You’re right that ISPs need to have a way to price discriminate between high bandwidth users (the minority), who use up the majority of a network’s bandwidth and slow down the network for everyone else.

That said, I don’t think Traffic shaping does this specifically – instead what it does is slow down specific types of data transfers (e.g. torrents) for -everyone- whether they are high bandwidth users or not. If i’m not downloading 200gigs/month I shouldn’t be penalized due to the actions of those who do, especially when i’m paying for that service and staying within the bandwidth restrictions outlined to me.

Traffic shaping allows ISPs to protect their business model (bandwidth and costs) by indiscriminately restricting everyone, but I think that bandwidth caps for abusers are a much more effective way of dealing with the problem.

Another issue is that in places like Canada where there is limited competition, companies like Bell control most of the landline infrastructure and then lease that infrastructure to smaller companies for phone and DSL services. When Bell adopts traffic shaping policies, it’s applied to the entire network, including the infrastructure that smaller DSL companies use (who may or may not be against traffic shaping but have no choice regardless). This restricts their autonomy and ability to differentiate their services from larger companies like Bell, which results in less competition – in which case the customer certainly DOES pay…and gets less.

Read more about it here

To be honest I don’t see this as being about net neutrality, but rather about generating profit. If it was purely about the bandwidth abusers then they would all be kicked off the networks (many companies do enforce this heavily). Instead this is about lowering costs at the expense of customers…because they can. It would be better in my mind to reduce the bandwidth caps to the level of margins required for the company to be sustainable at different price tiers, and then allow people the choice of paying for greater downloadability.

All of this strikes me as being very old fashioned, and counter-productive. Didn’t these companies learn from the RIAA that your customers are not your enemies? Consider this from a Wikinomics perspective and how these policies go against the norms of the net generation:

- Users demand fast access to interesting content (speed), ISPs reduce that speed with traffic shaping
- Users demand the ability to download what they want (freedom) so ISPs limit the options people can use for downloads
- Users demand the ability to change their service options (customization), but it’s impossible to opt out of traffic shaping, even if you were willing to pay more
- Users demand to be treated with respect but instead they are treated like thieves by companies that dishonestly hide their traffic shaping policies until confronted (Integrity)
- A fundamental aspect of internet use for this generation is entertainment and downloading, but this area is principally the one affected by traffic shaping
- Users are more aware and able to communication with each other at a level never before seen. They will scrutinize the activities of these companies and mount anti traffic shaping campaigns against the worst offenders. Eventually the companies that win out will be the ones that figure out best how to manage the issue without limiting their paying customers. Those will be the heroes.

I agree that traffic shaping is becoming something of a necessity and that it’s not always a bad thing if done fairly. Businesses, libraries, schools, etc. have been doing this for years and it’s significantly reduced the amount of bandwidth they’re using. Some commercial products are based on their ability to be fair. For example, NetEqualizer has it’s “fairness algorithm”. So, I know it’s possible for it to be done fairly. It’s just a matter of convincing ISPs that this is the way to go.

Sorry, link doesn’t work — “fairness algorithm”

ya its true for every business traffic is important through traffic one can increase his/her sales as well as get popularity if business…