Traffic Shaping, Good or Bad?
Written by Ernesto on April 12, 2006Two months ago we posted a story on the new encryption methods to prevent ISP’s like Rogers and Shaw from throttling BitTorrent traffic. The encryption methods seem to work, and the three most popular torrent clients support it.
However, there’s still a lively debate going on in the comment section. I will list some of them so you can see for yourself.
Pro Shaping
Bill says: I’m a network engineer for an ISP. We currently restrict P2P applications to 512kbps for all users. And for good reason. P2P applications can cripple a network, they’re like leaches. They consume all available bandwidth for endless periods of time. What I think will eventually happen is users will start having to pay for transfer. No more unlimited connections, You’ll get a set data transfer limit for the month and if you go over your limits you pay more per byte. They already do such things in Canadian and other oversee’s markets.
Just because you pay 49.99 for a 1.5-3.0mbps connection doesn’t mean your entitled to use whatever protocols you wish on your ISP’s network without them provisioning it to make the network experience good for all users involved. If you want truely unrestricted internet, for the bandwidth advertised, you need to buy a leased line from an ILEC/CLEC. I guarentee the ISP’s will figure out a way to limit P2P use and since they own the network, it is up to them to decide what traffic gets priority for their customers. When one protocol consumes 75% of your bandwidth for hours on end, it inhibits all other protocols running on your network..
klaatu, you don’t seem to understand business very well. There is a lot more overhead to running an ISP than buying and reselling bandwidth. It’s not just simply recouping your bandwidth costs each month, hell I get each 1mb for a little under 200$/month on a fiber MPLS network 1 hop from level3. If I made profits off of everything after that I’d be bloody effin rich. You also have equipment, employees, leases, etc to pay for.
Throwing more bandwidth at P2P is like feeding a seagul a peice of bread. Once you feed one all their buddies come a long and eat your whole loaf of bread. The more bandwidth available, the more that is consumed by P2P. Unless you shape the bandwidth accordingly. Every ISP does this, or should I say successful ISP. It’s just a matter of to what extent they take it.
You have to remember there are two sides to everything. The ISP’s aren’t out to make your life miserable, they’re just looking out for the performance of their networks.
Anyway that’s my 2 cents.
Anti Shaping
KM says: Much of the marketeering going on from ISPs revolves around connection speed, especially in terms of broadband versus dial-up. One of the ways the providers get subscribers is by specifically touting the speed of their service over say dial-up, and talking all about the ability to download content at high speeds. Between Broadband competitors, the advertising usually focuses on better speed/price ratios, or service.
The ads tout content content content, download, download, download…
It’s pretty crappy to then sign on and realize you can’t - cause well, you are downloading -too- much. I simply don’t think packet-shaping is ‘fair’ when you are already ponying up money up front for ‘broadband’ which was marketed to you specifically as a tool to obtain content, then you are restricted on the amount of content you can get.
Marketing an ‘unlimited’ service should simply be that - unlimited - and let people pay what they will… I’d happily pay ‘overuse’ charges if it would give me more bandwidth.
One could argue ‘if yer willing to pay more, upgrade your service.’ Well, my particular annoyance at my ISP is that my pipe is supposed to be 1.5mbps and my speeds in terms of d/l tend to be slower than friends on slower rated connections just down the street. I want the bandwidth I’m paying for, and I damn well wouldn’t be happy if I not only got screwed outta bandwidth on the one end, but got charged or penalized for too much downloading on the other with a pipe that’s already slower than it should be.
On top of that, if I ‘overuse’ my connection by say downloading movies at google video and then get my ability to DL WoW content over say BT neutered, what was the point in subscribing to broadband?
I believe eventually ISPs will develop the bandwidth to accomodate heavy widespread use of BitTorrent simply because of stuff like IPTV and HDTV (think FIOS), and the fact that each newer generation of users will grow up more technoligcally inclined and therefore more likely to be a heavy downloader, and this whole problem of BitTorrent might simply go away on its own as the net continues to mature. But that’s a ways away and does nothing to help the short term users of packet shaping ISPs. If encrypting BT helps out short-term I’m all for it.
Pro Shaping
iNET says: As is usual with life, everyone sees things from there own perspective. That’s not a slam against anyone, or anyone’s point of view - it’s just a fact.
I’m an ISP as well, and the fact is, P2P is (from my point of view) a plague - a cancer, that will consume all the bandwidth that I can provide. It’s an insatiable appetite.
The Corvette example was maybe off base, the way we explain it to our customers is like an ‘$5.99 all you can eat buffet’. If you pay your $6, and eat a reasonable amount, no problem. That’s what it’s for. Some customer’s have big appetites, and some have small appetites, and in the end, it’s all supposed to average out. No problem. :)
Where this falls apart with internet usage is that 10% of your users belly up to the salad bar, pay their $6 and then eat 1000 lbs of food. It’s not that the restaurant is mean or evil or stupid, but that’s just not a sustainable business model. If you were the business owner, you’d have an ‘acceptable use policy’ for your All-you-can-eat-buffet, and that’s really no different that what the ISP’s are trying to do.
Where I’m located, T1’s are $1760 per month. We certainly have users who simply can’t understand / believe / fathom that we need to limit their bandwidth in any way, shape or form. However, MOST users also want our network to be fast and responsive, and frankly, if I allow that 10% of users to use up 90% of my network resources - then I’m not doing my job for the other 90% of paying customers that want good, reliable service.
Certainly, if it was just a matter of wiggling my nose and magically adding more bandwidth from upstream, all ISP’s would do it. The fact it, for me to add another T1 is a major expense, and as long as there is the perception that little Johnny should be able to pay his $35 and download at 2Mbs 24 x 7 - that’s a problematic business plan. I understand we’ve all been trained to think that we should get everything for free - but as long as business’s have to pay for their bandwidth costs (or their food costs), they are going to be watching their customers for over-use.
For what it’s worth, we’re clear with our customers on signup - no Server Privileges. We certainly loose some customers, but the ones we have (mostly) understand that we have a finite amount of resources and that we’re wanting to make the whole network as fast and good as we can for all users.
Anti Shaping
By C-Man says: Traffic shaping is not good. If you pay for an internet connection, that’s what you should get from your ISP — an internet connection. Not a connection that will let you browse the web and check email, but little else. If an ISP has issues with the amount of data a customer is transferring, then the ISP needs to address that issue with that customer, and not restrict every user in one class of traffic.
It’s akin to the phone company trying to prioritize phone traffic – e.g., telling you that you can’t call and chat with your friend down the street because Joe Blow has a “better” use for those network resources (say, calling to order something from the phone company).
The ISPs need to keep their hands off content for more than just this reason. If the ISPs can and will throttle bandwidth based on protocol, how can they disclaim any liability for the content travelling through their pipes? If you open the pipe to see what is going through you take on a responsibility for that traffic - and ISPs may start to find themselves being held responsible for their customers conduct.
Previously: Coca-Cola Promotes P2P-TV
Next: P2P Is Unstoppable
48 Responses
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All
Here in France, isp don’t face those problems (up to now) and some of them provide 20mbps for about 35$ per month…
Maybe people don’t dl as much as in us or canada, but i’d say it must be possible to provide big connections within reasonnable costs. Isn’t it ?
If the ISP’s can’t afford to offer unlimited services then don’t offer them. Offer a limit and allow us to do anything within that limit that we wish.
Torrents have a big potential for revolutionizing _legal_ content distribution, look at things like World of Warcrafts patch distribution and many linux iso’s. I remember a few years ago when Counter Strike would release a new version and for a few days it was incredibly hard to get the new version because all the mirrors were bogged down. With bittorrent this wouldn’t have been a problem.
Limiting programs like bittorrent will leave us stuck with our current problematic system, where it costs the average user too much to publish anything like a video to a wide audience - the costs scale pretty uniform with the amount of users that get the content.
That’s why bram cohen designed bittorrent in the first place - it is supposed to keep the internet near free for publishing. Contrary to popular belief it had nothing to do with pirating things.
If bittorrent is targeted specifically for limiting it will largely destroy it’s original idea and point.
(this post is very badly hacked together sorry, I don’t have the time to edit it properly)
fL:
Yes, it is possible for the ISPs here in the U.S. to provide more bandwidth. They were even given a $200,000,000,000 (yes, 200 BILLION dollars) tax break to roll out fiber optics to peoples homes. They of course, never did this. I have no idea why they haven’t been investigated for tax fraud. They can make more money by monopolizing slow connections and then charging ridiculous amounts for T1s, and it saves them the trouble of having to do extra work.
traffic shaping starts to be concern in France, as a well known ISP has started to restrict some p2p protocols (mainly emule and bittorrent, though the latter can be successfully kept alive trough encryption… NNTP traffic is starting to be limited too…
If an isp implements shaping, but refuses to take care of other problems on their network, such as botnets and worm infected machines, then they are clearly out there for the money and not for the quality of services.
My Isp does not offer any unlimited plans, most plans get shaped after X GB.
Instead of shaping an entire protocol which is rather unfair on good people like me who don’t overleach, they should just shape exact individual user after they have had their fair share.
It keeps the legitimate people happy, and the abusive little leechwhores under control.
(this is probley very all over the place, but i’m tired)
Here in India the fastest connections that we have are 512 Kbps surf (that’s a max of 64 kbps download speed) Im talking about the best packs available here. And to top that off, there is no true unlimited connection. The ISP that I’m on advertises his packs as ‘true unlimited’ connections. Check out this link http://www.sifybroadband.com/showplan.php?id=47 it will give you an idea about the pitiable state we Indians are in. As far as the discussion above goes I fully support the concept of unrestricted bandwidth. If the ISP’s can’t provide that kind of bandwidth, they shouldn’t make tall claims either. You should get for what you pay for. Period.
Sorry newbie here but any big difference in Broadband DSL and/or cable?
i m also from india and can u guys imagine
a perticular isp(airtel) charges around 42000 rs ($900) for a dedicated unlimited 512kbps dsl.i m on a 256kbps unlimited airtel dsl connection and my download speed never goes above 25 kBps.and i pay rs 1000($22) for this crap.another isp provide 512kbps line for $10 and a data limit of 2GB.and u guys talk about 20mbps in $35.i wonder when we gonna see a true dedicated 1mbps line below $10 in india.95% internet users even dont know about kazza or limewire.forget torrents and bandwidth shaping.
Okay, if ISPs are not willing or able to give ALL of their costumers a connection at the advertized speed 24/7, 365…… Then they should NOT be offering that speed. PEROID. True, this would prob. result in lower speeds for smaller ISPs, but at least people would get what they where being told that they would. Therefore, getting what they are paying for.
Traffic shaping should be illegal. An ISP knows how much bandwidth they sell. They also know how much they buy. If it is advertised as “unlimited” service at a given rate, say 512kbps, then due to the fact that they are selling it as unlimited, they should be able to support your connection at 512kbps 24 hours a day 7 days a week for as long as you pay for it. It is so crazy. My ISP (Hofnet of Effingham Illinois) advertises unlimited internet, but, in there disclaimer it states that unlimited, in there terms, means no more than 4 hours per day. Thats a huge load of BS. They actualy had the nerve to call me and tell me that I had downloaded 25GB of content in one week and that it was not acceptable. The problem isn’t them controling the speed. The problem is them stating unlimited access at a given speed and then not allowing it. I Think that’s false advertisement!
So buddy you think that because your multi millionaire’s don’t wanna pay to keep up what they advertise.
THATS CALLED FALSE ADVERTISING.
IF YOU CAN’T PROVIDE WHAT YOU ARE ADVERTISING TO EVERYONE YOUR A LIAR AND LOOK FOR A LAWSUIT FROM ME IF YOU KEEP IT UP.
PAY THE 3 MILLION BECAUSE IT’LL BE A LOT CHEAPER THAN FALSE ADVERTISING LAWSUITS.
JUST BECAUSE WE PAY 49.99 WELL THAT MIGHT NOT BE A LOT TO A MILLIONAIRE BUT IT IS TO ME, AND WE ARE ALLOWED TO DOWNLOAD WHATEVER THE FUCK WE WANT. IF YOU GUYS DON”T PROVIDE SOMEONE ELSE WILL AND YOU’LL LOSE OUT.
FUCK YOU SHAW CABLE AND ANY OTHER TRAFFIC SHAPER.
Here in nordic countries traffic shaping is completely unheard of. Our broadbands are chewing away at full speed 24/7. In sweden you can get a 100Mbps connection dirt cheap. I guess our infrastructure is just completely on a different level then to make this possible. If my ISP started limiting my connection in any way, I’d switch provider in a heartbeat.
[quote comment="1915"]If the ISP’s can’t afford to offer unlimited services then don’t offer them. Offer a limit and allow us to do anything within that limit that we wish.[/quote]
It’s like they expect to sell you N bandwidth, while wishing you’ll only use 1/10 of N, and if you actually use it all (after all you’re paying for it), they get mad and start pulling shit like this out of their hats.
It’s all about the benjamins.
The ISP’s buy a certain amount of bandwidth and then sell more bandwidth than they purchased.
The idea here is that not all of the people who purchased from them will be on at the same time so sharing bandwidth is definitely expected.
The problem is that they are in it to make a profit. They have to squeeze as much income as possible from the expense incurred. To provide full bandwidth 24/7 to each and every customer, would cut seriously into the ISP profit.
The real thieves, if you please, are the telecom companies selling the bandwidth to the ISP’s for exobitant amounts of money.
It’s kust another way for the big guys to get bigger and the little guy to pay through the nose. Most of the ISP’s are just a little bigger than the end user.
My ISP on the other hand, is the big guy and so far, crossing my fingers, they haven’t throttled my connection
I’ll wait and see but complaining will get you nowhere.
Ultimate
My ISP was also advertising an “Unlimited” download . I had a 256kbps ADSL connection which could only max up to 230kbps of RAW data bandwidth, and because they implement ATM they have 20% overhead and each byte has 2 overhead bits which make it 10 Bit = 1 Byte . Anyway my connection wouldn’t go more than 23-24KByte. Where on world would you have a 60ms ping on a game server in your own ISP only two Hops Away?!!!!!
Recently they have capped the bandwidth of the 256kbps connections to 140kbps which means I can’t get more than 12-13KByte on a 256Kbps connection, then what do u call that ? Stealing or Whatever ?!!!! And they publicly announce that they have shared each 256kbps with two users .. Like HELL !!
Seems like we still have the lower bandwidth problems to tangle with here , then after these are solved we have to think about Traffic Shaping and etc.
My Internet provider, MTS, has just started shaping traffic, making it the last provider in my area to do so. Shaw and Rogers already do so, and now I am sad to see my last option dissapearing. Perhaps I ought to move to Sweden.
My ISP verizon started to just reset my router if i have around 5 downloads active with around 340kbps going, if it trys to download more, my router resets, so i try to have no more then 4 active connections and no more then 340kbps going, any faster and it will reset after reset.
trying to find a way around this. $30 a month, i should have gotten the $18 a month plan, i notice no diffrent then what i paid for years ago which was $40 for 768/130.
I’m not getting my 3Mbit down like they said.
Yea is true that is time to downgrade from those traffic shaped internet plans, I’m living in Malaysia and my ISPs are JARING and TMNET, I signed up with TMNET ADSL 1M plan, both used to have no traffic shaping for last 2 years until this July 06. I was dissapointed. And i dont agree with some statements made by those ISPs;
“if I allow that 10% of users to use up 90% of my network resources - then I’m not doing my job for the other 90% of paying customers that want good, reliable service”
My ISP servers slots were full, and there’s plenty people waiting on queue to get a ADSL broadband. While others user download endlessly torrents at full speed and the net still surfable. What kind of statement is that? He have poor adjustability?
“You have to remember there are two sides to everything. The ISP’s aren’t out to make your life miserable, they’re just looking out for the performance of their networks.”
Internet is one of the good way to allowing us share files, and if an ISP just want to keep those performance for thier own. They are scamming. Customers did not get that what they’re paid for.
“P2P applications can cripple a network, they’re like leaches. They consume all available bandwidth for endless periods of time. What I think will eventually happen is users will start having to pay for transfer. No more unlimited connections”
‘Unlimited’ bandwidth meant for all kinds of bandwidths use by all kinds of protocols. If someone changing this meaning to something else, they should not put ‘Unlimited’ and therefore should make it specific.
“Where this falls apart with internet usage is that 10% of your users belly up to the salad bar, pay their $6 and then eat 1000 lbs of food. It’s not that the restaurant is mean or evil or stupid, but that’s just not a sustainable business model. If you were the business owner, you’d have an ‘acceptable use policy’ for your All-you-can-eat-buffet, and that’s really no different that what the ISP’s are trying to do.”
When a guy actually ABLE to eat that much, there’s no reasonable way to stop him to eat what he wanted as is a All-You-Can-Eat buffet and he paid for it. This is only an example. Computer users have plenty of HDD space where unlimited data can be stored and burn to discs. Therefore there’s no such a good reason stopping them from using all those avaliable bandwidth as they ABLE to use it. That’s also why if he meant for “not a sustainable business model” he should not put “All-You-Can-Eat buffet”. Therefore “Unlimited Broadband Plan”
—
I’m certainly know that those ISPs seeing thier customers are taking good advantages over from thier network. And wanted to charge further more. There’s no reason stopping them doing so, but agian there will be some ISPs that have perfect shaping adjustments. And will taking 10% of thier customers from those heavily traffic shaped ISPs. If only those users know how to take the advantages, i’m sure anyone from 10 to 50 will do the same. And as my prediction that’s perhaps 40 to 70% of the ISP customers.
ps There will be a solution and fights going on and on endlessly…
[quote comment="28473"]Yea is true that is time to downgrade from those traffic shaped internet plans, I’m living in Malaysia and my ISPs are JARING and TMNET, I signed up with TMNET ADSL 1M plan, both used to have no traffic shaping for last 2 years until this July 06. I was dissapointed. And i dont agree with some statements made by those ISPs;
“if I allow that 10% of users to use up 90% of my network resources - then I’m not doing my job for the other 90% of paying customers that want good, reliable service”
My ISP servers slots were full, and there’s plenty people waiting on queue to get a ADSL broadband. While others user download endlessly torrents at full speed and the net still surfable. What kind of statement is that? He have poor adjustability?
“You have to remember there are two sides to everything. The ISP’s aren’t out to make your life miserable, they’re just looking out for the performance of their networks.”
Internet is one of the good way to allowing us share files, and if an ISP just want to keep those performance for thier own. They are scamming. Customers did not get that what they’re paid for.
“P2P applications can cripple a network, they’re like leaches. They consume all available bandwidth for endless periods of time. What I think will eventually happen is users will start having to pay for transfer. No more unlimited connections”
‘Unlimited’ bandwidth meant for all kinds of bandwidths use by all kinds of protocols. If someone changing this meaning to something else, they should not put ‘Unlimited’ and therefore should make it specific.
“Where this falls apart with internet usage is that 10% of your users belly up to the salad bar, pay their $6 and then eat 1000 lbs of food. It’s not that the restaurant is mean or evil or stupid, but that’s just not a sustainable business model. If you were the business owner, you’d have an ‘acceptable use policy’ for your All-you-can-eat-buffet, and that’s really no different that what the ISP’s are trying to do.”
When a guy actually ABLE to eat that much, there’s no reasonable way to stop him to eat what he wanted as is a All-You-Can-Eat buffet and he paid for it. This is only an example. Computer users have plenty of HDD space where unlimited data can be stored and burn to discs. Therefore there’s no such a good reason stopping them from using all those avaliable bandwidth as they ABLE to use it. That’s also why if he meant for “not a sustainable business model” he should not put “All-You-Can-Eat buffet”. Therefore “Unlimited Broadband Plan”
—
I’m certainly know that those ISPs seeing thier customers are taking good advantages over from thier network. And wanted to charge further more. There’s no reason stopping them doing so, but agian there will be some ISPs that have perfect shaping adjustments. And will taking 10% of thier customers from those heavily traffic shaped ISPs. If only those users know how to take the advantages, i’m sure anyone from 10 to 50 will do the same. And as my prediction that’s perhaps 40 to 70% of the ISP customers.
ps There will be a solution and fights going on and on endlessly…[/quote]
I signed up with TMNET ADSL 1M plan. So do you have alternative solution. Would be great if we can discuss this more
pipex 8M “unlimited” means 20k 24 hours.
[quote comment="25350"]My ISP verizon started to just reset my router if i have around 5 downloads active with around 340kbps going, if it trys to download more, my router resets, so i try to have no more then 4 active connections and no more then 340kbps going, any faster and it will reset after reset.
trying to find a way around this. $30 a month, i should have gotten the $18 a month plan, i notice no diffrent then what i paid for years ago which was $40 for 768/130.
I’m not getting my 3Mbit down like they said.[/quote]
Have you tried plugging in a different router? I doubt that Verizon is resetting your router. Your router is probably crashing because it can’t handle so many requests at once. I have this problem occasionally. When I was using uTorrent, it would crash almost constantly whenever I started a torrent with hundreds of peers. So I switched back to Azureus, which still causes my router to reset, but much less frequently. You and I need to upgrade routers.
[quote comment="31072"][quote comment="25350"]My ISP verizon started to just reset my router if i have around 5 downloads active with around 340kbps going, if it trys to download more, my router resets, so i try to have no more then 4 active connections and no more then 340kbps going, any faster and it will reset after reset.
trying to find a way around this. $30 a month, i should have gotten the $18 a month plan, i notice no diffrent then what i paid for years ago which was $40 for 768/130.
I’m not getting my 3Mbit down like they said.[/quote]
Have you tried plugging in a different router? I doubt that Verizon is resetting your router. Your router is probably crashing because it can’t handle so many requests at once. I have this problem occasionally. When I was using uTorrent, it would crash almost constantly whenever I started a torrent with hundreds of peers. So I switched back to Azureus, which still causes my router to reset, but much less frequently. You and I need to upgrade routers.[/quote]
you guys that are having problems with your routers resetting. i just want to say that I also have a router which has reset yet. But i know for fact that my brand of router is unable to handle too many global connection. I use both utorrent and Azureus. just try a limit how many global connections you have per torrent and see if that helps.
[quote comment="31072"][quote comment="25350"]My ISP verizon started to just reset my router if i have around 5 downloads active with around 340kbps going, if it trys to download more, my router resets, so i try to have no more then 4 active connections and no more then 340kbps going, any faster and it will reset after reset.
trying to find a way around this. $30 a month, i should have gotten the $18 a month plan, i notice no diffrent then what i paid for years ago which was $40 for 768/130.
I’m not getting my 3Mbit down like they said.[/quote]
Have you tried plugging in a different router? I doubt that Verizon is resetting your router. Your router is probably crashing because it can’t handle so many requests at once. I have this problem occasionally. When I was using uTorrent, it would crash almost constantly whenever I started a torrent with hundreds of peers. So I switched back to Azureus, which still causes my router to reset, but much less frequently. You and I need to upgrade routers.[/quote]
you guys that are having problems with your routers resetting. i just want to say that I also have a router which has reset yet. But i know for fact that my brand of router is unable to handle too many global connection. I use both utorrent and Azureus. just try a limit how many global connections you have per torrent and see if that helps. Although, a upgrade may be even better. I wish I could at this time.
It’s a series of tubes!
What is wrong with you people. In any other type of business this discussion wouldn’t even be taking place. Were talking about receiving the services you adverstised to us and we paid you for. If you can’t provide what you advertise, you shouldn’t be selling it. Plain and simple. No one here is expecting anything more than what they were offered by their ISP.
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.