BitTorrent speaks: Correcting the record in CRTC Net neutrality hearing
BitTorrent has shaken up the CRTC network management hearing with a late submission that seeks to set the record straight on BitTorrent and its impact on ISP networks. The company begins by noting:
Our company, more specifically our BitTorrent application, has been referred to repeatedly in various submissions in this proceeding. From these submissions, there appears to be some misconceptions as to the effect of BitTorrent, as well as in general peer-to-peer (“P2P”) applications, on the Internet and in fact there has been an overstatement of the effect of such applications on network congestion.
After describing BitTorrent (the company and the application), the submission addresses several misconceptions:
- Shaw argued that the high number of connections with P2P subverts the fairness of TCP. BitTorrent says this is incorrect, since very few connections (4 - 5) are used at any one time.
- Rogers argued that users do not care about upload performances. BitTorrent says this is inaccurate given the correlation between download and upload for BitTorrent users.
- Cogeco argues that P2P is not a real-time or interactive application. BitTorrent says this too is false since some apps like Skype are clearly interactive and some BitTorrent clients supports streaming.
- Rogers argued that P2P can create 24/7 always on usage. BitTorrent says this is exxagerated with the average client only active around 4 days per month.
BitTorrent then focuses on the effect of Canadian traffic management practices on the application's performance. The two main paragraphs are worth quoting in full since they have major implications beyond just the CRTC as BitTorrent states that movie executives report that Canadian P2P usage has declined dramatically over the past year. The comment:
There were many assertions by parties to this proceeding that ITMP does not block BitTorrent, but only delays the eventual downloads. Setting aside the interactive use of BitTorrent detailed above, it is clear that in a very competitive marketplace, these delays are critical and do in fact degrade the application and are having an effect on overall usage of the protocol. In conversations with Motion Picture executives who track P2P usage, they indicated that there has been a dramatic decline in P2P usage in Canada in the last year with a corresponding increase in other applications that are server based (and presumably not currently targeted by ITMP). We can assume this migration has occurred because these applications artificially outperform P2P. This is an example of the networks using ITMP to pick winners and losers in the marketplace and BitTorrent submits that such a practice should not be permitted in a neutral management regime.
BitTorrent offers commercial services using P2P technology to deliver professional content for publishers. These clients use the underlying BitTorrent protocol but are also designed to report a considerable amount of performance information about the underlying networks, as this information is critical to publishers who need to track how effectively their content is being delivered. These services are in use worldwide and the critical measurement for the system is a metric called “offload”, which is essentially, the percentage of traffic that was able to be delivered using the P2P elements of the system. Overall offload for the entire ecosystem (all customers, all regions of the world) averages around 80% and when measured by individual ISP typically ranges between 70% and 90%. However, for Canadian ISPs this metric drops to 30%, the lowest for any major network worldwide. One can only assume that ITMP or underlying network performance conditions are attributable to this low level of system performance in Canada.
BitTorrent's proposed approach:
The neutral nature of the Internet is something that should be preserved or it may result in unwanted or unintended consequences (ie. lack of innovation which may slow growth of network development and capacity). However, this needs to be balanced against the recognized need for operators to manage their networks. BitTorrent submits that to be reasonable, network management solutions should be non-discriminatory in nature. No solution that singles out a single application or protocol should be considered neutral. When presented with this challenge in the United States, we were able to work with one of the largest ISPs, Comcast, towards a network management solution that manages heavy users, not applications and only does so during necessary moments of intense congestion. In this way, every user is accorded his or her fair share, regardless of the applications in use or destinations involved. ITMP that singles out specific applications will hamper and harm innovation at the edge and contribute to the centralized control of media, restricting the Internet to those who can afford the costs of traditional distribution on the Internet. The potential impairment of freedom of expression in this case should not be underestimated.
The BitTorrent filing comes very late in the process, but should cause the CRTC to rethink some of the ISP claims regarding the BitTorrent and the approach of some providers to traffic management.
Michael Geist is a law professor and the Canada Research Chair in Internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa.
Comments
12 Comments
Brett Glass
Jul 29, 2009 at 11:28am
BitTorrent is not being truthful. The fact is that BitTorrent does create excessive loads on ISPs' networks and is frequently active 24x7. And throttling BitTorrent is most certainly not a threat to "free expression." Anyone can express any idea he or she wants to, but no one has the right to do it in a way that is destructive. BitTorrent harms the network and violates users' contracts with their ISPs. Throttling or blocking it is perfectly reasonable, and doing so preserves quality of service and keeps the price of Internet service reasonable.
Anon
Jul 29, 2009 at 1:52pm
Why should an ISP be able to decide which applications are OK and which are not? I sign up for a certain level of service (speed and/or quantity of transfer), and if the ISP cannot provide it then it is not the fault of other users but the fault of the ISP for oversubscribing its resources.
Voided
Jul 29, 2009 at 1:59pm
Brett Glass - Eventually we can see in which profession you work and defend. you only see and defend one side and not seeing the client side.
I'm currently following online video courses with BitTorrent, every day! My friends and many more connect to youtube and music stream all day, all night at 320kb from free radio broadcast.
I understand that there are real problems with the network capacity. But that is to the ISP to upgrade and follow the world evolution. But when a desire to retain a phone or cable franchise motivates an ISP to deliver a slow, capped connection, that is very clearly a net neutrality issue. Net neutrality must stay. ISP already has the power monopoly.
If all will think like you, one day Internet will be owned by corporation with full control like North Korea and many other communist countries.
What ISP will do when our cars, refrigerators, ovens, cell phones, watches, GPS, nike shoes, xbox, outdoor publicity panels and all our gadgets will be connected online 24/24 7 days a week, transferring data?
Tomorrow other issues will rise. Stop loosing time and start upgrading and stop trolling clients privacy in there comfort of there home!
Mikie
Jul 29, 2009 at 2:39pm
Let's see. I'm a big producer of entertainment media and I also spend a $1Billion on ISP costs every year. Am I going to choose an ISP that doesn't block certain kinds of traffic, or am I going to simply say, "In order to bid on our contract you must block file sharing on your network. If not, we'll take our business elsewhere." Traffic shaping is just the beginning of the end. Keep the internet open.
Nima
Jul 29, 2009 at 4:55pm
Brett Glass,
Please be honest, for which ISP do you work ? Bell ?
George Turner
Jul 29, 2009 at 7:43pm
Let's see...The ISPs want to maximize their profits by investing less in infrastructure and more in network management. BitTorrent wants to sell content distribution to content producers at a low cost, and customers want a quality connection at a fair price. It seems like a free market will work all this stuff out. All the talk about ISPs "controlling" the internet is simply a red herring. The issue is economic; the CRTC doesn't need to be involved. Let's things settle as they will.
Marc
Jul 29, 2009 at 8:48pm
Sorry Brett Glass, but my ISP has used Deep Post Inspection to "throttle" your comment so I won't be able to read it until tomorrow, but don't worry your "free" expression will come through (eventually). :-P
seth
Jul 29, 2009 at 10:14pm
According to Time Warner's annual report BigTelecom/Big Cable makes a 2000% profit out of broadband. Infrastructure is cheap as dirt but when you want to steal customers from the little guy why the throttle works much better.
Just like with public power we need to take back our infrastructure from the telecom Pirates.
seth
Pengibc
Jul 30, 2009 at 12:44am
Well Lets be honest the terms of use or contracts or which ever ISP you use allows for a certain amount of Data Transfer. If your household needs more than that which your allowed then be on the right package for your needs. Once your on the right package for your needs then you would not be needing to be throttled because your paying for the package your getting right?
so if your usinng 80GB per month and paying for 60GB per month would the ISP be within reason to ask you to pay a levy ?
if you say no then please elaborate because if this were you going to the gas station and wanting 30 Km's of Gas but wanted to go 50Km's then you would be at a loss when your car breaks down cos you didnt buy enough gas
Voided
Jul 30, 2009 at 10:23am
I have unlimited Internet that i pay for. As per our dictionary that our school teach us, starting grade one; An unlimited is an infinite quantity -not limited or restricted -Having no restrictions or controls -Without qualification or exception; absolute.
What will come next? You cant choose what vendor to get your gass from because the auto maker made it illgal to gass up at the wrong station!
Lets not mix bananas with peaches, even if they taste good when you mix for eating purpose!
ISP companies are seeking to impose tiered service model for the profits from their pipeline control to remove competition, create artificial scarcity. We live in free countries and neutrality is important as a preservation of current freedoms.
We need to fight to ensure that ISP companies do not become gatekeepers and screen, interrupt or filter Internet content. The only rights that can give ISP to filter the pipe is to catch pedophiles and in that case they will need a court order.
Without neutrality: Imagine the Internet world would look like; massive companies would control access and distribution of content, and deciding what you get to see...
Net neutrality is our assurance of protections for a free competitive market for Internet content. If there is no neutrality, little Joe in is garage with great ideas will never burst... And Internet in the first place would never existed...