If that’s the case, why are ISPs continuing to increase the speeds they offer to customers? You’ve never attempted to answer this question.

“@Thomas Koltai – I dont care how much you attempt to demean my posts and comments. The facts are that P2P is growing waaaay faster than anyone can provision for it.”

So, the simple act of running a P2P program magically erases any and all limits on a person’s internet account, including the speed that they can upload and download at? Funny, it doesn’t work that way for me…

P2P users can only use as much bandwidth as the ISP provides to them. If the ISP only provides 1.5Mbit, then that’s as fast as they can download. If the ISP provides them with 10Mbit, then they can download at 10Mbit. It’s monumentally naive to think that someone is going to sign up for a high speed account and not want to use it. I’m not going to pay for unlimited long-distance phone service unless I plan to make a lot of long-distance calls. I’m not going to pay for premium cable movie channels unless I plan to watch a lot of movies. I’m not going to pay for high speed internet service unless I plan to download a lot of files.

Here’s an analogy for you;

Two brothers, Bob & Jim, build a bonfire and to get it going, Bob pumps gas onto it. The fire quickly grows out of control and it’s determined that they need to do something. So Jim gets a water hose and starts trying to put it out. He’s not having much luck and declares that the fire is completely out of control and that spraying it with water is useless. Bob agrees and can’t figure out why it isn’t working. Jim continues spraying the fire, but it’s just not going out. After a while, Jim puts down the hose and says he needs to take a break. Bob replies “Good idea, I need to go get some more gas anyway.”

So I ask you again, why do ISPs keep offering higher tiers of service when they can’t even support what they offer now? And how is this not “pouring gas on the fire”?

Much of what you said has legs (especially the Commercial “intelligent advertising tracking bots”)

Internet users should measure their total up and down for the month and ask for a refund if warranted.
If enough do – the ISP’s will be forced to respond either Technically or economically.

@ Steelwolfe, I am replying out of courtesy. I continue to regurgitate the sdame story in different ways because that it the only way to get it through to some readers that the Internet cant handle 3 billion peopkle conneted at 6 mbps all downloading “The Tonight Show”.

I dont care how much you attempt to demean my posts and comments. The facts are that P2P is growing waaaay faster than anyone can provision for it.

Does that mean that there are not other reasons for internet packet loss (see Canada’s comments above) – No.
Can those bots be controlled ?
Yes – they simply wont be invited onto Internet-2 without incredibly expensive routing costs attached. It’s that simple.
What is internet 2?

The layer ontop of the current layer, but artificially smart enough to know that a DoS or RSTP packet or Net Bot shouldnt be allowed to pass the gateways.

and if that is how THEY all now conduct your dishonest polls then no wonder so many people think THEY are con men, liars rather..

AND WHAT DID BELL, Rogers AND THE OTHER BIG CORPORATE INTERNET GIANTS PAY THEM ALL TO LIE HERE TOO?

NOTE: This is a hypocritical and dishonest poll firstly again.. for the reality is that most Canadians firstly still do not EVEN know if they are actuality getting their promised internet upload and downloads speeds FROM THEIR ISP.. even because they still firstly do not know how to measure the speed.. so now their polled opinion does not count much when their real ignorance FACTOR IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. Here you all do need first to check the computer’s network speed at http://www.acanac.ca/speedtest/

ONLY THEN YOU CAN ASK MOST CANADIANS WHAT INTERNET SPEED THEY WERE PROMISED BY THEIR ISP COMPARED TO WHAT THEY ARE actually GETTING ..

THEN ONE CAN NOW HONESTLY ASK THEM ALL IF THEY ARE SATISFIED WITH THE INTERNET TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT OF THEIR SPEEDS .. and give me, us all an honest poll.

CRTC’s Farcical hearings on Internet speed control

Rogers, Bell, Videotron, Shaw all only care about one thing.. maximum profits.. motivated by maximum greed.. finding an excuse to charge the customer for more.. and that they have done with their regulating, capping… and no one cares about what the consumer thinks, the CRTC included.

Many Other citizens have agreed with the truths that I have written even that the ISP providers themselves are the main reasons the internet is congested and that they the ISPs are also guilty of false, misleading advertising to get customers too.

“Internet throttling benefits customers: Rogers, Shaw – I cannot help but notice that Big Business in Canada wants ALL the power. Power to limit what Consumers can and cannot access on the Internet. They throttle our speeds at their whim, they want to inspect every data packet we upload or download and they want to make criminals out of us all, while at the same time charging us extra money to purchase blank media for copying . Yet at the same time they fill our inboxes with Spam. 9 out of every 10 emails I get are Spam trying to sell me something or con me out of my money. They fill websites with Bots to follow every click of our mouse to “better tailor our individual likes & dislikes”, while completely removing our right to privacy without threat to prosecution or fines. We have far too much to lose people if we let these Corporate archaic monopolistic behemoths win this one.”

“Of course the Rogers would say this. Their only interest is controlling access, gouging customers, lying about speeds, eliminating competition and holding onto their monopoly. Anything a Telco/ISP has to say should immediately be taken as the exact opposite of what is good for the consumer. We need Net Neutrality and we need it RIGHT NOW”

“The BEAN counters will be in the back room checking to see how they can squeeze another 2 cents out of any decision coming from this meeting.”

” what about just giving me what I pay for. How can our government let them charge us for a service and then not provide that service?”

“It’s time for our ISP’s to refund us for the speed that they claim to provide but we are unable to get. Let’s see… I should be getting “up to” 10 Mbps and I am only seeing 500 Kbps… it’s time for Rogers to cough up! Anything less than 80% of their claim should be considered as misleading the customer and the ISP should be held accountable for this infraction.”

Every week I read one of these posts, the comments, and your responses, and every week it’s the same stuff. You extrude analogies in profusion and try to talk about economics, while ignoring the reality of what is going on.

The net is growing and will always continue to grow, yet instead of investing profits in infrastructure, monopoly ISPs like Comcast should keep the money and use throttling to keep their networks afloat? Meanwhile, they should continue to oversell, advertising “unlimited” connections that if their customers have the audacity to try and utilize, are somehow arrogant consumerists. How does this make any sense?

There are very straightforward solutions for ISPs:

1. Stop signing up new customers they cannot service.
2. Stop advertising “unlimited” connections when the connections are not, in fact, unlimited.
3. Use the money currently being raked in from $60, $70, $100/mo. charges to (gasp!) invest in the network.

Throttling is, at best, a “stop-gap” solution. The net is going to continue to grow, but by following your recommendations, ISPs don’t have to bother with that – they can just keep throttling any traffic their customers actually use so they can continue providing an inadequate experience for a higher price to more people. Sounds great.

It’s becoming increasingly difficult to see your posts as anything other than excuses for dishonest, shortsighted corporate behavior.

@ iratepirate. There used to ba a Joke about an Aussie that visited his cousins ranch in Texas, and upon arrival, the Texan started explaining how long it took to drive the boundary of his ranch. The aussie replied – Yer, I had me a car like that once – bloody model T. I got rid of it and bought meself a Toyota.

On a serious note. You guys are starting to get the hang of the analogy thingie.
OK Ford huh ? Well, I would say that was unfair discrimination UNLESS your ford was a monster truck and took up two lanes and prevented other people from passing, in which case I could understand the restriction.

I like Monster trucks – but they do tend to stuff up the high speed highway thingie.

And 245 is not irrelevent. With a radar detector, a good GPS with live speed camera updates – a little bit of speed is good if you ever feel the need. Of course, no-one actually speeds or file shares. So this is a moot discussion and Bell should be told that they cant use DPI unless they peer with everyone.

This is the second time I’ve seen cars and roads used as an internet analogy. The argument by ISP’s is that it doesn’t matter how much they slow you down, in the end you still get all the bits that make up the file your downloading. It’s been noted that throttling can reduce speeds by a much as 90% and Tom’s own table has similar values. Let’s use that car analogy he and many ISP’s like so much, but this time put it into something that actually resembles reality.

I want to drive from City-A to City-B which are 600 km apart. The speed limit between these two points is 100 km/hr. That means it should take me approximately 6 hours to make the trip. Now imagine that because I drive a Ford, the speed limit at which I can drive is reduced by 90%. All other brands of cars still get to go the full speed limit. Should I be happy that I’ll still get to my destination eventually, even if it now takes me 60 hours instead of 6 hours? I await your justification as to why ISP’s should be allowed to specifically target P2P and throttle it 24/7 after reading my analogy.

PS: To clarify, the top speed a car can actually go (245 km/hr in your example) is completely irrelevant as far as the cars/roads analogy goes. The NIC in my computer may be capable of 1000 Mbps, but I don’t expect to get that speed from my ISP. That would be totally silly. I do expect to get the bandwidth that was advertised however, same as I expect to be able to go 100 km/hr when it says I can and not get punished for doing so.

You know that only 4% of the internet providers are not Rogers or Bell in Ontario? So those whom are purchasing T3 lines from Bell, account for only 4% of the ISP totals.

Does this affect your analysis?

@RW – I like the Subway analogy.
If we combine the Subway analogy with lando’s backhannel detailed gripe – I think there is a real case to put to the Fair Trade Business Board – or whatever you cannucks happen to call it.

Truth in advertising is a fair and reasonable expectation for all consumers.
All ISP adverts should say: P2P throttled here as demand warrants (or other relevant mandatory wording).

But as per the Shaw evidence yesterday – they didnt realise that video streaming would be so big.
In the world of Geek (+friends) P2P is now invisible and non DPI-able. The ISP’s werent ready for that either.

My entrie diatribe has been based on the fact that the P2P traffic is becoming invisible.
DPI does not work for about 14% of the traffic right now. Next year it will be 28% of the traffic and the year after that 56% of the traffic.
As soon as a couple more smart programmers work out how to deliver P2P via unused address space, changing IP numbers every thirty seconds – with multiple lateral tcp sessions – ISP’s will be stuffed.

All the more reason for consumer education to start now.

Now as to to driving at 245 kmph, – here in Australia we used to have unlimited speed limits in the Northern Territory. If you could dodge the Roos, camels and donkeys you could drive as fast as you like. Now alas, the only place in the world where you can do that legally is Oklahoma – I believe – although, I have been overtaken on the German Autobahns when I was sitting on 240 by big green A8 (Audi) police cars and ignored by them because everyone in the left lane was going at least that fast.

Well RW, a motor car is capable of travelling at 245 km per hour. (OK – mine is) Yet I have a great deal deal of difficulty in finding roads on which I can drive the vehicle at those speeds.
Does that mean that the car manufacturers are in league with the police to ensure that I can never get the real value of the engineering under the hood (5.4 litre V8).”

Bad analogy because the majority of people have no reason to drive that fast, nor would most of them have the skill to properly control their cars at that speed.

“The Net is doubling in size every year.”

And of course that’s completely the fault of the users, right?

Every few months, ISPs increase the service tiers that they offer. From 5Mbit, to 10Mbit, to 15Mbit, etc. Are you trying to tell me that this has nothing to do with increasing bandwidth on the net? ISPs can’t realistically support the speeds that they sell now, but still the shareholders are rubbing their hands together in anticipation of offering even faster speeds for even larger fees, which will only exacerbate the problem.

They want to charge people for a service that they can’t actually use.

Why can countries like Japan offer 100Mbit service to their customers, but here in America, ISPs are complaining that they can’t handle the bandwidth from people with 10Mbit accounts?

“You said – Nobody would pay these prices if ISPs told the truth about what they could actually deliver? So in other words, they have to lie to get people to sign up. Again, how is that not false advertising?

The ISP’s do tell the truth. Why not post the terms of your agreement here -
I am sure that somewhere in there are the words – “this service is provided on a best efforts basis and is not a provision of a guaranteed service level.” – havent read your terms and conditions? Well go and read them.”

Burying important limitations in the fine print of the agreement is deceptive advertising. The speed and the price are clearly advertised in big, bold print, but yet the user has to dig through several paragraphs of standard disclaimers to discover that what they’re agreeing to is NOT what the marketing promised.

I don’t know about Australia, but here in the US, companies aren’t allowed to run deceptive ads that leave out important information which couldn’t reasonably be determined from the ad by the average person, or that would affect a person’s decision to buy that product/service. Please see this page;

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/adv/bus35.shtm

Personal story: The Subway sandwich chain stores used to run specials where you could get 3 foot-long sandwiches for $12. A while back, they stopped running these specials and made the price of most of their sandwiches $5 each. The other day a friend and I passed a Subway store with a banner on the side of the building advertising any 3 regular sandwiches for $12. That was the extent of the banner. Since they haven’t had that price in a while, we decided to stop. As soon as we got inside we noticed a sign on the counter that said you had to buy a $1.50 soda to get the 3 for $12 deal. Even though the price still worked out to be cheaper than the normal $15 for three sandwiches, we turned around and walked out in disgust. It was obvious that they hoped the banner would lure people into the store and that once they were there, they’d accept the extra cost of the soda. That’s false advertising.

Jazz, wibnder? I like it.

Tom, “impartial observer” …

Hardly. In fact, it’s almost ‘Methinks thou doest protest too much’.

Cheers!

Because the Infrastructure has been built and is economically controlled (high access costs) to keep the riff raff out.

It’s easy to build a network that delivers as promised to the vast majority of the world.

It’s difficult if that vast majority suddenly all start using file sharing for 730 hours per month flat out.

In all the comments above, I don’t think I have seen one comment from a corporate data user from a high bandwidth connected TCP-IP customer that has complained.

It would appear that all the complaints except for @lando calrissian (who detailed his gripe with facts) are actually the people that want everything for nothing and don’t want to share their toys.

Last Analogy of the day: You can lead a horse to water…….

That’s all I can do boys and girls – present the real situation as it exists – warts and all. It is up to you what you do with that information.
Continue flaming me if you feel that will get you a better more better and faster access regime.

Continue blaming the ISP’s if you think that will get you a higher access speed for longer.

But as a summary, I have tried to present a rationale for self regulation. I have presented a likely DPI outcome if all ISP’s dont peer.
I have attempted to present cogent argument for why the net is suffering increasing levels of packet loss.

Your choice as the reader is to decide:

A) He’s off his tree, been smoking too much gunja.
B) He has some valid points but I still think I can get an all you can eat internet buffet for less than the price of a decent meal
C) If I as an Internet user only have four hours per day of free time for media consumption (BEA figures), then why would I need to download more than 120 hours of video content per month ?
D) He’s right – I’ll slow down my torrenting by 50% and see what happens.
E) We’ll show those Bells – install 29 dB omni directional 802.11(n) on every roof and share away……. truly unfettered – as a community.

Hell go the whole hog – start a community Radio and Television station whilst you’re at it.

Oh by the way – if you all elect to do E). I will be interested in what happens to the build out of the network after 1000 plus peers can all see each other.
Oh you mean Koltai that we will get congestion ?
Yep – thats what I mean.
Simple Koltai – we’ll just add more bandwidth.
You cant. 802.11(N) is a spectrum fixed limited amount of bandwidth. You could however break up into small nets with different SID’s for each cell group of users and connect by backhauling through directional Yagi antennas. But the bottleneck will be at each backhaul point.

Okay well then we’ll just turn of all the peeples that dont want to donate for upkeep.
And then what ?
Well then we’ll turn off all the short people under 5′6″.
And then what ?
Well then we’ll turn of all the tall people over 5′8″.
And then what ?

Ahhhh shit, I dunno, complain to our local member ?

I don’t say my free information is more valuable than the 99 cents lighter; I say it should be equally prioritised. _You_ are saying that the 99 cents lighter has 100% priority versus 90% for my free information. I don’t think any philosopher in the world could ever ever find any argument to prioritise one or the other, even in pure theoritical terms. Yet our 0.99$ philosopher Mr. Koltai allows himself to choose.

Don’t put the blame for the unequality of Internet access on file sharers and free information advocates, this is ludicrous. The lack of Internet access in poor countries is completely correlated with the lack of computer access – so even if file sharers would stop it all at once tommorrow morning, there wouldn’t be ‘more’ Internet in poor countries. The unequality of Internet access is simply a symptom of the unequality of richness distribution, a problem that has nothing to do with file sharing. Altough I am sure you have an analogy to illustrate how downloading Lost using bittorrent prevents a poor India child from receiving his breakfast. That wouldn’t even surprise me considering how demagogic you have been in your last comments.

Since when is Canadian internet access so unfettered? If you want unfettered access try the more populous regions of east asia where a download can hit 3mbs in a matter of moments. How do these more populous regions manage this unfettered mindblowingly fast internet? The more you hear and see the more it seems that Canadian telecoms are ripping Canadians off.

All this talk about “dividing up” internet use just reinforces the need for more capable networks that can simply handle everything properly, without all the fucking around.

You can keep trying to make it a question of science, technology, physics, mathematics, or any combination of the four. None of this justifies the fact that the backbone providers created the entire “economics of scarcity” scenario by overselling, continuing to oversell, and failing to live up to their end of the deal.

They advertised services and features they’re not delivering.
They took the money and didn’t reinvest in the infrastructure.
Now they’re saying their customers are responsible for the mess.
…Get real!

Why do you prioritise TVUPlayer compared to YouTube. TVUPlayer would make people 15% happier than YouTube ? Never heard anything like this.

I didnt say 15% happier.

Youtube is client server model.
One server to multiple clients one at a time.
a P2P implementation of youtube would save approximately 18% of the current bandwidth utilisation on the Net.

Ergo – TVUplayer is friendlier to the net than Youtube. PROVIDED all ISP’s peer.
Without Peering – P2P is an excellent idea awaiting legislative mandated peering to arrive.
The Server-client model is dead; is a bandwidth hog and is irresponsible net etiquette.

On Horse and cars

First came the horse, then the horse drawn carriage and then the car. But that is an innaprpriate analogy.

I said money or the net ?

Money pays for the net. The net provides some free content.
With more money the net will grow
That means more free content.
ergo – to obtain free content you first need money.
Once equipped and connected – the information flows.

On an economic basis there needs to be copyright protections to protect commercialisation.
On a different eceonomic basis there needs to be drastic refinements made to copyright legislation and overly protective regimes to allow a free flow or open access to content ensuring a more highly educated populace which results in a better bottom line on the GDP scale which ensures a far high lifestyle experience for the citizens of any country that follows that reasoning.

Emuwikiadmin, you are not wrong to provide information for free.
You are wrong to consider that your free information is more valuable than the 99 cent playboy lighter – IF the vendor of that lighter is an underpaid soho family business trying to eke out a living.

You are quite right – there are a lot of trades on Ebay that would not seem to benefit anyone (except ebay fees collection) however the reality is – that we are not all on the same standard of living. For example the yearly wage in Burundi is $200 per year. There a 99 cent lighter is a big deal.

The net is a wonderful economic leveller if used correctly.
The net is basically the 21st century Robin Hood taking from the rich and giving to the poor. But ONLY if the packets arnt dropped.

Please reign in your own “viewer requirements” for your wiki for five minutes to consider the effect of dropped packets on someone from Tuvalu, Cooke Islands, Guatamala etc sitting in an internet cafe with only half an hour of internet time per month, because someone only paid them 99 cents for their hand-painted playboy cigarette lighter.

Your argument about all applications being equally throttled is emotionally based and fails to consider those that are less fortunate than you. Of the worlds 3 billion internet users less than 50% have the unfettered access that you apparently enjoy.
If we dont do somehting about preventing packet loss, those numbers will get worse.

Remember, Internet traffic doubles in size every year.

My day job is to be a neuroscientist. It relies on emails existing, not being unthrotled equally with the rest of content.

Knowing which came first does not make sense. Horses came before car, we preferred cars.

Well put.
Almost a good enough post to end the topic on.
Almost.

YOU are “in the business of providing free content to the world at the expense of my own pocket. ”

Ummm. Could you share with us where the money for your (much appreciated) philanthropic activities came from?

Was it from your day job where the majority of agreements, contracts and communications were via email ?

Good. So we have discovered that there would be no free without email.
Therefore for the two busiest email hours of the day Email should rule over http.

I didnt a***pluck those numbers they came out of research on dropped packets at exchanges.

Learning Biology is important for the planet.
Being able to earn money to pay for the computer so that you can browse biology is slightly more important.

Which came first – the money or the net ?
OK – no more analogies…..

Yeah, so basically you did cut it of 10% in the most crucial hours when people can learn (after their breakfast and after their dinner). These are the moments of the day when the sugar level inside the brain is at its highest and thus people have the energetic ressources and have greater attention. And you didn’t cut the commercial equivalent (ebay, AES corporate traffic). So you are saying that buying a 0.99$ PlayBoy lighter on eBay has priority over learning biology on Wikipedia.

”What I said the need of the one NEVER EVER should be considered in preference to the needs of the MANY.”

Anyone could agree to this general principle but you are totally not convincing that your table helps us reach this goal. How can you evaluate that 0.99$ transactions on eBay make more people happy than learning biology or re-watching an episode of Lost ? Why do you prioritise TVUPlayer compared to YouTube. TVUPlayer would make people 15% happier than YouTube ? Never heard anything like this.

”Buying is E-commerce and pays the bills – so that is good for the many.
Yes I think Ecommerce generally needs to take economic preference over Rapidshare downloading of the same content.”

You’ve put those sentences next to each other, yet they totally contradict one another. In the first sentence we learn that you care for people being able to pay the bill. In the second sentences, we learn that you would however throttle their attempts at getting free content (that is, not having bills at all).

”I dont know what business you are in (Wiki is not a buisiness it’s a community educational service) but somewhere there has to be a dollar or two billed or else you would not be able to continue.”

I’m in the business of providing free content to the world at the expense of my own pocket. I believe so much in knowledge preservation that I decided to pay myself dedicated servers that are far from being covered by the cash coming from click-through advertising, but I did that because I believe knowledge should be free, accessible, and correctly preserved. However, our society is against the idea of free and freedom; in fact every structures in society has been made in your economical perspective and those structures pull down free initiatives such that it’s harder for us to reach our objectives. But I don’t care; I decided that I would fight those difficulties because I wanted the end-product to be really free (not free like Google who manages the biggest ad network ever – not free like Wikipedia who gets donations – free. ). I will never ask for any kind of recognition for the sacrifices I’ve made. The only thing I ask is to the corporate bandwith throtthlers, the old mans in our governments who understand nothing about the digital world, and CRTC officials who were probably alive when the phone was invented, to all of you, please, do not put an additional obstruction to people like me who believe in true freedom and true free culture. Please do not choose what we will have preferential access to – let us choose for ourselves. If you need speed; throttle everything equally, and advertise correctly that when you buy a 6mbits/sec line at Bell, it’s actually a 3mbits/sec line in the evening.

Step one. Find a soup kitchen (salvation army or similar). Object of the exercise – get a bowl of soup.
Step two. Go to a restaurant. Object of the exercise – get a bowl of soup.

Which one was easier?
Which one gave something back to the community in taxes and jobs?
Which one is more likely to save a human life?

There are two sides to every economic and anti-economic imperitive argument.

You see, my stance is that content needs to be paid for somewhere in the chain or else the tap gets shut off.

I dont agree with the content industries excessive profit model when combined with litigious actvity.
I consider File-sharing to be a valid and important part of developing a community following for content.
But if all content was always delivered free always – then there would be a gradual lessening of quality content.

Therefore for every file shared there has to be at least two purchasers of the product.

Truism:
a) So some people will always buy their content.
b) Some people will always download their content.

But readers have to agree, the consumption of content is an individual personal choice but when that personal choice actually stops the internet from operating because too many are choosing option B and consider that the entire internet should be devoted to them for a measly $90 per month (thanks @surfer, someone else said 20 per month a few days ago…..) in preference to sociologically and economicaly required ecommerce, then I say – turn that person off or throttle their internet until they can learn to be a responsible:

a) Net Citizen.
b) Global citizen.

BTW, nowhere have I said – dont download. Nowhere have I said dont fileshare. All I have said is that the Net needs to be apportioned on an economic basis or it will cease to function.
Anyone that disagrees with that is a Luddite, and errr, quite possibly worse.

Why do I keep posting on this topic ?

Because you guys are not allowing your fellow netizens to enjoy their “bit” of the net and your greed is stifling the economy.
Sort of like the content industries greed is also stifling the economy.

I’m being very sincere here… You need to give on the analogies!!
Stick to straight, factual explanations, as you’re obviously much, much better at that than creating analogies.