What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
206 Comments
- greevar, on 11/01/2009, -7/+1022Or, ISPs could upgrade their infrastructure and stop overselling their service. For ***** sake, they tell us we can download at "up to" X Mbps (what used to have no monthly limit) and when we try to use the service as-advertised, they throw a fit. I for one have had it up to my eyeballs with this "up to" crap. They might offer 5Mbps, but that's not what you get and there is no guaranteed minimum. I wish the FCC would add to that net neutrality bill that the carrier must provide a guaranteed minimum of service that customers can depend on. Instead of this "up to" 15 Mbps, I want to see "a minimum of" 20Mbps with bursts "up to" 50 Mbps when congestion is low. Oh, and I want FTTH like they promised us when they got that huge handout too.
- alpha88, on 11/01/2009, -8/+402Eliminate the need to throttle? What need to throttle?? There isn't one to begin with.
- smacksaw, on 11/01/2009, -9/+339If we actually had decent internet, this would all be completely moot.
I'm sure the ISPs will make up some sort of excuse to keep ***** us...because they're trying to sell us TV as well. - schroeder, on 11/01/2009, -5/+258True, but optimizing a protocol is never a bad thing.
- lolwatermelon, on 11/01/2009, -2/+121"Or, ISPs could upgrade their infrastructure..."
They were given hundreds of millions of dollars to do just that. They called that money "profit," turned around and raised prices for the customers saying "we need more money to upgrade our infrastructure." - AngelBunny, on 11/01/2009, -3/+109I've been using µTP for a couple of months now and I have to say i'm really happy with it. Instead of limiting my max upload I can leave the upload set to automatic and my ping doesn't spike up at all. This is wonderful because to keep my ping down on BT I originally had my upload set to 220kB/s but with uTP my upload might bounce around between 200-300kB/s constantly allowing me to upload more with less consequence.
I think what TF is talking about is falling for ISP propaganda. It is rare an ISP will ever be congested on their end, especially in the US. If your ISP is overloaded on their end in the USA then it is like winning the lotto. It is that rare. ISPs just lie about congestion so they have an excuse to limit how much bandwidth goes out of their pipes causing them pennies on the gig. In other words, ISPs will continue bitching and lying to the masses regardless how awesome uTP is.
oh and btw: If you're a BT user I highly recommend you get a client with uTP support and check it out. I guarantee you that is helps A LOT with uploading to others. - boldfire, on 11/01/2009, -3/+102'Elim-in-in-ate'... really?
- greevar, on 11/01/2009, -2/+95I would agree, but it doesn't sound like optimizing to me. It sounds more like they're trying to make the ISPs happy.
- mGARANDEUR1, on 11/01/2009, -3/+59Higher profits for the ISPs. They can keep charging people exorbitant money for internet access without ever having to upgrade their hardware.
- TheOneKen, on 11/01/2009, -0/+52Perhaps we should investigate the regulatory barriers to entry that keep smaller companies from competing.
- urik88, on 11/01/2009, -1/+42The worst part? You call to complain, they tell you that you have some kind of virus and it's not their problem.
- commenter01, on 11/01/2009, -4/+42"With uTP, uTorrent (and the Mainline client) will become network aware by throttling itself if congestion in the network is detected."
- Speedy7, on 11/01/2009, -2/+40It already happens to me. I can download for a couple of hours, then the speed drops down to under 10kb/s from 500-1000kb/s.
- doctordbx, on 11/01/2009, -1/+34it's not already? Look at your peer clients... 90% use uTorrent.
- Bullwinkle1983, on 11/01/2009, -1/+30Here's a link to the beta download, for those of you who want to give it a shot.
http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?pid=421542 - DeathfireD, on 11/01/2009, -1/+29Not really. They're using a modified UDP wrapper so the speeds will undoubtedly stay the same or go faster since there's no longer the error checking for each packet that was happening using TCP/IP. This should have been used from the start but at the time Bram probably didn't think his protocol would blow up as big as it did or cause as much strain as it has been on ISP and people's routers.
Also keep in mind this UDP wrapper makes it harder for ISP's to throttle so for the people behind ISP's throttling will noticed a dramatic increase in download speeds. - bagelmaster, on 11/01/2009, -0/+25There is no reason that major and even minor cities all over the US shouldn't have Sweden-like connections. New York, San Fransisco, Miami, etc. should be running at European speeds, but the ISPs enjoy their money and most customers aren't complaining... so this is where we sit, with our ***** speeds.
- thebreach, on 11/01/2009, -0/+22Bittorrent is the most widely used standard of p2p technology. But you are troll who who does not understand such things
- FvckingFvck, on 11/01/2009, -0/+21In the US I have a 10/2 connection... something is definitely not right. = [
... and what is sad is that many consider 10/2 to be a "fast" connection. Come on ISPs! - TheOneKen, on 11/01/2009, -4/+22Its optimizing in my opinion, considering that torrent traffic is *usually* low priority. Does it matter if you get that downloaded video game or movie an hour later than usual?
- undercoverDrunk, on 11/01/2009, -5/+23What is the difference between this and QoS at the router level?? I honestly don't know - For the consumer.
The ISP's just want want all monopoly's want, profit and control. If every person used their computers once a month to check their email only, like my grandparents, then nothing would change. I believe they would still cry about network congestion to ***** us out of another $10 over the $40+ of pure profit they got out of these dream customers. ***** them with a large bag of AIDS dicks. - thebreach, on 11/01/2009, -8/+25***** all ISPs as one has yet to prove to be friendly to users.
Greed has overpowered common sense and decency in the US. ISPs just care about raping us all as much as they can. - m3arvk, on 11/01/2009, -3/+20I understand you're trying to be "reasonable" about the issue but you're wrong. The ISPs could definitely offer a speed guarantees but they don't because it allows them to "overbook" their network infrastructure in order to maximize profits. So, let's be clear: technically there's no reason why they can't guarantee a speed. Secondly, business class is typically 4-5x more expensive for the same bandwidth (at least in my area) and I don't think that it comes w/ any speed guarantees.
I really wish you'd stop apologizing for and defending the ISPs; they been slow to upgrade their infrastructure and greedy w/ their resources. - Ahnteis, on 11/01/2009, -0/+16Actually, congestion will make your upload/download even slower in the long run (big files) and you won't be able to use your connection for other stuff as well.
- Schmich, on 11/01/2009, -4/+20I have mixed feelings about this. It's nice to improve things and to let webbrowsing to always be fast. After all it's kind of a douche thing to think that a few people can take up most of the upload's bandwidth (I'm one of them, In less than 40days of uTorrent uptime I've uploaded over 1.6TB). But then again one shouldn't make ISP's feel comfortable. They need to spend more of their profit into the infrastructures. It seems like at the moment they're trying to do the bare minimum.
My ISP in Switzerland states "up to" and "minimum of" but then again they have such a slow upload. In Switzerland I have 20/1 connection, in Sweden I have a 25/10...something's not right. - anonydigg, on 11/01/2009, -6/+21This is not a solution. It's just shifting the problem of throttling from ISP-side to user-side. At least from what is presented, I don't see it improving the Bittorrent experience unless the networks are over throttling when not necessary (& this protocol will push it closer to limits). In that case, then I would assume there would be similar solutions when doing it from the network management side that would have the same result. I think the issue at large is being able to use the internet service to it's full potential according the contract. If you have a limit of say 100GB, then for that 100GB you should be able use it however you like and it shouldn't matter if you use it fast and concentrated or slow and over time; or whether you use too much upload. That is a question of proper network management and honest advertising of service, not just who gets to cripple the original agreement. If you can't deliver, then change the agreement and change the advertising rather than pull shady moves.
PS. It's like a deja-vu of 45 sec minutes and deducting minimum minutes per call on long distance cards. - samurimaster, on 11/01/2009, -1/+16"but we all know that's *****"
No we don't, you have nothing but speculation to back up that statement - DeathfireD, on 11/01/2009, -0/+15"What is the difference between this and QoS at the router level?? I honestly don't know - For the consumer."
QoS from the router prioritizes the selected protocol under or over the rest of the protocols all the time. uTP only goes into effect if it notices a dramatic backlog in packets between you and your peers. - Onion575, on 11/01/2009, -1/+15Or maybe using gay as a derogatory term makes you look like a 12 year old or an idiot, regardless of political party?
- Spetz, on 11/01/2009, -0/+13I agree completely greevar, it's absolutely ridiculous how ISPs can get away with this. If you tried to pull what ISPs do in regard to product specifications in any other industry, I guarantee you would go out of business immediately. Its borderline fraud, to be honest.
In my industry (electric engineering), you'd better be damn sure what you quote is what the customer gets with at least six sigma reliability or you go bust. Telecommunications companies are a total joke. Selling the same 2Mb broadband connection to 30 people and quoting it as a 2Mb connection with "contention of 30" is utter rubish. What you're selling should be quoted as bandwidth/users = 0.06Mb. - DeathfireD, on 11/01/2009, -1/+14In laymen terms, without getting into packet speak, it means if it notices that other applications on your computer are having a hard time connecting it will throttle itself to a certain degree to make it so those programs work.
In technical speak, it measures the amount of time a bittorrent packet goes to and comes back from people connecting to you. If the time continuously increases then it means there's high latency (which is extremely bad for your own network and for your ISP's routers) so it throttles itself to some degree (the article says just upload speed).
If you've ever used a VoIP phone while downloading using bittorrent then you'll know why this is a good idea. It's either you do it via your router's QoS option, let your ISP do it (illegaly via traffic shaping), or have the program do it. - Moralogic, on 11/01/2009, -0/+13Yeah, after black Friday I will be canceling my cable TV and subscribing to Netflix. The TV will get paid off in less than a year in savings from not having cable TV even figuring in the cost of Netflix. I can watch everything online that is on TV, I just have to be willing to wait, or go to a friend's place and make it a social event to watch certain shows. (Which is already the case for Always Sunny anyways.)
Once more people start doing this, cable TV will plummet in price. It will be the only way to get people back. With a cable box, it really is only worth $15/mo to me. Otherwise it is only worth $5/mo. Once new internet companies start coming into the market for fiber optic, then 50mbps can go down to $20/mo because people investing in starting those companies will pay off running the new lines they need to in less than 3 years, and they can just profit or expand from there.
Companies like Time Warner and Comcast should be forced to compete as well as AT&T and Verizon when it comes to providing internet and TV as well. Sectioning off services the way they do is utterly ridiculous and just a way to monopolize the areas. - meese, on 11/01/2009, -0/+13This is a fairly old idea, but it's good that it's being implemented. For more details see:
http://www.usenix.org/events/osdi02/tech/full_pape ...
http://www.ece.rice.edu/networks/TCP-LP/
The second one is built into Linux already... - Btcc222, on 11/01/2009, -0/+13Not as bad as the 256k standard upload in the UK. :<
- 0tis, on 11/01/2009, -0/+13The article says the protocol will be open, so they can use it too. That just makes me love uTorrent more for doing this.
- AngelBunny, on 11/01/2009, -2/+14The current bit torrent protocol runs over tcp. TCP acts like a line. If your computer tries to send out 200 packets and your internet can only send out 100 packets then 100 will be sent out and another 100 will be in line waiting to be sent out. The longer the line the more your ping spikes up. The more your ping spikes up the more congested your internet becomes which turns everything into a crawl, even downloading on bit torrent. This is why you want to limit your upload speed on bit torrent; to avoid the queue of packets.
uTP doesn't create a line. It does a really good job identifying how many packets your ISP can send out in that given time and then sends the same number of packets. With no line your ping does not spike up and your internet does not slow down. Imagine using bit torrent without limiting your upload rate and being able to play a first person shooter without any issues at all. - twiztidsinz, on 11/01/2009, -0/+12I know right?
Even the guys who MADE μTorrent are idiots... they misspelled the url "uTorrent.com"!!
While EverySam is technically correct... I have to assume most people don't have a "μ" key and I would suppose if you were to type it out using a standard US keyboard it'd be muTorrent, it has been said by the μTorrent creators that "uTorrent" is perfectly acceptable. - SpecialLee, on 11/01/2009, -1/+12Dugg for instilling the image of a bag of AIDS dicks in my mind.
- DWatch, on 11/01/2009, -0/+10Vuze, Azureus and uTorrent already implement the same header encryption protocol.
uTorrent has a very good reason to make this protocol open and get every other client to use it; universal adoption will eliminate a huge argument that the ISP's have been throwing around in order to throttle and restrict bandwidth usage. The ISP's have been using this 'network congestion' argument as a big stick, and swinging it around for years, even getting the FCC and congress to look the other way when they started screwing with how their customer's choose to use the internet. - xrmb, on 11/01/2009, -0/+10oh right... usenet (maybe giganews...) has how many ips? 5... so all the isp needs to limit these 5 ips. WAY easier than analyzing the data stream.
But they dont care because usenet is mostly leeching, not a big problem... upload is - Khast, on 11/01/2009, -1/+11In the US the ISPs have large jars of bits. These bits can only be replenished after so long, so they are just rationing these bits so that they don't run out of them, which could potentially destroy the whole internet until the bit jars are replenished. /s
- mihkeltt, on 11/01/2009, -4/+14For a second there, I read: "uTorrent will become self aware"
- ZachTorpy, on 11/01/2009, -3/+13This is crap. I understand where the developers are coming from, but why should I have to pay the price for a ***** infrastructure when I already pay a (well overpriced) monthly fee to these guys?
- s73v3r, on 11/02/2009, -0/+9No, the ISPs were given money specifically to deliver FTTH to something like 80 million homes. They then decided to take that money, and sit back and feel their ass grow.
- keyo, on 11/01/2009, -0/+8Yea talk about the dentist who is also the candy man.
- 0tis, on 11/01/2009, -0/+8Oh, you were doing so well until that last sentence.
- 000dnj, on 11/01/2009, -0/+8They'll do what they believe will be most profitable. They need more competition.
- DWatch, on 11/01/2009, -1/+8I was checking some downloads last night, and saw that my download speed cap that I set in my client was being overshot by a fair amount, and wondered why my client (uTorrent 1.8x) wasn't cutting off the download speed where it should. I looked at the peers list and saw a single peer that I was getting a ton of bandwidth from on a particular torrent. It was the only peer in the list that said "utorrent 2.0 (uTP)". I knew about uTP, but didn't have the beta 2.0 client myself, and was scratching my head over this. After a quick google search, I learned that apparently, uTorrent 1.8x can accept uTP connections, it just can't initiate them.
Now, after seeing only one instance of this happening, I can't say for sure that the uTorrent 2.0 client in the peers list was the sole cause of my increased download speed, nor the fact that my client ignored its own download speed cap the entire time that client was sending data to me, but I've been using torrents for years, since the protocol was first developed, and have a fairly good understanding of the mechanics involved. My initial reaction is that the uTP client I was connected to was a far more efficient connection than the other connections.
I still don't understand why my client ignored my download speed cap, though. Perhaps its something to do with the new protocol wrapper, delivering more data per packet? - FDisk, on 11/01/2009, -2/+9Well played Sir.
- inactive, on 11/01/2009, -0/+7Yeah that's true I guess.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 212 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is