how-to block ads
|
|  jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Re: Flawed conclusions to study True. Got to read into some of these so called studies. Still, ATT is trying to do everything in it's power to piss off the consumer. I've said it over and over now. ISPS have no jobs being the police. If they wish to assume that risk, they also assume the liability that goes along with it. A person who downloads illegal content that bypasses the filter WILL HAVE a valid argument. It was ATT's job to make sure material I find is legal. The filter did not stop me, sue ATT. In all respect, they'd be right. This is exactly why OTHER ISPS don't want the job of policing the NET. RISK and LIABILITY are not worth it in their minds, even with a good team of lawyers. | |
| 
digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09
49533
| said by TKJunkMail  :28 vendors they asked to participate in testing only five agreed
Based on the response to Internet Evolution's ground-breaking test of P2P filters, both ISPs and the music industry will have to wait a while before the power tools they need to beat back bandwidth hogs or stymie copyright violators are widely available. So how did they come to the conclusion that tools don't exist when they only tested 5 of 28 products? The fact that 23 vendors refused doesn't mean their products don't work - only that they don't want their technology out there being examined where hackers can get an early crack at their code. And of the 5 they did test, 2 passed the test. Uh, sure. I didn't see any indication that the source code or any other part of the software was made available by Internet Evolution to the public. | |
| 
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| said by TKJunkMail :28 vendors they asked to participate in testing only five agreed
Based on the response to Internet Evolution's ground-breaking test of P2P filters, both ISPs and the music industry will have to wait a while before the power tools they need to beat back bandwidth hogs or stymie copyright violators are widely available. So how did they come to the conclusion that tools don't exist when they only tested 5 of 28 products? The fact that 23 vendors refused doesn't mean their products don't work - only that they don't want their technology out there being examined where hackers can get an early crack at their code. And of the 5 they did test, 2 passed the test. 2 detected P2P traffic, but can't differentiate between legit and illegal traffic.
That's not passing a test, that's the ability to write your name on the paper.
The fact is, if you follow the NANOG list, the technology isn't there to do deep packet inspection at an AT&T like level. Just ROUTING traffic at 10G speeds without adding ridiculous latency is hard as hell. Oh sure, we'll see it eventually, right about the time a new technology comes out and Bit torrent is obsolete.
Now, if you're talking about putting a deep packet inspection device in each RT or in each CO, then you may possibly have the ability to differentiate and then filter material, but you're not going to do it on any high speed backbone links. | |
| 
Nightshade
sic semper tyrannis
Premium
join:2002-05-26
Salem, OR
1 edit | said by TKJunkMail :And of the 5 they did test, 2 passed the test. So that's only a 40% chance that a filter will detect a P2P network. No exactly inspiring results for a filter and definitely not ready for prime time.
--
True Happiness Must Come From Within | |
| | | |
|
·
·
Flawed conclusions to study