hows that sandvine stock doing for ya bud ?

I bet you have it sitting there on your lame iPhone to look at 24/7.

Dont worry. Im sure youll be safe investing with the next great technology that will be used worldwide by ISPs soon ………..

after all, we need to stop these pirates !

Sounds like a good mythbusting episode.

give me a break.

With all due respect, The Register being less tabloidy – now that is hilarious.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/05/richard_bennett_bittorrent_udp/

You know it, too. And if “preserving the anarchy” is referring to the same type of anarchy we observed in the US economy over the last few years, then heck yeah. If anarchy somehow means lack of regulation and self-oversight. That’s the funny thing about anarchy when people like you talk about it. It’s “anarchy for us”… and the rest of you can just forget about it. That’s not anarchy, that’s control. Don’t confuse the two. But , then again, you don’t confuse them. You’re aware of all this. No-one with half a brain is buying any of this claptrap.

Keeping authority and control OUT of the net, eh? As long as the authority and control only extends to the provider and never the user, right STEVE?

The rest of your post is a paranoid, bedwetters fantasy about gatekeepers. The anti-neutrality campaign is all about preserving the anarchy, and keeping authority and control OUT of the net, not legislating it in.

“And if that doesn’t scare you enough”

No, I ain’t scared.

And if I do give away my content for free, why should the people who download it not be the ones who are expected to provide the bandwidth they use? Why do they pay anything for their access to the ISP if anything else is the case. What does my 149 dollars a month (what I pay for a connection I can do what I want with) pay for if not that?? Quit leaving us out of the conversation if you’re going to villify the means of distribution. In spite of the known percentages of legal vs. illegal content, we cannot be ignored. We exist. Like it or not. And mark my words, if we are ignored and not represented when it comes to laws and regulations(or lack thereof), we will fight back.

All of this is just another step toward what many of us predicted in the early days, an attempt to make the internet a “pull only” means of content delivery. We must all remember that when the only way to transfer content on the internet is through “approved means”, the “approved means” will become affordable for very few. This is very profitable if you are providing content that is competing with FREE, especially if you own the means AND the content itself. Eliminate free, or make it cost someone something by law (see radio/tv) no matter where it’s being heard or seen, and you control the popular culture. The Internet is valuable not for the ability to download TV, music and film in simply another way. It’s valuable because for the first time in history it makes the culture a level playing field, without overseers, middlemen and profiteers. Only our peers, critics and actual popularity instead of “popular based on what we decide to track” will decide what is noticed. That frankly scares the crap out of traditional media. The rest of them are just scared of change in general, over-moralized or paid muppets.

This is not to say that it’s not good to have filters in place. Many have said that radio and TV don’t “control” popular culture, they’re just a filter. They separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. That may have been true in a pure sense long ago, but since it has become less a filter and more a guardian at the gate, or a troll at the bridge, demanding pay for access. Play by our rules or you are not seen. Part of this is limited bandwidth (number of radio stations on the dial, number of channels available to our satellite recievers, etc), and many would like you to see the Internet as a simple series of tubes with limited capacity. They would like the Internet to appear more like traditional media when it comes to public perception. And most people with this view see it innocently.

“OH NOES! You mean my youtube will be slower because of bittorrent? Make it stop!”

I don’t care if you’re Vint Friggen Cerf, you know as well as I that the Internet does not work like that. Bandwidth will continue to grow as needs increase. Every time this type of FUD comes up, the same or similar people come out of the woodwork screaming “the sky is falling”. It is so far from falling, it doesn’t even look blue.

If we let these people convince the public that we need guardians at the gates of our Internet, we will get what we deserve. Just another sanitized, sickly sweet, un-challenging, easily controlled and censored medium. You know, like all the others. And if that doesn’t scare you enough, consider that there will be countries out there who see the real Internet while we do not. And imagine them innovating while we rot in our reality tv replays on our ISP-approved connections. Our computers no more than family-photo sharing, sanitized blogger, funny cats on youtube, glorified DVRs.

Ah, the bright future. Shade my eyes.

His readers confirmed that it does in fact circumvent BC’s management. So in Canada, at this very moment, BT over UDP out-competes BT over TCP for bandwidth and directly competes against VoIP and gaming for higher-priority treatment.

The folks at BitTorrent tell me this is simply an accident, and they didn’t switch on UDP in order to avoid BC’s management. But clearly it has worked out that way.

We await implementation details and congestion measurements with bated breath.

uTP has a congestion control mechanism, and there is no indicator that users will have any option to disable this part of the protocol. In fact, uTorrent’s developers have publicly clarified that this won’t be possible. uTorrent is also not open source, so it’s unlikely that users will be able to make these changes without the company’s approval.

This means that uTorrent’s use of UDP is little different from the way Flash player 10 will use UDP to transfer media in a P2P fashion from user to user.

That’s right, Flash is moving towards UDP-based P2P media delivery as well. Which, according to Richard’s logic, should lead to an even bigger meltdown. Someone better start calling those ISPs so they can start blocking Flash.