 gatorkramKaBOOM BabyPremium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:2
 ·Suddenlink
| Law suit time Like my topic says, it's time for some lawsuits against any isp that is going to try and control what programs you use, and how much of the bandwidth you pay for, they decide to throttle. How can they now say, we offer 3000/256 speed connections for example, if they will be slowing down "some" applications.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death! |
|
|
|
 imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | Go ahead and try to sue them, you won't win. They aren't controlling any program, just slowing down an unnecessary burden on their network which causes problems for everyone else. They can do what they want with their network, if you don't like it, leave, it's as simple as that. |
|
 CorvusFlaming Tards Since 2003Premium,VIP
join:2003-11-26 | reply to gatorkram
said by gatorkram:Like my topic says, it's time for some lawsuits against any isp that is going to try and control what programs you use, and how much of the bandwidth you pay for, they decide to throttle. How can they now say, we offer 3000/256 speed connections for example, if they will be slowing down "some" applications. Forget that, every Canadian ISP prohibit use of "servers" in their contract. Keep in mind that some ISP block porst 21, 25 and 80 wich is much more restrictive than throttling.
--
Jesus saves, but only Buddha makes incremental backups. |
|
 HallPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
kudos:1 | reply to gatorkram
said by gatorkram:Like my topic says, it's time for some lawsuits against any isp that is going to try and control what programs you use... Don't it suck when you don't read your ISP's Terms of Service (or Acceptable Use policy) ?? You might want to take a look at yours... I'll bet it says something along the lines of:
Network disruptions and unfriendly activity. Using the Services for any activity which adversely affects the ability of other people or systems to use the ISP's services or the Internet.
And remember, *they* decide what is unfriendly, not you.
Hard to sue them under those conditions...
--
Get over it... |
|
 BichonPremium,MVM
join:2002-10-10
Freehold, NJ | reply to gatorkram
The ISP has the right to define their service as they see fit. And you have the right to either buy it, or to look for another provider that better meets your needs. |
|
Reviews:
·Shaw
 ·TELUS
| reply to imrf
Yup, I left for telus pver a year ago now because Shaw's soft bandwidth caps were impeding my interent use. Now I'm on telus which speed wise is slower (unless you live in Vancouver or some other area that shaw has totally overloaded). Telus does block a few ports to prevent spamming, but it doesn't affect me. I get my 2.5Mbps connection and get to use it for whatever i want.
Shaw goes around and complains that users are are affecting other users. They tell them they are in the top 1 percent of bandwidth users. It's BS because they will suspend and then ban you for using too much bandwidth, so anyone that uses a fair amount of bandwidth gets chased away, so all thats left is a lot of low bandwidth users which brings the average down.
I'd like nothing more then to see SHAW crumble, I've done everything I can to avoid paying them money. I use satellite TV instead of cable, and dsl instead of a cable internet.
Shaw is shady, they've overloaded their system in many areas, and claim fast connections but don't allow people to use them. Do you really need a 5Mbps connection to download mp3's and surf the web?
SHAW SUCKS  |
|
 Wills
join:2001-01-03
Port Charlotte, FL | reply to Bichon
You're absolutely right. But there has got to be a point where everyone throws up the BS flag.
I'm personally getting sick of all these ISP's limiting ports and bandwidth. I'm sorry, that's the whole damn point of broadband.
When we were all on dialup, nobody did it, because it wasn't worth it. This is why we moved to broadband. Because we wanted a connection that we could do something with.
And don't hit me with this "get a commercial line" or "get a T1" crap. I'm not a business, I'm someone who actually wants to use their connection for what it's for, what I got it for, not what the provider deems it's fit for.
Most broadband is no better than pay as you go dialup anymore. You just get told to piss off quicker now.
It's crap. You can't tell me these Comcasts and Shaws can't sink the money into their infastructure to allow us to use the connection as it should be used. When they start curtailing our use because they are cheap, it's time to stick it to them, be it monetarily or legally.
--
Abit VP-6 twin 800EB's @ 1002 Mhz.Proud member of the XDC. |
|
 javaManThe Dude abides.Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-15
San Luis Obispo, CA | reply to imrf
said by imrf:. . .if you don't like it, leave, it's as simple as that. If it were only that simple. What will happen it that, as the article states, other ISP's will begin doing the same thing. In the end there will be no place to move. There are merits to the case and someone should try to put a stop to it before is spreads to become the norm.
--
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness. . . Isa. 5:20 |
|
| reply to imrf
said by imrf:Go ahead and try to sue them, you won't win. They aren't controlling any program, just slowing down an unnecessary burden on their network which causes problems for everyone else. They can do what they want with their network, if you don't like it, leave, it's as simple as that. Amen -- anyone whining and complaining about BitTorrents being slow, I would wager, is most likely using BitTorrent for something not "technically" legal. Trading music, movies, etc. outside the bounds of copyright law and the DMCA.
I don't like the DMCA for some of the stupid crap it results in, but the powers that be wouldn't have put it into play if illegal file trading associated with things like Kazaa and BitTorrent hadn't gotten out of hand.
Keep in mind -- I think BitTorrent is a great idea for getting large game patches and other legit files in a unique manner. But if, overall, it's (a) taking up 35% of Internet bandwidth nationwide (or worldwide -- can't remember what the #'s were for in the other article) and (b) being used primarily for illegal file trading, KUDOS to the ISPs that crack down on this crap.
And HAHAHAHAHAHAHA to anyone who can't steal the latest album, movie or game because of the throttling. :P
IronChefMorimoto
--
Desktop #1: Abit NF7-S 2.0 | AMD AthlonXP 2500+ | 1GB PC3200 DDR | 256MB ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
Desktop #2: Shuttle SK41G | Athlon XP 1800+ | 512MB PC2100 DDR | Onboard Graphics
Laptop: Dell Latitude C810 | Intel PIII-M | 512MB PC133 SDRAM |
|
| reply to Wills
said by Wills:I'm personally getting sick of all these ISP's limiting ports and bandwidth. I'm sorry, that's the whole damn point of broadband. Going by your argument above, you're saying that broadband is supposed to NOT be throttled. Now, if you're also agreeing that illegal file trading through BitTorrent or other such crap is outside of the Terms of Service, then you might want to restate yourself.
Why? 'cause you're (a) blaming your ISP for throttled bandwidth that's (b) caused by the rampant BitTorrent and other file sharing traffic that's affecting the ability to maintain quality of service.
Are you slamming ISPs because you lost bandwidth due to throttling? Don't bitch at the ISP -- you have no specific right under their service that requires them to guarantee YOU special bandwidth privileges above 30,000 other customers. Same for anyone else that whines about it. If your service is that bad, leave them.
Otherwise, refocus your angst at those who are actually forcing the ISPs hands -- the BitTorrent users or people who are burdening the system with illegal file sharing/trading traffic. THEY are the problem. Not the ISP. The ISP is not in business to make you happy. They're in business to stay in business. You can hurt them if you like by leaving for another ISP, but -- SURPRISE -- the next ISP will be operating under the same premise.
IronChefMorimoto
--
Desktop #1: Abit NF7-S 2.0 | AMD AthlonXP 2500+ | 1GB PC3200 DDR | 256MB ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
Desktop #2: Shuttle SK41G | Athlon XP 1800+ | 512MB PC2100 DDR | Onboard Graphics
Laptop: Dell Latitude C810 | Intel PIII-M | 512MB PC133 SDRAM |
|
| reply to IronChefMoto
said by IronChefMoto: Amen -- anyone whining and complaining about BitTorrents being slow, I would wager, is most likely using BitTorrent for something not "technically" legal. Trading music, movies, etc. outside the bounds of copyright law and the DMCA. Personally as a informed file trader I feel that the very opposite is often the case. I know for a fact about the litigation that results from being an uploader and would never share anything other than legal files, the risks are just way too high (well that and the fact that there isn't much legal stuff i would care to have in the first place other than bands i really support and am willing to pay to hear their albums the good old fashioned way by driving to my local record store and buying)
The thing is, that most of these bands I do support allow trading of live recordings of their concerts in almost all cases (usually not of a concert that they record themselves for a live CD release)
I can go to Etree's BT site and download lossless compressed versions of numerous concerts of bands i support all day long and not violate any copyright restrictions whatsoever and use huge amounts of bandwidth (lossless compression like shn or flac of shows tend to average a gig or more)
Throttling BT traffic would be a pain for me, I could certainly work around it (plenty of good legal FTP's out there for these same shows), but luckily I don't face this problem yet. Sure hope i never have to either  |
|
HallPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
kudos:1 | said by martissimo: Personally as a informed file trader... ...most of these bands I do support allow trading of live recordings of their concerts in almost all cases. I can go to Etree's BT site and download lossless compressed versions of numerous concerts of bands i support all day long and not violate any copyright restrictions whatsoever... I'm willing to bet that you and others like you who download legal stuff are in the minority of BT traffic. Just because something can be used for "good" doesn't mean others won't abuse it for "bad".
--
Get over it... |
|
BichonPremium,MVM
join:2002-10-10
Freehold, NJ | reply to Wills
said by Wills:It's crap. You can't tell me these Comcasts and Shaws can't sink the money into their infastructure to allow us to use the connection as it should be used. When they start curtailing our use because they are cheap, it's time to stick it to them, be it monetarily or legally. Cheap?!? The CEO isn't going to take a pay cut. The shareholders aren't going to give up their dividends. Be realistic - in the end, the subscribers pay for everything.
When network monitoring indicates that 2 or 3 percent of subscribers are using 70% of the bandwidth, it's time to make some tough decisions. (I just pulled those numbers out of my butt, but I'm probably not far off). Should grandma and grandpa, who just use broadband to check out the latest movie trailers and get digital snaps of the grandkids have to subsidize your use by paying higher rates?
Tiered rates seem a better answer than throttling, limits and caps; not sure why we haven't seen more of them.
In the end, America and Canada have market driven economies. If there is money to be made selling unlimited bandwidth to file traders for $40-50/month, someone will. |
|
| reply to Hall
You are absolutely correct Hall, there is little doubt that most is not legal. The problem is that throttling illegal use would still affect my legal use if my ISP chose to go this route.
It seems to me that the RIAA and MPAA can take care of themselves through litigation, sooner or later it is bound to cause a slowing of illegal traffic as people actually know friends who have been affected instead of just reading antecdotal stories about it. That day is going to come (in my opinion),
I realize that ISP's hate the so called bandwidth hogs, they make their job tougher, but we also need to realize that demand for bandwidth as more legitimate bandwidth intensive applications are constantly being deployed is only going to rise. The peoples need for bandwidth is only going to increase in the future. At some point the providers will have to provide it or be replaced by those who will.
A lot at work here, and I certainly don't have the answers, but this particular answer doesn't strike me as being the best one |
|
 lupiniaPremium
join:2004-08-24
Harrisonburg, VA | reply to IronChefMoto
This isn't about a special right. The ISP gives every customer the same amount of bandwidth, and intentionally slowing down BT traffic is a discriminatory practice. The US Supreme Court ruled in the Betamax decision that because VHS/Beta recorders had legitimate uses, they couldn't be banned. Now, we have the same dilemma with P2P trading. The technology can be used for legitimate transfer of data, and it often is used as such, so when applying the Betamax decision's precedent, applications like BT can't be banned.
Granted, this doesn't apply to Canada, but if this happens in the US, it needs to be fought hard. |
|
1 edit | said by lupinia:This isn't about a special right. The ISP gives every customer the same amount of bandwidth Not true -- lots of factors make it impossible right now to deliver "the same amount of bandwidth" to every customer for a given ISP. Thus, there is already an inequality involved. With BetaMax, and I'm not a legal scholar here, there would have to be an assumption that, if you can afford to use BetaMax for legal purposes, then you were allowed to do so -- BECAUSE THEY ALL MADE COPIES/RECORDINGS THE SAME WAY (barring SUPER BetaMax or something better quality).
That said, I can't believe that, in the Supreme Court or other lesser legal venue, a judgement against an ISP (or ISPs) would ever come about because of the uniform throttling of all BitTorrent bandwidth. Why?
First, the same reason above -- not all connections are equal, and no promises are made to that fact.
Secondly, if ONLY BitTorrent traffic is throttled, then you've added another inequality to the mix -- the ISP isn't imposing on everyone's bandwidth use. Just those that are, in the eyes of the terms of service, using BitTorrent to the detriment of overall network performance.
Finally, given that legit users of BitTorrent are not LIMITED to using BitTorrent to transfer data -- FTP, other P2P clients not monitored, etc. -- the ISP isn't limiting your ability to use your bandwidth to trade files. They're limiting what might be one of many ways to do the same thing. At the time of BetaMax, there might not have been other easy ways to record television programming. Not so these days.
All of that said, there's still no legal right to diddly shit if you agreed to the terms of service the minute you turned on your cable or DSL modem and started using it. If they cover it in the TOS (and they have lawyers who ensure that's the case), then you be screwed.
I won't even broach the topic of how a court might factor in the ratio of legit uses to illegit uses of BT or another P2P program in question. I'm sure that a perceived threat to copyright law would weigh heavily in favor of an ISP making a decision to throttle bandwidth.
IronChefMorimoto
--
Desktop #1: Abit NF7-S 2.0 | AMD AthlonXP 2500+ | 1GB PC3200 DDR | 256MB ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
Desktop #2: Shuttle SK41G | Athlon XP 1800+ | 512MB PC2100 DDR | Onboard Graphics
Laptop: Dell Latitude C810 | Intel PIII-M | 512MB PC133 SDRAM |
|
Wills
join:2001-01-03
Port Charlotte, FL | reply to IronChefMoto
Drop the illegal file trading monicker because it's useless. You're also killing people trading legal files at the same time, which is just as bad as limiting the bandwidth in the first place.
No, I'm not slamming ISP's because I've lost bandwidth due to throttling. I've got Sprint DSL. I don't get any of this crap. But I'll still stick up for those that are getting throttled for no reason.
And yes, one will do it and if you leave the one you go to will do it. You've just pinpointed the exact moment the BS flag needs to be waved.
--
Abit VP-6 twin 800EB's @ 1002 Mhz.Proud member of the XDC. |
|
| said by Wills:And yes, one will do it and if you leave the one you go to will do it. What? No parlez vous bad grammar.  But I do speak bad French.
IronChefMorimoto |
|
Wills
join:2001-01-03
Port Charlotte, FL | reply to Bichon
If my bandwidth cuts in on mammy and pappy's then there is an infastructure problem. And it's not one that should be solved with port blocks and bandwidth throttling.
So what if 2 or 3 percent are using the mass of the bandwidth? If it's built right, the impact won't be noticed.
Like I said, I can use all the stupid amounts of bandwidth I can on Sprint DSL and it doesn't impact anyone. Why is it that Sprint can accomplish it, but cable networks cant?
--
Abit VP-6 twin 800EB's @ 1002 Mhz.Proud member of the XDC. |
|
lupiniaPremium
join:2004-08-24
Harrisonburg, VA | reply to IronChefMoto
My point is, if they sell/advertise a certain speed, and then deny a user bandwidth because that user uses a certain application, that's a problem. If the ISP oversells their product beyond what their infrastructure can handle, they need to either be clear about their actions to cut back on bandwidth usage (none of this sneaky BS), or expand their infrastructure to handle the extra load. P2P traders aren't going away, so the ISPs need to start figuring them into the equations. |
|
