Can P2P applications learn to play fair on networks?

Sun Oct 21 18:15:51 UTC 2007

Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> If your network cannot handle the traffic, don't offer the services.
In network access for the masses, downstream bandwidth has always been 
easier to deliver than upstream.  It's been that way since modem 
manufacturers found they could leverage a single digital/analog 
conversion in the PTSN to deliver 56kbps downstream data rates over 
phone lines.  This is still true today in nearly every residential 
access technology: DSL, Cable, Wireless (mobile 3G / EVDO), and 
Satellite all have asymmetrical upstream/downstream data rates, with 
downstream being favored in some cases by a ratio of 20:1.  Of that 
group, only DSL doesn't have a common upstream bottleneck between the 
subscriber and head-end.   For each of the other broadband technologies, 
the overall user experience will continue to diminish as the number of 
subscribers saturating their upstream network path grows.

Transmission technology issues aside, how do you create enough network 
capacity for a technology that is designed to use every last bit of 
transport capacity available?  P2P more closely resembles denial of 
service traffic patterns than "standard" Internet traffic.
> The long term solution is of course to make sure that you can handle 
> the traffic that the customer wants to send (because that's what they 
> can control), perhaps by charging for it by some scheme that involves 
> not offering flat-fee.
I agree with the differential billing proposal.  There are definitely 
two sides to the coin when it comes to Internet access available to most 
of the US; on one side the open and unrestricted access allows for the 
growth of new ideas and services no matter how unrealistic (ie, unicast 
IP TV for the masses), but on the other side sets up a "tragedy of the 
commons" situation where there is no incentive _not_ to abuse the 
"unlimited" network resources.   Even with as insanely cheap as web 
hosting has become, people are still electing to use P2P for content 
distribution over $4/mo hosting accounts because it's "cheaper"; the 
higher network costs in P2P distribution go ignored because the end user 
never sees them.  The problem in converting to a usage-based billing 
system is that there's a huge potential to simultaneously lose both 
market share and public perception of your brand.  I'm sure every 
broadband provider would love to go to a system of usage-based billing, 
but none of them wants to be the first.

-Eric