mudtoe
join:2005-10-09
Cleveland, OH
 ·Cincinnati Bell
| reply to Charlie Douglas
Re: Comcast
All this is going to do is hasten the effort to encrypt P2P traffic. Once that takes place, then the real battle begins. Will Comcast decree that any P2P that's encrypted be blocked, because they can't verify that the content is legal? Right now Comcast is using this argument about P2P traffic being predominately illegal as a pretense for their actions against it, when in fact it's really because they aren't willing to upgrade their network in order to actually give the customers the bandwidth that their marketing materials promise.
Once encryption happens they have no way to know, so they can't use it as a justification to target P2P. Of course the content providers will pitch a fit and be in favor of disallowing encryption period. |
|
TNMTiger
@twtelecom.net
| I have not read anywhere that Comcast claims to be managing P2P for illegal content; that was what AT&T proposed doing. The only reason I have seen that Comcast gives for managing P2P is to prevent upstream congestion from interfering with applications and services that are sensitive to packet loss, such as voice (pretty bad if a call to 911 loses some packets) and real-time gaming (sucks when your character gets killed because of a delay in your command to cast that spell). Not a value judgment, just a fact. |
|
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Corona, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
| really? and what if I replaced that said "illegal" p2p with, er, a big photo/home movie upload? Would the nutcases at Comcast say that me daring to use my connection goes against their TOS? When you come down to it, it's really the same thing. Whether I'm uploading kiddie pr0n via p2p, or photos to grandma, shouldn't matter to Comcast. And no, I don't set my BT client to use 100% upload bandwidth all the time, in fact I keep it shut down when I'm not actively using it. |
|
