Trying To Slow Down BitTorrent Traffic Will Backfire, Badly
from the bad-bad-plan dept
Over the past couple of years, a bunch of ISPs have started (usually quietly) applying traffic shaping efforts to slow down your high bandwidth applications like BitTorrent. This is part of what the whole network neutrality debate is about, but this has more to do with the ISPs trying to keep out services that use up more bandwidth then they budgeted for. What it really represents is the inability of ISPs to recognize a simple fact: if you offer people bandwidth, they'll figure out ways to use it. The ISPs got into this big race with each other, and all promised unlimited bandwidth at cheap prices, making the calculation that the demand for bandwidth wouldn't increase very much, and most people wouldn't use very much at all. They were wrong. But, rather than admit that they made a mistake, they suddenly pretend that the "all you can eat" broadband they sold you is something different -- one where they can arbitrarily limit what you can do with that bandwidth. They sold you one thing, with the belief that you wouldn't actually use it, and now that you are, they're shoving in place temporary fixes to stop you from using what they sold you. Of course, there are many who believe the whole thing is simply a ruse to try to charge everyone more money, a concept that gained steam when a loose-lipped CTO from Qwest admitted that file sharing traffic isn't actually much of a burden for them, and he didn't understand other ISPs claiming it was such a problem.The funny thing, though, is that whether or not it really is a burden, the idea of using traffic shaping is absolutely going to backfire. As we've already discussed, the more ISPs try to snoop on or "shape" your internet usage, the more that's going to be a great selling point for encryption. People are going to increasingly encrypt all of their internet usage, from regular surfing, to file sharing to VoIP -- as it makes it that much more difficult to figure out what kind of traffic is what and to do anything with it. Broadband Reports today is moderating something of a debate on whether or not encrypting BitTorrent is a good thing, with Wired taking the bad side and TorrentFreak (not surprisingly) taking the good side. Of course, it's really all a matter of perspective. It may be good for some people or bad for the others -- but what's most amusing, is that encrypting all of this traffic will simply add a lot of overhead for the ISPs to deal with. That means, for all their talk about how file sharing traffic was a burden on their network, by trying to slow it down with traffic shaping, they're only likely to increase the burden as everyone shifts to encrypted systems making it more difficult and more costly for them to do anything about it. Add to this that the traffic shaping hardware costs money that could have gone into simply upgrading their overall network, and it seems doubly problematic. They're left with an expensive solution that doesn't solve the issue and actually makes it worse, when they could have just spent more on upgrading their network to handle more capacity.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
its harder than you think.
it is remarkably difficult to shape filesharing traffic, especially with bittorrent. i use ktorrent (i am a linux user), which allready supports encryption and more importantly, allows a variety of different methods of connection (changing ports, tcp and udp trackers, proxy support etc). considering such connectivity options are in place before traffic shaping is in place, imagine how creative the protocol creators can be when they actually *need* to be.
considering how popular bittorrent is, and the fact that it does actually have legitimate uses, i suspect that any attempt to slow down its traffic will only help increase it (more overhead for different transfer methods and perhaps even publicizing it even further).
i am curious to what happenned to the 'common carrier' idea? i thought as soon as isp's started acknowledging that a specific type of data is travelling accross their network that they became responsible for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
While the ISP's may be complaining about something that is not actually a bandwidth issue, you are missing the point that almost all ISP's don't allow consumer grade internet service customsers to use servers or to share files (in turn becoming a server).
By running things like BitTorrent and other P2P applications you are in fact hosting which is not within the TOS agreements.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They don't like the simple solution
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The REAL Truth
It's all about information though, and ISP's have to realize that P2P is the way things are done these days, and it's the future. Hosting is going to be every computer connected to the internet, it's only logical, and it's the future. Static servers are a thing of the past, and even applications are going to switch from being hosted on your computer to your computer simply being a client in a huge network of computers all connected via the internet.
Now consider that one of the largest played online games in the world, World of Warcraft, uses BitTorrent to distribute it's content, via P2P, and we will be seeing more companies in the future using this, including gaming consoles, it's a losing battle for any P2P network to try to fight bandwidth traffic. Expand, grow, or die. North America is already falling far behind other parts of the world when it comes to bandwidth, and if they keep up these games, the United States will just become a second nation when it comes to technology, killed off by their own stubbornness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I would say killed off by corporate GREED.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Capitalism will correct things
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Back in my day...
I'm just saying its not solely on the ISP. A hundred complaints about slow P2P traffic is better than 5000 people complaining they can't get their email. Yes, the ISP may have not foreseen the immense traffic to be consumed by a two-stop-sign town, but without that ISP's investment there would be no high-speed at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Capitalism will correct things
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Capitalism will correct things
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Are you sure about that? I have heard from some people online about their ISP blocking certain ports and stuff, but it's all relatively minor. TONS of people all over the world "host" things on their computers, and ISPs can't really do much to stop it without selectively filtering certain content, which somebody already pointed out should make them liable for said content. My ISP blocks absolutely nothing. I have IRC and bittorrent stuff running almost all the time, all year long. I also have an ftp setup on my computer for a few specific things, doesn't get used much. Believe me, I make full use of what little upload bandwidth they give me.
About all ISPs can really do is limit your upload bandwidth to stop you from turning your computer into a regular server. If they gave you 3Mbit or higher upload, then they'd have a real bandwith problem on their hands. Fortunately for us, they are slowly being forced to relax that restriction as more and more digital content goes online from home users, like PC gaming, uploading photos and videos, etc. I believe it is an ISP's job to provide us a non-restricted and uncensored connection to the Internet, with a reasonable amount of bandwidth at a price that is both fair to the consumer and profitable to the ISP so that they can further increase their services in the future. Things like ridiculously inflated pricing, limited bandwidth, filtered content, prioritized content, etc., all exist solely due to corporate greed and are unhealthy for all parties involved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Even for P2P applications new throttling techniques look at the number of outgoing connections from an IP instead of looking at packet headers to detect. You may be able to reduce the number of outgoing connections in your P2P app to avoid detection, at the cost of download speed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
but if each individual packet is encrypted seperately, and transmitted with keys...that could "double" the ammount of data the isp needs to "browse" through. so, dependingon encryption implemention could determine overall perfromance
[ link to this | view in thread ]
2 problems with this.
I've written my thoughts about this on my website.
Basically there are two problems with bandwidth-capping and traffic shaping:
1. If they can't provide unlimited bandwidth, they shouldn't have sold it to you as such.
2. They shouldn't be deciding what you're doing with the service they provide you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Truth......
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Truth......
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A little off topic.
Thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
let's just do it right :
You can use it the ordinary way, with encryption only fooling your ISP, but not fooling the RIAA.
Or you can use it smartly, with encryption making any trackback (of origin of message/file) impossible.
Freenet started it all, and now there is stuff like I2P, through which virtually anything can be encrypted, Bittorrent, Gnutella, email, chat, servers, blogs, websites, ...
It's there for you to play with. Do some forward thinking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You can use it the ordinary way, with encryption perhaps fooling your ISP, but not the RIAA.
Or you can use it smartly, with encryption making any trackback (of origin of message/file) impossible.
Freenet started it all, and now there is stuff like I2P, through which virtually anything can be encrypted at high speeds, Bittorrent, Gnutella, email, chat, servers, blogs, websites, ...
It's there for you to play with. Do some forward thinking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: its harder than you think.
So don't believe the ISPs can't slow your torrent traffic, they can.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DC++
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: its harder than you think.
Simple. Easy. Cheap.
For an example of an entry version (works great, however), see NetEqualizer's gear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The REAL Truth
That's the fact, although many people don't want to admit it to themselves. Yes it can be overcome at some point, but there will *have to be* a tiered Internet of sorts to truly achive it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why Traffic Shaping Doesn't Work
On competition and technology
Posted by mollywood CNET (See profile) - July 11, 2006 8:30 PM PDT
Gary Bachula is vice president of the Internet2 project, which is, in his words, "a very advanced, private, ultra-high-speed research and education network called Abilene." These guys have, literally, built a new Internet from scratch. And you know what Bachula said in his testimony before Congress on the issue of Net neutrality? I'll quote in entirety below, but here it is in a nutshell: we tried a tiered Internet, and it doesn't work. Packet prioritization is a canard. All you need is bandwidth. To wit:
"Having deployed an advanced broadband network to over five million users for some seven years now, we at Internet2 believe our experience will interest Congress as you consider important telecommunications legislation.
We are aware that some providers argue against net neutrality, saying that they must give priority to certain kinds of Internet bits, such as video, in order to assure a high quality experience for their customer. Others argue that they want to use such discrimination among bits as a basis for a business model. Let me tell you about our experience at Internet.
When we first began to deploy our Abilene network, our engineers started with the assumption that we should find technical ways of prioritizing certain kinds of bits, such as streaming video, or video conferencing, in order to assure that they arrive without delay. For a number of years, we seriously explored various “quality of service” schemes, including having our engineers convene a Quality of Service Working Group. As it developed, though, all of our research and practical experience supported the conclusion that it was far more cost effective to simply provide more bandwidth. With enough bandwidth in the network, there is no congestion and video bits do not need preferential treatment. All of the bits arrive fast enough, even if intermingled.
Today our Abilene network does not give preferential treatment to anyone’s bits, but our users routinely experiment with streaming HDTV, hold thousands of high quality two-way video conferences simultaneously, and
transfer huge files of scientific data around the globe without loss of packets.
We would argue that rather than introduce additional complexity into the network fabric, and additional costs to implement these prioritizing techniques, the telecom providers should focus on providing Americans with an abundance of bandwidth – and the quality problems will take care of themselves.
For example, if a provider simply brought a gigabit Ethernet connection to your home, you could connect that to your home computer with only a $15 card. If the provider insists on dividing up that bandwidth into various separate pipes for telephone and video and internet, the resulting set top box might cost as much as $150. Simple is cheaper. Complex is costly."
I urge you to read his entire testimony. It's extremely instructive.
http://tinyurl.com/moz3m
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Grow, not limit
My response to that is then, what is the difference if 10 of my friends request a a bunch of large documents/images/etc to be sent to them by email as compared with sending over the bittorrent protocol instead of using an email protocol to share files??? Main difference I see is that it is two different protocols.
I have a good response to ISP's fighting against bittorrent/servers(since we all know it is really about them trying to be stingy on the bandwidth)... tell them you do do daily/weekly backups online of your hard drive if they question your bandwidth consumption.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: speakeasy t1
[ link to this | view in thread ]
misconceptions
I'm as angry with the ISPs as the next guy. They sold the bandwidth, and they have an obligation to provide it. But at the same time, I can't pretend that protocol "encryption" is going to be some kind of big disaster for them. The real issue they're facing is that things like BitTorrent are driving consumer demand for more bandwidth, which is their meal ticket for the longer term. They need to meet the demand, rather than stifle it, or they'll be doing themselves a great disservice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:The Truth about The Truth
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: misconceptions
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Most TOS agreements were written before P2P services. You either need to update the TOS agreement (which will drive customers away when they figure it out), change your advertising (your competitors will love you), or live with it (your customers will tolerate you).
My suggestion: come up with a better argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: its harder than you think.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Its all easy for people to say go somewhere else but its all a monopoly. DSL i have to pay for a landline to get it. Wireless is expensive and capped worse than cable (they even ban voip ports to sell their own voip) So waht are you to do when you have no choice but to accept the pit of deprivaty that is the local service provider?
This is becoming as bad as cable tv was in the 80s, Moving from house to house to get better service since there was only ONE company per county/region.
I wouldnt call this compition of capatalism but exploitation of the end user. At this rate ill remain the guy using other peoples wireless networks for FREE.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Make the most with what you've got
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is crap!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A little off topic.
http://www.encryptoo.com/home.html
http://www.unixwiz.net/techtips/iguide-ipsec.html
htt p://www.epic.org/crypto/ban/
I just grabbed a couple from a few links I had titled "encrypt/decrypt" so I have no idea is this will be relevant to what you actually need/want. like I said, just do a search, and you'll find plenty.
Tony.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bt are bastards
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Throtling the bittorrent traffic is like banning a web page because every one is going to the same web page.. Just cache it and stfu isp
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The REAL Truth
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Caching
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]