Once Again, Be Careful What You Wish For With Net Neutrality Once The Lobbyists Get Done With It
from the might-not-be-what-you-wanted dept
We’ve pointed this out in the past, but those who support regulations in favor of net neutrality should be careful. Once the lobbyists get done with them, any rules won’t resemble what you think they should. The EFF is already up in arms over the fact that the proposed net neutrality rules would allow blocking BitTorrent, even though it was Comcast’s blocking of BitTorrent that helped kick off the latest round of attention in net neutrality. That does seem a bit ironic… but, again, it shows that, just because you call something “net neutrality,” it doesn’t mean it is about a neutral network. With the entertainment industry redefining net neutrality to their own liking (i.e., so that file sharing can still be blocked), you can bet that other lobbyists (including the telcos) will work hard to redefine it to their liking as well.
Filed Under: copyright, lobbyists, net neutrality
Comments on “Once Again, Be Careful What You Wish For With Net Neutrality Once The Lobbyists Get Done With It”
Shocking! You mean companies won’t be obliged to support illegal file trading?
How ever will we live?
Re: Re:
You say “obliged” like you think they are forced to do it…
Re: Re:
You seem to be intent on using any other words to describe file sharing. Whether it’s the usual term piracy, or stealing, or file trading. In all cases you seem to explicitly focus on using language that makes it appear as if duplication of files is anything but easy, zero cost duplication – completely the opposite of stealing, trading or real life current and ye olde piracy.
It makes me think just how much debating and arguing is tied up not merely in just the overall points, but the language one uses and what that implies about what they’re trying to get across, even if both the point and language are not representative of the reality.
Kinda like how in abortion, both sides are “pro” something.
Re: Re: Re:
Modplan, torrents don’t exist for the simple act of duplicating files, you could do that much more efficiently with a direct connection (example FTP) between the file holder and the destination that the duplicate file would go.
The idea of torrents was created to get around the Napster issue, that a central clearing house to connect the sender and receiver of a file was effectively illegal. Torrents attempt to get around this by using a fairly inefficient protocol of distributed and unreliable nodes in an attempt to create legal obfuscation. It has pretty much failed as well, as most torrent sites exist only in countries that are tolerant or because they have yet to be specifically attacked legally.
P2P by it’s very nature is a very inefficient way to move data, it is slower than direct connection, requires a ton more overhead, and very often overloads networks by using them in ways there were not created to go. With the current cost of server bandwidth so low (and getting lower), there is little financial benefit to using P2P for distribution of commercial work. What you save in cost you lose in control, which is always an issue.
In the end, no provider should be obliged to be part of illegal activity. While there is a small part of P2P traffic that is legal, it is clear from studies and to the naked eye that much of what is going on is illegal or “infringing”. This isn’t a question of language, it’s a question of reality.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, those damn phone companies should stop abiding illegal activity and be forced to monitor all communications. The US Post Office should be shut down, too, after all, they’re not stopping all that illegal mail being sent! The Department of Transportation is the worst criminal of all, think of all the criminals on the roads they aren’t stopping with their magic wands!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It’s a question of language in how you phrase terms relating to file sharing or file sharers, especially in how you may want to try and represent someone who is involved in the act, which was my point, not the fact of whether it is illegal.
What isn’t fact however is that P2P is inefficient – it allows distribution of workload so that no individual person or server is forced to bear the brunt of uploading/downloading, especially in cases where there is high demand of a particular file, and especially when that file is Large. Ubuntu for example urges people to use their torrent during new release windows to lessen the stress on their servers which can get hit pretty badly due to the large jump in demand and the cost of running them.
It allows for perfectly high speeds given a certain threshold of seeders and leachers (which doesn’t have to be many).
Torrents are used for various purposes, like Miro (http://www.getmiro.com/) which is specifically about distributing content (content that is intended to be dsitributed widely across the internet) and gets consistently high speeds. It’s also used by Jamendo (http://www.jamendo.com/en/) amongst various others.
Also what isn’t fact is whether all forms of P2P should be banned, and whether the act of sharing content in itself should be banned or considered reprehensible, as is endlessly debated here.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nonsense. Torrents are the most scalable file distribution technology we have: as a file becomes more popular, more people get copies, so both the availability and bandwidth increase to accommodate the need.
Also, it hasn’t failed at all. The new trend is simply not to host .torrent files centrally.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, it is faster than you can get/send to/from a single source. As most personal connections are asynchronous, it’s far better to be able to pull from multiple sources for a single file than it is to try and transfer a single file between you and a single destination.
Honestly, there is a large difference between making a copy of a CD for a friend, and ripping the thing and putting it online for a few thousand of your closest personal friends. Just the same, the protocol itself isn’t illegal. HTTP the most used protocol on the internet is used for illegal sharing. Part of torrent tracking uses HTTP, should we block that too?
Every device connected to the internet is a peer. P2P costs less for distributors than directly feeding each download. This is why it’s fairly popular for large open-source distributions. Though you would rather cut them off as well, I would presume.
Providers should be agnostic and not care about the bytes they transport. They shouldn’t inspect, rate or monitor as such. They shouldn’t care that one set of packets is an email to my grandmother more than any other set of packets.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
P2P is not faster, because (a) it has a fairly high overhead (plenty of connection requests, many that get denied), and (b) because it often uses network connections which are not optimized for moving data in that direction.
I don’t think anyone is saying that the protocol in and of itself is illegal, but it is the “micro sized crack baggy” of illegal file sharing. While the very few who actually use the protocol legally might be punished, turning off P2P (or significantly limiting the packets) would go a long way to limiting illegal file sharing. From all reports, the amount of legal P2P traffic is very low.
Open source would need to learn how to better distribute their software without it. No doubt someone would come up with a better way. I am thinking that a registered peering system (ghost to ghost hookup) might work out better.
Every device connected to the internet is a peer
Not really. There are plenty of peers and peering points online, but end user computers are not by design peers. There is nothing in the IP protocol that suggests that end user devices are also traffic peers, because they are not. It is only additional protocols that have been created to overlay the IP protocols that have created this. Most end user network configurations don’t provide balanced bandwidth (async rather than sync), often with ratios of 10 to 1 on up/down. Networks often are not configured or designed to support user to user connections, often requiring long routes to get from one computer to the next, even if they are located side by side.
In part, that nature of the networks is another reason P2P isn’t very effecient, because it often uses much more network resources to accomplish a goal. My ISP has about 8 to 10 steps to get out of their network, and a P2P connection to a friend on their network would likely require 20 such steps, where as my connection to Techdirt is only about 3 or 4 steps outside of the network.
I would say if ISPs are forced to be 100% packet agnostic that they will have to significantly raise the amount of network connectivity that they buy, and make significant change to their networks, and those expenses would have to be passed on to the end users. Would you like your internet connection cost to double?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“(a) it has a fairly high overhead (plenty of connection requests, many that get denied)”
That’s TINY compared to the rest of the data that are transferred.
“(b) because it often uses network connections which are not optimized for moving data in that direction.”
The bottleneck of the traditional client-server architecture is usually the server. Not the connections between (internet routes around slow bits), or the ISP (which is not a big computer somewhere, or a relatively small cluster of computers, but another massively distributed, general-purpose communications system that is all over the country).
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Please, FFS, go and read up on what you are talking about. Between these claims and your WEP claims among others today, you really are making yourself look like a total idiot. At least ease off the tech claims until you really have a good idea of what you’re blathering on about.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Paul, sorry, but it is only the truth as I learned it. WEP is only insecure when the connection is in active use, as it can expose certain packets which can be used to determine the WEP key.
The overhead in P2P is huge (compared to other file transfers).
Bottlenecks exist when large amounts of data attempt to transit network areas that were not designed for them. More server environments are created to allow the fast flow of short connection packets in and long replies out (and to allow multiple connections for various pieces). I can download much more quickly directly from a source than I can from a distributed collection of hard to access peers spread all over the world.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Thank the gods for RapidShare.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
a) How is one 1 open connection faster than a 100? please get a network simulator and try your theory and see what it happens. Do you understand the term “multiplexing”?
b) Hmmm…how is one server able to outperform thousands of little ones?
Get the NS2 and do a simulation and see if your ideas pan out like you said.
Show it to us in a network simulation how P2P is inefficient please and show us the right path please.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
World of Warcraft uses bittorrent to distribute their patches.
With Skype you use P2P technology to communicate between eachother.
Two VERY LEGAL uses of bittorrent and p2p, and yet, under these new sets of rules they would be blocked. And Bittorrent can and is being used for other legal means, like linux distros, new artists who actually WANT to share their music with their fans, etc etc etc etc.
So you can go fornicate with yourself, if you continue equating P2P with illegal filesharing.
“P2P by it’s very nature is a very inefficient way to move data, it is slower than direct connection, requires a ton more overhead, and very often overloads networks by using them in ways there were not created to go.”
And yet, it does help alleviate bandwidth usage of the server. It’s better to have a 1000 peer-owned ‘servers’ offering a single packet to another 1000 other peers, then to have those 1000 peers download it from 1 server.
“In the end, no provider should be obliged to be part of illegal activity.”
Does the phone company have the right to cut you off if you call another company to illegally share your company’s trade secrets with them?
Does the gas company have the right to cut you off, if you use your oven to commit suicide?
Does the electrical company have the right to cut you off, if you grow weedplants in your basement?
Re: Re: Re:
“Kinda like how in abortion, both sides are “pro” something.”
…Or that the other side is anti-something. As if there could be no more than two sides to an issue.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That wasn’t my point, and I never said there wasn’t. My point was in the use of language, especially in how 2 particular or popular sides in an issue might both tend to use positive language to describe themselves even if the fact they disagree must mean one is anti-something, in turn presenting themselves as being groups that are positive and affirming a right, whilst glossing over what they are against.
Re: Re: 0 Cost?
Maybe 0 costs to the person duplicating someone elses work, but great cost to the person who gets there property duplicated, and a great disincentive to continue to produce leading to a great society costs. ALL OF WHICH ARE PROPERTIES OF THEFT!!
Re: Re: Re: 0 Cost?
I went to the store. I left with some goods. I used the goods a little. Then I went to a swap meet and sold them for cash. I used the cash to buy drugs (beer).
ALL OF WHICH CAN ALSO BE DONE AS THEFT!
Just because something shares some characteristics with a crime, does not make it a crime. A theft only occurs when a person is deprived of their private property. Also, all caps doesn’t change that.
Our justice system, distorted as it is by the interests of big business, still strives to not convict the innocent as a cost of pursuing the guilty. Yet, in the case of P2P, you think we should abandon our values?
Re: Re: Re: 0 Cost?
I make a copy of all your digital music, have I committed theft?
Well let’s see… do you still have access to your digital music? Yes? then it’s no theft.
It may be illegal under the copyright law, (depends on the situation), but it does not flag any other laws.
Copyright infringement does not equal theft, never has, and never will be.
“great disincentive to continue to produce leading to a great society costs”
Yes, because since the rise of P2P networks no new music has been made…(/sarcasm)
Re: Re:
Shocking! You mean Anti-Mike thinks that ISPs can magically tell the difference between legal and illegal BT use?
How ever will we stop laughing at his stupidity?
Oh my God. Who wants to live in a world where smalltown anarchists with no creative life of their own can no longer hide behind privacy laws and pilfer entertainment?? Let’s not forget! FREEDOM means freedom to unlawful activity!! Protect your right to break the law in secrecy!!
Re: Re:
This isn’t about smalltime anarchists. Are you blind or something? It’s obviously the laws that needs changing.
Other neutrality regulation?
So Mike, would you support the idea of eliminating neutrality regulations on other services (such as electric power, water, gas and telephone) as well?
Re: Other neutrality regulation?
Don’t put words in his mouth. Read the article again and you’ll see he didn’t say anything of the sort…
Re: Re: Other neutrality regulation?
Don’t put words in his mouth.
I didn’t, I asked a question. (which, btw, was directed at Mike. Is your name Mike?)
Re: Re: Re: Other neutrality regulation?
“I didn’t, I asked a question. (which, btw, was directed at Mike. Is your name Mike?)”
Did you send it to his private email, or type it on paper and mail it to him?
Otherwise, it pretty much becomes part of a public discussion.
Re: Re: Re:2 Other neutrality regulation?
Otherwise, it pretty much becomes part of a public discussion.
Who said otherwise?
Re: Re: Re:2 Other neutrality regulation?
“Otherwise, it pretty much becomes part of a public discussion.”
Now that you’re part of the discussion, are *you* for or against service neutrality?
Re: Re: Re:3 Other neutrality regulation?
I’m pro network neutrality, but cautiously in favor of regulating it.
I would much prefer that we, instead, re-instate UNE-P, which means the telcos have to wholesale their last-mile copper that run through public rights-of-way. In sharing these assets among competitors, as we had it in the US from 1996 to 2005, new entrants like Covad and Speakeasy were positioning to offer competitive DSL services…until the lobbyists plugged that hole.
Meanwhile in such “socialist” countries as France, they have UNE-P and are rapidly bringing more services to market, more cheaply, from more providers. Our experiment with duopoly instead of competitive markets has failed miserably, which should surprise nobody.
I’ve been part of the discussion for quite a while.
This is what happens
when the government tries to regulate anything. They pass out favors to their big donors which stamps out competition and innovation. This should surprise no one, yet it will be paraded as “protection for the people”. What they don’t tell you is that it’s protection for their people.
This will never end..
This is not very likely to pass. Even if it does it won’t really stop it. Some one will quickly come up with a way around it. Kind of like sony and their multi-million dollar cd that was copy proof. Defeated by a felt tip marker. People will just switch to a provider that does not implement this.
Re: This will never end..
If only there were options. One of the things Mike mentions a lot (and I was a little surprised not to see it in this article) is that the real way to promote net neutrality is to promote broadband competition.
For example, I live in Washington, DC, hardly a backwater. I can get broadband from either Comcast or Verizon (And just DSL, not FIOS). Some parts of DC have RCN, a smaller provider, but not my street.
So it’s not like I have a lot of choice. And as I said, I’m in a big city. More rural areas are lucky to have one provider.
Re: Re: This will never end..
You also have 3G, DTH sat services, etc.
Do you really think that any third party is going to come in and entirely wire up washington DC to compete? Do you think they could do it in a cost effective way?
Re: Re: Re: This will never end..
Wire up DC like Verizon has done with FIOS in all sorts of other places? Sure, someone could do it. I don’t know anything about what would be involved in actually doing it, so I won’t speculate on whether it might be cost-effective.
But if we’re changing laws for net neutrality, why don’t we change some laws to give tax breaks for setting up this kind of infrastructure that encourages competition?
Re: Re: Re: This will never end..
3G has very limited coverage, and hardly compares to broadband. Beyond this, the majority of the population lives in apartments, where satellite services are hardly an option.
Re: Re: Re: This will never end..
No, but it’s not ridiculous to seek and demand more competition from our industry, enforced by our government.
Europeans often have over 5 DSL providers to choose from because they actually kept the pro-competition Local Line Unbundling regulations that our lobbyist succeeded in repealing here in 2005.
It requires no additional trenches, but results in a very dynamic, competitive industry with more choice, better service, faster speeds, and lower prices.
Bit Torrent NOT developed for obfusification
The Anti-Mike:
If you are going to enlighten readers such as ‘Modplan’ about how things like how the BitTorrent protocol works and why it was designed the way it was, you might first want to brush up on that yourself. Unfortunately if you did it wouldn’t support the point you are trying to make.
BitTorrent was invented as a _more_efficient_ way of sharing large files. It had nothing to do with the Napster decision, eDonkey and Gnutella are an attempt to decentralize P2P. Until recently there was no attempt to hide the identities, nor the payload of any bit torrent transfers. In fact it’s so much more efficient (especially in terms of cost) than a simple FTP site that more and more people are finding uses for the protocol. Spotify, WorldOfWarcraft, and of course Linux Distro’s, just to name a few.
Since it’s such an efficient way to share large files, it should have come as no surprise that people would use it to share movies and television shows. It’s only recently with ISP’s trying to ‘shape’ bit torrent transfers and companies trying to extort settlements from internet users that an attempt has been made to obfuscate the protocol and those making use of it.
So contrary to your point, P2P can be a very efficient way to share files. If you are trying to share 1 file with 1 other person, go FTP. If you are trying to share 1 file with 1,000,000 people (especially if it’s a large file) you are much better of using bit torrent.
Here’s a couple of links to get you started;
http://wiki.theory.org/BitTorrentSpecification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_%28protocol%29
Re: Bit Torrent NOT developed for obfusification
Going by the way he reads posts, I think he’ll just read those URLs and stop there.
Re: Re: Bit Torrent NOT developed for obfusification
TAMMY has done it before.
Begging the Question
Absolutely true, “Once Again, Be Careful What You Wish For With Net Neutrality Once The Lobbyists Get Done With It”. But it still begs the question of what would happen in the absence of regulation. Rather than lambaste the shortcomings of regulation there should be demands that companies honor network neutrality.
The Truth is
If you ban bit-torrent, another method will come about. If you ban that method it will be replaced with another. If enough people want something, enough for it to be considered a problem worth trying to legislate control of, those people will find a way.
This is not specifically about the Internet, after all, prohibition didn’t prevent people who wanted alcohol from getting alcohol.
These “crimes” are not perceived as harmful by the public at large, probably because we have not heard of one artist who is broke or living near poverty because some people share their music or movie.
Unless you can convince the people that what they are doing is harmful to others (or deadly to themselves, and even that is a stretch) you will not stop something by making new laws making “victims” out of people who are profiting nicely from their work.
Not a lot of options here
Unfortunately Mike you seem to miss a point that you have actually rather clear. I see this as a damned if you do and damned if you don’t scenario.
Your damned if you do create net neutrality laws because of this kind of manipulation. Though I would argue that as soon as such exceptions are made they can no longer call is net neutrality by definition.
However you are also damned if you don’t because without regulation the ISPs will just walk all over their customers at their leisure because of other laws that restrict competition regionally.
So either way we are hosed. Give us an option that is better and I would love to consider it.
-Pjerky
Re: Not a lot of options here
So either way we are hosed. Give us an option that is better and I would love to consider it.
Sure, if you accept gov’t subsidies/rights of way for core infrastructure (as all the telcos have), then you need to offer the line to competitors at a wholesale price.
Create real competition in the market, and net neutrality ceases being an issue.
Re: Re: Not a lot of options here
Ok, you got me there. I skipped over the third option of increasing/enabling/encouraging more competition by changing other laws.
You are absolutely right, if they have to compete then they also have to listen to their customers. They anger enough of them and they will lose their business.
Net Neutrality.
Well I agree with Mike that it could turn ugly, but competition want happen without changing some laws and I see this as an opportunity for everyone to get some experience about how things work.
Even if it turns to crap in the end. Laws change, people learn with the mistakes they make and I’m sure the ONG’s we are supporting will learn how to deal with such situations.
The other road is more difficult it involves doing it against the law.
Besides if it gets ridiculous maybe, people start building their own networks for a change, one owned by the people in which ISP’s don’t own the infra-structure but contribute to them by paying the public.
People in the U.S. should get their neighbourhoods to build their own infra-structure and charge others for using it, and that money would go back to maintaining and expanding the network like building their IPX, with the government building inter-city connections.
Then ISPs can do what they want on their lines and people will have their true net neutrality.
I think people today lost the DIY yourself spirit that build a great country that is a shadow of its former glory.
Anti-Mike should be named Anti-Intelligence
Claiming that everyone you’re spouting your misinformation to is wrong and that it’s truth because that’s what you were taught is pretty revealing. Being taught something is only half the war, Anti-Mike. Once a thing is learned, you should not blindly accept it as truth, but put it to the test. I know the media groups don’t like to follow or promote that sort of thinking, but the rest of the world usually does.
Obviously you have been taught half-truths and even fictions in some cases. P2P is so widely used simply because it IS faster. I routinely download my WoW updates at over 2MB/sec. Two MEGABYTES A SECOND. Find me a server that’ll do that for me, I beg you.
Not all end-users are peers. They need software for that. So do clients, actually. And servers. But any two end-users COULD be peers, and the more there are, the better peering could be. Don’t let yourself get confused by deceit.
Spreading incorrect “facts” and misleading lies here won’t work. There’s too many of us who can see through the BS you’re trying to spread.
Bwahahaha
“I don’t think anyone is saying that the protocol in and of itself is illegal, but it is the “micro sized crack baggy” of illegal file sharing. While the very few who actually use the protocol legally might be punished, turning off P2P (or significantly limiting the packets) would go a long way to limiting illegal file sharing. From all reports, the amount of legal P2P traffic is very low.”
Bwahahahaha…thank you, havent had that good a laugh in a while. You are just as clueless as your Corporate Butt Masters who pay you to shill, lie, and misrepresent these issues on message boards. Especially telling is this beauty:
“…turning off P2P (or significantly limiting the packets) would go a long way to limiting illegal file sharing”
Of all the comments that you have made that undermine your credibility (and there are a LOT), this one is clear and undeniable. You are CLUELESS about file sharing and p2p and all these issues if you really think that cutting of torrents WILL STOP ILLEGAL FILESHARING. Idiot. Completely. No argument any more. “illegal filesharing” has been going on since at LEAST the 60’s, if not before (in the form of copied tapes, reel-to-reel, etc). Also, at least since the late 70’s with computers, categorically. This issue has ALWAYS taken multiple paths and forms. To think that cutting off torrents would “go a long way” is not only ignorant, its willfully deceptive and disingenuous. You are insulting those reading by spouting such a blatant falsehood, one that is EASILY disproven by ANY TIME IN HISTORY.
Traitor Against Mankind, you stand exposed for the ignorant shill you are. You no longer have anything relevant to say.
A Probable Bypass.
People are starting to produce little “wall-wart computers”:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/24/1918217
Suppose you combine this little gizmo with a Mailboxes-type store, “server-hosting-R-us,” or whatever you want to call it. You can probably find highly competitive internet access within a mile or two of your home, and presumably the hosting store would be sitting on top of a node. Peer-to-Peer software, or whatever, can run on the remote wall-wart, and you can upload and download stuff via a standard encrypted FTP or HTTP over outbound TCP connection, or you can set up an encrypted tunnel (again, outbound over TCP). You can physically go to the hosting store to transfer data which is too bulky for your internet connection, so you don’t necessarily need broadband. The store presumably has its own internal proxy clients or onion routers, so there is no connection between the IP address the home ISP (*) knows about, and the IP address someone else, out on the internet, might know about.
(*) I don’t like the term ISP. It’s deceptive. Subscriber Loop Provider (SLP) would be more accurate.
more misrepresentation
“The overhead in P2P is huge (compared to other file transfers).”
Ok and? Even if this were true (and on its face, COMPARED TO OTHER FILE TRANSFERS ONLY, it probably is) that does NOT mean the p2p overhead is a problem. Its still a SMALL fraction of the overall volume of data being transfered. And if you knew one god damn thing about bittorrent, you’d know that the purpose of this overhead is to FACILITATE BETTER AND MORE EFFICIENT USE OF BANDWIDTH. But you take the industry line and make idiotic statements like that and try to trick people into thinking that is a PROBLEM of the protocol, rather than a FEATURE.
You are a lying, misrepresenting shill.
moron anti mike strikes again
P2P is not faster,…..
HAHA stop right there with the gay long speech
IT IS FASTER
whats faster me downloading form a guy at 50Kbytes/sec
or from 8 guys with 50Kbytes/sec
Another example:
man has 4 GB to up
80 people get on he has 80Kbytes/sec it would take how long to up one copy versus 80
cause with p2p thats what happens…..
@TAM - Sorry I missed that.... run it by me again?
“In part, that nature of the networks is another reason P2P isn’t very effecient, because it often uses much more network resources to accomplish a goal. My ISP has about 8 to 10 steps to get out of their network, and a P2P connection to a friend on their network would likely require 20 such steps, where as my connection to Techdirt is only about 3 or 4 steps outside of the network.”
How does connecting to another node on the SAME network require routing external to that network? Sorry but the logic escapes me. To Friend = MAX 10 hops. To Techdirt = 13 hops. Please explain 10>13 ???
Alternatively I have mis-read you perfectly clear and precise statement and you actually meant “to a friend on a different ISP network”. My mistake. That friend uses Techdirt’s ISP, by the way, and so 13 hops = 13 hops = just as efficient (and you are hoisted by your own petard).
Disclaimer: I am a Network Techie.
Further Disclaimer: You are incapable of effective argument since you fail to research, or to support your statements logically.
Re: @TAM - Sorry I missed that.... run it by me again?
TAM’s an expert at (lying about) everything.
“Paul, sorry, but it is only the truth as I learned it. WEP is only insecure when the connection is in active use, as it can expose certain packets which can be used to determine the WEP key.”
That used to be the case. However, new weaknesses have been discovered and new attacks have been formulated that require far less packets or generate the required amount of packets in the absence of active traffic.