I’ve published my results here.
Dr. Reed. Your use of the words “rhetoric” and “tricks” aren’t very useful to this discussion, and I would take issue with your comments.
1. BitTorrent still hogs over 90% of my broadband connection over HTTP. This has significant ramifications beyond just real-time applications like VoIP and online gaming.
2. You shouldn’t be so quick to discount VoIP and online gamers. A very large number of BitTorrent (or any P2P app) users also do online gaming and VoIP, and they’re forced to shut down their P2P application when the use VoIP or game and that actually hurts the P2P upload and download throughput for the entire P2P community since there are fewer seeders.
3. Don’t conflate wireless with wired broadband. Just because 150 ms ping for wireless is best case doesn’t make 70 ms additional on a wired network bearable for online gaming. Maybe you’re different, but I don’t know any gamer that will put up with an additional 70 ms if they can help it. I thought it would be tolerable for VoIP, but my Lingo VoIP phone service drops a significant amount of audio even when I merely upload with BitTorrent.
George Ou
I find the word games/rhetorical tricks that Ou and Bennett use fascinating. We'll see whether Farber posts my response below.
George Ou wrote:
Subject: RE: [ NNSquad ] BitTorrent uTorrent 2.0 uTP will self-throttle to protect networks
Too bad nobody ever bothered to test if these claims actually hold water
before repeating them endlessly. I just tested uTorrent version 2 build
16850 today and it still grabs all the bandwidth and jacks up the ping to
unbearable levels for online gaming and VoIP. It certainly does NOT protect
my network.
I will do some testing myself, because I am curious about the mechanism in uTorrent 2.0. I do note that "unbearable levels for online gaming and VoIP" is an interesting statement.
If true that means that ping times might be 100 msec or more. Now, since I have been recently measuring ping times on networks where there are no "uTorrent" or other P2P services running, I can tell you that on a variety of commercial providers, 150 msec. ping times are common - and on ATT 3G in several cities, there are stable ping times that can be measured that are on the order of 2000-5000 msec.
So the "data" presented by Mr. Ou represents a very, very interesting choice of phrase. Say that it is "unbearable" for two of the most sensitive-to-latency applications (only).
I would, myself, stick to scientific measurements: how many milliseconds? Clearly he has measured that data. But I presume the hope of a talented columnist is to get the word "unbearable" to stick in the mind, and leave the "bumper sticker" impression without the qualifying information.
Rhetorical trickery? You be the judge. I'm gonna report numbers.