Print 61 comment(s) - last by eldakka.. on Aug 3 at 5:32 AM

AT&T Wireless says P2P use is specifically banned in a users contract

The RIAA isn’t alone in looking at peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic as the scourge of the internet. Many of the largest ISPs in the U.S. are also looking to ways to curtail P2P traffic on their networks. The first things cited by ISPs when they start to look for places to cut traffic or charge more for service is P2P traffic.

AT&T has publically stated that it will ban wireless phone subscribers from using P2P programs and that any subscriber caught using P2P services will be terminated. AT&T made the statement last week in response to a question posed by FCC Republican Robert McDowell.

McDowell asked AT&T about its policy on P2P traffic over its wireless network at an FCC forum in July. Robert Quinn, AT&T senior vice president for regulatory affairs said in the letter to the FCC, "AT&T's terms of service for mobile wireless broadband customers prohibit all uses that may cause extreme network capacity issues, and explicitly identify P2P file sharing applications as such a use."

Quinn did sate in the letter that AT&T does not use network management tools to block the use of P2P applications by its users. Quinn says that AT&T warns its customers in writing that they could be terminated from AT&T Wireless if caught using P2P applications. AT&T uses the same song and dance used by ISPs like Comcast to justify its policy -- a small number of P2P users can degrade network performance for other AT&T network users.

Comcast was one of the first ISPs to make headlines over P2P traffic. Comcast was caught cutting back the connection speed of those using P2P services on its network. Comcast says that it only limited the speed at which P2P users could upload data at peak traffic times. Comcast has squared off against the FCC with claims that the FCC has no authority to tell it how to manage its network. The FCC is expected to vote that Comcast degraded performance for some P2P Internet traffic soon.

Martin has said that the FCC will not seek to impose financial penalties on Comcast over its network management policies.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Who would?
By dragonbif on 7/30/2008 5:35:53 PM , Rating: 2
Who uses P2P on their moble phone? It would be faster to download it to your computer then move it over. I guess they are also talking about their air cards for laptops too but still I dont think they made their system with P2P in mind lol.

RE: Who would?
By sapiens74 on 7/30/2008 5:40:46 PM , Rating: 3
Includes Broadband cards as well

RE: Who would?
By exanimas on 7/30/2008 6:49:08 PM , Rating: 3
With most companies limiting their mobile aircards to 5GB per month, you can't really do an insane amount of P2P unless you want to pay a TON of money for it.

RE: Who would?
By jonmcc33 on 8/1/2008 7:24:48 AM , Rating: 2
And that would be pointless, right? I can only imagine someone downloading a 4GB+ Blu-Ray rip over 3G. Just too funny!

RE: Who would?
By marvdmartian on 7/31/2008 11:06:36 AM , Rating: 4
First off, this seems like a really easy way to terminate your contract, if you decide that AT&T sucks, but you don't want to get hit with thier horrendous early termination fee. "Oh gosh, look, I'm using P2P.....guess you'll have to get rid of me!" Since it's AT&T cancelling, they shouldn't be able to hit you with that fee, right?

Second off, the picture used for the article is (of course) perfect. I just imagine Ah-nold with an AT&T ballcap on, kicking down someone's door, and spouting off, "Sarah Connor, you are using P2P on your AT&T wireless! I'm here to terminate you!!", then blowing them away with an Uzi!! ;)

RE: Who would?
By eldakka on 8/3/2008 5:32:06 AM , Rating: 2
Actualy you'd probably find that the terms of service have conditions to the effect "anything you do that breach our terms and causes us to terminate your service will require you to payout the contract as per rules governing if you terminate your service with us during the contract period".

RE: Who would?
By Master Kenobi on 7/30/2008 5:51:14 PM , Rating: 4
P2P over a cellular connection? I'd rather stick a hot poker in my eye. Real P2P fanatics are using Cable, or FIOS.

RE: Who would?
By MarkinScottsdale on 7/30/2008 7:06:18 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I'm hard pressed to imagine a user out so far that their wireless is their only communication link of any sort, and some novice, not fully aware that they're on a 3G network with somewhat limited capacity begins to usurp the capacity by running a P2P app. I suppose such a scenario could exist, but it's got to be damned rare. It would seem that if a user were "caught" using a P2P application that the first thing AT&T should do is find out WHY they are doing this and offer other alternatives if possible. This draconian BS of "TERMINATING THEIR SERVICE" for an infraction of rules that the customer may not even understand he's violated, or even be aware of existing is ABSURD! Teach people why this is not a good thing and why it is not allowed. Teach them how it eats so much of the available bandwidth that other uses may have no data communications as a result of this software being installed and connected to your mobile.

Currently I'm living out in the desert with no broadband service worth a damn. My choices are dial up, or a local WISP with latency issues that are unreal. I'm PRAYING that ComcasT or QWEST throws their fiber based internet access here and soon! But I'm smart enough not to put a P2P application on the computers with a wireless 3g card installed in them!

RE: Who would?
By dominae1 on 7/30/2008 11:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
I'm hard pressed to imagine a user out so far that their wireless is their only communication link of any sort

Actually, this is far more common than you would even begin to realize, even in urban areas. People in rural areas often don't have access to DSL or cable internet b/c the cost-to-benefit ratio doesn't work out for the ISP's. So, that person's only means of having faster-than-dial-up access is via satellite ISP or tethering via mobile phone/laptop connect card. When you're chugging along at 28.8 kbps even an EDGE connection at 120 kbps would seem like a godsend. Even in larger cities people can find that the street they live on is just a little too far from the node, so they are SoL when it comes to getting wired broadband (like my neighbor, who wants DSL but is only 50 ft away from the next closest building that does have it!). So, people often turn to laptop connect cards b/c satellite is unreliable and terribly expensive (like $60 for 5GB isn't).

RE: Who would?
By sgtdisturbed47 on 7/30/2008 6:08:55 PM , Rating: 4
People who use P2P on their phone isn't really using their phone itself to download, but using the phone as a Modem via USB. This allows you to use the phone's network to connect to the internet. Some people can't or don't want to use Cable or DSL, or they can't afford it (there are many different reasons why). Using the phone as a Modem uses your unlimited data plan so it doesn't use minutes and you aren't charged per megabyte. Also, you can connect your phone to any computer and after a quick setup, you're online. It's cheap internet that you can have anywhere.

The main limitation with this is latency and bandwidth. 3G around here gets like 700k a sec (although it's usually only 250k a second), whereas non-3G is like 90k a sec. If you are non-3G it's pointless to bother, as it's just too friggin SLOW (I've tried it. 56k dial-up is faster). 3G on the other hand gives you some better speed, but the latency is still bad so the results differ.

RE: Who would?
By nvalhalla on 7/30/2008 6:18:52 PM , Rating: 2
My EVDO Rev A is 1.2-1.5Mbs sustained, burst of 2.0. If Sprint decides to follow suit I'm toast.

RE: Who would?
By StraightPipe on 7/30/2008 6:26:22 PM , Rating: 1
Actually there are quite a few BT clients for mobile phones.

I know a guy with a 16GB flash card who uses P2P on his phone. Yes, it is slow, but he is able to download movies + music directly to his phone with no cost, and it's significantly easier than iTunes or any subscription service.

the iPhone has several P2P apps available.
(how do you like them apples?)

RE: Who would?
By StevoLincolnite on 7/30/2008 6:26:24 PM , Rating: 2
I wish Telstra would Employ these Tactics on it's ADSL Service and remove the silly Download Limits, 25gb a Month Download Limit, which includes Data Upload is limiting, it doesn't last long even if all you do is Browse Youtube or do Gaming, and then your stuck at 64k speeds till the end of the contracted month.

Also, What happens to those who use there Mobile as an internet Connection and Download Updates for World of WarCraft, which uses a P2P service to download patches or something similar? Seems this "Rule" is rather Vague to me, in all honesty if the service cannot handle the load, then they need to increase the service capability, and place a Download Speed cap of something like 500kbps or something and then let people go spastic with it.

RE: Who would?
By StraightPipe on 7/30/2008 7:23:12 PM , Rating: 2

Yesterday my friend downloaded 75GB on his/her Comcast Cable internet 8MB connection (in 24 hours).

I guess that would have been your limit for the next 2.5 months...

People just dont realize how much easier p2p is than anything else.

RE: Who would?
By Viditor on 7/30/2008 7:31:27 PM , Rating: 3
He's talking about of the most expensive and limiting ISPs in Australia.

RE: Who would?
By StevoLincolnite on 7/30/2008 8:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
They are also the Largest, I would have gone with Optus, but "New" Customers cannot sign up for ADSL According to there website.

Netspace isn't what it used to be, when i was with them a few months back I had nothing but troubles, and the Customer Support had gotten really bad when they had the "Gamers" image.

I tried connecting to Dodo, But they might as well go the way of the Dodo, it took them 3 months to get in contact with me about my Application to Sign up for an ADSL Service, and by that time I had gone with TPG, which was also nothing but trouble, The ADSL connection was down more often than it was online.

Perhaps one day, ADSL 2+ will be available in my area and will be with a Telco other than Telstra Bigpond.

RE: Who would?
By xsilver on 7/30/2008 10:14:27 PM , Rating: 2
If you're remotely regional, the only chance you've got is if you lay your own cable. Either that or when telstra introduces adsl2, they are going to charge you through the nose for it.

The problem is that for australia 25gb/mo is already considered a "power" user so there isnt much more in terms of value in a higher plan.

RE: Who would?
By StevoLincolnite on 7/31/2008 12:12:32 AM , Rating: 2
I won't ever get cable here, I'm in a Regional 2 Area, Or in other words farther then 850km's from my Capital City's CBD.

The Other ISP's in Australia offer much better plans at cheaper prices, but they either:

1) Don't service my area.
2) Poor Customer Service.
3) Poor Performance.
4) Down Times.

Dodo used to have Completely Unlimited Plans, but they have also gone to a capped systems now as well.

When I first got to enjoy Xbox Live! For the first time, I hit my download limit in a week because of all the Gaming, Downloading Maps, Gamer Pictures, Themes, Game Video's and other Addons available for the games I owned, After that I was gaming with high levels of Laggotism in most games I owned.

If 25gb is considered a power user... Then God help us Australians. xD

RE: Who would?
By xsilver on 7/31/2008 4:17:21 AM , Rating: 2
Well the sad thing is that even in the city plans are getting less and less value as more users start to use more bandwidth.

eg. in OZ say 2 years ago, most plans would have had 500mb for $30-40 and then for power users $70-90 for 20-40gb.
What happens here is the telco makes $$$ from the 500mb users and there are few 20gb users so they can afford to take the hit.
Now though with most people savvy about BT and youtube chewing up copious amounts of bandwidth, $70 gets you around the same amount of DL but now they count UPLOADS too. sad.
Basically in 2 years, we've moved backwards in australia.

If telstra would offer truly unlimited 1500k for $50 a month I think a lot of users complaints would just dissappear. But then telstra couldnt charge 30c/mb excess could they? :(

the US already has truly unlimited bandwidth on their mobile plans - we dont even have one yet for our landlines! (actually we do but its $310 a month!!)

RE: Who would?
By StevoLincolnite on 7/31/2008 8:30:33 PM , Rating: 2
Actually a few years Ago, Telstra was Offering 1.5mb Connections with a 10gb download limit, which still included uploads, but the Price was $130 bucks a month with a Static I.P Address.

RE: Who would?
By JustTom on 7/31/2008 12:32:36 AM , Rating: 5
Yesterday my friend downloaded 75GB on his/her Comcast Cable internet 8MB connection (in 24 hours).

Your friend seems to have some gender indentity issues...

RE: Who would?
By cubby1223 on 7/31/2008 1:33:10 AM , Rating: 1
Yesterday my friend downloaded 75GB on his/her Comcast Cable internet 8MB connection (in 24 hours).

I read things like this and it makes me wish bandwidth-based rates get here even sooner than planned...

RE: Who would?
By sweetsauce on 7/31/2008 1:42:24 PM , Rating: 2
What a stupid thing to say. Are they cutting in to your profits? Seriously, you're stupid. No way to sugar coat it, just plain stupid.

RE: Who would?
By omnicronx on 7/31/2008 12:54:50 PM , Rating: 2
in all honesty if the service cannot handle the load, then they need to increase the service capability, and place a Download Speed cap of something like 500kbps or something and then let people go spastic with it.
You do realize that even the 3g(older networks too) network have a maximum amount of bandwidth per area. Each phone company probably does it differently, but they split up each area into spectrum slices from around around 1.5MHZ to 20MHZ. The way I understand it, is the larger the slice, the larger the range which allows for more users, but it decreases the maximum bandwidth allowed for each handset. That being said, regardless of what your provider sets it too, there is maximum amount of shared bandwidth that can be used, and if everyone is allowed to use P2P, download speeds are going to be greatly effected in areas of heavy use.

RE: Who would?
By HrilL on 7/31/2008 12:26:16 AM , Rating: 2
I used to tether my old phone and it would pull 1.1Mk 348Kb/s on AT&T's 3G. It worked pretty well for browsing and it would download files at at 50KB/s but you could get 2 files going that at that speed. so they were doing some throttling for bigger files like drivers and stuff. I used it for when people didn't have internet or 56k. so I guess not many people were really using it here.

RE: Who would?
By afkrotch on 7/31/2008 3:11:14 AM , Rating: 2
Who uses P2P on their moble phone? It would be faster to download it to your computer then move it over. I guess they are also talking about their air cards for laptops too but still I dont think they made their system with P2P in mind lol.

In the US, blows. In Japan, think it's at 5 Mb connection for some cellphones.

RE: Who would?
By aguilpa1 on 7/31/2008 2:22:13 PM , Rating: 2
In the US, blows. In Japan, think it's at 5 Mb connection for some cellphones

I'm sure, its much easier when your country is the size of a postage stamp to do whatever you want.

RE: Who would?
By Moishe on 7/31/2008 8:41:27 AM , Rating: 2
Some people can't get Cable or DSL but they can get a wireless modem for their PC for reasonable prices. These people are likely not into P2P, but I would think that they really don't see any difference between one connection and another. To most users, they are simply connected and doing what they would normally do, which may include occasional P2P downloads.

for cocoa puffs
By TETRONG on 7/30/2008 5:49:19 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand.
Are they saying I cannot exchange files with other users? Isn't that the entire point of the Internet?

RE: for cocoa puffs
By FITCamaro on 7/30/2008 6:00:02 PM , Rating: 1
This is for their wireless service. Not DSL. You can use your phone as a modem or get wireless broadband cards to plug into a laptop that go through their wireless service.

Obviously their rules for DSL service are different.

RE: for cocoa puffs
By JS on 7/30/2008 7:01:19 PM , Rating: 3
I am curious as to how they will define "peer-to-peer". Technically I guess Skype is a no-no then.

Although I realize they're after the people who hog all the bandwidth, it would be interesting to know their thoughts on sending, say, a one gigabyte file to a friend via an IM program.

RE: for cocoa puffs
By JS on 7/30/2008 7:04:48 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, just realized I was confused about what really constitutes P2P networking. Forget that last post.

RE: for cocoa puffs
By mindless1 on 7/30/2008 7:11:19 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, they are saying you are prohibited from using a P2P connection method to exchange files, giving the perhaps legitimate excuse that it uses up more bandwidth than they can allocate.

There are lots of things we are restricted from doing even though they vaguely fall under the concept of sending data around the internet. For example DOS attacks and hacking someone's site. You are not entirely free to give and take data unless both parties, the access provider and the other end both agree, accept what you are doing.

RE: for cocoa puffs
By Alexstarfire on 7/31/2008 12:17:58 AM , Rating: 3
Except that with P2P both parties ARE agreeing. This is just getting stupid.

UPGRADE YOUR G@D D@MN NETWORKS. It's quite obvious that file transfers are going to end up being mostly P2P.

RE: for cocoa puffs
By mindless1 on 7/31/2008 2:28:36 AM , Rating: 2
YOu are ignoring that there are 3 parties. 2 are the P2P clients, the 3rd is the provider.

I am not saying net neutrality is bad, only that it is not as simple as suggested.

RE: for cocoa puffs
By Icelight on 7/31/2008 9:06:38 AM , Rating: 3
Haha, that's a good one. Why would ISPs spend money upgrading their infrastructure when they can just charge the consumer exponentially more as time goes on. Bandwidth usage is just going to increase as time goes on so they can charge even more!

Don't like it? Tough beans, you either bend over for them or don't use the internet at all. What a wonderful world.

RE: for cocoa puffs
By walk2k on 7/30/2008 9:23:20 PM , Rating: 2
Sharing porn and slandering other people anonymously!

RE: for cocoa puffs
By DM0407 on 7/31/2008 11:14:14 AM , Rating: 2
Does this mean you can get outta your contract without paying?

If they broke the contract its not like they pay you a termination fee. (change of rates etc.)

By Obujuwami on 7/30/2008 6:22:39 PM , Rating: 2
Quinn did sate in the letter that AT&T does not use network management tools to block the use of P2P applications by its users.

I think that should be state. Nice job spell checking your work!

RE: Sate?
By mindless1 on 7/30/2008 7:17:47 PM , Rating: 3
I would rather an article had a spelling mistake than spend time reading the reply of someone trying to correct it. Odds are good that other people feel the same way.

Being anal about spelling is a bad reflection on you. There are too many trivial mistakes in too many places, what a terrible waste of time.

PS - It's rude, like interrupting someone who is talking, so you can try to nitpick that they subtly mispronounced something.

RE: Sate?
By DigitalFreak on 7/30/2008 9:07:13 PM , Rating: 2
It's also very unprofessional to not bother to proof read or spell check your work.

Being a dick is a bad reflection on you.

RE: Sate?
By mindless1 on 7/31/2008 2:25:52 AM , Rating: 1
Sadly you don't get it. You don't walk perfect, you don't talk perfect, it would take an ass to criticize about these things.

The same goes for spelling or typos,

You are a crude idiot if you think trying to correct someone for something trivial is anything other than a waste of time.

RE: Sate?
By Icelight on 7/31/2008 9:09:00 AM , Rating: 4
If I was a model I would be paid to walk perfect down that strip, whatever it's called.

If I was a translator I would be expected to translate damn near perfect.

If I was a writer I would be expected to spell correctly.

RE: Sate?
By mindless1 on 7/31/2008 6:46:35 PM , Rating: 1
You're right. It should certainly be expected, but expecting and whining aren't the same.

Do the models always walk perfect down the strip?
Are all translations perfect?
Do police officers always catch everyone speeding when they had nothing better they were doing?
Is the coffee from the shop always a perfect temperature?

What you expect in an overly idealized way is childish.

In every profession you will find minor imperfections. That is life, reality. Trivial things are not only not worth the bother, but more of a distraction than the supposed problem being whined about.

By this post I am also guilt of that, having made more than one comment about it.

RE: Sate?
By mindless1 on 8/1/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sate?
By HrilL on 7/31/2008 12:09:46 PM , Rating: 2
Well they do use network management. bittorrent traffic is blocked quite abit and you'll be lucky to get more than one connection if you do get any at all. And it seems like it would only connect to that one IP because it was a server in a DC but I was not able to get anything to connect to a home connections IP address. Also they don't give phones real IP address. Only in their 10.X.X.X private network and then they use NAT. This blocks a lot of P2P connections due to ports not being open. I was also not able to send a file via IRC or AIM/MSN. It was completely blocked from uploading. Downloading worked but uploading I could never get working.

By sapiens74 on 7/30/2008 5:39:26 PM , Rating: 2
So I get Banned (ATT) or have a cap (Verizon) or my connection slowed (name your wired provider)

By hocanada on 7/30/2008 6:12:29 PM , Rating: 2
If you are using a A.T (access terminal) or Air card on a wireless CDMA network for example a person using bit torrent seeding to even dozens of users can cripple an entire cell site. This cannot be compared to DSL or cable internet. This is something completely logical in a wireless network. When someone for example has a wireless modem that lets say is running Evdo Rev A capable of 3mbps+ , that 3mbps is per site. An average site will have dozens or hundreds of users on it depending on where it is. Blackberry's, wireless modems , 1x and evdo handsets all using legit data services on their handsets and someone decides they want to tether their phone to their notebook and download the latest ghey album.

By Alexstarfire on 7/31/2008 12:20:58 AM , Rating: 2
Well, if it's per site then why have a card that can take up the entire site? That just seems like a problem waiting to happen. For some reason, I highly doubt they are THAT stupid.

By HrilL on 7/31/2008 12:13:35 PM , Rating: 2
That is not the bandwidth per site. You would notice it lagging ungodly amounts if that was the case.

By BAFrayd on 7/30/2008 7:02:53 PM , Rating: 2
How about buying a new iPhone 3g and then getting banned so you can get out of the contract with Att? $199 iPhone and no contract.

RE: iPhone
By Baked on 7/30/2008 7:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
Won't you get charged w/ the early termination fee?

RE: iPhone
By Alexstarfire on 7/31/2008 12:36:21 AM , Rating: 2
Surely they couldn't do that. That'd be highly unethical, though not out of the question.

By kc77 on 7/30/2008 8:21:55 PM , Rating: 2
ATT saying this is like a fat kid sayin "see I told you I could eat the chocolate cake". What data plan would truly make this feasible?? Even the "unlimited" plan has limits. If you don't have the unlimited then you must have a lot of money. The whole business case for it at this time is crazy. Could it happen? Possibly but in order for it to be a problem EVDO / HDPA would have to usurp standard broadband as the preferred method. It's not anywhere close to that. Considering that broadband wireless is the only internet service where you pay for what you use, it would be the dumbest thing EVER to stop P2P on a wireless network.

Which leads me to probably what the real reason is...... if you can kill P2P you don't have to gauge your internet speed on sustained rates, just the burst data rate, and you can sell the "excess" bandwidth to more customers without upgrading hardware. Also since internet services are now getting into the content provider market they can effectively control how you get your music/movies and where you get them.

RE: Huh??
By BF04 on 7/31/2008 8:00:45 AM , Rating: 2
Dumb question on P2P. I know it is file sharing, ie movies and music. Is it also used for other things? I am thinking of the way WoW updates patches to all their user's. What about just logging into a mmrpg server, your basically establishing a connection that will stay up and download for hours on end. Would this be affected? I am just trying to understand what is happening.

RE: Huh??
By kc77 on 7/31/2008 1:41:14 PM , Rating: 2
Other services can use the P2P protocol. But overall it's for sharing files between a large amount of people. I doubt WOW is using P2P to distribute it's patches.

The difference between a FTP and HTTP protocol transmission versus a P2P transmission lies in the way the data is transmitted. P2P not only downloads but upload simultaneously. This is not done for the aforementioned protocols. So many network providers are against P2P because it fills the backplane of what the service provider can provide versus what the other protocols can do.

By P2S9 on 7/30/2008 11:57:07 PM , Rating: 2
Consumer(me) says he will terminate ATT service

RE: Reversed
By Clauzii on 7/31/2008 12:45:38 AM , Rating: 2
The headline of the article suggests that it's the consumer(me) that are terminated!

By tspinning on 7/30/2008 6:30:18 PM , Rating: 3
An easy way to get out of a crappy contract!! I wonder if Sprint will do this so I can drop them without the cost too?

(No I'm not looking to go to AT&T either, just that my company bought me a Treo and service and I'm still stuck with my old personal phone too)

Is The End Of P2P Near????
By rasmith260 on 7/30/2008 6:43:03 PM , Rating: 2
I think we may eventually see the end of P2P (at least in its most pronounced use), but I don’t think it will have the effect these companies are hoping for, because their overlooking some important points. Illegal downloading through P2P has (at the very least) helped drive the desire for ever faster connections and the willingness on the part of those people to pay for it, so without the ability to get something you want FOR FREE why pay for the EXTRA speed. While I might legally download a movie at some point in the future, I’m not going to pay an extra $20 or $30 a month just to do it faster, so 1.5MB becomes tolerable compared to 10MB if it means saving $200 to $400 a year.

While I don’t see people giving up their internet connections altogether, I do see people beginning to question the need for such high speed and the associated costs, eventually shifting away from Cable & DSL connections to mainly wireless iterations (why pay for internet on your phone from cell phone providers & internet on your pc from cable companies), when I can connect my phone to my pc and surf the web with it. This probably wouldn’t work for hardcore users, but they only represent about 25% of people anyway (if that high), so all this cracking down on P2P may eventually backfire.

What about heavy VPN users?
By abitofgo on 8/1/2008 5:39:09 AM , Rating: 2
When will the ISP companies use this as an excuse to charging extra for vpn traffic? Create seperate higher cost tarrifs for VPN access. Because I see that's where the money is.

P2P is just a scapegoat.

Anyway... the other option is to use your P2P apps on VPN or something like a homebrew cantenna mesh network.

I would like to see a chart comparing bandwidth increase with amount of money made by criminal piraters. I suspect that since the introduction of P2P it has overall reduced the criminal profitablity of selling hacked software, movies. So rather than the money lost by the film studios. I would like to see the money lost by organised crime gangs.

"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer
Related Articles
Comcast to FCC: "Can't Touch This"
March 20, 2008, 7:41 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki