Slashdot Mirror
Comcast, Pando Partner For "P2P Bill of Rights"
Bibek Paudel writes "Comcast on Tuesday announced that it would partner with Pando Networks to create a P2P bill of rights for file-sharing networks and Internet service providers. Comcast and Pando will meet with industry experts, other ISPs, and P2P companies in order to come up with a set of rules that would clarify how a user can use P2P applications and how an ISP can manage file-sharing programs running on their networks. Last month, Comcast announced that it had reached an agreement with BitTorrent whereby Comcast agreed to alter its network management practices, and BitTorrent acknowledged that Comcast has the right to police its own network. Comcast's battle with P2P networks started last year after the Associated Press published an article that accused Comcast of blocking peer-to-peer services like BitTorrent. Comcast admitted to delaying P2P traffic during peak times, but denied that any file-sharing applications were being completely blocked."
Wow - not only a very speedy Godwinism, but lumping Muhammad in with mass murderers and dictators. I do love a rational argument!
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
"All P2P traffic is to be treated the same as all other traffic?"
In this case "bill of rights" is a euphemism for "limitation of rights".
"That means stopping the things that zap their resources. I don't think anyone will disagree that BitTorrent does exactly that."
In some cases it, no doubt, does sap resources. But, let me ask you this - which is cheaper for an ISP: to move bits between users of their own network, or to move bits from other networks on the Internet to their users? Maybe I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that shuffling data around inside the ISP's network is probably much faster and cheaper than moving data across the limited links the ISP has between itself and other networks.
If I have 10000 users that all want the same data (say the latest patch for Wow - which I believe uses a customized version of bittorrent for distributing patches), I would think it would be *much* more efficient to use P2P to copy the data around almost entirely inside my fiber network, than to transfer that data 10000 times from Blizzard's server across an Internet backbone link.
If that is the case, I would think it would be entirely within the ISP's self-interest to *promote* the use of P2P, to lessen the amount of traffic on upstream Internet links. Plus, it has the potential to allow their users to appear to get much better performance from their 'unlimited broadband' links than the ISP can really give if all data has to come from the uplink, meaning happier customers paying $X/month.
I believe less than 5% of the US has this as an option, with most areas getting less and less options daily, with DSL prices going higher and higher.
In my area (Chicago), which is a very large metro area, you basically have Comcast or nothing else. Seven (yes Seven) years ago you could get full 1.5mbps SDSL at $80/month, but just like all of the local cable companies, most of the local Internet providers got bought out and dropped all of their customers.
Now, the same service is somewhere in the ballpark of $250/month, which is still somewhere in the range of 1/4 of the speed of what cable offers standard.
If the government actually did it's job and did not allow these buyouts / mergers!, competition would still exist and none of us would be having this argument today. Net neutrality and P2P would be a non-issue since people would just pick another option.
It's unfortunate people aren't educated enough to know that it's the politicians that are the problem, and that this will continue until we force them to change things.
Do people even remember when there was more than one option out there and how capitalism actually works then?
When you have a monopoly it is broken, plain and simple. We need to bust up Comcast, Microsoft, you name it, like Ma Bell and then things will start working again, and that will require different politicians in office.
But, this is really a pipe dream since most people just don't get economics (or care to educate themselves) and they'll keep on electing people who won't change a damn thing.
"...read through a 50 page TOS for details!
.iso's by FTP between 1 AM and 6 AM to get any kind of decent speed and/or not having the connection dropped. YouTube is unwatchable especially in the daytime, and even XMMS/Winamp streaming audio gets RST's every 10-15 minutes during the day and 20-30 minutes at night.
:(
Where they *still* won't tell you how much bandwidth and throughput your money entitles you to, only that you'll be disconnected for "using too much" and/or "doing something we decide we don't like".
One other point I'd like to make is that anger here seems to be mainly directed at Comcast, and as that's the particular provider named in TFA, that's understandable. However, let's not forget that Comcast is is only one of many providers pulling shenanigans, Comcast is just the biggest and gets more attention.
I'm on Charter HSI, and I regularly get RST packets injected from their servers interrupting torrents, as well as streaming video and audio. I usually end up having to d/l linux/*BSD
I might even understand this if I was downloading movies and MP3's 24/7 consuming 100+ GB/month, but I don't as I have little use for RIAA/MPAA crap. I use between 25-35 GB down and 400-650 mB up a month. I don't know who configured their Sandvine or whatever they're using for my area, but I wish they had to suffer with it themselves at their own homes.
If there were any alternatives in my location besides dial-up, I'd be a former Charter customer. With my luck, if a competitor moved in, it'd probably be Comcast.
Cheers!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.