First off, this isn't pure UDP, it is uTP. An optimized UDP for this kind of traffic. The goal is to improve congestion control..

"uTP, the micro transport protocol. This UDP-based reliable transport is designed to minimize latency, but still maximize bandwidth when the latency is not excessive. We use this for communication between peers instead of TCP, if both sides support it. In addition, we use information from this transport, if active, to control the transfer rate of TCP connections. This means uTorrent, when using uTP, should not kill your net connection - even if you do not set any rate limits."

For more info: http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?pid=379206#p379206

Register is FUD-ing again.

UDP performance of network devices is often rather poor, I think that would save the day if there was any real concern, for example I remember reading how they tested wifi devices that could do several megabit but for UDP only reached 512Kbit, no proper error correction is rather damaging for wifi anyway.

Am I the only one that never liked μTorrent's closedness anyway?

Besides, ISPs like Comcast aren't even planning on doing per-IP throttling based upon packet inspection. They're just going to start lowering the total available bandwidth allowed "piggy" users at peak hours.

uTP will have absolutely no effect on that whatsoever.

Wow, lot of network experts posting here. Having just written my exam, I'm not even gonna try to sort through it. I submit for consideration however, bittorrent often bears a heavy burden on network equipment because it causes hundreds of TCP/IP connections to be opened. NAT routers (such as the ones on your desk) keep a table of open connections so they know how to route things around. And I imagine that traffic shaping devices keep records of open TCP/IP connections as well. Since UDP is connectionless it shouldn't incur this overhead, especially on lower power home routers. This would theoretically allow "connections" (meaning contact, not necessarily TCP) with many more peers without incuring so much network overhead, it may improve the protocols performance.

Going UDP will only give torrents a short lived hiding place, ISP's will home in on that in not too long. I don't see the point of going that route.

As usual, it all depends on how it's implemented.

If uTorrent/BitTorrent actually winds up being less of a hog because of uTP (as the developers claim) all of this hand-wringing will be looked back on and laughed at.

The anti-net-neutrality, anti-"common-carrier" ideologues (like this article's author, Bennet) will hate it regardless because it's their hard-held belief that they have the right to do whatever they want to any traffic crossing over their network. And anything that interferes with that is "the enemy".

And no, uTorrent are NOT doing this to avoid traffic shaping, because as others here pointed out, that's a temporary solution at best, and the devs know this. They say this has been in the works for a long time; far longer than some more notorious ISPs have been "delaying" traffic to and/or from their clients.

According to them, this is all about reducing overhead and giving more power to uTorrent/BitTorrent's own internal congestion control/handling mechanisms. It's about efficiency and a natural evolution of the project.

What I find hilarious is the whole paranoid approach people have taken towards uTorrent/BitTorrent. First they were "sellouts" who were "working for the RIAA" and watching what everyone was downloading. Now they're the anti-establishment rebels who are going to bring down the internet with their wanton bandwidth-hogging ways; taunting network admins with their jolly rogers flying.

Too friggin' funny...

This *IS* going to backfire, and when it does and uTorrent is demonized YET AGAIN for screwing things up in the name of 'progress' (see also the uTorrent private/public tracker torrent sharing stupidity), I will be more than happy to bring wood for the public burning.

uTorrent has been working hard to give torrents in general a bad name, and it will come home to roost.

I think we're all missing the point here. The real problem isn't uTorrent or ISPs.

Should we blame the government, or blame society? Or should we blame the images on TV? NO!

BLAME CANADA! BLAME CANADA! With all their beady little eyes and flappin' heads so full of lies.

Did someone say my name? NURMZ

I don't know what UDP ISP and all these networking terms are. I know Nehalem has four cores though!!

Azureus/Vuze has the option to use UDP too. I don't think the world has ended yet. As a DSL user myself, this sounds like a godsend(since autospeed plugins seem to be inconsistent), but it'll take a lot more than just one or two clients to have it active in order to make any use of it.

If memory serves, UDP is much lighter and connectionless protocol. Even if the initial surge of traffic would be rather high, would not the packet savings when compared to TCP traffic and it's handshake and verification of the destination and all that jazz result in a cleaner and faster experience. There could be more to it then just bypassing TCP traffic shaping techniques used by ISP's (but that is likely a major piece of the pie).

This will make uTorrent a moving target for ISPs and they will not like it. Have ISPs been tolerating torrent traffics in the past will a move to more aggressiveness make them rethink their position. Most will likely take more control over it than before, some may even want to start blocking it.