View Full Version : Uncovering The Dark Side of P4P
P4P is touted as the new and improved P2P. The technology has the potential to lower bandwidth costs for ISPs and speed up downloads for P4P enabled filesharing clients. There is a dark site to this new technology though. The strong anti-piracy connections are fuel for conspiracy theorists, and Net Neutrality might be at stake.
Earlier this week, researchers from Yale University and The University of Washington presented the latest findings from their P4P research. P4P is a new technology that could make any filesharing application (including BitTorrent) cheaper for ISPs, as it tries to connect to local peers as much as possible. Local traffic is cheaper for ISPs and reduces the load on the network. In addition, P4P enabled filesharing clients will download files faster than regular clients.
In theory this is a great idea. However, P4P requires collaboration between the developers of filesharing clients and ISPs, which might be a problem. Indeed, most P2P companies TorrentFreak talked to are not that excited about the initiative, but they wont say that out loud, and play along for the time being.
Uncovering The Dark Side of P4P | TorrentFreak (http://torrentfreak.com/uncovering-the-dark-side-of-p4p-080824/)
P2P = peer to peer
P4P = peer for peer?
Or has the 2 been just a version number all this time? :tongue:
Anyway, we already have Azureus + Ono plugin to download faster (from physically closer peers) and, by the way, save our ISP's bandwidth.
And for some reason I don't carry on well with the fact that the MPAA, entertainment industry and AP2Pers are behind this "new technology".
How is P4P going to make downloads faster for its kind of clients? Slowing down the normal P2P ones so that proportionally this becomes true?
It maybe a great idea with a lot of potential, but maybe some would like to consider those points...
This technology may end up being better but the companies behind it will deep six it when all is said and done. They're not to be trusted and anyone who uses any current iteration of P2P knows it.
If the ISP/Cable companies motives really are to localize P2P to make swarm speeds faster and cheaper for themselves (which would be great)--they need to research the technology and roll it out to current P2P developers themselves. The only thing I worry about is how the swarms will handle non-local clients. What if I live out in the boonies and get my ISP beamed in by satellite, how will the service handle a client that has no other local clients? Additionally and addressing the same question--what if a torrent is extremely popular in one area, how will that swarm deal with non-local peers?
I want to say this service will fail mostly because there's no established trust between the two parties involved. But at this point there's too many questions to even speculate on a reasonable outcome.
This technology may end up being better but the companies behind it will deep six it when all is said and done. They're not to be trusted and anyone who uses any current iteration of P2P knows it.
If the ISP/Cable companies motives really are to localize P2P to make swarm speeds faster and cheaper for themselves (which would be great)--they need to research the technology and roll it out to current P2P developers themselves.
Yea, if they're main goal to solve is saving bandwidth, they may as well come up with a solution and send it to the P2P devs, instead of inventing and taking care of a completely new globa-scale protocol that'll make up for just some [of what for them are] "flaws" in the current specification.
The only thing I worry about is how the swarms will handle non-local clients. What if I live out in the boonies and get my ISP beamed in by satellite, how will the service handle a client that has no other local clients? Additionally and addressing the same question--what if a torrent is extremely popular in one area, how will that swarm deal with non-local peers?
You have a point there.
According the logics mentioned in the TF article - whose contents come from the people developing this "new system" - that'd result in a general slowdown.
I want to say this service will fail mostly because there's no established trust between the two parties involved. But at this point there's too many questions to even speculate on a reasonable outcome.
That's right: can you really trust a system made, and/or backed up by the same people who chased and ruined the lives of people who used the "old" P2P the same way they say P4P is meant to work...?
Given the current outlook of the situation we have so far, no, and most likely never.
From what I've read in the article that thid fancy project needs an alliance of both ISPs & Researchers to make it happen,but don't you think that users already don't trust the main network (I mean ISPs since they already pissed them off for several times,cutting their edge by throttling their connections),however,most of those researchers (I guess) would have to depend on some semi-local networks just to drive that project to reality,a guy would ask me,"what do you mean by semi-local networks ?",hmm,its simple,a semi-local networks could be vitrually simulated by setting some playgrounds for those researchers just to convince people that the all new p4p network actually does work properly,yeah they can do that,just a small promotion & they're done here.Anyway,I guess that a network which depends on a local peers/swarms just to move different bytes strings among other multiple networks would be picked up as "The Year's most favourite service" :top:
From what I've read in the article that thid fancy project needs an alliance of both ISPs & Researchers to make it happen
And the entertainment industry; but if all of this is what I think it is, they'll be more than happy to agree.
but don't you think that users already don't trust the main network (I mean ISPs since they already pissed them off for several times,cutting their edge by throttling their connections)
That's a point to consider: the same people that didn't let you use P2P at all, wanting you to take part of the "new P4P movement", made by them?
I told Nobody this in the last paragraph of my last post...
however,most of those researchers (I guess) would have to depend on some semi-local networks just to drive that project to reality,a guy would ask me,"what do you mean by semi-local networks ?",hmm,its simple,a semi-local networks could be vitrually simulated by setting some playgrounds for those researchers just to convince people that the all new p4p network actually does work properly,yeah they can do that,just a small promotion & they're done here.
That sounded a bit like VPN :biggrin:
Anyway,I guess that a network which depends on a local peers/swarms just to move different bytes strings among other multiple networks would be picked up as "The Year's most favourite service" :top:
If and when it works fine, yes :tongue:
Now what if there aren't any local peers? :tongue:
And the entertainment industry; but if all of this is what I think it is, they'll be more than happy to agree.
agree on what ?? it's just a Beta project that didn't see any shining light still,users are the only element that makes any new development take place in reality,therefore,I don't think they will continue dreaming of carrying on such a new technology.... :wink2:
That sounded a bit like VPN :biggrin:
good for them to do that,at least speeds would really improve as they say,let's suppose they will implement that,look @ the details of the main frame "connect to local peers as much as possible. Local traffic is cheaper for ISPs and reduces the load on the network. In addition, P4P enabled filesharing clients will download files faster than regular clients." they didn't even explain what their fancy dream is,none of those details can convince any read with what they are trying to do .... :shockkk!:
If and when it works fine, yes :tongue:
Now what if there aren't any local peers? :tongue:
then,they are fucked up,let's hope so then :klatsch_3:
agree on what ?? it's just a Beta project that didn't see any shining light still,users are the only element that makes any new development take place in reality,therefore,I don't think they will continue dreaming of carrying on such a new technology.... :wink2:
Mhm :) I meant that should this be [you can never know :smile:] some plan to take down peer-to-peer downloading, the MPAA would always be happy to agree with it and help its development...
good for them to do that,at least speeds would really improve as they say,let's suppose they will implement that,look @ the details of the main frame "connect to local peers as much as possible. Local traffic is cheaper for ISPs and reduces the load on the network. In addition, P4P enabled filesharing clients will download files faster than regular clients." they didn't even explain what their fancy dream is,none of those details can convince any read with what they are trying to do .... :shockkk!:
Downloading from physically closer peers is (almost) always good both for the user and ISP [if its code doesn't disrupt other functionality, as I mentioned before], because closer peers often mean less latency and more speeds for the downloader, while ISPs don't have to use up more of their international traffic and save money.
But about "will download files faster than regular clients"... if their intention is to slow down "regular clients" it technically will download faster, because its speed will stay the same while the others' decreases.
then,they are fucked up,let's hope so then :klatsch_3:
They'll have to consider that :biggrin:
Mhm :) I meant that should this be [you can never know :smile:] some plan to take down peer-to-peer downloading, the MPAA would always be happy to agree with it and help its development...
Well,yeah sure MPAA won't go wrong when busting down p2p users,they just love doing that :mad2:
Downloading from physically closer peers is (almost) always good both for the user and ISP [if its code doesn't disrupt other functionality, as I mentioned before], because closer peers often mean less latency and more speeds for the downloader, while ISPs don't have to use up more of their international traffic and save money.
But about "will download files faster than regular clients"... if their intention is to slow down "regular clients" it technically will download faster, because its speed will stay the same while the others' decreases.
ISPs will love to save both money used for renting servers & bandwith since it's expensive when runs out of networks !! but sitll ISPs should maintain a business-wise decisions about that call since lots of user would hate seeing their bandwith going right down to the drain for nothing...
They'll have to consider that :biggrin:
sure thing,they should....
Well,yeah sure MPAA won't go wrong when busting down p2p users,they just love doing that :mad2:
Yea, remember MD's miivi project? :rolleyes2:
ISPs will love to save both money used for renting servers & bandwith since it's expensive when runs out of networks !! but sitll ISPs should maintain a business-wise decisions about that call since lots of user would hate seeing their bandwith going right down to the drain for nothing...
"Stop running the local peer code when you are connected to less than X local peers OR having a local/international ratio lower than X%"
^ That's so SB-I Hack :biggrin: But maybe a good idea.
"Stop running the local peer code when you are connected to less than X local peers OR having a local/international ratio lower than X%"
^ That's so SB-I Hack :biggrin: But maybe a good idea.
LOL now I can say we successfully made something useful for the human kind :klatsch_3:
Maybe we really did, man... maybe we really did :)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.