KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| The idea is good, reduce traffic and bandwidth usages
... this is good for users *and* providers.
Problem is, can they resist the urge to keep their greedy little paws off? I doubt it. I expect they will want to provision in filters, blocks, QoS etc which will essentially wreck the whole point, and force users back to un-gimped P2P applications.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| quote:
Will ISP executives be able to resist impulses to charge customers more for prioritized P2P?
Highly doubtful. I am envisioning ridiculously priced tiers for "favored" traffic such as the above referenced. They're already fucking consumers up the ass reaping maxium profits by double, and, in some cases, triple dipping on overage fees. This latest development will enable an even more gluttonous approach. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to KrK
said by KrK  :and force users back to un-gimped P2P applications. Maybe that threat will keep them honest?
Is P4P an open standard? Will P2P client authors be able to create P4P clients?
I downloaded Ubuntu 8.10 a couple weeks ago. I left my computer on all weekend, serving 16 copies for the 2 I downloaded. Occasionally I looked at the peers that were connecting to me. They were from New Zealand, China, Brazil.
That didn't seem too efficient when, I bet, they could have used distance to choose better peer arrangements.
Mark |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| said by amigo_boy :said by KrK :and force users back to un-gimped P2P applications. Maybe that threat will keep them honest? You mean in the same manner that ISPs are so "honest"? LMAO. You're living in a dream world. |
|
pbarrow
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Montgomery, AL | reply to KrK
Seems to me it would take away their excuse for higher prices and bandwidth caps and overage charges.
I won't hold my breath on that happening. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :Maybe that threat will keep them honest? I think they'll roll out P4P as the "Supported" peer to peer standard and then declare the "old" P2P as a violation of TOS, etc and therefore justify "Network management techniques" to block/filter/reset "old school" P2P. Problem is, almost certainly the "new" peer to peer standard will come with built in baggage like DRM or etc
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
tad2020
join:2007-07-17
Orange, CA | reply to KrK
Seems like it would have been easier if the ISP would provide a DB to users of if their IP ranges and the cost (ie. hops, distance). Current client apps would just need to favor ranges their ISP says are in-network and closer. |
|
