SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
| Rearranging the deck chairs
This "P4P" nonsense is an attempt to quash legitimate complaints from ISPs that P2P is hogging their resources. But it really does nothing to solve the problem. P2P by its very nature is a way of setting up servers on ISPs' networks, taking their upstream bandwidth without paying for it. And "P4P" does nothing to solve that problem.
If content providers want to use ISPs' networks for their servers, they need to pay them for it. It's just fair. Trying to do it without paying their freight is theft of service -- and will result in higher costs for users. If the P4P people really wanted to do something useful, they'd work out a payment scheme which paid the ISPs for the use of their networks. |
|
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| said by SuperWISP  :This "P4P" nonsense is an attempt to quash legitimate complaints from ISPs that P2P is hogging their resources. But it really does nothing to solve the problem. P2P by its very nature is a way of setting up servers on ISPs' networks, taking their upstream bandwidth without paying for it. And "P4P" does nothing to solve that problem. It is a viable solution for LEGALLY distributed content. But it won't be adopted by those trackers that do nothing but serve up stolen music and movies. And, unfortunately, that still is the largest majority of P2P traffic.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
dadkins
Living on a Blu Planet
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| reply to SuperWISP
WTF?
Ya know friend, if I were to light up a P2P application and upload anything, I would be using some of the upstream that I pay for each month.
Tell me, tell all of us, WTF do we all pay our ISPs for?
Whether I am blasting a single file to a single person or several files to several people, I am still using the connection *I PAY FOR*.
Everyone(99.99%) I have ever sent or received a file from has used a paid for connection.
You're funny! 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
 ·Digizip
| reply to SuperWISP
said by SuperWISP :This "P4P" nonsense is an attempt to quash legitimate complaints from ISPs that P2P is hogging their resources. But it really does nothing to solve the problem. P2P by its very nature is a way of setting up servers on ISPs' networks, taking their upstream bandwidth without paying for it. And "P4P" does nothing to solve that problem. If content providers want to use ISPs' networks for their servers, they need to pay them for it. It's just fair. Trying to do it without paying their freight is theft of service -- and will result in higher costs for users. If the P4P people really wanted to do something useful, they'd work out a payment scheme which paid the ISPs for the use of their networks. Bullshit! Users/subscribers, including so-called content providers, already pay for their upstream and downstream bandwidth in the form of the monthly contract amount for internet service, and by providing the content that drives the the money machine. P2P just lightens the load on any single ISP/network by distributing the source files/seeds around. It all equals out in the end. Well, except for those who don't use P2P, and their lack of use just leaves more bandwidth on the table. Everyone using P2P is a content provider, except for the leeches who don't seed or share. Big commercial content providers pay their way as well. Take away the content from the web, and there is very little to drive customers to subscribe service. ISPs get paid for bandwidth up-front, and then get paid for advertising, click stream data, profiling their customers for various commercial interests, etc.. Time for them to stop bitchin' about how they don't get paid double or triple for the same bandwidth they have already oversold. If they want to get paid for "phantom bandwidth", maybe they should think about compensating customers for the raping they give privacy every minute of every day. If they don't like being "dumb-pipe" providers, they can always find some other form of employment. |
|
asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| reply to SuperWISP
" P2P by its very nature is a way of setting up servers on ISPs' networks, taking their upstream bandwidth without paying for it."
1.Why should servers be against the TOS anyway?
In what way, if a person buys a connection that is X MB down and Y MB up are they not paying for their bandwidth if they use the Y upstream capabilities of the line they pay for? Why should we accept that if you use bandwidth to download you are behaving acceptably but if you use bandwidth to upload you are stealing from the isp?
2.If the network was designed only for one way distribution of content then why shouldn't the onus be on a company that wants to be an internet service provider to adapt the network design to be able to meet the two way communication needs of the internet? In other words why should we allow a company to redefine internet service as a one way content distribution system?
3. I understand that a person running a server is, in general, more likely to consume greater amounts of bandwidth but why can't this be dealt with using bandwidth caps, such as we have had for quite a long time? In other words, rather than outlawing uses such as running a server you simply place a boundary like 100GB a month of transfer. Again I don't understand why certain uses of a communication connection should be classified as stealing while other uses are not. This is just another way of discriminating against certain applications when the application, or the way the person chooses to use their connection, shouldn't be a concern for the isp. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to TK Junk Mail
said by TK Junk Mail :said by SuperWISP :This "P4P" nonsense is an attempt to quash legitimate complaints from ISPs that P2P is hogging their resources. But it really does nothing to solve the problem. P2P by its very nature is a way of setting up servers on ISPs' networks, taking their upstream bandwidth without paying for it. And "P4P" does nothing to solve that problem. It is a viable solution for LEGALLY distributed content. But it won't be adopted by those trackers that do nothing but serve up stolen music and movies. And, unfortunately, that still is the largest majority of P2P traffic. This P4P type local peering can be added to generic BT software. All that is needed is to do a WHOIS for x.x.x.x@whois.arin.net (where x.x.x.x is your IPN) and you get back your local net block. For me this would be NETBLK-OOL-4BLK (NET-67-80-0-0-1) 67.80.0.0-67.87.255.255. This would allow my BT program to favor peers with 67.80/16 IPNs and keep the traffic primarily on my ISP's network. I can connect to other ISP's peers (up to my max-peer limit) but will choose local peers over remote peers. I am not sure if there is a way to get a full map of my ISP's Netblocks (so I can add local peers on other Netblocks) but at least this will locate MY Netblock. |
|
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| said by RARPSL :This P4P type local peering can be added to generic BT software. All that is needed is to do a WHOIS for x.x.x.x@whois.arin.net (where x.x.x.x is your IPN) and you get back your local net block. For me this would be NETBLK-OOL-4BLK (NET-67-80-0-0-1) 67.80.0.0-67.87.255.255. I think the operative words here are "CAN BE". How many will go to that trouble?
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| said by TK Junk Mail :said by RARPSL :This P4P type local peering can be added to generic BT software. All that is needed is to do a WHOIS for x.x.x.x@whois.arin.net (where x.x.x.x is your IPN) and you get back your local net block. For me this would be NETBLK-OOL-4BLK (NET-67-80-0-0-1) 67.80.0.0-67.87.255.255. I think the operative words here are "CAN BE". How many will go to that trouble? That depends. If I were a BitTorrent client publisher, added this support, and advertised this new feature, I can see this capability being used to take the wind out of the sails of the ISPs that claim the P2P uses too much of their Internet Bandwidth. The existence of this feature would be a "meeting the ISP half way" gesture and place the ball into the ISP's court to make a similar gesture (or just shut up and knock off with their anti-P2P rhetoric and shenanigans). |
|
