Bandwidth Hogs Are Real, They're Just Misunderstood

The term "bandwidth hogs" has been much debated in broadband policy circles over the last couple of years. Most recently, Benoit Felten, someone who I respect tremendously as a clear-thinking industry expert, has raised the question of whether or not bandwidth hogs are actually a myth.

I wanted to take a moment today to make the case that bandwidth hogs do exist, and they in fact represent the heart of the evolutionary transitional period that broadband providers face.

It used to be that no one used their broadband connections much. Broadband providers counted on this minimal usage so they could oversubscribe their networks. They also offered unlimited service to gain another competitive edge over dialup Internet access. And this all worked fine so long as no one was consuming that much bandwidth.

But over the last few years the demands on these networks have risen dramatically. This increase stems from the dual factors of power users having more ways to use more bandwidth than ever--like P2P video sharing, Hulu and YouTube, hosted applications, and the use of broadband to enable telecommuting--and more people finding reasons and ways to become power users.

This growth in demand is straining traditional broadband business models, forcing operators to invest in increasing capacity without necessarily adding any new revenue to offset this cost.

This reality is what's leading operators to explore options like metered bandwidth, so they can recapture their investments and drive additional profits from their heaviest users. This is also what's leading operators to use things like traffic shaping and application blocking.

While I disagree with the notion that bandwidth hogs don't exist or aren't a problem, Felton's more specific question of whether or not it's a specific small group of people who are stressing the network is still worth more detailed consideration.

But regardless of this, there's no denying that there are a small group of people who are using broadband networks way more than the average person, and that the heaviest users are straining the capacity and affecting the performance of broadband networks.

That brings us to the real question at the heart of this matter: is it the users' fault?

I've long recoiled at the label "bandwidth hogs" as it implies that users are being overly greedy, that they're doing something they shouldn't when really what they are are power users, or people who are taking full advantage of what the Internet has to offer today.

Put another way, I think so-called "bandwidth hogs" actually represent the leading edge of the next generation of broadband usage and demand. They're bringing to light how in the Internet of the future, users won't just be consumers of data, they'll be producers, and they'll be using applications that cause their computers to act like servers.

To support this evolution, we need broadband networks that can support these trends in usage, that will encourage rather than dissuade this growing demand. Because it shouldn't be a bad thing when people want to use more of a service.

At the same time, I am respectful of the fact that we can't expect private operators to continually invest in upgrading their network capacity without having some way of recouping those costs. Right now, the only incentive to invest is competition. But without a competitor forcing their hand, or a way to drive additional revenue off of offering additional capacity, then they have no reason in invest in expanding and upgrading their networks.

This raises an interesting conundrum that I think can be highlighted by using the analogy of a buffet. Who's fault is it that the crab legs keep running out on the broadband buffet? Is it the hungry customers for eating too much, or the buffet owners for not refilling the bin fast enough?

It may be easy to blame the buffet owners in this scenario, but what if their customers' appetites went up tenfold. What are they supposed to do? Supplying this increase in demand without realizing a subsequent increase in revenue would likely mean putting the buffet out of business. And yet if a customer's paying for an all-you-can-eat buffet then they should be allowed to eat all that they can.

Resolving this tension is a key to unlocking a better tomorrow for American broadband. My hope is that we can move past demonizing power users as bandwidth hogs and network operators as bandwidth misers to instead focus on how we can spur the deployment of networks with enough capacity to supply the demand that's there today and that will continue to grow on into the future.

Because if we don't get this resolved, then we're going to end up with barren broadband buffets and hungry bandwidth hogs at a time when we should be living in a land of plenty with Americans free to consume all the bandwidth the desire.