Please support our Software Development advertiser:
May 17th, 2008, 11:17 am
Call it a kind of bigotry for the new millennium. The packets of peer-to-peer applications such as BitTorrent have become the target of throttling—even complete blockage—by Internet service providers on their networks. Do they have the right?
The revelation comes from study results published yesterday by Germany’s Max Plunk Institute of Software Systems computer research group, which identified 13 ISPs engaged in the practices, including Comcast, Cox and seven others in the U.S.
In response, Comcast said it monitors peek traffic times and slows peer-to-peer packets to give other services access. Data in the study contradicts that claim, showing that both Comcast and Cox throttle P2P packets “independent of time of day.”
Still, compared with the 1,224 ISPs in the survey, the number found to be limiting traffic was relatively small. And who’s to say they don’t have a right? Virtually all the coverage I’ve read portrays the ISPs as the bad guys, and perhaps the providers are biased. But should government play a role?
Packets from peer-to-peer applications reportedly account for between 50 percent and 90 percent of all traffic moving through measured hosts. And if all that traffic is slowing people’s phone calls or video streams, doesn’t the service provider have an obligation to adequately serve those consumers?
The Open Internet Coalition, Free Press and other advocacy groups are calling for the U.S. Congress to enact legislation to stop companies from deciding which traffic is allowed, how much and when. I think that’s a very bad idea. Suppose someone found a way to identify and block denial of service attacks or other hacking? Or a way to block traffic to and from sites maintained by known terrorists or pedophiles? Shouldn’t those be blocked?
I believe the issue should be left to free markets to decide. If one ISP blocks BitTorrent traffic, for example, and another does not, free people will migrate to the network that serves them best. Anytime government curtails liberty by imposing restrictions, the ultimate results is less freedom, not more.
The revelation comes from study results published yesterday by Germany’s Max Plunk Institute of Software Systems computer research group, which identified 13 ISPs engaged in the practices, including Comcast, Cox and seven others in the U.S.
In response, Comcast said it monitors peek traffic times and slows peer-to-peer packets to give other services access. Data in the study contradicts that claim, showing that both Comcast and Cox throttle P2P packets “independent of time of day.”
Still, compared with the 1,224 ISPs in the survey, the number found to be limiting traffic was relatively small. And who’s to say they don’t have a right? Virtually all the coverage I’ve read portrays the ISPs as the bad guys, and perhaps the providers are biased. But should government play a role?
Packets from peer-to-peer applications reportedly account for between 50 percent and 90 percent of all traffic moving through measured hosts. And if all that traffic is slowing people’s phone calls or video streams, doesn’t the service provider have an obligation to adequately serve those consumers?
The Open Internet Coalition, Free Press and other advocacy groups are calling for the U.S. Congress to enact legislation to stop companies from deciding which traffic is allowed, how much and when. I think that’s a very bad idea. Suppose someone found a way to identify and block denial of service attacks or other hacking? Or a way to block traffic to and from sites maintained by known terrorists or pedophiles? Shouldn’t those be blocked?
I believe the issue should be left to free markets to decide. If one ISP blocks BitTorrent traffic, for example, and another does not, free people will migrate to the network that serves them best. Anytime government curtails liberty by imposing restrictions, the ultimate results is less freedom, not more.
This blog entry was written by Edward J Correia, staff writer aka EddieC. It has received 613 views, 4 comments, and 5 linkbacks. It was promoted to featured status May 17th, 2008.
•
•
•
•
bbc biotech blog broadband business cable conspiticy copyright dani web development domains dot.com download explorer firefox funds google government hardware ie7 internet investments ip ipv6 isp linux michael knight microsoft money network networking news online online shopping p2p piracy porn portfolio research security software statistics stocks study terrorism usenet web wifi windows
All Recent Tags Comments (Newest First)
EddieC | Newbie Poster | May 18th, 2008
jwenting | duckman | May 17th, 2008
•
•
•
•
ISPs have a duty to ALL their customers, and that means preventing users of Pirate 2 Pirate software from bogging down their networks by throttling their bandwidth to the point where there's enough capacity for everyone.
Those kids are already stealing the stuff they're downloading, why should the ISPs let them steal bandwidth as well?
Those kids are already stealing the stuff they're downloading, why should the ISPs let them steal bandwidth as well?
EddieC | Newbie Poster | May 17th, 2008
nanop1i | Newbie Poster | May 17th, 2008
Post Comment
•
•
•
•
Only community members can start a blog or comment on blog entries. You must register or log in to contribute.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DaniWeb Software Development Marketplace
Related Blog Entries
- Open Web Foundation to Help Shepard Standards (7 Hours Ago)
- Intel To Focus on Devices, Again (9 Hours Ago)
- Google Knol's a 'Wiki,' Not a 'Pedia' (11 Hours Ago)
- SF Password Hijack Highlights Importance of Process in City, State IT (1 Day Ago)
- Moving Headlines in Newspapers? Never! (1 Day Ago)
- DNS Security Flaw In the Wrong Hands? (2 Days Ago)
- Qik: A Living, Breathing YouTube (2 Days Ago)
- More Dark Spots on Apple's MobileMe Migration (3 Days Ago)
- Power-Sipping PC Runs Linux (3 Days Ago)
- Microsoft Don’t Know Jack About UI Design (7 Days Ago)
Featured Entry