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.'"

Comments

Re:Exactly.

[vux984]

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.

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 ... which isn't 'free'.

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.

Re:Government Monopoly == Bad solution

[burnin1965]

>>>"lines should be owned by the state or local municipalities" ...

introduce competition between multiple companies (i.e. have Comcast, Time-Warner, and Cox all competing to supply television/internet to your home). A free market solution is preferable to a poorly-run, poorly-managed government monopoly.

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