Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Government News Your Rights Online

ISPs Say P4P Negates Need for Net Neutrality Regs 123

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the more-dumb-buzzword-terms dept.
Donut hole hole writes "AT&T and Comcast are using recent successful P2P trials to argue to the FCC that there's no need for strong traffic management or net neutrality rules. 'Comcast's statement, filed with the FCC on April 9th, hails an announcement by P2P developer Pando Networks that its experiments with P4P technology on a wide variety of U.S. broadband networks have boosted delivery speeds by up to 235 percent. This news, Comcast vice president Kathryn A. Zachem wrote to the Commission, "provides further proof that policymakers have been right to rely on marketplace forces, rather than government regulation, to govern the evolution of Internet services."' Looks like Comcast only likes P2P technology when it can be used to serve its political and regulatory agenda."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ISPs Say P4P Negates Need for Net Neutrality Regs

Comments Filter:
  • Net neutrality will be like taking away our rights! Everyone uses p4p in some way. Whether you're pirating or actually doing work! It would be stupid to even touch this.
  • p4p means (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WarJolt (990309) on Friday April 11, 2008 @06:17PM (#23041884)
    Don't be fooled. When comcast says p4p they mean Pay 4 Performance. You think they're doing this out of the kindness of their hearts? If they could charge you for this they would.
    • Re:p4p means (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ajs (35943) <ajs@@@ajs...com> on Friday April 11, 2008 @06:27PM (#23041972) Homepage Journal
      Yeah, P4P is a buzzword for "pennies for packets."

      It's this magical idea that they'll find a way to charge more money for providing the same service without having to lose market share due to raising the prices on their customers' statements. Why not charge EVERYONE is their idea... doesn't matter who you are, or where you are on the 'Net... you can pay Comcast for "premium" service.

      Not the worst idea ever, just a contender.

      • by geekoid (135745)
        It's a great idea, for them.
        The question 'can they pull it off?' the answer depends on whether or not new neutrality is in effect.
      • Re:p4p means (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Eighty7 (1130057) on Friday April 11, 2008 @07:06PM (#23042282)
        Nah in theory it checks out. Keeping traffic within your network will help costs. Give azureus some network topology information & you won't need to throttle as much. In theory. Carriers have everything to gain from this.

        The million dollar question is whether they mean all P2P traffic, or just *AA approved content. They're making a new protocol & it's their data so the ball's in their court. I can easily see them using this as an excuse to go after P2P even more.
        • Re:p4p means (Score:4, Insightful)

          by mrsteveman1 (1010381) on Friday April 11, 2008 @08:09PM (#23042794)
          Their original goal has always been to stop P2P entirely, since they equate P2P with piracy as far as the content industry is concerned, which Comcast et al are a part of.

          If anything this is a way to placate the FCC and congress, while appearing to embrace P2P, but only as a distribution method for their own content.
          • It seems like a generally good thing that Comcast and the other major ISPs are embracing P2P. But I agree - it would be naive to think the sudden turnabout is only to make consumers happy. The ISPs know that the explosion of online video is a threat to their core business models - pre-packaged pay-tiers, subscription service, and collecting ad revenues. Comcast is in trouble If people aren't watching their cable channels or using VOD service because they can access the content on Joost, Hulu or Comedy centr
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Washii (925112)

          ...Give azureus some network topology information & you won't need to throttle as much...
          Ah, you bring up Azureus. It used to have a plug-in installed by default that was supposed to allow ISPs some caches on their own network. Would have been an interesting idea, too.

          It got taken out because nobody was using it!
      • by _KiTA_ (241027)

        Yeah, P4P is a buzzword for "pennies for packets."

        It's this magical idea that they'll find a way to charge more money for providing the same service without having to lose market share due to raising the prices on their customers' statements. Why not charge EVERYONE is their idea... doesn't matter who you are, or where you are on the 'Net... you can pay Comcast for "premium" service.

        Not the worst idea ever, just a contender.

        So uh, hold it.

        This is buzzwordspeek for "We don't need Net Neutrality, because breaking Net Neutrality means we don't need Net Neutrality?"

        Oh my God, I've gone cross-eyed.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by TubeSteak (669689)

      If they could charge you for this they would.

      What?

      P4P is about adding code into P2P software that will allow the application to prioritize 'local' connections. It's about minimizing the # of hops your packets have to jump across. This generally translates into cost savings for the ISP.

      If they wanted to charge for it, they could code it themselves and license the technology out... and nobody would use it, because the ISPs are the main beneficiaries. What do I care if my bittorrent packets are coming from Germany or from my neighbor? Ping times aren't

      • Re:p4p means (Score:5, Insightful)

        by doas777 (1138627) on Friday April 11, 2008 @07:12PM (#23042342)
        You're right the purported goal of P4P is to inject logic that will attempt to find local (or close) users for a peering protocol, and that sounds like a good idea, right? I agree. if only i could trust the people doing it.
        P4P is a major privacy killer. based on what I see at the P4P workgroup page [pandonetworks.com], P4P is not a protocol or code that will be inject into existing P2P apps, it is a network management technique and toolkit that the ISPs can use to control existing and future P2P traffic, presumably without knowledge or consent from any of the peers. In fact here is one of the project objectives:

        Determine, validate, and encourage the adoption of methods for ISPs and P2P software distributors to work together to enable and support consumer service improvements as P2P adoption and resultant traffic evolves while protecting the intellectual property (IP) of participating entities
        Somehow I just knew IP rights would come up. I'll pay more attention when the pirate bay is in the core group. Until then, I'm not interested, logical as the idea may seem.
        • by Eighty7 (1130057)
          You think it'd be allowed if they didn't at least mention IP rights? This isn't eastern europe, where I hear an ISP can set up a DC++ hub & look the other way. They have a lot of incentive to work with us P2P users & we'd quickly adopt anything that got us higher speeds. I'm inclined to give them the benefit of doubt.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by poetmatt (793785)
            Of course, by your logic what could possibly go wrong until we see how horrid it is, right?

            Not to mention the privacy implications, the lack of an opt-out, or the fact that this doesn't work if things aren't hosted in your area, right?

            You have to know quite a bit to magically route things local.

            Given comcast's track record, why would you ever assume they turned over a new leaf? That's like thinking that Microsoft has a real open-source offering because they made a new announcement to be more open-source fri
            • by _KiTA_ (241027)

              You have to know quite a bit to magically route things local.
              "Local" in Comcast terms means "anything inside Comcast's network -- i.e., any Comcast customer talking to another Comcast customer. Intranet bandwidth costs are, presumably, dirt cheap.

              • by poetmatt (793785)
                So, you mean versus when you just pay for a backbone at a flat rate, its cheaper if you use that same flat rate in one way versus another?

                That is definitely some magic right there.

                Remind me again where an OC96/etc line would have a reason to care whether its intra-network or not.
              • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

                by doas777 (1138627)
                You may have hit on something there. Comcast uses a multi-tier hierarchy in their routing, like any big network.

                The goal of a routing pattern like the one they describe however is to keep traffic local to a users distribution tier network (your neighborhood essentially), so that it traverses the hierarchy only as high as it must. that frees up bandwidth on the trunk lines upstream and the backbone connections, which may be kinda expensive.

                the problem with this idea however, is that while the providers
                • by laird (2705)
                  "the problem with this idea however, is that while the providers have spent billions over the last decade extending and enhancing their distribution tier (to get more customers), the local network is the source of most users congestion"

                  Using P2P, by definition the total data volume uploaded and downloaded by all users is the same. P4P doesn't increase the amount that users upload or download, so the "edge" network . P4P shortens the distance between the uploader and the downloader, in order to reduce the d
            • You have to know quite a bit to magically route things local.
              not really, take a look at traceroute,

              Traceroute works by increasing the "time-to-live" value of each successive batch of packets sent. The first three packets sent have a time-to-live (TTL) value of one (implying that they are not forwarded by the next router and make only a single hop). The next three packets have a TTL value of 2, and so on. When a packet passes through a host, normally the host decrements the TTL value by one, and forwards the

        • by Jurily (900488)
          Aight, now I know what p4p is. Problem is, p2p protocols DO NOT NEED TO KNOW where that other connection is coming from. No, really. They do not. It's up to the ISP to sort those things out. Just read the specs.
          It's not just a routing problem, it's a political one. Think about it.
        • by laird (2705)

          P4P is a major privacy killer. based on what I see at the P4P workgroup page [pandonetworks.com], P4P is not a protocol or code that will be inject into existing P2P apps, it is a network management technique and toolkit that the ISPs can use to control existing and future P2P traffic, presumably without knowledge or consent from any of the peers.

          I'm not sure where you got this - P4P is a mechanism that allows ISP's to provide network map data to existing P2P networks so that the P2P networks can, if they choose, use that information to make smarter peer connections. P4P is entirely optional; if a P2P network doesn't want to implement it, they can keep doing what they are doing now.

          Determine, validate, and encourage the adoption of methods for ISPs and P2P software distributors to work together to enable and support consumer service improvements as P2P adoption and resultant traffic evolves while protecting the intellectual property (IP) of participating entities

          Somehow I just knew IP rights would come up. I'll pay more attention when the pirate bay is in the core group. Until then, I'm not interested, logical as the idea may seem.

          You're right - this statement is ambiguous, leading to misinterpretation. To clarify, the participating entities in P4P are the ISP's and the P2P networks. Their IP has

          • by doas777 (1138627)
            ok then, lets be crystal clear about this. So your telling me that AT&T, your company's primary participator, and Internet Content Policeman [nytimes.com] did not require your company to develop a means to determine the content of a given P2P connection?

            I find this very hard to believe. I do not want my protocol to notify my ISP everytime i connect to a tracker. Do you see how this is a privacy problem?
            • by laird (2705)
              "ok then, lets be crystal clear about this. So your telling me that AT&T, your company's primary participator, and Internet Content Policeman [nytimes.com] did not require your company to develop a means to determine the content of a given P2P connection?"

              AT&T has not required Pando to do anything in return for their participation in the working group. Neither has any other ISP.

              To clarify who did what in the test, Pando worked with Yale, Verizon and Telefonica to perform the first field test. AT
    • People should've been busy building a patchwork off-net, but instead, they're bitching about the best way to involve a third player in everyone's business... a third player, mind you, who will dictate that we have no rights. Recall for a moment that without government, corporations would cease to exist as government protected entities with rights, and would be seen as what they are. Worthless pieces of paper backed by government. Hey, come to think of it, so is paper, government issued money and credit.

      I
      • Re:p4p means (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Zerth (26112) on Friday April 11, 2008 @07:33PM (#23042522)
        "we're still using the old style internet with government and corporate controlled DNS root servers?"

        Speak for yourself! From where I'm at, microsoft.com resolves to a porn tracker and most .gov sites are random ytmnd subdomains. I may be my DNS root mainly because my ISP's DNS is completely flaky, but being able to choose how URLs resolve is rather handy when some company streisands themselves by convincing Randumb J Judge to revoke the domain name of a website they don't like.
      • People should've been busy building a patchwork off-net, but instead, they're bitching about the best way to involve a third player in everyone's business...

        You mean a patchwork off-net like FidoNet? [wikipedia.org]

        • No, I mean like a less centralized internet. Lots of "unofficial" nets, more active and available than BBS', WIFI has worked wonders in my old neighborhood. If everyone's traffic is completely encrypted, it makes the ability of attackers of all colors to interfere, that much less. Of course should your adversaries or snoopy neighbor type individuals take physical action (EMP, raid, burglary, etc) then your enemies, whomever they may be, have just identified themselves by taking open action... at that poi
          • FidoNet is cool, but administrators can still be bullied into submission by the local law enforcement, whether a crime is occurring or whether a user is merely targeted for political assassination by the local "authoritah".

            But wouldn't the civilian nets you refer to be just as subject to said law enforcement?

            • You're thinking too short term. I'm thinking past SHTF or the point where the government gives its Beretta a blow job.

              Faith in the power of the almighty politicians to "save us" from life itself, is running short. After that, if people have learned to be autonomous and not expect handouts stolen from others, life should get much nicer. Of course, I'm banking on people learning to respect property and to live up to their promises.

              Heh... yeah, I know, at least I don't believe in the Easter Bunny anymore :)
      • "Recall for a moment that without government, corporations would cease to exist as government protected entities with rights, and would be seen as what they are. Worthless pieces of paper backed by government."

        Without government, corporations would revert back to smaller (and more violent) fuedal entities.
        • And you learned about that part of "fear psychology 101" in some government school, I wager, reading a government sanctioned book. Interesting that you only had ONE approved source of such "facts" and yet you still buy it.

          Question I'll pose is... "and government enforcement of policy is done without violence or the threat thereof?" Lets see you not file or pay taxes if you're "liable" and see how long it is before the jack booted storm troopers kick your door in, after shooting your dog and slamming any h
          • by jmcnaught (915264)
            I sorta see corporations as part of the governing establishment already, if not part of the government per se. They hold the real power in our society. They control all the wealth, they decide where the jobs go, they decide the products that we can buy. Sure, they're regulated by the government but even that's becoming less and less true. Even the regulations that are in place were hard won over many years.

            It's pretty easy to see that governments predominately act in the interests of corporations. The
            • All you have to do is ask the governing agencies to stop governing... and the only way to do so, is to stop asking them for help. Help your neighbors and your friends, your family and your acquaintances. Get everyone off the welfare or government enforcement teats, and sooner or later the leviathan will have no justification for its existence.

              I'd like to see some of the mainstream "educated" folks willing to give up the bread and circuses, for even a month of their lives. Yeah right.
    • Satellite phones. When you made a call it was always long distance and always billed both ways. At hideous rates.

      Hey, whatever happened to the ubiquitous satellite phone anyway? That didn't seem to come about. It's like they all died out from competition or something.

    • by jez9999 (618189)
      Actually, P4P is just leet speek for 'pap'. As in, this idea is 'pap'. :-)
  • Really? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TubeSteak (669689) on Friday April 11, 2008 @06:23PM (#23041930) Journal
    Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work.
    (*) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once

    That ISPs have found some technological work around does nothing to change the fact that they'd rather screw around with the network than build more infrastructure.

    Fundamentally, either Net Neutrality is a good idea or it isn't.
    The specific circumstances are only tangently relevant.
    • That ISPs have found some technological work around does nothing to change the fact that they'd rather screw around with the network than build more infrastructure.

      I sometimes hate living where I do because we get small data allocations each month compared to "unlimited" and we pay a premium for that level of access.

      Yet, my ISP is profitable and they continue to roll out new infrastructure. They're one of the foundation customers for a massive pipe into Japan(?) that's being built. They have a huge national network and peer with all of the major telcos and providers so speeds are always good.

      Having a limited download allowance each month (pay for more data, use it

  • It all makes sense now
    here's my impression of comcast:

    "We hate p2p! GRARRRR"
    *government glares at them*
    "Wait... we love p2p look we even use it ourselves!"
    *pat on the head* (tax breaks and a blind eye to some future shiftiness)
  • by g-san (93038) on Friday April 11, 2008 @06:31PM (#23042008)
    Can an industry that redefines itself every 18 months be regulated by a government organization that takes 60+ months to pass legislation regulating said industry?
    • by Rinisari (521266)
      Amen. That's all I have to say. That, and it's any regulation of the Internet would be unconstitutional.
      • by Jurily (900488)
        Which constitution? The internet is worldwide, you know.
      • by doas777 (1138627) on Friday April 11, 2008 @07:30PM (#23042506)
        Interesting. I'm somewhat torn on this one.

        I really don't trust utilities providers. I've seen enough to know that my state's utility regulatory commission does a good job balancing the needs of the providers with the needs of the public.

        I really don't want regulation of the internet, but when I think about it, it's the content of the internet that I want unregulated, not the means by which corporate titans mangle my clickstream.

        In the long run, I see NN as the only way to keep the telco's and the mafiaa from destroying the internet I love, and sucking money out of my pocket in the process.

    • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland AT yahoo DOT com> on Friday April 11, 2008 @07:04PM (#23042254) Homepage Journal
      Yes, and it doesn't redefine itself every 18 months. Don't confuse new buzzwords and marketing for marginally faster speeds as 'redefining the industry'
      • In fact, I would go so far as to say that that is exactly the problem!

        Were the broadband internet industry truely an industry that redefined itself regularly, then they would find creative solutions for the issues that "plague" them.

        People are using too much bandwidth, so the first thing the ISPs do? Start covertly breaking connections between P2P users to eliminate bandwidth usage while yelling and screaming that consumers shouldn't be allowed to use the internet for what consumers want to use it for,
    • Can an industry that redefines itself every 18 months be regulated by a government organization that takes 60+ months to pass legislation regulating said industry?


      The government organization that does regulation doesn't pass legislation at all.

      And, except perhaps from a PR standpoint, there is no industry that "redefines itself every 18 months".
    • Could be worse, a standards body coould be working on it! I remember years of trade rag articles aboout how ISDN was coming. Anybody old enough to remember the S-100 bus? Seems to me that became an IEEE standard several years after it faded into legacy.
      • Dude I built computer with RCA 1802 CPU and 255 bytes of Static RAM and still haven't got that sucker running!
  • In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rastoboy29 (807168) on Friday April 11, 2008 @06:47PM (#23042118) Homepage
    Since we didn't have a hurricane last week, obviously Global Warming is not a problem.
  • I think the brain trust at Comcast realized that they could turn torrent users to their advantage. I suspect sometime in the future they'll push a P4P client that has content delivery network written all over it. You can see the beginnings of this with Bittorrent 6.0+.
  • by EdIII (1114411) * on Friday April 11, 2008 @06:49PM (#23042132)
    P2P, P4P, A2M, blah blah blah FUCKING blah.

    This has nothing to do with any file sharing technology. Nothing. They want the government, and those BASTARD consumers, to believe that "marketplace forces, rather than government regulation" prevailed and solved the problem.

    Well the REAL problem was ISP's selling unlimited bandwidth contracts. Right there is the heart of the issue, one they don't want to talk about. They advertise impressive speeds (throughput) and unlimited "internet" which is basically no limitation on the amount of data you could transfer in a given month.

    If that is true, which legally they should be held to AT LEAST the unlimited transfers, then P2P is irrelevant isn't it? Sure it has its problems, but none of that is the consumer's fault. They are using their "unlimited" connections in a "unlimited" way.

    So now they cannot deliver on those "impressive" speeds since they were overselling their real capacity in the first place.

    To put it another way.... It would be like an Airline company saying you could fly as far as you want up to 3 times a month for $99 dollars a month. They screw up getting greedy and all of the sudden they can't actually deliver 3 times a month since all the flights are constantly full.

    No, don't buy this fairy tale from Comcast. The consumers are all entitled, BY CONTRACT no less, to do what they are doing.

    If P4P ends up vastly increasing the efficiency of the consumer communications going across their network, then that is GREAT for anyone that owns a part of Comcast. More profit margin returning.

    It DOES not mean it should be an end to Net Neutrality or government regulation of their sneaky little asses....
    • Seconded (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Friday April 11, 2008 @07:12PM (#23042346)
      That is what this is about, and I have been saddened by the fact that even those in on the consumer side have been reluctant to talk about it.

      Cable subscribers, forget what it says in the small print. You signed a contract that said "unlimited" in BOLD print. So it should have been unlimited. And if they did not have the money, as they claimed -- even after charging those outrageous rates -- to make them unlimited, they should have stopped advertising the accounts as "unlimited"!!!

      This is not genius-level material. They defrauded consumers. Without regulation, they will continue to do the same.
      • Cable subscribers, forget what it says in the small print. You signed a contract that said "unlimited" in BOLD print.
        The real bitch of it is that you can't ignore the small print, not if you want to do something about it.
        • You can still argue in court that the bold print outranks the small print... and in fact it does, according to every legal principle I have ever heard or read. IANAL, but again: this is not genius-level material.
    • by nlawalker (804108) on Friday April 11, 2008 @07:44PM (#23042616)
      No kidding. I feel like this scenario of the ISP's backing themselves into a corner with "unlimited" contracts is similar to the sub-prime debt crises that put the United States in the middle of a debt whirlwind. They throw these contracts/loans out there thinking "we can capitalize on this resource (homes/internet) that everyone thinks they basically have a right to nowadays by providing favorable looking terms to even the lowest schmuck."

      The difference, though, is that the mortgage creditors got in over their head in bad loans because of people that didn't know what they were doing (jumping into an ARM that they wouldn't be able to handle later). The ISPs got in over their head by people that *knew* what they were doing (internet users making the most of their unlimited connections). Now that more and more people can do the same thing with easily accessible tools, the ISPs are up shit creek.
    • I've heard this 'unlimited' arguement before on a 10-hour
      dial-up plan.

      To some 'Unlimited' means unlimited access 24/7 - not unlimited download/upload.

      ---
      Free the internet
      • by EdIII (1114411) *
        "To some 'Unlimited' means unlimited access 24/7 - not unlimited download/upload."

        Thank You.

        I had never heard that before from anybody, and it only proves my point that much more effectively. "Unlimited" can be interpreted in many different ways and is a vague term. However, when it is used in BOLD and as a major sales point, and not some fine print, the average citizen can only go by the definition in the dictionary:

        unlimited
        adj.
        1. Having no restrictions or controls: an unlimited travel ticket.
        2. Having
    • Well the REAL problem was ISP's selling unlimited bandwidth contracts. Right there is the heart of the issue, one they don't want to talk about.

      Time for the airline analogy. Airlines oversell flights on a regular basis. It makes sense for them to do this, because an unsold seat has no value once the plane takes off, so they have to do whatever they can to fill up as many seats as possible, even if it means inconveniencing passengers. They don't advertise that they overbook, so many victims of overbookin

    • by smoker2 (750216)
      I'm sorry, but have you forgotten that you are posting on /. ?
      There is no such thing as unlimited downloads unless you have unlimited bandwidth. AFAIK, no-one is selling unlimited bandwidth. Here in the UK most ISPs offer "up to 8Mbps" bandwidth allocations, which is dependent on location relative to the exchange. Natural download limits are related to your available bandwidth.
      For example, I have an "up to 8Mbps" connection, but due to my location I'm getting a connection of roughly 6Mbps. That equates to r
  • by hardburn (141468) <hardburn AT wumpus-cave DOT net> on Friday April 11, 2008 @06:50PM (#23042138)

    Just make up your mind about being regulated or not. If you want to take tax payer money, then you're going to be regulated. If you don't want to be regulated, you can't have tax payer money.

  • I called Comcast today to find out if they are still non-neutral. I was informed that they still do not support Linux. While Linux and BSD can be made to work on Comcast easily enough today, how do we know that this level of access will continue? They could change things tomorrow and break the ability of Linux and BSD to access the internet.

    • by Nullav (1053766)
      I didn't know it was possible to contract Down Syndrome from someone, on the Internet, no less. Unless they start supplying some crackshit USB-only modems with only Windows drivers or drop TCP/IP (which would also screw over the Windows users), you can safely leave that tinfoil in the fridge. Also, with more reasons than 'I sometimes download Linux ISOs', Comcast would summarily be litigated into oblivion for forcing all of their customers to use a single OS.
      • Crackshit USB modems are probably considered as an attractive option to them.
      • by teebob21 (947095)
        I wish I had mod points. That was legitimately the funniest post I've seen on /. in months. +1, my friend; +1.
    • by slashtivus (1162793) on Friday April 11, 2008 @08:43PM (#23042980)
      Most routers do not run windows. They would have to break the internet to stop any TCP/IP compliant device to stop working. I use Kubuntu from time to time and it works fine. They don't officially support it since it is a small market share of tech-savvy people, so that is somewhat understandable. That said I helped my neighbor lady out yesterday and Comcast support had done more to wreck her connection than help (1/2 hour on the phone for her). I had her back up in running in about 5 minutes of fixing all their mistakes. Count yourself lucky that they do not "support" you.
    • I think a chunk of it just hit your head.
  • P4P

    The only solution.
  • Why do people fall for this crap? p4p? No need for regulation? WHAT?

    What is needed is to lay down lots of fiber where none exists. PERIOD! How complicated is that? We need more and more throughput and lower and lower latencies. The only goal is for every home to have fiber.

    Not Wimax, not powerlines, not 812.n or any other unreliable, slow crap. Those are only temporary bandaids and should only be used as such or to complement fiber. All data that can travel through fiber should do so.

    Fucking cocksuckers and
    • Why do people fall for this crap? p4p? No need for regulation? WHAT?

      Waves hand...
      These aren't the P-number-P's you're looking for. We can go about our business.
    • I have a shovel you can borrow. Call me when you're done.

      Oh, you're not going to do it yourself? Then who is going to install and maintain all that fiber? Surely you don't want the government to do it? The government (local, state, or federal) can't pave fucking roads without massive waste and lots of outright fraud, and you want them to run a high-tech infrastructure?

      Maybe we can have convicted hackers and meth dealers build and maintain it as part of their community service.

      • by gozu (541069)
        That's how Sweden, Japan and South Korea did it. They gave a shovel and a hundred yards of fiber to everybody.

        Don't be an idiot. It doesn't matter who does it as long as it's done. Companies, government, as long as joe schmoe gets his cheap fast fiber.
        • That's how Sweden, Japan and South Korea did it. They gave a shovel and a hundred yards of fiber to everybody.

          First, that's not how they did it. Do some research on the subject and you'll understand why those schemes could never work in the USA (our population is far less urban, and we actually value individual property rights). Sweden only has 30% broadband penetration [europa.eu], so I cannot figure out why it is held up as some sort of shining example by the Slashdot crowd.

          Don't be an idiot. It doesn't matter who d

    • $1500 per household for deployment x 100 million US residences = ~150 BILLION DOLLARS in captial expenditure.


      Pre-emtive "insightful" comment from pinko college kid living of Daddy's money: "That's way less than we've spent in Iraq..."


      ...which only illustrates this: If we ask the governement to build out this network, it will cost about $1 Trillion with all the overage, delays, and waste. I'd rather take over another oil-rich country for that sort of investment.

      • by jez9999 (618189)
        I'd rather take over another oil-rich country for that sort of investment.

        Erm, why? The iraq war has crucified the US's standing in the world, helped to breed a new generation of anti-US terrorists, and resulted in the deaths of thousands of US troops. What possible reason could you have for wanting this over anything??
    • Both AT&T and Comcast know the upcoming government WILL impose Net Neutrality.
      So to head off this, they agree to voluntarily submit to equality.
      I suggest that IF a corporate says there is no need for regulation and agrees to voluntarily do something, then it MUST be regulated in law with severe penalties.
      After all, as corporates themselves claim, if there is way they will do something that is disliked, then what harm is there in having a law that puts penalties if the corporate violates it.

      Comcast was a
      • I'd have thought it better to set a precedence under the lame-duck Bush and while everybody is preoccupied with Iraq and OMG-AGW.
    • by shentino (1139071)
      Which is exactly why companies WONT do it without subsidies.

      If I'm a greedy "fucking cocksucker" I unfortunately am not going to give a damn about anyone's profit but my own.

      and why shouldn't I? If I go altruistic, I'm going to get fucked royally by my competitors, who would take advantage of my niceness so quickly my head would spin.

      anyone who has seen the TV show "friend or foe" will know quite well what I'm talking about.

      Self interest is what is wrecking things.

      One company that is out for blood forces e
  • ..that regulation mandating net neutrality will cause the ISPs no harm because of Peee for Peee technology!
  • by dwater (72834) on Friday April 11, 2008 @08:01PM (#23042744)
    Sorry, but it's been too long since my maths classes at school.

    I read this,

    "According to the study, redoing the P2P into what they call P4P can reduce the number of 'hops' by an average of 400%."

    and am confused. Surely reducing a number by 100% brings it to zero. What does reducing a number by 400% mean?

    10 becomes -30?
    • FYI (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      • by dwater (72834)
        Yes, this thread is interesting, most notably the post about the word 'reduced' (and 'increased') being either multiplicative or additive.

        To me, it depends on the word following 'reduced' - in this case 'by', which is always additive/subtractive.

        If they had used 'reduced to' then that would be clear too.

        The '%' is always multiplicative.

        So, acceptable alternative might be :

        1) reduced by 75% of the original value
        2) reduced to 25% of the original value
        3) reduced to a quarter of the original value

        I can't see an
    • In layman's terms, it means that your computer has already downloaded 40% of the porn torrent you're going to click on at 2am tonight.
    • by laird (2705)

      "According to the study, redoing the P2P into what they call P4P can reduce the number of 'hops' by an average of 400%."

      and am confused. Surely reducing a number by 100% brings it to zero. What does reducing a number by 400% mean?

      10 becomes -30?

      Yeah, I can't say where that number came from. So I'll explain what I do know.

      Without P4P the data delivered within the ISP travelled across an average of 5.5 long distance links, and with P4P the data travelled across an average of 0.89 long distance links. The average is so low because a whopping 58% of the data was delivered within the same metro area, and the rest came largely from adjacent metro areas.

      The result of this was that for delivering a given volume of data, P4P reduced internal link utilizat

  • In some circles P4P means "Pay for Play" aka hookers.

    Seems entirely appropriate that Comcast would claim that the hookers they sent to congress and the FCC are enough to take are of any problems.
  • That's some pretty impressive spin that Comcast and ATT are putting on the issue - but I suspect it won't come close to fooling the feds. They've been selling something they can't deliver - and are now looking for ways to put a quick bandaid on the problem.

    It's not working. It should be entertaining to see what kind of BS they come up with next...

  • lies lies lies

    Ok, lets pretend that p4p is benign...
    Even if that is true, It was not market forces that brought it about.

    Comcast could clearly see they were about to be regulated... It was the fear of legislation, not market forces that made them adapt.
  • Just wait until all those HDTV channels start showing up on Comcast cable as well. How much information can they put through a length of RG-6 coax? You really need fiber to every house. Or run Heliax hardline to each house at 10Ghz. Then you'd have some BW. But its a bitch hooking hard line to a cable box, haha.

Chemist who falls in acid will be tripping for weeks.

Working...