Google's Cerf No Fan Of Caps, Metered Billing Not surprising for a content-creation and ad company... As noted last week, the FCC's decision to sanction Comcast for packet forgery and P2P throttling is a little empty, given it it creates no new guidelines, doesn't really ask the cable company to do anything they weren't already voluntarily doing, and probably won't stand up to legal assault anyway. One thing the FCC ruling did accomplish (even if the industry doesn't know it yet) was shift the network neutrality discussion from throttling to caps and metered billing. Almost on cue, Vint Cerf, co-creator of the TCP/IP protocol and now Chief Internet Evangelist at Google, chimes in on the FCC decision and metered billing in a Google blog post. Cerf applauds Comcast's shift to a "protocol agnostic" solution, and says he's been pleased by the "tone and substance" of his conversation with Comcast engineers concerning their decision to only throttle the heaviest users (for a change). But after linking to Broadband Reports, he notes he's not much of a fan of caps or metered usage: At least one proposal has surfaced that would charge users by the byte after a certain amount of data has been transmitted during a given period. This is a kind of volume cap, which I do not find to be a very useful practice. Given an arbitrary amount of time, one can transfer arbitrarily large amounts of information. Rather than a volume cap, I suggest the introduction of transmission rate caps, which would allow users to purchase access to the Internet at a given minimum data rate and be free to transfer data at at least up to that rate in any way they wish. Reading Cerf's piece, it's not clear whether he's aware that in addition to Comcast's new, more tailored throttling, they're also considering 250GB caps and overage fees.
|
 | | Kill P2P, save the internet How about charge the customers for the movies they download illegally on torrents? I'm sure the throttling will be self imposed. | |
|  |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | Re: Kill P2P, save the internet said by ninjatutle:How about charge the customers for the movies they download illegally on torrents? I'm sure the throttling will be self imposed. Kill the killer app!
remind me why i need 20mbit download without it
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
| | |  StreetSpiritThis spot reserved for Xenu.Premium
join:2002-08-13
Roslyn, NY
kudos:3
 ·Optimum Online
 ·Optimum Voice
| Re: Kill P2P, save the internet said by dvd536:said by ninjatutle:How about charge the customers for the movies they download illegally on torrents? I'm sure the throttling will be self imposed. Kill the killer app! remind me why i need 20mbit download without it Well said. Bill goes higher, I bail. Simple as that. We have a third kid on the way and there's no way I'm going to be able to afford some stupid youtube video or google's magic and clothe/feed newborn + 2 other kids.
Thanks American ISPs. Squeeze more and more money, pile on more and more people onto your overloaded networks.. That's the American way after all.
.Rant | |
|
|  hopeflickerCapitalism breeds greedPremium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
kudos:1 | said by ninjatutle:How about charge the customers for the movies they download illegally on torrents? I'm sure the throttling will be self imposed. them thar troll'n wordz
--
Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people. | |
| | | | | | I'm always curious why some people are so against piracy? I mean, why does it bother you if your neighbor is doing something 'bad'. Do you complain if the neighbors have more sex than you? If not, then why do you complain if they download more than you. In both cases, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
| | |  NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | Re: Kill P2P, save the internet said by karlmarx:I'm always curious why some people are so against piracy? I mean, why does it bother you if your neighbor is doing something 'bad'. Do you complain if the neighbors have more sex than you? If not, then why do you complain if they download more than you. In both cases, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. I'll take this.
When that illegal activity is giving my ISP an excuse to throttle my connection and charge me exorbitant amounts of money for overage fees it becomes my business. I work for a telecommunications company, and I do not agree with throttling bandwidth. Engineers like myself and Mr Cerf know very well that freely available QOS methods can guarantee "user experience" and completely eliminate the issue of service calls from people who were being affected by heavy downloaders clogging up the nodes.
A vast majority of the internet startups that have been successful started and grew in the United States. Please point out a company that has a global reach on the internet that grew off the internet that exists today. And by this I mean video services and other advanced internet technologies that require large amounts of bandwidth.
It's not bad, it's Illegal. It's stealing, just like taking your own candy and stuff into the movie theater. You're robbing them of 90% of the profits they make. The place is run off concessions, and they get less than 10% of ticket sales.
Do I agree with how much money the **AA's suck up and give to the artists? Honestly the RIAA are the real crooks compared to the MPAA who the Artists there seem to do just fine making their millions while musicians and bands are forced to tour and sell t shirts to make their money.
Hell the music industry as a whole is less riskier than the movie industry. Brad Pitt makes his money first, not if the movie sells or flops.
Either way, I'd love you to tell your little argument to the survivors of exploding crack houses.
Past that, what the ISP's are doing is just grabbing money. There will be no incentive to upgrade networks and that in itself will depress the tech markets because they're depending on the networks growing. Right now they're growing a bit too fast to keep up, but even if the illegal downloads were dealt with, we still need to do upgrades. | |
| | | | | | Re: Kill P2P, save the internet SO, you are saying that illegal activity is the CAUSE of all the rate increases? I beg to differ. What the problem is that the ISP's are selling a service they can't provide. Why sell someone a 16mb/sec connection, when they KNOW the node can't support it?
Which, again, begs the question. Why do you care? If you don't like the cost, well, then go back to dial-up. That will just leave pirates and pedophiles (c), to use all the bandwidth, driving up the cost until it reflects the operating margins. Sure, all those pirates will end up paying $200.00 a month for a 1mb/sec connection, but that way the ISP's can still make money.
Successful companies? none, yet, quite simply because the internet isn't ready for it (AT LEAST IN THE US). In other more forward thinking countries, they have 10 times the bandwidth at 25% of the cost.
If the ISP's have no incentive to upgrade, well, then the internet will keep getting slower and slower. Oh NOES! The ends of the interwebs! Remember, the internet isn't like a truck, you can't just dump stuff on it. It's a series of tubes.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
| | | | | | | Re: Kill P2P, save the internet said by karlmarx: In other more forward thinking countries, they have 10 times the bandwidth at 25% of the cost. And at double the taxes to subsidize those speeds. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Kill P2P, save the internet Sort of like the government subsidizing, gee, I don't know, the Railroads? | |
| | | | | | | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Re: Kill P2P, save the internet The same government that taxed the railroads land at very high rates and nearly drove them out of business entirely in the 1960s-1970s by forcing them to maintain increasingly unprofitable passenger routes and refusing to allow them to eliminate duplicated routes? | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Kill P2P, save the internet Yes, the same government that sponsored a capital-intensive means of transportation to the tune of $4,200,000,000,000.00 *in todays dollars. Guess SOME people benefited from the government subsidies. And surprisingly, they don't want anyone else to benefit. Who could that possibly be?
Yes, the same railroad on routes where a single railroad has had an undisputed monopoly, passenger service was as spartan and as expensive as the market and Interstate Commerce Commission regulation would bear, since such railroads had no need to advertise their freight services. However, on routes where two or three railroads were in direct competition with each other for freight business, such railroads would spare no expense to make their passenger trains as fast, luxurious, and affordable as possible.
Hmm.. capital-intensive, monopolistic = bad service. Sounds a lot like our current information infrasructure. 85% of the people in the US have ONE REAL CHOICE for broadband. Guess what, 768kb DSL is not competition for 10mb cable.
High-speed rail in the United States is very limited compared to Western Europe. Amtrak, the only nationwide passenger rail carrier in the United States, has operated Acela Express trains between Boston and Washington, D.C. since 2001. These trains tilt into curves along the track, reaching a top speed of 150 mph (240 km/h). However, this maximum speed is not really considered fast enough for Acela to be genuinely called high-speed technology.
Hmm.. sounds like europe AGAIN got it right. They subsidize their national rail service, AS WELL AS their information technology services. What do they get? Oh, wait, better service, lower prices! What a SHOCKER!
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Kill P2P, save the internet Europe has better rail service, but it also has the taxpayer being raped without benefit of lubrication or even a reach-around. Why should SOME consumers (those who use the rail) get a huge benefit at the expense of the taxpayers in general? | |
|
| | | | | | | | said by karlmarx:Sort of like the government subsidizing, gee, I don't know, the Railroads? So, let me guess, you would rather see the railroads close up shop, right ? Nevermind that the railroads are probably the most fuel efficient means of ground transportation.
--
---
Eleven years of carrying The Clue Bat... | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Kill P2P, save the internet Where did you get the impression I thought it was a BAD thing? It's a GOOD thing, just like building the communications infrastructure in the US would be a GOOD thing.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
|
| | | | | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| said by karlmarx:Sort of like the government subsidizing, gee, I don't know, the Railroads? Or bailing out mortgage companies...
.... or providing zillions in tax breaks and incentives to multibillion dollar corporations like ADM... Exxon.. etc
heh... you get my point.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| | | | | ~snip~ "Engineers like myself and Mr Cerf know very well that freely available QOS methods can guarantee "user experience" and completely eliminate the issue of service calls from people who were being affected by heavy downloaders clogging up the nodes." ~snip~
Uh oh, there's QOS again. | |
| | | |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | That's about the best response to that kind of question that I've heard given. Nicely done. | |
| | | | | | Copyright infringement is not theft.
Music is tiny, and a thousand songs uses the same bandwidth as one legal online video rental.
So called "illegal" movie downloads are the same size as legal movie downloads. So there is no way to argue "illegal" movies causes more strain than legal ones. Because if people can't download movies for free, they are going to spend 20 bucks a month and download an HD movie every other day legally.
»AT&T Backbone Sees 20% P2P Drop
quote:
AT&T says that as of June, AT&T traffic was about 1/3 Web (non video/audio streams), 1/3 Web video/audio streams, and 1/5 P2P
So at best removing "illegal" downloads overnight drops usage by 20%. But most of those people will just move on to other download services and that will just bump up the "web video/audio" category to 1/2.
The fact is that stopping "illegal" downloads does nothing to stop traffic unless you lock all those people in jail so they can't download legally. If you locked them up, than **AA gets no money from them in the future. And still loses. While Joe Q. Taxpayer pays for the trial and the jail sentence. Than someone who may have had a productive life is now dependent on welfare and the tax payer gets stiffed again. And imagine if one of those pirates had children, there lives are ruined and they become criminals that ultimately end up in jail wasting more tax payer money. Its just best for everyone if the media companies just work on offering services that are better than free downloads, than locking everyone up. The porn industry seems to be doing fine without suing people.
ISPs are also full of crap. Bandwidth entering the internet is paid for by content providers. ISPs pay nothing to receive traffic. And the costs of transmitting over the last mile per megabyte is zero. The network is either up or down. It works or it doesn't. People pay a monthly fee to keep this connection on or they don't and it is turned off. The googles and microsofts out there are paying for the internet backbones and ISPs want to charge an extra fee purely for profit and not to fund making the internet faster. | |
| | | | |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Kill P2P, save the internet said by insomniac84:Copyright infringement is not theft. That's like saying the hacker who store $100,000 from a bank using a computer is less bad that the bank robber who used a gun and stole $100,000.
Sure he's less "bad" in the sense he didn't threaten anyone, and I guess one can be nuanced and try to finesse the differences out. In the end they booth still took something that didn't belong to them.
If you want another analogy. Tehcnically a 40 year old would get less time for having "relations" with a willing 16 1/2 year old girl than he would if she was 12( willing or not ), because technically it's not as "bad" under the law. In the end he's still a pedo no matter how you wish to flesh the difference out. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Kill P2P, save the internet said by BF69:That's like saying the hacker who store $100,000 from a bank using a computer is less bad that the bank robber who used a gun and stole $100,000. No it's the law. Copyright infringement is not theft. | |
|
| | | | Bill03Premium
join:2007-11-26
Richmond, VA | said by insomniac84:ISPs are also full of crap. Bandwidth entering the internet is paid for by content providers. ISPs pay nothing to receive traffic. And the costs of transmitting over the last mile per megabyte is zero. The network is either up or down. It works or it doesn't. People pay a monthly fee to keep this connection on or they don't and it is turned off. The googles and microsofts out there are paying for the internet backbones and ISPs want to charge an extra fee purely for profit and not to fund making the internet faster. But they have to pay for the infrastructure to give you the last mile. They have to pay for your link to the Internet and the installation of all the network gear necessary to connect you to that link. Those buildings with the gear need power and air conditioning. They need to pay people to keep that gear maintained. They need to add more gear as the customer base grows or bandwidth demands increase. I've put in networks and unless no additional users are added I'm going back at some point to upgrade gear. | |
| | | | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Kill P2P, save the internet said by Bill03:But they have to pay for the infrastructure to give you the last mile. And ISPs charge their customers a healthy markup over bandwidth wholesale in order to fund upgrades to that infrastructure.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | | | | | | Bill03Premium
join:2007-11-26
Richmond, VA | Re: Kill P2P, save the internet True. You have to pay the vendors for the upgrade gear. They want their money now. They won't wait until you get your ROI. | |
| | | | | | |  telcolackey5The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
4 edits | said by funchords:said by Bill03:But they have to pay for the infrastructure to give you the last mile. And ISPs charge their customers a healthy markup over bandwidth wholesale in order to fund upgrades to that infrastructure. There is a large misconception of what the costs are associated with bandwidth. The cost to carry bits is born by the entity that carries it the longest or via the most expensive areas. The last mile is a very expensive piece.
Content providers and CDNs normally carry bits it a few feet from their servers to the ISP router. This is why they (should) always pay for bandwidth. Believe it or not, they actually pay for usage as the more they send the higher the costs (regardless of what Vince Cerf thinks about usage costs-- who does he work for  )
An ISP may or may not carry it a long distance depending on where it is destined. If the packets are destined for another carrier they will dump it at the nearest peering point (cheap/high margin). If they have the end customer, they may carry it a long distance (even internationally) where these costs are more, BUT, that ISP MAY be paid on both sides of the packet.
Large broadband ISPs have the biggest cost as many have backbones (AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, TimeWarner, Cox, etc) and they carry it through the metro and the last mile. A few scenarios are important here:
•If you have both sides of the packet, this pays for the long distance you carry bandwidth
•If you have one side (content) you get paid on usage (typically good) and may turn it quick at a peering point… and dump all the costs on the broadband ISP (not good for them). But if you only have content you will get de-peered (e.g. Cogent in the past, LimeLight)
•If you have one side (broadband) you get paid flat fee (ok unless the usage is high)
There are lots of scenarios, but generally you need to look at the packet flow and who carries the big bits (the return traffic for broadband) the longest. The reality is, "eyeball" networks with backbones bear the the largest capital costs when carrying bits.
Not sure I would call this “markup”. It is more the cost of doing business and carrying a lot of bits a long way.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik | |
| | | | | | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | Re: Kill P2P, save the internet telcolackey5  ,
My reply was to willyjack who was expressing that ISPs need content providers to pay them too in order to fund local infrastructure and future upgrades. In my reply, I pointed out that our subscription fees not only cover the bandwidth that we use, but the costs he mentioned as well.
said by telcolackey5:Content providers and CDNs normally carry bits it a few feet from their servers to the ISP router. This is why they (should) always pay for bandwidth. Believe it or not, they actually pay for usage as the more they send the higher the costs (regardless of what Vince Cerf thinks about usage costs-- who does he work for ) Vint isn't saying that Google ought not to pay for bandwidth. The Internet connects end points and, ever since day one, those end points have paid. And if you admit more traffic to the Internet than someone else, then you have traditionally paid extra for that. Google is an end-point.
Why you getting all down on Vint? He's a great guy and very realistic!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | | | | | | | | telcolackey5The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
1 edit | Re: Kill P2P, save the internet said by funchords:The Internet connects end points and, ever since day one, those end points have paid. And if you admit more traffic to the Internet than someone else, then you have traditionally paid extra for that. Google is an end-point. Isn't what's good for the Google is good for the Googler? There are two sides to bandwidth usage.
Back in the 90's commercial ISPs changed their pricing model to usage because the flat fee system didn't allocate the cost of traffic properly between customers that use a lot of traffic vs the ones that didn't.
Aren't we now in a similar situation? Why should I pay for my neighbors kid to download DVDs
said by funchords:Why you getting all down on Vint? He's a great guy and very realistic! Regardless of him being a good guy, his statements are partially agenda based. From a business perspective Google (the good guy) requires their bandwidth to be cheap to zero and also requires their customers bandwidth to be flat rate/cheap. The direct impact is on the ISPs (bad guys) who have all the capital costs of the bandwidth between them. Who pays who, how long they carry the bits and flat vs usage is an interesting analysis.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik | |
| | | | | | | | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Kill P2P, save the internet said by telcolackey5:Aren't we now in a similar situation? Why should I pay for my neighbors kid to download DVDs And why should I pay for my neighbor to watch ESPN? I sure as heck don't watch it, but I'm paying for it.
It's there for you. You can download a DVD if you want to. Or, you can watch the Olympics if you want to. Or you can leave your bandwidth idle if you want to. It's yours. You pay for it if you use it or not.
When television goes to switched digital, are we going to all go through this argument again because switched digital sends more (non-internet) bandwidth to heavy TV watchers?
And doesn't everyone pay the same thing (except for promos) for CDV -- heavy and non-heavy users alike?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
|
| | |  elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand
·Cybersurf Intern..
| Thats the spin, it's P2P thats causing the problem.
It's all the pimply faced kids downloading their latest warez or movie using P2P.
Or is it simply that due to a lack of investment on behalf of the telco and cableco's that is now causing their networks to burst at the seams?
Why spend money on infrastructure when we can just slow everyone down and charge them more.
Please don't buy into the P2P causing the problem, it IS one of the problems, but not the not the only one | |
|
| | | | Thanks for giving the pro-cappers even more ammo.
You're like one of those pro-lifers who blows up a clinic, just setting back your cause.
--
OASAASLLS | |
| | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by karlmarx:I'm always curious why some people are so against piracy? I mean, why does it bother you if your neighbor is doing something 'bad'. Do you complain if the neighbors have more sex than you? If not, then why do you complain if they download more than you. In both cases, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Are you stupid? Seriously. Why should we be worried if people are doing illegal things? You are seriously asking this?
Let me ask you this. What if 20% of the people that walked into wal-mart shoplifted and got away with it? What do you think would happen to the prices to those who are honest and actual PAY for their stuff?
What if 25% of the people that got gas from the gas station drove of without paying? What would you be paying for a gallon of gas? $5, $6? | |
| | | | | | Re: Kill P2P, save the internet If you STEAL something, the original owner is deprived of it. Let's say you had a star trek replicator, and you REPLICATED the goods in wally world. Would that be stealing? I think not. NOTHING IS TAKEN when you make a copy.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
| | | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Kill P2P, save the internet said by karlmarx:If you STEAL something, the original owner is deprived of it. Let's say you had a star trek replicator, and you REPLICATED the goods in wally world. Would that be stealing? I think not. NOTHING IS TAKEN when you make a copy. you=dumb. You are still doing something wrong AND illegal which part don't you get yet?
How about I hack into your checking account? I'm not taking REAL money I'm only moving data. No PHYSICAL cash is taken. So that's ok with you right? You're not REALLY losing $$$ just 1's and 0's.
How about sneaking into a theater you're not taking anything either. Is that stealing? YEP. Quit justifying your lack of morals. All I can say is karma is a bitch. You'll see. | |
| | | | | | hopeflickerCapitalism breeds greedPremium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
kudos:1 | Re: Kill P2P, save the internet said by BF69:said by karlmarx:If you STEAL something, the original owner is deprived of it. Let's say you had a star trek replicator, and you REPLICATED the goods in wally world. Would that be stealing? I think not. NOTHING IS TAKEN when you make a copy. you=dumb. You are still doing something wrong AND illegal which part don't you get yet? How about I hack into your checking account? I'm not taking REAL money I'm only moving data. No PHYSICAL cash is taken. So that's ok with you right? You're not REALLY losing $$$ just 1's and 0's. How about sneaking into a theater you're not taking anything either. Is that stealing? YEP. Quit justifying your lack of morals. All I can say is karma is a bitch. You'll see. LOL,people and their moral horses. 
--
Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people. | |
| | | | | | | | For the 1st one, hacking my checking account, yes, you are DEPRIVING me, thus you are stealing. Sneaking into the movie theater? Hmm.. let's see, you are depriving the theatre of the ability to sell the seat, so yes, you are stealing.
But, what if I sat outside the drive in theater and watched the movie? Would I be depriving the owner of a spot he could sell? Nope. I'm just duplicating what they are displaying, and thus, nothing is lost, a copy is made in my brain.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
|
|  maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·DIRECTV
| said by ninjatutle:How about charge the customers for the movies they download illegally on torrents? I'm sure the throttling will be self imposed. There is no real way to distinguish between legal and illegal torrents. Most linux, if not all linux distributions ustilize torrent technology to distribute their OS discs, several major MMORPG games are using it to distribute their game updates, and I believe there is even a LEGAL movie download site where you can BUY a movie, and use torrent technology to get it. (You can only connect to the tracker if you paid for it, that's how it works).
Granted, 95% of torrent traffic is used for copyrighted material, but that is not a reason to completely shutdown a viable technology.
Furthermore, it is not going to stop piracy. I have had a permanent internet link since 1994, starting with a 64kbit/s link across a serial-port connected cable modem as part as a technology-test group, and all the way up to about 1999 when P2P really started to take off, it was pretty common for pretty much everyone in town to have an FTP server on an obscure port. Someone got something new, and within 3 or 4 days half of the FTP servers had it, within 2 weeks you could get it anywhere.
Sure it's slower then torrents, but the people that want to distribute stuff illegally, will find a way. If not online, then offline. I'm sure some of us remember the days that warez-cd's were sold for $5 or $10 in highschool and at work, and the only reason they cost that much at all was because a single CD-R disc was $5, and the burner was a 1-speed Mitsumi burner, complete with caddy at a price of $900. Nowadays a DVD is $0.50 at most, and you buy em in bulk. A DVD burner goes for less then $50, and pretty much all PC's bought in the last 2 years come with one.
But the bottom line is that you really cannot stop online piracy. There are already viable technologies to totally encrypt torrent traffic, and although a lot slower and more taxing your cpu because of decryption on the fly, there is absolutely no way to differentiate between legal VPN-to-work traffic, PGP traffic, and encrypted torrents, because they are.... well.... encrypted, that's the whole point.
Because ISP's KNOW this, and they KNOW that they cannot stop piracy whatsoever, they are trying to stop it by simply imposing a cap. Encrypted or not, a byte is still a byte, and can be counted. WHAT it is can be covered up by encryption. HOW MUCH it is is perfectly clear.
The problem? Those who are using their bandwidth to legally generate a lot of traffic, are getting screwed.
At least 250 Gb that Comcast is thinking of is a REASONABLE cap. The 5 Gb of Frontier, and pretty much everything less then 50 Gb is a joke. | |
| | |
See 7 replies to this post | |
|  pspcrazyAnime Freak
join:2008-02-06
San Diego, CA | How about they don't because they don't know the difference between the two. At the end they'll end up charging you for something that was never downloaded lol. I can picture the day when virus' will download files with the same hashes as pirated files just to make the end user pay 1000's due to the isp's joke policies you seen to want to see added. | |
| | | | If I am paying for content, shouldn't I be able to get the content directly? Why would I want countless strangers connecting to my network? I want to slow down my network and put it at risk for no good reason? | |
| | | hopeflickerCapitalism breeds greedPremium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
kudos:1 | Re: Kill P2P, save the internet sucker!
--
Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people. | |
| | | | | | Re: Kill P2P, save the internet them thar troll'n wordz | |
| | | | | | | Re: Kill P2P, save the internet Again, why do you care? | |
|
| | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by ninjatutle:If I am paying for content, shouldn't I be able to get the content directly? Why would I want countless strangers connecting to my network? I want to slow down my network and put it at risk for no good reason? Sure, but if you could get the same content for $5 or $2 (due to cost shifting to the user's bandwidth), which would you pick?
Or what if the content is not hosted on a CDN, like many Independent films? Or what if you're the cash-strapped political documentary director wanting to offer your content for free?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | |  sivranBack to Opera againPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 | P2P doesn't slow down my network. | |
|
|  SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | Who do you work for? Seems every thread, you are bashing P2P. | |
| | StreetSpiritThis spot reserved for Xenu.Premium
join:2002-08-13
Roslyn, NY
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Optimum Voice
1 edit | said by ninjatutle:How about charge the customers for the movies they download illegally on torrents? I'm sure the throttling will be self imposed. Does insert isp here pay you by the message or by the word? Pirates pirates arrgggh derr damn pirates again!
GREED is driving this, not overloaded networks or piracy. This is a FACT. | |
| | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | P2P is not just for liberating some movies. Linux distros, the blizzard patcher, etc. they are all examples of legal methods of the torrent protocall.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | The days of the. . . . . $50 broadband bill will soon be over if those corporate GREED machines have their way
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
| | | | Re: The days of the. . . . . Indeed it may be. Moving to the cellular "guess how much you'll need and will bill you at a ridiculously high rate if you go over" system seems like the direction they want to go.
Last I read these companies were doing quite well. This is about MAXIMIZING PROFIT which is very far from being unprofitable. These companies should try being in the airline's shoes for a while. | |
|
 BabyBearKeep wise ...with Nite-Owl
join:2007-01-11 | Google it! Ok Google here's your chance to be a WiMax (or something else) ISP. Then you can uncap us, provide some kicks in the ass to the AT&T's and Comcast's of the world. Perhaps drive down broadband prices? Adopt your own version of NebuAd packet sniffing for tracking and ads?  Guess its better than NSA backrooms. | |
| | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Google it! Google won't do shit but run their mouth. They had a chance to be a cell phone provider they backed out. They could have built an ISP using the money they gave to the mesh network companies. but they didnt.
they don't give a damn just want their news in the paper and play "oh poor Google".
The day Google uncaps anyone and provides Internet is the day their data rates go up for bandwidth. Remember they must buy bandwidth too from L3, ATT and everyone else and guess who controls those prices? Surely not Google. | |
|
| | Build to handle it all! Well there is another way to think of it, If ISPs would either not oversell their network or build their network to stand up to every person using the connection to its full potential all the time not one person would have a problem. I do understand that it is a costly request, but think of how much money and headaches it would save everyone. I know I would pay more to have my full 10 meg connection at anytime, rather then being able to only get a full 10 megs at night. | |
| | | | Re: Build to handle it all! said by Singular :
If ISPs would either not oversell their network or build their network to stand up to every person using the connection to its full potential all the time not one person would have a problem.
I do understand that it is a costly request, but think of how much money and headaches it would save everyone.
I know I would pay more to have my full 10 meg connection at anytime, rather then being able to only get a full 10 megs at night.
And how much would you be willing to pay? $100/mo; $200/mo? Most would rather pay less and put up with occasional slowdowns.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|
1 edit | ... Google might have a lot to concern themselves about. While it may be common today for most to just fire up IE and go about the internet unconcerned, it may well instead become common for people to install ad blockers.
The very nature of today's internet depends on cheap uncapped user accounts. A per byte system will make people conservative about what they punch in the address bar, what links they click, and what is allowed to download across their pipe. Things like googleanalytics and googlesyndication are just but a couple of a huge number of unneeded byte charges for the end user. Not to mention, Nebuad takes on a whole new corrupt nature over a metered pipe.
But, maybe I'm wrong. People pay stupid money for mobile data and broadband, and cell phones. Maybe it's just us un-unionised blue collars with families that'll care. | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| | a fix I have a better solution, and that is to require websites sending streaming data streams to pay the ISP’s for carrying their traffic. If the ISP’s want to limit P2P traffic they can take a lesson from Japan where the ISP’s are limiting upstream traffic to 30GB per day. | |
| | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: a fix said by david99 :
I have a better solution, and that is to require websites sending streaming data streams to pay the ISP’s for carrying their traffic. If the ISP’s want to limit P2P traffic they can take a lesson from Japan where the ISP’s are limiting upstream traffic to 30GB per day.
You have no clue what you are talking about. Ok first of all 30 GB upsteream a day? Frontier only allows 5 GB PER MONTH TOTAL that's both upload and download. TW wants a 40 GB PER MONTH cap. Any ISP that had a 30 GB a day TOTAL cap both upload and download nobody here would even gripe about that.
Second, websites already pay for their bandwidth. Which part of that don't you get yet?
Third the whole issue of network neutrality is about whether or not ISPs can charge websites money to have acccess to their customers. | |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | This will bite ISPs in the butt The first time a bunch of politicains in Congress get their $300 internet bill for going over a cap you'll see this shit be nipped in the bud. Politicans are stupid so while some think this may eb a good idea. When the finally get how little 40 GB is and how much $1 per GB overage is tehy'll do something. When that $6 HD movie they downloaded from itunes ended up costing $12 they'll get it. When the 3 hours of suppsoedly FREE shows from Hulu costs them $50 a month they'll get it. When the $130 MLB.tv season subscription costs them an extra $40 a month they'll get it. | |
| | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: This will bite ISPs in the butt said by BF69:The first time a bunch of politicains in Congress get their $300 internet bill for going over a cap you'll see this shit be nipped in the bud. That's why their connections will be free. Or exempt.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: This will bite ISPs in the butt said by KrK:said by BF69:The first time a bunch of politicains in Congress get their $300 internet bill for going over a cap you'll see this shit be nipped in the bud. That's why their connections will be free. Or exempt. And that would be illegal and easily found out. | |
| | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: This will bite ISPs in the butt said by BF69:And that would be illegal and easily found out. How would it be illegal? | |
| | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: This will bite ISPs in the butt and how would it be found out?
BF69 must not know that many Government employees such as in Congress do not list their personal names on their bills. Just like local gov't employees are not allowed to list their names and numbers in the phone books. | |
|
| |
|
|
