Verizon, Comcast Say They Are P2P Friendly 158
An anonymous reader writes "Verizon and Comcast announced they will not 'block or throttle Internet traffic delivered via peer-to-peer networks' — essentially proclaiming that they are now P2P friendly. The decision came as a result of a test conducted with Verizon and Pando Networks, testing the benefits of a P2P/ISP partnership. During the test, the amount of P2P content delivered to Verizon subscribers from inside its network grew from 2 percent to 50 percent. This shows ISPs need to work with P2P companies to improve content delivery and manage traffic. Verizon also announced it will be looking at ways to use P2P technology to deploy new features on FiOS TV." Just the same, read on for one approach to mitigating likely tightening restrictions on P2P network use.
Another anonymous reader writes "RIAA/MPAA have recently been targeting torrent aggregators like PirateBay, because the aggregators are the vulnerable components of the BitTorrent protocol. A new open-source project to thwart such attacks was announced on p2p-hackers and released yesterday:
Cubit, a new open-source p2p overlay, enables the Azureus BitTorrent client to look up torrents via approximate keyword search... Cubit completely decentralizes the lookup process through an efficient, light-weight peer-to-peer overlay that can perform approximate matches. It performs searches without relying on any centralized components, and therefore is immune to legal and technical attacks targeting torrent aggregators."
Right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Right... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Right... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is everybody giving Verizon grief? Comcast I understand, but Verizon? To my knowledge Verizon has never throttled or limited any of their DSL or FiOS offerings. I've seeded torrents 24/7 for months on end and never heard a peep out of them. I run a server (sshd and vpn) for my own personal use -- they've never complained about that either. According to Cacti, in the last year I've uploaded 1.3 terabytes and downloaded 741 gigabytes. Not one word out of Verizon this entire time.
Recall when Verizon fought the efforts to subpoena the identity of one of their customers who was accused of using p2p to pirate music. Recall Verizon's statements saying that they didn't believe in content/copyright filtering and didn't want to "police" the internet.
I don't approve of all of their business practices (there's a special place in hell reserved for Verizon Wireless) but the Verizon Online guys are on our side -- at least for the moment. I don't think they deserve to be lumped into the same category as Comcast.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I hadn't realized that my bandwidth totals were that high until I looked at them right now. Verizon is offering a great service as it stands. I hope they keep it that way.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed on movies, though, which is why I don't do it.
Re: (Score:2)
I still don't get why the general consensus around here is that downloading TV shows and movies from each other should be legal. Can someone explain the reason of why it shouldn't be considered a form of stealing?
I won't even try to argue the point on movies being theft but I don't see why downloading TV is.
If my TiVo misses a recording that I wanted for whatever reason then I'm going to seek out an alternative source for that show. If it happens to be one of the shows that the network puts up on their webpage in it's entirety then I'm going to get it from them. I'll even put up with commercials to watch the stream from the "official" source.
If such a source doesn't exist however I'm going to seek it out on b
Re: (Score:2)
The piracy is another debate entirely.
Another point is that what your using that bandwidth for isn't Verizon's business, it could be gigs of Linux disto's, it could be steaming video, or it could be warez and piracy. It is between you and the copyright holder, and/or law enforcement, not between you and your ISP.
Re:Right... (Score:5, Insightful)
But you are talking about recent stuff.
Why...
1) It's over priced.
2) It's stupidly easy to download.
3) Most were unable to purchase them anyway (so they know morally that the artists lost nothing from them).
4) Many were going to skip the commercials (effectively "stealing" the TV shows) anyway.
5) In many cases, the legit version is harder to use/less user friendly than the pirated copy.
6) Entertainment executives and big artists are stupidly overpaid ($1 billion for Rowling!?!?) so people have no sense of injury or sympathy for them.
7) It's so corporate/cold that people feel no connection or empathy with the creators (and humans have always taken advantage of/ killed people not in their "monkey tribe".
8) It's hard to get it legally (you go to best buy.. you look at the racks, it's out of stock) while it's there on five torrent sites on line. You want to see it in the theatres or on TV but it won't be shown in your area until next year (Battlestar Galactica-- I torrented all of it before it came on SF in the USA).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Cynicism. When referring to large corporations, cynicism has rarely steered me wrong--though I'm glad to hear your experience with Verizon has been so positive.
Re: (Score:2)
though I'm glad to hear your experience with Verizon has been so positive.
Oh, it hasn't been all positive dealing with them. Verizon Wireless dicked me over in a major way and Verizon Landline is busy nickel and diming people to death (you'd think they'd be DROPPING landline rates to keep people from switching to VoIP/wireless, but there you go)
I'll never do business with Verizon Wireless ever again and it's not likely that I'll ever pay for a landline again unless I wind up having a large family or someone with a medical condition living in my house. It's just not worth pa
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha, you find me a (legal) torrent that will peg my connection 24/7 and I'll be happy to seed it for you. I primarily seed Linux distros, but they are typically seeded well enough that they don't peg my connection most of the time -- even with tons of upload slots available.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Prepare to be schooled.
I have 1.5Mbps DSL provisioned through Covad with Earthlink. My top download speed is right around advertised (~200KB/s, 1.5Mbps)
At the time I started my contract in 2001, I had just got done a 1.5 year battle with Verizon because they were charging me for the service on a dsl contract, but it had never worked. When I say "never worked" I mean not a single packet crossed their switch on my co
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
None of those stories that you told suggest that they are deliberately throttling those connections. Verizon provisions your line at the fastest speed that their tools/wire database indicate that your loop will support (unless you pay for a slower tier). If there are problems with the local loop or (more likely) the inside wiring at your house, then the modem won't be able to sync up at this speed and will fall back to slower ones and generally not work very well at all.
That has nothing to do with thrott
Re: (Score:2)
There's your answer--you're not doing it right.
Try and do that in a month or two instead of a year and I'll bet you get their attention...
Re: (Score:2)
Try and do that in a month or two instead of a year and I'll bet you get their attention... :)
If my connection was fast enough to upload 1.3 terabytes in a month I'd be a pretty happy camper ;) That works out to about 4Mbits -- so I suppose you could actually achieve this on one of those symmetrical FiOS connections. I honestly doubt they'd notice or say anything about it though -- anyone with FiOS and a penchant for consuming bandwidth care to comment?
Re:Right... (Score:4, Interesting)
Except I never would have been able to transfer that much because they have (had?) this nasty habit of conducting man-in-the-middle attacks to reset seeding connections.
For fairness I should probably point out that I likely had similar traffic numbers when I was with Roadrunner and they never complained about it either. I ditched them not because of limits that they had or may have -- I ditched them because I got tired of dealing with pauses and slowdowns when trying to stream live video.
I live in a major college town -- Roadrunner rocks during the school breaks -- once the kids come back you start to notice a real degradation of service during peak hours and even (occasionally) during off-peak ones. It varies depending on which neighborhood you live in but in some of them it's damn near unusable for anything other than basic surfing/gaming during peak hours.
It got better for browsing/gaming once they started traffic shaping/prioritization -- but they don't seem to discriminate between an http transfer for live streaming video and a non-interactive HTTP/FTP download or NNTP transfer. All bulk transfers suffer -- which makes live streaming video a PITA during periods of congestion.
Re: (Score:2)
After researching I found the wireless sucks!
It's not so much that the wireless product itself sucks -- their arrogance and anti-consumer policies are the problem. Arrogance in that they have the attitude of "It's the network, where else are you going to go?" -- bad policies in that they force contract extensions if you change your plan, keep raising their fees and costs and attempt to extract their ETF out of you even if you are leaving due to service issues that they can't fix.
My specific story with them: When they rolled out their EV-DO upgrad
Even 100% is not good enough... (Score:4, Insightful)
You see, 50% is not good enough from the ISPs viewpoint: That still requires just as many bits crossing the ISP's boundry as if the content provider used UNCACHED HTTP.
In practice, many (most?) ISPs use transparent HTTP caches, so having 50% of the data stay internal is still no good, as on popular files (eg, a big youtube video), 99% of the traffic stays internal for HTTP.
Even PERFECT P2P requires at least one outbound copy for each inbound copy, so a PERFECT P2P system will require 2x the traffic crossing the border when compared with HTTP thats cached.
Re:Even 100% is not good enough... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hell you could do the same thing for other non-P2P services that ISPs typically don't like customers using. Turn every account into a hosting agreement with various limitations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, if the ISPs were to remain neutral and simply torrent what their customer requests regardless of legality - and argue that they're transferring the bits as a technical matter and not in a copying/distribution manner - then this would at least make it easier for th
Re:Even 100% is not good enough... (Score:4, Informative)
Confirmed today: Comcast, Verizon (DSL + FiOS), Time Warner, and Speakeasy.
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon FIOS does not cache (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Something tells me that the "boundary" isn't a major issue for a Tier 1 provider like Verizon or AT&T.
Oh goodie! (Score:5, Insightful)
How much extra will you be charging us for that?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Tested this morning with http://broadband.mpi-sws.mpg.de/transparency/bttest.php [mpi-sws.mpg.de]
Still multiple resets. Yes, torrents do complete, but much more slowly than on my neighbors ASDL which has half the speed rating of my comcast connection.
So they lie.
I'll believe it when... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I'll believe it when... (Score:5, Informative)
I rarely get good torrent speeds unless I'm dealing with a highly transacted image. Like a new release of ubuntu.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now ignoring the fact that yes, the state of broadband in the U.S. sucks and 6 mbps being "good" is unfortunate, SpeedBoost is actually a nifty thing.
I had Comcast (Chicago area) and actually didn'
Re: (Score:2)
You're forgetting to add on the cost of your time spent playing WoW though and the subsequent wounds from your lover.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really fair; funny, but not fair. The "short bump" has a throughput that is higher than the speed you are paying for, and then it gets throttled back to the speed defined in your SLA. Comcast is guilty of many other shady practices, let's stick with those instead of resorting to slander and negative spin, shall we?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast (Score:1)
Bell Canada needs to fix their practices as well (Score:1)
Re:Bell Canada needs to fix their practices as wel (Score:3, Informative)
My ISP (Teksavvy) emailed me a couple hours ago saying apparently most of the Teksavvy staff is taking the day off to go to the rally so please only call in with tech support questions if it's really important.
That's pretty cool if you ask me.
- Andrew.
Mod Parent Up! (Score:2)
Bell even throttled Cranky Geeks to 30 KB/s on me. The throttling is horrible, and the way they are doing it, you can't easily switch to a competitor. They throttle the competitor's connections too!
Tip: If you release and reacquire the PPPoE connection, it appears to temporarily fool the throttling software.
Additional tips would be appreciated.
Cubit (Score:3)
And looking at the current batch of lawsuits, I'd say now is the time to start supporting Cubit in all the major clients (I'm thinking particularly of KTorrent...) So please work on it if you have the skills, and bug people who do if you don't (that would be me).
Re: (Score:2)
Throttling - Caps (Score:5, Insightful)
So, we'll move from throttling to arbitrary caps. Maybe after XXGB your speeds are cut to 1/10th. Or maybe (like my cable company), they can just say "Well, we don't want you as a customer any more".
Explicit caps? We can complain or not subscribe if they're low- I'm for that if somebody is downloading 300GB+ per month, using my node. But the idea of "Well, you downloaded 'too much'" is just as bad as lying about throttling.
Re: (Score:2)
" you have exceeded the limits" so i politely explained there were no limits when i signed up, it was explicitly unlimited, ad even tho the published AUP still says unlimited, but if there was now a limit id comply."
But they didn't have a limit, just kept repeating that i exceeded one even tho they couldn't tell me what
Lies! (Score:2)
Lying bastards.
The article meshes with my experience (Score:5, Informative)
It has been my experience that in some ways DSL is superior to cable. I remember when cable first came out everyone who got it thought it was great. Then their neighbor got it, and their other neighbor got it, and suddenly it became obvious that the entire neighborhood was on one shared pipe and a single bandwidth hog could ruin it for everyone. It doesn't seem like much has changed in the last decade. With DSL you can count on getting the bandwidth that you pay for but the peak available bandwidth isn't as high as cable. On cable you might get some really high peak speeds, but the cable networks haven't been designed to sustain high transfer rates for long periods of time.
Re:The article meshes with my experience (Score:5, Insightful)
The WAN technology doesn't make that go away. There could be any number of reasons why you haven't suffered any depredation such as population density, the profile of your neighbors, etc. It could just be that neighborhood hasn't reached saturation yet.
I used to have DSL and I found my connection would degrade noticeably in the late afternoon and evening simply because we had a lot of people in the area connected with lots of kids.
The last mile is just one point of depredation. The in-home connection experience is going to get bad. I would hate to live in a city and use wireless simply because of contention on the airwaves. Hell, when I first got FiOS, I had to convince the tech that the reason for the poor performance was because the Actiontec router they provided and a neighbors were on the same channel, 6, causing contention. I moved mine to channel 11, a non-interfering channel, and wah-lah, performance problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The article meshes with my experience (Score:5, Informative)
It seems like every time we have this discussion that someone repeats this half-truth and gets a +5 out of it. Yes, DSL connections are aggregated somewhere. But that's not the whole story.
There's nothing technical stopping a telco from having a 1:1 contention ratio if they deem it in their best interests. Contrast that to cable -- the only way to attain a 1:1 ratio on cable is to segment the network into insanely small slices or devote more channels on the coax plant to HSI services. DOCSIS 2.0 only offers ~42Mbits of downstream -- assuming 5Mbit connections (the standard for Roadrunner around here and actually quite low compared to other areas) it only takes nine people to completely saturate the downstream pipe.
Even without a 1:1 contention ratio it's going to take a lot more than nine customers to peg the backhaul connection from your local DSLAM.
As with anything, YMMV. I've never seen a slowdown in six years of working with Verizon and Frontier (a smaller telco based out of Rochester). I have seen them occur on Roadrunner -- in some neighborhoods around here it's downright painful when the college kids are in town.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it were only so simple. At some point, all your DSL connections are aggregated somewhere and that aggregation point becomes the bottleneck.
True in principle, but anecdotal reports (like the GP) consistently indicate that users do better with a point-to-point link to a switch at the CO than with a single LAN segment shared by the whole neighborhood.
Remember, cable modem service was piggy-backed on the existing cable TV network. I've read accounts on Slashdot of cable companies provisioning just one (or maybe two) SDTV (AKA 6 MHz) channels per LAN segment for cable modem.
Users used to be limited by 56Kb/s modems, and that constrained the conten
Re:The article meshes with my experience (Score:5, Informative)
It's voilà [wiktionary.org], damnit!
Re: (Score:2)
Words change. [westvalley.edu]
Get over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Except it isn't a change in usage that I'm complaining about. In fact, he's using the word exactly the way it's traditionally used! The problem is that he has no fucking clue how to spell it, probably because he's only ever heard it said, not seen it written.
Now, if you really want me to be pedantic about usage, we'll take a look at your sig:
"To do so" refers back to "leave out," so you're saying that you'
Re: (Score:2)
I am curious as to why you think I would want you to be really pedantic about usage. Is it sarcasm? Is it a thinly vieled threat? The profanity in the sentence previous suggests hostility, but for what end? What is the message you are trying to send?
My previous point remains; words change. Maybe not in France, where the language police have called for a national lockdown of their national language, but since this is english, I thin
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If it were only so simple. At some point, all your DSL connections are aggregated somewhere and that aggregation point becomes the bottleneck.
Yes, all ISPs have that very same bottleneck and it's typically extremely large. The coaxial cable running through many residential neighborhoods quickly reaches saturation similar to that of an old 10Base2 Thinnet network where if a small handful of computers are using lots of bandwidth at once the collision rate goes up and the available bandwidth to all homes in that segment (typically hundreds, if not thousands) find saturated links and slowed browsing.
However the "bottleneck" at the ISP level - the
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, they even lowered my rate, mid-contract when they changed there rates overall. Most places have a disclaimer saying new prices aren't for current customers.
So I don't understand where the hate for Verizon comes from.
Re: (Score:2)
Technical support is alright. They had some provisioning problems with their 3mb lines for a while. The initial provision was for 1.
Re: (Score:2)
They had some provisioning problems with their 3mb lines for a while
My experiences with Verizon (for all their services, ISDN, DSL, POTS, centrex, etc, etc) is that the actual ordering/provisioning process is a PITA. You place your order with one department who hands it off to another department who may hand it off to yet another department before it's all said and done. The left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing and some of the customer service people clearly hate their jobs and can't be bothered to even hide their annoyance with you when you run into prob
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon provisioning sucks, but it has been pretty much my experience that provisioning EVERYWHERE sucks no matter who you go with
Yeah and that's something that the telco's really need to improve. I've been around the telco culture ever since high school. I'm familiar enough with their procedures to put up the provisioning headaches. I also have enough contacts among the local techs that I can generally bypass the Business Office to get things done faster -- though I try not to abuse this unless I'm facing a service outage and the Business Office isn't being responsive enough.
The problem is that not everybody has that experienc
Re: (Score:2)
How much of that do you think has to do with the union culture in the telcos? Could it have something to do with the combination of being unable to get rid of positions and being unable to fire inefficient people?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't buy that as the source of their problems -- at least for Verizon (I've not worked much with AT&T). Most of the CSRs aren't unionized at Verizon. Most of the field techs are. And yet it's the CSRs that you usually have problems with. Beyond that, the tech support phone drones definitely aren't unionized -- and we all know how helpful they are....
I've never had an issue with a field tech for any phone company. Almost all of them are a credit to their occupation and will do everything within
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck the 'friendly' submitter (Score:5, Insightful)
When people buy a product or service they expect it to work reasonably. It's like saying that a car that doesn't anymore explode into flames is now 'friendly'... The word he so boldly uses don't even appear on the FA. Save your spam for eggs and bacon.
I believe in actions, not words and hope more people would follow suit.
riiight (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Interestingly enough, this Team Fortress issues seems to have resolved itself in the last week and a half. I imagine this is due to a Team Fortress update, as I did not update the firmware in my router-- but this is an extreme coincidence.
Re: (Score:2)
I ahve Verizon and don't have any of those problem you mention. Did you contact support?
Re: (Score:2)
I had the problem too and stopped playing TF2 shortly there-after. I don't know if/when they actually fixed it since I just don't play it anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a very well known issue w/ Verizon FIOS ActionTec routers. It was affecting at least 2 different versions of them. And if you want both TV and Internet over FIOS you pretty much need their gear.
Stupid question, but I've never had a chance to see a FiOS connection up close: Can you put the FiOS routers into a bridge mode and get the globally valid IP directly on your PC? The first thing I've always done with my DSL connections is put the router into bridge mode and run pppoe/pppd on my Linux box.
I'd much rather have the full power of iptables and the HTB packet scheduler [luxik.cdi.cz] at my disposal than use their router. I'd hate to think that I won't have this option when FiOS hits my area.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's supposedly a way you can use the Actiontec as a bridge, keep your TVs working, and bypass the overflow bug but it's a pain.
How do they plan on offering commercial services if you can't (easily) bypass their router and use your own? That would be a deal-breaker for me -- I want control over my connection -- not some badly designed NAT box sitting in front of me.
I don't recall which authentication method it uses, though I doubt it's PPOE.
They aren't using any authentication on DSL anymore. It's still PPP but you can enter any username and password that you'd like and it will happily establish a connection. One wonders why they even keep PPP in the loop, given the overhead of PPPoE -- probably in
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is/was only a pain to fix if you want both Internet and TV. People without Fios TV had a much easier time plugging in their own equipment.
I think it was if you didn't have TV and your techs hooked you up with Ethernet running from the switch box then you were in the clear (could use any hardware you want). And if they would only run coax then you could still use your own hardware and just keep theirs to do (I guess) auth.
As
Answering a few questions.... (Score:2)
You can also replace the ActionTec with any other router, which gets an address via DHCP. You just have to clone the MAC address or call Verizon to tell them to reconfigure their router to talk to your MAC address. I believe that some of FIOS TV's capabilities depend on the ActionTec router (e.g. VOD).
All very friendly and easy, if you know n
Re: (Score:2)
You can also replace the ActionTec with any other router, which gets an address via DHCP. You just have to clone the MAC address or call Verizon to tell them to reconfigure their router to talk to your MAC address. I believe that some of FIOS TV's capabilities depend on the ActionTec router (e.g. VOD).
So how does the connection actually come in? Ethernet? So you can easily replace their router with any other router or direct to a PC?
I'd heard that wasn't an option and they forced you behind NAT regardless but I found that rather hard to believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Fios has two inputs for internet-- one is called Moca and the other is ONT. ONT provides an ethernet port on the box outside the house. If you don't have TV, you can plug your own router right into this. If you have the TV service, the set top boxes need to get IP addresses. The MOCA connection is coax and plugs into their Actiontec router.
I looked at several possibilities here, one was putting the Actiontec in a MOCA to ethernet
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
--J
I call "Bullshit" on Comcast (Score:5, Informative)
Is BitTorrent traffic on a well-known BitTorrent port (6881) throttled?
* 2 out of 2 BitTorrent transfers were interrupted while uploading (seeding) using forged TCP RST packets. It seems like your ISP hinders you from uploading BitTorrent traffic to our test server.
* The BitTorrent download worked. Our tool was successful in downloading data using the BitTorrent protocol.
* There's no indication that your ISP rate limits your BitTorrent downloads. In our tests a TCP download achieved minimal 713 Kbps while a BitTorrent download achieved maximal 720 Kbps.
Is BitTorrent traffic on a non-standard BitTorrent port (4711) throttled?
* 2 out of 2 BitTorrent transfers were interrupted while uploading (seeding) using forged TCP RST packets. It seems like your ISP hinders you from uploading BitTorrent traffic to our test server.
* The BitTorrent download worked. Our tool was successful in downloading data using the BitTorrent protocol.
* There's no indication that your ISP rate limits your BitTorrent downloads. In our tests a TCP download achieved minimal 661 Kbps while a BitTorrent download achieved maximal 741 Kbps.
Is TCP traffic on a well-known BitTorrent port (6881) throttled?
* There's no indication that your ISP rate limits all downloads at port 6881. In our test, a TCP download on a BitTorrent port achieved at least 713 Kbps while a TCP download on a non-BitTorrent port achieved at least 661 Kbps.
* There's no indication that your ISP rate limits all uploads at port 6881. In our test, a TCP upload on a BitTorrent port achieved at least 1353 Kbps while a TCP upload on a non-BitTorrent port achieved at least 1403 Kbps.
P2P friendly. Specific protocols not? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read the article carefully, this is not about allowing unfettered P2P on their networks at all. They are deliberately obfuscating the issue. They leave the door open for blocking, filtering and "shaping" (ie. TCP resetting) any protocols they want. This is kind of like Verizon Wireless proudly announcing "We are radio phone call friendly" when the issue is whether to support GSM or CDMA.
Verizon's senior technologist talks about "working with P2P companies", which is radically different than allowing anyone to write a P2P networking app that does (fill in the blank.) Then goes on to say that work needs to be done on P2P DRM.
All in all, the tone of the article seems to confirm that the fight for network neutrality is far from over.
It doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
In the final analysis, protecting aggregators won't matter unless we get genuine 'net neutrality. The ISPs will switch to a 'whitelist' of content providers. In other words, if you want your content delivered, you will pay, become a 'partner', host ISP banner ads or whatever. All others will grovel with the lowest QoS. This sidesteps accusations of throttling 'undesirable' services. Everyone gets throttled and will have to pay to get out of jail.
I don't think the big ISPs have anything special against P2P services (that they don't have against anyone else). They just want to extract money out of them. With big players like Google, Yahoo, and MSN, that's easy to do. There's advertising revenue that can be quantified and the ISPs can skim off of. P2P just happens to be a big enough consumer of bandwidth that the ISPs would like them to pay to play as well.
Sure (Score:2)
RIAA Illegal Investigators (Score:2)
P2P CDNs don't count (Score:2)
Robert X. Cringely once said that wireless telcos are in the business of creating billable events. What you see here is broadband ISPs desperately trying to do much the same. By convincing governing types that the P2P the public wants is faster fulfillment of
Effects of lawsuit? (Score:2)
Friendly yes, to THEIR services (Score:2)
If you arent, well too bad for you.
This just in... (Score:2, Funny)
And Bill Gates announced Windows is going FOSS (Score:2, Funny)
Sure thet are P2P friendly... (Score:2)
Riiight...Comcast (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They can enforce it and you have the option of canceling without a fee if you don't like new terms of service. THats it.