 SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
| 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. | |
|  | 
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ | Re: Doesn't address the fundamental problem 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. | |
| | | 
Van
Premium
join:2009-07-08
Washington, DC | Re: Doesn't address the fundamental problem That was exactly what I was thinking when reading this | |
| | | | 
sivran
Long Live The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Doesn't address the fundamental problem 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... | |
| | | | | chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC
| Re: Doesn't address the fundamental problem 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
| Re: Doesn't address the fundamental problem 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
| 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. | |
| | | JimF
join:2003-06-15
Allentown, PA
| 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. | |
| | | SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
1 edit | 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. | |
| | | | nnaarrnn
join:2004-09-30
Nitro, WV
 ·Vonage
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Suddenlink
| Re: Doesn't address the fundamental problem said by SuperWISP  :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. Sounds like you need to upgrade your backend if your users are exhausting what you've got. | |
| | | | | SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY | Re: Doesn't address the fundamental problem I think that someone needs to get off their backend and tell me how I can afford that without raising prices. | |
| | | | chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC | I'm not doubting your numbers, but where does all of that come from? Is that pure variable cost from linkups or does that include fixed costs and general maintenance and support? | |
| | 
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
·VOIPo
| 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. | |
| | | 
Laughing Man
Stand Alone Complex
Premium
join:2008-03-17
Louisville, KY
clubs:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Doesn't address the fundamental problem 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
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| 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. | |
| | | SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
| Re: Doesn't address the fundamental problem 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. | |
| | | | | | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| Re: Doesn't address the fundamental problem 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.  | |
| | 
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| 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. | |
| | | SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
1 edit | Re: Doesn't address the fundamental problem 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. | |
| | | | nnaarrnn
join:2004-09-30
Nitro, WV | Re: Doesn't address the fundamental problem So what if your back-end provider was a fan of P2P, and gave it highest priority?
I'm willing to bet that you get away with what you get away with because you're the only available provider to your customers? | |
| | | SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
| 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. | |
| | gpmoo7
join:2009-01-03
Montreal, QC
·Videotron
| I will just say that Internet was meant to be unlimited.
ISPs have to spend more money on their network because p2p or not, the usage are going to grow fast and some countries will stay behind ... like US & Canada will likely do if they don't change their policies.
Everyone is talking about FTTH all over the world.
100 Mb/s (at least) in 5 years in every big cities of the developed countries.
For the places where the density is to low to be interesting for private companies, the government have to pay for it. | |
| | chronoss2009
join:2008-09-23
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| the prob withthis if you run your own local network
and prior to this you could divide up the bandwidth wiht the limitor when someone is around
now this will screw that person using it no matter what they do
FAIL
better for an isp to invest in the network and let everyone locally deal with shit | |
| 
OldGrayWolf
join:2007-10-06
2 edits | BitTorrent Gets A Little Smarter I've been using Transmission BitTorrent Client. It allows me the set both the upload and download bandwidth. I throttle my own bandwidth. I set it for 10% of my available bandwidth down and 1% up. I have a 15 Mbps connection. That setting still beats the bandwidth I get from a dedicated Linux software server.
If the ISP doesn't want me to use 10% of my bandwidth, once every 6 months, for an hour, then they shouldn't offer it to me in the first place. | |
| | n_w95482
Premium
join:2005-08-03
Ukiah, CA
| Works for me I've been using uTP for a while now (since 1.9 or 1.8.4 beta, not sure), and it seems to work very well for me. Almost everyone I connect to that's overseas (Australia, Italy, Japan, Poland, etc) and has it enabled receives from me at 150+ KB/sec, instead of under 50.
--
KI6RIT | |
| 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | new version? thanks but i don't need the media companies in my BT.
sometimes newer ISN'T always better!
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
| 
Bull Larky
@winbeam.com
| This is ridiculous It really doesn't matter anyways. If they were to ever squash bit torrent, they would just move on to something else to complain about. Bottom line is they do not want people using their lines for anything more than casal websurfing, and email basically.
What needs to happen is some regulation to get these isps in check. They don't want to raise prices, that would leave them open to lose customers to another isp, given their customers have another choice. Bottom line is no company any more wants to actually provide good service at a good price, no they want to screw everyone like they have a right to make money for nothing. Instead of upgrading or offering something useful, no they complain and try to blame things like bittorrent for costing them money, they don't want to acknowledge the fact that it may have something to do with over subs, crappy network things like that.
It used to be that you had to invest money to make money, now you just come up with some crazy ass terms of service, buy a few law makers off so they hand pass a few laws that basically eliminate any competition.
Someday people will learn that they have to vote with their wallets, and I don't mean just a few.
There are still to many air heads out there that say things like "well what can I do", or just blindly pay for shit without informing themselves of the ins and outs so they know if their getting screwed or not.
Thing I can not figure out though, why are these isps so into doing speed upgrades if they do not want you using it anyways. Why increase the speeds to numbers like 15, 20 Mbps if they are just going to complain when its used. Web surfing and email work fine on 3Mbps.
It is just disgusting the way business is these days. Take sooem of the money they spend on politicians and lobbying and invest it into the networks, imagine what we would have right now. | |
| |
NoUDP
@anonymouse.org | Re: This is ridiculous Once udp is used, ISP & Big Brother can spoof encryption packets way more easily...
Use TCP!!! otherwise the Encryption Wall will be downnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn | |
| | | |
|
|
BitTorrent Gets A Little Smarter
from:
Does show some improvement