Broadband News
News, views and analysis
Google to develop tools to reveal ISP traffic throttling
17 Jun 2008 | 23.34 Europe/London
Google's Senior Policy Director, Richard Whitt, has revealed that the web giant is working on tools that will reveal to broadband users whether their service is being 'throttled' to allow some online services to be prioritised over others.
Speaking at Santa Clara University at a conference on net neutrality - the issue of whether ISPs should be allowed to prioritise some types of traffic over others - Whitt revealed that the company was in the process of devising the necessary software to let web users detect their connection speed and decide whether their line is being throttled.
"We're trying to develop tools, software tools...that allow people to detect what's happening with their broadband connections, so they can let ISPs know that they're not happy with what they're getting - that they think certain services are being tampered with," he said.
Whilst Google and Whitt are not committing to a launch date for the set of tools it is probable that they will offer users a free resource to monitor download speeds from a variety of sites so they can tell, for example, if their connection to a P2P service, such as BitTorrent, is running at a noticeably slower rate than other services. It is not yet clear what services will be monitored for throttling, or how this is envisioned to work.
Net neutrality is a big issue with ISPs because it could potentially allow them to save bandwidth by slowing down, and hence discouraging, use of file-sharing sites which can have performance impacts on their networks. At the same time, it is widely feared, that without net neutrality ISPs could allow services to pay to have their traffic speeded up compared to rivals.
However, not all web experts at the net neutrality conference where Google made its announcement were vehemently opposed to throttling traffic. One panel member speaking at the event is convinced net neutrality could hold back converged networks. George Ou, Senior Analyst at the Washington DC think tank the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) agrees that ISPs should be open about their policies but believes Google is trying to court public opinion by avoiding a plain truth about networks.
"If you forbid prioritisation, you forbid converged networks," he said. "And if you forbid converged networks, you get a bunch of tiny networks that are designed to do very specific things. Why not merge them into one fat pipe and let the consumer pick and choose what they want to run?"
"This is such an important point because latency/jitter is a killer for real-time applications like VoIP, gaming, and IPTV. If prioritisation technology is banned in broadband, then we'll simply end up with less functional broadband and we'll have a statically separated IPTV service... ISPs will be forced to separate their TV and Internet pipe with a fixed boundary and the consumer gets left with a permanent slow lane rather than getting a slow lane plus a fast lane that they can dynamically allocate to their TV or their Internet."
The issue is a hot topic in America following Comcast's admission last year that it throttles traffic to and from P2P services when its network is busy. This activity, along with the implementation monthly bandwidth caps, is relatively new to the American market. Few British ISPs publicly admit to using traffic shaping on their networks, although it is widely believed to be common practice amongst the larger ISPs. One ISP that goes against the grain and even goes as far as promoting their traffic prioritisation is PlusNet. This transparency certainly appears to have won them accolade amongst telecoms analysts.
Speaking at Santa Clara University at a conference on net neutrality - the issue of whether ISPs should be allowed to prioritise some types of traffic over others - Whitt revealed that the company was in the process of devising the necessary software to let web users detect their connection speed and decide whether their line is being throttled.
"We're trying to develop tools, software tools...that allow people to detect what's happening with their broadband connections, so they can let ISPs know that they're not happy with what they're getting - that they think certain services are being tampered with," he said.
Whilst Google and Whitt are not committing to a launch date for the set of tools it is probable that they will offer users a free resource to monitor download speeds from a variety of sites so they can tell, for example, if their connection to a P2P service, such as BitTorrent, is running at a noticeably slower rate than other services. It is not yet clear what services will be monitored for throttling, or how this is envisioned to work.
Net neutrality is a big issue with ISPs because it could potentially allow them to save bandwidth by slowing down, and hence discouraging, use of file-sharing sites which can have performance impacts on their networks. At the same time, it is widely feared, that without net neutrality ISPs could allow services to pay to have their traffic speeded up compared to rivals.
However, not all web experts at the net neutrality conference where Google made its announcement were vehemently opposed to throttling traffic. One panel member speaking at the event is convinced net neutrality could hold back converged networks. George Ou, Senior Analyst at the Washington DC think tank the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) agrees that ISPs should be open about their policies but believes Google is trying to court public opinion by avoiding a plain truth about networks.
"If you forbid prioritisation, you forbid converged networks," he said. "And if you forbid converged networks, you get a bunch of tiny networks that are designed to do very specific things. Why not merge them into one fat pipe and let the consumer pick and choose what they want to run?"
"This is such an important point because latency/jitter is a killer for real-time applications like VoIP, gaming, and IPTV. If prioritisation technology is banned in broadband, then we'll simply end up with less functional broadband and we'll have a statically separated IPTV service... ISPs will be forced to separate their TV and Internet pipe with a fixed boundary and the consumer gets left with a permanent slow lane rather than getting a slow lane plus a fast lane that they can dynamically allocate to their TV or their Internet."
The issue is a hot topic in America following Comcast's admission last year that it throttles traffic to and from P2P services when its network is busy. This activity, along with the implementation monthly bandwidth caps, is relatively new to the American market. Few British ISPs publicly admit to using traffic shaping on their networks, although it is widely believed to be common practice amongst the larger ISPs. One ISP that goes against the grain and even goes as far as promoting their traffic prioritisation is PlusNet. This transparency certainly appears to have won them accolade amongst telecoms analysts.