Inventor of the Internet takes aim at BitTorrent

In the 1960s, Lawrence Roberts invented computer networking via data packets, which led directly to the development of ARPANet and the Internet . And now Roberts is trying to fix one of the Internet's biggest problems: network overload caused by peer-to-peer file transfers.

Not Al Gore.

(Credit: Rafe Needleman / CNET)

At Structure 08, he laid out the problem: 5 percent of the Net's users are running P2P transfers taking up 80 percent of its capacity, which is dramatically limiting the available bandwidth available to everyone else. Roberts' company, Anagran, is able to detect which "flows" are P2P traffic, and reduce the bandwidth available to these communications when other users' systems want it. Roberts says that Anagran's technology even functions when P2P transfers are encrypted. I'm not going to pretend I understand exactly how this works, but it has something to do with keeping information about the flow of data between all computers connected through an ISP in memory in the Anagram appliance, and then leveling off traffic of P2P communications as needed--and throughput only, not latency. Judging by the reaction of the audience of infrastructure geeks sitting around me, Roberts is on to something. "He's the real deal right there," the guy next to me said at one point, pretty much gazing up at the stage in awe.

Roberts claims that the Anagran devices also ensure that high-priority traffic, like VOIP and video streams, can be guaranteed better performance.

Roberts was clear that he has no desire to punish P2P users, but rather he wants to make sure that they--and everyone else--get their fair share of bandwidth. That share, he believes, cannot be 80 percent of the Net's capacity, especially if the other 20 percent has to be allocated to the 95 percent of the Net's users who aren't using P2P.

You'll find Anagran bandwidth fairness boxes (also called FR-1000s) in university settings now, where the P2P file transfer problem is most acute. Anagran doesn't currently have any commercial ISP customers, but I'll bet that they're all looking at them.

Roberts has no position on the legality of content being transferred over P2P links. "Illegal or legal is not the issue at all." It's about fairness, he says: equal capacity for equal pay. What do you think?

See also: Baggage and bits: Overage fees have unintended consequences.

Anagran FR-1000: The shape of bandwidth to come.

(Credit: Anagran)

[Megarain]

It'll be hacked, cracked, and dead on the basement floor come this time next week. We all know it.

[anthony f wood]

Excuse me, but I do believe this is anti-hacking made by some of the best older hackers....so to speak.

[Tsee-1968031069905097881578618]

Only the ignorant still thinks of the USA as the most technologically advanced country in the world. We're so backward we're always facing one bandwidth-limiting technology after another, instead of universalizing access.

Fairness would be giving priority to what users want, not what Mr. Roberts or any telecom company consider most important. VoIP and such may be their focus, but it's obviously not the users, since 80% of traffic is P2P.

This shows laissez faire doesn't always lead to best outcome in the view of society - market forces dislike consumer control. Users want P2P but the companies will do all they can to stop it.

[fafafooey]

Clearly, from the statistics in the article, P2P is NOT what "users want". Only 5% of users are using P2P, that's the point. A bigger percentage use VoIP and they expect it to work - if the conversation is garbled or choppy because some kiddie with too much time on his hands is illegally downloading a movie, it should be throttled so it doesn't break my VoIP. That movie will still download, albeit a little slower, but my conversation won't happen if it's garbled or choppy.

[paulmwatson]

Great, the guy who inspired the "intelligence at the edges" internet is now building middle-ware. I'd like to see the problem tackled in a different way, a way that doesn't put more "smart" boxes between nodes on the internet. These things have state and they eventually fall over.

[tugolith]

Fairness is not everyone having the same bandwidth. Fairness is people that pay for greater bandwidth getting the bandwidth they paid for. If this new scheme for limiting bandwidth is used on P2P applications then there is no incentive to pay for the premium packages from our ISP. Might as well by the cheapest since this new technology makes us all "equal" anyway.

[McPlot]

All you have to do is arrest all the people using P2P to transfer illegal content. Copied games, movies, music, etc. The six people that are left will not even be noticeable.

[cschrade]

I think its fair to consider what the "other 95%" uses the internet for. Having worked for a large elecontrics retailer as a computer support technician who worked directly with consumers, I can say the vast majority (90%+) of my customers use the net simply for checking e-mail and browsing websites. Why is it we limit those who pay just as much for their guaranteed internet bandwidth? Why don't the ISPs come up with more comprehensive internet packages? The average internet user doesn't need a 6 mbps connection. I'd be willing to bet a 256 kbps connection would yield virtually no noticibile difference to the casual PC user. Its sad that incompetent ISP monopolies can't figure out a business plan that makes sense for its users.

[johnsin]

Haha, I love it when laissez faire totally doesn't work out in "their favor".. bout time!

[jgambier]

This article is misleading... There is no mention of Al Gore!

[hawkeyeaz1]

But the real problem is ISP are advertizing bandwidth you do not get--false advertizing. Either you get the "X"Mbit down stream when you want it, or you don't because companies are too greedy to upgrade their pipes.

A P2P user cannot use more bandwidth than the ISP allocates to the user. If the ISP can't give you the bandwidth they promise, that is their fault, and everyone's problem.

[bdg2]

I don't know what happens in the US but here in the UK ISP are now mostly advertising packages with phrases like "Up to 8Mbps download bandwidth" and "10GB monthly transfer allowance". This is good -- the heavy users should be paying more than the light users.

[MoreThanTheAVGBear]

ISPs live in a competitive world. Even people who only use the Internet for email and pictures want those 4MB spreadsheet emails and 2MB pictures to get there quickly. In order to get fairly priced bandwidth for everyone, ISPs implement price averaging and fair use policies that usually prohibit use for servers under common use plans. That is usually what triggers these bandwidth limitations. People who set up BT or Gnutella and allow outside use, often use TERABYTES of uploads and downloads per month, where the average users may use 10 GB. Bandwidth costs money and if a user on a common plan paying $30 per month is using $495 in bandwidth, ISPs really don't care if it makes that user upset. They want him to either alter his habits, go to the competition, or purchase a facility that is appropriately priced. He can get his very own T1 these days with absolutely no restrictions or limitations for less than $400 per month. In that situation, he actually WILL be paying for the bandwidth that he uses and everyone is better off. But don't go crying to the ISP saying that you PAID for 10MB service when you paid your $30 per month. 10MBs of bandwidth service cost him about $2000 from a Tier One provider. You need to understand what you are buying. The provider knows that if he loses the less than 5% that uses PTP and he can free up service for the remaining 95% of his customers and not have to buy that next $4000 DS3. I predict you will see more of this and not less in the future.

[Gavvi]

If I'm not mistaken, these are the statistics for dorms at Cornell University (Oct-Dec 2001). What do the statistics of government provided "free pipes" in an American university have to do with the internet overall? Perhaps Lawrence should have invented his own statistics instead of relying on outdated and previously reported ones.

So I think Lawrence is very much like Al Gore. The debate is over !!

[amijs]

User of High Speed internet(usually with cable TV) in the US, already pay way too much for it than say some asian country. Just because we have higher income we have to pay higher bill? I talked with one of my chinese friend he said that he only have to less than $10 dolloar to get most of TV channels in China.
Just because the oil price increase??? cable compay don't use oil to provide the cable service. Fine if you called someone to take look your wires or something, but how often an average custom do that.

[amijs]

limited bandwidth? I think it is fair, but there also some of consequence for the doc com companys.
For an example, who will play Xbox LIVE? if you have to buy the game, memship, OH and you played one too many hour, your internet provider give you fine or something.
Online gaming will cost way too much, no more youtube, flickr, download show from iTune? At some of the TV channel or radio website, they are live from the website itself(easily over the limit). The online community as we know will change.

People have to think, if I do this, is this going over the limit?

[bdg2]

If you're not sure how much bandwidth you need you would choose a package where you can check how much you've used so far and buy extra GB at a reasonable price if you go over for some reason.

Anyway none of the activities you describe use anywhere near many GB as some loony Bit-Torrent freak who has decided to illegally collect every single Star Trek TNG episode.

[bobb8888]

Sounds fair to me. Caption, "Not Al Gore" Ha.

[balonga]

This man is working against freedom of speech and communications in Internet, working in devices for -and promoting- reduction of bandwidth for selected content . How much will it pass since determined people see there bandwidth turn to zero while you are obliged to pay for banner and spam we do not need. The ISP must give EVERYONE the bandwidth figuring in their advertisements (without any "small letter" tricks). P2P is not the problem. The problem are those that can not compete in this new era of communication and want to maintain every body in 1950's (read Hollywood first of all if you like it) . It is a real pity and shame that a man that has given something to science it is taking it back to help greedy people.

[billg3]

The key here is not that P2P users are throttled all of the time but that they are throttled when the demand on the bandwidth is greater than the supply and other users would suffer. I suspect that level of service paid for would also be factored in, if possible.

From the article:
"is able to detect which "flows" are P2P traffic, and reduce the bandwidth available to these communications when other users' systems want it"

[kawasakiguru]

Lets face it - audio and video are two of the biggest abuses of the Internet. Why should VOIP and Video get priority over other things ? Technology should move towards more efficient VOIP solutions that don't need high bandwidth. (I remember using skype over a dial-up connection). And then 90% of the videos are on youtube or streaming porn sites. Don't need either of them to have priority. P2P/torrents are an efficient system... let's improve that.

[fdunn3]

I totally agree with "MoreThanTheAVGBear". Beside the facts he mentioned about the costs to the ISP if 5% are causing bottlenecks for the rest 95% then it's just a matter of majority rules.

If you want to hog the subnet then be prepared for "mitigation" by your ISP, it is only fair.

[mathieu.boonen]

How about setting up a completely independant network for P2P traffic on seperate infrastructure, (Maybe a laser network, or some other frequency wireless mesh or something) that way all P2P users can have their own network they can clog up.
Now who is going to pay for it, maybe there is money in it if 5 % of users use it, but the trouble is they don't want to pay, as that is why they use p2p in the first place. The biggest downfall is I hardly think the 5% of current P2P users would have enough money to do it anyway and the thing would go belly up in weeks.. Maybe Bill Gates can gift / sponsor this network, as he was one of the first in IT to burrow someone else's idea and use it to his advantage.....Come on Bill how about it?

[pbrunnen]

It is apparent that many of you posting are living in your parent's basement still.

Oil prices DO affect cable companies... So does the high price of copper. Oil and copper and glass are critical components of coax and fiber optic cable. Oh, yea? how about energy to produce the cable. Or have we forgotten that?

I totally agree with the fact that ISPs are selling consumers more bandwidth than they can deliver. But these are the same ISPs who whine about paying to build out upgrades to the Internet core. I don?t yet have answers to how fairness of bandwidth will look, but something must be done. I am really tiered of seeing packet floods from P2P or other hogs drowning DNS traffic and essentially causing a DoS situation for others.

I also agree that legal content or not is irrelevant to the situation as the original article states. Just as tractor-trailers pay higher tolls on toll roads often by weight not content.

To amijs, you also can?t benchmark against other countries. You don?t know how much government subsidies are supporting those plans. China I know is very heavily subsidized so you can?t count based on their prices.

-Cheers, Peter.