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
47 Responses (Add yours)
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
having a AUP is a definative solution, it tells end users what is expected. such as download limits etc.
Anyone with a real mind should realize that most torrents if not all are an illegal distribution of software and movies and games period.
The heavy users are d/l pirated items which should not be supported.
To argue about distro for linux for d/l is not a valid point.
P2P is a cancer in the network and causes grief to other end users who are on a shared network….oh but its their god given right to downlaod illegal pirated items???
I think not, you want software or music…belly up and pay for it!!
Netenforcer is an awesome tool for packet shaping and helps equalizse traffic for all users.
why should an ISP support this? it is not legal.
End user calls: “my internet is slow” cable co: “well your service was affecting others on the network”
end user: “well surfing is fine and so is email but I can`t d/l music fast”
Cable Co: “are you using a special program to do that?”
End user: ” well I use Bit Torrent”
Cable Co: “sorry we cannot support that”
Easy 1…2…3
The whiney babies cannot get their illegal content….to freakin bad!
[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.
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)[/quote]
spoken like a true pirate
This is America, you cant stop someone from using something because it could be used for wrong doing. second amendment, guns can definitely cause harm yet there a given right to everyone in America.
If Im paying an ISP, they better tell me i cant use my connection for what i want.
Rogers Canada decided not to upgrade old system so they cut bandwidth to half and sign up double the people. They try to do this quietly by not talking about this. Also they slow down any large file download. To the point, that when I started to download Adobe reader and right away Quick time player to update, the second download was waiting until firs one finished and then downloaded and never went over 100kb/s. Also SKYPE phone test for bandwidth resulted in not enough bandwith. Speed test showed I have 40-120 kb/s speeds. We are getting hunted I tell you.
Here is a link to Rogers meeting minutes and save it for reference in case it will disappear :
http://www.rbua.org/meetings/rcmeet5-responses.php
I don’t think you need to debate this. The local wires and infrastructure that deliver your service on are generally accepted as a vital public interest regulated if not technically owned by your local municipality. ISPs are basically, if not legally, then in practicality a publicly regulated utility similar to the public airways. THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS and no right to discriminate when where or how much the service is used. I addition to this there are no “points of view” when it comes to honesty. Whatever excuse you have when you sell something under the pretext of a large quantity knowing you will not provide more than is convenient for your proposes that’s fraud. Just because your competitors are telling the same lies or you realistically cant provide that kind of service doesn’t change the fact you are committing fraud. If you can’t provide that kind of service improve or market the one you can. If you cant do either of those get out of the business and let someone who can deliver to the customers what they clearly wanted and paid for.
And one more thing. When the ISP throttles the bandwidth to provide service for their other customer’s needs that’s stealing. They sold you the bandwidth and are giving it to someone else. If you would like to argue that they can’t be expected to keep unlimited amounts of bandwidth for a potential draw than don’t sell bandwidth. Just like vacation homes, or hotel rooms, overbooking is illegal. (Although I cant speak to the airline industry. In other countries it is illegal but from what I see on tv ethics and morals really are sort of things airlines feel apply to them. But they still have to refund your money without denying you another flight.) You can’t sell 2 people the same horse just because you think one wont pick it up.
I dont understand what the problem is. How can you use up that much traffic and why are you limiting yourself to such cheap connections. My ISP offers substantial bandwidth at an acceptable price and I p2p but I dont p2p 20 things at the same time and I think for most of you that is the problem. Solution: Get a better ISP.
33: Not every one lives in America or the UK. In Malaysia its a handful of shit ISPs they provide shitty services and lie to you consistently.
Anyhow the debate on packet shaping will rage on. Packet shaping will just lead to real pirates getting rich those selling copied dvds etc bootleg of some other sorts. The fact is not everyone earns Benjamins or Euros or big currencies some earn toilet paper like myself such as ringgit. Where the hell could you afford anything original ?
The world isnt fair and even, but piracy bridges that gap. Normal Joe Blogs in Malaysia wants to watch 300 that isnt cut to shreds by their censorship board, and who cant afford the dvd that costs 20 to 30 USD. Whats the option?
Ok guys, let’s get it straight. We pay for service. THEY tell US it is unlimited, BUT if we use BT or anything else, I’m convinced they are limiting EVERYTHING. How many of you having problems with your BT also have problems ( when it isn’t on ) with other things, such as WoW or any other game or hell, Windows Updates even? You pay for 5MB but you get diddly. That’s my main complaint, I pay for the service, give it to me. Don’t limit me, or cut my connection down. If I have 3 computers running, don’t make it impossible on everyone to do something at the same time.
For the people out there that are for the ISP’s…. get real is all I can say. We pay for what they claim to be giving us. Why don’t they tell the truth, scared we won’t buy? Scared someone elses “truth” will be better than theirs? That’s how it seems based on everything I’ve heard.
What if Water company began to limit. Yes, you’ve flushed too much shit down the toilet in the past week, so we’re going to cut your flow down to 5 flushes per week which WE feel should be acceptable so everyone else can flush theirs without a backlog. That’s about how stupid this sounds.
Give me what you say you’re giving me at the cost you quote me. So many have said that, but some of you don’t seem to be getting it. Is it so hard for ISP’s or any other company to actually - God forbid - do what they say they’re going to do? You call it illegal, how about giving some of us the right to see or hear something before we buy to make sure we want it? How about allowing us to download our programs when the software ( we’ve purchased and have codes for ) gets lost, stolen or damaged? Is it your business what I do with my damn connection? Don’t screw me for doing with my service in my home what I want. Does anyone do anything to you when you buy xxx videos 5 times a night on On Demand or PPV? I don’t think so. Why don’t people go after the kiddy perverts online instead and get rid of the real a-holes of the internet instead of wasting peoples time with this load of horse crap? I PAY, GIVE ME THE SERVICE IT SAYS I’M TO HAVE!!! Hell, I didn’t make the contract. Geez……..
Hi, i´ve been reading this thread, and i find interesting that the ISP´s say that over 75% their of bandwidth traffic is consumed by p2p…
Then, shouldn´t they just double their bandwidth, without immediatly start seeling higher speeds services to end users?
i mean… if they just got larger bandwidth, they should just remain seeling 8/10/20/(whatever) mbps connections they already have, instead of start seeling 20/30/40/etc mbps connections to clients.
In my case, just a few days ago my BT speeds where abou 600/800 KBps (steady!!), and now i´m lucky if i get 200KBps (dropping all the time).
I will just cancel my service, get another, cheaper isp, and in a few months get the other again, because i´ve notice that in the first few months everything is fine, and then they start Shaping.
Peace
Well guys I have a few things to say. I have been using Verizon DSL for 3 years now. They started throttling my connection about a few months ago. No problem. I used uTorrent’s nifty encryption feature. I got through that.
The real problem, however, is that they will now block http://www.demonoid.com’s site and trackers. Most of the quality torrents available online use demonoid. Now I cannot upload my stuff and my good torrents are dying.
I can still manage my accounts but whenever there is a good torrent, I cannot download it because it has the demonoid tracker in it.
For this, I will be switching to Cablevision. I live in NY, and most of the people in my county are using Cablevision or Time Warner.
Verizon DSL advertises 3mbs. I get 1mbs. Cablevision advertises 10mb, I get 10mb. Point is here, you give what you advertise or you don’t fucking advertise it at all.
FUCK YOU VERIZON AND STICK YOUR FINGER UP YOUR ASS, BECAUSE I’M SWITCHING TO CABLE.
the big moneymakers will always fuck the rest or did u expect anything else?…..
i have a 7mbps connection(thru triple play), my ISP doesnt seem to limit connection as far as i can tell, cause i can hit about 700kilobytes/s during peak hours for http and maybe 500kilobtyes/s bittorrent depending on the seed/peers….
also… i forgot to add, the speed that ur torrent client shows is NOT the actual amount of data passing through your modem. get a bandwidth monitor program, u’ll see that the actual data transfering is about 10% more… due to the fact that ur torrent client has to send/receive data for syncing with other clients
if u have a 10mbps connection, figuring the above crap and other factors, be happy if you get 900kb/s…..
An ISP shouldn’t care what protocol is being used. Nobody wants to buy protocols. People want to buy a effin connection. They should be able to use it 24-7 100% at whatever they want.
Otherwise the ISP should be obligated to put their limitations along with the advertising.
“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.
…
Where this falls apart with internet usage is that 10% of your users belly up to the salad bar, pay their $6 and then eat 1000 lbs of food. It’s not that the restaurant is mean or evil or stupid, but that’s just not a sustainable business model.”
So you slow down your refilling of the pasta and salad bars so much that nobody gets a decent meal with pasta or salad, while leaving the desserts plentiful? I appreciate that ISPs need to shape traffic, but blanket shaping is the only way they can do it. And if they blanket shape, they need to make it very clear to their users.
i got a 10/1 mbit connection and its unlimted i pay 350kr a mounth.. but you could use relakss (secure vpn) and you and you will be could use you internet at fast speed they cant limit this one https://www.relakks.com/?cid=gb&PHPSESSID=bdd9022cb706405f54f1ea104bffbaab&PHPSESSID=bdd9022cb706405f54f1ea104bffbaab
It’s easy to get around this issue. Purchase a VPN at http://www.strongvpn.com or the Relak place. They are cheap, and provide security too. My issues were gone, and I have other uses for it too.
here in saudi arabia we have unlimited connection 1-10mb i am paying 65$ a month for unlimited 1mb (afaq dsl shameel) which i think is okay but the bad thing is i am kind of experiencing traffic shaping…
“Here in France, isp don’t face those problems (up to now) and some of them provide 20mbps for about 35$ per month…”
Are you fucking kidding me?
First and foremost, we’re talking about legal monopolies engaging in a practice that effectively locks out consumers from getting the product they want. Why not get rid of public policy that prevents electricity companies from charging too much, or cigarette companies from advertising their products as “healthy,” or let meat-processing plants include human blood and feces in their canned product? Oh, wait, that’s right — because getting rid of the regulations that control the industry means sacrificing an invaluable service to the public.
As Peter Griffin said, “What kind of world are we living in where we can’t even trust the oil companies anymore?” But it’s not just oil cartels that hold legal monopolies over billions of people. It’s communication industries. And if you don’t like the products they offer, if they shut you out, if they turn off your water and electricity and heat because you don’t like THEIR TERMS, THEIR PRODUCTS, AND THEIR SERVICE AGREEMENT, then you can go without it. That’s a free market, baby! It means you have no choice.
Naturally, the problem to this isn’t going to come through technology. We actually need to overthrow the state.
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
Add your response