Slashdot Log In
Anti-Technology Technologies?
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sun Jun 15, 2008 08:48 AM
from the tubes-versus-tubes dept.
from the tubes-versus-tubes dept.
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?"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Control (Score:5, Informative)
Understanding the workings of an entire swarm is is not easy.
With a swarm it is harder to differentiate for "elite" customers who pay to get that extra bandwidth.
Where you are in the swarm will matter just as much as which connection you're paying for.
Bittorrent is the problem :( (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Bittorrent is the problem :( (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh no we can't have that.
~Dan
Parent
Re:Bittorrent is the problem :( (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bittorrent is the problem :( (Score:5, Interesting)
My statement stands. You have to try extremly hard to get even close to filling your download on an ordinary residential connection. Even if you go for something like downloading Blueray ISOs, you still have to find a place where you can get them without trading your upload bandwidth for it. There is probably some theoretic case where it is true, but not in practice.
Parent
Good technology =/= good business (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Popstar technologies != great ideas (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
BitTorrent (and P2P in general) is a kludge. Multicasting is a solution. BitTorrent is an inefficient protocol (from a whole network load point of view.) It bounces the same data around the net in unicasts.
Only when it comes to incredibly popular files. However most torrents have maybe a few hundred peers or up to maybe a few thousand, spread over a huge part of the earth Multicasting does little good in a such a situation.
Multicasting is basically about taking you back to the old paradigm where everyone watches the same thing at the same time. (ok, you can save things so people can watch it later, but it is still the old)
Bittorrent could probably benefit some from pairing peers that are locally close to eac
Short version (Score:3, Insightful)
"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.
upsetting the apple card (Score:5, Interesting)
What's the problem ?
IMHO, it's the "last mile". Legislated limited monopoly controlling access with an interest in keeping that position. so there's a high barrier to access put in place.
Some of the other problems is what may work in a high density area will probably not work in a low density area. A wireless mesh may work in cities and towns but completely fails in rural. Another issue - making data retrieval a crime. "you're" responsible for someone else's actions and that kills any open public access. Some one has to pay to connect to the backbone.
If I had a solution that would work in all cases - I'd be rich
Here's a lynchpin that needs to be remove - the last mile monopoly and its bundling with "providers". Here in the Northeast (US) the power line is a separate charge on your power bill than the generation. Break that up. Internet access "line" charge $0.02 per month. ISP charge $x. Anyone should be able to send data over the lines without the big guys restricting access - for the same cost. NO AT&T ISP should be able to send data cheaper than another ISP.
It may be time for $TOWNs to own the lines, bid repair out to another party and anyone to sign up to an ISP.
BUT it won't work. See any telcom endevor.
The Duck
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
UTOPIA (utopianet.org) is an attempt to do exactly that - and you wouldn't believe the dirty tactics Comcast and Qwest have been using to fight it (ok, so you probably WOULD believe the tactics they've been using, but still...)
i once invented anti-technology technology... (Score:3, Funny)
All right, that does it (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:All right, that does it (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem for most users is the amount of available bandwidth at peak hours. If some guy is sucking up tons of bandwidth at non-peak hours, then he is not hurting anybody. It is not like we can take the unused bandwidth from non-peak hours and use it during peak hours.
The telecoms have not been able to follow through on their bandwidth promises during peak hours and they have managed to push the blame onto someone else. Now that people have bought into that excuse, they are going to try to make a few extra bucks off of it.
Quite honestly, I have no problem with people who use more of a service getting charged more, if that is your business model. The phone companies have been charging for long-distance by the minute for years. But if we are going to start charging on a per bit basis, then shouldn't I, as a person who sends fewer bits, get a lower price? Or at least get to carry my bits over to another month? See, they want to treat each customer different based on what benefits them the most, and if it were not for their monopoly positions, they would not be able to get away with this.
Parent
Simple reason (Score:3, Insightful)
You must be new here (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Your government should shut this down (Score:3, Insightful)
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)?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I take it you're new to the internet. USENET is still a point-to-point protocol from A to B, and this is where the problem comes in. You have a significant amount of traffic going over that single point.
With torrent and peer-to-peer distribution, you have smaller amounts of traffic coming from many different points.
Load Balancing, Clustering, P2P--are all technologies favored by the IT industry. If your distribution node goes down, nobody cares because you have others. There's no single point of failure
Re:The oldest solution... (Score:5, Informative)
BT is a major problem the ISPs need to deal with - if you download something over usenet or FTP once it's done it's done. On BT unless you actively kill the connection it'll continue sucking bandwidth... that contributes to something like 60% of average ISP traffic being P2P, and why it's increasingly being blocked.
Parent
Re:What about... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A solution for this would be to charge for traffic, but charge the broadcasters, not the consumers. Home users would pay nothing for bytes received, but would be charged for every byte they send -- which is negligible for most home users but would cost prolific file-sharers and people running web sites on their home machines. (As a side effect, this woul
Re:Long-term planning? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, in 2008, Priuses (and Corollas and Yarises) are common on the road in my city, while many of the short-sighted US manufacturers are trying to retool from building 18 mpg SUV's.
The interview mentioned a Japanese business term that has no translation in English; I forget the word, but it meant something like "the faith that building products that people need and selling them for a fair price, long-term, will be profitable, long-term." That might be less true now than it once was, but it's interesting to note that Japanese companies do tend more toward the "Build useful stuff; sell it for cost + profit" model, and American ones toward "Make whatever we can market and sell it for whatever we can convince people to pay".
The main exception to this that comes to mind immediately is Sony, who can go die in a fire. They've got their hands in lots of markets and are thus successful in that regard, but they don't seem to be market leader in any of them. I follow the camera market fairly closely, and Sony's main market in the US seems to be
1) people buying point-and-shoot cameras that didn't do their research, and wind up paying >$100 more than the equivalent Canon or Panasonic that performs better;
2) digital SLR's, which aren't really Sony's; they're rebranded Konica-Minolta stuff who Sony bought out.
As an example of Sony's failing, their top-end bridge camera still doesn't offer any sort of processing controls: you're stuck with a JPG with one compression setting, one saturation setting, one contrast setting, one (excessive) noise reduction setting, etc. There's no RAW mode. The lens is *very* prone to chromatic aberration.
Canon and Panasonic's competitors are cheaper, use superior optics, and offer control over the processing; Panasonic's versions have RAW, and Canon's
But, as a marketing matter, you can't sell stuff like this to Joe Sixpack by saying "Look! Good optics! Controllable processing! RAW mode!", so Sony didn't even bother trying to do this stuff.
Parent
Re: Japanese Proverb (Score:4, Informative)
"The interview mentioned a Japanese business term that has no translation in English; I forget the word, but it meant something like "the faith that building products that people need and selling them for a fair price, long-term, will be profitable, long-term."
The translation is "Fast Bucks vs. Slow Dimes". America likes This Quarter's Sales. Japan does likes Next Decade's sales.
Parent