This article on the BBC news website has got me wondering. What do you think about ISPs taking on the role of policing their users? Do you think this would be effective, or do you think some will and some won't meaning users moving in droves from ISPs who do to ISPs who don't?

So what would happen if we did?

- Prices would skyrocket with the additional hardware and resources we would need to police our network in this fashion.
- We would struggle (if not find it impossible) to determine between legal and illegal torrent/usenet files.  How would we know if someone had a copyright agreement with a company regarding software or content?
- Customers would leave. Quickly.

Another half baked idea from someone who doesn't understand the situation.

Who, me or the government plebs?

Hehe, not you

Just like SPAM and iPhone unlocking , all ISPs will always be playing catch-up with the P2P tools as they will always find ways to mask/hide the P2P traffic to make it impossible to identify.

A non-starter in all senses of the word!

Also what do you think would happen if someone managed to download something illegal, or something was blocked that was legal?  Can you image the lawsuits!  It would be pretty much impossible to block everything illegal, without blocking everything (or practically everything).  P2P does have some good legitimate uses.

Phil

I have been downloading a moderate amount of (legal) P2P.
My stats show 2% P2P & 82% "Other"

This is probably because some other ISP's try to block P2P - causing people to use the encrypted versions of P2P.
The scary, but empty, threats made by various media organisations do not help.

Hence, I get a better performance from P2P by also using the encrypted version.
As a result PlusNet don't even know I'm using P2P!
I assume "other" traffic gets the same priority as P2P?

Would this allow BBYW Option 1 to get a better performance overnight? - Just a thought - but maybe worth a try. 

I've posted this blog on illegal downloading earlier this evening. Be interesting to see what actually happens as reported in the press I can't see any chance of it being workable.

Jeremy, which P2P app are you using?

Dream on!

You don't have to decode encrypted traffic to know it's P2P.

I'm using Azureus (a java based bit-torrent client). It allows (indeed recommends) that you choose a non-reserved port (a default is provided) and do some port forwarding in a NAT environment.
A facility is provided to check whether a port is blocked or not.

Can't really see how forcing ISPs into an endless arms race that they simply cannot win could possibly benefit anybody other than the music industry.

The costs of production are only so huge because of the logistical cost of burning and distributing physical media - if bands sold their music for sensible prices online, folks would be more likely to buy them.

Sure, there would still be piracy, but half of something is better than all of nothing!

The only place they would make money is in penalising *our* ISPs for not stopping piracy, and we'd have to foot the bill for it eventually.

They need to stop being greedy, and think about what they are suggesting...

The often quoted situation where someone taps into your insecure wireless connection and downloads illegal stuff is one questionable area of this 'proposition'.
Who would carry the can in that case?

Without meaning to spark a debate, this is kinda PNs policy anyway. Months ago PN had throttled almost everyones p2p connections regardless of them being legal or not. If you had any idea how long it took me to download "Damn Small Linux" via a torrent you would be shocked. Customers did leave quickly - by the truck load. I notice thats decreased since you introduced more expensive packages with more allowance of p2p. I've completely given up on p2p now - even MSN messenger crawls slower than dialup transfers. On 'broadband' that is shameful.

In reality, there isn't any way you could realistically tell the difference between legal and illegal files being downloaded - not unless you had file definitions in a similar way to anti virus products.

eh hem, freedom of speech anyone... I honestly dont want the UK to become China 2. Being responsible for a large clientbase in Dundee, this raises a lot of issues for myself, and I cannot see it being practicle.

If nothing else, the UK would most likely outrage, and what then, a new P2P protocol.. continue on 3 years, and the whole spectrum could be peer to peer, even port 80. I mean, I can run an SSH server on 80, and tunnel it all over SSH. Goodbye any evidence of P2P.

Yeah - let anarchy rule!  Well at least that's what most of the posts up to now seem to be suggesting! I was always of the opinion that if you knew the law was being broken, and could do something about it, you had a social (if not legal) obligation to do what you can to prevent it! What appears to be the prevalent attitude here though, is "you'll never stop it completly, so don't bother trying". That's like saying to the police, "you'll never catch all of the burglars, so don't bother looking for any of them!)

There seems to to be some uninformed opinion on how easy it is to hide P2P (or anything else for that matter). The software we use to monitor our network where I work produces some amazing reports on what is being tunneled using port 80 - changing port numbers to disguise content is a complete waste of time. If the "powers that be" decide that ISP's need to stop a particular activity, the tools to score an immediate hit against the majority of users (not the clever types like the posters here - Joe public who just wants a copy of his mates latest album) are already in place.

"The costs of production are only so huge because of the logistical cost of burning and distributing physical media - if bands sold their music for sensible prices online, folks would be more likely to buy them. " - sorry James, but this is complete nonsense. With volume sales the cost of burning and distributing physical media is only a fraction of the cost of an album. There is no doubt that the big recording companies take the lions share of the income from album sales, but they have huge costs too, and when they take on a band who don't make it (most of them!) their investment goes down the drain. The cost of producing a music video is enormous - if the CD doesn't sell big time, that cost will never be recovered.

I've worked with a lot of up and coming bands trying to do a professional job of getting first albums to the market. Very  few have the skills, experience, or equipment to record in their garage or bedroom, so they go to a studio. Even an excellent well rehearsed band will not turn out a decent album in less than two days, and that's before you start to mix down and master the tracks. (Professionally produced stuff will take a lot longer, and cost a lot more). Then there's artwork to produce, and if you've used even one cover track, you've got to do the work of getting (and paying for) copyright clearance etc. When all else is taken into consideration, the cost of sending of a master tape and producing a few thousand glass-mastered CD's is only a small proportion of the cost.

Do you seriously think that just because bands sold their music "at a sensible price online" that there would be any less piracy? I really doubt it. (Though there are other good reasons why bands should and do turn to internet sales). And if bands choose not to, does that mean that piracy is OK? (Lets say you own a shop which sells widgets. You think your widgets are worth £10 each, but some people sell their widgets for as little as a fiver. Joe public fancies one of your widgets, but thinks £10 is outrageous, so instead of buying one, he just steals it. Are you okay with that philosophy?)

okrzynska makes an interesting point about having file signatures as used with anti-virus products. Fine in principle, and perhaps as part of a package of solutions, but isn't that what DRM tried to do and failed? (Well it stops the average home computer user, but it's pretty useless as stopping anyone with a bit of determination). The problem with music is that it must sooner or later return to an analogue format, and at that stage, any digital protection mechanism is gone. It can then be re-recorded without the protection. (Though if you were to outlaw the transfer of music files without a digital signature, you may be onto something... )

Of course nothing that ISP's do will ever stop the serious determined P2P pirate - but that doesn't mean they shouldn't make "best effort", and as with most laws, the fact that a few peole get caught is a deterant to the majority of others.

Before advocating a "freedom for all - lets do what we want on the internet " attitude, please show some consideration for (a) upholding the law, and (b) the innocent victims of piracy. When the mega record companies loose out, so do small-time artists, songwriters, session musicians, and a host of other individuals who depend on them for a living. And don't try and absolve yourself by saying that they could make money other ways - couldn't we all! That doesn't make it alright for people to steal from us!

It would fall on the person who didn't secure their wireless device. It is their responsibility.