RoadRunner Blocking Use of Kazaa

An anonymous reader submits: "You should know that RoadRunner is quietly blocking the use of Kazaa in certain markets. Particularly in Texas, they have some sort of port scanner in place which scans for Kazaa activity and then disables use of that port, rendering the program completely useless. Grokster, iMesh, and all other FastTrack programs are similarly affected. Yet RoadRunner is not disclosing the practice in any way. Not only that, I'm troubled by the possibility of them arbitrarily choosing to block other programs in the future. If this becomes more widespread, they will have many angry (and former) customers." The poster provides these four links to forum postings with more information: one; two; three; four.

Comments

This isn't uncommon

[Anonymous Coward]

and people will bend over and take it. Don't think that just because we don't like it, people won't take what the monopolies give them

What to do???

[msaulters]

As a user of Roadrunner in Austin, I don't see that I have much choice. Yeah, I can dump them, but then who do I use for high-speed access? DSL is priced higher, has terrible performance in the area. In fact, most of the DSL users I know have switched to Roadrunner. On the other hand, if they start blocking all the programs that make high-speed access worthwhile, there's not much point in paying $40/month to use it.

Re:What to do???

[kurowski]

what do you mean you don't have "much" of a choice? you have the quintisential (sp?) choice of the consumer: cheap, fast access through an isp with poor service, or more expensive, slower access through an isp that doesn't suck. most americans seem to go for the numbers- less money and more speed must be good, right? well, just keep thinking that way while you watch the utility of your net connection degrade until it's only good for viewing banner ads. then you'll regret the fact that the competition has gone under since nobody appreciates quality service...

not much of a choice... sheesh!

Re:What to do???

[jandrese]

Often times the choice isn't between Cable and DSL, rather the choice is between Cable and Modem/T1/ISDN. Modem is of course almost unacceptably slow for people who become accustomed to Cablemodem speeds (or even dorm ethernet speed). ISDN and T1 tend to be priced in the stratosphere (and ISDN is frequently only somewhat faster than modem and priced per megabyte and minute.)

I know locally if ComCast wants to start screwing it's customers even worse than usual the only choice we'll have is to go back to modem. In case anybody has any illusions let me spell it out: modem sucks. I don't want to loose my cablemodem, and I don't know what I'll do if I start getting screwed too hard.

Re:What to do???

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

you get what you pay for. i pay 15-20 bucks more for my DSL line than i would normally have to, simply because i -love- the service they have constantly provided. and, they make it clear that hosting my own webserver is okay. yeah, maybe i only download at 100K/s, but that's the same speed i get 24/7, and when something goes down, i make a phone call and it is fixed pronto (and usually Verizon's fault, not my ISP's).

as for all the people complaining... uh, DUH. you are buying broadband from a cable company, which also owns a large motion picture company and a record label (among other things). did you REALLY think they wouldn't shut down file sharing?

"angry ex-customers"

[John_Booty]

True, but they don't really care about losing file-sharing customers. They eat up a disproportionate amount of the bandwidth, and they probably lose money on most of these customers.

Now I'm not agreeing with this ISP - this action totally sucks for the reasons the original poster outlined. They need a more diplomatic solution... a slightly-higher priced service plan that allows use of such programs, or maybe they could just throttle traffic on those ports. And above all else though, they need to disclose this practice- otherwise it's completely unethical, PERIOD.

But the point is they really don't care about losing that kind of customer from a business sense.

Re:"angry ex-customers"

[$carab]

Parent makes a very insightful point:
Roadrunner is saying "fuck off" to these customers, and they dont give a damn about whomever gets pissed off by this.

Users who get pissed off are going to be the largest consumers of bandwith - that 10% that consumes 90%. This is also why ISPs block ports 80, 21, etc.

I fully agree with the Roadrunner on this issue. It makes a great deal of sense if you look at it from a buiness perspective. The number of consumers who feel so adamantly about file-sharing that they will jump ship is relatively small - an overwhelming amount of net users dont even know what the hell "ports" are. Oh, and Roadrunner wont hafta service any more of those irritating DMCA-violation RIAA letters.

Re:"angry ex-customers"

[NightRain]

Roadrunner is saying "fuck off" to these customers, and they dont give a damn about whomever gets pissed off by this.

The problem of course is that they will also piss off the occassional users of p2p software, that don't place much burden on the network. It seems a better idea would be to do the same thing that Optus cable here in Australia is doing.

Simply throttle the speeds on the ports in question. Low end users can still get access to p2p, and don't mind so much about the slower speeds, and the high usage p2p customers are still forcefully moderated in their usage

Ray

Re:"angry ex-customers"

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

If this kind of thing becomes wide-spread, you can expect an arms race in the technology. It won't take long for the p2p guys to come up with stuff that is able to dynamically change ports as often as needed. Eventually the ISPs will either have to accept it and work with it or give up.

Meanwhile, don't forget that cable companies sell other services, like television and in some cases telephone. Right now I get all three from my cable company (ATT) but I am on the verge of going to satellite for my tv. If my provider tries something like that, it will probably be enough to push me over the edge to DSL (which is priced competitively in my area) and satellite tv, as well as the old baby bell for my telephone service - and I am not even much of a p2p user.

Re:"angry ex-customers"

[Chasuk]

I work for an ISP in the Pacific Northwest, and we block access to all p2p file-sharing programs.

These programs {KaZaA, etc.) are blocked because the owners feel that they promote activities which are immoral and wrong. Yes, that _is_ the primary reason. If you can demonstrate to them that you have reasons for using a p2p file-sharing program which do not violate their principles, then they will remove the block for you individually.

As a beneficial side-effect, getting rid of, or limiting the 5% of our users who used these programs, saved us over 50% of our bandwidth. We are not weeping at their loss.

Re:"angry ex-customers"

[waytoomuchcoffee]

I work for an ISP in the Pacific Northwest, and we block access to all p2p file-sharing programs. These programs {KaZaA, etc.) are blocked because the owners feel that they promote activities which are immoral and wrong.

You are basically saying the medium is immoral somehow, without regard to the message. Given this logic, you can just as easily say FTP, HTTP, email, usenet, and every other port can "promote activities which are immoral and wrong". Hell, I would guess that kiddie porn is transmitted through each of the above protocols everyday, so why aren't you blocking them?

Why stop there? Most of the files transmitted through p2p can just as easily be sent through the mail on a disk. Why not ban mail?

It's pretty sad when your users have to "demonstrate" their piety to use a particular protocol. What ISP did you say you worked for again?

Re:"angry ex-customers"

[Chasuk]

If ftp, http, e-mail, usenet, etc., had been designed for the *primary* purpose of aiding and abetting thieves, then my employers would not be in the ISP business.

I am not defending their decision, but nor am I condemning it; they are following their own conscience, and I admire anyone who values principle over business considerations.

The reason I contributed to this thread was not to engage in a discussion regarding the morality of exchanging warez via a p2p network, but rather to indicate that RoadRunner might be blocking access to KaZaA for reasons that hadn't been yet suggested.

Not all businesses are run by predatory immoral bastards.

To further clarify, I have not expressed my own views regarding p2p file-sharing because it isn't relevant within the context of this thread.

Re:"angry ex-customers"

[Chemical]

The problem of course is that they will also piss off the occassional users of p2p software, that don't place much burden on the network

Wouldn't bother me, an occasional mp3 downloader, if SBC did this to my DSL. I would go back to what I did before the days of Napster et al: IRC - the original black market of the internet. The thing about IRC is that everyone knows what is really used for- porn, warez, and mp3s- It's just that nobody seems to care. And the best part is that it doesn't have enough mainstream press to draw any attention to itself. It's an all around winner!

Re:"angry ex-customers"

[Baki]

An ISP should not intervene in what is right and what is wrong to transmit/receive. Once they start doing that, IMO the ISP ackknowledges that they are responsible for what happens on their network, whereas normally the ISP is just a medium .

Also, if this becomes widespread, you can be sure that the filesharing apps shall be changed such that they are hardly to track to discern from 'normal' WEB usage.

Should the amount of traffick be the real point (thus money/costs being the issue): that is legitimate. In that case the only logical (though impopular) solution is to introduce limits on monthly bandwidth usage, and have the cusomer pay per amount of data.

Re:"angry ex-customers"

[Chasuk]

I realize you are not the ISP you work for. However, while you are distancing yourself from their decision, you also said that "we are not weeping at their loss". You can't have it both ways.

When posting hurriedly in the middle of the night, it is often difficult to remember which hat one is wearing.

Okay, that isn't the only explantion for my "I/we" dualism.

I personally feel that sharing warez across p2p network is theft, and is justifiably discouraged. Let me add, however, that I consider it theft because consumers agree that it is. If you buy a piece of software covered by a particular EULA, and that EULA specifically forbids sharing copies with friends or strangers, then the only moral option is to return that software if you disgree with that contract. Whether you consider the contract fair or not is irrelavant, as is any other consideration (those who whine that the EULA can't be viewed before purchase, as an example). Virtually all EULA's contain such restrictions, so it shouldn't take a brain surgeon to realize that the Warcraft III EULA probably contains the same restriction.

I know that returning opened software can be difficult or impossible. If I bought a product which did not allow me to view the EULA beforehand, and I later objected to its provisions, I would first attempt to return the software. If return was impossible, I would protest to the software manufacturer. If they did not accomodate me, I would feel free to make as many copies as I could and distribute them widely. Consider these "spite" or protest copies, if you will, but I do believe that the principle is more important than the law, and, after attempting to right a wrong within the framework of the law, and failing, it is my natural inclination (and perhaps obligation) to ignore the law while attempting to change it by reasonable means.

ON THE OTHER HAND, the software industry does complain too much. The vast majority of software traded on p2p networks is traded by individuals who would never have bought it in the first place, but the thrill is in the collecting. As they were never potential customers, no theft is involved no matter how many copies they produce or cause to be produced. It is only theft when the software manufacturer has been denied their (due) profit.

I consider that the profit is "due" any time you, as a customer, agree to a EULA. You agree to a EULA everytime you purchase a product 1) with the foreknowledge that it will have an unnaceptable EULA and you buy it anyway, 2) or when, to you HONEST SURPRISE, you find the EULA unnacceptable but do not take reasonable measures to return it for a refund.

As I said before, if they don't honor their EULA by refunding your money when the EULA indicates that it will, then make as many copies as you want. Your obligation to them has ended.

But seriously folks...

[mark-t]

How many people use Kazaa for stuff that's legal that couldn't be obtained through other avenues? I've yet to find even one.

Napster was actually used legally by some people (albeit a far cry from the majority), I've never met anyone who's used Kazaa for anything but media piracy.

Is this really wrong

[ViceClown]

Im not trying to troll or draw flames but by the letter of the law - trading copy-writed music is illegal. I'de rather have the music swapping services shut down then have the record companies try more wide-spread cd protection that would further limit legitimate fair use. Im not saying I agree with the way the system works now... but Im not going to cry when I can't use music-swappers illegally anymore.

Come on

[scott1853]

The discussions are the result of a single post saying it's not working. Most replies to the primary posts say that everything is working fine for them. Other provide technically inaccurate information such as Kazaa "slowing down" before it just completely stops and then attribute that to port blocking. How about some general skepticism here before ranting about some mega-corp stomping all over the end users rights. Here's one of the initial posts:

"The only way i can search is if i log off and on real fast on kazaa. Doing that i can get one search off. I resume downloads fine jus no searches. I'm running XP if that helps. Can anyone please help. Thanks"

Hmmm, XP, and it works for a couple seconds and then stops. Yeah, rights, there's somebody at the RR NOC sitting there watching all traffic and manually flipping a light switch that controls your port 1214.

The second post linked to in the article is of about the same quality only by a jumpy conspiracy theorist. I couldn't stand to read the other 2.

And More Happy Ones, Too

[kmellis]

"If this becomes more widespread, they will have many angry (and former) customers."

And probably an even larger number of happier customers who suddenly notice that they have bandwidth again.

P2P is cool in theory; but in practice people are using it merely to move around huge pirated mp3s and mpegs and as a result a small number of users are consuming a grossly disproportionate amount of bandwidth. It's a tragedy of the commons. See previous /. stories on how this has already played out at college campuses across the US (and elsewhere).

I'm in Austin, and I've actually switched away from Road Runner to SBC ADSL. Why? Because, of course, the bandwidth I saw decreased dramatically over the years since I was an early adopter; and they were charging me too damn much money, anyway. I don't get a ton of bandwidth with my ADSL connection, but the service is more reliable, and it's less expensive. And so far, I've not seen any port blocking or scanning for servers -- something I've been hearing about from the cable side of the fence.

Honestly, I'm ambivalent about a lot of these issues as my idealistic and practical sides of my personality come into conflict. Ideally, I'd like the consumer's access to the internet to be pretty much like what it meant to be hooked up to the interent in the good old days before it became commoditized -- the internet was designed for hosts to be servers, not just clients or even peers. I should be able to run my own web server, my own smtp and pop/imap server, my own nntp server, my own streaming multimedia server, share my filesystem, run distributed applications, network games, P2P apps....whatever. To me, that's part of the whole point. On the other hand, as a practical matter, there still isn't enough bandwidth available for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to use their home internet connections this way. Yeah, there's a lot of dark fiber -- but none of it is the last mile connections. And some people are consuming far more networking resources than they are paying for. That's a legitimate problem, and it certainly can't be justified on the basis of a need to share files that are illegal in the first place.

Re:How ironic. I'm using roadrunner. Cannot downlo

[Anonymous Coward]

It's very unlikely they could disable your "Save As" without disabling all of your web access. Could it just be that IE is retarded? Try another browser like Mozilla or Opera. You do have choices you know.

Re:How ironic. I'm using roadrunner. Cannot downlo

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Sounds like you have a virus of some sort, ace. I'm using RR in Orlando and have no problem. Not getting a context right-click menu for 7 seconds smacks of a java script (you should block those for any site you don't trust with your wallet, you know) preventing you from LEGAL operations. I'd get a virus scan done ASAP.... probably too late though. If RR tried to force scripts that blocked functionality of software that I was using, I'd sue in a heartbeat. They dont' have a right to interfere with my private systems. In fact, since I frequently work at home in addition to my regular schedule, they'd likely be sued by my employer (yes my employer is big enough to take on Time Warner in court.)

So what?

[nizo]

How long before these types of services start streaming over port 80? Are they going to examine the actual packets to make sure they are valid web traffic, or do you think they would actually block all port 80 traffic?? Feel free to pick any port used by some other service instead of port 80 (or better yet, just stream valid html back and forth over port 80, with a web file sharing service gateway out on the net)

Re:Legality

[drDugan]

"""
Actually, I don't think you are. KaZaa is a baltant tool for copyright infringement--a reasonable man could very well find it to be so, and that means a Judge could as well.

An ISP is required to stop copyright infringement that it's formally warned about. Road Runner could be quietly blocking KaZaa as a preventive measure-- they're trying to figure out if the "lost sales" from subscribers leaving will overrule the legal costs of not blocking them.
"""

several points here:

just because people with lots of money can get laws passed, it doesn't make it 'the right way to live' -- you are cringing behind an absurd and unthinking stance of "it's the law"

these people running the large businesses are being dicks. they are squeezing people every chance they can TO TAKE MORE MONEY. its all about the money, and the ingrained definition of business to take as much as possible while pushing the envelope of human decency. Their dicks, so I'm a dick. fsck 'em I serve 800Kb/s 24/7 of all I can.

at its heart, the REAL ISSUE with copyright is that it DOES NOT MAKE SENSE to OWN information. if you look carefully, without the screwed up context of "business promotion" in which we currently live, then the whole idea of allowing excusivity of information is COMPLETELY ABSURD and
UNENFORCEABLE. The only reason big money buys/sets up laws to allow copyright now it to promote businesses (NOTE: not content creators any more) into taking more money than they otherwise could without it.

technology will bring down copyright. maybe not eliminate it, but certainly reign in the ABSURD notion of life +70 years or whatever unbelievable state we have now. These companies "suffering" from copyright infringement are FSCKING DINOSAURS and deserve to be raped by the sting of new technology. I wanted to puke when hollings bitches about our precious multi-billion dollar content industry that is just a short toss from a mass indoctrination engine. tell me one thing Sony pictures or universal pictures has done to innovate, to create something of value for our society. to make their product better. NOTHING. (well, maybe extra scenes on DVDs) The create content/crap. its information with no value other than the artificially created market of scarcity that is now GONE because of technology.

YOU (Planesdragon) ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. pick a problem. (really, any problem) this problem is that some poor sods in austin cant download buffy from last week. look carefully at what is causing the problem. HUMANS are causing it. some executive looked at the RR network and said, "hmm, I can be a dick today and make us more money." this is true of every problem you can name. HUMANS ARE CAUSING THE PROBLEMS. ... makes you think twice about the best way to solve the "world's problems"

Same Old Broken Promises

[NetGyver]

Cable companies complain that power users use too much bandwidth and thus drowns out normal to light users. So they impose restrictions such as this to curtail it.

Cable companies also said that cable itself would be free of commericals, however it's all i see now-a-days on the tv. Even premium channels like HBO et al promised in their beginnings that it would be commerical free. But even they have commercials. I mean, that was one of the big incentives to pay that premium price.

It wouldn't matter if its a handful of power-users who use kazaa or any other p2p, or those power-users who utilize cable modems for streaming media, such as music and video, which is WHY BROADBAND WAS SUPPOSED TO BE SO GOOD AT.

Thing is people, they designed a system, and promised you all you can eat for a flat fee per month. Around here at least it wasn't $x.xx per MEG/kbps, it was just like the 19.95 dialup ISP deals that is common place today outside of AOL, MSN and Earthlink.

What would the cable companies do if Broadband (totally legit) media took off with consumers, and people started really USING the bandwidth that is given to them? They'd start restricting just like their doing with Kazaa and other p2p's now. Same thing different usage.

I don't understand why they can't just cap their customers to X kbps and make sure everybody can reach that max and be done with it. At least then you have your limit, and you can utilize all of the bandwidth that is given to you.

I have Adelphia cable, and I use it well. However i am capped at around 60kbp or so, but every so often i can reach up to 90kbps to 120kbps depending on the time of day, in my case it's after midnight to the wee hours of the morning.

I haven't been sent any letters or anything to indicate that i'm a "bandwidth hog" (thank god) but I think differnet cable companies have different setups and polices.

Cable broadband I don't think has reached the commodity status yet. But I really dislike the "pay per meg/kbps" model.

I'd pay for the "a limit and all i can eat within that limit" model though. Just like dialup and the 19.95 deal, just more bandwidth and more money. None of those weird ass restricitons. I think that's what i'm getting now, at least until i'm notified and told otherwise.

I don't think I make much sense, but maybe i can make some change.

Either way - dangerous for RoadRunner

[iamacat]

If they are trying to avoid copyright lawsuits, they are actually making it worse for themselves. By censoring my online communications, they also assume responsablity if I send hate mail, download warez and so on. On the other hand, if they are worried about bandwidth - well why would people get high-speed access if they were not going to use bandwidth? I bet most customers will at least occasionally download audio or video. They can cap the total bandwidth and document the limits but it has nothing to do with what exactly I am doing - sharing files or videoconferencing.

and the problem is ..... ???

[H3XA]

oh no.... an ISP is taking action stop the illegal distribution of copyrighted material (in virtually all cases of Kazaa use). How is this a problem? Maybe we need a poll to see how many of the whiners are using Kazaa for illegal purposes - me thinks the will be a correlation between the two. Abuse a service and you will loose it - why is that so hard to understand ? - HeXa

Re:Legality

[ergo98]

My god, this has got to be one of the silliest posts I've ever seen on Slashdot (and that's saying a lot): In essence your argument boils down to "Their content is all crap, so therefore I should be able to copy it." How utterly ridiculous.

As far as the "false scarcity" BS: No, it's REAL scarcity because we, society in general, realized that without copyright protections a lot of things wouldn't get made in the first place. As such we offered up some basic legal protections for creators to profit from their work. You got a problem with that then either fight copyright legislation (realizing that, regardless of how foot thumpingly righteous you are about your insanely contradictory argument, that doesn't mean that you can write your own laws just because you disagree), or pack up and move to China. Enjoy your stay.

You really top off your argument with that final paragraph.

Corporate BS

[kasparov]

... if you look at is from a business prospective.

It's responses like this they REALLY get to me. I'm assuming that you (like me) are a U.S. citizen. In this country, so many people think that if there is a legitimate business reason for taking an action, then it must be justified. I can't even begin to say how much this pisses me off. Yes, I understand that businesses are in business for one thing--to make money. But there are so many more lofty goals that people should pursue. Capitalism is not the be all end all of morality.

What ever happened to people who started a business because they wanted to provide a service to the community? They worked at a profession because it meant something to them. When did we all adopt this middle-management company man attitude that a company is entitled to profit at other people's expense?

Yes, Roadrunner has the right to do what they want with their service. But if they are selling "Internet Access," then they should be selling "Internet Access." They don't advertise "Web and FTP access." But obviously it doesn't really matter what they advertise, because it's more profitable if they fudge a little bit. Well, bull shit. I've had enough. I'm sick and tired of Corporate America(TM) and their never ending pursuit of profit. Their are some things that capitalism is ill-equipped to handle. With more and more corporate mergers in the works (which equals less and less choice for consumers), it looks like customer service may be one of those things.

Re:Corporate BS

[thales]

" What ever happened to people who started a business because they wanted to provide a service to the community?"

They are providing a service to their community. Cutting off the bandwidth hogs is going to result in faster service, at no extra cost, to the remainder of the people using the service.

P2P is a cool idea, but face it, the vast majority of it's users are just trying to snag copyrighted material without paying for it. They don't give a damn about the Artist, they don't give a damn about other users on the network, they don't give a damn about any negative effects like DRM that may result from their activities.

Nice rant about companies persuing profit. How about the profit the "pirates" are making. Songs that would have cost them thousands of dollars. If they can download $100.00 worth of songs a day or $3000.00 a month that gives them a profit of $2,950.00 after paying the ISP's bill. Tax free. Funny how I don't hear them being blasted for being greedy little shits who only care about making a profit.

Re:Corporate BS

[thales]

BOYCOTT RIAA labels and you send a message of moral outrage. Boycott means you have NOTHING to do with them. You don't Buy CDs. You don't download Tracks. You don't make tracks availble for download. You don't attent concerts. You don't listen to stations that play RIIA music.

PIRATE music and you send a message of "I'm a deadbeat who's too cheap to pay for entertainment" regardless of how many CDs you claim you buy.

BTW, didn't you listen when your Mama told you two wrongs don't make a right?

Re:Corporate BS

[thales]

An AC wrote:
" Im a starving student. I cant afford 15$ cd's. If I dont download music I dont get music. They arent loosing my business because I dont have the money to give them any business. Im in college all my extra money goes to buy beer and gas for my car."

Oh yer breaking my heart (NOT). "starving" and blowing $$$ on beer? Kid starving people look like those famine pics out of Africa you see on the news. They look like the Jews in the Nazi camps in those pics in your history books. If you are "starving" and buying Beer, then your priorities are fucked.

Oh I want it but can't afford it. ROFLMAO. Music is a damned luxary. You won't die of music starvation. Are you going to claim there are no radio stations in your town where you can get a fix of free music?

Oh I'm a "starving" freelance programer. I want a 1967 427 Cobra roadster but can't afford the $750,000 minium they cost so it's ok if I steal one.
Sound stupid? So does ANY I'm poor so it's ok for me to take it argument.

Next time you sign up for classes, see if they have an ethics class. you need it.

A better idea

[Proc6]

How about the cable companies offering speeds they can support users taking advantage of? The cable companies keep offering faster connections, then denying users the ability to use the speed. Just give everyone a solid 60 kps or whatever their pipe can stand and forget about it. That's what DSL providers do more or less.

ISPs should not make service dependant on content

[AlastairBurt]

I think there is a case for mentioning the basic principles at stake here, even if they have been discussed on Slashdot before. They are anyway so important that they should be repeated as often as possible. Communications providers should not be liable for content and should not be able to control it. Anything else is dangerous folly.

Horrible crimes are committed using the road and telephone system -- crimes almost as bad as file-swapping, such as murder and rape. But the people responsible for the roads and telephone system are not liable for these crimes. To some extent this a question of practicality -- the telephone operators cannot listen in to all conversations -- but more importantly it hard to see how vetting telephone conversations according to there content is compatible with a democratic society.

But somehow, for some greater good, such as the protecting the five major labels' total control of music distribution, this principle is being abandoned for ISPs. I think this is a slippery slope. In a land such as the US, with so many lawyers and politicians susceptible to lobbyists with big cheque books, is hard to believe that other bodies will not want to tell the ISP's what they can deliver to their customers. I am sure there are other forms of content that could conceivably hurt some company's profit margins.

Even if Americans feel they have to violate the principle of non-liability of communications providers for some overriding greater good then they must surely build in some accountability into the system. Internet communication is becoming so important that the terms of service should be regulated. In particular, they should written in such a way that that ISP service can only be denied when the ISP can prove beyond reasonable doubt that some heinous crime, such mailing a friend a MP3 file, has been committed. Just blocking a port because you think that someone might do something illegal on that port should not be permissible.

In general, however, the principle should be defended that communications providers are in no way liable for what is being communicated and they should not be allowed to tailor their service based on the content. If file-swappers hog bandwidth, use traffic shaping to limit their bandwidth (and put this in the terms of service). ISP's should not be snooping on what private parties communicate amongst themselves or otherwise be making guesses about the use of bandwidth -- at least in a democratic society, which the US makes some pretense of being.

Limited bandwidth

[Mika_Lindman]

I am well aware of this problem. I know, that p2p software consume all bandwidth (even mine) quite efficiently. But still, I run such software on my computer.
But I quess I'm a little bit odd, 'cause this is what I do :
During the daytime, I limit my upload transfer to only 10kbit/s, and download is limited to 20k/s. This leaves a lot bandwidth for all those surfers and game players. And during the nighttime, I limit all transfers to about 50% of total bandwidth (we have 1mbit/s connection divided for all users). Haven't had any complaints yet, so I quess this works well.

I just hope that p2p software developers would make automatic bandwidth controller, which would change limitations according to clock. Would ease my filesharing a lot.

Re:That's why government regulation is needed.

[Arker]

When there is a monopoly, whether government sanctioned or driven by market forces, there has to be regulation or the consumer will be screwed.

Monopolies rarely appear and never persist without government intervention. Looking for regulation to solve a monopoly problem is very much like expecting the fox to keep your chickens safe.

Cable companies are wonderful examples. Monopolies created and sustained by (typically municipal) governments. Why do you think Cox (or whoever they bought out in your area, more likely) was allowed to lay all that cable across both public and private land, but no one else can lay a competing network the same way?

Re:Running a "server"?

[RickHunter]

Server clauses are total bull. They're basically generic "prevent any activity we don't like or find remotely inconvenient" clauses. Why? Well, what exactly is a server? Something that listens on ports? Ooops, you just banned ICQ, AIM, and normal FTP, in addition to countless other programs. Something intended to provide data in response to remote requests? Oops, same problem, and you've also just banned web browsers.

So, please, tell me. What exactly is a "server"?

Re:Legality

[martyn s]

NO. The point is we should reduce copyright to the point that it actually provides a means to finance artists. Anything exceeding that is unnecessary. If all art that has been created would've been created anyway had copyright been only 12 years, then there is no reason it should be more than 12 years.

Copyright is *NOT* "incentive". You don't need "incentive" to create art. People who are passionate about art create art because of their love for it. What you need copyright for is to *finance* art. In other words, the scenario we'd like to avoid is where a very creative person who would love to devote his life to art, cannot because he needs to hold a dayjob. The prospect of becoming rich does not motivate anyone to make worthwhile art. Copyright is just to support these people, not to motivate them. Therefore, I feel copyright would be much better if it were only 12 years.

Re:That's why government regulation is needed.

[fmaxwell]

Sanford or Yale, Business or Law... or both?

Since he was wrong about my cable system being a government-granted monopoly (via an exclusive contract), I can only assume that you don't have much respect for "Sanford[sic] or Yale" or "Business or Law" degrees.

The monopoly that my cable system has was neither granted by the government nor protected by it. In fact, the county government is actively seeking competitors willing to enter the market. But, since this is a naturally occurring monopoly (in that a competitor would be unlikely to win enough converts to make entering the market profitable), it is likely to remain one and the best that the government can do is regulate it to protect the consumers from abuses (much as they do with electricity, water, telephone service, etc.)

Want to see what a lack of regulation does? Take a look at cost of cable television after it was deregulated. In 1986, when the deregulation took effect, cable TV rates began to skyrocket at three times the rate of inflation. Cable TV remained local monopolies with no competitive pressure to restrain rates or improve customer service policies.

In response to the grotesque rate increases, tens of millions of cable TV subscribers contacted their Congressional representatives. In response, the House Telecommunications Subcommittee and Senate Commerce Committee crafted legislation (the "Cable Television Consumer Protection And Competition Act of 1992") to reign in cable rates which had increased 60% since deregulation only six years earlier!

So don't be too quick to agree with those who would bash regulation of monopolies. You'd be in a lot worse shape if there were not such regulation.