The whole point is for a host to get the file as fast as it can so another host can download from them instead of lower speed connections. For example...

You have file X which is ~5MB (5120 bytes) and so do 5 other hosts (all modem users).

Well if host HS (highspeed) tries downloading file X from you he is more in likely to consume all your bandwidth. Saying ~5KB/s is your max total (exclude Gnutella and other network traffic at the moment).

Ok

5120 / 5 = 1024 (seconds)

1024 / 60 (secs; also 1 min) = ~17 (mins)

That means that Host HS would be consuming all your bandwidth for a total of 17 mins. That really sucks.

Now lets see how many mins it would take if Host HS was swarming you and the 5 other hosts for file X.

~17 (mins) / 6 (hosts) = ~3 mins (2.83)

Thats a lot faster!

Which means if Host AHS (another highspeed) down the road also wants file X. QoS (Quality of Service) results will likely show Host HS as the best source to download from. Or if Host AHS swarmed he would be leaving one or two modem users out by connecting to Host HS and also finishing at a faster rate b/c of Host AHS's connection.

Quote:

therefore, it is not them who are responsible for having less upload slots. the highspeed users are.

Uhhh this isnt a war between modem and highspeed users. So just chill.

Quote:

furthermore, the current swarming feature allows highspeed users to swarm from up to six modem users and decrease the little bit of bandwidth that they have, while a modem user can only download from one other modem user. sure, modem users don't profit as much as highspeed users. but that also means that they can't harm the network as much. this doesn't make any sense at all. how do you think i feel when i know that: - highspeed users may swarm - this decreases the number of upload slots - therefore modem users (who hardly consume any slots compared to highspeed ones) are excluded from swarming - but the highspeed ones are still eating up my bandwith in order to max out theirs?

There is nothing you can do about your bandwidth!? Thats like complaining who won an election when you're old enough to vote. Its just something you have to live with or get a faster connection.

Quote:

if you want to ensure the number of available upload slots find better ways . for example, link the numer of allowed download connections to the number of upload slots. so a user who has allowed no more than 5 simultaneous uploads should not have more than 5 connections to simultaneously download from.

There should be no restriction from who you can download from. Why dont we just get the RIAA and MPAA to regulate the Gnutella network. I think most people follow that suggestion anyways. I dont try downloading from 20 different Hosts simultaneously. My bandwidth say ~100KB/s would be cut down to 5KB/s a download. Thats not very efficient if I wanted the file at that very instance. Same will modem users, you dont try to have 5 downloads simultaneously and expect to be able to load a webpage within 30-60 seconds.. Even if the bandwidth gets so slow the connection will timeout or the downloader will cancel. So what you have stated is pretty much already active among the gnutella community.

Quote:

the way it is is not peer to peer at all. it is next to exploiting modem users. on a p2p network, either everyone should be allowed to benefit from swarming, or noone should. -- awaiting comments

This isnt Commie P2P either.