[ NNSquad ] Re: Traffic shaping law proposed in US

[Rahul Tongia <tongia@cmu.edu>]

er, wouldn't that be the case - on a wireless network? Less p2p and 
heavy corporate use?

Like you mentioned, no real numbers there, of course.  BUT, it's 
interesting that on wireless networks, providers are certainly quicker 
to tighten down on p2p users, given this is inherently a more shared 
resource.

Rahul

Barry Gold wrote:
> Frank A. Coluccio wrote:
> > Traffic shaping law proposed in US
> > 17/03/2008 - by CommsDay
> >
> > At least one influential US lawmaker has proposed adding a traffic 
> > shaping ban to current antitrust law, signaling Congress could act in 
> > response to the Comcast P2P scandal no matter how the Federal 
> > Communications Commission (FCC) proceeds. The House Judiciary 
> > Committee chairman, John Conyers, says that reports to the effect that 
> > Comcast secretly slowed â and in some cases killed â BitTorrent 
> > traffic demonstrate âthe open architecture of the Internet is under 
> > siege. The problem is that many of the innovations we've enjoyed on 
> > the Internet would have never occurred under this proposed regime.â
> >
> > Cont.: http://tinyurl.com/yvqz6t
>
> The last paragraph of the story was particularly interesting:
>
> However, theis[sic] claim was called into question late last week by
> Alcatel-Lucent. The company said its new 9900 Wireless Network Guardian
> indicated enterprise applications such as IP-VPN and mobile email were
> far larger drains on network resources than direct P2P downloads.
>
> I should note, however, that this assertion is as bare of actual numbers
> as the conflicting claims by Comcast and other ISPs.