[LINK] Infoworld discovers HDMI downsides, only two years late
rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au
Fri Jun 20 07:08:31 AEST 2008
Saliya Wimalaratne wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 06:24:14PM +1000, Richard Chirgwin wrote:
>> There's nothing like "news to me" syndrome:
> No offence to Tom, but his assumption (and it can only be that) that
> P2P traffic is somehow outweighed by "VOIP, streaming news, advertising
> and entertainment, photo galleries, remote PC access, Usenet repositories,
> denial of service attacks, and spam" is just plain wrong.
But to be fair, he didn't say exactly that. Quote:
> We should take as a warning sign of descent down the slippery slope
> toward the loss of Internet freedoms Internet providers' arbitrary
> blocking and throttling of BitTorrent traffic. The rationale points to
> the bandwidth wasted by BitTorrent. That doesn't ring true. There are
> other flavors of traffic such as VOIP, streaming news, advertising and
> entertainment, photo galleries, remote PC access, Usenet repositories,
> denial of service attacks, and spam that consume beastly amounts of
> bandwidth, but somehow none of these warrants detection and control at
> the provider's end of the pipe. It makes one wonder, what's so special
> about BitTorrent that it cries out to be controlled in such a radical
He didn't say that these outweigh BT, but that they are big bandwidth
consumers that providers aren't threatening to throttle ...
> Providers take a special interest in P2P traffic simply because it changes
> their business model due to the way it changes resource consumption. A
> service provider can make an educated guess about P2P usage _without_
> analysing traffic (i.e. just from byte counters over time).
> Not because they're interested in DRM.
No argument there.
> FWIW; if I bought a device (display, or STB) that was incompatible with
> my existing hardware because of HDCP I'd be saying it wasn't fit-for-purpose
> and demanding a refund.
Here, the question is whether your demand would be met. I personally
think there's a case for bringing the industry's cartel-like behaviour
to the attention of the ACCC, but is there a complaint that would stand up?
But of course, I remain a digital TV sceptic. The digital move was at
least partly driven by the realisation that digital could carry DRM with
it (from the industry's point of view, not the government's).
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
More information about the Link