 telcolackeyThe Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
2 edits | reply to Tsagoi
Re: Sandvine's MSO Case Study-Reasonable Network Management? said by Tsagoi :
Out of curiosity, could VOIP traffic be considered to fall under providing network content to anyone outside of your LAN? Not that they would try blocking it (and deny blocking it for the first few months). But that TOS is general enough that it could be quoted as a reason when blocking competition on their network.
I think Cabal answered this one pretty well. I think the issue with most broadband ISPs is around "public services". 1:1 voice calls or 1:limited gaming is less of an issue compared to 1:everyone services.
Let me ask the same question a different way and see what people think.
What if a telemarketing service found a way to connect to your Verizon POTs line, Comcast phone, Vonage line, etc, and use it to re-sell 7x24 outbound calls within your service plan (no additional charge) to their customers? The incentive to you is a small payment each month for this. The incentive to them is zero cost on their phone infrastructure.
How close is this analogy to p2p content distribution? For-profit companies (WoW, Bittorrent.com, etc) using this re-sold infrastructure for their gain (removal of CDN or ISP costs on their side). The incentive to the user is lower prices on the content (good thing, but similar to the "small payment")
EDIT ADD: The phone and broadband plans are designed around the consumer. This is why more phone plans are moving away from pay per use and many broadband plans have not changed (yet) |
|
 jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA | said by telcolackey:What if a telemarketing service found a way to connect to your Verizon POTs line, Comcast phone, Vonage line, etc, and use it to re-sell 7x24 outbound calls within your service plan (no additional charge) to their customers? The incentive to you is a small payment each month for this. The incentive to them is zero cost on their phone infrastructure. if it's within your minutes plan, then it should be ok. there's a bit of an issue because you are actually reselling the minutes for cash (vs trading directly). if you are just trying to demonize p2p by equating it with telemarketing, then my response, just like i stated above, is that it's MORE like allowing family members or close friends to use your phone to call their loved ones with your extra minutes each month. is there some moral problem with that? what about charging a stranger a quarter to make an outgoing call? does it make a difference whether you bought your phone rather than accepted it under a lease program?
espeth: pick a day, comcast blames their need to packet shape on something different. sandvine et al can sell their wares because comcast and others undeniably have some issue stuck in their craw. saying that local congestion is a red herring is not the same thing as saying there is no problem, at least from the evil executive viewpoint.
as far as costs:
1) i doubt carriers have to buy symmetrical bandwidth. if there's a demand, there is a supply. you can buy asymmetrical bandwidth at a colo...
2) even if it is bought symmetrically, blocking p2p disrupts both up and down.
3) soft savings are still savings, especially if the number of customers is set (like in a residential neighborhood with no other broadband access). deferring is more of a permanent thing in that situation. |
|
|
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by jig:f you are just trying to demonize p2p...then my response, just like i stated above, is that it's MORE like allowing family members or close friends to use your phone to call their loved ones with your extra minutes each month. Not really. I actually have shared my Internet connection with my brother-in-law, and vice versa. This sharing is accomplished by hooking in to our respective LANs. Both the 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' and the Comcast AUP/TOS/Terms of Use permit multiple computers to connect via LAN (as long as it is within the Premises, and not as a wireless hotspot from outside of the Premises).
P2P is making network content available to anybody outside of the Premises LAN; exactly what the Comcast Terms of Use prohibits. I am not talking "server", now. If you restrict client access to your BT client, it can't act as a "server" (I have conceded that in past post), but it still responds to tracker information about other parties interest in file bits that you have, and uploads to the interested clients indiscriminately (unlike your use of email, which is discriminate to your contacts; unless you are spamming).
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
telcolackeyThe Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA | reply to jig
said by jig:there's a bit of an issue because you are actually reselling the minutes for cash (vs trading directly). Incentives are incentives and boil down to having a monitory value.
said by jig:just like i stated above, is that it's MORE like allowing family members or close friends to use your phone to call their loved ones with your extra minutes each month. You relate it to "family members or close friends", but in reality you are potentially sharing your service with a business to profit from as well as millions indiscriminately on the Internet. That is the difference in the service profile: 1:1 (email like), 1:select few (gaming), or what p2p really is, 1:everyone (hosting). |
|
| I recall reading on some other forum, someone from sweden posted their TOS. I believe the connection was 50 - 100 mbps. I wish I could remember the link.
They explicitly condoned p2p usage.
Why would they do that?
What we have here is IMO the legacy of poor regulatory practice and profit at any cost mentality.
Choice of providers is not very diverse generally.
And yes we have more area to cover, but we also have more $.
And you don't have to wire up every one horse town in the west, but we could surely do better than this. |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to NormanS
said by NormanS:P2P is making network content available to anybody outside of the Premises LAN; exactly what the Comcast Terms of Use prohibits. According to ANYBODY ASKED AT COMCAST, using P2P on their network is NOT PROHIBITED.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. |
|
telcolackeyThe Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
1 edit | said by funchords:According to ANYBODY ASKED AT COMCAST, using P2P on their network is NOT PROHIBITED. "Using" is a key word in this.
Using the web is different than serving web content.
Downloading songs from ITUNES is different than serving mp3's to the Internet.
Using p2p to download a linux distro is different than serving a linux distro to the entire world.
NOTE: These comments/opinions are my own and not an attempt to state anyone's policy. |
|
| reply to telcolackey
Re: Sandvine's MSO Case Study-Reasonable Network Management? said by telcolackey:said by funchords:According to ANYBODY ASKED AT COMCAST, using P2P on their network is NOT PROHIBITED. "Using" is a key word in this. Using the web is different than serving web content. Downloading songs from ITUNES is different than serving mp3's to the Internet. Using p2p to download a linux distro is different than serving a linux distro to the entire world. NOTE: These comments/opinions are my own and not an attempt to state anyone's policy. Whoops messed up the quote. Plz delete the post above thx.
Anyway, the 2 way nature of the data transfer is implied via the "p2p" nomenclature.
"Use" has very little lattitude for interpretation in this case. |
|
telcolackeyThe Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA | "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is" - Bill Clinton |
|
telcolackeyThe Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
1 edit | reply to somebody else
said by somebody else :
Anyway, the 2 way nature of the data transfer is implied via the "p2p" nomenclature.
Many in this forum frequently remind everyone that p2p can be configured to download only.
FTP is two way. Running an anonymous FTP server is file sharing and against ToS. "Using" FTP is ok.
HTTP is two way. Running a web server for anyone to download movies is against ToS. "Using" HTTP is not.
[EDIT: Please don't rehash the "is it a server" discussion. That one has been debated to death. File sharing 1:everyone is file sharing]
... It depends on your definition of the word "use" is.  |
|
 dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18
1 edit | reply to telcolackey
said by telcolackey:said by funchords:According to ANYBODY ASKED AT COMCAST, using P2P on their network is NOT PROHIBITED. "Using" is a key word in this. Using the web is different than serving web content. Downloading songs from ITUNES is different than serving mp3's to the Internet. Using p2p to download a linux distro is different than serving a linux distro to the entire world. NOTE: These comments/opinions are my own and not an attempt to state anyone's policy. Uhm... when was the last time *ANYONE* uploaded the entire file of anything to "the entire world"?
When using a P2P app like BT, a ratio of 1:1 is fair.
That means, if *I* download 700MB, that I should upload 700MB back into the swarm.
Odds are very low that all 700MB of that file will be going to a single peer, right?
Me having any file available to millions of other people does NOT mean that I will be uploading that WHOLE file to millions of people.
My upload bandwidth is severely restricted.
For me to upload... 700MB to 100? people would take a couple of days of constant, full speed upload, killing off any possibility of me using my connection for anything else.
That would also push me into God Status in the Ratio dept.!
Even if Sandvine was non-existent, aint happening!
I have had several files available for ANYONE on the planet to get from me for years.
Care to guess how many people have even requested a part of one of these files?
In all honesty, I haven't even uploaded enough parts of many of these files to be combined into a whole item. 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
telcolackeyThe Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA | Fair to content providers? You bet. Broadband users offering filesharing for them removes their BW costs and pushes it to broadband ISPs.
Fair to users? Yes. We get cheaper (or free) content because the Content providers cost is less.
Fair to ISPs? Who cares. They are greedy, money grubbing slime. |
|
dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18
1 edit | said by telcolackey:Fair to content providers? You bet. Broadband users offering filesharing for them removes their BW costs and pushes it to broadband ISPs. Fair to users? Yes. We get cheaper (or free) content because the Content providers cost is less. Fair to ISPs? Who cares. They are greedy, money grubbing slime. Fair to the ISP? Huh? I pay my monthly bill.
What exactly am I paying Comcast for?
The connection is paid for whether I use it or not, right?
Me? Use a small, insignificant, part of what I am paying for? 
Bad, Bad, David!!! 
LOL! 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 | reply to funchords
That is certainly at odds with the way their "Terms of Use" is worded. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to telcolackey
You can't use P2P without making network content available to anybody outside of the Premises LAN. The very nature of P2P is to "share" the files; you upload, as well as download.
I have quibbled over the "server" nature of P2P. I have read, and re-read the Comcast Terms of Use.
The only thing that I am certain of, is that Comcast has no clear ideas of what they want to permit, or prohibit. Or even why they should permit, or prohibit.
I find it distinctly odd that they claim to permit P2P, and prohibit running a mail server; yet a personal mail server, run for the sole benefit of the household members of a Premises LAN will put far less stress on their network than any P2P application.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to telcolackey
No. P2P can't be configured to "download only". Well, after checking on the BitTorrent protocol, anyway, I can assert that BT can't be configured to "download only". I can block BT from acting as a server, but I can't block BT from uploading.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | reply to NormanS
said by NormanS:That is certainly at odds with the way their "Terms of Use" is worded. Who? Me?
Hell, *I* am a server!
If you request a file from me, I have no problem sending it to you.
FTP? No prob!
Yousendit? Easy.
Email? Sure!
Mediafire? Yeah, we can do that too!
So, *I* am against the TOS/AUP?
Pretty sure most people on any ISP can and will send a friend a file if it is requested.
I sent a couple via email already today!
*NOTE* Sending ANYTHING from this computer to a server(file server/email server/media host) is going to use some of my Paid For upstream and is not being pushed off on to any ISP as an incurred cost.
I pay my bill in advance! Pretty sure everyone on Comcast does.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18
1 edit | reply to NormanS
Upload throttle |
said by NormanS:No. P2P can't be configured to "download only". Well, after checking on the BitTorrent protocol, anyway, I can assert that BT can't be configured to "download only". I can block BT from acting as a server, but I can't block BT from uploading. *SOME* can throttle upload to 0%.
Shareaza can - all protocols, all networks.
Defeats the purpose of "sharing" though. 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to dadkins
I certainly don't disagree with you. I just the Comcast Terms of Use is rather Draconian WRT servers. Fortunately, I don't operate under such onerous terms. I am not under any kind of prohibition of running a server.
Now my ISP, OTOH, is looking into ways of blocking pirated material. I don't know if they can succeed; but, considering that they are looking at it from the POV of "pirated" content, I am pretty sure that Sandvine is not the solution that they seek. (Unless Sandvine can discriminate based on file content.)
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
