|
Webware.com
|
 |
At Structure 08, he laid out the problem: 5 percent of the Net’s users are running P2P transfers taking up 80 percent of its capacity, which is dramatically limiting the available bandwidth available to everyone else. Roberts’ company, Anagran, is able to detect which “flows” are P2P traffic, and reduce the bandwidth available to these communications when other users’ systems want it. Roberts says that Anagran’s technology even functions when P2P transfers are encrypted.
Hmmmm… a device like this would negate the necessity of individual ISPs throttling bandwidth. It seems to me that when something is there for the taking, there are always individuals who take more than their fair share.
Found by ECA.
No, no, no and no…
ISPs are causing network congestion by not providing customers with up-to-date (never mind cutting edge) technology. If congestion existed while ISPs provided the latest and best, I’d agree but that is not the case. We do not need network manipulation as in the days of modems. We need ISPs to spend some of their profits and enable everyone to use P2P or whatever else evolves in time.
As I wrote here in the past, many other countries with varying social and political and geographical situations do provide their citizens with up-to-date (or cutting edge) technology in a manner profitable to the providers that makes this P2P issue mute.
“Hi. This is Comcast. We’ve been looking for a tool like yours for some time. What’s your name again?
…P2P transfers taking up 80 percent of its capacity…
Seriously doubt this. It might be 80% of the ISPs capacity, but not the backbone.
…a device like this would negate the necessity of individual ISPs throttling bandwidth.
No, it wouldn’t… because ISPs wants to decrease their traffic in order to squeeze more customers into the same pipe (in other words, they do not want to buy more capacity).
good luck with that
Smells fishy. For the last decade I’ve used priority queing to supply time sensitive interactive traffic high response on clogged corporate backbones. This sounds just like it. Surely most ISPs billing and routing infrastructure can already do what the Anagran gear is touting.
He’s marketing his company Al Gore-style. 1) Drum up some hysteria, 2) heard them into your organisation, 3) ???, 4) Profit!
#1: Are you willing to pay for that extra bandwidth? No free lunch…
While P2P is always the bad guy. P2P represents the early adopter crowd that exists with every technology. P2P is just the “How” of the moment the real issue is that there is a large, and growing, number of people that have accepted IP Video and Audio content and are willing to mess around with flaky P2P to get it. The ISP may buy themselves some time with this kind of technology, but if they wanted to kill the evil P2P, all they need to do is find a way to deliver large amounts of content efficiently to large groups of individuals on demand efficiently
#6 – Floyd – Are you willing to pay for that extra bandwidth?
Absolutely! How many cents is the real cost per GB?
No free lunch…
In this oligopoly, we’re already paying a shitload of money for our broadband connections.
So now you guys are against net neutrality?
#9 – LOL, the idiots! Excellent point.
Why is P2P traffic being labelled as bad? Says who and why?
When are the ISPs and Telecos actually going to deliver high speed broadband to the American public that they’ve received BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars for since the 1990’s and haven’t yet delivered? When are we going to get what our $%#&*@?!! tax dollars have already paid for?
And over at Slashdot there’s some news about Canada Bell having been forced to release some data about the impact of P2P, and it seems that it’s about 5 percent of their network traffic congestion. Can’t image it’s much different for AT&T overall here in the USA. Instead of the pipes we were promised, they’re using the money to promote cellular usage so idiots can yap to other idiots on the latest dildo-phone instead of watching the road.
So you’re saying that when I paid AT&T for an always-on 6 Mbps DSL connection, I was not actually entitled to 6 Mbps all day long? Because that’s not what I read in the contract. If that isn’t what AT&T intended, then why did they sell it to me?
I’m using exactly what I paid for, actually, considerably less than I paid for since I do sleep and work sometimes, so quit yer bitchin.
Perhaps we should pay individually for internet access based on amount, speed and time of day. Not some simple value based on some collective cost to maintain an account, which as near as I can tell is what is being done now. Any digital medium is built for metrics.
I thought if the ISP’s buy a Cisco router, they can sniff the packets already.
The bottom line is the ISP have not built out the last leg of the internet. The backbone of the net is not full. There is still dark fiber in the backbone. When Global Crossing went tits up. The ISP’s got all the dark fiber for 5 percent of what it cost to build.
The ISP’s are a bunch of money grubing Ho’s.
I have an even simpler solution.
The music “industry” should actively promote music sales on CD… except that they should strongly encourage the music labels to only charge what the music is actually worth.
That is, next to nothing. That’s because most music today is crap.
I say let the RIAA keep on hounding P2P users. When everyone is paying just $1 or so for CDs, no one will bother clogging the interweb with P2P use!
another DENT in the idea of INTERNET TV..
If I was willing to pay $53 per month for 4megabit BANDWIDTH, I should get it.
So the complaint is that P2P is using up 80% of the capacity?
Doesn’t that mean that people like using P2P?
And the natural reaction of the ISPs is to cut this popular part of the service?
If it’s a case of a relatively small group of users using most of the bandwidth, then this is actually a business opportunity: instead of throttling usage, charge for it in proportion to use.
This has been around for a while now. They can do this with the current generation of packet sniffers.
Cable companies have been especially guilty for overselling their network capabilities. I’ve seen commercials where they claim 15 megabit connections. Yeah right, maybe from 4-5am, otherwise it slows to a crawl during prime time hours.
Traffic is traffic, and ISP’s must deal with it or they should just leave the internet and let more ambitious folks take over. The last thing we need are a bunch of old warhorses dictating to the new generation that DRM, byte limits, and throttling by packet type is the future.
#0 – It seems to me that when something is there for the taking, there are always individuals who take more than their fair share.
So if I actually use all of the bandwidth I paid for I’m using more than my fair share?
“fair share”?!? Sounds communist to me. It’s not a free resource that we’re all sharing. It’s a created resource that we’re paying for. How about we start with a “fair price”? Let’s say my 6Mb pipe cost 15.00/mo instead of the 50.00 I pay. Then you could even cap me at 50GB a month and I’d happily pay for more (at a fir price).
With what they’re charging, they have plenty of money to create more bandwidth.
Ford: Let’s build cars
idiot: but we don’t have decent roads
Ford: the government will make them when it sees the benefit to the economy
…later…
idiot: we have too many cars on the road, traffic is becoming a real problem
Government: tax the cars, license the drivers, put up traffic lights and signs to slow them down, create some one way streets etc. This will buy us some time until we build a highway
The more things change the more they remain the same….
I agree the problem is corporate greed and lack of utilization of technology ALREADY IN PLACE!
They buried LARGE fiber optic cables next to the county road that borders my farm 6 years ago. I guess it is DARK FIBER cause we still have no cable and our good old 1950’s telephone exchange shack down the road. Also a local ISP put up a sweet wireless high speed internet setup on a nearby cel tower 4 years ago. Of course, a survey from the ISP showed it’s a no go for me as there are trees between my place and the tower. The amazing thing is the ISP told me 3 years ago they only put the transmitter HALFWAY up the tower cause they didn’t have enough cable to run to the top! Now I checked back with them Every year and they have yet to move the transmitter! At least I am close enough to the telephone exchange shack that I was able to get (50K down) DSL and leave dialup!
#17, no they are not claiming it’s popular, only that a small portion of users are becoming a large part of the traffic.
Bell Canada has been using DPI since March of ’07 to delay P2P and other protocols they can’t clearly identify … VOIP, VPN, etc. Basically, if they can’t tell what a packet contains, it gets delayed.
They (and I suspect most ISP’s) have, just like airlines do, “overbooked” their infrastructures, and instead of upgrading, they’ve decided to “manage” the traffic.
Here’s the analogy I’ve been using to explain this to “lay folk”.
You need to ship two boxes to Vancouver overnight for a wedding you are catering.
One box has cheese, the other walnuts.
You go to FedEx and plunk down you “overnight shipping” money and hand over the boxes.
FedEx then takes the boxes into the back room and opens the first one.
“.. Oh, this has perishable cheese in it, we’ll ship it by air …”.
They open the second box ,
“… Oh, this one has non-perishable walnuts, we’ll put it on the train …”.
The walnuts get there week later.
First, you’ve paid your overnight shipping and you’re not receiving the service.
Second, FedEx has no business looking in your boxes.
Third, even if they put both boxes on the plane and for some reason the plane gets diverted to Wisconsin due to bad weather, delaying delivery of the boxes the so be it … circumstances beyond their control.
I’m all for network management but, IT HAS TO BE DONE WITHOUT DPI !!!!
Apologies to FedEx …
In passive mode, DPI’s a powerful planning and trend analysis tool. DPI (in active mode) is the most serious threat to Net-Neutrality there is.
Every single internet subscriber on the planet should be very concerned about and support the banning of active DPI.
Really, this is the biggest threat to the internet, as we know it, ever!! Bigger than spam, viruses, malware, bots etc.
Get informed and take action !!
Peace …
/T.
I worked for a major ISP for years and I know for a fact that they can’t measure anything accurately.
I thought all the videos were hogging the “tubes”.
What kind of P2P would take up that much capacity?
#29: Downloads of entire movies and television programs.
30,
Many of the Major stations are installing their shows on the NET..Including NBC,CBS,ABC, SCIFI,comedy central, HULU, netflick and ALOt of others..
Being able to WATCH the show you WANT, WHEN you WANT, is the NEW trend.
The next part is Getting it to the TV/Video tv player(like DVD/DIVX/AVI)..
The MAIN problem is that we need a REAL NET/WEB interface to the web, and more then 1 BACKBONE..
As mentioned, its the LAST MILE…and it isnt 1 mile, its Several.
You must understand that 99% of ALL internet traffic has to hit/use the telco backbone. Even cable uses it. even CELLPHONES use it.
#26 You said it, so i don’t have to. Kudos. politico-corporate greed, in balls-out fashion.