Comcast Scraps P2P 'Bill Of Rights' Idea > Consumer Advocates would be intentionally disruptive

Consumer Advocates would be intentionally disruptive

Not to mention that nothing productive comes from those types of discussions and the "consumer advocates" will leave the table pouting because they can't have their way on a network that doesn't belong to them.

The alleged illegality of some of the content that's distributed through P2P is really irrelevant unless you're a member of some of the trade groups that may be realizing losses. IMO, this is a bigger push to control P2P types of applications and what goes on the ISP's networks. What this most likely means is the demise of P2P. The question is, what will replace it and how will ISPs deal with the new threat?

reply to Linklist
I love how "consumer advocacy" translates to "anti-corporate bias" in your mind.

You are just so cute and cuddly sometimes.

reply to Linklist

reply to Linklist
Sir, you are a liar unless you can provide one single piece of evidence that Free Press has advocated for stealing music and movies, or that they have ever said illegal content should be protected from network management.

Shame on you.

reply to TScheisskopf

said by TScheisskopf:

I love how "consumer advocacy" translates to "anti-corporate bias" in your mind.

You are just so cute and cuddly sometimes.

reply to Linklist
Saying consumer advocates will be disruptive is just a biased way of saying that consumer advocates will seek to enhance the interests of their own constituency and that those interests are different from the interests of most of the industries participating.

Of course its true that negotiations are always more difficult if you truly try to bring together all the different interests involved, rather than only bringing together a subset of interests that start with agreement on basic philosophy.

I applaud them for bringing some companies that develop p2p apps into the fold.
They admit, however, that they only want to bring in other competing interests after they have reached a consensus, as to tactical approach, with those who largely share their interests.
Obviously one only goes on the offensive at the point at which one has built an army of alliances that can overwhelm those with competing interests.

One should remain suspicious given the vastly disproportionate power of the isp and content provider interests involved and the clear intent to exclude the influence of broad public sentiment.

"their usual anti-corporate bias"

Call it whatever you like. The interests of corporations are generally well looked after in this society. There are other interests that are generally less well tended to.
The internet did not begin with corporations and the internet is not simply the sum total of corporate interests. There are many non-corporate and non-commercial interests that are part of the network of networks. There are key corporations who would like to dominate by using their control over choke points on the network. There are others, like myself, who are content to let corporations utilize these networks for their agendas but are not content to let particular corporate interests dominate the development of the internet. We are in the middle of a process where socially disruptive technological developments are being tamed and absorbed by status quo interests to minimize their disruptive nature.
Non-corporate interests are not nearly as easily coordinated or well organized as corporate interests. Corporations, being top-down hierarchical structures have an advantage here. This doesn't mean those non-corporate interests are illegitimate. I don't think it is evil to want a counterbalance to offset that advantage.

reply to openbox9
In other words...money talks, BS walks.

reply to openbox9