This is a follow up post to the earlier write up. As usual Robert Cringely has hit on the argument right on head.
If you look at the amount of overhead TCP needs it’s exponential to how slow each connection is; the slower (the connection) the more overhead because the window sizes are smaller and more control packets are being used for verification. And you know what? BitTorrent is FAR WORSE. Remember that for each file you download on BitTorrent you connect to dozens, possibly even hundreds of people, and the slower each of those connections is the more the overhead increases.
Further,
So what happens when everyone’s VoIP or other preferred packets get preference over my torrent packets? Since I have no knowledge of the other people’s usage in my aggregate network I can’t adjust well for changes in the network. The BitTorrent traffic that is going will have exponentially increased overhead due to the slow downs, increasing overall Internet packet overhead (with BitTorrent already 30+ percent of all Internet traffic). Which means that allowing the telco’s to subsidize the cost of improving their infrastructure by having preferred packets could exponentially increase the cost accrued by the larger internet and backbone providers just to keep costs down at the aggregate level.
In Robert’s words, to recap:
Giving priority to some traffic puts a hurt on other types of traffic and when that other traffic constitutes more than 30 percent of the Internet, the results can be severe for all of us. On the Internet everything is connected, and you can’t easily ignore the impact of one service on another.
It essentially means that it is in ISP’s interests to shape up the traffic, they way they want to; to be able to control the flow of data in their networks. This does bring up interesting conundrums. What if BSNL decides to shape up the traffic or the way I consume content? It is a public network and essentially, the entire network is that of the people. Does it have any right to control access, the way I deem is right?
Since Bit torrent or p2p traffic tends to choke the networks, ISP’s may set up tiered networks. Which means, a right of way on the information superhighway. In real life, this analogy can be extended on to using a superior road to commute; you pay higher tax/ toll to travel at higher speeds on dedicated corridors. The extent or size of the dedicated corridor could well at the cost of the “free” one. Give or take, it is the classical capitalist knee jerk reaction, that one would obviously favour the dedicated corridor users while others languish.
Net neutrality boils down to this concept. ISP’s would seek to limit the p2p networks away from the tiered services and pushing them to the “public networks” which is worse in terms of packet loss and other hassles. However, at present, this can be circumvented easily by encrypting your torrents. Indeed, most of the clients give you this option. Your ISP would be unable to “snoop” on your data usage patterns.
This means that we are back to the status quo and tiered services would make no sense. Net neutrality arguments again would hold no water. Which means that I am as clueless as others are. Which also means that this is the golden time to leech on the p2p networks and download content.
Here’s an insightful comment on the state of this debate in the US
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=190587&cid=15679470
For some reason the link won’t show up so i will paste it in here verbatim
When it comes right down to it, the only people who matter in the debate over net neutrality are the congressmen. If we leave “the market” to decide, it will decide against neutrality– because “the market” consists of a small pool of telecom monopolies, and they will always “decide” in their own interests.
And the congressmen, the only people whose votes matter here, don’t understand [sciam.com] this issue– they’re just voting along flat “Government intervention good!” versus “Government intervention bad!” party lines. So basically, what happens on the “Net Neutrality” issue isn’t about what’s best technically, or what’s best economically, or about what’s best for the public– it comes entirely down to, which party line will win? Which party is better at pushing their line? More specifically, it comes down to, which party will win the 2006 elections?
And we already know the Republicans are going to win the 2006 elections. There just isn’t any alternative– there’s no opposition. The Democrats aren’t even trying. They’re just sitting back, letting the Republicans set the agenda of Congress and the terms of every debate, and failing to either distinguish themselves from the Republicans or establish themselves as a credible alternative. The only time the Democrats even manage to get enough media attention for the public to remember they exist, it’s over embarrassing internal bickering. And with no impressions of themselves in the public mind except internal bickering, the Democrats are going to lose.
So the “Net Neutrality” debate has already been decided, based on entirely external factors.
Here’s an insightful comment on the state of this debate in the US
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=190587&cid=15679470
For some reason the link won’t show up so i will paste it in here verbatim
When it comes right down to it, the only people who matter in the debate over net neutrality are the congressmen. If we leave “the market” to decide, it will decide against neutrality– because “the market” consists of a small pool of telecom monopolies, and they will always “decide” in their own interests.
And the congressmen, the only people whose votes matter here, don’t understand [sciam.com] this issue– they’re just voting along flat “Government intervention good!” versus “Government intervention bad!” party lines. So basically, what happens on the “Net Neutrality” issue isn’t about what’s best technically, or what’s best economically, or about what’s best for the public– it comes entirely down to, which party line will win? Which party is better at pushing their line? More specifically, it comes down to, which party will win the 2006 elections?
And we already know the Republicans are going to win the 2006 elections. There just isn’t any alternative– there’s no opposition. The Democrats aren’t even trying. They’re just sitting back, letting the Republicans set the agenda of Congress and the terms of every debate, and failing to either distinguish themselves from the Republicans or establish themselves as a credible alternative. The only time the Democrats even manage to get enough media attention for the public to remember they exist, it’s over embarrassing internal bickering. And with no impressions of themselves in the public mind except internal bickering, the Democrats are going to lose.
So the “Net Neutrality” debate has already been decided, based on entirely external factors.