I'm not a Comcast customer. I happen to get service from Verizon, ATT and Time Warner at various locations where I pay for internet service.
If I was a Comcast customer, I would tell them, as I am now telling all the services I am a customer of:
BLOCK P2P TRAFFIC , PLEASE
As a consumer, I want my internet experience to be as fast as possible. The last thing I want slowing my internet service down are P2P freeloaders. Thats right, P2P content distributors are nothing more than freeloaders. The only person/organization that benefits from P2P usage are those that are trying to distribute content and want to distribute it on someone else's bandwidth dime.
Does anyone really think its free ? That all the bandwidth consumed with content being distributed by P2P isn't being paid for by someone ? That bandwidth is being paid for by consumers. Consumers who pay for personal, not commercial applications. When consumers provide their bandwidth to assist commercial applications, they are subsidizing those commercial applications which if it isn't already, should be against an ISPs terms of service.
Thats not to say there isnt a place for P2P. There is. P2P is probably the least efficient means of distributing content in the last mile. Comcast, Time Warner, etc should charge a premium to those users who want to act as a seed and relay for P2P traffic. After all, that is why P2P is used, right ? For content distributors to avoid significant bandwidth and hosting charges. That makes it commercial traffic far more often than not. So make them pay commercial rates.
That will stop P2P dead in its tracks. P2P isnt so good that people will use it when they have to pay for all the bandwidth it consumes. It will die a quick death. That will speed up my internet connection.
thats a good thing.
So hang in there Comcast
Update: I wanted to offer the best alternative to P2P for audio and video..... Google Video. If you are trying to do distribution of audio or video, why in the world would you use P2P when Google Video will host and distribute it very efficiently and for free ?
To help those of you who cant understand how to distribute audio on Google Video, here is a hint: Re encode it with a little video, a couple pictures, whatever. Then it it wont be an audio file, it will be a video file.. Ta da . You get distribution by the best distribution network on the planet, for free.
m
An Open Letter to Comcast and Every cable/Telco on P2P - updated
Reader Comments
(Page 2)22. The limiting factor in the P2P equation is upstream bandwidth. If Comcast gives me 384kbps upstream and I choose to use it however and whenever I see fit, what is the problem? The elephant in the room is that they don't have enough upstream bandwidth to provide the promised rates to all their customers. Oversubscription is what needs to be regulated, not P2P or any other applications.
23. to put it in sports ownership terms:
If you sell unlimited tickets to a Mavericks playoff game, and you only have 20,000 seats, you will have problems. You can limit the number of tickets sold (limit bandwidth) or increase the capacity of the arena (improve infrastructure).
US companies are choosing to do the former while other nations (albeit with more concentrated populations and gov't subsidies) have chosen to do the latter.
The problem is, of course, is that Comcast, et al. have already promised "a seat" we've paid for. And they continue to do it month after month without lower prices (to compensate for the cramped quarters) or increasing the size of the arena.
Comcast is essentially ripping out the seats in the existing arena for more room. Sure not everyone NEEDS a seat, but most people probably want one and some people really do need one. But this still doesnt solve anything about the underlying problem of too many people in too small of a stadium. That's why this is a dumb idea from a business perspective. The only thing saving them is the government-endorsed monopolies these companies enjoy.
Someone correct me if my analogy is wrong/way too convoluted :)
Posted at 4:21PM on Nov 20th 2007 by Nick
24. Hang in there Comcast. You only need to push your tongue a little farther up Kevin Martins ass and the FCC will give you another 208 Billion in subsidies. Hey Mark, what was the benchmark mandated by Congress in 1995? 45Mb ring a bell.
This is like asking people to get off the sidewalk because you want to walk faster, then you find out the builder of the sidewalk only made it 1/7 as wide as was required by planners and is charging customers for the infrastructure Congress already subsidized with 208 Billion...
Posted at 4:44PM on Nov 20th 2007 by Myth of Electrons
25. A person I agreed with once posted the following passages on this very blog:
"Is it inconceivable that we would want to setup a password protected bit torrent network so we can share our hospital Xrays with specialists, and then store them in an XDrive like application so we can retain access to our own medical histories?
Is it inconcievable that we at somepoint in the future want to submit anonymously the list and dosages of medication we are taking along with high resolution Xrays and pictures that are distributed to systems that analyze the mix looking for red flags that are then reviewed by physicians and returned, still anonymously back to us? This type of application can't happen in a typical client server environment. Peer to Peer is a foundation for this type of application."
Posted at 5:05PM on Nov 20th 2007 by Kyle Gilman
26. Mark:
I don't think you really thought this one out.
Why do you think P2P is so less efficient than HTTP for delivering video? You might want to get a network engineer to weigh in on that.
Do you think that all the P2P uploaders are cutting into your download speed?
Finally, why do you think that most P2P traffic is commercial? I'm pretty sure that most P2P traffic is Bittorrent.
Most of my upstream bandwidth here goes to Flickr, who makes money on showing my photos to other people. Does that make Flickr a commercial application that should pay a surcharge to my ISP?
--mjr
Posted at 6:08PM on Nov 20th 2007 by Matthew Rechs
27. I'm not so sure I agree...I had Comcast and Time Warner for years and something tells me that even if P2P were blocked...my bill would remain the same. I've never...ever...seen a telco company pass on savings to the customer. As far as I'm concerned let them eat the extra cost of bandwidth since my bill will continue to increase regardless of my usage. If bandwidth is really an issue for them, they can crack down and do a better job of monitoring "heavy use" abusers and deal with them.
But, like I said, I'm sure I'll still have to pay just as much, so f#ck the telco companies.
Posted at 6:16PM on Nov 20th 2007 by John Feeley
28. Dude, you gave money to Grokster to fight MGM in the Supreme Court. It's just this sort of "screw the customer" approach that makes people want to steal from big business. And don't you have better things to do that hang out on the internet? Don't you have a $40 million dollar jet to fly around in?
Posted at 6:30PM on Nov 20th 2007 by Tom
31. Mark, long-time lurker, but I think this is a swing and a miss.
The fact that the internet is an open and unrestricted network is what makes it so full of possibility. Your idea stifles innovation, period.
As others have commented, the onus here lies with your IP for promising you bandwidth that they aren't delivering. Tell them by switching IPs, not by shifting the blame onto high-bandwidth users. I pay for every Mb of bandwidth I have, and I want to use it as I see fit, thank you.
Posted at 7:34PM on Nov 20th 2007 by Aaron
32. my letter to comcast would look nothing like yours... it'd say, "give me HDNET"
Posted at 7:35PM on Nov 20th 2007 by ben
33. I don't agree with your post but I think most of the commenters are getting the analogies wrong (and they're all rather superfluous, you know what you're talking about).
The problem is not the users, the problem is the rediculous customer oversell ratio. Now I disagree with your suggestion of blocking P2P traffic but I do agree with an earlier suggestion of a 'high bandwidth user' tier (I believe you've mentioned this before).
But that still wouldn't fix the problems of an aging infrastructure. Wireless last-mile tech is getting better and while it doesn't offer a solution yet (WiMax is low bandwidth and WirelessN doesn't have the range), the next generation looks to be a significant improvement.
But what'll happen then when people start exceeding their ISPs preferred bandwidth? With things like streaming HD content, uploading uncompressed family videos and interactive experiences. Do ISPs start implementing strict bandwidth tiers?
And as for P2P being freeloading, I'd disagree. Upload rates are throttled at around 256-384 kbps, it's not even close to being a commercial service.
Posted at 8:27PM on Nov 20th 2007 by Adam
34. huh?? I don't use P2P, but if your saying I can't use every bit of my connection that I paid for because other users are complaining about crappy performance is insane. Its MINE.
Sounds like you need to search for a better provider.
Whats going on with the Cubs sale?? Is the Donald slowing us down? I say we light our torches and go after him.
Posted at 8:34PM on Nov 20th 2007 by Mike
35. Mark,
While I respect you as a businessman, I think you've missed the boat on this one.
What's to stop them from blocking other services like VOIP once they get rid of P2P? Let's say that Time Warner or Comcast want to roll out their own VOIP, but want to charge more than $30 a month for it. How would they stop the competition? Block the VOIP traffic, organize a telemarketing campaign to call the consumers who use VOIP, offer to switch them to Comcast VOIP. Boom. Vonage and any other startup type VOIP company is done.
Net Neutrality is that. You can't block traffic that you don't like. A swing and a miss this time Mark.
Posted at 8:38PM on Nov 20th 2007 by Eric Ogunbase
36. Sure Mark! Whatever you want.
But first, you're going to need to stop Skype, Vuze, Joost, most im protocols and practically anything that provides decent video that's not Comcast or Cox. Sorry, but the apps make the internet, as your cable company sees fit to sell you, too slow. It's all your fault, of course, for daring to use the bandwidth you pay for. The problem is these blocking systems can't tell the difference between infringement and legitimate p2p traffic. It's p2p traffic so it get blocked no matter what.
Where does it stop? Unpopular P2P protocols now; is voip that far behind? Would you like to see AT&T and Verzion block SIP traffic out of their network for fear that their now sustained, thanks to Vonage, voip patents are being infringed by their customers and other unnamed third parties?
Posted at 9:38PM on Nov 20th 2007 by jamesn
37. Mostly, I would agree with your insights, but this one, I have to refute.
Please do consider the many other functions of P2P
- Skype uses a P2P based VOIP, and is very legit
- Joost uses P2P to speed up video distribution, and power InternetTV
- Blizzard uses P2P to cater for patch updates in WoW.
- Many Linux distros, some big, and some barely starting, use P2P to distribute.
P2P cuts costs for the distributor, some which are mere hobbyist trying to get their stuff out (Imagine where Linux would be without a proper P2P distro. Bandwidth costs would be huge)
Also consider that, a hosted download, would normally be located in US or other states. And for myself and many others who live in Asia, the download slows down a very staggering notch when using direct download methods without a local mirror. P2P improves and speeds this up significantly. Google Video, and YouTube doesn't par. I can't stream online with my current connection (which is already the fastest my country can offer), and waiting for it to fully buffer is much slower than firing up Bittorrent. And some people would actually like to keep the videos or content instead of being forced to stream it often.
What we pay for, is the bandwidth allocations. Should we actually be penalized of taking full use of it?
Posted at 10:12PM on Nov 20th 2007 by Derek Wong
38. Do vegans get upset that meat eaters drive up the price and increase the lines at buffets?
Mark, if you want the vegan buffet, then start a company that provides it. Don't sit around complaining that the buffet experience has been ruined for you.
Where I live, fast internet costs either over $100 a month or it caps your monthly bandwidth. I happen to use about 10GB/month, and I pay about $50/month. If I wanted an unlimited plan, I'd have to pay around $150 a month for unlimited cable internet and television, or I'd have to endure a slow, unreliable DSL connection with no bandwidth cap. If ISPs do not have the infrastructure to provide quality service to its customers, they need to introduce tiered plans so that heavy users pay a higher price than casual users.
39. I normally agree with most of your opinions but, as others have said, this one stinks. There is zero difference bandwidth wise between running a P2P application, and firing up MLB.tv watch a Cubs game. Data is data, and I'm paying for my 15/2's worth. With residential fiber on the horizon, this whole issue on bandwidth becomes a moot point soon enough anyway.
Should I feel sorry for Comcast when I P2P? Hell no. Ask Comcast why there is no bandwidth issue on my node near the NW side of Chicago. It's because Time Warner invested in a fiber backbone here, just before being bought out by the big C. Had Comcast been investing in fiber elswhere early on (as opposed to the cheaper upgrades performed), they wouldn't be faced (again) with that upgrade delemma.
With Japan comsumers enjoying reliable 100mps connections, there is no excuse as to why my 15mbps should be hurting anyone. It's their fault they can't deliver what I pay for, not mine. Theoretically a single strand of fiber can simultaniously deliver enough content into your home, that if you started channel surfing now you wouldnt repeat a channel for nearly 70 years. Why can't I veiw my single episode of low quality flash "Dancing with the Stars" without it buffering? Hmmmm? It isn't my neighbors kids downloading porn, it's my cable company's CEO downgrading my internet options.
Please leave the internet argument up to people who know the internet. You sir have better things to worry about, Like buying a baseball team and tipping back an Old Style with a fellow bleacher bum.
Posted at 10:45PM on Nov 20th 2007 by Tony
40. The problem with your argument is that you forgot to qualify what kind of P2P you want to ban. Are we talking about P2P piracy, or P2P in general? Because if you start banning P2P traffic, you're shutting down Folding@Home, Linux distributions, and a whole host of other valuable and productive services.
The simple truth is that you can't ban P2P. Moreover, attacking a particular service like BitTorrent (as Comcast is doing) is and even worse idea, because there are a lot of very legal and legitimate uses for it.
I pay for bandwidth and service. I have the right to choose what to do with it.
The solution is, as it always has been, investing in better networks. Start with the cities. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, etc. Then move into the country. Blanket the country in WiFi. See how fast your internet is then.
Posted at 10:47PM on Nov 20th 2007 by Adam
21. My contract with Comcast - my provider - has an annoying amount of legalese.
But there is nothing in that which allows them to selectively block or slow down my P2P apps(even though they do), or to slow down my 4-8Mbs connection (which they do, outside of normal network traffic).
"Thats right, P2P content distributors are nothing more than freeloaders. "
Let's assume no illegal content for now. If I choose to upload a file to a friend(making me the distributor) - via a POST form, I am not a freeloader. If I choose to upload this file to 40 or 400 friends, I still am not. Going from POST to Bittorrent does not change this.
The act of sharing via P2P as a distributor does not make me a freeloader - and this is what Comcast is also stopping. In fact, I'd say that these actions are the majority of what is being stopped now.
Sure, there are content distributors using P2P, and more coming. But this is by far the minority of activity for now.
Interesting though. Someone who is involved in a major dispute with Comcast is encouraging them to do something that many consumers would believe is hurting them. Strange, that.
Posted at 4:01PM on Nov 20th 2007 by Dave