Telecom
Why Comcast is right to jam BitTorrent
The outrage continues over Comcast’s jamming of BitTorrent and other traffic on its cable network in the U.S. The company has tried to clarify its position by saying that it doesn’t block BitTorrent traffic, it merely “delays” it (and apparently some other traffic as well). As James Robertson and Cynthia Brumfield have pointed out, part of the problem is that Comcast isn’t being very forthcoming about what it is doing at all — in part because the company says it is afraid that providing too much detail will allow BitTorrent users to find a way around the network “shaping.”
I know that the popular position is to slam Comcast for telling users what to do with their network bandwidth, and I know my instinct is the same whenever my ISP talks about BitTorrent or bandwidth caps. But like most ISPs — and cellular carriers — Comcast has a “terms of service” agreement that allows it to restrict what users do with their accounts, so that whatever they’re doing doesn’t impact on others using the network. That’s a fact of life.
The big issue for ISPs is that p2p apps like Skype, Joost and BitTorrent can consume a huge amount of bandwidth. According to some estimates, 10 BitTorrent users on a network node can double the delays that other users experience — and as much as 60 per cent of the traffic on some networks is BitTorrent-related. That may not be a problem for BitTorrent users, but it could severely impact those using other applications on the same network.
Obviously it would be better if ISPs like Comcast or Rogers built out their networks to provide more bandwidth, and it would also be better if there were more competition in the Internet access business. But it’s hard to blame Comcast or anyone else for trying to make sure all of their customers get the service they deserve. Now if only the company would come out and say so.
license
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License.
subscribe
grazr
TwitterCount
busted tees
Discussion
Comments are disallowed for this post.
Add New Comment
Viewing 4 Comments
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
And really, if you have to resort to the small print language in a contract you know that no one ever reads in order to prevail on a technicality, you're not being very consumer-friendly. In other words, just because the contract allows Comcast to act this way, that doesn't mean that they should. It's disingenuous to advertise an unlimited use service and then attach restrictions to it. Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of all this is that while Comcast (and others) admit that their service isn't, truly, unlimited, they refuse to give any indication on exactly what amount of use is excessive.
And just for the record, I hardly ever use torrents and have never gotten in any trouble over my bandwidth use. I just find this whole issue to be Bad For Consumers.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Compare bandwidth to driving. Bittorrent is like a fleet of hummers and transport trucks with no speed/weight limits. For the guy in the Miata he's going to wait along the side of the street so he doesn't get crushed. But if you limit the places these vehicles can go, then the normal traffic is free to move without worry.
Now if people want to pay more for a specialized service (Highway 407) more power to them. But don't make other people suffer because of your need for porn and the latest episode of Lost.
There is a balancing act here though. How much are ISPs gouging customers? Rogers... probably a lot! Without getting details it's easy for ISPs to cry foul, when they really COULD support the extra bandwidth without charging extra, but nobody knows except them. That's why increased competition would weed out these inefficiencies without the need for explicit information to be released.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
The Comcasts of the world have created this problem by creating inefficient pricing structures - structures they've adopted because they presumably facilitate billing and are easier to market. Structures they've been able to sustain because the market is not competitive. It is *easy* to blame them for this, IMO, because it's a pricing structure they created because it's good for them.
People who want to use more bandwidth - for any purpose (Omar - describing them - effectively - as porno fiends is not helpful) - are being cast in the role of the villain because there are no alternatives to the Comcasts - not really.
So, "more power to them"? No, less actually - because users who are willing to pay more for more don't have any way to do it - because of the utility-like infrastucture costs involved in providing access, there likely never will be alternative service providers who can offer the alternatives that power users would use if they could. So they're forced on to the slow lane, with all of the attendant resource sharing problems that this creates.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Unfortunately, I think a lot of providers use the one-size-fits-all bucket because they can charge noobs more for something they will never use, and that seems like a good business model to them.
Add New Comment
Trackbacks