3 ms·

The dichotomy between average users and power users isn't as clear-cut as you think. I see power users (those who are actually using P2P now) as nothing more th

by witten 18y ago

The dichotomy between average users and power users isn't as clear-cut as you think. I see power users (those who are actually using P2P now) as nothing more than early adopters of internet video and other online media. "Average" users have already begun to take advantage of higher-bandwidth services such as hulu.com, Netflix's streaming video rentals, VoIP, etc. It's only a matter of time before the average users catch up with the power users in terms of bandwidth usage. So once you recognize this situation as an increasing demand for bandwidth among the general populace, then it's simply not acceptable to expect that your users continue to use their internet connections exclusively for email, occasional web surfing, and nothing else. The nature of people's bandwidth usage is changing, and the only reason that many U.S. internet providers think that they can get away with ignoring this fact is because they've got monopoly or duopoly pricing power.

gunderson 18y ago
P2P uses a significantly greater amount of bandwidth than online video does. Take, for example, iTunes. It takes about 5-10 minutes on my connection to download a movie. A typical movie lasts 1-2 hours. So assume there are 5 people in a "household" using an internet connection, each of whom spends the entire day watching movies. That's 15 movies per day per person, which is 75 movies. Assume 10 minutes per download and you have 750 minutes of 100% bandwidth usage, which comes out to 12 hours, or half the day. This means that under this extreme scenario for internet video usage, the connection is only utilized at 50% of downstream bandwidth in a 24 hour period. With p2p software, it's typical for 100% of the upstream and downstream bandwidth to be used all of the time. Typical usage (which is what the cable companies look at to determine how much to charge) is much less, which is why the price is around $60/month for 16 megabits/second of download speed. A 100% usage 16 megabit broadband connection costs significantly more than this. Even a T1 which offers far less bandwidth costs at least $250 in most markets. My point is that there is not an issue here of excessive market power, it's simply that residential broadband is priced based on a workable usage pattern, and people who leave their p2p software running 24/7 make the model that works for everyone else stop working. I'm not opposed to p2p, but I think it is reasonable for ISPs to charge extra to to those who need more than what the $60/month connection is intended for. It's not monopoly pricing power, the service simply can't be offered profitably if someone is using 100% of the bandwidth. I've paid about the same for bandwidth since I first got broadband in 2000. I went from having 256K to having 16 megabits. The service is getting exponentially cheaper and better in quality every day.
- witten 18y ago
  I agree that today's current "power" users use way more bandwidth with their P2P traffic, as compared to people just viewing streaming videos. However, P2P is only becoming more and more mainstream. (One could argue that it already is mainstream when it comes to MP3 audio.) And with dedicated media devices becoming more prevalent, downloading video around-the-clock isn't going to be so rare. So my point still stands that users are only becoming greater consumers of bandwidth over time, and it's simply not sufficient for the major internet providers to pretend that all anyone will ever want to do with their net connections is check email.
  - gunderson 18y ago
    You seem to be assuming that p2p is the most efficient way to distribute content. It is not. Using a residential cable modem for pushing upstream content is not using it the way it was designed to be used. There is also a tremendous amount of peer traffic overhead that doesn't contribute to the download itself. P2P technology is great, but I think it's totally reasonable for ISPs to charge extra to those who wish to use it. After all, with P2P the ISP pays for all that extra bandwidth instead of the initial content distributor.
    - witten 18y ago
      I'm not arguing anything about P2P efficiency. Whether or not it's comparatively efficient, counter to a particular network design, or even "fair" to the ISP, it is the case that its use is growing. In a competitive market, those ISPs who update their networks to accommodate the growing appetites of their users (just as is happening in every other industrialized country) stand to gain a competitive advantage.
      - gunderson 18y ago
        I totally agree with that.

by witten 18y ago

gunderson 18y ago

P2P uses a significantly greater amount of bandwidth than online video does. Take, for example, iTunes. It takes about 5-10 minutes on my connection to download a movie. A typical movie lasts 1-2 hours. So assume there are 5 people in a "household" using an internet connection, each of whom spends the entire day watching movies. That's 15 movies per day per person, which is 75 movies. Assume 10 minutes per download and you have 750 minutes of 100% bandwidth usage, which comes out to 12 hours, or half the day. This means that under this extreme scenario for internet video usage, the connection is only utilized at 50% of downstream bandwidth in a 24 hour period. With p2p software, it's typical for 100% of the upstream and downstream bandwidth to be used all of the time. Typical usage (which is what the cable companies look at to determine how much to charge) is much less, which is why the price is around $60/month for 16 megabits/second of download speed. A 100% usage 16 megabit broadband connection costs significantly more than this. Even a T1 which offers far less bandwidth costs at least $250 in most markets. My point is that there is not an issue here of excessive market power, it's simply that residential broadband is priced based on a workable usage pattern, and people who leave their p2p software running 24/7 make the model that works for everyone else stop working. I'm not opposed to p2p, but I think it is reasonable for ISPs to charge extra to to those who need more than what the $60/month connection is intended for. It's not monopoly pricing power, the service simply can't be offered profitably if someone is using 100% of the bandwidth. I've paid about the same for bandwidth since I first got broadband in 2000. I went from having 256K to having 16 megabits. The service is getting exponentially cheaper and better in quality every day.

witten 18y ago
I agree that today's current "power" users use way more bandwidth with their P2P traffic, as compared to people just viewing streaming videos. However, P2P is only becoming more and more mainstream. (One could argue that it already is mainstream when it comes to MP3 audio.) And with dedicated media devices becoming more prevalent, downloading video around-the-clock isn't going to be so rare. So my point still stands that users are only becoming greater consumers of bandwidth over time, and it's simply not sufficient for the major internet providers to pretend that all anyone will ever want to do with their net connections is check email.
- gunderson 18y ago
  You seem to be assuming that p2p is the most efficient way to distribute content. It is not. Using a residential cable modem for pushing upstream content is not using it the way it was designed to be used. There is also a tremendous amount of peer traffic overhead that doesn't contribute to the download itself. P2P technology is great, but I think it's totally reasonable for ISPs to charge extra to those who wish to use it. After all, with P2P the ISP pays for all that extra bandwidth instead of the initial content distributor.
  - witten 18y ago
    I'm not arguing anything about P2P efficiency. Whether or not it's comparatively efficient, counter to a particular network design, or even "fair" to the ISP, it is the case that its use is growing. In a competitive market, those ISPs who update their networks to accommodate the growing appetites of their users (just as is happening in every other industrialized country) stand to gain a competitive advantage.
    - gunderson 18y ago
      I totally agree with that.