BitTorrent CEO: Broadband Has No Regulator

[exfileme]

BitTorrent's new protocol may help regulate bandwidth consumption by its users.

BitTorrent CEO: Broadband Has No Regulator : Read more

 

[Guest]

I think this is a brilliant move, Blizzard and other companies that download content patches through bit torrent will use this. There will be a fair bit of demand I feel for this service.

 

[blasterth]

The problem is not BitTorrent and Co. but are the providers that give 10Mbit connection with unlimited downloadable data to customers when they don't have the infrastructure to handle it.

 

[Platypus]

I thought the whole idea of net neutrality was that all types of data received the same level of priority across the internet. There's no pulling over to let the ambulance go by.

 

[restatement3dofted]

Kevin, whether you are simply restating Klinker's opinion throughout, or offering your own views in places, your article seems to misrepresent the ruling in Comcast v. FCC, and its potential impact on the FCC's authority to regulate broadband services.

Generally, the FCC has authority to regulate "telecommunications services" and "cable services," and has general ancillary jurisdiction, most easily described as general authority to perform "all acts" necessary to execute its various functions. In a 2005 case, the FCC argued that broadband services are neither "telecommunications" nor "cable" services, but are rather "information services," subject to less stringent regulation than the other two.

The DC Circuit Court did rule in Comcast v. FCC that the FCC's ancillary jurisdiction did not extend far enough to include its attempt to regulate Comcast in that instance. The FCC's ancillary jurisdiction must be linked to some express statutory authority that gives the FCC jurisdiction to carry out a particular act, and the DC Circuit held that the FCC had failed to demonstrate that express authority - primarily because of the FCC's earlier characterization of broadband services as "information services," and not "telecommunications" or "cable" services.

It is critical to note that this ruling does not necessarily mean, as Klinker has suggested, that the FCC lacks the authority to regulate broadband. All it means is that the FCC can't regulate broadband as long as it continues to be characterized as information services. Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have confirmed the FCC's authority to change its position on these things - i.e., to recharacterize broadband services as "telecommunications" or "cable" services, rather than "information" services - so long as the FCC does so reasonably and can explain its decision for the change. By characterizing broadband as telecomm or cable, those services will be within the FCC's express regulatory authority.

The bottom line is that one cannot simply say that the FCC lacks authority to regulate broadband. Even the DC Circuit itself recognized that the necessary statutory authority may have existed - the FCC simply failed to offer the proper statutory support in its arguments. And even if they did lack the authority, you can bet it won't take long for them to try and change that, simply by recharacterizing broadband as a telecomm or cable service.

tl;dr version: Klinker's assertions about the lack of regulatory authority aren't necessarily well-founded or accurate. Even if they were, you can bet that the federal government will create the authority to regulate broadband.

The new BitTorrent protocol seems cool, though - perhaps that will prevent Comcast and other providers from having to lash out at that group of users.

 

[steiner666]

Wouldn't it be great if ISPs stopped selling broadband they can't provide?

 

[mlopinto2k1]

[citation][nom]steiner666[/nom]Wouldn't it be great if ISPs stopped selling broadband they can't provide?[/citation]I think that's one of the more intelligent responses I've read on Tom's. Someone who isn't thinking about themselves, for a change.

 

[weegee64]

I don't see why anyone cares about what Comcast is doing here. If you have Comcast and don't want your internet to be throttled, just switch providers.

 

[DM0407]

Those with Comcast are not given options.

768k DSL or Comcast.

 

[HighHandz]

Just imagine if in the future you wanted a certain web page and it was not in your providers "package" like google and then to view it you had to pay more for the ripoff that you already pay or could not access it at all.
This is why we must have net neutrality!
Put Big Cable On A Leash!

 

[Guest]

Recently got Comcast Business class, because paying $130 a month for 50mbps internet only gives you 250gb of bandwidth a month, but paying $190 a month for 50mbps gives you unlimited.

Thats the issue I am more concerned with, then this Bittorrent crap. Everyone knows the primary usage of Bit Torrent and over similar programs, especially Vuze, is to steal movies, tv shows, and anything else that is digital. So Comcast cracking down on high bandwidth traffic that is most likely illegal in nature doesnt quite anger me so much as capping bandwidth.

 

[NuclearShadow]

As much as I hate to say it I think the ISP's will win the whole net neutrality battle. This will be hugely damaging to the net as the freedom of it will be heavily restricted. Just look at Comcast wanting to buy NBC and how they are a monopoly in many areas and consumers have no choice but to get their internet service. They would likely make NBC the only news source you can get blocking all the rest. Other companies would make likewise deals with others and this would be far more than news outlets. Imagine one day finding that your ISP made a deal with Amazon and you couldn't use Newegg and many other retailers anymore. Eventually the list of sites you can even visit shrinks into a small list of your ISP's approved. Net Neutrality is a far bigger subject than just throttling torrents.

 

[Gin Fushicho]

So is this going to let me have my full 20Mbps all the time? Or not?

 

[Clintonio]

[citation][nom]Platypus[/nom]I thought the whole idea of net neutrality was that all types of data received the same level of priority across the internet. There's no pulling over to let the ambulance go by.[/citation]

This is self-enforced by the protocol/, that way keeping torrents, which we all know are slow and generally accepted that we wait longer for them, from hogging all data traffic as if it were important as my personal internet banking. It's self-enforced, so we know it won't be used against us.

Plus, it's on a peer-to-peer basis, much more efficient than a central QOS service. In fact; it'd be a logistical nightmare to do it all from a single server cluster, like an ISP would. I'd use it, but I hate the BitTorrent client.

 

[stope]

Torrents are an amazing invention, and are a wonderful tool for increasing everyone information sharing speeds. I don't think anyone can argue that.

The issue for ISP's is much more complicated than what ya'll are making it out to be fore two reasons.

Issue 1) ISP's have to pay a certain amount to install "the service" which is then shared. The higher total bandwidth they install, the more it costs them.

This total amount of bandwidth is then split between a number of people that must share it. Not everyone uses their internet to its maximum capacity at all times, so they overbook their lines to cut down costs.

This allows them to reduce the cost they charge you, because they know the chances of everyone being on at the exact same time and using their maximum bandwidth is very very small.

I'm not saying they charge less because they overbook their lines, I'm saying it allows them to. Competition is what will eventually make them.

Issue 2) A minute portion of internet users generally account for a massive amount of bandwidth consumption on a network. These are the people who upload/download videos, music, software, data, whatever.

I've seen a number of studies on this, and if I remember correctly, some were saying that 5% of internet users account for 95% of the bandwidth used or something like that.

Anyways, the point is. If they didn't restrict access, or allowed people to consume the maximum bandwidth they have at all times, they would have to charge you more. This is because they would not be able to extend to you rates that they make based on the over booking principal. Instead they would have to put in more lines, or otherwise upgrade their systems to be able to handle that much bandwidth.


In unrestricted services: whether you are paying for a fast package but only surf the web an hour a day or if you are downloading terabytes worth of stuffs every month, you are paying the same amount. Essentially, the person doing the massive downloading is using the line MUCH more than the seldom surfer. Why is it fair they pay the same amount every month?

 

[stope]

Torrents are an amazing invention, and are a wonderful tool for increasing everyone information sharing speeds. I don't think anyone can argue that.

The issue for ISP's is much more complicated than what ya'll are making it out to be fore two reasons.

Issue 1) ISP's have to pay a certain amount to install "the service" which is then shared. The higher total bandwidth they install, the more it costs them.

This total amount of bandwidth is then split between a number of people that must share it. Not everyone uses their internet to its maximum capacity at all times, so they overbook their lines to cut down costs.

This allows them to reduce the cost they charge you, because they know the chances of everyone being on at the exact same time and using their maximum bandwidth is very very small.

I'm not saying they charge less because they overbook their lines, I'm saying it allows them to. Competition is what will eventually make them.

Issue 2) A minute portion of internet users generally account for a massive amount of bandwidth consumption on a network. These are the people who upload/download videos, music, software, data, whatever.

I've seen a number of studies on this, and if I remember correctly, some were saying that 5% of internet users account for 95% of the bandwidth used or something like that.

Anyways, the point is. If they didn't restrict access, or allowed people to consume the maximum bandwidth they have at all times, they would have to charge you more. This is because they would not be able to extend to you rates that they make based on the over booking principal. Instead they would have to put in more lines, or otherwise upgrade their systems to be able to handle that much bandwidth.


In unrestricted services: whether you are paying for a fast package but only surf the web an hour a day or if you are downloading terabytes worth of stuffs every month, you are paying the same amount. Essentially, the person doing the massive downloading is using the line MUCH more than the seldom surfer. Why is it fair they pay the same amount every month?

 

[JPForums]

Essentially, the person doing the massive downloading is using the line MUCH more than the seldom surfer. Why is it fair they pay the same amount every month?

To put it in terms of water lines, it is because your ISP is selling you the pipe, not the water. If you want quick access, regardless of how often you use it, you have to buy the infrastructure to support it. People who use it more often simply make better use of their investment.

Since your ISP is not providing (the vast majority of) the data you are downloading, their is no reason they should be charging you for how much you download. If everyone stopped using their connection for a week, it would cost the ISP no more or less as the infrastructure installation and maintenance is already a sunk cost.

This total amount of bandwidth is then split between a number of people that must share it. Not everyone uses their internet to its maximum capacity at all times, so they overbook their lines to cut down costs.

This is true of other communications networks as well and I fully support it as a method of reducing cost and making more efficient use of resources when implemented correctly. Take telephone lines as an example. Under normal conditions, there is a rather small probability that this "overbooking" will cause you to drop a call or cause your voice to cut in and out. (We'll ignore mobile phones for the moment as most of their problems stem from their data services.) Conditions where you don't get your paid for service are rather rare and considered the exception.

The problem with many ISPs (including data services on mobile phones) is that they use reduction of service as the norm rather than the exception. If they can't support the rates they advertise, they should change the advertisement. If there are to many people using higher data rates on their network to support, expand the network, lower the data rate, or limit the number of users allowed to connect at that rate. They could even post the number of spots and charge a premium to be one of the "elite" that gets to use the higher rates. Then they could use the premiums to expand their capabilities. Making this progression public would likely be beneficial as customers would feel like they are getting more for their money.

A compromise to the current situation would be it ISPs described the rates your package gets up front as dependent on the number of users vying for bandwidth at a given time. Throttling specific protocols is effectively dictating how you can use your connection. On the other hand, two customers paying the same amount should both get equivalent service (in this case data rate). To address both issues it would make more sense to divide the data rates based on active physical connection (they could use the ISP distributed IP addresses), rather than logical connections. This would allow ISPs to shape traffic to more evenly between customers during high usage periods. Obviously, some extra considerations would go into traffic shaping for customers with multiple IPs, but the basis is the same.

 

[astrotrain1000]

I think we all know that throttling is about sqeezing every last penny out of the consumer. Look at cable tiers. For basic cable I have to pay for a bunch of channels I don't want, even channels that are in a language I can't speak. In order to get a few extra channels I want, such as History International and Nick jr, I have to purchase a digital package along with a bunch of channels I don't want. This is what they want to do with internet access. OH? You want to watch Hulu? Pay us a fee! You also want to watch Youtube? Another fee.

 

[blackened144]

[citation][nom]DM0407[/nom]Those with Comcast are not given options. 768k DSL or Comcast.[/citation]
Options are slowly becoming available.. After 5 years with Comcast TV and 8mb internet, I just got UVerse last week.. Now I get 24mb internet, tv with every premium movie channel in HD instead of just 5 like with Comcast, plus digital phone service, all for the same price as Comcast with just TV and slow 8MB internet.

 

[Guest]

blackened144, most areas have only 1 or 2 options. In my area, for example, we have only Comcast or Verizon. In many areas, there is only 1 option. DSL is not always available due to distance from CO as well as other infrastructure issues. FIOS is fairly new and not yet available in many areas.