for bandwidth, but if that is correct he makes a good point.

It is correct. They are not charged by total GBs moved. They use something called 95th percentile

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bu ··· _billing

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 recommendation

FFH5 to gigahurtz

Premium Member

to gigahurtz
said by gigahurtz:

I don't know much about how ISPs are charged for bandwidth, but if that is correct he makes a good point. If people are capped, they will still use their connection at the busiest times of the day, therefore nothing will change in how much the ISP is changing, but what they're charging the consumer will change.

Or ISPs could, to stay with the highway analogy, start charging more at peak times to shift traffic OUT OF PEAK times. They do this in London, UK where the city charges huge fees to come in during rush hour. That has caused companies to shift work hours, switch work sites, etc and all to lessen the load on the streets at certain times.
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

Kamus

Member

Re: He makes a good point

Well, if they did that, it would suggest that congestion was the real issue, but it's not.

I know i sound like a broken record every time i bring this up, but it's key to understanding bandwidth demand and growth:
Backbone capacity doubles every 9 months.

So for a technology that has been around for so long such as VDSL, by now they are, or should be, way ahead of the demand curve.

Let's face it, if small fiber only ISP's can offer 1 gigabit speeds with out limits, it means that the backbone technology is already there. and that in just a couple of years they could very well offer 10 gigabit speeds with out much trouble.
Oh, and of course if such small companies can afford it, a multi billion company like AT&T should have no trouble implementing it... right?

Even if congestion was real, the exponential growth of bandwidth which has been happening with new modulation techniques would take care of the problem all by itself.
And very soon, we're going to wish we had the technology such as maybe holographic virtual rooms to take advantage of all that bandwidth.

We sure as hell can't congest a network by downloading music, even uncompressed music, and very soon we won't be able to even put a dent on a network by downloading or streaming a 50 mbit/sec bluray.
A lot of users can already do this, but of course it's not the content that has to play catchup to these capabilities.

alchav
join:2002-05-17
Saint George, UT

alchav

Member

Re: He makes a good point

said by Kamus:

Well, if they did that, it would suggest that congestion was the real issue, but it's not.

I know i sound like a broken record every time i bring this up, but it's key to understanding bandwidth demand and growth:
Backbone capacity doubles every 9 months.

So for a technology that has been around for so long such as VDSL, by now they are, or should be, way ahead of the demand curve.

Let's face it, if small fiber only ISP's can offer 1 gigabit speeds with out limits, it means that the backbone technology is already there. and that in just a couple of years they could very well offer 10 gigabit speeds with out much trouble.
Oh, and of course if such small companies can afford it, a multi billion company like AT&T should have no trouble implementing it... right?

Even if congestion was real, the exponential growth of bandwidth which has been happening with new modulation techniques would take care of the problem all by itself.
And very soon, we're going to wish we had the technology such as maybe holographic virtual rooms to take advantage of all that bandwidth.

We sure as hell can't congest a network by downloading music, even uncompressed music, and very soon we won't be able to even put a dent on a network by downloading or streaming a 50 mbit/sec bluray.

Okay here we go again, trying to figure out Bandwidth. It's all about moving Data, Downloading and Uploading. If you have an Internet Connection say at 6Mbps maxed out downloading Files, Music, and Movies, you are using that much Bandwidth all the way back to those Servers for that length of time. The congestion comes into play when those paths narrow down from the Backbone. Netflex Servers are probably adding more Capacity or more Fiber Paths, in order to keep up with the demand. Caps are put into place to try and control Bandwidth, or else people would be on there all the time with no regard to anyone. So the slow downs occur when everyone is on there at the same time where the Paths are limited, which is usually at the User End or getting to the Server.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin

Member

Re: He makes a good point

quote:
or else people would be on there all the time with no regard to anyone
Is this a joke? Are you trolling? This has never happened before in the history of internet usage. This never, ever happens in countries with unlimited internet, *including* the US.

The issue of "last mile congestion" is farcical. Comcast has deployed 160 mbps DOCSIS 3 to their nodes. In a few years they'll be able to upgrade that to significantly higher speeds. Just by the most basic, typical statistical analyses it's more than obvious they can guarantee 50 mbps speeds 95+% of the time. You're just shilling.
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

Kamus to alchav

Member

to alchav
You realize you didn't explain anything right?
This fails to explain, how a DSL/VDSL connection can get congested at all if each user has unshared bandwidth with other users.

It has always been something DSL providers use as a marketing tool:

"Sure, it's slower than cable. But at least you don't run the risk of your neighbors slowing you down"

So while for cable you could make some case for this argument, it doesn't apply for DSL providers.

And for argument's sake, lets ignore all those facts that already make caps a stupid excuse for their real reason.

And let's say congestion was the real reason, then it would be like the BT CEO said:

Congestion would still happen during peak times, since that's when everyone gets on.
Such congestion hasn't been an issue for a long time, with or with out caps, since modern networks are more than able to cope with that traffic, and it's only going to get better.

So what would be a fix for congestion if it was really the case?

Not caps, since like i said before, people would still get on the internet at the same time.

It would be either bandwidth management (throttling) during peak times or the real solution: add more capacity, based on those peak times. Which is what they have always done, and works just fine.

Caps would also discourage usage of the internet during times when the internet usage is at it's lowest and congestion is not an issue. (again, this is just for argument's sake, since i don't believe for a second that there is any congestion during peak times)

Caps have no place in a world where symmetrical gigabit speeds are becoming available.
8744675
join:2000-10-10
Decatur, GA

8744675 to gigahurtz

Member

to gigahurtz
ISP's already have a way to notify and deal with bandwidth hogs by sending them warnings. If they are a small number, as the ISP's state, why not deal with the few instead of penalizing everyone with caps. It's nothing but a money grab.

I have Earthlink DSL over an AT&T last mile. I wonder if AT&T will make them impose caps too, like what happened in Canada.
Automate
join:2001-06-26
Atlanta, GA

Automate

Member

U-Verse has higher limit

"AT&T's plan to impose overages isn't about congestion at all -- it's about protecting U-Verse IPTV revenues from Internet video."

If this is the case why does AT&T set the U-Verse limit to 250 Gig and the DSL limit to 150 Gig?
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Re: U-Verse has higher limit

said by Automate:

"AT&T's plan to impose overages isn't about congestion at all -- it's about protecting U-Verse IPTV revenues from Internet video."

If this is the case why does AT&T set the U-Verse limit to 250 Gig and the DSL limit to 150 Gig?

To get people that are on DSL in Uverse areas to subscribe to U-verse since U-verse internet requires one to to have U-verse TV.
Automate
join:2001-06-26
Atlanta, GA

Automate

Member

Re: U-Verse has higher limit

said by 88615298:

U-verse internet requires one to to have U-verse TV.

No it doesn't
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Re: U-Verse has higher limit

said by Automate:

said by 88615298:

U-verse internet requires one to to have U-verse TV.

No it doesn't

Show me the INTERNET ONLY packages and pricing

»www.att.com/u-verse/shop ··· ndex.jsp

bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto
join:2001-02-10
USA

bigunk

Member

Re: U-Verse has higher limit

I have U-verse internet only 6/1 for 40 bucks. I asked for it that way when I signed up. They told me the only way was to order it with TV but defer the install date for 35 days. Then, on day 30, cancel the TV subscription. An extra 5 minutes of my time.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Re: U-Verse has higher limit

said by bigunk:

I have U-verse internet only 6/1 for 40 bucks. I asked for it that way when I signed up. They told me the only way was to order it with TV but defer the install date for 35 days. Then, on day 30, cancel the TV subscription. An extra 5 minutes of my time.

The whole point is you DO in fact have to order TV then go through bullshit to cancell it. Why not have an internet only option. If I want internet only from Charter I'm not required to order TV first then cancell it. I can just order internet without TV from the start.
beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH

beaups

Member

Re: U-Verse has higher limit

Really you don't. I did no trickery to get internet only. It may depend on your location/address.

djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Reno, NV

djrobx to 88615298

Premium Member

to 88615298
TV is not required for U-verse internet. In some areas there's even a self-install option now, but it's currently limited to 12mbps (techs can later bump your profile once installed if you can handle more). AT&T is also offering "U-verse" internet over ADSL2+ (called "IP-Dslam" in the U-verse forum).

A lot of people choose to install the TV and cancel it because that gets you free install.

bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto
join:2001-02-10
USA

bigunk to 88615298

Member

to 88615298
I see your point. Maybe it's because it was a promotional thing because UVerse was just rolling out in my area.
beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH

beaups to 88615298

Member

to 88615298
I have uverse internet only. I signed up online. Maybe something is up with your service address, but MANY are on internet only.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

1 edit

NormanS to 88615298

MVM

to 88615298
said by 88615298:

Show me the INTERNET ONLY packages and pricing

AT&T has reserved to itself the right to force me to change from regular DSL (ADSL) to U-verse DSL (ADSL2+) unilaterally. They can force me to accept the ADSL2+ equipment if I want to keep my Internet service. They can can't force me to accept a VDSL gateway, with IPTV service included, when they shut down the CO-based ADSL DSLAM.

AT&T has begun retiring ADSL in favor of ADSL2+ in many areas.
RaTtMaN
join:2004-01-08
Parkersburg, WV

RaTtMaN to 88615298

Member

to 88615298
said by 88615298:

said by Automate:

said by 88615298:

U-verse internet requires one to to have U-verse TV.

No it doesn't

Show me the INTERNET ONLY packages and pricing

»www.att.com/u-verse/shop ··· ndex.jsp

It's called build your own bundle, since the 2-wire 3600 Gateway doesn't support HPNA (which is what AT&T uses to provide a TV signal) you cannot get TV with this package, I even made a nice little green circle for you so you could find it easily



I would find the user manual PDF for the 3600HGV but it appears 2-wire doesn't list it on their site.

RaTtMaN
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin to Automate

Member

to Automate
said by Automate:

"AT&T's plan to impose overages isn't about congestion at all -- it's about protecting U-Verse IPTV revenues from Internet video."

If this is the case why does AT&T set the U-Verse limit to 250 Gig and the DSL limit to 150 Gig?

Explain why they have caps at all.

jlivingood
Premium Member
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA

jlivingood

Premium Member

Some background

The article refers to some IETF work. While some of those mechanisms are implemented in uTP, that does not stop anyone else from implementing them as well.

Interestingly, much of this work flows from a May 2008 meeting on Peer to Peer Infrastructure (see »tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5594).

You can learn more about LEDBAT's objectives at »datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ ··· charter/, CONEX's at »datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ ··· charter/, and ALTO's at »datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ ··· charter/.
Da Man
join:2008-05-08
Hanover, PA

Da Man

Member

BitTorrent has a CEO

Didn't think a company of 20 employees that AFAIK does nothing needs a CEO.

kelp1
@comcast.net

kelp1

Anon

Comcast need not worry.

Look at there match up in the first round.
Charter! LMAO!
nocannothave
join:2006-10-14
Kennewick, WA

nocannothave

Member

Scheduling:

23:00 to 05:00 = on
05:00 to 10:00 = off
10:00 to 15:00 = on
15:00 to 23:00 = off

How much more considerate can I get regarding my neighbors and our shared bandwidth?
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

Rekrul

Member

Overlooked

The article also fails to mention the issue of speed. The higher the speed everyone is using, the more congestion they can potentially cause. Since AT&T is capping ALL accounts, even 3Mbs ones, that would mean that 3Mbs users are causing congestion. If that's the case, how can AT&T justify selling accounts that allow people to use 4, 6 or even 8 times as much bandwidth?

If a buffet is running out of food, you don't hand out giant serving platters to the customers. That just allows them to take more food at one time and deplete the supply even more quickly.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

Traffic analogy flawed

"would rationing gas or capping miles on everyone’s odometer solve rush hour traffic? No, of course not. People would still prioritize use of their car and precious miles to get to and from work. "

I would modify it to say "increasing the cost of gas" instead of rationing it. When $3 per gallon gas first hit a couple of years ago, I noticed an almost immediate increase in ridership of my commuter bus, and a sharp drop in local traffic.

So there is some truth to the notion that rationing or price increases modifies even necessary usage.

The whole problem with BitTorrent is that it relies on heavy use of upstream bandwidth on eyeball networks. Upstream bandwidth on cable is limited because it uses lower frequencies prone to noise, and traditional internet use on an eyeball network doesn't really need a lot of upstream bandwidth.

Yes, the cable companies are developing faster upstream speeds, but it comes at a cost. Will people be willing to pay more for more upstream speed? I doubt it. Most would just demand that their cable companies give it to them for the same price.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP

Member

Oh, horrors! People paying according to how much they use!

These ISPs are evil for even proposing such a concept. To each according to his greed....
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

Kamus

Member

Re: Oh, horrors! People paying according to how much they use!

Yes, horrific isn't it? because bandwidth is like water and doesn't grow exponentially in capacity like processing speed does.

Oh wait...
DMWCincy
join:2004-04-27
Fairfield, OH

DMWCincy to SuperWISP

Member

to SuperWISP
I would welcome a reasonable pay per use. Instead they want to give us a high flat fee for a low cap and a horrible high usage rate pass the cap.

Lets use an example cap of 250 GB. If I pay $50 (pulled out of my head for this example) for up to 250 GB, why is it fair that I get charged $50 if I only use 20GB or $50 plus overages if I use 250GB that month? Drop the flat fee and I only pay for 20GB when I only use 20GB and I pay for 250GB when I use 250GB.
matm3479
join:2002-04-22
Pasadena, TX

matm3479

Member

Greed!

Most, if not all, of the backbones are on fiber. Fiber is only limited by the equipment at both ends of said fiber. No EXTRA fiber is needed to increase backbone bandwidth. Over the past few years they have increased the capabilities of fiber on par with the increase of technology(multi-spectrum being one way).

These caps are simply to increase revenue and "limit" usage due to the companies being unwilling to upgrade their ends.

IE, about 8 years ago, I purchased a sony smart phone from at&t, added an UNLIMITED DATA package for $19, yes, $19. It was 3G, just as today. What has changed?? Has the service gotten better? NO! Is there any reason to charge more AND put a cap on? NO! Why are they doing so? To MAKE MONEY. How are they getting away with charging MORE for LESS(due to worse service)? Because of MONOPOLIES!

Why isn't the FCC doing anything? Because they are on said companies payroll. And also the reason the US is so far behind the overseas networks.

I have comcast, 250gb limit. I DO NOT TORRENT, have netflix, pandora and play online games. I hover around 200gb/month..and I do this ALL BY MYSELF! A family of 4 could NOT stay under 250gb if I hit 200 by myself!
There lies another reason for the cap, why pay ~20 a month for a single movie channel's crappy lineup when I can watch almost anything, WHEN I want for under $10 with netflix??
I hardly watch TV and will probably drop my TV service..this is what the companies DON'T want to happen.
Similar to what SWBell did when DSL first came out, they moaned and complained about land line customer loss, why on Earth would someone keep their dedicated dial-up line when they have DSL? Then they had to offer "dry DSL". DSL with no dial-tone. Not many people heard about it, in fact, they wanted it kept as hush hush as possible. Why? $$$.
The big wigs NEED that $50 million BONUS...friggin greedy, coke-snorting bastages!