 ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 | Sigh.... Surprise surprise....
Anyone who thought they actually wanted this to work in the interest of the consumer was sorely mistaken. |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Consumer Advocates would be intentionally disruptive Why not involve consumer advocates in the process from the ground up? ... My guess is that once they've polished up a proposal, they can bring the plan to consumer advocates, who'll look unethical if they suggest that illegal P2P traffic should be treated equally. I think your guess is pretty good. Because if involved from the beginning, these consumer advocates would push for hands off all traffic - even illegal traffic. And that plays to their usual anti-corporate bias and their usual advocacy for stealing music and movies.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
 FLengineerCCNA, CEH, MCSAPremium
join:2007-06-26
Leesburg, FL | Another nice move by Comcast The proposal arrived two days before a planned network neutrality hearing in Stanford
Yea ok, sounds like they couldn't find enough seat warmers this time. What better way to put off getting in trouble by claiming you are working on the problem two days before the hearing. Last time Comcast hired uninterested by-standards to fill the seats. |
|
|
|
 Titus PulloI came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
kudos:1 | Flip-floppers I think Comcast has proven beyond any doubt that they are the Walmart of ISPs
-- |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to Linklist
Re: Consumer Advocates would be intentionally disruptive Not to mention that nothing productive comes from those types of discussions and the "consumer advocates" will leave the table pouting because they can't have their way on a network that doesn't belong to them.
The alleged illegality of some of the content that's distributed through P2P is really irrelevant unless you're a member of some of the trade groups that may be realizing losses. IMO, this is a bigger push to control P2P types of applications and what goes on the ISP's networks. What this most likely means is the demise of P2P. The question is, what will replace it and how will ISPs deal with the new threat? |
|
FLengineerCCNA, CEH, MCSAPremium
join:2007-06-26
Leesburg, FL
2 edits | I am with the Consumer Advocates I don't download illegal P2P files so don't for a second claim I am bias. I posted this a long time ago... If the ISP is allowed to block your traffic because they suspect that it is illegal files, then I expect to see toll both operators armed and ready to stop someone if they see a joint in the passenger's seat. There is absolutely no difference there.
If comcast is having trouble providing users with a 2Mb upstream speed, then stop selling a 2Mb upstream speed. OH WAIT, it has nothing to do with upstream speeds does it? They are slowing upstream speed because they know 99% of their customers won't complain about it as apposed to downstream speed throttling and by throttling upstream speed it reduces the same about of backbone traffic. |
|
| reply to Linklist
Re: Consumer Advocates would be intentionally disruptive Sir, you are a liar unless you can provide one single piece of evidence that Free Press has advocated for stealing music and movies, or that they have ever said illegal content should be protected from network management.
Shame on you. |
|
| reply to Linklist
I love how "consumer advocacy" translates to "anti-corporate bias" in your mind.
You are just so cute and cuddly sometimes.  |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Vitelity VOIP
| reply to FLengineer
Re: Another nice move by Comcast said by FLengineer:The proposal arrived two days before a planned network neutrality hearing in Stanford I think it's funny that people reference the "net neutrality" meeting at Stanford without noticing Stanford's own policy towards P2P:
From a networking perspective, Stanford suffers under current file-sharing because of the resources it eats up. The people at Networking Systems want to help limit Stanford's liability under the DMCA, but aside from this concern, they also want to provide a reliable network for all users. Therefore, Networking Systems has limited the amount of network resources that may be used for file-sharing. The purpose of the cap is to make the network usable for schoolwork and other important activities. It is not to punish the students-- faculty and staff share the same restrictions--but rather to improve the network for everyone. Source: »rescomp.stanford.edu/info/dmca/#network |
|
| reply to Linklist
Re: Consumer Advocates would be intentionally disruptive said by Linklist:And that plays to their usual anti-corporate bias and their usual advocacy for stealing music and movies. Which is some how worse that your usual anti-consumer, corporations do no wrong stance ?
To say that consumer advocates _advocate_ file sharing of copyrighted materials because the oppose ISPs playing content censors and copyright police is like saying that people who support the first amendment rights of organizations like the KKK advocate racism and hate. All that does is serve to cloud the debate and stear the dicussion away from the facts and into BS political and social commentary. |
|
 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
1 edit | reply to FLengineer
Re: I am with the Consumer Advocates said by FLengineer:I don't download illegal P2P files so don't for a second claim I am bias. I posted this a long time ago... If the ISP is allowed to block your traffic because they suspect that it is illegal files, then I expect to see toll both operators armed and ready to stop someone if they see a joint in the passenger's seat. There is absolutely no difference there. I dont know how it is in Florida, but coming into and out of NYC (specifically the MTA managed facilities) the toll booth operators are police officers with guns and handcuffs. They WILL arrest you if the see drugs on your seat!
--
Весна прибыла |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
| reply to FLengineer
said by FLengineer:If comcast is having trouble providing users with a 2Mb upstream speed, then stop selling a 2Mb upstream speed. Shared bandwidth is an actuarial science like insurance. When claims are higher than predicted the insurance companies raise rates. If the insurance companies feels you are filing excessive claims they can cancel your policy. Broadband providers are just following a very similar strategy.
Everybody should be able to hit their max provisioned speeds at some point, but there's no way for everyone to max out their connection at the same time. |
|
 DrexBeer...The other white meat.Premium
join:2000-02-24
La Place, LA
kudos:1 | Oh I'm just a bill Gotta love the Schoolhouse Rock "I'm a Bill" graphic. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to FLengineer
Re: I am with the Consumer Advocates said by FLengineer:If the ISP is allowed to block your traffic because they suspect that it is illegal files You assume ISPs are blocking P2P because of illegal content. Unless they're getting kickbacks from the content owning trade groups, my guess is that ISPs are minimizing the impact to their networks. |
|
FLengineerCCNA, CEH, MCSAPremium
join:2007-06-26
Leesburg, FL | reply to wifi4milez
HAHA, gotta love NYC. The point is still valid, that toll booth operator is a law enforcement officer and should arrest you. Comcast is not a law enforcement agency. |
|
FLengineerCCNA, CEH, MCSAPremium
join:2007-06-26
Leesburg, FL | reply to espaeth
Re: Another nice move by Comcast Not an ISP.
Most companies prohibit the use of P2P period. Stanford's network is nothing more than a huge private network. Now I wonder what Stanford's view would be if their ISP just decided to thottle P2P traffic for them without an option. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 | They buy capacity from carriers who have completely different (ie, realistic) bandwidth pricing structures.
Similarly when you sign up for Comcast you are buying attachment to their private network that has upstream connections to carriers. |
|
FLengineerCCNA, CEH, MCSAPremium
join:2007-06-26
Leesburg, FL | reply to espaeth
Re: I am with the Consumer Advocates I realize that. Believe it or not your POTS line is the same way. Your ILEC will server a community of 1500 people with say 672 availible lines. They are counting on not everyone using the phone at the same time. However, if those trunk lines are at 75% load for a long period of time they will add more to accomodate the traffic load. |
|
| Comcast Comments & Trackbacks
Karl I just posted this comment on the article you are sourcing from. Janko - Comcast has not abandoned the idea of a “Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.” We fully support the DCIA’s effort to build a coalition of ISPs, P2P companies, experts and others to develop a set of P2P Best Practices and encourage you and others to read the press release they put out last week at »www.prweb.com/releases/2008/05/p···0024.htm. The fact is, Comcast and Pando took the first step in calling for a “Bill of Rights and Responsibilities” and the DCIA is an ideal forum for the entire industry to collaborate and develop some best practices. We look forward to working with the DCIA and others on this important initiative. |
|
 N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | reply to Titus Pullo
Re: Flip-floppers said by Titus Pullo:I think Comcast has proven beyond any doubt that they are the Walmart of ISPs -- B.B.BBut, I thought they were the BMW????
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… |
|
