ISPs Say P4P Negates Need for Net Neutrality Regs

Donut hole hole writes "AT&T and Comcast are using recent successful P2P trials to argue to the FCC that there's no need for strong traffic management or net neutrality rules. 'Comcast's statement, filed with the FCC on April 9th, hails an announcement by P2P developer Pando Networks that its experiments with P4P technology on a wide variety of U.S. broadband networks have boosted delivery speeds by up to 235 percent. This news, Comcast vice president Kathryn A. Zachem wrote to the Commission, "provides further proof that policymakers have been right to rely on marketplace forces, rather than government regulation, to govern the evolution of Internet services."' Looks like Comcast only likes P2P technology when it can be used to serve its political and regulatory agenda."

Comments

Re:Can the Gov't regulate?

[geekoid]

Yes, and it doesn't redefine itself every 18 months. Don't confuse new buzzwords and marketing for marginally faster speeds as 'redefining the industry'

Re:p4p means

[Zerth]

"we're still using the old style internet with government and corporate controlled DNS root servers?"

Speak for yourself! From where I'm at, microsoft.com resolves to a porn tracker and most .gov sites are random ytmnd subdomains. I may be my DNS root mainly because my ISP's DNS is completely flaky, but being able to choose how URLs resolve is rather handy when some company streisands themselves by convincing Randumb J Judge to revoke the domain name of a website they don't like.

400% - someone explain the math to me

[dwater]

Sorry, but it's been too long since my maths classes at school.

I read this,

"According to the study, redoing the P2P into what they call P4P can reduce the number of 'hops' by an average of 400%."

and am confused. Surely reducing a number by 100% brings it to zero. What does reducing a number by 400% mean?

10 becomes -30?