|
|
Posted by Dave D on 12/30/05 15:29
"Sarge" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:6JZsf.6739$oW.486@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> "Dave D" <dave_d@dave_d.com> wrote in
> news:doGdnScszpFHyizenZ2dnUVZ8t2dnZ2d@pipex.net:
>
>>
>> A levy on P2P use is the only fair solution AFAICS. An internet tax is
>> too general.
>>
>
> Dave,
>
> You have all valid, intelligent points backup up with great examples and
> analogies. I agree that a P2P tax is a fair solution. But how is it
> possible for an ISP to prevent the non-P2P accounts from file sharing?
>
> You said something about blocking/allowing certain ports, etc. Can't P2P
> applications and file sharing communities use whatever port(s) they want?
>
Good point.
There's currently no perfect way for an ISP to easily assess whether a
subscriber is using P2P or not. However, there are ways to do it, and ISPs
have managed in the past. They look for activity outside the usual ports, ie
port 80, news and mail ports etc, and monitor upload patterns. Heavy or
persistant uploading can be investigated, and action taken if necessary.
All that is needed is legislation to be put in place to enforce stiff
penalties for 'dishonest' users who try and get away with P2P use on the
cheaper tariff, and intelligent monitoring of usage patterns. I think the
vast majority of P2P'ers will opt to do it legally *provided* the higher
tariff is fair and not extortionate. There will be a few 'hardcore' types
who try their luck and fiddle the system, but they should be easy to spot.
It might sound an impossible task to spot P2P users, but ask any ISP network
techie and they'll tell you P2P usage patterns stand out from 'normal' web
use. Intelligent, automated systems could make it easier- they could flag
heavy/distinct usage patterns for further human investigation.
Dave
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|