beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH | reply to Karl Bode
Re: 50mbps for 192 seconds? But this article has nothing to do with a 5GB cap. |
|
1 edit | No, but Virgin is going to start targeting BitTorrent specifically. Do you see any anti-competitive implications of a cable TV company suddenly throttling a protocol that delivers competition via peer to peer networks? |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by Karl Bode:No, but Virgin is going to start targeting BitTorrent specifically. Do you see any anti-competitive implications of a cable TV company suddenly throttling a protocol that delivers competition via peer to peer networks? Clearly, you're mistaken. There's absolutely no reason for a corporation to cripple an up-and-coming competitor. Why, I don't believe that has ever happened in this history of our great company, errr, country. |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:No, but Virgin is going to start targeting BitTorrent specifically. Do you see any anti-competitive implications of a cable TV company suddenly throttling a protocol that delivers competition via peer to peer networks? Video competition from who? Vuze? BitTorrent is out of the video distribution game, and the major players in online video don't use P2P for distribution. |
|
beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH | reply to Karl Bode
Karl if they targeted, say netflix, or itunes, etc...then I'd agree with you. But they don't. Calling bittorrent "competition" to cable tv as a video distribution method is ridiculous. |
|
| Calling bittorrent "competition" to cable tv as a video distribution method is ridiculous. Oh, glad we've got that straightened out then, Mark Cuban. |
|
|
|
beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH | Nice, admin resorting to name calling. I guess if you are going to call me a name, might as well be a rich guy 
Cuban is on record regarding Bittorrent? I did not state that the INTERNET is not viable competetion...strictly Bittorrent. Show me some data proving otherwise. |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
3 edits | Oh, so it has to be viable competition or using your dominant market position to crush delivery doesn't count?
Just because you don't think Vuze is a legitimate competitor (I could be wrong, but I'm guessing you're playing dumb but work at a carrier), doesn't magically make it not a competitor. Caps and P2P protocol throttling aren't about killing the competitors of today, they're about killing the competitors of tomorrow.
BitTorrent certainly isn't a current serious competitor for live TV, nor is it currently eating away at any decent share (online video entire ate about 2% of all TV ad revenue in '07), but it is a competitor all the same. Should we get semantic, BitTorrent piracy is a competitor as well, as it sets market expectation (which unfortunately for industry folks is free, and easy). |
|
beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH | I don't work at a carrier or anywhere in the communications business. But this article is about attacking bittorrent directly as opposed to their old method of attacking all heavy users. From the outside looking in, attacking all heavy users would seem to be more of an anti-competetive practice (although I don't think it is) than strictly throttling bittorrent. This frees up all the netflix, hulu, itunes, etc. arguments. Now they just go after bittorrent directly, which is quite insignificant in the "legitimate" online video marketplace.
In fact, it could be construed that they are attacking bittorrent usage to make the netflix streaming experience better for the rest of their customers....although I doubt that as well |
|
