Wonderful news (sarcasm): Telstra plans to unilaterally limit or block peer-to-peer networking.
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/tec...205-2dvus.html
I particularly like this comment (which, to me, speaks volumes about Telstra's attitude toward its customers):
Quote:
He was also reported to have said that if the carrier's proposed system "cut out 80 per cent of the non-value adding traffic – good".
According to the RCR Wireless article, about 80 per cent of Telstra's data was chewed up by high bandwidth users.
"I'd rather not have those 80 per cent as customers. I'd rather someone else had them as customers," Mr Lawrey reportedly said.
|
[RANT]
If users are paying for the bandwidth they're using (are there any plans where that isn't the case?), and the content isn't illegal (which is a matter for law enforcement), then what right do they have to throttle or block traffic? We're not talking about going over a data cap here - the throttling/blocking is aimed at a traffic
type. If I want to use my, say, 100GB data allowance for all video, that's my prerogative. If I want to use BitTorrent to share (legal) data, then that's my prerogative, too. (Actually, I rarely use BitTorrent, but it's my right if I want to). If congestion is an issue, charge for peak and off-peak, as many ISPs already do.
Then we get onto some services only being available, or being much better supported, on protocols other than HTTP. I encounter this frequently in the Linux world where BitTorrent is used for open source software distribution (perfectly legal).
And who's to say what future uses will develop over any particular traffic type, or a new type of traffic altogether? We've seen this before with "
net neutrality" arguments in the USA (also see
this). For me, the argument for net neutrality is as clear as day: continuous freedom of access and evolution of the internet on a level playing field. The arguments against are largely from the perspective of being able to charge the same money for less data, blocking competitors (or blocking their partners' competitors) and limiting or blocking traffic from smaller, more independent operators who can't afford the infrastructure of large, fast server farms, and who may be more likely to carry information critical of big business.
To me, throttling peer-to-peer networking is an obvious "thin end of the wedge".
[/RANT]