 BichonPremium,MVM
join:2002-10-10
Freehold, NJ | reply to gatorkram
Re: Law suit time 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. |
|
 Wills
join:2001-01-03
Port Charlotte, FL | 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. |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
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. |
|
 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. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Shaw
 ·TELUS
| reply to Bichon
that top 2 percent thing is BS, because ISP's like SHAW chase away high bandwidth users. Here in BC where SHAW operates higher bandwidth users flee to Telus the DSL provider.
because shaw chases away all the people that use a fair amount of bandwidth, the average bandwidth on the shaw system goes down. That way any time someone uses to much they can say you're in top 1 percent. They don't tell you the artificially lowered the average by chasing anyone who wants to use bandwidth off the system.
I don't understand why people don't get that, shaw has their system setup to chase away bandwidth heavy users so they can put more light users on the system. It increases profits.
As much as illagal file sharing is illegal, how many people would need a 3Mbps connection if there was no illegal content on the internet. Illegal content help ISP's sell their product. Do you really need 3Mpbs+ to surf the web or download some mp3's? I don't think so 
I'll also back the guy up who was talking about easytree. I like collect live dvd's (That aren't illegal) and I'd easily go over shaw's cap downloading about 5 or 6 of them a month. |
|
| reply to lupinia
I disagree! Using your theory, if the ISP advertises a certain maximum connection speed, that does NOT give the end user the right to do anything with it they want. Most residential ISP's prohibit the use of servers on residential accounts. Just because they advertise fast speeds, and can provide them, doesnt mean that anything goes.
Also, NO ISP guarantees the bandwidth, per their TOS, so YOU agreed to accept this!
Most provide "Best effort" service. |
|
lupiniaPremium
join:2004-08-24
Harrisonburg, VA | True, but throttling BT transfers is not "best effort" service, it's a selective limitation. All that clause does is allow them to delay the release of information about these things, they can blaim it on other factors for a short time. |
|
| reply to Wills
said by Wills: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? Uh...I would suspect technology limitations. Cable, to some degree, is a shared technology in a given geographic area. Cable gurus can learn you on the specifics.
What you gain in the ability to avoid CO distance issues (as with DSL) you lose with how a given geographic area receives its cable Internet distribution of service.
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 |
|
1 edit | reply to lupinia
said by lupinia:True, but throttling BT transfers is not "best effort" service, it's a selective limitation. All that clause does is allow them to delay the release of information about these things, they can blaim it on other factors for a short time. Actually -- it means that they're making a "best effort" to provide service to ALL customers by ensuring that a portion of them (BT users) isn't crippling their infrastructure. 
Sounds like Terms of Service compliance on their part to me.
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 |
|
 javaManThe Dude abides.Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-15
San Luis Obispo, CA | reply to Wills
said by Wills:. . . 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? Cable distribution is similar to your home DSL LAN where a group of users share a set bandwidth. Similar to the old days of the telephone when people in the neighborhood shared a single line.
--
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness. . . Isa. 5:20 |
|
 KAD ImagingJust Shoot ItPremium
join:2002-09-21
Hialeah, FL | reply to IronChefMoto
Sorry Chef, I call BS on this one.
Flip back through the BBR news from last month and read the story that HD Movies are going to be distributed via broadband internet. How many gigs does HD programing take up?? There are sites already doing streaming Mpeg/VCD movies and let's not forget about video on demand pr0n.
Or how about sites like Gamespy's FilePlanet or Gamespots DLX services which provide high speed access to game demos, videos, patches, and exclusive content all of which can range from 200~500MB. I'm sorry but if you aren't gonna stand by your product which is "unlimited" internet, then flip your main breaker, shut your doors, and go home.
If you advertise a car that goes 0-60 in 6 seconds you best not give out cars that go 0-60 in 13 seconds. It's reall simple all they have to do is route "high bandwidth" users to a different network segment away from the general populace then you won't have that problem. They have the infrastructure but need to reorganize it. It's call QoS performance analysis and if these guys actuall passed their Cisco exam, this wouldn't be a problem.
Of course by throttling bandwidth they can probably free up enough bandwidth to add dozens more $$$ I mean customers...
--
-CK
I am A man without a party...
Like Street Racing?? Visit my site! SportCompactMiami.com |
|
 SenseBendPremium
join:2004-09-12
Orangeville, ON | reply to zod5000
said by zod5000:As much as illagal file sharing is illegal, how many people would need a 3Mbps connection if there was no illegal content on the internet. Illegal content help ISP's sell their product. Do you really need 3Mpbs+ to surf the web or download some mp3's? I don't think so There ARE reasons to need that much bandwidth, ever needed to do multiple VNC sessions over the internet? Ever needed to FTP files into work? Ever worked with 100MB .PSD files? Ever downloaded a Linux distro? There are plenty of reasons to use a lot of bandwidth... |
|
 John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3 | reply to KAD Imaging
said by KAD Imaging:They have the infrastructure but need to reorganize it. It's call ed QoS performance analysis and if these guys actuall y passed their Cisco exam, this wouldn't be a problem. I corrected your spelling...there is a 'Spell Check' available, if you care to use it. I am sure that you were just TOO BUSY studying up on Cisco stuff to be bothered.
But I digress...
[sarcasm]
Your networking knowledge is...frightening. What you don't know about managing and operating network infrastructure is...oh, everything.
I am sure that there is work for you. We need someone with your specific skills to juggle all these wires and stuff around to make them work. Please call the office for an application...
[/sarcasm]
But thanks for the post anyway...
--
A is A |
|
John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3
1 edit | reply to Bichon
said by Bichon:Tiered rates seem a better answer than throttling, limits and caps; not sure why we haven't seen more of them. That is because it doesn't solve the underlying problem...if you are connected to a network segment that is 'shared' by someone who is a heavy downloader, then the capacity is reduced on that segment. On a 'limited resource' (which this network segment is) someone is going to suffer.
Even metering does not solve the problem. Who cares if someone is paying for all the bandwidth if everyone else on the segment is suffering with no throughput?
The problem manifests itself throughout the system...heavy d/l'ing affects every part of the system.
The answer is to spread the d/l'ing off-peak, at least at this point in time, until the infrastructure gets re-built.
said by Bichon: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. I'm...holding...my...breath........turning....blue....!
--
A is A |
|
