how-to block ads
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 BichonPremium,MVM
join:2002-10-10
Freehold, NJ | 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 | Re: Law suit time 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. | |
| | | | Re: Law suit time 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 | |
| | |  lupiniaPremium
join:2004-08-24
Harrisonburg, VA | Re: Law suit time 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 | Re: Law suit time 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 | |
| | | | | lupiniaPremium
join:2004-08-24
Harrisonburg, VA | Re: Law suit time 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. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Law suit time 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 | Re: Law suit time 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. | |
| | | | | | | |
1 edit | Re: Law suit time 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 | |
|
| | | | | | | said by lupinia: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. I agree that much with you. If an ISP is essentially *forced* to throttle certain types of traffic, either because they are unwilling or unable to expand their network infrastructure such that they can continue to provide a consistent level of service to their customers, then there is definately a problem.
Dial-up ISPs expanded their modem pools when they got overloaded due to increased numbers of customers dialing-in - broadband ISPs should be the same way, and good-quality ones will be pro-active about enhancing their network to take on more customers and inprove service for their customers overall.
Not be greedy and refuse to spend money to upgrade, and instead hire some BOFH to monitor users' bandwidth usage, and then spend money sending lawyer-letters to kick off a portion of their paying customer base, simply because the ISP is being greedy and cheap.
Sadly though, I think that this BT throttling is only going to be the tip of the iceberg, and such things will eventually become commonplace a few years in the future.
We will start to see levels of "traffic classes", sold to customers, and there will be limits/caps for each of those traffic classes. Such as:
1) First-class - rate-limited to max 'X' KB/sec for "realtime" (latency-sensitive) traffic such as VoIP and online gaming, but given the highest level of QoS for customer (non-administrative/ISP-internal) traffic.
2) Second-class - rate-limited some higher Y KB/s for "normal" traffic (e-mail, web pages and other smaller files, possibly IRC and other non-realtime messaging traffic, excluding protocols categorized as "file-sharing") at a medium level of QoS.
3) Third-class/bulk-rate - the bottom tier of traffic would be for "file-sharing", with the lowest level of QoS, but it wouldn't be rate-limited at all - it would only be allowed to utilize bandwidth that went effectively unused by the other levels of service.
Possibly instead, third-class could be a rate-limited 'Z' class, lower QoS than first and second, but still not the lowest rate, could be used for "on-demand"/"interactive" file-transfers, for larger files, but ones in which there was a human (customer) on the other end waiting on it.
If so, then there would be a four-rate, truely "bulk" class, that would be used for batch-mode/non-interactive transfers (Usenet feeds, FTP site mirroring updates, web spidering etc.), which would use the remaining as-available bandwidth.
That's the only real way that I can see, for a modern broadband ISP to continue to provide acceptable levels of service for all, while at the same time maximizing utilization of their infrastructure investments, so that they don't have to overspend.
All of this could be done, without having to "ToS" paying customers off of their service. It also strongly resembles the system used by the postal service. | |
|
| | | | | said by lupinia: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. What about the people that play online FPS games, or use VoIP services? Heavy BT traffic on an ISP's network could easily bog it down and increase the ping (latency) of the other users on the network. By rate-limiting (traffic-shaping) the amount of BT traffic allowed, they are simply ensuring the same level of service (latency) for all of their customers, or at least the ones not using BT to a point of excess. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Law suit time said by VirtualLarry: said by lupinia: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. What about the people that play online FPS games, or use VoIP services? Heavy BT traffic on an ISP's network could easily bog it down and increase the ping (latency) of the other users on the network. By rate-limiting (traffic-shaping) the amount of BT traffic allowed, they are simply ensuring the same level of service (latency) for all of their customers, or at least the ones not using BT to a point of excess. But traffic shaping introduces another layer of latency itself, and so they will be reducing the qos (higher pings) for the gamers. | |
|
| | Wills
join:2001-01-03
Port Charlotte, FL | 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. | |
| | | | | | Re: Law suit time 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 | |
| | | | | | | Re: Law suit time said by IronChefMoto: 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 It wasn't bad grammar, it was bad punctuation: "And yes, one will do it, and if you leave, the one you go to will do it." | |
|
| |  KAD ImagingJust Shoot ItPremium
join:2002-09-21
Hialeah, FL | 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 | |
| | | |  John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3 | Re: Law suit time 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 | |
| | | | | | Cisco QoS doesn't magically create more bandwidth where no extra bandwidth exists.
Throttling BitTorrent packets does.
And in the end, they could actually do the same type of throttling with just a Cisco and not the alternate vendor box, however, that alternate vendor's box was made to do just this. | |
| | | | | KAD ImagingJust Shoot ItPremium
join:2002-09-21
Hialeah, FL |  Re: Law suit time
said by smcallah:Cisco QoS doesn't magically create more bandwidth where no extra bandwidth exists. Throttling BitTorrent packets does. And in the end, they could actually do the same type of throttling with just a Cisco and not the alternate vendor box, however, that alternate vendor's box was made to do just this. It's not about "magically" doing anything. It's about putting the 10,000 1MB/s surfers on segment A whilst putting all the "heavy" 3MB/s users on segment B. Will segment B experience performance decrease? Absolutely. Will the "normal" users be affected?? Not really. At the investment firm I used to administrate we had the "streaming" servers on a different segment (we actually employed VLAN's throughout as well) because they used a significant amount of bandwidth pumping Reuters, Bloomberg, & ILX stock data during market hours. The traffic on that switch was always at 90% while the populace stayed around 30%.
And for the "smart ass" John Galt  , how many CCxx certifications do YOU have??? 
--
-CK
I am A man without a party...
Like Street Racing?? Visit my site! SportCompactMiami.com | |
| | | | | |  CorvusFlaming Tards Since 2003Premium,VIP
join:2003-11-26 | Re: Law suit time said by KAD Imaging: It's not about "magically" doing anything. It's about putting the 10,000 1MB/s surfers on segment A whilst putting all the "heavy" 3MB/s users on segment B. Will segment B experience performance decrease? Absolutely. Will the "normal" users be affected?? Not really. At the investment firm I used to administrate we had the "streaming" servers on a different segment (we actually employed VLAN's throughout as well) because they used a significant amount of bandwidth pumping Reuters, Bloomberg, & ILX stock data during market hours. The traffic on that switch was always at 90% while the populace stayed around 30%. We are talking about an HFC network, not a soho one. If a neighborhood is eating too much bandwith, you need to split it by adding an optical node, it costs money. The problem is on the field, not with Shaw routers.
BTW, certs don't mean nothing. I recall a user on BBR telling me he has fired more cert IT than non-cert ones. Some people in the industry believes that certs holders are fake IT, since they want to prove something they lack. I've done one cert and find out it's crappy.
--
Jesus saves, but only Buddha makes incremental backups. | |
| | | | | | | | said by KAD Imaging:It's not about "magically" doing anything. It's about putting the 10,000 1MB/s surfers on segment A whilst putting all the "heavy" 3MB/s users on segment B. Will segment B experience performance decrease? Absolutely. Will the "normal" users be affected?? Not really. At the investment firm I used to administrate we had the "streaming" servers on a different segment (we actually employed VLAN's throughout as well) because they used a significant amount of bandwidth pumping Reuters, Bloomberg, & ILX stock data during market hours. The traffic on that switch was always at 90% while the populace stayed around 30%. What does an ethernet segment have to do with HFC? Nothing. Your simple work on an Ethernet network has no relation to how networking works in an HFC plant.
Everyone on a node shares the upstream and downstream bandwidth. That is where the QoS would be applied on the "Cisco end." You don't magically create upstream and downstream bandwidth with QoS. Like the previous poster said, you create bandwidth by running fiber for a new HFC node and splitting the existing node into 2 or more. This isn't cheap, or easy. And doesn't require a Cisco certification.
Also, the cable company isn't going to run 2 or 3 nodes to the same neighborhood and run around pulling the heavy internet users' coax back to a new node. That involves more than that just the "ISP" part of the cable plant. You've also got the analog cable, digital cable, and VOD part of the plant to deal with, along with purchasing a new CMTS or adding cards to an existing one. That is a lot of equipment to purchase to attempt to "segment" off Internet bandwidth hogs. | |
|
| BichonPremium,MVM
join:2002-10-10
Freehold, NJ | 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. | |
| | | Wills
join:2001-01-03
Port Charlotte, FL | Re: Law suit time 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. | |
| | | | | | Re: Law suit time 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 | |
| | | |  javaManThe Dude abides.Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-15
San Luis Obispo, CA | 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 | |
|
| | | | | |  SenseBendPremium
join:2004-09-12
Orangeville, ON | Re: Law suit time 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
1 edit | 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 | |
|
| |
|
·
·