Decluttering The Tubes, Solutions to the BitTorrent “Problem”?
Written by Ernesto on February 01, 2008Hundreds of larger and smaller ISPs all over the world try to limit BitTorrent traffic on their networks. They often argue that they have no other options, but that’s not completely true.
There has been a lot of discussion lately about Comcast’s efforts to slow down and block BitTorrent traffic, and even the FCC got involved in it. Unfortunately, Comcast is not the only ISP engaging in this kind of behavior, many others use similar tactics.
BitTorrent throttling has been going on for a few years now, but it is getting more attention lately, because the number of people who use BitTorrent keeps growing. The traffic shaping methods used vary from ISP to ISP. Some only limit BitTorrent traffic during certain times of the day, or throttle in specific regions. Others take a more aggressive approach and prevent their customers from seeding, or even downloading .torrent files.
Some people might wonder why ISPs throttle their connection. The argument most often used is that all the BitTorrent traffic on their network slows down other customers’ connections. An argument that makes sense (if it is true), but the real problem is that ISPs tend to be secretive about their throttling efforts. If it really is that big of a problem, be open about it, and let your customers know what they can and cannot do.
Art Reisman, who is chief technical officer at APConnections - a company that happens to manufacture traffic shaping devices, lists some of the possible solutions ISPs can implement in order to cope with the “BitTorrent problem”, which he wanted to share here.
1.) Ask for voluntary cooperation.
One recourse would be to ask customers to scale back on torrents, or to use them at night or another time when network usage is low. There is plenty of precedent in the Green movement to recycle and to reduce carbon footprints. So why not a campaign to scale back BitTorrent usage ?
The downside: Can you imagine a service provider sending a letter to its customer base outlining the technical limitations of allowing unlimited BitTorrent applications, and then asking for some voluntary cooperation? Me neither. Perhaps someday, but for now providers are viewed as a profit-driven adversary by most customers.
The upside: Seems to have a warm, fuzzy, feel-good ring to it.
2.) Keep connections within the providers network.
This is the method currently practiced with help from a popular product provided by Sandvine. The basic idea is that on a large provider network there are enough BitTorrent hosts that a client need not leave the provider’s network to retrieve content.
The downside: Consumers are suspicious of providers looking at their data to make determinations on what type of traffic it is. The consumer may also not get good results if the bulk of the content were located outside their providers network; for example, if a user were to download a file that was popular in Europe, the number of servers hosting it on the Comcast network might be limited.
The upside: Consumers are still freely able to find most BitTorrent content. Providers greatly reduce connections and exchange costs with other providers.
3.) Usage based quotas.
With this method a service provider will charge much higher rates when a preset amount of data usage is exceeded over a calendar month.
The upside: This method is unobtrusive in that the provider need not look at a customer’s data, only their total usage. Experience with university residential networks has shown that once quotas are announced users voluntarily reduce their peer-to-peer or BitTorrent usage.
The downside: More complex billing detail and customer service to resolve disputes. Large providers will still compete by marketing their service as unlimited. Despite the rants about BitTorrent being a resource issue, it is still only a small percentage of total customers that use it.
4.) Limit the total connections allowed at one time per user.
The upside: It’s simple and fair to implement. Providers already set rate caps on Internet speeds, so this is just a rate cap on connections, very similar and easy to swallow for the consumer.
The downside: When users reach their allotted connection limit, all traffic on their link slows down.
5.) Build out networks to handle the increased load and pass the cost onto the consumer.
The upside: It works.
The downside: It’s most likely not economically sustainable. Without some other form of mitigation, the public’s appetite for content appears insatiable.
6.) Cancel the service of users who abuse their privileges. There have been reports of providers doing this already.
The upside: It moves an unprofitable customer off your network and onto a competitor.
The downside: Customers begin to despise you.
Here at TorrentFreak we have discussed some of these alternatives before, and in the long run there is really only one solution that is acceptable. The Internet is only a few years old, if the plan is to keep using it in the future, ISPs need to upgrade their networks. So, invest in more Internet gateway capacity, 10Gbps interconnect ports, and peering agreements. BitTorrent users are not the problem, they only signal that the ISPs need to upgrade their capacity, because customers will only get more demanding in the future. The Internet is not only about sending email, and browsing on text based websites anymore.
Art Reisman told TorrentFreak that that there are two solutions that make sense to him: “Raise rates per usage volume instead of flat rates, if it can be kept simple! Second is to limit customer connections as a resource.” Charging for bandwidth uses makes sense indeed, as long as the prices are reasonable. The second option of limiting the number of connections only looks like a temporary fix though.
What do you think?
Previously: Rambo’s Armed Guard Anti-Piracy Measures Torn Apart By Industry Insider
Next: Sweden Warns Kids Against The Pirate Bay
99 Responses (Add yours or TrackBack)
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 » Show All
The only solution is to upgrade their cables to high-capacity fiber-cables. We can’t live with those old cables that are underneath our houses in the future, the sooner the ISP’s invest in fiber the better! If an ISP do invest, that ISP might get more customers that are fed up with slow connections.
ISP’s, upgrade to optical fiber. Sooner or later you have to!
I think providers need to specificaly structure packages so that any given tier gets exactly what they pay for, and upgrade network capacity if the demand for the top tier heavy user packages have an impact on the network. I never really believe the figures that ISP’s bound around. I fail to grasp how exactly the 95th percentile can have such a dramatic impact on even a fibre based network, but perhaps that says more about the physical state of it and the 5% are just used as a scapegoat.
ISP’s should not over sell capacity. Pulling the old ‘victim of our own success’ is a crock of shit. If you are going to sell an unlimited bandwidth high speed service, then the network should be able to cope with more than 5% of its users using it at their own maximum capacity. That doesnt leave much in the way of redundancy, and may explain alot when during times where alot of people may want to use their internet at the same time (like some global news event), shit starts to break and the network starts to fail.
The state of most networks I would say has less to do with the activities of the end user, and everything to do with profit over investment of behalf of ISP’s. This is especialy a problem where any one ISP may have a monopoly in an area and can basicaly do or say whatever they want becuase their customers have no other option but to use them. Broadband provision is fastly turning into a sess pit, and consumers are becoming disallusioned with the notion of endless supper speed broadband, becuase more good majority of them, it’s most certainly not the case where they are.
I don’t understand why building out the network is “not economically sustainable”, this is the nature. These companies have monopolies all over the country.. I guarantee, you open access, this won’t even be an argument anymore. Plus with wireless, white space, and bpl, there are cheap ways without building infrastructure to the local areas, and still being able to contribute back to the backbone. F these companies , these are all just excuses.
i like solution number 1.
PEACE
“The Internet is only a few years old…”
Dude, the ‘net has been around since 1983, and even earlier if you consider ARPANET.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#Creation
Do your homework, Ernesto :-)
Best regards.
[quote comment="278644"]i like solution number 1.
PEACE[/quote]
I won’t do it.. My computer is turned off whenever I sleep. Electricity is expensive and I won’t risk a fire.
Charging for bandwidth uses makes sense indeed, as long as the prizes are reasonable.
Should be ‘prices’.
Bandwidth is NOT privilege but Purchased goods. If I buy UNLIMITED Bandwidth thats just what I expect. My purchase has absolutely NOTHING to do with privilege it is a service I bought and paid for. Throttling is not caused by customers using what they purchased but but ISPs overselling their bandwidth and then trying to give everyone less for more. ISPs should be held accountable for over selling band width. i suggest we have a law against greedy ISP to combat Poor service…!!!
I don’t like the idea of “Raise rates per usage volume instead of flat rates.”
Mainly because I don’t want to have to “watch my minutes” on the internet.
The US should just have a bandwidth cap. A user exceeds it per month, their internet gets slow. 30GB per month seems suitable.
Also, why are ISP’s complaining about customers using their service to it’s fullest extent? If the ISP has a problem, they should fix their end, and not blame the customer.
@1-4
You all are dumb. Why must you be attention whores?
Anyways, I just dont think that traffic should be throttled at all. No one throttles web browsing.
[quote comment="278648"][quote comment="278644"]i like solution number 1.
PEACE[/quote]
I won’t do it.. My computer is turned off whenever I sleep. Electricity is expensive and I won’t risk a fire.[/quote]
Dude, you’re way too paranoid. I leave my computer on 24/7, and honestly, shutting off and on your computer each night/morning, can severely damage your hard drive.
What would you rather pay more, loss of personal data and a new hard drive, or an electric bill?
I don’t understand this whole argument. Just don’t offer such high bloody speeds if the ISP’s can’t handle the traffic.
I’d much rather unlimited with a slower connection than a MB cap.
They brag about massive speeds, which are useless for web browsing anyway.
My computer was purchased 5 months ago and my previous computer lasted for 6 years. First then the primary hard drive took an early evening. Besides, all my data is divided among my two external hard drives. And yes, I know I’m paranoid. Someone IS following me oÔ
I don’t like any of those solutions.
I like the way it is now :)
I am very comfortable with current internet speed !
Hope they do the fiber cables A.S.A.P and give us 100Mbit connections :)
OMG TWELFTH COMMENT
I agree with what TF says… The interwebz be changing, they should adapt.
Bit-Torrent is not a “problem”. It’s a legitimate use of my bandwidth. I’m paying for my internet connection, and I should be able to use any and all of the bandwidth that the ISP allots. If they don’t like it, let them set a quota, or lower my speeds. It’s not fair to just target bit torrent traffic.
That being said, if my ISP does set a quota or lower my speed, I’m leaving for a better provider that suits my needs.
In the long term the solution is going to have to be charging for usage, as every other utility does. The problem now is that bandwidth charges (where they exist) are usually unreasonable, often nearly as much as the monthly bill for a few GB more. What we need is a reasonable flat charge for usage per mb along with easy bandwidth monitoring for customers (honestly just means putting the bandwidth used prominently on the ISP’s website, to check my usage I have to go through about five pages AFTER logging into my account management).
Charging for data usage is bullshit.
They should just offer unlimited lower speeds.
Shit, you don’t see phone companies limiting how many words you can say on each phone call.
British telecom were capping all p2p apps of mine when i was supposed to be on unlimited bandwidth, but to make it worse they would never admit to it, they wasnt prepared to explain or discuss what hours were suitable for bit torrent etc just were happy to palm me off with excuses
Switched to NTL now and there Fup is clearly stated on there web site with times an limits too follow, between 4pm and midnight theres a limit to how much you can download and if you go over often then you get capped to half your speed untill midnight, then speed resumes to normal, which i think is fine and accectable, the main reason being is that at least they tell you these things before you sign up, honesty goes along way
although as said would be better if isp’s just upgraded there lines
oh ya and f**k having to pay for how much you use, id soon switch isp if that were to happen
@20
Virgin (NTL-Telewest) recently changed their ‘FUP’, and amended the ‘window’ which they defined as ‘peak times’.
The new ‘peak time’ is between 4pm and 9pm.
Oh, come on! None of the solutions are good. The networks wouldn’t limit anything if they had profits upon BitTorrent, they would then find a perfect solution to the claimed “overload”.
I think quotas are awful, but what they could do (if possible) is to limit the speeds for BitTorrent. Something like somehow allowing you to use only a share (like 50%) of your connection’s speed to P2P.
Upgrade to modern standarts and stop ******ing MPAA/RIAA/IFPI?
heres an idea KILL YOUTUBE and other low res video sites because the resolution doesn’t make the file size that much smaller a 10 minute youtube video can be anywhere from 35-75MB/s and i unfortunatly know people that open up 20 tabs of things they might want to watch on youtube and let them all download so that when they get to it they don’t have to wait for the video to download to watch it… then once they start to watch them they watch for only 30 seconds of it before deciding to move on to another video
If you’re selling an unlimited line, it should be unlimited.
Hell, here in Norway, only some piss-poor local ISPs have any sort of bandwidth usage quotas - all the major ISPs allow you to use it to your heart’s content.
Telenor (major ADSL/general telephony provider) experimented with quotas a couple years back, and it bit them in the ass. I believe they rolled back to a unlimited plan within half a year, as they were hemorrhaging customers like no other. No quotas these days, at least.
Is it really so hard to just either bump your prices and build infrastructure while at the same time reducing load (people switching to other ISPs/getting cheaper lines and as such removing the overload), or just cough up the cash for better interconnects outright?
Maybe offer a BT client optimized for looking for peers on the local net first? (Yea, right - as if anyone would bother developing it, much less use it - oh well)
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 » Show All
Add your response