tempest in a teacup

I came across this interesting article at Slashdot a while ago (warning, link contains technobabble. I'll do my best to explain it below)

One thing that has become a big issue in the past year or so in the tech world is the problem of “net neutrality” - i.e. that all traffic on the Internet should be treated equally. This has become a particularly acute issue over the last few months, with Comcast's practice of filtering peer-to-peer traffic (like BitTorrent) becoming perhaps the best-known recent incident. The argument put forth by those who support ISPs' right to control what goes through their networks suggest that the explosion of services like BitTorrent, streaming video and HD content in recent years means that today's ISPs are unable to meet capacity demands, and thus should use whatever means necessary to prevent bandwidth needs from spiralling out of control. Some have even suggested that ISPs should shape traffic in order to prevent people from swapping files over P2P illegally.

There is some element of truth to this argument, if only because broadband infrastructure in the US is in a woeful state - The FCC's definition of “broadband” is data services above 200Kbps. As a point of reference, I had a 256Kbps ADSL line in Singapore…nine years ago. There are plans afoot to raise the bottom bound to 768kbps but this still doesn't resolve the major infrastructure and cost issues with getting quality broadband access in the US - people in Asia and Europe are much better off. So I say that if ISPs find themselves in a capacity constraint situation, they probably have themselves to blame for not investing in infrastructure while they had the chance.

Well, at least, until I read the article above. It claims that the capacity constraint brought upon by the advent of P2P services can be relieved not by legislation or political wrangling, but by good old network engineering.

The article should be a good enough summary for the techies who might be reading this, but let me attempt to explain it for the less technically-inclined.

At the bottom of the problem is the protocol used to handle the majority of the Internet's traffic, the Transmission Control Protocol or TCP (Just like how a real-life protocol dictates how two humans might interact, a networking protocol is a description of how two computers can communicate over a network). Just about all traffic that requires reliable delivery from one endpoint to another uses TCP, and this includes a lot of P2P services like BitTorrent. The article suggests that TCP's built-in congestion control mechanism - i.e. the safeguards put in place to ensure that the networks aren't flooded with TCP packets - is inherently biased in favour of traffic similar to that generated by P2P applications. This is for a couple of reasons:

1. P2P applications use multiple connections, and thus aren't constrained by TCP's congestion controls
2. P2P applications transmit data continuously over long periods of time, while other applications like HTTP (web pages) and e-mail tend to use “burst” or intermittent tranmission

The combination of these two factors means that P2P traffic tends to “crowd out” regular TCP traffic on most networks (probably not on your home PC, since TCP congestion management focuses on upstream transmissions rather than downstream, but this would certainly be an issue for an ISP).

The immediate solution proposed by the article (or rather by a researcher at BT) is to change the TCP protocol to weight applications that use fewer connections more heavily, so that they don't get drowned out by P2P traffic. P2P transmission speed will take a hit while other applications use burst tranmission, but will recover once they're done. There are a few other, longer-term solutions discussed as well, but the main thing the article reinforced for me was that this should be treated as an engineering problem, nothing more. It can't be legislated away.

It also casts a somewhat different light on ISPs, in that they really shouldn't be subject to the vitriol they are these days. This resonates with me to an extent, in that as owners of a network, they're obliged to do whatever they can to prevent traffic from exploding. However, I still think that filtering is really only a short-term solution at best. I'd say it's better to invest in better infrastructure and long-term technical fixes (like the one discussed in the article, whether or not it ends up being feasible) than trying to stop a leaking dam from bursting.

SNK Playmore recently released some information on the upcoming King of Fighters XII in Famitsu magazine. Having been impressed by the initial trailer for the game from AOU 2008 last month, I read the developer interview near the end. One thing in particular jumped out at me.

–What kind of a matchup will KOFXII feature?
SNKP: Rather than the multishift system from KOFXI, this game (KOFXII) will adopt the traditional 3-on-3 elimination style battle system that’s been used since KOF94. By returning to the traditional format and revising the game system that’s gotten too complex, we’re aiming for a game balance that’s playable even for beginners. Instead of complicated combos that makes full use of the game’s system, we want to put emphasis on “reading the opponent’s mind”.

This has me more than a little irritated.

First off, I thought KOF XI’s tag system added a lot to the game. It was the first KOF game I had played in a long time that actually felt new and fresh without being bad, and I think the series was better for it. I was looking forward to seeing how the tag system evolved for the next instalment. And yet, they’ve gone and done away with it together, and gone back to the traditional 3 on 3 elimination format. This is particularly infuriating when you consider that they’ve just released a remake of what is probably the most-loved classic KOF game (KOF’98 Ultimate Match), which you think would satisfy most people’s needs for classic 3-on-3 KOF. Do we really need another game that apes it?

The graphical overhaul is stunning (if you don’t believe me, check out these direct-feed screenshots from Famitsu) but if it continues to keep alive the ghost of old games rather than try new things, I will be quite disappointed.

I hate losing. Particularly when the gap in skill level between me and my opponent is really wide. I don't see any point in playing when the odds are stacked against me from the get-go. Yes, I know I won't learn to play better without getting beaten by other players, but I fail to see how getting hammered into the corner and dying because I couldn't react in time teaches me anything at all.

Compounding this problem is my poor execution, half the crap I want to do not coming out thanks to lag (network or input, take your pick) or the emulator turning my stand C into a C throw even though I had let up on the arrow keys a full second ago.

Maybe I just don't have the mindset for games like this.