Blair's quite right. A simple Linux box can limit P2P traffic easily, and
I'm sure even Telecom has a few Linux geeks running around in the
Still, a good number of the people on this list work for ISPs, and P2P users
mean traffic, which means money. Can it be all bad? Unless of course what
he's saying about it slowing down the rest of the network is true, but
surely if you can charge people for the traffic they use, you merely need to
upscale the network using the funds thus procured until it has enough
Perhaps the problem preventing that is that most ISPs loose money on the P2P
users by trying to squeeze them onto plans designed for ordinary consumers,
when they should simply fling the pipe open and charge what they need to for
If you're going to get someone else's movies for free, surely you'd be happy
to pay a couple of bucks a movie to get them?
From: Blair Harrison [mailto:***@jedi.school.nz]
Sent: 28 July 2005 9:09 p.m.
To: Richard Dingwall
Subject: Re: [nznog] [FW] Re: Interesting articles from Beehive
I would imagine that the low upstream limit could (partly) have been an
effort to curb NZ P2P network traffic.
National P2P networks (DC, particularly) became very popular a few
years ago, when unlimited 128KBit/128KBit DSL was available (i.e,
download as fast as your connection goes - woohoo!).
More recently, as the downstream rate has significantly exceeded the
upstream, your slow upload becomes someone else's slow download.
Imagine the thrill of leeching at 16KByte/s on a 2MBit connection..!
Quite a possibility. I did have one of our high speed customers leave
Kazaa on over a few days.. managed to eat up about 75GB of traffic in
those couple of days. They were uploading at a rate of about 1.8 gig an
I can see the merits of limiting upstream speed in the interests of
conserving network capacity, but I don't see why regular non-p2p-using
customers should be held back from experiencing true broadband speeds
because of the actions of the leechers out there.
There are methods available to limit the impact of such P2P applications
and I believe at least one large ISP in NZ has implemented a layer 7
filtering system that can limit speeds at the application level.
So the technology to limit the impact of P2P users to the network is
available, should Telecom choose to use it. Why slow down the rest of
the users who want to do really cool things like full screen multi-user
videoconferencing and sending media files across town for processing
because of the actions of the pesky leechers?
Maybe because that would start to eat into their other more traditional
'higher value' revenue streams such as Frame Relay, Metro Ethernet and
ATM? (which, incidentally, I can't even find on their website today)
P2P may be a big reason and the most obvious, but I doubt it's the only