Slashdot Log In
Net Neutrality and BitTorrent - No More Throttling?
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Feb 01, 2007 03:41 PM
from the my-wow-patch-is-feeling-sad dept.
from the my-wow-patch-is-feeling-sad dept.
Umaga's Purse writes "Will ISPs still be able to throttle BitTorrent traffic now that a significant proportion of it is legit? It's a tough question, especially for ISPs like AT&T (which agreed to run a neutral network in order to gain approval for its merger with BellSouth from the FCC). It's not just a problem for AT&T, though: 'ISPs that have made no such agreements may not need to worry about BitTorrent taking over their networks, but they do need to wrestle with the issue of how to handle it now that so many legal uses of the protocol are available. Do they want to irritate their BitTorrent-using contingent, or let BitTorrent flow unhindered at the risk degrading the experience of those who don't download torrents?'"
Related Stories
[+]
AT&T Offering Merger Concessions 98 comments
TheFarmerInTheDell writes that AT&T is offering concessions to make their merger with BellSouth happen as fast as possible. From the article:
"AT&T filed a letter of commitment with the [Federal Communications Commission] Thursday night that adds a number of new conditions to the deal, including a promise to observe 'network neutrality' principles, an offer of affordable stand-alone digital subscriber line service and divestment of some wireless spectrum."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Which portion? (Score:4, Insightful)
Says who? Not that I disagree, but it would be interesting to read a study done on the matter...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But for the record, there were ALWAYS legit uses for BitTorrent. It's just that they're legitimate POPULAR uses now.
Re:Which portion? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Which portion? (Score:5, Informative)
But as always, it comes down to the bucks, if your ISP allows unthrottled bittorrent traffic, YOU will pay the costs in the end, by higher fees. Or possibly, your ISP goes out of business
Re:Which portion? (Score:4, Interesting)
Blizzard undeniably uses bittorrent for the wow updater, yes, but me and all of my friends would argue the "quickly". It's dog slow and unreliable. No, its not a router issue or anything, we all torrent perfectly fine elsewhere (and if we were able to load the torrent in a good client like utorrent, maybe we wouldnt have a problem with this one). In the end a lot of people just close wow's uploader and wait until its up on fileplanet/filefront/etc.
I don't know whos fault it is, but I just had to throw that in there.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apply that throughout the
Re:Which portion? (Score:4, Informative)
And of course the background downloader is actually throttled by blizzard so that it doesn't eat up your connection, even if you have a dial-up modem(I suppose it should be smarter than this, but blizz didn't really want complaints). The actual downloads on the day(at least up until the last few weeks) have always been quite snappy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You've just made my list, pal.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This may be a dumb question, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
So, if the tracker port number changes and the client port number changes, how is it being blocked?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This may be a dumb question, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
More to the point, I can set my BitTorrent client (Azureus) to encrypt all traffic. Currently I have it set to default to encryption and fallback to plaintext -- but it would be a simple matter to reject unencrypted connections.
Throttling traffic is stupid. Build your network to support the load or stop selling "unlimited" service. My cell phone provider doesn't get to decide who I can talk or what I can talk about. Why should my ISP?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But your cell phone provider can degrade the quality of your call just a little bit to free up space, you just don't notice that much.
Only on CDMA networks. On GSM using the TDMA air interface there's a finite number of slots. If I get one then it's m
Re:This may be a dumb question, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Amen to that. In fact NO provider in the US will give you unlimited of anything but dialup and that only because it's too slow to be an issue and they don't even run the modem banks any more, they pay someone to send their users to the right places.
Comcast cable limits you to 90GB (through human intervention, not automatically.) Hughesnet satellite limits you to 350MB/4 hours. Et cetera.
Oh AND, your cellphone provider WILL terminate your service if you roam too often, which makes you unprofitable. So you're wrong about that anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comcast cable limits you to 90GB (through human intervention, not automatically.) Hughesnet satellite limits you to 350MB/4 hours. Et cetera.
And that I have another problem with. They shouldn't be able to advertise it as unlimited and use some fine pri
Re:This may be a dumb question, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
A sensible approach to make you happy (maybe) would be to limit the amount of bandwidth at each QoS level defined. If you want to burn your 500mb/month of highest QoS on bittorrent then so be it. Make the lowest tier of QoS truly unlimited. or some scheme like that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This may work in an ideal world, but the fact is that different applications do have different needs, and to make the Internet useful for more things it is necessary to have different levels of service
I do understand that point and I do use QoS on my ow
Re:This may be a dumb question, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Using QoS on bittorrent is akin to my phone company telling me what I can discuss on the phone. In the end it should only matter how much bandwidth you use.
This isn't so, in general. QoS restricts traffic by type. So throttling bittorrent and prioritizing Web traffic is more like making sure regular voice on phones has priority over text messages, where that speed is less critical. The basic idea of QoS as it was initially conceived was to insure VoIP and video conferences did not lag, at the expense of a Web page loading a little more slowly or a bittorrent downloading a bit more slowly yet. This can be misused, say by degrading service on the ports used for one type of VoIP, and not on another, when your competitor offers their service on the one you're degrading. In general, however, encrypting packets makes this less important.
What is a real concern and needs to be addressed by net neutrality legislation is assigning quality of service that is different for the same traffic type, but for a different origin. Assume everyone moves to strongly encrypted packets and network operators have no idea what is in a given packet. That still doesn't stop them from assigning higher priority to packets that originate from their own VoIP servers and low priority to packets transiting their network from an origin that hosts their competitor's VoIP service. Worse yet, it does not stop some network operator who has no relationship with anyone but peering networks from going to Google and telling them all packets originating from Google's IPs are going to be set to a a lower priority than packets coming from MSN and Yahoo, unless Google is willing to pay an extra fee, and then going and doing the same thing to MSN, then Yahoo. Net neutrality with regard to who, rather than what, is a lot more important, in my opinion, than this focus on traffic types. I fear it is being overlooked in the discussion of this topic in the news and what that bodes for the resultant litigation.
Re:This may be a dumb question, but... (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is that none of us are paying what it costs the ISPs to deliver 6Mb download. We're still paying the same prices or less for what we were paying for ISDN 10 years ago, or DSL 3 years ago. Now companies are upgrading their pipes over and over, mainly the "last mile" so they can provide as much bandwidth as possible to the users.
The problem is all this has to go through upstream "choke points" where 5000 people on 100Mbit connections to the internet all go through one or two Gigabit links (at least in our ISP, this is the case).
You can say "upgrade" if you want, but you're not paying enough. So we look at other ways to make it work. We're not rate limiting usually, just "smoothing" the traffic. If one person is using 45Mbit for a while and nothing else is going on then fine.. but rarely is that the case. Usually if it's during peak hours we want to throttle back the 45Mbit torrenter and open up the bursty traffic. The torrent guy doesn't really notice (he's probably not even sitting at his computer, and it just takes a little longer to get the file) and it keeps the web browser people and the mail sending people from complaining.
Having been on both sides of the fence several times I can say this:
If you want real bandwidth, pay for it. Sprint doesn't throttle anyone and almost never lets their pipes get oversubscribed (at least not at the edge). They're massively expensive though.
Don't want to pay for the cake but still want cake? Open an ISP that provides "true 10Mbit up and down to users, no gimmicks no rate limits no oversubscription" and market the hell out of it. Most people would say the business model would fail, but as a customer you know what you want, maybe you can make it work?
Re:This may be a dumb question, but... (Score:4, Informative)
They're charging more than enough to provide the service they promise. That's not the problem.
In Sweden I could get that 10Mb/s symmetrical connection you mention - for less than I'm paying in the US for the cheapest available ADSL connection. That's a market with far more regulatory overhead, and LESS effective subsidy as well. Here in the US we've already PAID the telecom companies, in the form of public subsidies, for end to end fiber optic across the country. The telecoms took the money and laid some dark fibre but never opened it up. They're creating artificial scarcity to keep their profit margins up.
Re:This may be a dumb question, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Classifying network traffic based only on the port went out the window well over 5 years ago when modern packet shapers came to the market which were able to analyze the very contents of packets and classify them based on the type of service they contained rather than the port they used.
Re:This may be a dumb question, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
went out the window well over 5 years ago when modern packet shapers came to the market which were able to analyze the very contents of packets and classify them based on the type of service they contained rather than the port they used.
Hence why my bittorrent client supports encryption. My two cents says that it's none of my ISPs business what my packets contain. It may be their business how much bandwidth I use -- but it shouldn't matter if that bandwidth is VoIP, bittorrent, HTTP or a VPN. 100GB is 100GB regardless of what protocol generated the traffic.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My two cents says that it's none of my ISPs business what my packets contain. It may be their business how much bandwidth I use -- but it shouldn't matter if that bandwidth is VoIP, bittorrent, HTTP or a VPN. 100GB is 100GB regardless of what protocol gen
Re:This may be a dumb question, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
there are a number of ways, from deep packet inspection (studying packets and throttling those that appear BT-ish) to just cutting the uplink speed for a naughty subscriber. i think i my ISP may have done that to me already, judging by my ratios.
i do my own traffic shaping in my house with a linksys router running openwrt [openwrt.org] and x-wrt [x-wrt.org]. i do all my BT stuff from a vmware machine dedicated to all things BT (a win2k workstation running uTorrent [utorrent.com]) and i told the QOS config to file all traffic to and from his internal IP as bulk. i also use QOS to give priority to all traffic to and from my VOIP telephone adapter.
in case you are not a linksys firmware freak... putting openwrt on your router is like upgrading your PC to openBSD. loading x-wrt on your openwrt router is like installing KDE on your openBSD machine.
the result is BT can leech and seed 24x7x365, the humans in the house can surf and game unimpeeded and phone calls suffer no jitter from MMORPGS or BT.
i feel sort of like a hypocrite for being a net neutrality fanboy and using QOS inside my firewall... but at least i can trust myself to not degrade my access in favor of my own proprietary offerings.
some may say i am a little too trusting, but i have known me for a long time... i think we can trust eachother.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Did I miss something? (Score:4, Interesting)
On what, exactly, are you basing this assumption that "a significant proportion" of BitTorrent traffic is legitimate?
Backwards (Score:3, Informative)
On the other hand, they do have a right to make thei
Neither. (Score:3, Informative)
Neither. Instead, focus on upgrading the infrastructure and giving people more bandwidth, the US is already behind pretty much the rest of the world. . .
Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:5, Informative)
You are correct. Whoever asked this question clearly does not understand what network neutrality is about. To put it in terms that the person asking the question can understand: It is not about preventing degradation of BT, but rather about ensuring that BT can connect to all trackers with equally degraded quality. :-)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And I don't blame them, as no one else really seems to agree on what the phrase "network neutrality" is supposed to mean, or even how it should be capitalized.
Trade off (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess the tricky part is at teh beginning when too big of a change may trigger a mass exodus. If they slowly start throttling it down and don't see much change in their business then they can keep that up until it becomes a problem.
Personally I think if/when ISPs do this they could avoid a lot of hassles by explaining it to people up front, in plain English, instead of burying their right to throttle your "unlimited" bandwidth in a cryptic and massive Acceptable Use Policy.
It's obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Most users don't download torrents.
Put in other words.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Why do they have to stop? (Score:2)
Throttling BT downloads ge
Remember this one? (Score:3, Interesting)
If Robert X. Cringely is right, then Google has indeed calculated well.
The easy solution: (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe if you could actually deliver what you charge for (or only charge for what you can deliver), people wouldn't get so easily pissed about "degraded" service.
=Smidge=
Value added (Score:5, Insightful)
All without doing anything squinky: just identify which torrents are hot, add one of their own. It's what BitTorrent does, after all.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My (possibly completely incorrect) impression of the problem ISPs have with BitTorrent is that it uses a lot of upload bandwidth at the last mile. Caching the data won't really help with that.
As I understand it, most ISPs have tons of bandwidth within t
Here's an idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here's an idea (Score:5, Interesting)
How about before the ISPs even think of throttling down BitTorrent or any other type of traffic - they make even a casual effort to throttle back the 95% of email that is spam?
Why? Spam doesn't take up a significantly large portion of internet traffic and is a lot harder to separate out of the mix, than bittorrent. Even zombies performing DDoS attacks don't generally make up much of the overall internet traffic, although the spikes they create are problematic.
In reality, a number of large network operators don't want network neutrality. They want the opportunity to offer services and make sure competitors are unable to compete. They want to shake down companies individually by threatening to degrade their service and not their competitor's. They care about money; no hypocrisy there.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I do work occasionally for some local isp's (Score:4, Informative)
Skynet (Score:3, Funny)
Got it wrong (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bandwidth Limiting (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree. Either give me exactly what I paid for (even if you have to adjust the price upwards), or advertise the REAL bandwidth (ie average connection speed), not some made up maximum theoretical speed if you're the only one on at 4:45 am. Overselling the service = selling something you don't have. That's tantamount to fraud if you advertise something you have no intention of providing.