dslreports logo
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2008-09-29 18:23:56: After Comcast's run-in with the FCC over their throttling of upstream P2P traffic, consumer advocates would have you believe a major battle was won and we've entered a new phase of ISPs being completely transparent about how and when they manage netw.. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next

jc10098

join:2002-04-10

1 edit

2 recommendations

Well

I mean I'm not one for throttling or capping, but when you are using Cell Tower (Sorry correction) vs traditional broadband, the cost is definitely much higher. I guess there would be ways around the blocking of ports (proxy etc) but truth be told, mobile broadband isn't mean to go p2p galore. I know this is against what everyone else believes here, but I kind of sympathize with sprint on this aspect of things. Leave it unlimited usage, but don't open it to be abused. After all, the price on this service is going to be quite low.

beaups

join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH

1 recommendation

your response is far too logical for this board. everyone should have gigabit connections that they can run at capacity 24/7 sharing all the various "linux distros" and "legal, independent movies". and it should be free, and without a contract.

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

1 edit

1 recommendation

Don't like it....?

.... don't buy it! Plain and simple.

Stop feeling entitled. There are other ISPs and plenty of competition to warrant Sprint's desires. It's new, it's wireless, and I think they're smart to do so.

Why is it that every single connection out there, people feel the need to jam and clog it full of so much un-necessary crap anyway?

People, mainly Americans, do NOT know the meaning of restraint, moderation, and not consuming everything in site like locust.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

1 recommendation

reply to jc10098

Re: Well

said by jc10098:

but truth be told, mobile broadband isn't mean to go p2p galore.
Then call it "Mobile CompuServe" or something. It certainly isn't Internet access.

Mobile broadband might actually be better than cable is for P2P, given the more symmetric nature of wireless signals. We really don't know, since none of the wireless ISPs permit it.

But here's the thing -- the Internet is a multi-purpose network. If there is a technical reason for some of these restrictions, then make the technical limit and let __me__ decide how I want to spend it! I should be able to use P2P if 1. I don't unduly impact anyone else and 2. I stay within the technical limits (speeds and consumption).

The internet wasn't designed for image-rich web pages, and it struggled for a while. We didn't ban them, we evolved.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...

beaups

join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH
"If there is a technical reason for some of these restrictions, then make the technical limit and let __me__ decide how I want to spend it"

That would be a CAP and we all know how well received those are.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

1 recommendation

reply to fiberguy

Re: Don't like it....?

said by fiberguy:

It's new, it's wireless, and I think they're smart to do so.
I think this is a legitimate reason to place some early technical limits while the service gets off the ground -- perhaps including some temporary restrictions on protocols until the provider is comfortable that they will behave okay on the medium.

I don't see that happening, though. The other big names set their 5 GB caps quite a while ago, they're not going up. Nobody is testing to see whether some of the restricted uses need to be restricted at all.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

2 recommendations

reply to beaups

Re: Well

said by beaups:

"If there is a technical reason for some of these restrictions, then make the technical limit and let __me__ decide how I want to spend it"

That would be a CAP and we all know how well received those are.
Caps aren't well received, that's true. But ask yourself -- why? Or what can a provider do with a cap that makes it less ugly?

1. They can promise to raise it faster than demand
2. They can exempt certain hours from the cap
3. They can offer a slower, uncapped service
4. They can offer a "re-buy" of more bandwidth

Most ISPs are being pretty boneheaded about it. Comcast got heat for their "new" cap only because it surprised people who weren't aware that it had been there for years.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2

2 recommendations

reply to beaups
If you can't do that, it's not unlimited. Sorry. Now I have no problem of throttling P2P to 512k or 1 Mbit but don't call restricted-use service unlimited.


Shack

join:2002-01-17
Bloomington, IN
reply to jc10098
It is not satellite

beaups

join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH
reply to funchords

Re: Don't like it....?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "needs to be restricted". it's their network and they want to restrict it, they shouldn't need to demonstrate that it's "needed".


a333
A hot cup of integrals please

join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY

1 recommendation

Of course, cell companies shouldn't EVER be held accountable for their "network management" policies.... the horror, the horror.....


jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
said by a333:

Of course, cell companies shouldn't EVER be held accountable for their "network management" policies.... the horror, the horror.....
You're right, it's much better to let consumers do anything they want without regard for how it affects other users.


chicago_dsl

@sbcglobal.net
reply to fiberguy
So true.. After all it is a consumer based society. What would you expect?

I got a feeling that "unlimited" branded service will make a comeback, but I promise you it will cost you a lot more than you are paying now.. My 2 cents..


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

2 recommendations

reply to beaups
said by beaups:

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "needs to be restricted". it's their network and they want to restrict it, they shouldn't need to demonstrate that it's "needed".
Again, don't call it "Internet" and block/throttle/restrict it. That's not Internet.

And if you have a problem with my position, come to my gas station and I'll give you some "Unleaded" (50% water).
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...


NetAdmin1
CCNA

join:2008-05-22
reply to beaups
With no reason given for restricting transfer usage, the reasons amount to childish reason of "because I can." Legitimate technical reasons like backhaul bandwidth shortages, interconnect bandwidth shortages or other possible problems with a wireless network would make their claim much more reasonable and easier to swallow.
--
---
Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab.

Done_Posting
Shoot to kill
Premium
join:2003-08-22
Toledo, OH

What's the big deal?

I have absolutely no problem with Sprint throttling their services as long as they are completely up front about it. If consumers disregard posted limitations of products and services they purchase, then that's their own problem.

- Tate

--
Happiness is an OC-768 in your basement...


NetAdmin1
CCNA

join:2008-05-22
reply to jc10098

Re: Well

said by jc10098:

I guess there would be ways around the blocking of ports (proxy etc) but truth be told, mobile broadband isn't mean to go p2p galore.
Bingo. Hence the reason that the fixed-wireless last mile technologies need to be developed further. Mobile products have always been designed to be light usage mostly because of the technical limitations that constrain the products.

WIMAX is suppose to change that, but this service is too new to know if the problems that EVDO and GSM data services suffer from under high utilization are gone.
--
---
Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab.


asdfdfdfdfdfdf

@Level3.net

I think we are jumping the gun...

Do we actually have any information about what they intend to do?
Isn't this standard boilerplate for nearly all services today. Not to mention the standard clause that they can change the terms of service any time they choose anyway, so people are basically signing a blank sheet of paper over to any of these companies. We may not like it but this is nothing out of the ordinary.

I think we are reading too much into this.

LineNoise

join:2006-06-25
Downers Grove, IL
Reviews:
·voip.ms
reply to fiberguy

Re: Don't like it....?

I agree...

How in the hell much stuff do you people download? I mean, I'm all for "Unlimited" also, but my god, I download everything and anything I want and I've NEVER used more then 20 gigs in a month. I'd be surprised if I used near that.

I don't agree with it, if they don't disclose it. It's their network, let them do what they want. My modem is on order, hopefully the network will be turned on real soon here in Chicago.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
reply to NetAdmin1

Re: Well

said by NetAdmin1:

WIMAX is suppose to change that, but this service is too new to know if the problems that EVDO and GSM data services suffer from under high utilization are gone.
Yeah, but what happened to the cellular concept? Are the numbers of sites growing with the number of subscribers? (I don't know where to find this data...)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

fanboys loose

Fanboys 0, me 1

I knew since day one the Xohm will never be radically different from existing 3G services, WiMAX/Xohm is nothing more than a more efficient protocol/modulation running on more spectrum than EVDO/HSDPA. It would be market suicide to do any real changes to the business model (selling pseudo wire T1 circuits for $299 a mo, 100 GB+ per month usage, no caps/no throttling, not forcing people to wired broadband, using a carrier interchangable wireless broadband standard (WiMAX is effectively carrier locked by frequency, have fun with double speak fanboys)). The issue of contracts/prepaid service was going to tickle down by the incumbent cell carriers anyways eventually. Pay per use is always more profitable than a monthly fee. When internet traffic is "unlimited" you always get throttling. Just wait, 1-2 months from now Xohm will introduce 6GB or 10GB caps (hey, thats revolutionary isn't it? ) and grandfather all unlimited users, and have Xohm Customer Security kick off the grandfathered abusers. ALL ISPs have TOS/AUPs with the same language, and finally executives/CIO/CTO decided to use the clauses in them.

Best solution for P2P is for ISPs to start bundling in complimentary torrentbox, torrent downloading website portal/PHP script controlling a BT client, and include a couple other protocols, its a "download service" and pretty much a managed dedicated/hosted web server running p2p software. Anyways, whats the problem with P2P other than upload, I am not going to be downloading the same file more than once, whats the difference between transport in a BT or eDonkey header and a HTTP header?

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

2 recommendations

reply to NetAdmin1

Re: Well

said by NetAdmin1:

WIMAX is suppose to change that, but this service is too new to know if the problems that EVDO and GSM data services suffer from under high utilization are gone.
WIMAX will have the exact same problems EVDO and GSM have. All 3 rely on oversubscribtion business models. I belive WIMAX is 18.5 mbitps per 5 mhz channel, EVDO is 3.1 (Rev A) or 2.4 (Rev 0) mbitps per 1.25 mhz channel, and HSDPA is 14 mbitps per 5 mhz channel.

WIMAX may have an advantage in speed and congestion over other standards since WIMAX will not be forced into the small PCS and 800 Cellular bands and have to share channels with legacy standards (GSM/EDGE/CDMA 1x). USA WIMAX bands/spectrum MIGHT be larger and/or more available than PCS/800 bands/spectrum, and thats what provides the illusion WIMAX is better. The analogy is that the car isn't any better or faster than any other car, it just has a sticker on its bumper that lets it drive on a much bigger less congested highway. If you tried to run WIMAX inside 800/PCS, you would have the exact same problems as with EVDO and HSDPA.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

1 edit
Thanks for the tech detail. I was looking for those numbers a while ago.

This bandwidth <scarequotes>crisis</scarequotes> isn't a failure of the oversubscription concept. It's a failure of ISPs to keep up with the current burst of video demand. We've been through this pain before when HTTP started surpassing gopher and usenet -- suddenly systems that handled mostly text were having to pass a lot of graphics.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to iansltx
I don't see any mention of unlimited in the ToS or AUP for Xohm, T-Mobile, Cox, or Comcast.


gest wimax

@spcsdns.net
reply to patcat88

Re: fanboys loose

If Xohm ever bring caps, it will be closer to cable/dsl, not the cell networks. The cell networks were designed for voice and data came later - the infrastructure can't handle P2P or HD video. WiMAX is designed for data and has a much better infrastructure.

Sprint wants to compete with cable/dsl, so they have to keep their terms inline with that industry rather than the 3G industry.


dfa wimax

@spcsdns.net
reply to patcat88

Re: Well

Sprint has about 100Mhz of spectrum per market, which is technically enough to provide 1Gbps to each site (when 802.16m comes along in a couple years). Sprint won't provide that kind of performance to each user, but they'll have the spectrum to provide far more shared bandwidth than 3G. They'll be way ahead of 3G and be able to compete with cable/dsl with one big advantage... truly mobile data.


a333
A hot cup of integrals please

join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
reply to jester121

Re: Don't like it....?

The same way it's SURELY ok to let ISP's make up excuses for not improving their networks.... fail..........=\

33358088
Premium
join:2008-09-23
kudos:2

JAPAN in october gets sychronous 1GPBS

JAPAN in october gets sychronous 1GPBS
and they want to throttle.
Wonder were the USA and Canada will be in 10 years.
China owns all the debt....
Time to move to China, and any conservative/republican that yells a socialist or liberal is a communist only has to look at the debt they incurred for us all and what style a gov't that debt is owed too.

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to funchords

Re: Well

said by funchords:

said by jc10098:

but truth be told, mobile broadband isn't mean to go p2p galore.
Then call it "Mobile CompuServe" or something. It certainly isn't Internet access.

It's really sad when you need to get hung up on "terms" because, as you know, one word can and does mean different things in a slight way, or different things all together.

Bank: A place where money is stored, the sides of a river, or to make a motion to turn.

The internet.. honestly, when was it EVER defined as completely 100% wide open access to anything and to use it in anyway you want? So far, I don't think that it has.

The moment we have to de-evolve based on terms or labels rather than reading the actual description (ie: TOS statements) then we have a problem.

The "internet" is what it is.. it's a connection to other resources on it. I don't believe that it said it was completely with out bounds. The fact that many providers block incoming port 80 would, under your terms, disqualify the connection as "internet"... that would include Verizon's, AT&T/SBC's, Comcast, Cox, Charter, DirecWay, Wild Blue, and wow...! ...even Fios!

The definition you seek in which you want to define the internet is in the user agreement and you should read it in its entirety. Since its available online to all users and non-users alike, there is no excuse. I don't think many people here claim to be lawyers either, INCLUDING Karl. However, its odd that so many people claim that language is too hard to understand and its vague, etc. yet, numerous threads have be posted explaining that very 'hard to understand' language that only lawyers can read. Hmmm, maybe there are more lawyers here than we think.. or, maybe it's not too hard to understand and people are either being lazy, or practicing victimization.

Either way.. the internet is what it is and we don't need 20,000 flavor-terms to describe the connections. I DO think however, we need more people to grow up and stop acting like 3 year-old children who cry anytime they don't get it their way. (And with all that, it's a wonder that Burger King isn't doing as well as McDonalds and Taco Bell)

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

1 recommendation

reply to funchords
said by funchords:

said by beaups:

"If there is a technical reason for some of these restrictions, then make the technical limit and let __me__ decide how I want to spend it"

That would be a CAP and we all know how well received those are.
Caps aren't well received, that's true. But ask yourself -- why? Or what can a provider do with a cap that makes it less ugly?

1. They can promise to raise it faster than demand
2. They can exempt certain hours from the cap
3. They can offer a slower, uncapped service
4. They can offer a "re-buy" of more bandwidth

Most ISPs are being pretty boneheaded about it. Comcast got heat for their "new" cap only because it surprised people who weren't aware that it had been there for years.
I am 100% sorry to disagree with you. Caps are not well received because they are caps, period. For you, the above may be your reason, but it's not for the majority around here that cry daily about them.

While many people here, power users even, state that they never reach anywhere near 250gb, others cry about the highest caps made public to date. (And they still aren't good enough)

People want unlimited access to the internet for the least amount of money, and I can't even add the word 'possible' to that line. Many people here think the internet should be under $20 a month; I disagree. The word value does mean something in this case.

In the early 2000s, many were still on dial-up. That meant 1 computer on 1 slow line ant 1 time. THAT was $20.00. Today, many people have connections 50x faster and have multiple computers hooked up for that same circa $20.00 per month. (oddly, they claim its too expensive and should be cheaper.. I mean, Its ONLY a 1.5 line )

Comcast, of them all, posted the highest "cap" in the industry and yet people still cry. The reality is that those who are crying have been far exceeding that for a long time and the party is over. Its time to pay if you want to play.

Come up with what ever reason you may want why caps are in place and label that your own reason.. but for gods sake, don't anyone ever put words in my mouth, especially around here, about anything.

Providers CAN in fact do many things - but that's their choice. You can certainly operate your gas station anyway you want - why do you, however, continue to do it the same way as everyone else? Providers, believe it or not, ARE in the business to make money, not break even. Scary fact, but it's NOT always "about the consumer".. it's about survival. In this country, we ALL, including business, have the right to make choices, including going out of business and failing. If they make the right combination of choices, they win.. if they make the wrong ones, they fail. Pure and simple.

Shockingly to some, in the case of Wall-Street, they made the choice to fail.. it's time to let them.. in all cases including broadband, when one fails, another will step in. It's the cycle of life.