What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
79 Comments
- jtotheoe, on 12/01/2008, -0/+101Wait... lemme guess before reading the article... no?
I was right! It won't! - Medicamusic, on 12/02/2008, -5/+42uTorrent IS the internet.
- SSPink, on 12/02/2008, -1/+34Richard Bennett is either purposely lying or he has no idea what he is talking about. Either way, the Register needs to stop paying him to spread telecom industry propaganda.
- bangmalley, on 12/02/2008, -0/+24uTP sounds more like saving the internet then killing it.
- tyhen, on 12/02/2008, -0/+20Today's heavy user (bittorrent, video streaming, VOIP, games, etc.) is tomorrow's normal user. The internet and bandwidth in general will just have to keep up as more of this heavy bandwidth-sucking activity becomes a normal part of everyday life for the average user. IPv6, 10/1000 gigabit switches and other future technology will keep the internets alive.
- TheJalu, on 12/01/2008, -0/+19No
- shutz, on 12/02/2008, -0/+18I've read the article, and I believe the uTorrent people who say their UDP implementation will reduce congestion, but probably only after a few new versions, in the same way that 1.8 final had enough teething problems to justify all those people going back to the last 1.7 version. At least, 1.8.1 fixed most of the major problems.
But if the question was posed more as "Will Bittorrent kill the Internet", and if the telecoms and other companies who control the Internet's backbone don't change the way they're doing things, the answer would be a resounding YES!
People's use of the Internet is growing at a much faster pace than the bandwidth and services being offered. Only in southeast Asia and Japan is the Internet seemingly growing at an acceptable rate where the population can get reasonably-priced connections that fully serve their needs.
Most of the people on broadband connections in the US can't even stream Netflix HD movies at the highest quality settings, because their providers can't offer those speeds yet. Well, that's not true. They could offer those speeds, they just choose not to, because it would hurt their bottom-line.
And even when you have the necessary bandwidth, you get a monthly cap that is fairly easy to attain, if you're an Internet power-user. Not to mention that those HD streaming services will start chewing up that bandwidth pretty fast, too. With monthly caps in the 200-300 GBs per month with many providers in the US, it's easy to reach that cap if you watch 10-20 streamed movies while also using the Internet for other normal uses. Compare that with South Korea, where you get a 30GB cap PER DAY.
If everybody starts using bittorrent on a regular basis, the current infrastructure would probably collapse. Or at least, most providers would be faced with throttling everybody's connection in order to preserve service.
The providers should be constantly upgrading their hardware and connections so they can ramp up bandwidth to follow demand. It would me like a power company not adding more generators or power plants as demand grows, instead relying on rotating brownouts and then telling people they're consuming too much power. Ridiculous. - bubbles19518, on 12/01/2008, -3/+15Its those darn tubes. They keep getting clogged.
- theradical, on 12/02/2008, -1/+13“If we can’t control network management, we’ll have to shut down the Internet”. He seems to think "the internet" is one giant computer that sits somewhere and distributes it's internets to everyone. This isn't even a debate, how can you argue with someone who has no idea how the technology even works? I guess if he wants to shut down "the internet" he can work on getting rid of the global electricity infrastructure, because a lack of electricity is just about the only way to get rid of it.
- Myztry, on 12/02/2008, -1/+12A whole lot of the Internet needs replacing. SMTP (email) is one clear example. It's broke, and owned by spammers.
HTTP (the web) is not the Internet. It is but one of the protocols (over a port). UDP is where the rebirth starts.
The one I'm looking forward to is an ubiquitous under/over-net protocol that encapsulates and provides secure point to point communicating as protection against all those nefarious entities (including governments). - bipolarruledout, on 12/02/2008, -0/+10See the problem here (which really isn't a real problem) is that major telcoms don't want to spend the money (our money BTW) upgrading their infrastructure to meet these needs... much easier to enforce bandwidth caps or claim they need more money or the internet is going to crash. Such ***** and unfortunately most of the public is going to eat it up.
- smacksaw, on 12/02/2008, -1/+10I have one simple thing to point out. P2P is not doing jack ***** to the robust networks in Korea and Japan.
End of story.
Give us a robust network and this is a non-issue. - HamstaMan, on 12/02/2008, -0/+9Holy snap we have a winner. *hands over flowers*
- bman1984, on 12/02/2008, -0/+7UDP does not guarantee packet delivery. Application level protocols that use UDP may provide error correction, but it is not done by UDP. Try and tell me that an application providing error correction is more efficient than TCP which is lower in that stack. UDP has no concept of retransmitting data. It is not a connection oriented protocol. Do you design networks for a living?
Anyways, UDP is not all bad, and in most of my experiences will do the job more efficiently than TCP. The only experience I have is on fairly reliable networks. With the emmergence of WISPs, wifi everywhere, blah blah blah, UDP is likely to cause more overhead, because the application level protocols are handling error correction and data retransmission.
Please, don't try to pretend you know something when it is clear that you do not. - Myztry, on 12/02/2008, -0/+7It's not just the Telecoms. The motive can be found in that classic Dune quote:
"He who controls the spice, controls the Universe"
UDP isn't a control layer.... - inactive, on 12/02/2008, -0/+6uTorrent isn't killing the internet, primitive networks are killing the internet. Seriously, in Sweden 100mbit fiber is the rule not the exception. They are able to download, upload, stream, and surf simultaneously because they are using fiber technologies. In America, we subsidize phone companies and ISPs assuming they'll actually install fiber networks, but because there isn't any legislation to enforce them, they pocket the money and maybe invest a million in packet shaping software. Japan, Korea, Sweden all have networks that are constantly being updated, and as a result, they are able to stream HD content and do way more things than we are. uTorrent isn't the problem, government and corporations are.
- kalvinb, on 12/02/2008, -1/+7You kids and your crazy tubes. Back in my day we communicated with string. And now you're abusing the tubes so much they work as well as string.
- inactive, on 12/02/2008, -2/+7Maybe if the US updates the infrastructure and offer better internet like European and Asian states we wouldn't have a problem.
- twiztidsinz, on 12/02/2008, -0/+4Seriously... you fail at trolling.
You're not even racking up big negatives from well done slash idiotic trolls... You should just give up on digg and do something productive with your time... like eating a bullet or dying in a fire. - ajwinder, on 12/02/2008, -1/+5UDP has no real error checking "built in". That doesn't mean you couldn't build data verification on top of your network stack, in fact, that already goes on in most every bittorrent client. You could also just as easily build in packet timeout / return packet authentication, which you're not going to do with bittorrent, but I just wanted to illustrate the point that UDP isn't necessarily a limiting choice - if TCP fits your validation and certification needs, then you use it, if it doesn't, well, get cracking on some schemes that rely on UDP transmissions and your own code.
It'll be interesting to see if its being done for ***** and giggles or if they've really got something novel under the hood. As the developers don't seem retarded, I'm hedging my bets with the latter. - linagee, on 12/02/2008, -1/+5Just reboot the internet. There's just a giant linksys router in the center of the internet, right?
- scarz99, on 12/02/2008, -0/+4The headline says µTorrent but the summary says BitTorrent. ???
- lilricky, on 12/02/2008, -1/+5I remember when we figured out how to attach files to usenet messages, we had doom and gloom people then saying the internet was doomed and we wouldn't have enough bandwidth for the backbones to operate. What happened? Nothing, the internet absorbed the traffic and actually increased the available bandwidth by about 100 fold. Increased traffic is good, it helps expand the network capabilities. Do you think the web could have worked on the 1979 internet, when the most we had was text-based Gopher, Veronica, Archie, and Jughead? The web would have crawled to a halt. Young whippersnappers :)
- Yusayoh, on 12/02/2008, -2/+5Because sharing information (through movies, games, ebooks, etc) really kills the internet (which was made to transfer information). Riiiiiiiiiight.
- bman1984, on 12/02/2008, -2/+5That much is a controversy, and probably will be for some time to come. A lot of network administrators do not like the thought of UDP, but in all of my experiences it has yet to fail me.
UDP, a transport layer protocol, doesn't care if a packet reaches it's destination or not. As long as few packets are dropped, UDP works fine when transmitting data which requires all packets to reach their destination. With VOIP, it is ok to drop a few packets, and never fully deliver them. You just get a blank space of sound. Same with streaming video. But with files, all packets need to reach their destination. UDP doesn't provide means for assuring delivery of all packets. BitTorrent, a higher level application level protocol does. The problem here is that for BitTorrent to actually requests packets to be resent, more overhead is necessary than if TCP, the transport layer protocol currently used for torrents.
It will vary from network to network. Major backbone providers will probably see less congestion where as smaller ISPs, WISPs, or ISPs with ***** infrastructure will see more congestion. That is of course, if BitTorrent really occupies as much of the available bandwidth as "they" say it does. - hyanakin, on 12/01/2008, -0/+3Damn, I guessed wrong ;)
- eminn3m, on 12/02/2008, -0/+3Freedom of information is the internet. Censorship is what will kill it.
- fquednau, on 12/02/2008, -0/+3And not even that, because there is a TCP implementation where packets are sent with pigeons (Transmission by Carrier Pigeons)
http://www.notes.co.il/benbasat/5240.asp - ByteMeAHole, on 12/02/2008, -0/+3Yawn... More FUD from Comcast and that ilk - wanting to justify charging people more to actually use their connection.
- lilricky, on 12/02/2008, -0/+3oops, fact check failed, it was 1991, seemed liked the 1970's though :) Guess I was thinking we had usenet and gopherspace at the same time, my bad.
- Abomonog, on 12/02/2008, -1/+4It's because µTorrent is by far the widest used torrent app. It sometimes gets cross recognition. The author could also be referring to the Torrent network which sometimes just gets labeled as the BitTorrent network.
Yes, he screwed up, but you still get the idea. - inactive, on 12/02/2008, -0/+3Well then lets ban ads they take up more bandwidth than anything and if I need to see ads to support websites why am I paying an isp then? It should be like network TV right?
- Pixelante, on 12/02/2008, -2/+4It won't happen but, yet, it would be awesome if it could. Imagine the chaos, the catastrophe, the look of disbelief on thousands upon thousands of pale, acne-ridden faces as WoW collapses. The endless crying and babbling of a host of emo kids slashing themselves with the plastic knives from their sisters' Tea Party Barbie set as their MySpace pages disappear into digital nothingness. Corporate e-mail vanishing into thin air, websites dropping off the edge of the digital world, the electronic global village torn asunder and its denizens desperately clinging to its crumbling remains even as they slide into oblivion.
And all of this happening because some lonely guy had one pr0n DVD too many in his queue.
It would redefine COOL. - demonicume, on 12/02/2008, -0/+2i like it. i like it a lot
- layzice, on 12/02/2008, -0/+2Some of us have already banned ads.
I'll give you three guesses on how, and the first two do not count. - bman1984, on 12/02/2008, -1/+3The only expansion telecom companies want is in their customer numbers.
- Leprince, on 12/02/2008, -0/+2@TheFuzzyOne:
If only you would have had enlightened us with the existence of RUDP and sticked with it, your statement would have made some kind of sense.
RUDP is not UDP. You were talking about UDP then you switched to RUDP ("reliable UDP connection") and referring to it as UDP. You're the fsckin' moron that's spreading misinformation. So STFU already.
By the way, there's no such thing as a reliable UDP connection. There's RUDP, but no reliable UDP.
Furthermore: "RUDP is not currently a formal standard, however it was described in an IETF internet-draft in 1999. It has not been proposed for standardization."
I tend to side with bman on this one. - Abomonog, on 12/02/2008, -0/+2Remember California a few years back?
- theradical, on 12/02/2008, -1/+3eureka! it's so clear to me now. we just need a plunger!
- inactive, on 12/02/2008, -1/+3You are a moron.
- Dumbledorito, on 12/02/2008, -2/+4FUD envelops the internet? If you include sites that are about conspiracies, aliens, and how radioactive gunk in your shower tile makes you vote for nazi communist muslims, then FUD makes up the internet's basic DNA the way rust makes up most of any Dodge car from the 70's.
- GreatSunJester, on 12/02/2008, -1/+3Torrents in general will be the ammunition used to enforce bandwidth caps and usage charges. It is easier to price something out of reach than to ban it altogether.
- Fenix, on 12/02/2008, -0/+2bittorrent does all the error checking, so using TCP would only slow down the speed of the network because of overhead. just because UDP is connectionless doesn't mean that the application layer can't do error checking.
- DryMaltExtract, on 12/02/2008, -0/+2"People's use of the Internet is growing at a much faster pace than the bandwidth and services being offered."
No, this statement is wrong. They have been offering what they cannot provide for quite a long time. - thespiff, on 12/02/2008, -0/+2http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/01/richard_be ...
For those of us who can't be torrent freaks at work...the original Register article. - jedikv, on 12/02/2008, -1/+3*hands over some internets*
- redriot, on 12/02/2008, -1/+2With Hulu, my uTorrent use is drastically decreased.
- Ajzimm3rman, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Title fail................
- inactive, on 12/04/2008, -0/+1shhh! don't tell them.
- DeathfireD, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1So, from what I gathered after reading the article, basically their ditching TCP and it's error control and going with UDP and making their own with added throttling features. Kind of sounds redundant to me.
-
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is