Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Proposes Self Regulation and P2P Bill of Rights
Torodung writes "In a recent move, Comcast has proposed a 'P2P Bill of Rights,' joining the ranks of every great monopoly when threatened by government regulation for alleged misbehavior. They have instead proposed comprehensive industry self-regulation and cooperation with major P2P software vendors as a lesser evil: 'Comcast is looking to further position itself as proactively — and responsibly — addressing the issue of managing peer-to-peer traffic that traverses its network, announcing Tuesday it will lead an industry-wide effort to create a "P2P Bill of Rights and Responsibilities" for users and Internet service providers.'"
Don't think it's just P2P that Comcast is trying to control. I've noticed that when I attempt large downloads from Apple (regardless of material, I've seen it on both iTunes movies and the iPhone SDK), they just craaawl along. (~200 kbps).
When I switch to the VPN at my company, the speeds suddenly shoot up to around 7-8 Mbps, even with the encryption/tunnel overhead, and still traveling over Comcast's network. Can't just be coincidence, eh?
Presumably it's just an extension of the old Upside-downternet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
Free markets are not ideal when there are barriers to competition. Thus intervention is needed to remove the barriers to allow the increase in efficiency, but this would not be a free market.
That's not multicasting. Multicasting is where the packet is only sent once, and multiple receivers get it. Caching won't do that because if 2 people request data from the cache, it must be sent twice.
... which isn't 'free'.
Actually it is a form of multi-casting if you think about from the right perspective.
Consider a web server X hosting file-x:
"Multicasting is where the packet is only sent once, and multiple receivers get it"
From web server X, we have "multi-casting". It sent file-x only once, and multiple receivers got it.
Its true more locally to the ISP it had to replicate that packet for each receiver that got it. But then again, isn't that what a router does if it multi-casts to different subnets?
I agree its not really 'multi-cast' but it does deliver a lot of the same benefits, and its store and forward mode of operation gives it timeshifting advantages. It doesn't have deliver the packet simultaneously, it can deliver them when the clients want them.
The main thing is that from an ISPs point of view, bandwidth goes DOWN because now when people want a piece of something they can often get it from the cache which isn't nearly as 'costly' as getting it from another subscriber (choking the very limited upstream on the last mile) or from another ISP
The trouble with caching though is that it would be a minefield from liability perspective to the likes of the RIAA/MPAA and anyone else who is being 'victimized' by p2p.
Something like the competition we see between UPS, FedEx, DHL? They each own their own roads and airports from point to point, oh wait, hey they are using municipal roads and airports to operate their delivery equipment and provide a competitive service in a free market. What a concept, now lets apply it to the monopolies you just mentioned to they too can compete in a free market.
burnin
> Private schools can easily provide access that is "as fair and public" as public school. Just give them the same tax dollars public schools are given - it's called a "voucher program."
You call it a "voucher program" I call it immediately inflated prices to cash in on government handouts. No one knows how to cash in on government money like private business.
> Now, I'd like you to cite an example where government services anywhere have outperformed any competitive, private-sector service. Amtrak would be a "great" place to start.
Public schools, even when woefully underfunded as they are now, have always outperformed private schools.
Additionally, most of the 37 countries that rank higher than the US in terms of quality of service with regards to the healthcare industries, are public systems (socialized medicine). Many of them are privately run, and government funded (like single payer systems), and can rank near the top - despite most of them costing far less per capita, than the US's completely private system.
To again attempt to build some common ground, I have no problem with government hiring private companies to provide public services (single payer healthcare for example). That's just effective governance - when used appropriately - one type fix doesn't work for every situation - privately contracted bridge maintenance contracts, like they did with the Brooklyn bridge recently, don't work out well.
http://www.unfocus.com/
Thanks for playing, you might want to actually read this time.
"Any company can buy out competition if the competition is willing to pay. So what? If group A wants to freely trade X amount of property that it rightly owns, to group B in exchange for Y compensation, what right does anyone have to stop them? On the same token, nobody has the right to stop group C from coming into existence and providing a competing service."
This is a non-point and I do not, and never have tried to argue it. The statements were:
1. ""How did it become a monopoly in the first place?"
A1. They used valid legal practices and shrewd business planning like any other successfull company to grow market share.
A2. They used the market share to leverage other competitors out of business, also legal and a regular business practice.
A3. They were left the only company to choose in an area because of the startup costs to compete with such a large company that has the numbers on their side. They can charge people less and less if they want to. Since they have such a large market share they have so many customers their operating costs are exponentially low. Less per user.
2. "What stops another company from springing up to provide cable internet services for cheaper?"
A1. The existing company being able to undercut the competition from established recurring income.
A2. The existing company already having recouped their startup costs (cables) and therefore having more available resources.
3. "So the monopoly is with the cable lines? And what stops another company from supplying their own lines - you guessed it, government regulation."
A1. Again you use no actual facts or real logic to sustain your point. You just assume that you are correct. This is a logical fallacy since no actual connection is being made for your assumption of a direct connection between government regulation and the failure of a startup competing business.
A2. If the monopoly is with the cable lines: the investment is so massive to deploy a competing system over a large enough area that the initial output of funds would take years to recoup at a minimum with an "average" monthly charge. The existing company that has already recouped that investment can lower their charges below the ability of the other company to pay back even their interest and still pay their employees to keep their system maintained. This is called the market entrance cost and is there in some form for most business models. This is what keeps most startups from competing with the big boys directly. If they are left alone and not seen as a threat they can flourish, but if they are targetted by the larger companies they can be pushed out of business because of the flexability of the large company to undercut their business temporarily so they cannot survive without further investments. Once they are gone the large company raises their rates again to recoup the losses and continues to leave them high since they are the only game in town again. Wash, rinse, repeat.
So if you've enjoyed playing, cite your assinine assumptions about govt corruption or shut up. You're trying to argue that standard market forces don't exist, or don't effect things as much as some unknown government practice heretofore unseen to the business realm, and that it is conspiring to bring down small businesses with secret laws and actions you can't name. Please.
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
gov't incompetance v. company greed == monopoly v. multiple choice.
While governments and corporations equally suck, with government you are stuck with a monopoly. With corporations you can dump JCpenney and shop Sears. Or dump Sears and shop Target instead. Or...
So gov't monoply corporate multiple choice
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.