Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Why not slow down iTunes shop? Or Windows update? Or YouTube? Why
> should CocastSoft set the rules and discriminate against its
> partner's #1 rival distribution tool?
The crux of this announcement is that Comacast(sic) promises to not
single-out BT traffic ("honest"), but will apply traffic management in a
non-discriminatory fashion.
Of course these management profiles are known only to the ISP; are
reviewed and changed on a regular basis; and will be influenced by other
things - also kept secret from the customer (like phone calls in the
dead of night from the RI/MPAA). So in practical terms it's no change.
By all means let's have traffic shaping to give all users a fair slice
of bandwidth, but let's also be transparent about it, so if the provider
starts implementing Draconian measures for nefarious reasons, their
customers will know about it.
I suggest a Web control panel addition to "service status", that shows
the rule-set used to shape traffic at any given time, along with a live
graph of the current distribution of traffic across protocols. They
already /have/ that data, since it's what they use to calculate how to
"manage" the traffic, so why not share it with everyone, instead of
secretly blocking or inhibiting certain protocols for no clear (or
justifiable) reason?
If Comacast have nothing to hide, then they should have no objections.
As for that Glickman goon ... what an arrogant, pompous bastard:
[quote]
MPAA President Dan Glickman called the agreement "exactly the kind of
industry cooperation that is urgently needed to address the problem of
online piracy," even though the joint BitTorrent-Comcast press release
made no mention of copyright infringement matters.
Navin, for his part, said he wasn't "quite sure" where the MPAA got that
impression. He did, however, say that he received a call from the
organization Thursday morning, and it appears to be on board with
"making sure whatever we do...does take into account the DMCA (Digital
Millennium Copyright Act) and whatever interest the copyright holders have."
[/quote]
The MPAA do not /own/ the internet; they don't /own/ ISPs; they don't
/own/ BitTorrent; they don't /own/ my PCs; and they don't /own/ the data
on my PCs either, so it's none of their damned business what (if
anything) I transfer to and from my PCs, regardless of which port or
protocol I use to do it. Arrogant bastards.
If someone is guilty of an actual crime, then by all means prosecute
them, but don't treat everyone on the Internet as criminals just because
they transfer data over a particular protocol. The MPAA is not the law,
they're just a bunch of vigilante goons with far too much money and time
on their hands, and the arrogant assumption that they have the right to
persecute the rest of society to feed their sick obsession with greed.
Of course the RI/MPAA have all the backing they need to continue their
vigilante campaign of terrorism with complete impunity, thanks to the
equally corrupt and greedy politics of the country they're based in.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
| ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
17:32:25 up 99 days, 15:08, 5 users, load average: 0.03, 0.04, 0.02
|
|
