Slashdot Mirror


App To Keep ISPs Honest About Bandwidth Caps

alphadogg writes "A browser-based app developed by Georgia Tech researchers is designed to help Internet users make better use of their bandwidth – and to make sure ISPs are holding up their end of the bandwidth bargain. The Kermit app, which is being shown off Wednesday (PDF) at the CHI 2011 Conference on Human Factors in Computing in Vancouver, emerges at a time when service providers are starting to place bandwidth caps not just on wireless services, but on wireline services, too. AT&T, for example, is putting such caps in place this month for its DSL and U-verse customers. At least initially, such caps aren't expected to affect all but the very heaviest bandwidth users."

7 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. Browser based? by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How is a browser based app going to keep track of all TCP/IP traffic?

    Also, Kermit is a terminal emulator. Pick a different name.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Browser based? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~marshini/files/kermit.pdf

      That's the actual paper on it. You have to read it to get the info as to how they really did it - via DD-WRT with RFLOW. Your suspicions are correct though - they can't do it with just a browser.

    2. Re:Browser based? by drpimp · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ms. Piggy ??? Seems apropos for seeing who the bandwidth hog is.

      --
      -- Brought to you by Carl's JR
  2. Re:Exactly by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Also the steam users, netflix users and itunes users? The pirates arn't the only ones that have an insatiable demand for bandwidth.

  3. At least initially... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "...such caps aren't expected to affect all but the very heaviest bandwidth users."

    Last month, I used 350gb of traffic; all of which was legitimate, split between services like NetFlix for television and movies, Steam for gaming, iTunes for music and podcasts, and the rest of normal day-to-day traffic. I may be on the extreme end for most people at this point in time, but the point is that technology keeps moving, and eventually usage like mine will be the norm, not the exception.

    What the bandwidth caps will do is stifle technological progress. To use the required car analogy, they are like putting a 40mph cap on the newly-invented automobile, simply because few, if any, people need to go that fast. At some point, people did need to drive 40mph, then 50mph, then 60mph, and so on and so forth. It will work the same way with internet usage, and that is why bandwidth caps are such a serious problem. A decade ago, most of the country was still on dial-up, and the ideas of streaming video, social media, and the proliferation of modern media over the internet were still in their infancy. 150gb then would have been, literally, an unreachable amount of data to consume in a month. However, times change, and today 150gb is next to nothing for someone who uses the internet to its current full potential.

    So many people may look at these, if they notice them at all, and say, "Who cares? I don't use that much data." But the point is that they don't use that much data now, and this is an attempt to keep them from using that much data ever.

    Because let's not mince words about this. Infrastructure is fairly expensive, but once it is in place bandwidth across it is extremely cheap (often approaching as low as 3 cents per gigabyte, according to several studies). Corporations like AT&T and Comcast aren't doing this because the bandwidth usage is expensive. They are doing it because they are terrified of a future where consumers don't need their multiple services anymore. If you can get your television, movies, music, games, e-mail, social contacts, phone service, etc. all through your internet connection, there will be zero incentive to pay for locked-down cable television and movie rentals, and highly priced telephone service. They are not about to let that happen, and this is a major salvo in their war on that.

    That's what people need to be aware of with this. It's not about the cost, it's about controlling the flow of information and stifling technological progress to secure corporate profits. And nobody should stand for it.

    1. Re:At least initially... by OverlordQ · · Score: 4, Informative

      Last month, I used 350gb of traffic; all of which was legitimate, split between services like NetFlix for television and movies, Steam for gaming, iTunes for music and podcasts, and the rest of normal day-to-day traffic.

      1 HD movie a day for a month from Netflix will top out at about 135 GB.
      Buying one new AAA game a week on Steam for a month is 40-45 GB.
      A 384kbps stream 24/7 for an entire month would only be 125 GB

      I think the Internet turns everybody into hoarders, they download/stream things they have very little intention of ever watching just because it's there.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  4. Re:Vote with your wallet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't have a choice in voting. Sure there's the "option" of moving and going to a location that has choices for broadband internet access but my wallet doesn't have that kind of voting power.