Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Comcast's degrading hurts us all!
Several of the comments on my posting, Comcasts President, Interactive Division, lies about BitTorrent discrimination argue that she's not lying when she says that 0.1% of users are affected because only a small number of subscribers use applications like BitTorrent that Comcast is impairing and degrading.
Sorry folks. Impairing and degrading the Internet hurts us all. To borrow from Pastor Martin Niemöller:
First they impaired BitTorrent, but I didn't speak out because I didn't use BitTorrent.
Then they impaired VOIP, but I didn't speak out because I didn't use VOIP.
Then they impaired IM, but I didn't speak out because I didn't use IM.
Then they came for my connection, and there was no way for me to speak out because the Internet we once had was destroyed.
There's another way to understand how Comcast's actions destroys value for all of us:
Only a small number of automobile drivers "floor" their accelerator, right? So it is OK to put a brick underneath people's accelerator pedals, right? Wrong. We don't use *all* the horsepower of our vehicle very often, but we spend extra for a powerful car because we want the power to be there when we need it.
In similar manner, we buy 20 megabit connections not because we run apps that require 20 megabits but because we want the option to use 20 megabits occasionally, when we need it.
We use the Internet every day in ways we never imagined five years ago, because the Internet is flexible and open. We may well need to use a Peer-to-Peer application tomorrow, if, that is, today's ISPs keep their Internet access sufficiently open that P2P can continue to develop.
If the Internet access providers block P2P, it hurts us all because it closes our options.
Sorry folks. Impairing and degrading the Internet hurts us all. To borrow from Pastor Martin Niemöller:
First they impaired BitTorrent, but I didn't speak out because I didn't use BitTorrent.
Then they impaired VOIP, but I didn't speak out because I didn't use VOIP.
Then they impaired IM, but I didn't speak out because I didn't use IM.
Then they came for my connection, and there was no way for me to speak out because the Internet we once had was destroyed.
There's another way to understand how Comcast's actions destroys value for all of us:
Only a small number of automobile drivers "floor" their accelerator, right? So it is OK to put a brick underneath people's accelerator pedals, right? Wrong. We don't use *all* the horsepower of our vehicle very often, but we spend extra for a powerful car because we want the power to be there when we need it.
In similar manner, we buy 20 megabit connections not because we run apps that require 20 megabits but because we want the option to use 20 megabits occasionally, when we need it.
We use the Internet every day in ways we never imagined five years ago, because the Internet is flexible and open. We may well need to use a Peer-to-Peer application tomorrow, if, that is, today's ISPs keep their Internet access sufficiently open that P2P can continue to develop.
If the Internet access providers block P2P, it hurts us all because it closes our options.
Technorati Tags: Comcast, NetworkNeutrality
Comments:
I think your argument rings true.
Comcast indeed has us "slouching towards Bethlehem."
http://www.mcabee.org/~lcm/lines/slouch.html
But on a different, more prosaic arc:
I remember reading not so long ago that the internet was overbuilt by the excesses of the late 90s. Way too much bandwidth. Way too few bits.
I read recently that Comcast is claiming a very few people are hogging the bandwidth of the very many.
I wonder what the truth is here...
Any idea?
Comcast indeed has us "slouching towards Bethlehem."
http://www.mcabee.org/~lcm/lines/slouch.html
But on a different, more prosaic arc:
I remember reading not so long ago that the internet was overbuilt by the excesses of the late 90s. Way too much bandwidth. Way too few bits.
I read recently that Comcast is claiming a very few people are hogging the bandwidth of the very many.
I wonder what the truth is here...
Any idea?
# posted by 
: 10/24/2007 5:24 PM
: 10/24/2007 5:24 PM
I'm confused as how sending a purposefully incorrect disconnect packet to another PC is anything less than hacking?
MAYBE it would be legal for Comcast to do that to disrupt bittorrent between two PCs inside their own network. But as soon as they start sending fraudulent messages to machines in other places, they are causing damage where they have no rights.
MAYBE it would be legal for Comcast to do that to disrupt bittorrent between two PCs inside their own network. But as soon as they start sending fraudulent messages to machines in other places, they are causing damage where they have no rights.
For me, the solution is Isen's. You can't carry content if you're an ISP. Any other approach invites a conflict of interest the telcos simply be unable to avoid.
Does anyone think Comcast will "manage" the connnections of any subscriber who are downloading Comcast-provided content? Content that Comcast makes a profit from?
Don Roszel
Post a Comment
Does anyone think Comcast will "manage" the connnections of any subscriber who are downloading Comcast-provided content? Content that Comcast makes a profit from?
Don Roszel
# posted by : 10/24/2007 9:06 PM
: 10/24/2007 9:06 PM
