I don't care how beautifully elegant, lean and efficient my voice communications protocol is, if there's a three second pause between words because some cunt's hogging the bandwidth watching cat videos then we're not talking.
Investing in infrastructure is sensible, but don't pretend you can design latency requirements out of everything. You can't.
Sounds fair to me, but not that I'm not requiring that my traffic takes priority over your traffic.
I'm asking that quality of service is a core part of the offering, and acknowledging that not all traffic has the same needs.
If my youtube uploads make your porn movies buffer then that's a bad thing. If your linux download makes my gaming suck then that's a bad thing.
Ideally we both flood our upstream and downstreams with no impact on each other. Where the ISP identifies that they can't make that possible, rather than both of us suffer I'm comfortable with some intelligent prioritisation.
My point was that this does fit within a net neutrality definition. You clearly do want option 1, where your traffic is given priority and fuck everyone else.
That's fine, such options are usually available so go for it.
Maybe I missed it, where are those numbers coming from?
Online references located via Google search results. Those were 2013 numbers, more recent statistics may vary.
The precise numbers don't matter, and actual capacity also doesn't matter. Your question was "How exactly is torrent traffic impactful on an ISP network?" and my response is that torrent traffic is a meaningful percentage of the network use for an ISP.
Since the ISP invests resources in providing a network, it's pretty obvious that the ISP is investing resources in meeting the demands of torrent users.
Yes, ISPs need to invest in infrastructure to ensure the service level they sell meets the real world wants and needs of the customers they sell it to. And the problem here is?
The problem is that there are limited resources available to invest in networks, and ISPs have to balance investment against benefits.
If you'd like your ISP to invest in adequate network resources to cope with your personal demand then give them the money. It's called a commercial arrangement and your ISP has an entire department that would be delighted to help you with this.
As you say, it's the fundamentals of running a business. Running one at a loss due to over-investment without returns rapidly leads to not running one at all.
Ooohhh, it's "complex". Better stop applying independent thought processes and follow the narrative then, like you have.
Given your inability to follow any narrative I'm finding this comment amusing.
Me, I pay my ISP far more than their competitors charge, and in return I get far better bandwidth with clearly stated traffic shaping policies. I choose to accept those policies.
Maybe that makes me a traitor to the 1337 Gods of the Internetz; guess how much I give a shit.
You're not a nice person. You're also using very juvenile logic that disregards real world complexities, social nuances, impacts on the people being called (who aren't criminals), longer term implications and other factors.
Yeah. Damn those lonely prisoners desperate for human contact and interested in their families and friends, trying to maintain relationships and prepare for life once released.
How about the girlfriend/wife just be honest about it, say "stop calling me" or arrange a time when it wont inconvenience their life of luxurious freedom.
If you want calls blocked, just block them. Excessive abusive pricing is not needed for this, so your entire entire point is moot.
1/6 of the downstream traffic and 1/3 of the upstream traffic is impactful on an ISP network because it consumes resources that would otherwise be available for other uses, and/or requires the ISP to invest in additional infrastructure to prevent that traffic impacting other uses.
it's the nodes that have to do most of the work
You appear to come from a world that has infinite speed zero latency networks. Welcome to Earth, where we have an internet that requires switches, routers, fibre optics and complex networking.
It depends on your definition of 'net neutrality'.
1 - Every packet is of equal weight and value, irrespective of content 2 - Every packet is of equal weight and value, irrespective of source or destination 3 - both of the above
Where bandwidth demand is greater than availability - i.e. 6pm on a Sunday on residential networks - something has to give.
I'm very comfortable with my ISP choosing not to take option 1 if it means that packets for online gamers get low latency, video streams don't buffer and web browsing remains interactive. If that means someone's Linux distribution takes another two minutes to download, then that's a reasonable use of the available resources.
Where I dig my heels in on net neutrality is option 2. If the ISP prioritises its own video streaming service ahead of others, its own gaming service ahead of others, its favourite partners' websites ahead of others, then it's prejudicing the market and acting in bad faith.
So no, do traffic shaping by all means. It's a reasonable and proportionate approach to assuring quality of service. Just do it for all packets of that type.
In the UK bows aren't regulated, although various landowners impose restrictions (including the governmental body responsible for the national forests). The restrictions tend to be around crossbows rather than other bows, primarily due to relative ease of use.
What is defined in law is hunting with bows. It's illegal. What's also clear is that walking through the streets with a cocked bow, or releasing arrows on a crowded thoroughfare will get you arrested whether you hit anybody or not.
So a rail gun could well fall outside of existing legislation but using it risks contravening multiple existing laws worded broadly around public safety.
It's not reasonable for me to take time away from my new job to help you. It's not reasonable for me to work outside normal hours to help you. It's not reasonable for me to work for you without payment.
If my skills, knowledge and time are that valuable to you, demonstrate it.
The Nexus 5, like the Nexus 4, like the Galaxy Nexus, was a 5" device that fits into a pocket. I've used the same sleeve case for all three.
The 5x is bigger. It's too big.
Given the Nexus 6 debacle I'd hoped Google would realise that there are a bunch of people that don't want to walk around with a fucking handbag just to hold their phone. Who find holsters inconvenient, awkward and uncomfortable. Who want a sensibly sized fucking phone.
But no. They want you to buy the humungous 6p or the stupidly oversized 5x.
Sticking with my Nexus 5. It's perfectly usable still, Marshmallow works nicely on it, and there just isn't a phone out there that's a reasonable upgrade.
I had five weeks holiday in my first year at my current company. Less than a year in that jumped up to six weeks/year that I can take off, plus the usual bank holidays and weekends.
There's also obviously sick leave and compassionate leave. Luckily I've been able to avoid those so far.
Three weeks? I'd turn down the offer and not take the job - you'd have to pay me enough that when I wanted the fourth week off I could afford to quit the job, let alone the fifth.
It's a tricky one. You don't want your friends to have money worries, you do want them to enjoy the lifestyle you're now enjoying.
I have a friend that works 60 hour weeks and earns about the same each month that I earn in around four days. I could literally double her income and not notice it. I know it, she knows it, and she knows I'd be happy to.
We also both know that she'd refuse the money anyway.
So I don't insult her by offering. In return, she doesn't insult me by refusing. But trust me, it's fucking painful seeing her struggle and skip meals because she's too proud to ask for help.
Hmm. I go dancing with my gardener. I go out with the lady that looks after my cats. I socialise with people that are jobless, doctors, fast food workers, lawyers, self-employed, company owners, plumbers.
Level of wealth neither dictates or prevents interests, and I socialise with friends or with people that have shared interests. Some of those become friends.
Relative wealth doesn't come into it, but my interests do tend to be ones that hide the level of relative wealth.
Please don't interpret this as a defense of the idiots you describe, but not all rich people are the same.
The MD of the company I work for is a very down-to-earth chap, happy to talk to the staff, doesn't expect special treatment, doesn't try and flaunt his wealth. Drives an open top Aston Martin.
Are you going to slag him off for ostentatious display, or can you maybe accept that he can afford a bloody nice car and possibly he's living his childhood dream by owning one?
Am I being ostentatious by wearing a watch that cost me two months' wages (three after tax) or did I maybe just decide it's fucking awesome and worth saving up for?
Sure, some rich people didn't earn it, don't have humility, can be utter cocks. I think it's a tad unfair to treat them all that way.
Slashdot Mirror
Reading comprehension challenge there then. I stated that ISPs do X. As long as more than one ISP does X, you haven't refuted my statement.
Just because 1 doesn't do X is totally fucking irrelevant.
Have a great weekend.
I don't care how beautifully elegant, lean and efficient my voice communications protocol is, if there's a three second pause between words because some cunt's hogging the bandwidth watching cat videos then we're not talking.
Investing in infrastructure is sensible, but don't pretend you can design latency requirements out of everything. You can't.
My logical fallacy is arguing with idiots.
Congratulations, you found a good ISP.
If you can prove to me that all ISPs are like yours, I'll concede the point. Until then we both know that my factual statement remains accurate.
Sounds fair to me, but not that I'm not requiring that my traffic takes priority over your traffic.
I'm asking that quality of service is a core part of the offering, and acknowledging that not all traffic has the same needs.
If my youtube uploads make your porn movies buffer then that's a bad thing. If your linux download makes my gaming suck then that's a bad thing.
Ideally we both flood our upstream and downstreams with no impact on each other. Where the ISP identifies that they can't make that possible, rather than both of us suffer I'm comfortable with some intelligent prioritisation.
My point was that this does fit within a net neutrality definition. You clearly do want option 1, where your traffic is given priority and fuck everyone else.
That's fine, such options are usually available so go for it.
So don't traffic shaping, except do?
We seem to be agreeing.
Your analysis has one key flaw. It is based on the assumption that there isn't enough bandwidth to keep latency low for everyone.
That's not an assumption, that's a very real fact.
ISPs design their infrastructure to keep it that way too, and for frankly very sensible reasons.
Maybe I missed it, where are those numbers coming from?
Online references located via Google search results. Those were 2013 numbers, more recent statistics may vary.
The precise numbers don't matter, and actual capacity also doesn't matter. Your question was "How exactly is torrent traffic impactful on an ISP network?" and my response is that torrent traffic is a meaningful percentage of the network use for an ISP.
Since the ISP invests resources in providing a network, it's pretty obvious that the ISP is investing resources in meeting the demands of torrent users.
Yes, ISPs need to invest in infrastructure to ensure the service level they sell meets the real world wants and needs of the customers they sell it to. And the problem here is?
The problem is that there are limited resources available to invest in networks, and ISPs have to balance investment against benefits.
If you'd like your ISP to invest in adequate network resources to cope with your personal demand then give them the money. It's called a commercial arrangement and your ISP has an entire department that would be delighted to help you with this.
As you say, it's the fundamentals of running a business. Running one at a loss due to over-investment without returns rapidly leads to not running one at all.
Ooohhh, it's "complex". Better stop applying independent thought processes and follow the narrative then, like you have.
Given your inability to follow any narrative I'm finding this comment amusing.
Me, I pay my ISP far more than their competitors charge, and in return I get far better bandwidth with clearly stated traffic shaping policies. I choose to accept those policies.
Maybe that makes me a traitor to the 1337 Gods of the Internetz; guess how much I give a shit.
I didn't say there was an issue. I merely answered the question of how torrent traffic is impactful on an ISP.
You're not a nice person. You're also using very juvenile logic that disregards real world complexities, social nuances, impacts on the people being called (who aren't criminals), longer term implications and other factors.
Are you twelve?
Yeah. Damn those lonely prisoners desperate for human contact and interested in their families and friends, trying to maintain relationships and prepare for life once released.
How about the girlfriend/wife just be honest about it, say "stop calling me" or arrange a time when it wont inconvenience their life of luxurious freedom.
If you want calls blocked, just block them. Excessive abusive pricing is not needed for this, so your entire entire point is moot.
1/6 of the downstream traffic and 1/3 of the upstream traffic is impactful on an ISP network because it consumes resources that would otherwise be available for other uses, and/or requires the ISP to invest in additional infrastructure to prevent that traffic impacting other uses.
it's the nodes that have to do most of the work
You appear to come from a world that has infinite speed zero latency networks. Welcome to Earth, where we have an internet that requires switches, routers, fibre optics and complex networking.
It depends on your definition of 'net neutrality'.
1 - Every packet is of equal weight and value, irrespective of content
2 - Every packet is of equal weight and value, irrespective of source or destination
3 - both of the above
Where bandwidth demand is greater than availability - i.e. 6pm on a Sunday on residential networks - something has to give.
I'm very comfortable with my ISP choosing not to take option 1 if it means that packets for online gamers get low latency, video streams don't buffer and web browsing remains interactive. If that means someone's Linux distribution takes another two minutes to download, then that's a reasonable use of the available resources.
Where I dig my heels in on net neutrality is option 2. If the ISP prioritises its own video streaming service ahead of others, its own gaming service ahead of others, its favourite partners' websites ahead of others, then it's prejudicing the market and acting in bad faith.
So no, do traffic shaping by all means. It's a reasonable and proportionate approach to assuring quality of service. Just do it for all packets of that type.
I use 'extant' and 'moot' (or 'mooted') regularly. Quaternary I don't use but do know, just not in that context.
Read more books. It'll help your vocabulary.
In the UK bows aren't regulated, although various landowners impose restrictions (including the governmental body responsible for the national forests). The restrictions tend to be around crossbows rather than other bows, primarily due to relative ease of use.
What is defined in law is hunting with bows. It's illegal. What's also clear is that walking through the streets with a cocked bow, or releasing arrows on a crowded thoroughfare will get you arrested whether you hit anybody or not.
So a rail gun could well fall outside of existing legislation but using it risks contravening multiple existing laws worded broadly around public safety.
As someone not in America, fuck yes.
No. If you have to be reasonably available then it's perfectly reasonable to get a new job, which makes you unavailable.
Exactly.
It's not reasonable for me to take time away from my new job to help you. It's not reasonable for me to work outside normal hours to help you. It's not reasonable for me to work for you without payment.
If my skills, knowledge and time are that valuable to you, demonstrate it.
No, but if I did my expectations wouldn't reduce.
You want productive constructive contribution from me, you have to deal with the fact that I burn out after a while. Time off pays back.
The Nexus 5, like the Nexus 4, like the Galaxy Nexus, was a 5" device that fits into a pocket. I've used the same sleeve case for all three.
The 5x is bigger. It's too big.
Given the Nexus 6 debacle I'd hoped Google would realise that there are a bunch of people that don't want to walk around with a fucking handbag just to hold their phone. Who find holsters inconvenient, awkward and uncomfortable. Who want a sensibly sized fucking phone.
But no. They want you to buy the humungous 6p or the stupidly oversized 5x.
Sticking with my Nexus 5. It's perfectly usable still, Marshmallow works nicely on it, and there just isn't a phone out there that's a reasonable upgrade.
I had five weeks holiday in my first year at my current company. Less than a year in that jumped up to six weeks/year that I can take off, plus the usual bank holidays and weekends.
There's also obviously sick leave and compassionate leave. Luckily I've been able to avoid those so far.
Three weeks? I'd turn down the offer and not take the job - you'd have to pay me enough that when I wanted the fourth week off I could afford to quit the job, let alone the fifth.
It's a tricky one. You don't want your friends to have money worries, you do want them to enjoy the lifestyle you're now enjoying.
I have a friend that works 60 hour weeks and earns about the same each month that I earn in around four days. I could literally double her income and not notice it. I know it, she knows it, and she knows I'd be happy to.
We also both know that she'd refuse the money anyway.
So I don't insult her by offering. In return, she doesn't insult me by refusing. But trust me, it's fucking painful seeing her struggle and skip meals because she's too proud to ask for help.
Hmm. I go dancing with my gardener.
I go out with the lady that looks after my cats.
I socialise with people that are jobless, doctors, fast food workers, lawyers, self-employed, company owners, plumbers.
Level of wealth neither dictates or prevents interests, and I socialise with friends or with people that have shared interests. Some of those become friends.
Relative wealth doesn't come into it, but my interests do tend to be ones that hide the level of relative wealth.
Please don't interpret this as a defense of the idiots you describe, but not all rich people are the same.
The MD of the company I work for is a very down-to-earth chap, happy to talk to the staff, doesn't expect special treatment, doesn't try and flaunt his wealth. Drives an open top Aston Martin.
Are you going to slag him off for ostentatious display, or can you maybe accept that he can afford a bloody nice car and possibly he's living his childhood dream by owning one?
Am I being ostentatious by wearing a watch that cost me two months' wages (three after tax) or did I maybe just decide it's fucking awesome and worth saving up for?
Sure, some rich people didn't earn it, don't have humility, can be utter cocks. I think it's a tad unfair to treat them all that way.
"I work for a large multinational. Management stuff mostly, stuck behind a desk when I'm not in meetings"
Didn't have to mention that you own it.