July 28, 2008

This is AT&T's 3g cellular network, very different from it's dsl or Comcast's cable internet service.

"Bandwidth is always a limited resource."

This is only partially true. Facilities-based bandwidth can always be expanded by adding plant and hardware. The wireless network is not facilities-based, it is spectrum-based. There are two ways to expand this bandwidth. You can use it more efficiently and you can add spectrum. The efficiency is practically as high as available technology can make it. Adding spectrum is really the only available method for now, and that is not available to the service providers. As technology develops and becomes reliable enough for use the efficiency will rise, but for now everyone really has no choice but to accept some limitations on what can and cannot be done over the wireless networks. People are not going to do that voluntarily, the telcos will do it the way they see fit. Personally, I think throttling customers' use makes more sense, but as I've said before I don't make policy. Any way they go, someone is going to be pissed.

Pricing is not a solution. The price of service has to be at a point that maximizes customer base, or the service will have to be subsidized and runs at a loss.

Yes, it stinks. I haven't heard of anyone actually being disconnected for this yet, and I think they're hoping that there will be enough people dissuaded from using P2P over the wireless that it doesn't become an issue (anymore than it already has).

I have noticed that when downloading a file via a tethered phone, the KB/s is dropped to zero... AT&T is now constantly killing any type of streaming... I guess now I'm going to have to look into throttling my KB/s...

Bandwidth is always a limited resource. There is never a business need for a provider to say "you can't do X". There is a very simple way to deal with scarcity, it's called pricing.

P2P can eat up the capacity of any network. So can downloading high-definition movies. So can hosting a site with rich media content.

If the providers think that charging for bandwidth is too harsh and will land too many customers with "surprise" high bills, there's a simple solution -- give them the ability to control their account. You could even use the Internet for that.

Allow them to configure throttling when they get close to their limit, or low QoS for P2P in exchange for reduced cost. Or let them manually change their bandwidth rate-limit. Maybe give them unlimited low-QoS access.

There are simple solutions to this problem and "prohibit it" is a lousy one. We face a global food shortage -- does that make it sensible to prohibit not cleaning your plate?

This is the worst possible "solution". And it means that rather than solving the problem, more and more things that use up bandwidth will have to be prohibited. Solve the scarcity problem for real, with QoS, with better controls, with *real* solutions, and nothing needs to be prohibited.

Cell site capacity was scarce too at one time. We didn't prohibit "unimportant" calls, we just charged an appropriate fee for the calls. As a result, cell site capacity is no longer scarce thanks to the new technology the revenue stream made possible.

First off, in the interest of disclosure, I am a technician for ATT. I don't make policy, I'm just one of the guys that turns the red lights green and keeps the bits flowing. I FULLY support Net Neutrality (I'm an internet user too, after all) and I think America got a raw deal with this whole immunity thing for warrantless wiretapping. Even though I work for them, I believe they should be held accountable for breaking the law. That said.....

I think some people here are confusing wireless communication networks with the internet as a whole. While I'm no fan of prejudicial rejection of data, the wireless networks do not have nearly the capacity of the "landline" networks. It's not simply a matter of adding capacity. One can add all the hardware that modern technology has to offer but the choke point is the over-the-air bandwidth. It's a limited resource. If that bandwidth is 100% in use with clowns downloading vid to their phones (this is what's called a luxury, folks) those with more pressing non-entertainment needs are left with no connectivity. Emergency personnel use this bandwidth too, and I certainly don't want to see someone's life in jeopardy so someone else can entertain themselves.

I would cry foul long and loud if ATT were applying this policy to land-line DSL customers, but with wireless they have a legitimate and pressing concern to ensure their wireless network is available to all of their customers, as close to all the time as they (and myself) can manage.

Sure, I'd love to see that kind of convenience on my cell phone. The technology is just not there for the masses to use the wireless network as they are accustomed to with their home-based internet connections. Wireless will never have the capacity for all the peeps to use P2P, or at least it won't for the foreseeable future.

I don't really like it either, but that's the facts. It's not a conspiracy to limit free speech, and it's certainly not mismanagement or some corporate blunder that's going to kill the intertubes. We simply cannot have it all. They've made a decision out of necessity. If they had not, the wireless network would simply become unusable.

This is nothing like what Comcast did. Comcast used a man-in-the-middle attack to hack it's customer's connections. Despite their claims, this is NOT in any way 'traffic shaping'.

AT&T already charges by KB (on the air card which I use.) This makes NO BUSINESS SENSE AT ALL!!!

Cells are just like any other bandwidth conduit, you have a certain built-in capacity which you 'share' with everyone else connecting through it. When you max out, someone or everyone gets degraded network performance.

The way telcos and everyone else handle this is through QOS (aka traffic shaping). Its pretty much mandatory when you have contentious technologies like voice and large block data transfers like downloading web movie living on the same network.

But, there isn't anything inherently different from P2P, block downloaded movies, downloading rich web content, or anything else. All they need to do is explicitly drop the P2P traffic into a low priority QOS tier and have decent enough switches to throttle appropriately. Who knows, this whole 'session reset' hand slap on Comcast could simply have been a misconfigured QOS profile.

That all being said, P2P users (me included) should have some common sense and use the technology sensibly. How many times do you take a shower when there's no hot water and curse your neighbor / family members (Why take half hour showers darn you!).

Looking for reasons to reduce traffic is a poor excuse for not upgrading your network to handle the traffic. If you can't handle the traffic, then don't offer unlimited access. It's just that simple.

P2P is VERY good and health because it is forcing the industry to expand and become better, instead of stagnant and lazy.

While it may not make good business sense to ban P2P, especially given the timing, my general understanding of shared networks is that there is some legitimacy surrounding concerns that the use of P2P applications by some will degrade the network performance of others.

This holds true even if the network operators increase capacity dramatically as P2P likes eating up as much bandwidth as possible.

So what are we supposed to do?

If we allow network operators to ban P2P apps it could be a slippery slope to them interfering with traffic in other ways.

But if we don't allow them to it could mean that we're all going to end up with crappier service.

Do P2P users have a greater right to bandwidth than non-P2P users?

What noone seems to want to face up to is that the introduction of always-on bandwidth-hungry apps like P2P calls into question the underlying business model of how broadband is sold and delivered.

The only way to fix it is if we're willing to bite the bullet and come up with a new model that works for everyone. The only problem with that is to get to that point we're all probably going to have to give up something, be it dollars for network operators or freedom for users.

And unfortunately at this point, neither side seems willing to give in, so we're stuck at this impasse, where both sides vilify the other, with network operators being evil and users being bandwidth hogs.

So, what happens when we all start using our phones for streaming video... That isn't "bursty" either. Is that the next thing to go? I mean this is AT&T after all, home of the iPhone... AT&T needs to get their head out of the sand and realize that customers are going to continually demand more data. By blcking certain types of data, they are only making their competitors more attractive.

How about AT&T simply slow down the access for a user when they reach a certain bandwidth or traffic? Certainly easier and less prejudicial. What right does AT&T have to tell you what series of ones and zeroes you are allowed to send and receive?

For those that need it, it sounds like a fantastic way to terminate a contract with ATT without early termination fees.

Certainly i'm a big supported of net neutrality and actions like Comcasts' ones should be punished.

However, in this case i think it's different. Wireless broadband is known for it's low capacity. Probably doing 1 or 2 downloads over a P2P network won't hurt at all. But if many people have many downloads, plus uploads, then you have a big problem. I agree the quality of the service would be affected. As a user, i would be obviously upset becuase of that effect.

What usage will they ban next? NNTP? Mac OS X?

The Internet was designed to provide simple, neutral, end-to-end connectivity, and allow end-users to discover and innovate. If the Internet had been designed by the telephone companies, we'd probably still be using Gopher instead of the World Wide Web. We'd be confined to a "walled garden" like Prodigy or Compuserve.

The Internet is the goose that lays golden eggs, and the telcos seem to be determined to kill it.