how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to backness
Re: A little convo from AT&T Would be funnier if you actually got your facts right.
1. Do you honestly think a company like AT&T hasn't upgraded their infrastructure for 90yrs? Do you think their network could have handled over 4 petabytes/day, 90yrs ago?
2. I think you got AT&T confused with Comcast. Comcast is the one throttling connections. AT&T is talking about theoretically blocking illegal file transfers, which so far has yet to happen.
3. AT&T is doing more than "embracing" P2P in a press release. They are one of the companies, along with Verizon, doing research on P4P technology. It's even stated in the article. Did you read it? | |
 X_DigitBinary EnhancedPremium
join:2003-06-12
Mansfield, TX
2 edits | Um, it's called "exaggerated sarcasm". And, how would him getting his facts right make it "funnier"?
Moving on... filters will NEVER work. They require some kind of "signature" process! Simply encrypt, obfuscate, or scramble the data... and it'll zoom right passed any filters.
"Filters" is a word security companies make billion-dollar-deals w/ incompetent mega-corporations with.
Also, even though AT&T "may be" researching P2P, P4P (or whatever spin'd label they wanna put on sharing)... from their passed experience, you can only assume it's ONLY using a method that they'll benefit from. They're all for P2P... as long as they're controlling the content, and making some kind of return off of it.
--
Respectfully, X_Digit | | |
|
| "...you can only assume..."
See. Your whole argument just fell apart, right there. You're making arguments, based on assumptions. Well, you don't have to assume anything! You can read all about it. In fact, follow the links that Laird Popkin provided, below. Did you know that Bittorent, itself, is also one of the core members of the P4P group? What interest would they have in "hampering" P2P for consumers?
Also, why would ANY company do something that they wouldn't benefit from? I don't see what you're arguing there. Also, why does something, that benefits a company, necessarily mean that it's to the detriment of consumers? You act as if corporations and consumers on constantly on opposite ends of a balance scale, and that neither can benefit without hurting the other. If P4P can increase the efficiency of P2P, then that would lessen the load on carriers' networks, letting them allow P2P, instead of hindering it, a la Comcast. | |
| hey genius....
What do you get when you put a megacorp in between P2P?
Do you even know what P2P stands for? | |
| I don't even know what your last post has to do with the previous ones, but I'll answer you anyway.
P2P stands for "peer to peer". However, you are obviously taking that at face value, suggesting that connections between peers are actually point-to-point, with no "middlemen" inbetween. If you're only sharing files between users on a private LAN, then sure. However, if, like most people, you use P2P applications over the Internet, then you are most assuredly traversing the networks of AT&T, Verizon, and the like. These "megacorps" aren't just now trying to get between P2P users. They have always been between P2P users. They are just working on technologies to increase the efficiency of P2P protocols on their networks.
Now, what exactly are you arguing about? Or did you just type a knee-jerk response to a valid critique of your post? | |
|
