| | |
Is it P2P ‘Packetism’ or ISP Customer Service?
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.
0
•
•
•
•
what's the point of pointing to your blog here? I saw nothing that relates to this article and it's bad etiquette (and I'm pretty sure it's contrary to DaniWeb guidelines).
0
•
•
•
•
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?
Similar Threads
- Customer Service Module (PHP)
- PHP script for customer service issue (PHP)
- News Story: Online Customer Service: We Have the Customers, But Where's the Service? (Growing an Online Community)
- News Story: Customer Service Beat-Down (Upcoming News Stories)
- e-Customer Service? (eCommerce)
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
addiction advertising banking bbc bittorrent blog british broadband business cable censorship china cloudcomputing comcast confidentiality connectivity conspiticy copyright crime daniweb development domain domainname domainnames domains download email explorer facebook fairness fcc filesharing finance firefox funds gaming google government hacking hardware holidayshopping ie7 intel internet isp law liberty linux marketing michaelknight microsoft mobile money movies mozilla music netneutrality network networking news online p2p packet phishing phorm piracy piratebay politics porn portfolio privacy report research retail rss saas security sex shopping socialnetworking software speed statistics stocks survey sweden technology teenagers terrorism twitter uk video vista web webaddress wifi wiki windows worldwideweb youtube




