[ NNSquad ] Re: Comments on NNSquad Purpose

[Brett Glass <brett@lariat.net>]

At 06:49 PM 11/8/2007, Kevin McArthur wrote:
 
>The point is with peering, it actually improves network performance. 

It is important to distinguish "peering" (interconnection between ISPs)
from "peer to peer" (which is actually a misnomer, because it has come
to be used as a term for applications which are used to push
bandwidth demand away from the entity that is benefiting from it,
and also to decentralize illegal activity and make it difficult to stop).

>The question is one of truth in advertising. What does 'unlimited' or 
>'internet' mean, when paired with the 'undue burden' side of it.  I'm 
>not sure many net neutrality supporters would have a problem with 
>disclosed bandwidth allotments or transfer caps.

They seem to have a problem with Verizon's revised terms of service,
which describe explicit bandwidth and throughput caps. Why?

>The bittorrent targeting is especially troublesome in the Canadian 
>market though as all of our major ISPs also happen to have video 
>offerings, ones that work either on cable or ip multi-casting, or simply 
>video over http. Bittorrent is a competitive way for new media to 
>distribute video, and many are using bittorrent rss feeds to distribute 
>their content. The issue is now that the ISP are directly interfering 
>with their competitor's service.

BitTorrent is a way to shift bandwidth burdens from the distributor of
content (who makes money on it) to the ISP (who loses money and suffers
network disruptions when it is used). It is also, in most cases, used
to distribute illegal activity so as to make it hard to stop, as mentioned
above.

>> On the other hand it's clear that ISP's can't support large numbers of 
>> peer to peer users - they simple haven't engineered their networks to 
>> support that traffic mix.     Which comes back to the pitiful state of 
>> broadband in the US compared to countries like Japan and Korea.
>I've not seen any studies that would confirm the ISPs are simply unable 
>to invest in additional network capacity. 

They are not unable to invest -- they are unable to make a return on the
investment or even break even.

Want to pay $500 per month for a 1.5 Mbps broadband connection? If you 
insist upon unrestricted use of BitTorrent, that is what I and other 
ISPs will have to charge you to stay in the black, because that is the
wholesale price of a T1 line in our area.

>The limits here are economic, 
>not technical, and are easily solved by simply provisioning in relation 
>to actual network use. 

If I "easily" solved the problem by doing this, and then billed users for
what they consumed, I would be out of business in a hurry. If you attempt
to lobby for laws or regulations which require me to sell my product below
cost, don't be surprised if you as a consumer suddenly have few or no
choices.

--Brett Glass, LARIAT.NET