Comments on: Verizon and AT&T Ban BitTorrent On Wireless Networks

By: News of Note — Future of the Internet Edition « WISPA

News of Note — Future of the Internet Edition « WISPA — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:48:14 +0000

[...] and AT&T are already banning Bit Torrent on wireless [...]

By: dropsafe : A Contrarian View: Evolutionary is pressure being applied to the Web. Excellent!

Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:26:44 +0000

[...] Various companies want to kill BitTorrent [...]

By: josh

josh — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 12:20:09 +0000

I hate to be a debbie downer here but I have verizon as my cell phone carrier and there are multiple working bit torrent clients you can download straight from the android market. I download and watch most of the tv shows I follow on my phone. One of the clients has over 100,000 users so I don’t really understand this article.

By: StevO

StevO — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 04:34:56 +0000

Ya see, People saying if you want torents etc, do it on your wired connection. Well hell we already paying $65 for cable connection, then ass another $50 for data pachake on top of the $65 for phone plan. The point is, where does it end? I already pay for cable/internet $145 for 3 phones/no data/free messaging. And right about that for internet/cable/TV. Its too much. I am leaving this tech world behind. I wish the government would have won their war against the cable compnays. At any rate, I am going to finish up my TV downloads<- I paid my cable bill, i own that content in my opinion. And screw all of this!!!

By: StevO

StevO — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 04:11:17 +0000

Problem is, they PUSH PUSH PUSH you into buying wireless gear that leaves you wanting conent. Then, when google gets into the mix, they are concerned. Problem is they want to control content. Simple as that. They know people want content on their phones and junk, and they want to be the ones providing it. Simple. ALl they are doing is pinning you down even more with your little gadget and they can single you out easier. Ef this crap.

By: Leif

Leif — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 23:40:57 +0000

The wireless provisions are a red herring. The actual compromise here is in the “wireline” net-non-neutrality plan that google has endorsed. The key phrase is “differentiated online services, in addition to the internet”. This, too, is not new news, but google being unopposed to it is huge.

It has been going on for a while – presumably comcast’s voip and ondemand video services don’t count towards your monthly internet transfer cap, because they aren’t the internet. They’re “differentiated online services, in addition to the internet”.

Get ready for much lower internet caps, and lots of DRM-ridden video apps that include their own bandwidth outside of the cap. If you want to watch one or two HD movies each month for free from archive.org, that will be allowed on your basic broadband plan, but if you want more than that you’ll have to choose from the premium or ad-subsidized options.

By: Shaman

Shaman — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 19:08:14 +0000

That whole thing about a single user doing bittorrent screwing up the experience for the entire tower just doesn’t fly with me.

It seems to me that they’re avoiding filesharing at all costs because if people realized they could be sharing files on their phones, the amount of sharing would eclipse what’s being shared on the wired internet.

Whatever the case, it’s just a matter of time before filesharing makes it to the smartphones, and it’s going to come with a mix new filesharing protocols which existing packet shifting hardware won’t be able to detect at least for a year until they finally reverse engineer the trafic.

a revolution is coming.

By: Lucian Armasu

Lucian Armasu — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:40:31 +0000

They should at least set a date from when full net neutrality rules apply to wireless as well – say 2015.

LTE should be wide spread by then and they’ll even start deploying LTE advanced and Wimax 2 by 2015.

By: Brandon

Brandon — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:11:23 +0000

As long as you can still do it on the wired (which would be the case under the Google / Verizon agreement) I don’t see a problem. Wireless bandwidth is much more scarce and there is not enough to go around if people are downloading torrents. I would prefer to actually have a decent speed on wireless than have the option of using torrents and having a much slower connection. Besides, wired is much faster and suitable for torrents.

By: Alecco

Alecco — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:13:42 +0000

The FCC didn’t state anything on the document.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A1.pdf

Sections 171-174, the FCC “seeks comment.”