[AusNOG] News: Telstra to clamp down on peer-to-peer

[Rod Veith]

The question of 'unfairness' is not a new phenomenon associated with the
internet. Limited resources extend back to the telegraph where customers had
to put their messages in a basket (input buffer?) and wait for prior
messages to be sent before their message even made it to the telegraph
operator (Wan port on local network?) 

Telcos have always had to spread limited resources across populations and
the internet is no different and the NBN will not change this basic problem.

The speed of the line in relation to retail services (100Mb/sec, 1Gb/sec or
anything else) dictates the maximum line speed you can get on the connection
between you and your provider. It is nothing more than this and it seems
that even people in our industry forget this very basic fact. What happens
after this is up to your provider and it is their business to work out what
makes the most money for them with limited resources. If you don't like what
the provider does, you find a new one. 

Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
[mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Joseph Goldman
Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013 10:12 AM
To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] News: Telstra to clamp down on peer-to-peer

My personal opinion, I won't be buying 100mbit with the expect/intention to
get 100mbit to my favorite sites/download sources. Obviously, as a tech in
the industry, I will have a higher understanding to not expect to go to Joe
Blow's website and pull a file at 100mbit.

My reason for wanting 100mbit over, say, 25 or 50mbit will be that I could
contact site 1) at 10-20mbit, site 2) at 10-20mbit, have (legit!!) P2P
running at 20-30mbit and still have some room to spare. This is of course on
the argument of people outside your ISP's network not having enough to cope
with the higher requirements, but I as a consumer would expect my ISP to
allow me to at least peak at my full speed. I'm sure most network operators
would be just as annoyed as I if their was a customer using their full
bandwidth, 100% of the time.

On 8/02/13 6:40 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>> Customers are probably not paying enough to be able to do that, and 
>> if they expect it, that's like saying that all our roads should be 
>> congestion free, and the only congestion that should ever occur is on 
>> our single driveway
>>>     when we have two cars - ideal, but impractical. I think it is an
>> unrealistic expectation, and if people think they access circuit 
>> speed is a guarantee of their Internet service speed they don't 
>> understand how the Internet works and haven't read their T&Cs.
>> [snip]
>>
>> If your voice traffic is prioritised over my traffic, I qualify this 
>> is not neutral. It shouldn't be for the NBN Co (or whoever) to decide 
>> that one customer's traffic matters more than another customers 
>> because it's of a certain type.
>>   
> ISPs being able to do this prioritisation is in their T&Cs if they want to
be able to do it.
>
>> Granted Voice is a bad example here since it's so small that 
>> prioritizing it isn't a big deal, but if this gets into things like 
>> video, you're now prioritizing some video services over others, then 
>> it's a real problem. When I buy a 100 Mbps service, I expect that I get
to 100 Mbps.
> To or from where?
>
> What you are buying is 100Mbps access to your ISPs network, which then
provides access to the Internet. You are not buying any assurances of
100Mbps. You should get up to 100Mbps, hopefully more often than not, but it
is not assured, because it relies on so many parties and so many variables
that nobody can make the assurance. Your ISP would only be able to assure
100Mbps performance if they owned and ran the whole Internet, and every
application and server attached to it. Even then there may be periods of
congestion when e.g. one particular website became popular briefly (the
"slashdot" effect).
>
> So then question then becomes, why by 100Mbps instead of 50Mbps? What
you're buying is the possibility to do more than 50Mbps if the data source
can provide it, or the data destination can accept it. The gamble you're
taking is that this is likely to occur often enough that you'll benefit from
spending the extra money over a 50Mbps service.
>
>> If the network
>> upstream is congested, then I expect to get
>> (my__paid_for_bw)/(num_cust*avg__paid_for_bw) share of that. I don't 
>> want to see that I'm paying for it, but another customer is getting 
>> more share because they use a type of protocol, or service that is
favoured by the network.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog