Article reprinted from Slyck.com
By Thomas Mennecke
Let’s face it. P2P networking takes up a considerable amount of bandwidth. Whether you are a network administrator for a college LAN (Local Area Network) or an ISP, some estimates place P2P consumption (especially BitTorrent) at 60%. However, figuring out the most practical solution for various administrators varies. Should you outright ban P2P traffic? Incorporate bandwidth throttles? NetEqualizer lets you choose from these options and much more.
ISPs are in a more precarious situation than say a college LAN administrator. If P2P traffic begins to saturate a college network, the LAN administrator does not have to worry all that much if the decision is made to filter or block file-sharing traffic. Perhaps some people may complain, but the loss of revenue is not a concern.
ISPs on the other hand must take this into heavy consideration. P2P traffic consumes an enormous amount of bandwidth compared to the amount of individuals that use it. For example, CacheLogic, a P2P measuring and network solutions firm, states P2P traffic can consume a majority of the ISPs bandwidth, easily blowing away HTTP. Comparatively, only a relative few individuals actually utilize such high consumption protocols.
So here is the tricky part. ISPs know that P2P has helped fuel the broadband revolution. While not everyone uses BitTorrent; eDonkey2000, FastTrack, Gnutella, etc. are very popular. Block P2P users, an the ISP might face a significant backlash. Throttle their bandwidth, and the ISP might have similar results.
One of the more compromising solutions has been offered from CacheLogic, which aims to make everyone happy. CacheLogic’s function is to “cache” or store common P2P files based on the frequency of search queries. Instead of P2P traffic bogging down and ISPs network, it simple searches the cache server. P2P fans are left to enjoy their file-sharing bliss and web surfers can happily surf the World Wide Web.
However, say you are not interested in making the P2P crowd happy, and catering to web surfers is the priority. Say you want to throttle or block P2P traffic completely…then APConnection’s Net Equalizer comes into play.
According to a press release issued by APConnection today, their product “Net Equalizer” will now be distributed on a worldwide scale. Net Equalizer aims to give priority to web based traffic, while throttling back those who utilized P2P software. When file-sharing traffic begins to slow down those surfing the web, its “fairness” algorithing kicks. For more information on Net Equalizer, read the FAQ here.
“The recently signed distributors have selected NetEqualizer primarily for its ability to deliver automated bandwidth control. Other features that have driven adoption include the enhancement of security offerings with the ability to block and control p2p traffic and unique quality of service (QoS) capabilities that enable distributors to include NetEqualizer as part of a service provider VoIP package.”
NetEqualizer is a stark contrast to CacheLogic, which aims to compromise rather than block or throttle P2P traffic. Regardless, NetEqaulizer’s solution is straight forward and offers and immediate solution to a network that is bogged down with P2P traffic. However, as file-sharing and P2P traffic becomes more mainstream, consumers may take into consideration whether an ISP uses NetEqualizer or CacheLogic as a network management solution.
Behind the Scenes on the latest Comcast Ruling on Net Neutrality
April 7, 2010 — netequalizerYesterday the FCC ruled in favor of Comcast regarding their rights to manipulate consumer traffic . As usual, the news coverage was a bit oversimplified and generic. Below we present a breakdown of the players involved, and our educated opinion as to their motivations.
1) The Large Service Providers for Internet Service: Comcast, Time Warner, Quest
From the perspective of Large Service Providers, these companies all want to get a return on their investment, charging the most money the market will tolerate. They will also try to increase market share by consolidating provider choices in local markets. Since they are directly visible to the public, they will also be trying to serve the public’s interest at heart; for without popular support, they will get regulated into oblivion. Case in point, the original Comcast problems stemmed from angry consumers after learning their p2p downloads were being redirected and/or blocked.
Any and all government regulation will be opposed at every turn, as it is generally not good for private business. In the face of a strong headwind, don’t be surprised if Large Service Providers might try to reach a compromise quickly to alleviate any uncertainty. Uncertainty can be more costly than regulation.
To be fair, Large Service Providers are staffed top to bottom with honest, hard-working people but, their decision-making as an entity will ultimately be based on profit. To be the most profitable they will want to prevent third-party Traditional Content Providers from flooding their networks with videos. That was the original reason why Comcast thwarted bittorrent traffic. All of the Large Service Providers are currently, or plotting to be, content providers, and hence they have two motives to restrict unwanted traffic. Motive one, is to keep their capacities in line with their capabilities for all generic traffic. Motive two, would be to thwart other content providers, thus making their content more attractive. For example who’s movie service are you going to subscribe with? A generic cloud provider such as Netflix whose movies run choppy or your local provider with better quality by design?
2) The Traditional Content Providers: Google, YouTube, Netflix etc.
They have a vested interest in expanding their reach by providing expanded video content. Google, with nowhere to go for new revenue in the search engine and advertising business, will be attempting an end-run around Large Service Providers to take market share. The only thing standing in their way is the shortcomings in the delivery mechanism. They have even gone so far as to build out an extensive, heavily subsidized, fiber test network of their own. Much of the hubbub about Net Neutrality is based on a market play to force Large Service Providers to shoulder the Traditional Content Providers’ delivery costs. An analogy from the bird world would be the brown-headed cowbird, where the mother lays her eggs in another bird’s nest, and then lets her chicks be raised by an unknowing other species. Without their own delivery mechanism direct-to-the-consumer, the Traditional Content Providers must keep pounding at the FCC for rulings in their favor. Part of the strategy is to rile consumers against the Large Service Providers, with the Net Neutrality cry.
3) The FCC
The FCC is a government organization trying to take their existing powers, which were granted for airwaves, and extend them to the Internet. As with any regulatory body, things start out well-intentioned, protection of consumers etc., but then quickly they become self-absorbed with their mission. The original reason for the FCC was that the public airways for television and radio have limited frequencies for broadcasts. You can’t make a bigger pipe than what frequencies will allow, and hence it made sense to have a regulatory body oversee this vital resource. In the early stages of commercial radio, there was a real issue of competing entities broadcasting over each other in an arms race for the most powerful signal. Along those lines, the regulatory entity (FCC) has forever expanded their mission. For example, the government deciding what words can be uttered on primetime is an extension of this power.
Now with Internet, the FCC’s goal will be to regulate whatever they can, slowly creating rules for the “good of the people”. Will these rules be for the better? Most likely the net effect is no; left alone the Internet was fine, but agencies will be agencies.
4) The Administration and current Congress
The current Administration has touted their support of Net Neutrality, and perhaps have been so overburdened with the battle on health care and other pressing matters that there has not been any regulation passed. In the face of the aftermath of the FCC getting slapped down in court to limit their current powers, I would not be surprised to see a round of legislation on this issue to regulate Large Service Providers in the near future. The Administraton will be painted as consumer protection against big greedy companies that need to be reigned in, as we have seen with banks, insurance companies, etc…. I hope that we do not end up with an Internet Czar, but some regulation is inevitable, if nothing else for a revenue stream to tap into.
5) The Public
The Public will be the dupes in all of this, ignorant voting blocks lobbied by various scare tactics. The big demographic difference on swaying this opinion will be much different from the health care lobby. People concerned for and against Internet Regulation will be in income brackets that have a higher education and employment rate than the typical entitlement lobbies that support regulation. It is certainly not going to be the AARP or a Union Lobbyist leading the charge to regulate the Internet; hence legislation may be a bit delayed.
6) Al Gore
Not sure if he has a dog in this fight; we just threw him in here for fun.
7) NetEqualizer
Honestly, bandwidth control will always be needed, as long as there is more demand for bandwidth than there is bandwidth available. We will not be lobbying for or against Net Neutrality.
8) The Courts
This is an area where I am a bit weak in understanding how a Court will follow legal precedent. However, it seems to me that almost any court can rule from the bench, by finding the precedent they want and ignoring others if they so choose? Ultimately, Congress can pass new laws to regulate just about anything with impunity. There is no constitutional protection regarding Internet access. Most likely the FCC will be the agency carrying out enforcement once the laws are in place.
Share this:
Like this: