Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Businesses

Comcast, Pando Partner For "P2P Bill of Rights" 136

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the until-we-figure-out-a-sneakier-way-of-doing-it dept.
Bibek Paudel writes "Comcast on Tuesday announced that it would partner with Pando Networks to create a P2P bill of rights for file-sharing networks and Internet service providers. Comcast and Pando will meet with industry experts, other ISPs, and P2P companies in order to come up with a set of rules that would clarify how a user can use P2P applications and how an ISP can manage file-sharing programs running on their networks. Last month, Comcast announced that it had reached an agreement with BitTorrent whereby Comcast agreed to alter its network management practices, and BitTorrent acknowledged that Comcast has the right to police its own network. Comcast's battle with P2P networks started last year after the Associated Press published an article that accused Comcast of blocking peer-to-peer services like BitTorrent. Comcast admitted to delaying P2P traffic during peak times, but denied that any file-sharing applications were being completely blocked."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Comcast, Pando Partner For "P2P Bill of Rights"

Comments Filter:
  • Ruh-roh (Score:2, Informative)

    by trickonion (943942)
    If comcast wants it... no good will come of it
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Moryath (553296)
      Comcast admitted to delaying P2P traffic during peak times, but denied that any file-sharing applications were being completely blocked.

      Except that was actually proven, and they even admitted to, is like standing outside someone's house patched into their main phone line and then randomly hanging up on people.

      Time to watch this with as many eyes as we can get. Letting Comcrap do this is kind of like putting Mohammed, Lenin, Stalin, Che Guevara, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, and Chairman Mao in a room to write a de
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Wow - not only a very speedy Godwinism, but lumping Muhammad in with mass murderers and dictators. I do love a rational argument!
        • Actually they are all evil megalomaniacs who used ideology to gain absolute power.
        • by Detritus (11846)
          Well, he was a mass murderer and dictator, among other not very nice things. Then again, that wasn't exactly unusual back then.

          The next time you're in Saudi Arabia, visit the thriving Jewish community in Medina.

    • Yup. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Monday April 21, 2008 @07:06PM (#23152336)
      The reason Comcast wants it is because they want it for all the reason that the original Bill of Rights was considered dangerous: it will be an exclusive enumeration of all the rights you have. All other "rights" will exist at the good will of Comcast. Not to mention that I expect all kinds of weasel words in it that mean that Comcast's Bill of Rights will be nothing more than "You're allowed to use P2P for as long as we say you can, and we're allowed to change our mind at any time and without warning".

      I hope this goes down in flames.

      • by neochubbz (937091)

        The reason Comcast wants it is because they want it for all the reason that the original Bill of Rights was considered dangerous: it will be an exclusive enumeration of all the rights you have. All other "rights" will exist at the good will of Comcast. Not to mention that I expect all kinds of weasel words in it that mean that Comcast's Bill of Rights will be nothing more than "You're allowed to use P2P for as long as we say you can, and we're allowed to change our mind at any time and without warning".

        I hope this goes down in flames.

        You're forgetting the 9th and 10th Amendments. [archives.gov] From the Ninth, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

        • Correct - and those amendments are very often forgotten when people talk about the Bill of Rights. They were put it expressly because the drafters of the Bill of Rights didn't want anybody to even think that, but were aware that there was a significant risk it was going to be interpreted that way. I'm pretty sure the Comcast Bill of Rights will not have those provisions.
          • by KDR_11k (778916)
            I understand that as "the constitution doesn't ban things it doesn't mention", nothing more. Other laws can ban them. Anything not explicitely permitted in comcast's bill will most likely be banned by the TOS.
            • Yes it's true that a State Constitution could specifically ban the right to privacy, asserting that the State Legislature has the authority to wiretap everyone's external phone lines. Such a constitution would not be over-ruled by the U.S. Constitution, due to the ninth and tenth amendments. (Hopefully the citizens of that state would be smart enough not to allow such a constitution to be ratified, but you never know.)

              As for Comcast, I bet the bill of rights will give them MORE power, not less. "I can't
  • Its an attempt to get egg of their face.
  • by Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) on Monday April 21, 2008 @06:16PM (#23151694)
    Users will use technology as they see fit. That is the ONLY thing everyone need know.
    • Well said. The only thing they are spouting here is that users will be given permission to use their service that was already contractually given to them, instead of illegally manipulated. There does not need to be a bill of rights. Laws already are in place to manage what ISPs and end users are allowed to do. End of story. If Comcast is getting scared because of FCC fines/class action lawsuits they only have themselves to blame for how they "managed" this, not the end users.
      Fuck off...and go to hell.
    • Careful...there is such a thing as an undesirable customer. Comcast could easily say, "You're costing us too much, we don't want your business." Then what?
      • by Camael (1048726)
        Well, if Comcast is too unreasonable about what is "allowed" on their networks, they will end up with a lot of undesirable customers. Bearing in mind economies of scale and the fact that most of their overheads are fixed (eg server/line maintenance costs) losing a substantial chunk of their clientele is bound to hurt. Plus theres an old saying, "nature abhors a vacuum"... I would not be surprised to see a upstart company challenging Comcast if they see a potential to make a profit off these disgruntled cu
  • The Findings (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Renraku (518261) on Monday April 21, 2008 @06:16PM (#23151696) Homepage
    "Well, we've determined that information doesn't want to be free. Therefore, all BitTorrent or P2P traffic not sponsored by one of our esteemed peers will be allowed 100MB a month. Over that and your bill will go up."
    • by Burz (138833)

      "Therefore, all BitTorrent or P2P traffic not sponsored by one of our esteemed sponsors will be allowed 100MB a month. Over that and your bill will go up."
      There, fixed that for you...
  • What makes Comcast think that will get rid of their bad reputation?

    This is just posturing to look like they did something. Also, I doubt they'd put anything meaningful that didn't please Our Dearest Stockholders from on high.
    • by Ihmhi (1206036)

      Oh yeah, someone at Comcast is definitely "on high".

      The easiest way to fix this is to get more competition into the arena, instead of Comcast/Optimum/Roadrunner OR Verizon. Once there's three companies, four companies, etc. in an area, things would start to change pretty quickly.

  • The phrase "bill of rights" is and has been for some time corrupted by idotic proposals like this. I cannot hear it without becoming nausious.

    Discuss.
  • by Pantero Blanco (792776) on Monday April 21, 2008 @06:20PM (#23151752)
    I'm tired of hearing "bill of rights" applied in ridiculous situations by people or organizations who want to make it seem like they're being oppressed.

    It seems to me that every meaningful phrase or term -anything that elicits a positive reaction in people- eventually gets co-opted by a political or corporate organization and turned into a complete farce. Sometimes it recovers, sometimes it doesn't.

    When's the last time you heard the word "wholesome" in a BS-free situation?
    • In other words, you want a Bill of Rights Bill of Rights!
    • by Jherek Carnelian (831679) on Monday April 21, 2008 @06:35PM (#23151942)

      I'm tired of hearing "bill of rights" applied in ridiculous situations by people or organizations who want to make it seem like they're being oppressed.
      Except, in this case, the people using the term "bill of rights" are the ones trying to do the oppressing. They want to use this "bill of rights" to fend off legislation (which, ironically, would be an actual BILL of rights) with actual penalties for violations.
      • Parent:

        Except, in this case, the people using the term "bill of rights" are the ones trying to do the oppressing.
        Grandparent:

        by people or organizations who want to make it seem like they're being oppressed.
        I believe the point was that they are the oppressors, but are covering up by saying they are the victims.
      • But Comcast are being oppressed by the dirty P2P users who take advantage of the generous unlimited service to flood the network and lower the quality of service to those honorable customers who only check email and browse the web, like Comcast^Wgod intended.

        [/sarcasm]
    • Not to mention that throwing around "Bill of Rights" tends to ignore the entire context in which that document was written... and the fact that the document almost wasn't written at all.

      What bothers me so much about this is that it's a transparent attempt to head off Congress, with the results not being pro-consumer.

      Last month, Comcast announced that it had reached an agreement with BitTorrent whereby Comcast agreed to alter its network management practices, and BitTorrent acknowledged that Comcast has the right to police its own network.

      Two companies coming to an agreement does nothing to resolve issues of Net Neutrality, especially when the agreement explicitly seems to disavow Net Neutrality.

      I'd much rather have legislation

  • by wattrlz (1162603) on Monday April 21, 2008 @06:22PM (#23151772)
    "We haven't blocked any specific p2p applications. BitTorrent packets may have been indefinitely delayed, however."
    • by Qzukk (229616)
      We haven't blocked any specific p2p applications. BitTorrent packets may have been indefinitely delayed, however

      Well, they cut off torrents, but that could have been from any number of applications: utorrent, azureus, World of Warcraft, etc. So clearly, they're not lying at all.
  • by Hatta (162192) on Monday April 21, 2008 @06:22PM (#23151778) Journal
    If you remember, Bittorrent Inc made a similar deal with Comcast to protect their transfers. Now another P2P company peddling a proprietary solution has done the same.

    Where does this leave non-commercial P2P on Comcast. Are we going to see a situation where proprietary P2P is whitelisted, while everything else is throttled? Is Comcast going to move towards a protocol agnostic, but vendor specific throttling strategy?
    • by guy5000 (1211440)
      how whould this work w/o packet inspection all traffic protocols look the same
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by catch23 (97972)
      I've been using BT on Comcast for some time now using encrypted streams. So far so good, fast transfers too. I say let Comcast throttle as much as they want, sooner or later users will adapt to using full end to end encryption rendering it basically impossible for them to block without potentially screwing up someone else's https connection to their banking website. I say let them throttle, they'll force all application developers to use encryption which is a good thing.
  • by CSMatt (1175471)
    This was already covered [slashdot.org] less than a week ago.
    • by fm6 (162816)
      Indeed. Not only is this story a dupe, but it comes much too late to count as "news".
  • by funchords (937529) <robb@funchords.com> on Monday April 21, 2008 @06:25PM (#23151830) Homepage

    Tuesday, Comcast Corporation and Pando Networks announced that they will lead the industry to create a "P2P Bill of Rights and Responsibilities" for users and ISPs. With an FCC hearing on Comcast's anti-peer-to-peer practices scheduled for later this week, this is hardly a surprise. Once again, Comcast makes another sweetheart-sounding deal, but at the wrong time, and with the wrong sweetheart.

    It takes a special kind of arrogance for a company that sells Internet Access to team up with another company that sells Content Delivery and together decide what rights and responsibilities that the world's Internet users should have.

    As in its earlier "deal" with BitTorrent, Inc., Comcast's announcement tuesday doesn't change any of the facts it faces: in 2006, it assured Congress that network neutrality laws were not necessary, saying it would not "deny, delay, or degrade" its customers in order to deal with traffic congestion. Within a year it was caught secretly doing exactly that! Even after a long string of deceptive and deflective statements and tactics, Comcast continues to degrade their traffic tuesday.

    As was the case in the BitTorrent "deal," neither Comcast Corporation nor Pando Networks represents the millions of customers and other members of the Internet community who were impacted when Comcast secretly launched its anti-P2P attack.

    Tuesday's announcement came less than 48 hours from the US Federal Communication Committee's public hearing at Stanford University. There, the FCC heard from two panels of experts followed by public testimony on the Comcast incident specifically as well as similar industry practices in general.

    And, just like in the BitTorrent deal, we also saw Comcast and Pando Networking executives start to explain why tuesday's "deal" signals that Network Neutrality regulation is not needed in the Broadband Marketplace.

    Comcast talking = nothing.

    This is a company with a sub-prime credibility rating.

    Robb Topolski

    • Mod the parent up please.

      This is a pure public relations [wikipedia.org] play and marketing bullshit move on the part of Comcast (i.e. so that they can muddy the waters and look like they are doing something in front of politicians and average citizens who don't know any better without actually changing their ways). They were caught red handed doing exactly what they said they wouldn't do and now they are trying to capitalize on the whole "bill or rights" buzz that seems to be infecting marketers these days who are tryin

    • by efudddd (312615)
      Actually, I think Comcast's move may be a PR move in response to the Senate Commerce Committee, which is looking at "The Future of the Internet" today (in advance of the FCC hearing).

      The Senate Commerce Committee is holding a hearing on the future of the Internet, and a big part of that equation is net neutrality. I know net neutrality is important to a lot of you here, but Senators haven't heard from you in a while on the issue, and I want to make sure we keep this front and center - it's that important. ...

      We can't allow companies to pick and choose what companies they allow to access their networks, and we certainly can't depend on overwhelming political pressure on every decision to keep the networks open. This is not good for the future of the Internet and, frankly, it's not good for anyone who uses it either.

      We need to have clarity on these rules. The value of innovation on the Internet is just too high to have it affected by these kinds of messes. From the economic value of the Internet activity to the social value of the new models of organization (like this blog), the free flow of information on the Internet is a vital part of this nation's future.

      That's John Kerry, specifically targeting Comcast as an example of what's wrong now and putting out an appeal to everyone to call their senators today, to let Congress know that they think net neutrality is an important issue. (You can read his full arguments at firedoglake or dKos if you're interested.) Agree? Tell them. Dis

  • by Eponymous Coward (6097) on Monday April 21, 2008 @06:25PM (#23151838)
    I'm all for a bill of rights. Among the enumerated rights should be:

    Any p2p user shall have available to them a detailed and complete description of what network services their monthly fees entitle them to. This will include all of the usage limits which may trigger account suspension or termination.

    This information is required for any p2p user to make an informed choice among broadband providers. I don't particularly care if they advertise "unlimited" service, but there needs to be an asterisk which points to how they define unlimited.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      What choice? Your choice is either the local monopoly or dialup.
      • Unfortunately, that's often the case - but not always.

        Where I live (Portland, OR) I can get dsl, cable modem, or other business class services (think T1's). Some people I work with have Verizon's fios, but I don't think that's available in my neighborhood yet.
        • Anything that comes with a real service level agreement, like a T1 will, is going to cost an arm and a leg. As opposed to broadband, where it's cheap and you take what you can get.

          I'm OK with that, but I hate how much of the marketing speaks otherwise. I feel like if a company uses the word "unlimited" at any time, in any part of their promotions, and they give you anything less than that, there should be extremely strict consequences.

          I'd love to see fios come to town, but I'm kind of rural right now.
      • ..or satellite?
    • by Qzukk (229616)
      Agreed. Not only that, but they need to stop hiding behind the word "disruptive", since the only thing that someone can determine in advance that would be "disruptive" to the network is a DoS attack. Everything else they call "disruptive" is just making things up as they go.
  • Simple. How about: (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    "All P2P traffic is to be treated the same as all other traffic?"

    In this case "bill of rights" is a euphemism for "limitation of rights".

  • Is this fooling anyone?

    No, seriously.

    Anyone?
  • by i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) on Monday April 21, 2008 @06:39PM (#23152004) Homepage Journal
    The solution is simple: get rid of your Comcast 'net service, just keep cable. Get FIOS from Verizon or even DSL.

    Comcast is a publicly traded company and as such here's what's important to them.....

    Making money for their stockholders.

    That means stopping the things that zap their resources. I don't think anyone will disagree that BitTorrent does exactly that.

    Comcast is going to do what is best in their corporate interest. Surprised? Don't be. It's business. Vote with something they DO understand, your monthly $$$
    • "That means stopping the things that zap their resources. I don't think anyone will disagree that BitTorrent does exactly that."

      In some cases it, no doubt, does sap resources. But, let me ask you this - which is cheaper for an ISP: to move bits between users of their own network, or to move bits from other networks on the Internet to their users? Maybe I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that shuffling data around inside the ISP's network is probably much faster and cheaper than moving data across the lim
      • I don't disagree with your post in general, just that specific statement, I think, might be somewhat incorrect. But, it is somewhat correct to, in that, one could argue that, with regards to *illegal* file-sharing, sans P2P, there would be no *legal* source for that data, so that would just be less traffic, period, to move around the network and the Internet. But the problem is, there's no good way that anyone's found *yet* to discriminate between legal and illegal traffic. I still think that if the ISP's r
    • I personally love Comcast's Service, and fully support the filtering and the blocking of P2P Application use and download for illegal use such as: downloading movies, downloading music, and other illicit activities. I wished more ISP's would do what Comcast does. It would make the net cheaper and faster. To me anyone who uses P2P day in and day out constantly using up bandwidth should either get charged out the ass or their speed throttled to allot more bandwidth to those people who actually use the inte
  • by Anonymous Coward
    How about if people want to use lots of bandwidth, they can pay extra for a special UNLIMITED account?!

    Oh... wait.
    • Which, I think, is the main problem. They are lying with their marketing. If you want to drop a few hundred every month on a dedicated line, they'll happily install one for you.

      But paying a tenth of that for broadband...common sense says that you're going to have a somewhat weaker link at that price. The problem is, all of the advertising says that this cheap broadband link is UNLIMITED! and LIGHTNING FAST!

      They should either (a) give people fast links to the internet (b) not lie about what they can provid
    • by Tuoqui (1091447)
      Dont you mean... UNLIMITED* Account

      *Not really Unlimited! Some restrictions apply, read through a 50 page TOS for details!
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by BlueStrat (756137)
        "...read through a 50 page TOS for details!

        Where they *still* won't tell you how much bandwidth and throughput your money entitles you to, only that you'll be disconnected for "using too much" and/or "doing something we decide we don't like".

        One other point I'd like to make is that anger here seems to be mainly directed at Comcast, and as that's the particular provider named in TFA, that's understandable. However, let's not forget that Comcast is is only one of many providers pulling shenanigans, Comcast is
  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Monday April 21, 2008 @06:45PM (#23152092)
    This is such a bad idea for users. Like 2 wolves and a sheep getting together for a democratic vote on what's for dinner - except the sheep isn't even invited to the vote.

    The chances of Comcast coming up with anything that users themselves will find the least bit palatable is next to nothing, but the fools in the media and government won't hear about that because they're too busy applauding how industry is clearly now ready to take the lead and solve the problems without government intervention.

    Such a transparent attempt to kill Net Neutrality, when all we as user want is: It's our pipe. We pay for it. So let us decide how we want to utilize our paid-for bandwidth. And don't make it our problem that you have oversold your system capacity by hundreds of times!

    • by bnenning (58349)
      Such a transparent attempt to kill Net Neutrality, when all we as user want is: It's our pipe. We pay for it. So let us decide how we want to utilize our paid-for bandwidth. And don't make it our problem that you have oversold your system capacity by hundreds of times!

      Absolutely. And if they actually do need to limit bandwidth (which shouldn't be the normal state, but say they're doing maintenance or something and have reduced capacity), then just do it on a content-neutral basis. It shouldn't matter whethe
    • by JetScootr (319545)
      "An honest man between two lawyers is like a fish between two cats".
      Ben Franklin (or so I've heard)
  • This is all coming from the same company that wanted to limit the amount of IP addresses that you could have inside your network. It is not legally comcast's job to participate in content control. This seems like a step toward an orwellian style of censorship.
  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Monday April 21, 2008 @06:50PM (#23152148)

    and BitTorrent acknowledged that Comcast has the right to police its own network.

    Hey, I'm sorry but BitTorrent doesn't speak for me. They're not even a user and I am, so who died and made them God to decide what's right for Comcast and what's not?

    • Well I'll tell you who died. Popular media that is reporting for the people and not their corporate sponsors, same for government officials.
  • Comcast admitted to delaying P2P traffic during peak times, but denied that any file-sharing applications were being completely blocked.

    This sounds like the typical "non-denial denial", of the classical "weasel words" variety. For it to be true, all they need to show is that there are some file-sharing apple that are sometimes not outright killed. So, for example, if they kill all file-sharing apps after 10 seconds, and kill all BT apps outright, there would still be a few transfers of very short files th
  • by nurb432 (527695) on Monday April 21, 2008 @07:28PM (#23152522) Homepage Journal
    Don't screw with your customers packets.

    Problem solved.
  • BitTorrent Inc. has no more right to state what users or Comcasts rights are than Comcast had the right to retroactively dictate how the bandwidth they sold to consumers should be used in the first place!
    I can really see the EFF going "oh, that's fine then, BitTorrent Inc. said it's 'OK' for them to abuse their users"
  • The real Bill or Rights in the US is sheredded on a daily basis. You wouldn't even recognize it any more, and what's left requires a lawyer to explain. When the real deal is restored to its rightful place of dignity and respect, and politicians and elected leaders are subject to criminal prosecution for violations thereof, then come talk to me about a stupid (yes, it's stupid) "bill of rights". This makes me sick, really. Just like the dumb airline passenger "bill of rights" that got shot down in New Yo
  • I don't want a P2P user's bill of rights. I want an ISP subscriber's bill of rights. Top entries:

    1. As a subscriber I have the right to use the bandwidth I pay for, and to use it in whatever manner I find appropriate so long as that activity is not against the law.
    2. As a subscriber I have the right to know what policies the ISP will impose before I subscribe, so that I can decide whether those policies are acceptable to me.
    • How about some real biting teeth into their bill of rights.
      Make it as a contract with criminal penalties that comcast makes with each customer.
      Violation of some terms involve serious jail time for CEO.
      Violation of some terms involve heavy financial penalties like 25% of pre-tax profit to be paid to affected parties.
      Violation of some terms involve light financial penalties like $100,000 to $250,000 payable to affected party.

      Comcast are you game for it?
  • That fake "Bill of Rights" is a scam [cnn.com] to require customers accept that ComCast service can suck whenever ComCast wants it to, and customers have to suck it up:

    Now just two days before the FCC's Stanford hearing, Comcast issued yet another press release, probably aimed at dissuading the FCC from taking any action against it. Comcast and another peer-to-peer company, Pando Networks, said they created their own "Bill of Rights and Responsibilities" for file sharing, much to the amusement of some legal experts.

  • Comcast is making a wonderful business model for up and coming ISPs such as Copowi (http://www.copowi.com/). Keep screwing with our service and they will continue to be more and more successful as we leave comcast and flock to them. You provide internet access. nothing more. Don't shoot yourself in the foot comcast.
  • The word "and" was invented a long time ago; use it.
  • Comcast will have to learn the hard way that bandwidth is (or at least should be) a commodity, and therefore is not to be policed. They sell X GB/month of transfer at a speed of Y mb/s for a price N. A P2P Bill of Rights is absurd - if you want to throttle me, I'll switch providers.

    The only thing that's letting them get away with this at the moment is the virtual monopoly most of these ISP's have. Which has a lot to do with them pretending to "own" the last mile, paid for by tax dollars.

    It's too much
  • Tag this 'itssatrap'. You know it is. Comcast has nothing to gain from this upfront. It's their hidden agenda that is making them do this. They do NOT want to proliferate p2p. They want to control it.
  • I believe less than 5% of the US has this as an option, with most areas getting less and less options daily, with DSL prices going higher and higher.

    In my area (Chicago), which is a very large metro area, you basically have Comcast or nothing else. Seven (yes Seven) years ago you could get full 1.5mbps SDSL at $80/month, but just like all of the local cable companies, most of the local Internet providers got bought out and dropped all of their customers.

    Now, the same service is somewhere in the bal
  • I thought that said "Lando."

    Get out of there, Han, it's a trap!
  • Preamble The Preamble to the Bill of Rights: THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their putting up with Comcast, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the ISP, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. Articles: 1. Comcast shall be entitled to oversell bandwidth at a ratio of not less than 20 to
  • Bill of Rights? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by J'raxis (248192) on Monday April 21, 2008 @09:47PM (#23153578) Homepage

    A "set of rules" is a "Bill of Rights" now?

  • by Anonymous Coward
    1. "You have the right to remain silent" [we will ignore all complaints anyway].

    2. "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law" [we will log all your packets]

    3. You have the right to an attorney [if you can afford one]

    And the rights basically end there. I am very suspicious when anyone wants to tell me what rights I have, when they are not a law enforcement official. This is just another way to reword the TOS [Terms of Service] agreement, and make it sound double-plus good.

    -With app
  • > ...a set of rules that would clarify how a user can use P2P applications...

    I don't need clarification. The answer is, as much as I want and in any way I see fit. And I damn sure don't need Comcast or any ISPs involved in any decisions I make as to what I see as fit.

    This is a failed attempt at disguising their effort to legitimize themselves as arbiters. They only want their hand in it so they can yank out what they want. And it's a (piss poor) PR move attempting to sweep their present reputation as net
  • Seriously, WTF is Pando and why do I give a crap about them?

    This is like "US Government partners with Some Guy from Nowheresville, New Jersey for US Citizen Bill of Rights."

    Just goes to show how big a load of crap this so-called bill of rights is. Given that it means jack and they are free to ignore it at will because it will have no force of law.
  • How could they either support or deny P2P "rights"? No matter what they do to try to stop so-called "P2P", nothing will work. Peer-To-Peer, technologically, means that when two boxen communicate, neither is in control of the other. That describes the entire internet. Every computer decides for itself what data to send and receive, and data can be bundled anyway teh sender wants. The only reason some apps get blocked now is because until now, the programmers trusted that the hardware connections ("ISPs")
  • Write a data transfer app ("P2P") that works like military radio. Mil comm switches between frequencies hundreds of times per second, so that any would-be eavesdropper hears nothing but static or at most, a tiny burst on any one frequency. This can be done with digital communications, also:
    Toggle between protocols every few milliseconds. Use all of'em: from http and ftp to the wierd exotic stuff of MMORPGs. Deliberatley route thru multiple "targets" that converge on the reciever.
    Eventually, it will be
    • Its not that easy like radios.
      TCP/IP was not designed for that.
      And switching from HTTP to FTP or even UDP thousands of times a second is counterproductive.
      Ultimately you would spend 10 hours to download a 2 MB file.
      There are vast differences between radio and TCP/IP.

      Like comparing flying the jap zero fighter contraption to a modern day F-15 Eagle fighter.
      The sheer amount of steps required to prepare the eagle for flight versus the zero is the difference.

We warn the reader in advance that the proof presented here depends on a clever but highly unmotivated trick. -- Howard Anton, "Elementary Linear Algebra"

Working...