On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 12:27 -0800, Alan Richmond wrote:
> Well, something really kicked loose on Thursday or Friday, suddenly
> BitTorrent
> started working again. I'm getting full speed transfers and multiple
> connections again.
I'm guessing that Cox has deactivated the p2p-disrupting system. I can
now connect to the gnutella network as well as bittorrent, and one of
the other people whose connection I tested can now use gnutella. I need
to check bittorrent on that connection and both protocols on the third
person's connection to be sure.
I'm really bummed about this, because it's going to be harder to make an
example out of them.
We need neutral carriers, and that means not disrupting or degrading
certain traffic--that's annoying and it creates a poor environment for
competition and innovation. A neutral carrier also doesn't trash freedom
of speech by filtering out certain "objectionable" content. We're not
far down that road yet, at least in the United States, but we need to be
watching out for this sort of thing.
The worst possible outcome would have been for nobody to notice what Cox
was doing, chalk it up to poor routers or shoddy peer to peer software,
and continue on. Before long, throttling or blocking peer to peer could
have been (and still could become) a universal practice for all US ISPs.
There would be about six months of outrage, and then people would start
thinking of it as normal.
But the best possible outcome is going to be harder to achieve now that
Cox has at least temporarily suspended their activities. I'm remembering
an incident involving Coca-Cola a few years ago.
The potential was heralded, though, by the
company's chairman and chief executive in an
interview earlier this month with a Brazilian
newsmagazine. Chairman M. Douglas Ivester
described how desire for a cold drink can
increase during a sports championship final
held in the summer heat. "So, it is fair that
it should be more expensive," Ivester was
quoted as saying in the magazine, Veja. "The
machine will simply make this process
automatic."
Which turned into this:
Coke officials defend the plan by saying it just
capitalizes on the concept of supply and demand.
Wrong. It is price gouging at its worst. It is
insulting to customers. It is taking advantage
of a bad situation.
I believe in a free market. Coke might have a
legal right to jimmy its prices based on how hot
and bothered its customers are. But customers are
going to see this gambit for what it is, not
free-market entrepreneurship but greedy profiteering.
Coke got burned badly because a gizmo in testing got spun the wrong way.
I wouldn't be surprised if you could get burned alive suggesting that
kind of thing at a soda company today.
The same thing needs to happen here. I want every person at every ISP to
know that they could be fired for suggesting interference with customer
traffic. It's disruption of service at best and censorship at worst.
Please don't give up. Keep spreading the word.
Packet logs available upon request,
Eric
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
|