Interesting People mailing list archives
more on The Shadow Internet
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 13:46:40 -0500
------ Forwarded Message From: "J. Paul Reed" <preed () sigkill com> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 10:39:07 -0800 To: David Farber <dave () farber net> Cc: Ip <ip () v2 listbox com>, <bram () bitconjurer org> Subject: Re: [IP] more on The Shadow Internet On 30 Dec 2004 at 13:13:39, David Farber arranged the bits on my disk to say:
I strongly agree but don't think it is just poor use of words, It has a very specific use and aim which is NOT nice.
I'm actually very disappointed in Wired's coverage of this topic; there were a number of claims in the article leaving me saying "this journalist just doesn't get it." Cases in point: "All hell's about to break loose," says Brad Burnham, a venture capitalist with Union Square Ventures in Manhattan, which studies the impact of new technology on traditional media. BitTorrent does not require the wires or airwaves that the cable and network giants have spent billions constructing and buying. BZZZT! Where do most people get their home internet connections from? Cable companies or telcos. Therefore, any internet-related activity, including BitTorrent *requires* those pesky wires cable companies (and telcos) have spent billions constructing. And the reliance on those "pesky wires" is just going to increase as the "DarkNet phenomena" causes a greater demand for bandwidth. (And before you point out "Ooh, wireless!" the internet is not wireless; your pirated copy of Fat Albert is *going* to hit a wire somewhere, and that's where content producers are going to attack this problem.) Cable companies especially are already aware of this, and will "have a chat with you" (by shutting down your connection) if you actually call their "unlimited internet" bluff. (Comcast is known to do this.) "One example of how the world has already changed: Gary Lerhaupt, a graduate student in computer science at Stanford, became fascinated with Outfoxed, the documentary critical of Fox News, and thought more people should see it. ... But to get the ball rolling, Lerhaupt's site needed to serve up only 5 gigs. After that, the peers took over and hosted it themselves. His bill for that bandwidth? $4. There are drinks at Starbucks that cost more." This statement is entirely misleading; 5 gigs of bandwidth cost $4? Well... no actually; I'm sure if you ask Stanford, it's costing a lot more than that in infrastructure costs that no one ever takes into consideration. And how about all the administrative costs University's have to pay for to deal with the *AAs knocking on their doors when their students use their latte money to download Britney tunes, leaving the school (in the **AA's mind) liable? Really, the article mentions, but fails to adequately address the economies of scale involved in the phenomena when the swapped product is MPGs and not MP3s. As Wired often does, it paints this rosey picture of how we'll all be downloading commercial-free TV off of BitTorrent2 in 5 years, and implies networks will happily pay for content and abide this. The article should've stayed focused on Bram's cool software. At least the reporter got that part right. Later, Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------ J. Paul Reed -- 0xDF8708F8 || preed () sigkill com || web.sigkill.com/preed Math, my dear boy, is nothing more than the lesbian sister of biology. -- Peter Griffin, Family Guy I use PGP; you should use PGP too... if only to piss off John Ashcroft ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on The Shadow Internet David Farber (Dec 30)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- more on The Shadow Internet David Farber (Dec 30)