Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Technology Technologies?
shanen writes "A story from the NYTimes about metering internet traffic caught my eye. I thought the exchange of information over the Internet was supposed to be a good thing? Couldn't we use technology more constructively? For example, if there is too much network traffic for video and radio channels, why don't we offset with the increased use of P2P technologies like BitTorrent? Why don't we use wireless networks to reduce the traffic on the wired infrastructure? Such technologies often have highly desirable properties. For example, BitTorrent is excellent for rapidly increasing the availability of popular files while automatically balancing the network traffic, since the faster and closer connections will automatically wind up being favored. Instead, we have an increasing trend for anti-technology technologies and twisted narrow economic solutions such as those discussed in the NYTimes article, and attempts to restrict the disruptive communications technologies. You may remember how FM radio was delayed for years; part of the security requirements of a major company includes anti-P2P software, as well as locking down the wireless communications extremely tightly — but there are still gaps for the bad guys, while the main victims are the legitimate users of these technologies. Can you think of other examples? Do you have constructive solutions?"
is still the best solution.
USENET
In reference to the bandwidth limiting efforts in particular, just because there may be a way to offset technical problems with good technology (e.g. Bittorrent for video/audio) doesn't mean it makes business sense. For an ISP, it may be more economical to simply limit the bandwidth of users (which is easy) than figure out what is really a fairly difficult problem. If:
What we're making now - Cost to implement bandwidth controls - Loss of customers that get ticked off
is greater than
What we're making now - Cost to implement good technology that handles bandwidth more efficiently
most companies are going to choose the former. It makes more business sense.
I'm reminded of a passage in "Becoming a Technical Leader" (great book btw - a commenter on Slashdot mentioned it). Anyway, it's about making the transition from techie to management, and analyzing the differences in thought processes. The author tells a story where a company was designing a system, and the requirements were "Make sure it can recover from one error per day" (or something similar). Anyway, the technical people involved with the project thought it would be better if they could get it to "Make sure it can recover from any error, ever, immediately", as they thought it was a more interesting technical problems. Turns out it cost the company something like $4 million, and in the end they had something that a) the customer didn't really need and b) they basically couldn't sell to anyone else. The moral of the story is that just because there are interesting technical problems, doesn't mean that solving them makes good business sense.
It is a case of technology being held back by non-technical reasons, but please look beyond popular technologies when you make an assessment about desirable technologies.
Short version:
"I want everyone in the world to behave in a precise (but poorly defined) way to suit my personal sensibilities. Why don't they? Any ideas on how to make it happen?"
Have you tried saying "please"? Other than that, I have no ideas. Maybe try to help people and solve problems instead of worrying about whether things are done exactly your way.
I hereby revoke the shanen's geek credentials for failing to understand that single source versus multiple sources doesn't matter if the problem is the total volume.
The problem is not that on server or site is overloading. The problem is that the provider's network, including things like routers and gateways, have a finite bandwidth and these applications, regardless of source, are using up most of it.
Ever hear the phrase "You can't put 10lbs of shit in a 5lbs bag"? Ever wonder why they put in new water mains and increase the size of water mains when the build more housing developments? Or why the widen roads with more housing? It is because the total volume has increased.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
why build more infrastructure to serve customers if you can find new ways to make them pay for the infrastructure you have now.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
... thus dramaticly forcing the price up for every user. Thats what they say... Bittorrent is a major part of the problem because it attempts to utalise 100% of the available bandwidth Bittorrent is a protocol, what you describe is the default configuration of popular Bittorrent clients that can be configured otherwise.Consumers using what they paid for!!!!!
Oh no we can't have that.
~Dan
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
If you had been paying attention at all, you'd understand the purpose of these "anti-tech techs" as you call them is explicitly to limit progress so the rich old fucktards can continue milking their obsolete business models until they retire or drop dead.
To many people, progress is a scary, dangerous thing. Money, on the other hand, is a sultry lover that drives their every passion. Us folks on slashdot may prefer cheap plentiful bandwidth over money, but we're a tiny little minority in the grand scheme of things. The average Joe doesn't understand technological evolution, and most certainly does not see where it is all headed... it is far easier for Joe to stay ignorant and pay up.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
How? There isn't enough content to run BitTorrent maxing out my connection 24/7. I'd have to buy a new hard drive every day to do that. Can you propose to me any way of actually utilizing my connection 24/7 with BitTorrent, maintaining a seed ratio and not clogging my hard disks (because I'd need to buy a NAS in short order.)
I think the result would be significantly lower than 100%. For one thing, 100% of people will never use any one technology. For another, even those who do can't possible saturate their connection 100% of the time unless they're on dialup. I have fifteen megabit cable with a realized throughput of around 13000 kbps to the continental US, and can easily get 1.6-1.7 mega-bytes- per second on downloads. Even at just 1 MB/sec, I have to buy another 80GB hard disk a day to fill this line. Heck, I'd run out of content I'd even want to download.
The internet providers were given massive tax breaks to improve their networks (fiber to the home and whatnot). Now they not only haven't done that with the money, but the inferior networks they've built instead are reaching capacity.
Somebody should make your ISPs sleep in the bed they made.
I also notice that the TFA appears to reference only cable companies. Cable internet shares bandwidth to the endpoint, a pretty bonehead move if a significant number of endpoints are going to be using it. Maybe this is simply the end of that technology's ability to improve. DSL and FTTH vendors could then capitalize and crush those companies, improving internet access for all. What is stopping this from happening (besides laziness)?
ISPs promising what they can actually deliver!!! ZOMG!!11one!11oneoneone!!!!11!111one
In the corporate world, this shit doesn't fly. You get less for more money, but it's guaranteed. What if ISPs just sold us connections that they could actually deliver, instead of jacking up the numbers to look good?
This issue can be argued from many angles, and I think it's pointless to throw mud back and forth -- the article asked for CONSTRUCTIVE suggestions, and I see neither of you have provided one. Let's stop rehashing solutions we already know don't work, and get back to the point please.
But does this justify delaying its introduction? Must we wait for any new technology until someone figures out how to squeeze every last dollar out of the rich folks?
This is the whole point of technological advancement: To provide goods and services of higher quality for lower price than what was available in the past. If someone happens to be making a living providing the low quality, expensive crap to a small market niche and some innovation undercuts their business model, that's just tough.
There appears to be far too much emphasis made by companies on protecting their 'market' as if a market was some sort of property that they own. Well, I happen to be a part of that market and nobody owns me. IIRC, Lincoln freed the slaves.
Have gnu, will travel.
"Default Configuration" is for all intents and purposes the same as protocol standard for a significant portion of the population.