

Windows 10 uses your bandwidth to send other people updates - nilmonibasak
http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2015/07/30/windows-10-steals-your-bandwidth-to-send-other-people-updates/

======
smhenderson
I'm all about peer to peer to make efficient use of resources but this, to me,
is another feature that should be opt in by default.

If you are like me you have a decent connection, know for a fact you're not
utilizing as much as you're given and understand how a P2P protocol can help
you and those around you.

But your average user doesn't really know what this all means without
explanation. IMO most people probably have no idea what the optimal setting
for them would be, therefore they will leave it on for fear of breaking
something by switching it off.

Cool feature but let those who know better turn it on and let the rest of the
masses opt in once their techie friend explains it to them and makes sure it
won't hurt with regard to data caps.

~~~
unsignedint
Or perhaps the default should have been "PCs on my local network."

I knew this feature was coming (wasn't paying attention to the details of it,
though) and actually thought it is a great feature for actually "reducing"
bandwidth usage.

~~~
smhenderson
Yeah, that's a good idea too. Kind of WSUS for the home.

The article does say _Windows 10 Enterprise and Education have the feature
enabled, but only for the local network._

So at least that's a sensible default for business/schools.

~~~
unsignedint
It'll actually wreck havoc on a lot of small businesses, actually.

A lot of smaller businesses where operating system upgrades/update cycles are
ad hoc, and mostly on whatever comes with their new PCs (which usually is Home
editions) and won't or can't upgrade to Enterprise. (I don't know if the Pro
version's also set up the same way -- but even then, I wouldn't say there's
great incentive/reason there, too, anyways.)

~~~
smhenderson
You're right, I hadn't thought of it that way. And, no, the Pro version
behaves the same as Home in this case. even more reason for it to be off
default and opt in only.

~~~
unsignedint
Yeah, I don't even know what Microsoft is thinking then -- practically, the
Pro version would be the highest edition accessible to most of small
businesses.

There seems to be a lot of poor choices Microsoft decided make on Windows
10... (Wi-fi Sense, and then this...)

------
acdha
They're walking back the click-bait title (it used to say “steals your
bandwidth”) but it's still somewhat hyperbolic: it could be described as
“Windows 10 uses other peoples’ bandwidth to give you updates faster” with
equal accuracy.

If it's worth discussing a documented feature, could we at least link to the
actual source:

[http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-10/windows-
update...](http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-10/windows-update-
delivery-optimization-faq)

It's a valid concern for people with really low bandwidth caps who might want
to set the metered flag but given the short duration it seems unlikely that
this would be an issue for most people.

------
dm2
I think that they have a list of approved ISPs or some dependable way to make
sure it doesn't happen on metered connections.

[http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-10/windows-
update...](http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-10/windows-update-
delivery-optimization-faq)

"As with Windows 8.1, Windows 10 won't automatically download updates or apps
if it detects that your PC is using a metered connection. Similarly, Delivery
Optimization won’t automatically download or send parts of updates or apps to
other PCs on the Internet if it detects that you're using a metered
connection."

~~~
unsignedint
Don't you actually have to specify that your connection is metered in order to
that to work?

I think it's for tagging things like wireless hotspot, etc.

~~~
dm2
I'm not sure exactly how it works but there is documentation on what they're
calling "Connection Cost".

[https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/windows/apps/xaml/w...](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/windows/apps/xaml/windows.networking.connectivity.connectioncost.aspx)

[https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/windows/apps/xaml/m...](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/windows/apps/xaml/mt280377.aspx)

[https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/windows/apps/hh7503...](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/windows/apps/hh750310.aspx)

~~~
unsignedint
I wonder how they get those values, considering bandwidth limit parameters can
vary depending on contracts even when it is happening to identical networks...

(Perhaps some UI allows users to to put this info, similar to Android
settings?)

~~~
dm2
They have some samples that you could use:
[https://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsapps/Network-
Informat...](https://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsapps/Network-Information-
Sample-63aaa201)

------
dangero
Wow "Microsoft says that the feature “helps people get updates and apps more
quickly if they have a limited or unreliable Internet connection” and “does
not slow down your internet connection” as it uses a “limited portion” of idle
upload bandwidth."

Sorry but Microsoft cannot know that. They can know how much bandwidth your
machine has access to on some level, but they cannot know what kind of strain
is being put on any shared router upstream including your home wifi router. It
absolutely can slow down your internet. Maybe the author paraphrased
Microsoft's response, but with that wording it's not accurate.

~~~
arbitrage
You actually can. Look into TCP slow start and backoff, congestion avoidance,
etc.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP_congestion-
avoidance_algor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP_congestion-
avoidance_algorithm)

~~~
georgerobinson
This is not correct. TCP does not know the total amount of bandwidth available
on a network link just like it does not know the total amount of unused
bandwidth available on the same link - hence the need for additive increase.

What will happen is that two TCPs will share the available bandwidth (or close
to it) via AIMD. However, if you've ever uploaded a file on an asynchronous
Internet connection (i.e. a DSL connection), saturation of the uplink kills
effective throughput for other TCPs (I presume because ACKs queue up at the
router and are either delayed or timeout, resulting in fast retransmit if
you're lucky, and a timeout at the sender if you're not).

> "does not slow down your internet connection" as it uses a "limited portion"
> of idle upload bandwidth."

How do Microsoft know what your upload bandwidth is? When do Microsoft know
when that upload bandwidth is no longer idle?

Is there an RTT estimator that stops the upload if the RTT exceeds a
threshold? How would Microsoft know what the RTT should be for that customers
network link?

Perhaps they can detect consecutive timeouts of TCP segments? That would be
interesting because the TCP I know provide the abstraction of a reliable, in
order transmission over an unreliable network - so why would this API call
exist? Perhaps it does exist? Can anyone comment?

I think this raises more questions that it answers?

~~~
wmf
Microsoft has been working on something like that for years:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_Intelligent_Transfe...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_Intelligent_Transfer_Service)

~~~
dangero
BITS uses client centric bandwidth measurement, not network centric which
isn't really possible and that's the point of contention. You cannot know
exactly how your network usage is affecting the larger network.

Basically Microsoft's response to concerns over the bandwidth usage is, "Well,
the bandwidth was just sitting there not being used. Doesn't affect anything
if we use it."

That's just not true and it's an oversimplification of network topology.

------
ilyanep
Is anyone compiling a list of the settings I'll need to check when I finally
make the jump from Windows 7 to 10 in a few months? I'd like to be on a newer
OS, but between this and Cortana and some sort of XBL overlay that apparently
messes with game performance, I'm going to need to do research into the
optimal setup first.

~~~
joosters
Privacy settings are described here:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/Windows10/comments/3f38ed/guide_how...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Windows10/comments/3f38ed/guide_how_to_disable_data_logging_in_w10/)

------
Animats
Microsoft seems to be setting all their defaults to "screw the user". This
isn't good. Distributing Windows 10 as a drive-by install that takes over your
machine and turns it into a spamming node is really sleazy.

Microsoft is giving away Windows 10. That's a huge problem. It's not a
compelling product they can get people to pay for, unlike all previous
versions of Windows. Microsoft, for the first time, has to claw its revenue
out of the user some other way.

For decades, Microsoft has been hard on their competitors and hardware
suppliers, and they've had antitrust problems. But Microsoft didn't usually
apply pain to their users, who were their primary customers. With Windows 10,
that all changes. Windows users, you are no longer the customer. You are the
product.

This may not end well for Microsoft, because most of their revenue is in the
B2B space. Business customers don't like being the product.

~~~
scholia
Sorry, there are just too many factually incorrect claims in your hyperbolic
hysteria.....

> Distributing Windows 10 as a drive-by install that takes over your machine
> and turns it into a spamming node is really sleazy.

You only get the Windows 10 download if you have requested it. This means it
is not actually a drive-by install, even if you are determined to use the term
to smear Microsoft. (Drive-by installs are _not_ requested and are usually
from websites.)

> Microsoft is giving away Windows 10.

This isn't true, and I'm frankly amazed you don't realize that it it's not
true.

Microsoft is giving _consumers_ a free _upgrade_ to Windows 10 if they have
already paid for Windows 7 or 8. This is no different from Apple or Google
giving away OS upgrades to people who have already paid for the product in the
same way as Windows users (bundled with hardware).

> It's not a compelling product they can get people to > pay for, unlike all
> previous versions of Windows.

Yeah, and by the same pretend "logic", Apple and Google don't have operating
systems they could get people to pay for either.

> Microsoft, for the first time, has to claw its revenue out of the user some
> other way.

The business model hasn't changed. OEMs pay to install Windows 10, exactly
like every other version of Windows. Microsoft is still in the software
business, not, like Google, the surveillance-and-advertising business.

You're welcome to your conspiracy theories, of course. However, perhaps it
would be better if you didn't try to support them with facts, because you
don't appear to be able to get them correct ;-)

~~~
fit2rule
Claiming that Microsoft is not in the surveillance-and-advertising business is
rather facetious. Of course they are! Or .. why else are they harvesting
absolutely everything they can possibly find out about me, from the moment the
install is completed, until the final day when I uncover the secret options
that turns it all off? If they weren't in the surveillance-and-advertising
business, none of the spy options would be default to "On" ..

~~~
scholia
It's not its main business, by a very long way. It is, however, Google's main
business, and the main business of quite a few free Android and iOS apps.

> until the final day when I uncover the secret options

So you did an Express install instead of actually going through the options?
More fool you.

~~~
fit2rule
Actually I cancelled my upgrade. I'll sit this one out until it makes sense to
actually do the upgrade - at the moment, I'm not seeing any benefit to be had
in doing it, and a lot of liability.

~~~
scholia
Yep, there's no need to rush. I didn't reserve upgrades on my main machines,
just on one spare one to see how it works. And to play with Cortana....

------
triskweline
Games like World of Warcraft have been doing this for a decade. Early versions
of the Blizzard downloader actually were Bittorrent clients.

------
belorn
If a Microsoft can get away with sharing customers resources like this, could
a bank do the same? When forming an account, they add some default opt-out
service to "share" resources between accounts in order to help people get a
better loan experience.

~~~
bentcorner
I'm not sure if you're being facetious, but isn't that exactly what banks do?

You deposit money, banks go off and invest that money to do stuff, they give
you a little interest as "pay back". I don't think it's even something you can
opt-out of (maybe depending on what kind of account you open?).

It's the reason why bank runs are bad for the banks. They don't take your cash
and keep it in a vault, they turn around and try to make more money with your
money. They don't have enough liquidity to give _everybody_ their money back
all at the same time.

------
talmand
Hopefully this doesn't get people flagged as illegal torrent users by lazy
ISPs.

~~~
mikeash
I kind of hope it does. Nothing will educate people about the difference
between protocol and content like making a ton of customers angry by banning
them without cause.

~~~
nadams
> Nothing will educate people about the difference between protocol and
> content like making a ton of customers angry by banning them without cause.

When people think of torrenting copyrighted material as some sort of talent
that they are proud to have (I've meet plenty of people who are actually feel
proud/clever to torrent games/movies/shows) - they honestly think Comcast
is/would be a bad company for disconnecting them.

At an undisclosed university they had a wireless system which you had to login
with your university login. Students would login (thus giving the ability to
track usage to the individual student) and torrent copyrighted material (they
actually had to send out a campus wide email about it telling people to stop).
That's how out of touch with logic people are. To my knowledge no student was
prosecuted but if the RIAA/MPAA was angry enough I'm sure a lot of students
would have a really bad day.

My point being - they won't be able to understand why the ISP is banning them
- they will just think it's unfair.

~~~
mikeash
My point is that in this case it will actually _be_ unfair, and they'll get
the weight of the tech community behind them rather than just being silly.

------
CyberDildonics
Windows 10 is turning out to be a giant bate and switch for the average user.
Most people will not even suspect that their bandwidth is being leached, their
information is being sucked from their entire computer and their whole OS is
left wide open to whoever microsoft deems worthy.

The entire thing feels like a gigantic violation by taking advantage of the
average person's ability or willingness to deal with all the added complexity.

~~~
fit2rule
Yeah, I was sort of excited to upgrade my Win7 VM to Win10 .. but with all the
hassles and privacy violations I've been seeing reported, and now this - using
my bandwidth without giving me any control over it - is just the last straw.

I'll probably never upgrade Windows again and just let my Win7 VM die an
eventual death. This is not an Operating System being released by a company
that cares about the user experience - its more like an AOL CD being shipped
out to gullible users ..

------
mscrivo
Looked at from a different light, if we had more things like this, on by
default, it could force ISPs to remove their caps, or at least raise them
significantly.

I'd really like to know if the current caps, low as they are, are there for a
very good technical reason, or if it's just to protect existing old media
outlets. It certainly feel like the later here in Canada.

~~~
ncr100
Well - no, not in my opinion. Instead it could encourage ISPs and Microsoft to
reach a financial arrangement per-packet proxied via the consumer and the ISP
on MS's behalf.

------
ubersync
Another point to notice is, they are probably doing this to save money on
bandwidth, at the cost of the user. Commercial bandwidth connections are
usually at a "wholesale" price, and consumer connections are really really
expensive. They might be able to save less than a cent for every dollar users
lose because of this feature.

------
pointernil
Am I the only one having "issues" with Enterprises deciding to turn on usage
of MY resources for their benefit by default? aka opt-out vs opt-in? I mean
how much bandwidth and connected costs ms things to save themselves by this
feature?

Hyperbole: what's next? Making my machine crack some crypto in a swarm? mining
coins?

~~~
dangero
No I have a huge issue with it. They are making billions a year and they want
to use my paid resources for free and then tell me that it didn't affect me at
all which they cannot know.

------
cma
This won't go over well with people living in one of the experimental Comcast
data overage charge areas...

~~~
mikeash
I wonder if it's able to detect mobile device tethering. If not, it could
prove _very_ expensive for tethering users.

------
skynetv2
personally, the most shocking part in the write up was the 40GB data limit.
Isn't New Zealand supposed to a first world, developed country?

~~~
unsignedint
You'd be surprised how much of a limitation one has to suffer. I'm working in
just 5 minutes away from center of decent sized city in the states (well,
Bellevue, WA) and struggling to find a better replacement to Clear (that's
dying this November) -- though, in case of network infrastructure, I don't
know I'd be comfortable calling the US a first world. :-p

That aside, I've seen the same type of limitation in Australia, albeit was a
while ago -- their hotel connection was paid and was metered (something like
at 350MB), which I haven't seen elsewhere in countries I've visited. I wonder
if it's something common in these regions.

------
na85
Remind me again why people on HN are so keen to embrace Microsoft?

Seems like they're still up to the same dirty, user-hostile tricks as they've
always been since the 90's.

~~~
ctdonath
Actually, Win10 looks a whole lot more subversively aggressive in the quest
for "user convenience". Free upgrade! ads in you Start menu. Friends easily
join your secured network! by offering password to anyone who asks. Better
upgrade distributions! by choking your bandwidth and abusing data caps. Every
objectionable feature can be turned off! if you have any idea it's on, and
nigh-unto-punitive limitations imposed for opting out.

IIRC, Bill Gates famously sent a memo amounting to "you've got to be kidding
me" regarding user experience in a current/new version. Maybe it's time for a
repeat.

~~~
smhenderson
_IIRC, Bill Gates famously sent a memo amounting to "you've got to be kidding
me" regarding user experience_

Wasn't that about microsoft.com? WRT the download page? I don't recall
anything about him bashing an actual desktop product. If I'm wrong and you can
dig up a link, I'd like to read it. The "trying to download xxx" rant was
classic!

~~~
cbr
I think the email in question starts on p3 of
[http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/files/library/2003Jangat...](http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/files/library/2003Jangatesmoviemaker.pdf)

~~~
smhenderson
OK, thanks. This is the one I was thinking of. Bill trying to download
MovieMaker from microsoft.com and getting the full 90's web experience. Pretty
funny stuff!

------
talles
Why on earth isn't LAN only the default.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Why on earth isn't LAN only the default.

Because LAN-only doesn't save Microsoft as much money by using other people's
upstream bandwidth instead of Microsoft's.

------
osipovas
They have to recoup costs since they are offering this upgrade for free. If
it's saving pennies on CDN bandwidth so be it!

~~~
ctdonath
Thus I have learned to pay for software, often dissuaded by "free". The money
has to come from somewhere, and "he who pays the piper names the tune."

------
1ris
I feel this will do more for the open web than apples non-support for flash. I
think it's fantastic.

