[ NNSquad ] Re: Comments on NNSquad Purpose

[Brett Glass <nnsquad@brettglass.com>]

At 08:48 PM 11/9/2007, Kevin McArthur wrote:

> Counting bytes is simple,

We do it. But it's not enough.

> cutting users off at a certain amount is simple,

This is unfriendly. If we did this, we would inconvenience and 
likely lose the customer. Better just to restrict the improper 
activity, which often either is going on  without the user's 
knowledge or is recreational rather than essential.

> charging them more for going over said amount is simple.

No, that's NOT simple. It requires a much more complex billing 
system. And users want to pay a flat rate.


> >  Also, in some cases, there are not just caps but prohibitions 
> > incorporated into the terms of service.
>
> And we have a problem with those prohibitions.

Others, even on this list, have said that they do not. I am sorry 
if you personally do. Those prohibitions are necessary to the 
survival of our ISP. We have the right to refuse to do business 
with anyone, and we will not and cannot do business with people who 
abuse our network or use it to engage in criminal activity. That's 
the bottom line, we're sticking to it, and no ISP in his right mind 
would back down on this.

> Who gave the ISPs the authority to decide what applications or 
> services are legitimate

It's our network, and we have the right to grant users access to it 
on our terms. If they do not like it, they can go elsewhere. We are 
not a monopoly; in fact, we are the REASON that there is not a 
monopoly. If a user cannot abide by reasonable terms of service, we 
encourage him or her to go to our competitors. Let them destroy the 
local cable company's network by seeding a torrent -- if the cable 
company is foolish enough to permit this. I have a family to feed.

> or who will be allowed to be a competitor with carrier-offered 
> services like VoIP and Video offerings.

We don't engage in anti-competitive activities. This is one area in 
which we do believe carriers must be "neutral." But "neutrality" 
does not mean allowing abuse.


> >  In that case, it's appropriate and in keeping with the user's 
> > contract to stop the traffic cold (as with BitTorrent, Limewire, or GNUtella).
>
> I think your definition of appropriate and mine differ.

I define what is appropriate in my venue. And so does the law. 
Maybe you had a different sort of upbringing than I did, but when I 
grew up I was taught that if you see someone stealing or otherwise 
violating the law you stop and/or report it. You don't tolerate it 
or turn a blind eye to it.

Again, if you do not like the fact that I am ethical and value the 
quality of my service, you are free to choose another provider. 
However, a provider that allows the sort of activity in which you 
want to engage is likely to have poor and unreliable service. And 
because it is supporting criminal activity, it is not ethical and 
you can expect it to treat you unethically, too.

> The network is not the layer at which to enforce copyright law. 
> (Which is a very separate debate)

That's your opinion. Mine is that any method which does not 
physically harm the lawbreaker or his property is appropriate.


> > I know that BitTorrent's primary use is to infringe copyrights 
> > and deprive folks like me of compensation.
>
> I would be careful making statements like this, I'm fairly sure 
> BitTorrent Inc wouldn't appreciate it.

BitTorrent, Inc., like the "old" Napster and Sharman, appears to 
know exactly what its software is used for and apparently turns a 
blind eye to the fact that it is primarily used for illegal purposes.

I once wrote a similar application -- actually, I did it long 
before Napster, back in the 90's. Never deployed it, because I 
realized that it would be used primarily for piracy.


> >  And, as an ISP, I know that BitTorrent is hurting my quality of service.
>
> Its easy to play the blame game;

Sorry, but it's not a game. It's simple cause and effect. This 
crimeware -- including Limewire, Kazaa, BitTorrent, etc. -- is 
abusing our network.

> I'd argue that your not having access to more upstream bandwidth 
> at a reasonable price is hurting your QoS.

There would never be enough. This illisit software is viral. The 
abuse would consume as much bandwidth as it was allowed to.

> I'm pretty sure that the consumer interest will be there 
> regardless of what distribution technology is used.

If they're pirating copyrighted material, they are not "consumers" 
-- they are criminals. But let's assume, arguendo, that the content 
were legal. The load on our network would still be much lower, 
because they would not be putting up servers on our network that 
offered the content to all and sundry (a violation of our terms of service).

> If the user is billed for their usage in a fair manner, than P2P 
> will reflect what it really is, a service that consumers pay for 
> through a portion of the bandwidth they are willing to buy.

This does not work when access is sold at a flat rate. You are 
coming close to saying that you would like to mandate the end of 
flat rate pricing.

> You've just explained how the user doesn't pay a flat rate. There 
> are different levels of DSL, Cable, Leased lines -- even different 
> caps and throughputs on all those mediums.

These are just different flat rates.

> The user should be allowed to use the service that they pay for --

They are. And our terms of service clearly define what they are 
paying for. If they try to use things which they are not paying 
for, they are in breach of contract.

> Wholesale bandwidth is in the range of 5-10 cents a gig for 
> bi-directional traffic.

Wholesale bandwidth is not sold by the gigabit; it's sold in 
megabits per second per month.

> At 50 gigs/mo this works out to $2.50 to $5.00 on a $40/mo plan. 
> Of course this isn't last-mile bandwidth, but it seems to be the 
> apples you're comparing.

Not correct. If you assume a steady state rate, 100 gigabytes per 
month equals about 384 Kbps continuously, including overhead. Given 
that bandwidth at wholesale costs $100 to $500 per megabit per 
second (and if you can get it for me for less, I'd very much 
welcome it -- go ahead and try!), this works out to $26 to $128 per 
month. And in reality, you need more than this because there are 
"rush hours" when demand goes up by a factor of 8. So, to support a 
quota of 50 gigabytes, you'd need to charge more than $40 per month 
just to cover your bandwidth costs.

I invite you to get into this business. You'd be a great 
competitor. We'd send you all the P2Pers and within months, you'd 
be bleeding money.



> > > As for making it 'harder to stop' for illegal activity, this 
> > > isn't one of the goals of bittorrent.
> > Sure it is. And features such as MSE/PE are specifically intended 
> > to make illegal activity even harder to trace and stop.
> I'd argue that these features are intended to increase privacy 
> when using torrents in a lawful way.

"Increase privacy?" You must be kidding. A "torrent," by 
definition, is intended to be distributed far and wide.

> They also make it harder to shape traffic,

Which is another reason why they're abusive. They are attempting to 
defeat the mechanisms via which the ISP maintains the quality of 
its product. In short, they are a very direct attack on the quality 
of our service.

> Why would one goto a 'pirate' site to see how BitTorrent is being used?

Because it's the #1 BitTorrent site on the Internet.

> ... BT is no more malicious than FTP, SCP, HTTP or any other protocol.

It absolutely is. It's designed to monopolize networks; to force 
users to turn their computers into servers and violate ISPs' terms 
of service; to make it tough to stop copyright infringement. That's malicious.

> This also happens to be a power-user, multimedia level of net 
> usage. I'm sure there are those who would like to pay less for a 
> 5gig/mo plan. No one is arguing for price controls, just let the 
> market figure out what bandwidth is actually worth.

I have already posted messages explaining what it actually costs at 
wholesale. And it's far above the amount you state.

> Bandwidth costs vary depending on where its being connected. The 
> common retail bandwidth cost is between 5 and 10 cents per 
> gigabyte transferred.

Not true. Please do not profess to understand the details of our 
business unless you are in it. And as I've mentioned earlier, if 
you can get us Tier 1 or even Tier 2 bandwidth for less than $100 
per megabit per month here in Laramie, I would welcome you to do 
it. I'd even give you a finder's fee. But before you attempt to 
mislead the members of the list by quoting figures that come 
nowhere near reality, I must ask you to "put up or shut up." Show 
me where I can get bandwidth at the absurdly low prices you claim.

--Brett Glass, LARIAT.NET