Broadband Developments

uTorrent has released an alpha client that uses UDP for P2P traffic delivery. UDP makes up roughly 2% of all Internet traffic today, and generally isn’t used for data delivery because it doesn’t guarantee either the delivery or the quality of the data being delivered (nor is it quite as easily managed). While the migration to UDP could potentially make filtering of P2P more difficult — raising the hackles of some anti-network-neutrality ministers and ISPs — BitTorrent tells us the decision was aimed at actually making BitTorrent more friendly.

According to posts at the uTorrent forum, the new version lays uTP, the micro transport protocol, on top of UDP, which provides for better flow control and prevents the kind of TCP RST packet attacks Comcast has used to throttle upstream P2P traffic. Robb Topolski, the DSLReports user who first discovered Comcast’s packet forgery tactics, thinks the shift to uTP/UDP is a good one:
It’s a very good thing for the network. This new protocol YIELDS to other streams. In other words, it’s less aggressive. The idea, eventually, is that background file transfers are handled like — well — background transfers — similar to the way that background processes take a lighter toll on the CPU while you’re actively using the computer. P2P users have the same concerns — this change keeps their interactive uses snappy, and during crunch time it ought to help others as well.
Yet Richard Bennett, perhaps the Internet’s most vocal opponent of network neutrality, pens a piece over at The Register proclaiming that the shift will result in an Internet meltdown — and worries that network neutrality laws would prohibit ISPs from taking on this new throttling challenge. The author quietly states his case by suggesting that those who would support the use of UDP for P2P transfers (like apparently, BitTorrent creator Bram Cohen), are little more than selfish junkies, mindlessly braying for the looming apocalypse:
Some of the people who use this system are spoiled children with no more concern for the greater good than junkies looking for their next fix. They can’t be allowed to spoil it for the rest of us, and the only practical means to prevent their doing so is to unleash effective management upon them. . .The best way to ensure that uTP doesn’t kill the internet is to throttle it at the source, and any law that stands in the way of ISPs exercising that level of management is deadly to the internet.
Simon Morris, head of Product Management at BitTorrent, thinks Bennett is a little confused.

While it’s true that a UDP-based P2P network will cause some problems for ISP throttling (something confirmed by our users), that isn’t the goal. “We’re doing this to implement our own more sensitive congestion control on top of UDP,” he notes. “We felt that TCP’s congestion control was problematic in that it relies on looking for packet loss as an indication of congestion. TCP spots the problem only after it has occurred.”

“By contrast, our prototype UDP-based protocol (called uTP) detects congestion by measuring transmission times between peers – if packet delivery *slows down* then we infer that congestion may be about to occur and immediately throttle back on delivery speed,” he says. “The point here is a protocol that is more sensitive, NOT a protocol that is more greedy,” insists Morris. “The idea we’d “declare war” is unfortunately sensationalist nonsense.”

Yet according to Bennett, “even the downloading fiends who haunt the message boards at Broadband Reports” can see the use of UDP for P2P transfers will result in an Internet implosion. Any thoughts, haunting downloading fiends?

Update: The reviews are in!

GigaOM notes that when it comes to Richard Bennett, “a little scaremongering can go a long way to make the case for an ISP-based network management clampdown on P2P traffic.”

Torrent Freak proclaims that a significant chunk of what Bennett’s saying simply isn’t true (but it does get the Register plenty of hits).

The Industry Standard says Bennett offers broad assumptions with few references.

Writer Robert Hallock pens an interesting explanation of TCP vs. UDP in a counter piece to Bennett, suggesting “we wait to attack the potential problem with data and evidence rather than suppose and conjecture our way into the unforgiving embrace of network non-neutrality.”

The music industry’s requests for more personal information regarding the identity of several accused file-sharers have been shot down by a federal judge. Judge Nancy Gertner quashed a subpoena this week in the infamous London-Sire v. Does 1-4 case, saying that the IP addresses of three anonymous Boston University students could not be handed over because the university had “adequately demonstrated that it is not able to identify the alleged infringers with a reasonable degree of technical certainty.”

The legal system has been chipping away at the London-Sire case all year, starting this spring when Judge Gertner said that making files available on a P2P network does not equal copyright infringement. At that time, she also noted that IP addresses can’t always be traced to a particular individual and that, if Boston University were compelled to turn over a list of possible infringers, it could give a green light to RIAA fishing expeditions.

More from ArsTechnica

Microsoft and Akamai Technologies are teaming up on high-definition video streaming efforts for PCs, the companies said Tuesday.

Akamai plans to release a beta service, AdaptiveEdge Streaming for Microsoft Silverlight, early next year to select media customers. It will run on Windows Server 2008 with Microsoft’s Silverlight media player.

This makes total sense but the interesting thing is what will Microsoft and Akamia do with P2P.  Will Microsoft leverage the Red Swoosh piece of Akamia or will this be another CDN based approach.

CDN based approaches cause unwanted inefficiencies in the network in that as more users view and watch popular content there is traffic congestion.  Unicast solutions cause traffic or packet pollution.  Legit P2P can solve this.

Microsoft is smart to build intelligence into their Silverlight client and having dynamic “policy” to manage traffic and content navigation is the cornerstone of their strategy.  Why?  It helps minimize the conjestion issue and provides for a better user experience.  This two concept are not mutually exclusive.

I hope to hear more about this from Microsoft.

Update: Comcast story broke by Karl Bode at DSLReports (a great site - if you don’t know the site you need to but 80% of this audience knows them).

Now were talking about high speed - get me that 50Mbps now.  Comcast is announcing 50Mbps capacity. They got one piece right but still fall short on the other major factor - congestion.

Two major issues in service provider networking:  1) raw capacity and 2) congestion management.  Comcast is half way there.  I see no plans for conjestion management.

I would love to know how Comcast will deploy better congestion management technology.  In addition they need to really understand the “locality” issue.  Anything that is offered to the market that enables locality will be a winner.  Why?  Because capacity planning forecasts don’t work in this day and age when you are seeing more upstream traffic being sucked up by p2p.

Past models for network planning is out of date.  In the old days (back in the day) it was easy take the number of subscribers and divide by the amount of capacity.  It was easy when dealing with just human usage factors.  Now it’s harder because in addition to human factors there are machine factors.  Machine to machine communications throws the network planning equation out of whack.

Here is Comcasts official announcement.

Comcast, the nation’s leading provider of entertainment, information and communications products and services, today announced it is making the leap from broadband to wideband with the launch of next-generation DOCSIS 3.0. With wideband, Comcast will introduce a brand new echelon of Internet speed tiers, which will redefine the customer experience online and create a platform for Internet innovation in the years ahead.

In the next few weeks, Comcast’s new services will be available to millions of residential homes and businesses in parts of New England, including the Boston Metropolitan region and Southern New Hampshire, as well as areas of Philadelphia and New Jersey. These services also will be available in the Twin Cities where wideband was launched earlier this year. Comcast plans to continue to roll out wideband across its footprint and expects to reach more than 10 major markets and pass nearly 10 million homes and businesses in the next several months.

With wideband, Comcast will offer among the fastest speeds available today, including the Extreme 50 tier at up to 50 Mbps. It also will enable Comcast to double speeds for the majority of existing high-speed Internet customers at no additional cost.

“Wideband is a game-changer for the industry. With wideband running over our next-generation fiber-optic network, we can greatly enhance our customers’ online experience immediately. And these speeds are only a preview of what’s to come—wideband will provide the capability of delivering dramatically faster speeds in excess of 160 Mbps in the future,” said Mitch Bowling, SVP and General Manager, Comcast Online Services. “Today’s announcement reaffirms our commitment to offer more speed to more homes than any other U.S. Internet service provider.”

As part of the wideband deployment, Comcast will launch two new premium speed tiers to its residential and business class customers. Both services are ideal for households or businesses simultaneously using several computers or Internet-connected devices. They also will appeal to those who simply want some of the fastest speeds available in the U.S. today:

New Residential Tiers
• Extreme 50, offering up to 50 Mbps of downstream speed and up to 10 Mbps of upstream speed at $139.95/month.*

• Ultra, offering up to 22 Mbps of downstream speed and up to 5 Mbps of upstream speed at $62.95/month.*

With Extreme 50, Comcast customers, for example, will be able to download a high-def movie (6 GB) in about 16 minutes, a standard-def movie (2 GB) in about 5 minutes and a standard-def TV show (300 MB) in a matter of seconds. Customers with Extreme 50 also will be able to download digital photos, songs and games faster than ever.

In addition to the new speed tiers, Comcast also is increasing speeds for most of its existing customers.

• Performance tier customers will benefit from doubled downstream and upstream speeds, offering up to 12 Mbps and 2 Mbps, respectively.

• Performance Plus customers will be upgraded to Comcast’s Blast! tier, which will double their download speeds to up to 16 Mbps and provide up to 2 Mbps of upload speed.

Plus, with PowerBoost® technology, customers are able to enjoy even faster speeds to download and upload files such as videos, games, music and photos.

New Business Class Tiers
Business customers will benefit from wideband with increased efficiency and productivity. Customers can sign up for the Deluxe 50 Mbps / 10 Mbps tier for $189.95/month, which includes a full suite of features and support. As part of their service, Comcast Business Class customers receive Microsoft Communications Services, providing corporate-class e-mail, calendaring and document sharing, as well as additional benefits such as firewall protection, static IP addresses, multiple e-mail addresses and business class 24/7 customer support. Existing business class customers also will receive complimentary speed increases—speeds on the Starter tier will be doubled to up to 12 Mbps / 2 Mbps and a new Premium Tier also will be introduced, offering speeds up to 22 Mbps / 5 Mbps for only $99.95/month.

By a 14 to 4 vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee has approved a bill backed by the RIAA - the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act - that would give federal prosecutors the power to file civil lawsuits against file-sharers who violate copyright laws. The bill will create stricter IP laws and toughen civil and criminal laws against counterfeiting and piracy. The act also expands the power of the White House by creating an IP Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) position within the executive branch, and the IPEC will direct other agencies in a coordinated strategy to fight counterfeiting and piracy.

“We all know that intellectual property makes up some of the most valuable, and most vulnerable, property we have,” said Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), according to CNet News. “We need to do more to protect it from theft and abuse if we hope to continue being a world leader in innovation.”

Leahy added an amendment to the bill that expanded mandatory, court-issued protective orders to cover any records seized by law enforcement, in order to protect potentially confidential or private information. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) also added two successful amendments to the bill. One adds the Department of Agriculture as a member of the interagency intellectual property enforcement advisory committee, and the other ensures a transition of power from the government’s current IP efforts to a new IP coordinator, once he or she is confirmed by Congress.

Mitch Bainwol, Chairman/CEO of the RIAA, commented, “Intellectual property is widely recognized as an important economic engine for this country. Real, bipartisan efforts to protect this national resource with new, meaningful tools are necessary to energize the economy and maintain our global competitiveness. This legislation is a welcome verse in a great song.”

Over at ZAYNE HUMPHREY’S BLOG he posts that Verizon is saying that they need the freedom to delay p2p packets in favor of VoIP?

Layne is sourcing an ArsTechnica story.

Finding a balance of cost, performance, and service quality depends on an optimized traffic flow, and to Lynch, this means dividing traffic into two classes: time-sensitive and everything else. Such a management technique amounts to protocol discrimination, though Verizon commits not to deal in content discrimination—all VoIP calls, from all services, will receive the same treatment. Under heavy loads, the network would prioritize the time-sensitive protocols and delay the others until capacity is available. Lynch believes that few customers would even notice the “22ms delay” in other services.

Why not look at the critical service of video delivery? Why just voice?

Comcast putting a limit on usage 250GB just opened the door on the P2P business model. GigaOm (Om) who is an authority on this subject weights in. Om nails it by saying that in the short term it might not look good but it certainly raises question about what the future might look like. I agree with Om on this. Caps are bad and possibly foreclose the future innovation. Wait it’s a free market. The answer is P2P.

P2P is not hip today but this move by Comcast opens the door for the p2p business model. Why? The innovation in acceleration and performance has to come from new innovation in the transport. Comcast can’t deny p2p after this move. They have to let it “play” (pun intended). P2P is the only way the guys like Comcast can increase user experience while offering faster performance for both Live and On-Demand programming.

It’s also a red herring to allow Comcast (in the short term) to own HD quality programming. Here Comcast doesn’t care about the net and wants the HD side of it (see NBC playbook from the Olypics - HD trumps everything).

HD is the end game and the question is will Comcast keep the broadcast franchise or will the net technologies get there fast?

From Om Malik at GigaOm: He writes…

Comcast is out defending its bandwidth caps and how they are not bad. And how 250 GB transfer is plenty and enough to do whatever we want to do. Of course, in today’s terms that is more than enough, but what happens in the future? Nevertheless, if they are going to put caps, then they need to give us what I think is an acceptable expectation: a meter.

Metered billing needs a meter we can see, use and monitor any time we desire to do so. Water and electric utilities provide that meter (regardless of whether we use it or not), so why not Comcast?

If a customer surpasses 250 GB and is one of the top users of the service for a second time within a six-month timeframe, his or her service will be subject to termination for one year. After the one year period expires, the customer may resume service by subscribing to a service plan appropriate to his or her needs.

Figure out a way to tell us what our monthly usage is, and let us know if we are running up against a 250 GB cap, so that we know when to stop and not pay overage. I want to know at every single minute how much bandwidth I have used.

After all, if someone crosses the 250 GB twice in six months, they are going to get tossed out. The burden of proof lies with Comcast to prove, measure and meter to the most accurate byte of data transferred.

Another Question For Comcast: If you’re going to meter, then please let us know how you are factoring in the overhead associated with TCP/IP. Will this be included or excluded in the cap? After all, overhead includes control messages (session control, packet headers) and this can be as high as 40 percent.

This is where FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has to step up and do something. If he is going to allow Comcast to put caps in place, then the FCC needs a firm bond from Comcast saying that they wouldn’t lower the caps to, say, 150 GB or 100 GB using the same lame excuse of 1 percent people degrading the network.

You want to know why I think they are going to obfuscate the issue and fudge the numbers sooner or later using some Enron math? Just go to the FAQ page that explains their 250 GB cap decision. You will consume 250 GB in a month if you do any of the following:

* Sending 20,000 high-resolution photos,
* Sending 40 million emails;
* Downloading 50,000 songs; or
* Viewing 8,000 movie trailers.

…but then lower down on the same page, they say:

* Send 50 million emails (at 0.05 KB/email)
* Download 62,500 4 MB songs (at 4 MB/song)
* Download 125 standard-definition movies (at 2 GB/movie)
* Upload 25,000 hi-resolution digital photos (at 10 MB/photo)

What is it with you guys? Can’t do the math? Forget that…how about answering a simple question: How many HD movies can you download with 250 GB cap? That’s the only answer I need.