NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] FW: BitTorrent bandwidth usage (from IP)
Nice post, Brad. I have always resisted Bennett's argument that P2P applications are servers. They fail several tests -- one: P2P applications have a UI, servers are generally faceless daemons. two: P2P and Client-Server are different architectures and the role of a P2P application is quite different than the role of a Server in a Client-Server architecture. three: In the specific instance (Comcast) that Bennett is shilling for, even Comcast PR and Comcast's Executive Vice President Cohen have repeatedly stated that they have no problem with BitTorrent being used to upload or download on their network. Gnutella and eDonkey and DC++ are no worse or better than BitTorrent when it comes to consuming Bandwidth. Even P2P FTP uploads will consume as much bandwidth as they can. BitTorrent is not at all special in this regard. Remember also that DOCSIS ISPs and WISPs do have the option of setting a bandwidth limit, even if that limit is lower than the temporary speeds that their modem settings might allow them to attain. Without stating such a limit, what else is the consumer to assume but that his speed limit is also his bandwidth limit? Robb Topolski > -----Original Message----- > From: nnsquad-bounces+robb=funchords.com@nnsquad.org [mailto:nnsquad- > bounces+robb=funchords.com@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of Lauren Weinstein > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:50 AM > To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org > Cc: lauren@vortex.com > Subject: [ NNSquad ] BitTorrent bandwidth usage (from IP) > > > From: David Farber <dave@farber.net> > To: "ip" <ip@v2.listbox.com> > Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 06:23:28 -0800 > Subject: [IP] Two positions at FCC Comcast Hearing > > ________________________________________ > From: Brad Templeton [btm@templetons.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 6:50 PM > To: David Farber > Cc: ip > Subject: Re: [IP] Two positions at FCC Comcast Hearing > > > Note: Richard Bennett<http://www.bennett.com/blog> who was an expert > panelist at yesterday?s hearings informed me that BianRosa claimed that > BitTorrent didn?t exceed the contracted limit. That however ignores the > explicit ?no server? clause in the terms of service and no broadband > service was built to be fully saturated 24×7. This is why commercial > grade T1 lines that offer less than half the speed of broadband > connections costing 8 times less are $400 per month. > > > > Actually, the prime reason T1s cost that much is the overpriced local > loop. > When purchased at well-connected data centers, megabits of saturated > bandwidth > are a great deal cheaper than the price quoted. > > However, I feel it is important to point out that nobody denies that P2P > applications, especially Bittorrent, generate a lot of bandwidth usage, > more than most or all other applications. This is not news of any kind. > (I am a director of BitTorrent Inc, which develops P2P software, though > not > acting as a spokesman.) > > There will always be low-usage applications, and high-usage applications, > and I think it's safe to claim there will always be a highest-use > appliciation > which goes far, far beyond the average. > > In this case, with BitTorrent, users trade their spare upstream > bandwidth -- which in many cases, such as the typical DSL ISP is otherwise > going unused and wasted -- to other users in exchange for their > upstream bandwidth in return. (Or, in a "pay it forward/golden rule" > situation, > they sometimes just do it out of philanthropy or in the hope of promoting > a system > where they will be rewarded later.) It is commonly incorrectly stated > that > this is done to benefit the 3rd party (such as ubuntu.com) but the trade > is > really mostly among the users. The seed gets no means to reward tit for > tat. > > What is often missed is the question really comes out of this concept of > the user having spare upstream bandwidth. Most ISPs sell a flat rate, > upstream package and as such the bandwidth is sold to the customer and > is theirs to use to further their usage of the internet. In the case > of DSL, the upstream is truly otherwise unused and is lost forever if not > used. With DOCSIS and wireless ISPs this is not as true. > > Some ISPs want to claim you don't really have any spare bandwidth to > trade, > that they didn't really sell it to you, that it is theirs, not yours, > in spite of what they advertise. If so, there have been calls for them > to be clear in their advertising about these limits. > > However there remains a deeper issue. As I noted, there will always be > a heavy-use application at the flat end of the bell curve. The 90-10 rule > will probably always apply. Should we be concerned with a regimen that > wishes to "solve" that "problem" by beating down at whatever new > innovation becomes popular enough to be the heavy user, with application- > specific > tricks such as protocol detection and forged resets? Where does this > lead us? > > Many value an internet where the smarts are in the "ends" and people come > up with clever new apps that use bandwidth to meet user desires. > In this case, people want big files. Yes, because Bittorrent is the best > technology for publishing big files, it is used by infringers -- why would > they not seek out the best like everybody else -- but big files will be > sent, both for legit and infringing uses. When a P2P cloud gets large > and has people exchanging data within a LAN, it actually reduces the > bandwidth > load on an ISP compared to the traditional central server "hub and spoke" > approach. > > So let's not argue about who is using the most bandwidth, but instead > decide > how to set up an internet where there will always be a heavy bandwidth > user, and how to regulate that, if it needs regulation at all. > > ------------------------------------------- > Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now > RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >