On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:26:14 -0400 "Christopher Morrow" <christopher.morrow@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/19/07, John C. A. Bambenek <bambenek@gmail.com> wrote:
I love how the framed it as "data discrimination". Let's just be honest... 99% of it was illegal traffic taking up far more than their fair share of bandwidth.
is there really anyway to really know how much of it was legit/legal/illegal??
Nope. And BitTorrent is trying to be very legit; see, for example, http://www.forbes.com/home/technology/2007/10/08/brightcove-fox-paramount-te... Besides, legal issues should be dealt with by the legal process. If nothing else, there one has guarantees of due process and the right to contest the charges.
Also, I'll channel Sean Donelan now: "ISP's... damned if they do, damned if they don't" It's a funny world out there :)
(also, how is it that Comcast is getting dinged on this but BT or other carreirs doing similar 'rate shaping' for p2p traffic are NOT?)
Personally, I see a big difference between rate-shaping and sending RSTs. (I suppose you could view RSTs as allocating 0 bps, but that's not a helpful distinction.) That said, I don't approve of other carriers sending RSTs, either; I simply happened to see the articles on Comcast today. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb