Vuze Petitions FCC To Restrict Traffic Throttling 159
mrspin writes "Vuze, an online video application that uses the peer-to-peer protocol BitTorrent, has petitioned the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to restrict Internet traffic throttling by Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Vuze has been keenly aware of Comcast and the "bandwidth shaping" issue. Vuze filed its "Petition for Rulemaking" (PDF) to urge the FCC to adopt regulations limiting Internet traffic throttling, a practice by which ISPs block or slow the speed at which Internet content, including video files, can be uploaded or downloaded. As readers may remember, back in May, Slashdot discussed the issue of packet shaping and how ISPs threaten to spoil online video."
Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Is anyone else amused... (Score:2, Insightful)
And yes, I did RTFA and saw that they're delivering streaming media via the bittorent protocol. I say it's they're own damn fault for using a protocol which is well known for huge bandwidth use and no latency requirements to deliver media with critical latency requirements. If you don't want the ISPs messing with your video stream try not making your video stream look like a file download.
Re:Someone with standing, ... maybe (Score:3, Insightful)
I Agree in Theory but Not In Practice (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, ideally, I think that the ISPs should be actively lighting up lots of new fiber between each other (peering) and lines out of their DSLAMs and Headends but it does take time and as we all know, since they are profit driven, they need to be making lots of money to keep their investors happy.
Lastly, there is a difference between throttling (normal for most ISPs) and what Comcast is doing, actively blocking/sabotage. Comcast deserves to get smacked down hard for what they are doing.
Re:Someone with standing, ... maybe (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about the grander scheme though. Vuze comes out discussing Comcast having, essentially, hampered the service for all users of the service. Remember, Comcast isn't throttling the bandwidth, they're shaping packets to drop connections on both ends of the pipe...Comcast customers and non-Comcast customers. If someone that participated in a service with, oh...let's say 9.3 million subscribers with each individual being able to prove that Comcast is likely to be impairing their ability to use a service provided by a third party... Vuze probably isn't suing because they don't have the revenue to sustain a lawsuit. Other companies do.
It would be in Comcast's best interest to stop now. Since that's not likely, it'll be interesting to see what some intelligent lobbying and/or lawyering can get done.
One Thing leads to Another (Score:3, Insightful)
(2) all bandwidth is "unthrottled"
(3) all (at least US-based) ISPs have lack-of-bandwidth issues
(4a) all ISPs revoke any claim to "unlimited bandwidth" in a revised agreement notice upon which you have no say, and begin charging per-kb.
(4b) all ISPs actually perform the service upgrades for which they were already paid years ago.
Methinks that if 1 leads to 2, then it leads to 4a. 4b is there just for giggles. They'll never actually do that, of course.
Tag system (Score:3, Insightful)
Completely off-topic, but what the deuce is going on with tags lately? To the adjectives absurdly long, meaningless, and obscure, now we can add obscene.
Re:Someone with standing, ... maybe (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)
That's my understanding anyway, could be completely off base...
Re:Is anyone else amused... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I Agree in Theory but Not In Practice (Score:3, Insightful)
This practice is countered by the ISP's willingness to advertize bandwidth WELL in excess of what they have. Perhaps ISPs should just use real numbers, not mythical ones some marketing genius picked out of a hat.
It's the same with airlines and overbooking. It should just be illegal to sell more than you can reasonably provide.
Fair trade (Score:5, Insightful)
What the feds should NOT do:
The issue isn't throttling... yet (Score:4, Insightful)
If we all complain, "Comcast is sending RST packets!" and then eventually Comcast says, "Okay, fine, no more RST packets," and then goes on to do other forms of extreme traffic shaping, then what? No, we want to nip this in the bud: no ISP, Comcast or not, should be allowed to unilaterally decide, "Hey, we don't like this traffic, so I just won't carry it." or "This is for The Good Of The People to Prevent Piracy" (or "Prevent Undermining Our Glorious President" or whatever).
Moreover, people need to know the implications of traffic shaping / net neutrality / dearth of ISP competition. I was very frustrated about how BitTorrent has been marginalized as "something that only pirates would use". The more we show the lay public the many versatile uses for a protocol like BitTorrent (or any other protocol, really), the more we get a public response.
Re:I Agree in Theory but Not In Practice (Score:3, Insightful)
These companies are holding a monopoly and raking in the cash. If you take into account just the internet sector has something like 13 million subscribers that 650 million gross a month. Their cable TV pretty much uses the same bandwidth also. Why are they not investing their huge profits into infrastructure to improve their maximum bandwidth. The technology is already avaialable so there is no valid excuse. If you increase your bandwidth to a point that it is impossible to saturate it then the issues will go away. Basically if everyone can download High Def content faster than you can play it the network cannot be saturated.
Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)
Comcast (the primary target here) is not a telco. It's trying to move into that market via VoIP, but it never received federal funds to do so; its network and equipment are privately funded and owned, and should remain so. Nationalizing the cable networks via regulation won't solve anything any more than doing the same with the telco's networks solved anything. The real culprits here are the local governments, and to some extent the states, due to their habit of handing out lucrative monopoly franchises and thus killing any possibility of intra-regional competition. Such merchantilist practices must be eliminated before any significant progress can be expected.
Peering (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess what I'm saying is that this is a possibility, and a study should be done to see what the REAL effect of p2p is. If I'm connected to 10 other people in the Boston area on Comcast's network, would I REALLY be costing Comcast more money in bandwidth, aside from the fact that I'm using a lot of "last mile" throughput (which yes, I know, costs money to maintain).
--
I reserve the right to be completely wrong *shrug*
New Linux ISOs (Score:2, Insightful)
i hope the FCC accepts and enforces this petition...
Re:New Linux ISOs (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty much, you bought a pig in a poke.
Re:Someone with standing, ... maybe (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting. So you're saying that if some company, say, a record label, sues a person that potentially caused them loss of revenue by, for instance, posting their songs on the Internet, they would only get actual proven damages? Whew! That's a relief. Here I was afraid that they could walk into court and get a jury award for something like $200,000 by saying that a bunch of people *might* have downloaded the songs that otherwise *might* have actually paid for them.
Thanks for straightening me out.