Net neutrality: two views
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- Tom Koltai, Australia, and surfer, US, started out as frequent Readers’ Writes posters.
But they’re now both regular contributors, I’m very happy to say. 
Tom used to own an ISP business in Oz, and surfer is a dedicated P2P fan.
See if you can guess who’s who?
File sharers comprise a tiny 5% minority of ISP customers who are screwing things up for everyone else, claim the likes of Bell Canada and Comcast in the US.
With that in mind, here in the Great North we’ve just begun to enjoy the Traffic throttling Super Bowl!
For me, file throttling is just another names for censorship and corporate control.
Below, Tom and surfer tell it like they each see it.
Tom Koltai says in a Reader’s Write »»»
The Internet has never been net neutral. Someone has always had to pay. Pre-commercialisation – you guys paid through your taxes. Now that you are users you are paying through monthly subs. Capitalism is about paying what the market will bear. If the customers leave – the ISP`s will change their pricing and throttling policies.
Most custmers won`t leave. Man is a creature of habit.
Air is neutral and free (mostly), Seawater in the middle of the ocean is free.
Internet is not free.
All ISP`s are constantly in a state of massive bandwidth growth.
Five years ago, P2P users 27% of allocated bandwidth. Today it is 87% of all bandwidth allocated.Without Throttling – tommorrow it will be 99%.
Face it boys and girls, the growth of P2P is faster than the ISP`s can add bandwidth. They can either throttle and loose a few customers – or not throttle and loose all their major clients.
A Truism for the day: No-one can add bandwidth as fast as Torrent uses it up.
Already ISP`s are offering premium guaranteed shaped (Service Level Guaranteed) services. This will become more prevalent and is indicative of a maturing industry. So for those of you disatisfied – ring your ISP and say – I want 5 GBps guaranteed – can you fix me up please. They will, for a price.
Home account DSL is sold on a best efforts delivery basis – it doesnt not have an SLG attached to it.
Would I like higher connection speeds?
Sure – I`m 8 km`s from the exchange and I`m stuck on 512 kbps with 20 GB per month cap. My business partner lives 11 kms from his exchange and he has to connect via satelite .. (about 128 Kb).
Do I believe that my downloads should fly? They do – for about 4 hours every morning between 1:00 am and 5 am. The rest of the time – the little ratsnest of Internet users called the Antipodies (Oz) use up all of my potential bandwidth. How dare they.
You can all argue as much as you like. Unfortunately you`re wrong – but you are all wearing rose coloured glasses.
Each one of the posters in this thread, is as guilty for causing the bottleneck forcing RBOC`s to throttle as the others not posting and just lurking.
The only way to stop throttling is to ease back on the full boar downloading AND video streaming. But I dont why I bother. You guys developed consumerism to a fine art – Everything for Americans – F*** the rest of the world.
I`m afaid, that particular fairytale is over.
@SteelWolf – You said:
Thanks for covering this debate, Jon. I think DA and Rocky are right on here, and the fact that Rocky is able to practice what he`s preaching takes a lot of the wind out of Tom Koltai`s sails. Even if Tom is 100% correct in his justifications (excuses?) for throttling, there is still the fact that providers here are not delivering what`s been promised.
I don`t throttle Steelwolf, I havent run an ISP since April 2001. But I would be interested in how many of Rocky`s customers can still download at full speed on their bonded DSL connections ?
You see, Rocky`s argument is based on a commercial premise – Get more customers. I have no such agenda.
Whilst I think Rocky`s business plan is forward thinking and commendable, the RBOC`s have no choice financially but to limit and throttle.
You see, scarcity drives value. If a product is ubiquitously available at low cost, then it has no perceived value and the market collapses. If the Net was truly net neutral, then Rocky`s arbitrage opportunity would turn to vapourware.
Beleive it or not – the more the RBOC`s throttle individual connections – the more successful Rocky`s business is – because more people will feel the need to bond DSL connections.
______________________ | ______________________
surfer says in a Reader’s Write »»»
I find it impossible to believe that an ISP`s profit margin is to `tread water` ONLY, and doesn`t include a modicum of profit. Why would you be in business if you were only in it to `break even`.
With that fact firmly in place, the onus is on the ISP to expand your hardware, which in turn expands your reach, which in turn expands the amount of CUSTOMERS you can provide for, which in turn expands your bottom line. If you are trying to instill a false sense of prudence when it comes to your business model, please save the sob story for your pastor/rabbi/psychologist.
You are a business in the 21st century, you are only in it for profit, at the behest of your customers.
First you claimed to be `dumb pipes`, satisfied with a modicum of profit X customer. Increase customers, increase profit. You began stuffing as many customers into the pipe as possible until the pipe got full, then you continued to stuff, and stuff, and then stuff some more in there, all in the holy crusade of profits. At one point you had to make a decision, increase the pipe size or continue to listen/lose irate customers.
You `fix` the system so there are limited options to customers for a provider, all in the name of `competition`?
Am I really supposed to believe that?
Now the pipe is (over)full, and instead of expanding the capability of the pipe, you cry incessantly `bandwidth hogs`, boo hoo. All the while the profit margin per customer increases due to technology, better switches, better routers, FIOS, et al. You are willing to upgrade your equipment for better profits, but not for your PAYING CUSTOMERS ?!!?
I pay for electricity, it has a meter, that was all part of the agreement up front. I have internet, it doesn`t have a meter, it states I have 6Mbit/6Mbit connectivity, therefore I can use every bit in/out for however long I want 24/7 for a flat rate.
This is the agreement I have, written on paper. I move ~250Gb/mo in bandwidth, utilizing 80%-90% of that pipe I pay for, therefore my provider is profiting from the bandwidth I DONT use, allowing someone else to use it, so in the end, it all balances out.
Now ISPs see the $$$ in being content providers, just look at BT throttling streaming video from other sources than its` own, how creative. Very profitable. So in the interests of profits, not customers, you forgot you are `dumb pipes`, and want a piece of that profit pie at the behest of your paying audience.
You say there is no Net Neutrality, I say there will ALWAYS be Net Neutrality.
Throttle port 12000, and I will move ports.
Throttle packets for p2p transfers, and I will encrypt them.
The internet evolves, you (ISPs) apparently do not. For every backasswards attempt to shape the internet for ever increasing profits, there will be something out there to foil your little extortion plan.
Never forget, WE the internet consumers, pay your salaries.
Stay tuned …
Jon Newton – p2pnet
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
July, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Tom isn’t wrong.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Surfer isn’t wrong.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I go to the mall and window shop at several stores. Then I phone my friend and chat with him about something I read in the news. After that I go to a public meeting and give a speech about bad business ethics.
Now the government comes along and tells me I can only go to sanctioned stores, talk with friends only when pre-approved by the government and can no longer give public speeches. If I don’t abide, I’ll be fined. If this happened to you, how would you react? Be honest now.
I surf the web and window shop at several stores. Then I e-mail my friend and chat with him about something I read in the news. After that I post to a public forum and give a speech about bad business ethics.
Now my ISP comes along and tells me I can only go to their own online stores, talk with friends only when it is during certain pre-approved hours and can only post in a public forum if my message is approved by them first. If I don’t abide, I’ll be charged extra. If this happened to you, how would you react? Be honest now.
July 6th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
I am leaning more and more to Tom’s line of sight.
Sure TSI has been a good player, but at the end of the day it is a business, and they are in business to make money.
They can forecast a certain growth, but tossing MLPPP (line bonding) into the mix and getting double or triple the money from one customer is somethng that isn’t being ignored. Especially after they added a new cost of 4$/Bonded line.
Bell is laughing all the way to the bank. They are getting double and triple the money from 1 TSI wholesale customer as well.
Rocky should likely win the best business award from Bell Canada again this year.
Seems more like a show. But time will tell.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
” Tom isnât wrong. ”
Yes, he is.
It’s the same ‘ol blame the customer mentality held by Corporations, and Corporate controlled
governments ( like ours ).
Yes, he is quite wrong.
Unfortunately, the ones that need to be convinced of that are paid too much to
be willing to disagree with him.
July 6th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Personally, I think if the basic business contracts between the provider and its subscribers was being properly enforced (and not allowed to be summarily broken like they are), there’s a pretty good chance we wouldn’t need to be having net neutrality talks right now.
If a provider had to keep providing, as per the service conditions sold, they wouldn’t have any incentive to be interfering with or looking at the data. They’d really have only one choice – raise capacity to properly fit demand, or get the hell out of the business!
July 6th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
” I surf the web and window shop at several stores. Then I e-mail my friend and chat with him about something I read in the news. After that I post to a public forum and give a speech about bad business ethics.
Now my ISP comes along and tells me I can only go to their own online stores, talk with friends only when it is during certain pre-approved hours and can only post in a public forum if my message is approved by them first. If I donât abide, Iâll be charged extra. If this happened to you, how would you react? Be honest now. ”
Yup, that’s what’s REALLY behind this.
It has nothing to do with bandwidth,if the truth is actually sold .. oops, told.
P2P ‘bandwidth hogs’ is the smokescreen.
Some ISP’s want exactly what you described.
Preferential treatment for their partner content, and relegating smaller
competitors to the slow lane.
Governments want it even more ( China’s internet is a perfect example of
how a lack of neutrality benefits governments ).
Smoke and mirrors.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
“Smoke and mirrors.”
(…and turd sandwiches!)
8 P
July 6th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
the electricity company notices (DPI) that microwave ovens are ‘electric hogs’ (p2p users), so while inspecting (invading your privacy) your electrical usage, they will limit (throttle) the amount of electricity going to your microwave. and in your next electric bill, it will contain an advertisement for a microwave (content) they manufacture, for a price above the average microwave (turd sandwich). they insist that if you use ‘their’ microwave (content) oven, it will not use as much electricity (throttled bullshit) and they will not limit the amount of electricity ‘their’ microwave (content) is allowed to use.
just because the service is different doesn’t make the following analogy any less bullshit.
July 7th, 2009 at 1:08 am
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Ah, you were just looking for a place to use the turd sandwich!
; )
July 7th, 2009 at 7:06 am
OK – My last post on this subject.
I’m afraid many will consider this to be a pompous chest beating exercise – Let me save you the trouble – there is nothing to see here for Luddite minded individuals – please move along, you’re loitering in a slow packet mutiple CRC ACK area.
Open minded people should read-on.
I studied for and was granted a PhD in economics for my thesis, “Increasing the GDP by decreasing Telecommunication costs to Small and home based business.”
I run an ed2k server and collect stats.
I havent purchased a CD in over six years.
I havent purchased a DVD in over two years.
I have a cable TV connection but it isnt actually worthwhile keeping. However it is the financial legitimization of my video timeshifting research activities – so until I can find a way to pay for P2P activities – I guess I need to keep cable connected (personal moral belief). I personally download whatever I feel warrants my attention.
I wish I had more bandwidth. (And I’ve been saying that since my first 54 bits per second slip connection in Sep 1983).
I have built more miles of Frame Relay, Fibre and IP network than any of you have ever driven in your lifetimes.
I am pretty sure I have built more Internet Exchanges than most of you have (5) and meetme rooms (18).
I have built, managed and run ISP’s on three continents and 18 countries.
I do not own any shares or options in any Telcos/RBOCS/ISP’s.
I am not consulting to any Telcos or RBOCS/ISP’s (Although I have as recently as 1996.)
I have no beneficial agenda to preach “The Man’s” spiel. No one is paying me to do so.
In fact I’m not even sure what “The Man’s” spiel is. ( I tend to ignore the man – I dont read newspapers and dont watch the news. In my opinion the man’s word is designed to keep the sheep quiet and happy consumers.)
Here are some facts.
Fact 1. I have since June 1994 done more research into P2P traffic than anyone in Australia.
Fact 2. I have presented small snippets of that research on both the perceptric and P2Pnet Blog sites.
Fact 3. That research indicates that by 2011 99% of Internet users will have an active P2P client installed on their connection device of choice.
Fact 4. There are 1.48 billion internet connected PC’s Globally.
Fact 5. There are 1.9 billion internet connected phones Globally.
Fact 6. Big Business (who hires your congressmen/representative through campaign contributions) desire to have all content paid for through metered portals.
Fact 7. I do not believe this is good for the world in-toto. In other words, not having all content pass through a paid for portal is my definition of Net-neutrality.
Fact 8. The internet is based on Packet technology. Packet Technology by its very design, is a “retry if fail to deliver” type of communication.
Fact 9. TCP-IP grew from paralell research projects in France and the USA. It is similar to Frame Relay and fR’s predecessor, X.25.
All of these technologies are “best delivery effort” technologies.
If you have purchased a 5Gb per second TCP-IP DSL connection from an ISP – then unless there is a great big huge ATM switch on your front porch with a bundle of fibres connecting you to the exchange – it is a BEST EFFORTS NO GUARANTEE service.
So, now, we get down to service level guarantees.
There are NO DSL (Packet based) connections with guaranteed Delivery speeds – Anywhere in the world. (Think I’m wrong? Read your contract, SLA, FAQ.)
Overloading the ISP’s routers with high transit ACK requests each TCP-IP packet requres a conversation – something like this “I have sent you a packet – did you get it? – Please Reply. Yep I got the Packet – was the packet you sent 1591 kb long? Yes it was.”
Which means that you the user received that packet and the world is a happy place.
But what happens if the answer comes back – “Shit no – the packet was only 1589 long – please resend. OK – Resending…….”
Multiply that by several million packets getting incorrect ACK’s from the recipient and suddenly eeek – Congestion, mayhem and of course over utilization of the Network.
And why did that happen ?
Well – usually two main reasons boys and girls – and do you know what they are ?
OK – for those in the back rows….. Video Streaming and P2P.
Unfortunately for all of us………. The future is coming.
Whilst all of you non-geeks are whinging and moaning about net-neutrality – Technology has moved on……
And here us Aussies are better off than you guys – 3G and 4G wireless will be delivered via the phone networks.
Already in Australia, 3G HDSPA Broadband speeds are twice that of most DSL connections.
I can access the internet faster through my broadband phone service than I can through either unwired (1.9 Ghz WiFi – 512 kbps) or DSL (512 kbps) so the little USB Telstra stick (21 Mbps – but capped at 5 GB p/mnth) is thrashed daily.
What is coming up in your future….. ?
Well basically, DSL is dead. 4G is coming. Portals are coming and all content shall be paid for on a bit per second basis.
What can you do about it ?
Well the Canadians are a clever bunch – I remember reading somewhwere that when the RBOCS didnt want to set-up internet in remote towns, Canadians co-opted their own wiifi ISP.
Now that would be an interesting P2P Net Neutral thing to do.
Put a 29 DB gain 2.4/5.7 Ghz antennae on your roof and allow the world to talk to your computer and share those files.
What’s that?
Security?
No, you cant have security with a net neutral network – just goes against the whole meme.
Privacy ? Oh, no, there is no privacy with a net neutral open wiifii network – everyone can just come right on it. That’s what net neutrality is all about.
What’s that? You want to know who is looking at the files on your computer? Well yes we can do that. It’s called DPI – becoming quite popular I hear.
Oh you want to encrypt evertyhting …. thats a good idea. What would happen if every file on the network was encrypted at 128 bits and inside a PVC that was also encrypted at 128 bits. Has anyone worked out what the extra traffic load would be on the network ?
BTW – thats on a per packet basis dummy – not the file size…..
And don’t forget to decrypt the header routing information…..
No – I didnt think anyone in here could use a calculator.
It’s been fun guys ‘n gals – but I seriously doubt anyone in this forum has been educated past the “I want or else I’ll throw a fit” level.
(I think that’s first graders……)
Am I right ? I don’t know.
But in the last 30 years my technology picks have usually been on the button.
Management and personality wise – don’t pick me – cant tie my shoelaces.
Technology wise, I’m a guru.
You should listen to Gurus – it’s good for the soul.
I’ll leave you with a Mantra for the next time you have your favourit bitTorrent client throttled…..
Step outside, breathe deeply and slowly.
Say Om Mani Padme Hum…….
See – doesnt that feel better already?
If yes – repeat until a glow envelopes you and you ascend.
If no – shout out loudly F*** You (insert least favourite Bell here), when I win the lottery I am going to build a Global net-neutral WiFi network and you wont be allowed to use it – HA!.
Problem solved.
July 7th, 2009 at 10:25 am
lol +1 Tom
July 7th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Im not attacking you personally Tom, I think your articles are outstanding, my ‘beef’ is with the generalization of ISPs doing harm to the industry and its customers with the adage, ‘this is in the best interests of the customers’. nothing more.
I think our agreement to disagree stems from our disparate definitions of ‘net neutrality’.
I consider it plain old data on the packet level, no particular packet should supersede another. whereas you define it dependent on the packet type. VIOP for 911 calls should be prioritized over video streaming. and I can see the reasoning behind that.
my problem is that ISPs wanted to be nothing more than dumb pipes, and then realizing they could increase profits by being a content provider as well is not in fact, being a dumb pipe. This will become a slippery slope in no time at all, once the ISPs have the ability to throttle youtube and hulu in order to prioritize their own indigenous proprietary content. That, in itself, is monopolistic and unfair.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
“OK – My last post on this subject.”
Probably a very good idea, since he couldn’t seem to defend his premise without getting more elitist, pompous, and condescending to the others commenters challenging it. Personally, I think the whole display was just sad.
If you read between the curious attempts to belittle the group (displaying his “credentials” as if that somehow had any actual bearing on the main issue), you find nothing encouraging from this self-proclaimed expert and “P2P advocate”…
1) On and on and on again about the technological challenges of network provision, and the plight of the “poor, disadvantaged ISP”, and nothing to justify the broken business agreements. As if the horse is somehow supposed to come after the cart if you just keep saying it does.
I got news for ya, the CUSTOMERS are insisting on being first, as they should have been all along. They are sick and tired of being left out of the equation and paying full price for a service they’re only getting part of.
Maybe Aussies have multiple choices in network providers and can let their money talk – that one I really don’t know about – but, in North America (land of the “whiners”), we have nothing but monopolies (most of which exist because of publicly-funded infrastructures, by the way) who are proving beyond a shadow of a doubt they intend to take full advantage.
If you were ignorant of this fact, Tom, and that’s what’s been driving the majority of your disdain for the NA user, then stand corrected, reevaluate what’s been said, and see if it changes anything you might have wanted to say. (But since you’ve already made it clear you know everything about everything to do with this issue, I would doubt this would be the case.)
2) “No, you cant have security with a net neutral network – just goes against the whole meme.”
“Privacy ? Oh, no, there is no privacy with a net neutral open wiifii network – everyone can just come right on it. Thatâs what net neutrality is all about.”
Who’s “version” of net neutrality are we talking about?
No security or privacy is possible with net neutrality?!
Nice blanket statements for a subject that has so many wide-open variables.
I’m not even going to glorify this one…
…Whatever, Tom. Thanks for playin’, eh!
July 7th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Tom says: “Itâs been fun guys ân gals – but I seriously doubt anyone in this forum has been educated past the âI want or else Iâll throw a fitâ level. (I think thatâs first gradersâ¦â¦)”
Umm, “I want or else I’ll throw a fit”? That’s the whole damn human race from birth to old age and ISP’s are just as guilty of it as consumers are lol. Still, thanks for all the posts. It’s been entertaining reading and I’m sad to see you go.
July 7th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
I thought I posed some adequate arguments to the debate, and nary a ‘fuck’ in any of them. Yet, for all my tolerance, not one of my points was addressed by any of Tom’s rebuttals.
I think the problem here is Tom is IT for an ISP, not understanding the business model behind the ISP, just the hardware infrastructure of it.
‘My god Jim, I’m a doctor, not a goddamn engineer!’
and fyi Tom, my IQ is incredibly higher than yours, to include all your badges of honor… please note how I ignored your own little ‘fit’ and ‘foot stomping’.
stw
July 7th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
@surfer:
The business model IS what should be under fire with these throttling arguments.
Judging by some of Tom’s words, I begin to wonder if the business model in Oz is, in fact, a different one than in North America. (i.e. Do they have a *choice* of providers, or a monopoly-or-similar structure to what we have?)
Over here, I don’t often see ITs get so “anti-user” when throttling is being discussed. Yeah, you get some that advocate the practice to various degrees, but even they show they understand the frustration from both sides, and don’t usually try to ultimately blame the user in the end. (That usually comes from the “suits”!)
July 7th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Its a monopoly in oz.
I had friend there paying 100+/month to get what we have here (not unlimited).
Keep in mind they only have one or two cables leaving their island that feeds them to the world (or did a couple of years ago). Anyone remember when they lost one of those lines when it was cut? I do.
Also, what Tom said here, “Do I believe that my downloads should fly? They do – for about 4 hours every morning between 1:00 am and 5 am.”. In Oz thats the standard. I used to upload a lot to oz and thats what it was. Speeds sucked till around 1-am t0 7-am, then those two little pipes connecting their island get swamped as oz wakes up to a new day.
So yeah, its a bit different in oz. (or oz tosses the switch to allow traffic on the two gov controlled pipes when rates are cheaper. Its one or the other.)
However, I do like some of what Tom had to say. I don’t have to agree with it all, but some of it I do.
Keep up the good posts Tom.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
also to add, Tom is also right when he says, “Everything for Americans – F*** the rest of the world.”
Again this is right. Israel caches their p2p to decrease their reliance on foreigns. However, even Tom’s Email will bounce to the states before it goes to his friend next door in oz. Everything goes through the states. Just like Bell Canada’s traffic.
It could stay within Canada or Oz you know. But it doesn’t.
Tom is not wrong.
July 7th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Undoubtedly, America has a confirmed case of self-importance that likes to interfere with the rest of the world. I certainly won’t challenge the fact, but it has little, if any, bearing on this argument. (To clarify: I’m Canadian.)
If a Canadian or Australian provider decides to choke the pipe for half the day, they’ve made that decision themselves to further aggravate the situation. At that point, the user would not too interested in blaming anyone in the US or any other peering points, unless they’re also throttling (in which case, you have another reason to examine throttling – from a “global effect” perspective).
Personally, I think the peering obstacles would be best addressed by the providers themselves, as they’re the ones that set up their networks and these arrangements. Peering is a provider issue. The only way I can see peering being part of a “throttling” or “net neutrality” argument, would be if a provider is actively discriminating against another providers’ traffic contrary to some agreement they already have. Otherwise, it has very little to do with a provider’s choice to extort or throttle its own customers.
July 7th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
“If a Canadian or Australian provider decides to choke the pipe for half the day, theyâve made that decision themselves to further aggravate the situation.”
The “pipe” costs less to operate after 1-am.
As a bell employee once said, electricity costs less off peak hours (fuck Bell and that employee). But the fact remains…
X-cents savings times 2.5 million subscribers = ?
This is the economics.
Oz has 2 pipes connected under the ocean (last I knew a few years ago). There is a cost savings in the wee hours x X-million oz internet users.
Same with Canada.
July 7th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Dear Surfer
(And other dissenting members of the P2P Proletariat…..)
Uou are undoubtedly correct. Your IQ is far higher than mine. And I am a condescending ….
As I get older, my IQ gets lower and I have less interest in taking out a ruler to measure it’s length.
The list of chest beating self serving qualifications was to answer the comments of one poster that stated that my stats were plucked from he knows not where. So I thought I would answer that there was some basis for my stats.
You accuse me of failing to answer your points.
Sorry – I misunderstood the entire basis for the discussion. I thought the premise was :
ISP’s need to throttle P2P because…..
with the contra being:
Consumers feel that is unfair because they don’t believe the ISP’s ……
What you and the naysayers have not responded to is the technological challenge of squeezing more than a gallon of water into a gallon Jar.
That is physically impossible to do. That is what throttling is about. The fact that DPI is being mooted by the content industries is interesting but a side issue.
The fact that DPI is desired by the IRS/SEC/CIA/FBI/NSA/etc is also interesting but another side issue.
The fact that ISP’s want to deliver VOD etc to you is an irrelevent side issue.
With now 9% of file sharing sitting on port 80 (umm surfer that would be http) DPI is becoming quickly irrelevant – and should be voted against by any organisation purporting to have the voters interests at heart.
Yes the ISP’s are maturing as an industry and want to add “content” products to their network to increase profitability
Yes some of them may not be out of bandwidth or switching capacity, whilst for others it is a daily battle.
Blanket Statement from an IP engineer (self labelled) who also understands the financial aspects of network growth versus P2P (rather well)
Whatever their public comments the reality is that each ISP is a series of regularly congesting bottleneck funnels that lead into other regularly congested bottleneck funnels.
That is merely a fact. Not my opinion, not some ISP’s bullshit about why they have to increase pricing.
They tried the pricing hike. It didn’t work. Users paid and added more leeches to the home network to compensate.
The current hearings in Canada are interesting and being watched avidly by political advisors worldwide.
Surfer, if you want to make a difference. don’t reply here – pop on down and ask to appear. Tell the commission how you feel.
If I was in Canada, I would be camped on the front steps.
Your position as high IQ consumers should be :
1. We don’t mind DPI to determine traffic type, but not traffic content.
2. As 23% of all P2P traffic is encrypted, DPI would seem to be redundant.
3. As P2P is reducing by 6% a year and becoming http DPI would seem to be redundant. (source IPOQUE P2P Traffic Stats)
4. As P2P masquerading as other software e.g. TVU, Skype, MIRO is growing rapidly, there needs to be a P2P caching policy that providers can utilise to minimise the network congestion.
5. All ISP’s should be permitted to install P2P devices on the Torrent and ED2K and VOIP networks to assist in decreasing congestion.
6. All ISP’s should halt all P2P traffic on their outward bound links except through the authorised local P2P cache or VOIP Gateway
7. P2P connections to the local ISP servers should become an unmetered declared service.
There you go folks, if I was in Canada and a Canadian citizen, that’s what I would be presenting to the hearings.
The only iffy one is six – from a future tax perspective I don’t like 6, but it is the most logical direction for the moment for ISP’s to take to prevent the network from collapsing.
Without regulation, no network delivery system can work.
I hate to do this but partially in the words of Al Gore…..
My daddy built the highways and byways……. we just want to put a couple of traffic lights at the intersections so that more cars can move more betterer…… most of the time.
Throttling is like a traffic light on yellow. If the light doesn’t change to red sometimes, the traffic wont flow on the cross direction and then everyone will blow their horns very loudly.
I trust I have now addressed the issues adequately. As I wrote the original article this thread emanated from – I hereby adjudicate that “It is So.”
Oh yeah – Broadband is coming to your phones, the DPI business model that is decided by this commission will be the adopted future business case of the Cell phone czars.
And….. OMMMMMM………… Shhhhh, I’m busy ascending……
July 7th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Sorry, couldnt help myself…… am now cutting up the plastic ruler into a million pieces and throwing in garbage bin……..
July 7th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
LOL I almost pissed myself, Tom.
+1
July 7th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
well that helps Tom, more or less..
I guess with my measly mechanical and software engineering degrees, plural, I thought to encrypted my p2p 8 years ago, so I guess I am in the 23% already and DPI is redundant. (actually its quite higher, because its encrypted, you dont know if its banking info, or Transformers 2.)
but you still never answered any of the questions I posed, you did like any good IT guru would, you threw more hardware at it, resolving nothing…
I still like your articles tho, in so far that only a PhD’ed IT guru could fathom, with all us 3rd graders meandering around and all…
stw
July 8th, 2009 at 1:23 am
As long as technical fineries (“cart”) continue to be the excuse for the broken service agreements (“horse”), the Big Question is just being ignored.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
@surfer:
(take your pick…)
“In professing themselves to be wise, they all became FOOLS!”
- W. Shakespeare
“It’s better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt!”
“If you can keep your head, when all about you are losing theirs…”
- Rudyard Kipling
(you get the idea)
July 13th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Thomas Koltai Says:
“Uou are undoubtedly correct. Your IQ is far higher than mine. And I am a condescending â¦.
As I get older, my IQ gets lower and I have less interest in taking out a ruler to measure itâs length.”
The truth is that we are what we believe we are [placebo]… If you believe that your IQ is getting lower with age it will get lower… But there is no such rule that is saying so. What is more – you can even increase your IQ with age…