TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Wesley Chapel, FL
| Gimmie A Break
The networks are not free as many people on this site know - especially those who make their living some way some how in IT etc.
This net neutrality thing is socialism in disguise, and no network has to make it balanced. In fact to think that it is now is naive. The networks are going to do everything possible to make the paying customers happy.
You got to pay to play or expect your play to suffer. |
|
John T
@northgrum.com
| People disagree on what "net neutrality" means
I think that under some definitions of net neutrality, it would be a violation, but not others. Having a conversation about it is useful.
I've even heard a handful of people claim that net neutrality would prohibit any type of traffic shaping, including speed limitations and selling different speed tiers on, say, a fiber connection for different prices.
Hasn't Bram Cohen himself claimed that certain things that the BitTorrent clients themselves do could be considered net neutrality violations? |
|
devnuller
join:2006-06-10
Hollis, NH
1 edit | Sharing your bandwidth w/ a commercial entity to profit from
P2P is technically running a server or file sharing service which is a violation of most all residential broadband terms of service. Most providers have a “don’t ask don’t tell” approach to this unless someone becomes the top file server in their network.
Offering for concessions (e.g. you can download if you let me use your bandwidth) ones residential network as part of a fee based content delivery environment really makes this issue interesting. |
|
pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
Premium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
clubs: | Is BitTorrent Throttling a Network Neutrality Violation?
YES. |
|
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| reply to TechieZero
Re: Gimmie A Break
"This net neutrality thing is socialism in disguise, and no network has to make it balanced."
Respectfully disagree, having a NON neutral network would be more socialist.
Why should a network be unbalanced in favor of any one thing or another??? Shouldn't that be left to the user?
I'm not claiming networks are free here. I just can't understand why two parties should be limited in their exchange of data. A neutral network would ensure that this is the case, one that isn't, wouldn't.
I run my band's website. If I had to pay more money to ensure that my content were delivered as well as, say, a major label band's, that would not be fair. Sure, I might need to go for a dedicated server with more bandwidth, but that's different. Right now, the "little guy" still has just as much a chance to be heard as anyone else, and that is not socialism in disguise, it seems more like a simple matter of freedom in my mind.
What many in the "content" industry can't seem to grasp is that through technology, the tables have been turned. Some have used technology to their advantage, while others still sit back and cry about not being able to utilize it to its fullest potential.
Also, (the internet) was not built solely for commerce. Sure, it's a fantastic vehicle for it, but that's not the only thing it was designed for.
There is still more non-commercial material out there than commercial.......
Back on topic, bit torrent is a whole different can of worms.
I'm not sure about whether it's a neutrality issue or not due to the nature of how it operates... a swarm of users all maxing out their connections is much different than a traditional client/server relationship. |
|
typeorsource
@cpugenie.com
| this is silly
Net neutrality should be about preventing favoritism on sources of content, not types of data flow.
Yahoo should not be given priority over Google. Vonage should not be given priority over Sipphone.
On the other hand, in a well run network I would expect RTP packets for VOIP to have priority over bittorrent traffic.
I would expect SSH traffic to be prioritized over FTP.
Where is the confusion in this? |
|
jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS | reply to pokesph
Re: Is BitTorrent Throttling a Network Neutrality Violation?
WHY? |
|
W0Wgamer
@pacbell.net | ... some things are legal
stop blocking my wow update patches |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | yes
any throttling of internet connection that you have paid for is a violation of net neutrality. |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| reply to TechieZero
Re: Gimmie A Break
said by TechieZero  :This net neutrality thing is socialism in disguise As well is public education, minimum wage laws, worker safety laws, and the FCC and FDA. |
|
keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA
 ·Teliax VOIP
 ·WestPAnet Inc.
 ·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
| reply to morbo
Re: yes
Net neutrality is treating all traffic the same.
BitTorrent is it's own killer. People want net neutrality but bittorrent or similiar apps take advantage of net neutrality by taking as much bandwidth as possible. This is not "fair" and overruns/clashes with other data. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to pokesph
Re: Is BitTorrent Throttling a Network Neutrality Violation?
said by pokesph :YES. Agreed, modifying any behaviour of the network or connection based on use/type of use is NN violation, only difference from the popular view of NN is that there is nothing being put "above" the "degraded" content (unless you consider that everything else on the internet). |
|
NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
1 edit | reply to pokesph
The the question that should be asked is:
Is using BitTorrent a violation of the ISP's TOS/AUP?
Personally I think it is. And if I am on firm TOS/AUP interpretation ground, then the answer to "is BitTorrent Throttling a Network Neutrality Violation?" really doesn't matter anymore.
Either accept the throttling as a byproduct of enforcing the ISPs TOS/AUP, or obtain service from an ISP that has a less restrictive (or more BitTorrent friendly) TOS/AUP.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. |
|
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
| reply to morbo
Re: yes
said by morbo :any throttling of internet connection that you have paid for is a violation of net neutrality. The spammers would agree. NN will unleash spam to the next level.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 |
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN
| reply to amungus
Re: Gimmie A Break
said by amungus :Why should a network be unbalanced in favor of any one thing or another??? Shouldn't that be left to the user? I'm not claiming networks are free here. I just can't understand why two parties should be limited in their exchange of data. A neutral network would ensure that this is the case, one that isn't, wouldn't. Thanks for voicing a great argument against "net neutrality". Shouldn't a user be able to determine how their data is transported over a network? Doesn't "net neutrality" by definition limit how two parties are allowed to exchange data?
A truely neutral network would allow the network owner to provide access over the network based on any agreement they could reach with end users. Basic service at a basic price, and premium service at a premium price. It amazes me that people are so vehemently against an idea that is practiced in practically every single enterprise in a capitalist system. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
 ·AT&T Southwest
| reply to keyboard5684
Re: yes
said by keyboard5684 :This is not "fair" and overruns/clashes with other data. what's not "fair" is isp's deciding what should be throttled. i paid for the pipe. now let me use it. (except for spamming  ) |
|
tumble
join:2005-03-31
Vancouver, BC | Yes
Other utility services like water, electricity, snail mail, phone, cable tv, etc. will not degrade in quality unless absolutely necessary, and when they do its non-discriminatory, therefore bandwidth shouldn't be any different. |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
| depends on what has to be neutral
If all bits are equal, then yes its a violation. If all bits in a category are equal, then it depends on how they throttle. If they give preferential treatment to their own or business partners' traffic, it's violating neutrality. If they treat ALL bit-torrent traffic equally, then its neutral to the category. I'm of the opinion that treating all bit-torrent traffic the same is legal, but I'll certainly go for the provider that gives me a better service. They are only worth the quality of service they are providing. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to W0Wgamer
Re: ... some things are legal
said by W0Wgamer :
stop blocking my wow update patches
Why is a service I pay $14.95 a month for, then $39.99 to buy their expansion online rather than in a store, delivering the product I paid THEM for on the backs of other people?
That's a whole other can of worms though.
--
Use the OS tool for the job. |
|
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
| reply to axus
Re: depends on what has to be neutral
BT was not designed to be network efficient. If left unchecked, torrent traffic will bring many ISPs and the internet to its knees which is an issue far beyond NN. There are probably two choices here. Continue to allow the throttling of torrent traffic to maintain network performance. Un-throttle torrents, which will force the ISPs to upgrade networks. Of course the second choice will bring a corresponding increase in service rates.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 |
|
