dslreports logo
site
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.. ..

jc100

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

Re: Well

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.
iansltx

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

2 recommendations

Re: Well

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.
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Re: Well

I don't see any mention of unlimited in the ToS or AUP for Xohm, T-Mobile, Cox, or Comcast.

bullshit

@rogers.com
Legal, my big fat ass. It's ILLegal.

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

1 recommendation

said by jc100:

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

Re: Well

"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

2 recommendations

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

1 recommendation

Re: Well

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.
beaups

join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH

Re: Well

VERY well put. If it makes good business sense for somebody to launch a fast, wide open, cap free network...then I'm sure they will. Think of the competetive advantage a mobile operator would have by advertising the only truly unlimited plan? Why isn't it hapening? Probably doesn't make good business sense. I'm also bothered by these consumer "advocate" groups trying to get the government/fcc to get involved. It seems to be the theme over the past few months "dear government, save me , save me". Let the market decide who wins/loses.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
said by funchords:

said by jc100:

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)

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

Re: Well

said by fiberguy:

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.
This is a technical industry, and these "terms" have been abused by the players in this industry to trick customers into buying products that are less and different then are described. Are you seriously going to come to me and tell me that companies ought to be able to sell donkeys as race-cars?

I, more than anyone here, have read TOSs and AUPs, and Privacy Policies -- from top to bottom. I did it in the Comcast case, I did it in the NebuAd case -- probably more than 50 different companies both in the USA and abroad. GET BENT with telling me that I should "read my TOS!"

said by fiberguy:

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.
So what's your argument? You start by saying everyone should read that document, but don't try to interpret it unless we're lawyers, but those that don't try to read it are lazy victims.

You should write TOS documents for a living!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: Well

First off, you can "get bent" with your entire notion..

You, "more than anyone here, have read TOSs and AUPs, and Privacy Policies -- from top to bottom." Yea.. that's not self serving. I guess since I read EVERY piece of paper I am being held to PRIOR to being bound by it, guess you must read it, roll around on it naked, eat it and do other un-mentionables to it as well, huh?

And, while the back end of the "industry" may be "technical" .. the consumer side of it is NOT. You act like some sort of elitist in your approach to the internet. Ask an average person what "transfer" is and they'll likely tell you it's something you use to get from one bus to another, or something like that.

If you knew ANYTHING about terms and how they are used, you'd know that 1) the average person is ignorant to much of their own world and have to be talked to in simplified terms. 2) Advertisements are NOT agreements. GOD oh GOD get that one straight and stop mucking things up to serve your own self centered interests.

I still have YET to see an AUP that is written in suck legaleze that the average person can't understand it. If you can't "get" the TOS / AUP agreements, then you really need to reapt the 5th grade - and fast.

What I said was pretty clear... read the agreement. Don't EVEN try to argue with me on this point as I bet with in 5 minutes of searching this very site, I can find at least a dozen people that claim they won't even bother to read the TOS in the first place.

... funny, isn't it?

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

Re: Well

First you accuse me of not reading my TOS (when you knew damn well that I likely had read it) and then you call me "self-serving" for pointing that out.

I'm glad you think that advertisements are meaningless and the customer should just shut up and live with whatever "they" want to graciously give us.

You're a model of your industry.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: Well

"my industry"...? Wow! I need to go look in my bank account again and see how much money I have so I can go roll around in it naked. Thanks for reminding me. Seriously, the last time I was involved in these childish "sides" games, I was also learning ABCs and 123s.. IOW, save that game for the children.

Now, where did I accuse you of "not reading" the TOS? If I recall, from just re-reading my own post, AND YOURS, was that after you claimed the industry abuses terms to "trick" an industry.. that argument has been used clearly born from advertisements, NOT the TOS. The TOS statements, if you OR ANYONE, can't understand them, are clearly playing ignorant or selectively choosing not to understand them; who's fault is that?

I love how you follow up my posts and try to twist my words and change the meaning of what I clearly said. Sounds just like what you're claiming the 'Industry' does.. shame on you.

When you sit there and use (quoted) words like "they" and "graciously give us" it comes back like you have some sort of entitlement. The providers are NOT the government that you mistake them for. These are businesses that have a right to offer their services for what they are. Your right to pick it apart is at the TOS that you say you read so clearly and if you ARE reading them, you'd not be here bitching and moaning about it.

The TOS is not written in the so called 'legal-eez'.. the very items people come here, wasting their lives daily, bitching about are pretty clearly written. I'm glad the main cheer leader, Karl, makes you believe it's hard to understand. If this is the case, some people need to find a new cheer-leader because he's failing you just like so many politicians fail their people.

Finally, I don't think advertisements are meaningless.. however, there IS a problem with the customer using them as "agreements" and further, reading into them much farther than intended. I mean, seriously, around here, people have picked apart Time Warner Cable for using the line "the power of you".. WTF? People are worried if TWC uses the word "fiber" in their ad even though its fiber driven. Why does that same crowd defend providers like Qwest for calling their phone service "digital" because of equipment in the CO even though 1,800 feet of cable transmission is still analog to the home where most of the degradation happens?

Many people HERE are self serving and are selectively choosing to pick their battles. Quite frankly, it simply shows the mentality of many in this country, and its sickening.

Advertisements are just that.. they get you interested in the product. While I do not condone false advertising and SOME merchants out there step on that line, many of the ads being picked apart here by some of you so-called freedom fighters are anything but false. It's those who put some notion that an ad is a user-agreement that get me. It's the very same crowd that admits there IS a TOS agreement and then discloses that they don't read them for a reason that isn't even valid. Besides, if you feel you need an attorney to read or decipher one, then by all means, HIRE ONE! It's your right, and no one is stopping you.. it's surely no excuse not to at least read one.

Now, to put THIS argument to rest, instead of baseless claims, PLEASE by all means, go grab your comcast or favorite hated companies TOS agreement, post it in its entirety and BY ALL MEANS, state exactly what is in the thing that you can't understand and why.. until then, its all baseless blabber.

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

Re: Well

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.
The last part of this is what set me off. You and I can disagree on the first part, but -- c'mon -- I'm not the lazy, uninformed person you lumped me in with.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

1 edit

Re: Well

I also often use the word "you" as in "some may" etc.

However, when I made that comment, I was referring to the difference between people who use an advertisement as their TOS agreement.

From accounts I read here all the time, I think people are smarter than they play on this site. Rather, they chose to play ignorant at times in order to attempt to establish a point.

Do I think you're stupid? By all means, no. I read and follow your posts much more than many others. We may not always agree on everything; believe it or not, I agree with you more times than not, however, I just do believe that some people's 'wants' here skew the reality of what's behind getting to them.

As I was basically saying is that we all know that an ad is just an ad. (Yes, there is a line that can be crossed) however, people still hold on to the "unlimited access" term which went away years ago.. and people are picking at the "up-to" term a lot, too. (which is explained in the TOS, and as I said, SOME (excuse me) people chose not to read, and even admit it)

-peace

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

Re: Well

peace and thanks.

Shack

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

NetAdmin1
CCNA

join:2008-05-22
said by jc100:

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.

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

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

2 recommendations

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

Re: Well

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.

dfa wimax

@spcsdns.net
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.
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

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...
beaups

join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH

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

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

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

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

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.

a333
A hot cup of integrals please

join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY

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..........=\

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

2 recommendations

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...
beaups

join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH

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

It was called the internet back when we were restricted by 14.4K modems, is it worse now?

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

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

said by beaups:

It was called the internet back when we were restricted by 14.4K modems, is it worse now?
Come back when you're not twisting the meaning of the word, "restricted."
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...

NetAdmin1
CCNA

join:2008-05-22
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.

•••••

chicago_dsl

@sbcglobal.net
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..
beaups

join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH

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

As a consumer what entitles you to this information? Call Coke and ask them for their recipe, what do you think they'll tell you? "None of your business". If that's unacceptable then don't buy it.

I cannot understand why so many feel that it's their RIGHT to know "why" these companies do what they do. These are corporations, and they are not a democracy.
LineNoise

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

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.
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?

•••
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.