|reply to INeedMoreUpload |
I am looking for more understanding of this issue. Why do providers stop communication? I.E., does P2P really take up that much more bandwidth, are the networks so overloaded that they are forced to control traffic, any other issues? I do question the over capacity answer while the providers offer higher tiers. If P2P is preferred, why use other protocols? At this point in the conflict, it appears that using P2P is not illegal, so is it legal for the ISPs to block it's use? I.E., a free speech issue might want to use P2P to get a message to more users, probably cheaper and faster, not much different than campaign laws. If capacity is not an issue, why not use P2P as opposed to other protocols, especially given it's popularity? Encryption is thought of as a cure to packet spoofing, but I would think that encryption adds to the size of the packet. I assume that the issues with the EFF are part of this thread and would like to remind everyone that they are also fighting possible domestic spying justified by non-existent WMDs, among other things! Did I just step in something or what?
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
said by lcnoble:For... Money. They want to sell you on a high speed, premium package... but then not actually deliver it. They want people to pay $50 a month for premium speeds, but use no more then someone on the budget plan.
I am looking for more understanding of this issue. Why do providers stop communication?
It's all about profit, not service.
"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!)