Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

BitTorrent Ponders Releasing World ISP P2P Speed Report

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the who-throttles-the-throttlers dept.

The Internet 156

Mark.JUK writes "The San Francisco-based inventor of the hugely popular peer-to-peer (P2P) internet file sharing protocol BitTorrent has revealed that it is considering whether or not to release the broadband performance (speed) data for more than 9,000 ISPs around the world. The technology company claims that the data forms part of its new project, which is sadly still in the very early stages of development, but could one day give consumers a near real-time perspective of how their ISP is performing. It wouldn't just cover P2P traffic either, with BitTorrent also tracking general HTTP transfers too. BitTorrent claims that its service can, for example, display that most UK ISPs 'aggressively throttle BitTorrent traffic after 6 p.m. at night,' with speeds suddenly going 'off a cliff.' Suffice to say that such information could prove to be very useful for consumers and advocates of Net Neutrality."

cancel ×

156 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Considering? (4, Insightful)

slaxative (1867220) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247262)

Consideration of performing an action is news now?

The debate is important. (1)

sidragon.net (1238654) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247470)

I am speculating, but this information could tell certain copyright cartels where to target their legislative action. Considering that risk, should these data be made public?

Re:Considering? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247472)

it is when you're shaking someone down

Re:Considering? (2)

bberens (965711) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247668)

ISPs throttling torrent traffic is detrimental to their business. It also happens to be important to a lot of tech savvy users. This is a shot off the bow to the ISPs who have been largely denying they do this stuff.

Re:Considering? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247680)

It can be, depending on who is making it, and the decision that's being made.

Re:Considering? (2)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248058)

Consideration of performing an action is news now?

It shouldn't be, but in this case it seems that's the case. They're just trying to gain some attention so everyone is listening when they do release the report. I don't really see why they wouldn't release this information.

Re:Considering? (2)

Draek (916851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248956)

Not really, but the existence of the data itself is.

uhhh, bram cohen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35247284)

TFS: "The San Francisco-based inventor of the hugely popular peer-to-peer (P2P) internet file sharing protocol BitTorrent..."

you mean this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bram_Cohen

TFA doesn't mention his name, either.

Re:uhhh, bram cohen? (1)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247746)

Oh, I thought that it was Al Gore!

(And since he's such a polarising figure, I'll explain for mods on the wrong side of the political aisle from this joke: IT'S A JOKE.)

Bell Canada is probably at the bottom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35247288)

P2P Throttling, always trying to gouge costumers for more money (yes, they're the ones behind UBB)

why? (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247292)

i doubt there is someone in the U.S. that believes there is an ISP that doesn't treat their customers like cornholio. i guess this intended for other nations.

Re:why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35247342)

i doubt there is someone in the U.S. that believes there is an ISP that doesn't treat their customers like cornholio.

But they always give me T.P. for my bunghole!

Re:why? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247478)

You can be the hole, or you can be the corn.

Re:why? (3, Informative)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247642)

I don't understand why everyone always says "the US sucks" and "other countries are better" (or words to that effect). Is this a case of thinking the Grass is Greener on the other side of the fence?

Because it isn't true. Here is how the US compares to other continent-spanning nations/federations. Maybe I'm biased but I don't think second place is a bad place to be:
Mbit/s
12.3 Russian Federation
10.3 US
10.0 EU
9.3 Canada
8.0 Australia
5.7 Saudi Arabia
4.8 Brazil
3.8 China
3.4 Mexico

Mbit/s (EU versus US member states):
29 Lithuania
26 Latvia
24 Romania
23 Netherlands, Sweden
18 Portugal
17 Germany
16 Bulgaria, Denmark
15 DE, Belgium
14 Luxembourg, MA, RI, VA, WA, Hungary, MD, France
13 NY, Finland, NJ
12 NH, MN, Estonia
11 Austria
10 Slovakia, Czech, UK, Spain
8 Slovenia, Malta
7 Poland
6 Ireland, Georgia, Greece, Turkey
5 Cyprus
4 Italy
3 Greenland

Re:why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35247944)

cool story bro.

now throw in this little thing called "price".

Re:why? (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248850)

We want the biggest pipe. This topic is not open to discussion.

Re:why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35248852)

I fail to see how 10 states having average Internet speeds higher than 3Mb/s helps your argument.

I mean COME ON ... Greenland has higher speeds than the other 40 states!?!?!?!?!?!

Your bias has blinded you.

Re:why? (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247684)

It could provide fodder for class actions against ISPs who are not living up to their advertised rates.

Re:why? (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248076)

i doubt there is someone in the U.S. that believes there is an ISP that doesn't treat their customers like cornholio. i guess this intended for other nations.

So for I have had zero problems with Verizon FiOS. They treat me pretty well right now, even 6 months into the contract nothing has changed.

You mean like this one? (2)

ludomancer (921940) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247312)

Re:You mean like this one? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247584)

Innnnteresting.

The lower band is cellphones and DSL, and the upper band is cable providers.

Verizon is sort of by itself. I'm guessing that Netflix is averaging cellphones and home-fiber customers, because I would surely expect the FiOS folks to be getting the best speeds of all.

Most intersting fact is that Clearwire is totally shitty. AT&T is kicking their ass, but then, they do brag about being the fastest, they just don't mention how little coverage they have for any sort of broadband-speed service.

Also fascinating is that there's a sort of common-mode component to the chart. That would most likely be due to effects of Netflix's own connection to the backbone, but if it isn't it means the entire internet has some sort of dynamic effect on itself.

Re:You mean like this one? (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248242)

I would surely expect the FiOS folks to be getting the best speeds of all.

You would be correct. At least in my case. I don't know what the speed is when I'm watching netflix, but I've never had to buffer a video.

Re:You mean like this one? (1)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247678)

Difficulty: FIOS not broken out

Re:You mean like this one? (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247964)

What amazes me about that is that Comcast, Charter and Cox are so obviously in the lead. Did Netflix pay them anything for this?

Re:You mean like this one? (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248280)

Looks like the average is somewhere around 2000 kbit/s.

Good to know my 1000k line is slower but not significantly slower than typical.

Forget advocates how about consumers in general (4, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247328)

Perhaps people would like to know tha the 10Mb/sec speed advertised by their provider is only available from 4am to 6:30am on weekdays.
These actual usable bandwidth numbers should be general public knowledge. It would enable consumers to make valid choices and perhaps make providers do some real provisioning to support their advertised bandwidths.

Re:Forget advocates how about consumers in general (1)

DanTheStone (1212500) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247366)

Or it could also be interesting that your 10 Mb/s speed is available never. How would that go over?

Re:Forget advocates how about consumers in general (2)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247532)

Or it could also be interesting that your 10 Mb/s speed is available never. How would that go over?

Reminds me of when I call places like my ISP and other companies. I always get the message "We're experiencing an unusually high volume of calls at the moment, please bear with us."

Really, unusually high? Why does it *always* seem to be "unusually" high? I would love to set up some automated system to call these companies and see how often I get that message. I bet that even if you called every hour for weeks, you would always get that message. Seems to me that you can't call something unusual if its always the case.

As far as bandwidth - yeah, its normally a crock of shit. Though currently I've gotten a great connection. I think my plan is only 20 or 25 Mb/s but I usually get over 30 on speed tests. This is Comcast in Silicon Valley (Campbell).
-Taylor

Re:Forget advocates how about consumers in general (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248046)

I bet that even if you called every hour for weeks, you would always get that message. Seems to me that you can't call something unusual if its always the case.

Actually, they're usually only open from 9 to 5. Outside of these hours, you don't get the "unusually busy" message; you get the "please call back between 9 and 5" message. Since 9 to 5 is only 1/3 of a day, the volume they experience during this period is "unusually busy" compared to when they don't accept calls.

I'm still amazed at how many places do this; it should be extremely easy in this day and age to at least record and sort messages during off-hours instead of saying "please call back during working hours, or call this number if your house has exploded". It would also lower the busy rating during work hours from "unusually" to "significantly".

Re:Forget advocates how about consumers in general (1)

orangesquid (79734) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248954)

You're still amazed? I'm not! We know that:
1. Some people rarely have the chance to call during normal business hours. This eliminates some call volume.
2. Some problems seem to sort themselves out after a few hours. This eliminates some call volume during the business hours of the following day.
3. People who are inconvenienced late at night, when they're trying to relax before bed, are going to get irritated easily and vent all the frustrations they garnered during their work-day. If you force them to only call during the business day, they're apt to be more polite (after all, they've now had a night's rest) as well as take up less time on the phone (less venting). This shortens call time.

It's a lot like how, at big universities, some professors have their required office hours from 7-8:30am, because they know just how few students will come during this period.

Re:Forget advocates how about consumers in general (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247602)

I think everyone is cognizant of the "up to" in the brochure.

FEAR NO ISP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35248014)

I will teach you the secret techniques of Llap Goch [google.com] !

Re:Forget advocates how about consumers in general (1, Flamebait)

rogueippacket (1977626) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247674)

Or it could also be interesting that your 10 Mb/s speed is available never. How would that go over?

I'm sorry if the marketing jargon used by ISPs frustrates you. Unfortunately, you aren't paying for guaranteed service. This was in the fine print of the paper you signed. Did you read it?
Don't feel too bad, though - you can call always call your ISP and ask for a 99.999 uptime SLA and a CIR of 10 Mbps, but they'll probably just laugh at you, considering most Department of Defense bases don't even have that level of service, and I can guarantee you can't afford it. It doesn't matter which ISP you're with - residential connections are bottom the heap. You get what you pay for, and $50/mo is virtually nothing.
In a car analogy, complaining about your residential connection is like complaining to the dealership that your Honda Civic can't complete in a Formula 1 race. You didn't pay for a race car, so why do you think you can race it like one? The sooner you realize this and stop feeling entitled to something you don't pay for, the sooner you will be able to get something better.

Re:Forget advocates how about consumers in general (1)

Thundersnatch (671481) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248738)

Mod ^^^^this dude^^^^ up please.

Seriously, all the kiddies here who complain about throttling, not getting 100% of advertised speeds, etc. have never dealt with real Internet transit costs. If you want a specific CIR [wikipedia.org] and uptime SLA, you have to pay, and pay dearly. Note that FiOS, "business class" service from most residential ISPs, the cheap 100 Mbps circuits from Cogent, and the "2 TB/month" from your cheap hosting provider might have at least some form of SLA for uptime if you're lucky. But the CIR for such low-cost services is close to or exactly ZERO, and all throughput is best-effort "up to" a specific link speed.

It isn't just this way in the USA either, but worldwide.

Dumb comment (3, Insightful)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247360)

Suffice to say that such information could prove to be very useful for consumers and advocates of Net Neutrality.

What a stupid thing to say. It doesn't offer any insight as to why bandwidth may have gone off a cliff. Net Neutrality is not the same thing as responsible QoS! Get that through you heads!

After 6pm, Internet traffic for most ISPs goes through the roof. With it, latency and available bandwidth are typically negatively affected. With a responsible QoS, which is still fully Net Neutral, its easily possible to explain services such at BT "falling off a cliff." After all, if you give it a low priority, which reasonably it should, other users may simply be driving it "off the cliff."

Me, like most every reasonable person in the world, certainly does not want to have You Tube, general web browsing, email, IRC, streaming music, game playing, or any of a number of other services negatively affected because Joe down the street is downloading his fifth illegal movie for the day, especially when he's likely to watch it later, or getting his next WoW update. Some things require an interactive level of performance - some others do not. BT, by definition, is a service which should receive a low priority in any QoS infrastructure.

Net Neutrality is about ensuring company X doesn't get premier service at the expense of its competition. Its not about ensuring reasonable QoS to ISP customers. Please stop conflating the two.

Now having said all that, there may be other things are work here, but there is nothing in the article which suggests there is anything controversial going on. As is, things are reasonably explainable with traditional usage trends and a reasonable desire to maintain a reasonable QoS to customers.

Re:Dumb comment (1)

snkiz (1786676) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247432)

While all true, I think you give the ISP's too much credit. If you really believe that tripe, I know this guy in Nigeria, he's a prince and he'd like to meet you.

Re:Dumb comment (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247504)

While all true, I think you give the ISP's too much credit. If you really believe that tripe, I know this guy in Nigeria, he's a prince and he'd like to meet you.

So far, the only thing you've validated is you are unethical and have no idea how networking works, which makes us concluded you're unqualified to refute my statement.

Giving too much credit? Actually, statements like that make you look extremely stupid. As a matter of fact, every major ISP is going to have a QoS infrastructure in place. They may not all agree in exact service prioritization but its there. Furthermore, its an extremely reasonable assumption BT traffic has been given one of the lowest, if not the lowest QoS of any service. To then dumbly state, "too much credit" for something which factually exists plus extremely reasonable assumptions, is beyond idiotic.

Basically, your position is more stupid, and completely baseless, than the original rhetoric to which I commented. But hey, this is slashdot. Its popular to be an ignorant, hate mongering, douche, so you fit right in.

Re:Dumb comment (1)

JordanL (886154) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247634)

Net Neutrality is indeed different than QoS... and if their data shows that the QoS for BT drops off by 80% while HTTP drops off by 40%, then you ALSO have a Net Neutrality issue, as Net Neutrality has to do with discriminating with types of data or origin of data, instead of capacity.

Not sure why you're having trouble grasping that.

Re:Dumb comment (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247784)

as Net Neutrality has to do with discriminating with types of data or origin of data,

ORIGIN, NOT PROTOCOL.

Sorry for yelling, but this is getting old. GP just got done giving a very lucid explanation of why throttling BT more than HTTP is NOT a Net Neutrality issue, and you promptly responded with (paraphrased)

Yes but BT is being throttled more than HTTP, so its a neutrality issue

Get this through your head-- throttling by protocol is called QoS. It is legitimate. It is not a net neutrality issue. Responsible ISPs do this.
Throttling by source or destination address or domain is not QoS, is illegitimate, and IS a net neutrality issue.

Finally, if you cant be arsed to read someones post and take the effort to understand it, please dont respond-- especially if you spout the same argument he just rebutted.

Re:Dumb comment (2)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247930)

Net neutrality isn't particularly about origin, other than "origin outside of the ISP's own moneymaking sphere."

Net neutrality is entirely about fairness of access in the face of pressure to monetize that access.... increasing the effective cost of access to content that the network provider isn't already making money on to drive traffic to its own revenue-providing offerings.

So, origin is a big part of it. But ignoring protocol is misguided. QoS is explicitly about protocol, but it's also a convenient end-run on net neutrality if the protocol you're throttling happens to be a competitor to your own marketed content.

Don't lose sight of that. Responsible ISPs will manage QoS for the best aggregate experience for their constituents. Fiduciarily responsible ISPs will also manage QoS for the best return on content and network investment, at the expense of access fairness and content diversity if necessary. It's this latter which is why QoS can be a network neutrality issue.

Re:Dumb comment (1)

JordanL (886154) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248004)

Net Neutrality is a common term, not a technical one, and if you can't be arsed enough to consider that being a network engineer doesn't make one a God, you'd realize that I don't give a flying fuck what the technicals are. Net Neutrality absolutely has to do with discrimination by protocol, and just because network techs don't like, doesn't mean that the English becomes different. You fucking work with computers, you're not fucking Merriam-Webster.

Re:Dumb comment (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248230)

Net Neutrality is a common term, not a technical

Right, but it has a very technical meaning to those who understand the technical merit and implications. You're simply attempting to ignore the technical merit and ride the political bullshit speak so as to attempt grasp at justification to support your obtuse line of reasoning.

Factually, politicians are obfuscating the technical merit in an effort confuse those, like you, who don't understand the technical details. In doing, they hope to come out on top from the confusion of the ignorant masses. Basically, your line of defense only benefits those who want to destroy Net Neutrality. Your ignorance is to the detriment of everyone. And when people take the time to address your ignorance you double down and cover your ears. This is why people think little of your opinion. Which by your own actions, more or less proves isn't worth listening too.

Re:Dumb comment (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248558)

Both are NN issues. Because what is already happening is tunneling things like BT in HTTP, where everything defaults to Port 80 for data traffic between two points. The problem is that people are violating the very nature of the system to route around perma-broken links. You're just shoveling the problem up the Stack.

QoS only works for temporary / bursty problems. When you have someone not having enough bandwidth to handle NORMAL traffic, all the time, then no amount of QoS can fix the problem. And how providers are dealing with THAT issue is a NN issue, because they are discriminating against destinations (address or port).

If you do a speed test between your computer and DSLREPORTS that differs from one done between two random computers, that is a NN issue. And yet, that is exactly what is going on. Because DSLREPORTS my Cable speed as being much higher than anything I can achieve going to my nearly empty GB link at work in the middle of the night. Tell me, how is that even possible?

Re:Dumb comment (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248052)

Net Neutrality is indeed different than QoS... and if their data shows that the QoS for BT drops off by 80% while HTTP drops off by 40%, then you ALSO have a Net Neutrality issue, as Net Neutrality has to do with discriminating with types of data or origin of data, instead of capacity.

So you're saying that my theory of QoS is likely correct. HTTP has a higher QoS than BT - hardly surprising.

Not sure why you're having trouble grasping that.

Agreed. Not sure why you're having trouble grasping that.

Re:Dumb comment (1)

JordanL (886154) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248180)

Christ, the things some slashdotters get passionate about. You win, I don't care enough to argue if I'm just going to deal with logical fallacies for the whole discussion.

Re:Dumb comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35247648)

Remember kids, don't feed the trolls!

Re:Dumb comment (1)

snkiz (1786676) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247708)

No I get networking, at least in a general sense. Like I said your right QoS needs to happen, bittorrent is low priority. But what I meant was your being naive if you really think ISP's are going to be fair or impartial about it. Call me names if you wish, guess you've never checked your spam folder.

Re:Dumb comment (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248362)

But what I meant was your being naive if you really think ISP's are going to be fair or impartial about it.

Where does your line of thinking come into play with my comments? It doesn't. That's the point.

The break down of your logic is literally this:

Me) They have a managed network.

You) You're giving them too much credit. They don't have a network. You're being naive.

I explained the facts. You attempted to refute it with emotion. Meaning, "fair" or "impartial" has absolutely nothing to do with it. Period. End of discussion. The discussion starts and stops with them having a managed network with QoS. Anything else is hate mongering and hyperbole. Which is exactly why you got the response you got.

Re:Dumb comment (1)

snkiz (1786676) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248522)

That's it your an idiot and a troll. Now your just putting words in my mouth. I'm not denying they have a network, I'm not denying that it needs to managed. I'm Saying I DON"T TRUST BELL TO DO IT! Does it make you feel good about your self to call me a bigot? Because of a reference to a well circulated scam? Up here over 450 000 people agree with me, I guess as a bell employee your pissed cuz your profit sharing is going to dip.

Re:Dumb comment (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248770)

Now your just putting words in my mouth.

*facepalm*

There are no quotes. I didn't say you literally said that. I know you didn't literally say that. That was for illustrative purposes to show how rediculas your position is. Your position is literally, completely without merit - in this regard.

Obviously you don't trust them. I don't either. I don't know anyone who does. But that's not really germane to the topic at hand. Not one bit. Not in the least. Why? Because its *ALL* readily explained by network engineering best practices and well established network use trends. Period.

Now if you want to have a discussion where our distrust of ISPs is germane, let's do it. Until such time, please keep the irrational hyperbole out of the discussion. With the available facts, there is absolutely nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, which isn't readily explained by means of extremely normal and in fact, all but mandatory QoS for a network of their size.

Now as I originally stated, there may be some wild cards at play here, but there is absolutely nothing, not even a tiny whiff, to suggest that is the case.

The rest of your post is idiotic, trollish, and stupid.

Re:Dumb comment (1)

snkiz (1786676) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248994)

You mean to tell me that you believe that trust has nothing with the companies that holds the keys to net for the average person. You do know QoS stands for quality of service, not choke our competitors of bandwidth. You want proper QoS, then take it away from the ISP's. You may even find out then it isn't nearly as necessary as they would have us believe.

Re:Dumb comment (1)

snkiz (1786676) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249008)

woops there the name calling again, fsking shill.

Re:Dumb comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35247748)

Why is your response to his so much better? All he said was the he think you give the ISPs too much credit. Do you disagree? Are they really only throttling BT traffic because of QoS reasons? There's a difference between QoS throttling and just outright throttling BT usage. Imagine how beneficial it is to a company such as Rogers (with its hands in both television and internet) if, instead of being able to BT or use a similar (not yet available) service to get my television show, it always seems like those services are too slow for me to watch the show the same night I have the craving too. Instead, I should just pay another $50 a month to get 30 channels I don't watch so I can see the one show I like--when I want to.

See, it's not that hard to have a discussion without being deprecating and mean.

Re:Dumb comment (1)

snkiz (1786676) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248386)

Thank you Canadians get it.

Re:Dumb comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35247750)

You're pulling facts out of your ass, so why claim yours are any better than his? Stop being a smug idiot and give us your sources.

Re:Dumb comment (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248130)

Nope. I'm offering well publicized facts. He's offering nothing but facts from his ass to counter ACTUAL FACTS. Your post is purely delusional trolling.

Re:Dumb comment (1)

snkiz (1786676) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248404)

No I'm simply stating I don't trust The ISP's anymore than I can throw them and I think your foolish to do so.

Re:Dumb comment (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248654)

For the last time, this has absolutely nothing to do with "truth." My facts have absolutely nothing to do with "trust". Period. It has everything to do with QoS and the fact they use it. Period.

Your response is emotionally charged. I've read those same articles you have. I understand the ISPs are not my best friend and they are out for themselves. They are a company after all. But none of that has anything to do with the topic at hand. Again, trust has nothing to do with it.

Re:Dumb comment (1)

snkiz (1786676) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248716)

well you didn't hurl slander at me in that one, I guess that's an apology???

Re:Dumb comment (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247538)

Natural usage will swell around 6pm, but it will do so organically with a bit of variance. I think they are talking about a specific stop watch accurate literal cliff at a specific time.

Re:Dumb comment (1)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248094)

Okay... so why would they do that? Because they don't have enough bandwidth to go around. What's the alternative? Leave TCP congestion control to do it.

So... how do you tell the difference between TCP throttling BitTorrent usage due to exponential backoff triggered by packet loss, and traffic shaping?

Re:Dumb comment (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247586)

I had a nice factual rebuttal, but this:
"Me, like most every reasonable person in the world"

Tells me you are so emotionally caught up in a perceived problem you stopped actually thinking about it.

Re:Dumb comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35247758)

> Joe down the street is downloading his fifth illegal movie for the day, especially when he's likely to watch it later
> BT, by definition, is a service which should receive a low priority in any QoS infrastructure

Looks like you missed this back in 2007: BitTorrent Streaming Service Launched (http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-launches-streaming-service-071010/) and this last Friday: BitTorrent and Khan Academy To Distribute Education (http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/02/11/1924237/BitTorrent-and-Khan-Academy-To-Distribute-Education).

BitTorrent is often used for legal video streaming.

Re:Dumb comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35248958)

True, but not generally for real-time video streaming. Regardless of legitimacy, there's a reasonable argument that bittorrent doesn't require the higher-performance that real-time or interactive web activities demand.

Re:Dumb comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35247778)

Wow dude the net is for everybody, I use torrents only to download linux distros, I am not a criminal. Why should I be throttled to 25kbs or less like my ISP tries to??

I also love you insinuation how game updates being less important than your traffic, although if your ISP has a half way decent network you should never see a decrease during "peak hours", I never do (thats one thing my ISP got right)

If I am paying for 1.5mbps I should get 1.5mbps not matter what I am doing, even if you deem my traffic less important. The ISPs know what speed they have promised their customer and they should provide the networks to handle these speeds.

Re:Dumb comment (1)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248160)

> Why should I be throttled to 25kbs or less like my ISP tries to??

So that others can get a decent portion of the network?

I'm a little disappointed with BT, who appear to have stopped publishing contention ratios. I'm going to use Namesco (who run over BT's lines) as my example instead; http://www.names.co.uk/adsl.html [names.co.uk] . With at ratio of 50:1, you're sharing your upstream connection from the exchange to your ISP, with 49 other people. 20:1, 19 other people. Either way, the contract with the ISP is fairly clearly saying "We don't have enough bandwidth to go around".

I'm disappointed with BT _because_ this should be made clearer to customers, that most home broadband connections are just a slice of a bigger connection, and usage will be limited by those around you.

Re:Dumb comment (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35248208)

Actually, P2P traffic should be served with the lowest priority possible. I mean, if the network is near 100% usage at peak hours (and, if they planned the network well, it damned sure should, otherwise you'd be paying for unused infrastructure), it's better to delay a piece of your Linux DVD than to interrupt a phone call. P2P is non-interactive, it doesn't need low latencies. The only problem if it gets a lower priority would be that the file takes longer to arrive (as opposed as breaking down communication).

The ISP should NEVER build enough infrastructure to have 100% of the people using 100% of the allocated speed 100% of the time. That is insane. It's not realistic, and would make your connection VERY expensive. Check the costs for a dedicated 1.5Mbps link and you'll see what I mean. The only reason you can pay a reasonable amount for 1.5Mbps is because the ISP architectures their network so that, assuming an average usage pattern, the network will be basically full (or very close to that) on the peak of an average day. There will be variations, when they will need to give priorities to traffic. They either give everyone a crappy experience at those times, or they try to keep interactive tasks as fluent as possible. This means giving less priority to non-interactive tasks, such as your Linux download.

It doesn't mean that you're a criminal. It means that you won't be harmed if your download takes a bit more to finish; or at least, not as much as you'd be if loading any webpage takes 2 seconds more. I believe everyone who knows something about networking understands this. Heck, I do it on my home router so that Skype calls stay clear even when I'm downloading my movies^Wlinux ISOs!

Re:Dumb comment (1)

busmasterDMA (1427569) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247868)

QoS is fine, so long as the policy is explained (preferably in detail) along with the advertised bandwidth.

Re:Dumb comment (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247884)

"Me, like most every reasonable person in the world, certainly does not want to have You Tube, general web browsing, email, IRC, streaming music, game playing, or any of a number of other services negatively affected because Joe down the street is downloading his fifth illegal movie for the day,"

The problem with this stance is that ISP's naturally oversold bandwidth in the past, and this argument is tenuous today given technological advances and the huge decrease in bandwidth costs that have not been passed along to customers. Higher download speeds means you get stuff done faster, i.e. the time it takes you to download a file decreases and you can only consume so much content per day. Especially with GB caps. For instance say you download a couple movies you want to watch, at high speed it takes less time to get these things. There is a natural fall off point to consuming bandwidth once you've received what you are downloading.

Also I am on business package and I can tell you I always get near maximum speeds at peak times so the "so and so is downloading xx/yy" is a myth. The real issue is they are purposely delaying lighting up additional bandwidth to extract as much money as they can from users. Trying to deflect attention from themselves with arguments like the 'bandwidth hog' argument, which isn't an argument at all given other countries have 10 times the speed North Americans have for more bandwidth and better rates.

Re:Dumb comment (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248492)

I didn't post it but I don't disagree with anything stated. It addresses your issues and explains why your presumptions are not the least bit reasonable. The anonymous post starts out, "Actually, P2P traffic should be served with the lowest priority possible."

Re:Dumb comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35247898)

Why is it that so many people just don't get what the complaint for most people is?
The ISP sold Joe an unlimited data package with a nominal 10Mb/sec download speed (which automatically sets an upper limit on the amount of data in a set period), it's not any of their business nor yours what he is downloading at up to 10Mb/sec on his connection. If it is illegal copies of music or movies, that is between Joe and the copyright holder.
  They oversold their network and now you want to excuse their lies because GASP, Joe actually want to use the bandwidth they sold him.

Re:Dumb comment (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248888)

Get back to me when you're willing to pay and ORDER OF MAGNITUDE OR TWO to account for your fantasy world. Until such time, stop trolling and shut up.

And yet, it does matter to me when someone's download, which is delayed five minutes prevents my VoIP call from functioning properly. And unless you're a liar, it matters to you too. So stop being a trolling, douche bag, hypocrite.

Re:Dumb comment (4, Informative)

shuz (706678) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247942)

After 6pm, Internet traffic for most ISPs goes through the roof. With it, latency and available bandwidth are typically negatively affected.

Internet traffic tends to look like a perfect curve that starts an upward trend around 700-800 for a given timezone and increases in a consistent patterned manor until 12 noon. There is a slight dip between noon and 1300 a second peak from 1300 till 1400 and a steady decline until 2300 to midnight. The decline from midday until midnight is slower but from all my experience in web traffic I don't see an increase in traffic after 1800 compared to the rest of the day.

Re:Dumb comment (1)

parlancex (1322105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248792)

Parent is correct. Additionally, GP talks about QoS being applied to pirated downloads so he can watch Youtube, but ironically what I've noticed is that because P2P traffic is difficult to identify (encryption, random ports) I can have torrents that fly but I can barely watch Youtube because it has been so strongly QoS'd, so people can load plain web pages.

The problem is people asserting they know what the Internet is for, and other rogue uses should be throttled so they can enjoy the Internet for it's intended(tm) purpose.

Re:Dumb comment (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248932)

You're conflating issues. I did not attempt to specifically validate their QoS scheme. All I said is its not only reasonable but all but impossible for them not to be pushing BT on the bottom of the QoS pile.

In fact, in other posts, I even offer QoS prioritization likely differs from ISP to ISP. And of course, the quality of the QoS configuration is likely to differ greatly. Regardless, none of that should be conflated with Net Neutrality issues nor the general desire to place BT at extremely low priorities.

Hey Vegeta (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35247392)

What does the scouter say about the data level?

It's over NINE-THOUSAAAAAAAAAND!

Release it! (2)

grub (11606) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247398)


Why are they worried about ISP reactions? They're just (hopefully) releasing data. It isn't biased or skewed, it just is. If the data is embarrassing to an ISP, that's the ISP's problem.

Freedom Box (1)

Gnaythan1 (214245) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247424)

Eben Moglen http://lastonk.blogspot.com/2011/02/freedom-box.html [blogspot.com] is trying to make a box that makes it damn hard to track people using this sort of stuff. I'm not tech savvy enough to know if these things would help in this situation, but I strongly suspect it would.

  If nothing else... you could use them to create ad hoc darknets capable of distributing p-p without ever going through an ISP at all... I'm thinking this is the right kind of forum to find people with the skills to help Eben out.

Re:Freedom Box (1)

brit74 (831798) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247572)

All it seems to be doing is routing your traffic through someone else's ISP connection (more specifically: another user who is also using the box). Additionally, the inability to track users (which may or may not be true) seems like a playground for all kinds of nefarious acts - hacking, viruses, spam, child porn, etc.

UK ISPs are at the mercy of BT's infrastructure (2)

nOw2 (1531357) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247490)

display that most UK ISPs 'aggressively throttle BitTorrent traffic after 6 p.m. at night,' with speeds suddenly going 'off a cliff.'

No, that's quite normal for some areas. It's not just BitTorrent but everything, due to oversubscription on BT's infrastructure. Right down latency, like a 12ms ping turning into a 50ms epic journey.

Re:UK ISPs are at the mercy of BT's infrastructure (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247752)

Depends. You should see an undulating curve as people "log on" over time. If there's a sharp point on the bandwidth curve then it's generally a good indicator that something artificial is happening.

Re:UK ISPs are at the mercy of BT's infrastructure (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248186)

Depends. You should see an undulating curve as people "log on" over time. If there's a sharp point on the bandwidth curve then it's generally a good indicator that something artificial is happening.

Could it be possible that at 6 PM the Bittorrent QoS level gets adjusted, and for the rest of the day it's at the same level as http and rtsp? Definitely artificial, but not necessarily nefarious.

what are they waiting for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35247494)

i dont understand. are they trying to threaten someone through a paper thin veil? just release the damn information for fuck's sake.

Legal BitTorrent (1)

brit74 (831798) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247502)

I can imagine a couple reasons why BitTorrent might be throttled. First, I'd bet BitTorrent users are sending and receiving a lot more traffic than the average user. Second, BitTorrent is essentially the lawless wild-west. This is why it's the first choice for warez. If BitTorrent users want faster speeds, I'd recommend finding ways to make the BitTorrent landscape less populated by illegal warez. Perhaps companies who want to distribute Linux or World of Warcraft patches via BitTorrent should find ways to edge-out the illegal BitTorrent traffic by creating certificates. I understand most BitTorrent users won't be happy with that, of course, because illegal warez is the major reason people use BitTorrent. But, until that happens, I really don't care if ISP throttle or cut BitTorrent traffic entirely. (Sorry, illegal bit-torrent users: you can come in from the rain when you behave on the internet.)

Re:Legal BitTorrent (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35247632)

So, in order to distribute something I made using BitTorrent I would need to get a cert?

And how much is this going to cost me?

Seriously, just cause I made it myself doesn't make it illegal; requiring certs is just illigitimizing all non-corporate stuff.

Re:Legal BitTorrent (1)

nzap (1985014) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247878)

I can imagine a couple reasons why BitTorrent might be throttled. First, I'd bet BitTorrent users are sending and receiving a lot more traffic than the average user. ... If BitTorrent users want faster speeds, I'd recommend finding ways to make the BitTorrent landscape less populated by illegal warez. ... But, until that happens, I really don't care if ISP throttle or cut BitTorrent traffic entirely. ...

Or perhaps ISPs should actually provide the bandwidth that they advertise (not to mention "unlimited" data transfer)?

Re:Legal BitTorrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35247984)

The "illegal bit-torrent users" are paying for their connections. If they were "cut out", you wouldn't get higher speeds at lower rates. Quiet the reverse, since presumably they wouldn't keep paying for a service they couldn't use.

Which would mean less money for the ISPs, which means less money to spend on improving infrastructure and so on.

You're not subsidizing the "illegal bit-torrent users". Cutting them off isn't going to improve things for you.

We Need To Stop This Madman, Now! (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247510)

We can't have some self-appointed "activist" running around telling the world our secrets. Let's start preparing some "events" that can be used to discredit him down the road if his crackpot idea comes to fruition. I hear that charges of rape are particularly effective at deflecting attention away from uncomfortable revelations like lousy network performance, or war crimes.

Turn it into a map!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35247524)

Better still, for $200MM I do it myself

Are you... (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247544)

...pondering what I'm pondering, BitTorrent?

Some throttling is needed when it come to BT (1)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247564)

BitTorrent claims that its service can, for example, display that most UK ISPs 'aggressively throttle BitTorrent traffic after 6 p.m. at night,' with speeds suddenly going 'off a cliff.' Suffice to say that such information could prove to be very useful for consumers and advocates of Net Neutrality."

And a jolly good thing this is too. I need my ping to be as fast as possible in order to play online first person shooters and at times when bandwidth is short I would rather they throttled stuff that would not be adversely affected by a bit of a delay and prioritised my traffic that needs to get to its destination more quickly for it to be of any use.

I also understand them prioritising web browsing over P2P as well as P2P traffic is generally far more constant over a 24 hour period. As an P2P user as well I do not mind waiting until the midnight hour for it to really let rip take advantage of the fact that other people are not using the net by then. BitTorrent will chew up as much bandwidth as you have available on 24/7 basis so ISP's have to do something or give everyone a 1:1 contention ratio. A 1:1 contention ratio would not be very efficient for the vast majority who do not use P2P at all as this bandwidth would be unused between 1am and 6am when most people are asleep.

The fact is that many people are to daft to set a realistic bandwidth limit on their P2P client so it will try and use all the available bandwidth on a 24/7 basis. If you want to do this then buy a leased line with no contention ratio. These accounts are available in most cities in the UK, they are just prohibitively expensive as most people do not need or want the extra cost involved. Instead, most internet users just want to use it for an hour or so when they finish work until they go to bed, go out later in the evening or settle down in front of the TV.

Re:Some throttling is needed when it come to BT (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247822)

I have a 1Mb down pipe at my house. I have my P2P client throttled down to 25KB/s which I think is quite reasonable (1/5 of my theoretical maximum rate rate). There are often times that I can't even do basic web browsing because my ISP has throttled my bandwidth. I've done some minimal work to make sure I wasn't saturating my home router and such. It's the pipe. Pause my P2P client and about 5 minutes later I get back to my normal bandwidth amount.

Re:Some throttling is needed when it come to BT (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35248894)

Throttle your up speed to 2 or 3 kb a sec, your prob saturating your up pipe, and your other packets requesting pages or whatnot arn't getting through.

Re:Some throttling is needed when it come to BT (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248296)

Something I haven't heard ISPs doing, but which makes some sense to me...
Instead of throttling services, why not throttle based on number of ports?

Using this method the first 40 or so ports opened to the gateway will all be at a standard QoS. Ports opened after that will be throttled.

Sure, this means that if you have bt running and then try to play an FPS, it's your FPS's ports that are going to be throttled at first, but after the current round of BT segments complete, the FPS connections will move up the queue, and it'll be the BT traffic throttled.

You could even make separate queues for TCP, UDP, ICMP, etc. That way, your "must have it now" UDP, DNS and ICMP traffic can still get through... unless you're saturating those channels with stealth P2P traffic.

Thoughts?

Batch download vs online delivery (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35247630)

Why does this have anything to do with ISP performance, other than being a positive story that ISPs are protecting their networks by ensuring that everyone has appropriate access to limited bandwidth resources?

In particular, they're ensuring that services that require "instant" access, e.g. streaming, gaming or delivery of websites, takes precedence over something being delivered in "batch"? Mainframe developers have been doing that for 30+ years - ensuring true online access is protected while batch downloads are throttled due to no need for synchronised delivery.

If I'm playing COD or watching a film live on LoveFilm, I want to ensure my traffic gets through now, rather than ensuring someone gets their download 10 seconds faster.

Re:Batch download vs online delivery (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247928)

I guess I don't see a particularly good distinction between Bit Torrent and Netflix. If I want to throttle one or the other I should do that. My ISP shouldn't be determining how I'm allowed to use the bandwidth I paid for.

Nike Slogan (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247876)

Why consider?
Just do it!

Blah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35247926)

If you don't like BitTorrent being throttled, get a real download service and download through SSL on port 443. There is this whole world of shit out there being replicated all over the place and the service providers will gladly encrypt it and send it to you on port 443. It won't get throttled.

BitTorrent users are like the 4chan fags using that ion collider or whatever it is.

Re:Blah (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248156)

you are so dumb, if you don't like it, use an independent providers that support MLPPP, shutting up and paying for download is retarded

Throttling? (1)

cornicefire (610241) | more than 3 years ago | (#35247974)

I'm going to run right over to the ISPs that throttle. Why? Because I don't use bittorrent and I hate to pay an equal share of those overconsumers and abusers of "fair use". This is a great indicator of which ISPs care about decent folk who pay their fair share and those that cater to the couchpotatoes who are too cheap to pay 99 cents for a song.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?