One of the usual excuses given to promote the need  for  usage caps on residential broadband accounts is the person on the network who has fired up their peer-to-peer sharing application (usually torrent software) and has left the thing running 24/7 for the entire month.   This person is inevitably  held up as an example  in the pro-cap community as someone who is “abusing the network” by downloading terabytes worth of data “that no person could reasonably use in a month.”

There have been some interesting reports on the impact of peer-to-peer applications on broadband in the last  two weeks  (“20% Drop in p2p on AT&T Backbone Other video, like YouTube and Hulu, twice as high” – DSL Prime, 8/1/2008).   Ask a torrent fan what they enjoy getting the most from using such applications and it usually turns out to be television shows.   With the advent of more… authorized methods of accessing  favorite programs, including Hulu, Joost, iTunes, and the network websites themselves, people can  get  near instant gratification  without waiting hours, if not days, for a coveted episode to finally arrive over some BitTorrent site.

Is there something missing from the usual equation offered by cap advocates that “excessive/abusive use” + “limited bandwidth” = a usage cap to “better manage network traffic?”

Also, is there a place in the discussion for bandwidth providers to better dialogue with their customers, educating them about the impact of running certain file sharing peer-to-peer software on a continuous basis, not only on network traffic, but also potentially slowing down the connection for everyone else in the house?   How many parents have only the most limited knowledge about the software their kids are running?   And if it’s the head of the household running the software, do they even know how much bandwidth such tools could consume if left running continuously.

Do you think people would respond to a voluntary request by providers to not run such software  unattended for hour after hour, day after day?    Would  a customer  be more inclined to reduce usage  knowing that a voluntary reduction  could mean not having to  place caps on every customer?   What are your feelings about such a proposal?   Would it be effective?   Or do you dismiss the peer to peer traffic argument entirely?

Part of the purpose of Stop the Cap! is to offer some potential new ideas with providers genuinely interested in traffic management and not simply imposing caps as a way to increase revenue.   Your comments and advocacy for or against this idea are welcome.   Just hit the Comments button under the article headline and share your views.   Providers do read Stop the Cap! and many are genuinely interested in reading your views.