| Rally Up! People are using the P2P protocols for more than just BT, this new censorship affects programs like Skype, Shoutcast and more. Totally legal programs and totally legal usage, I pay for the 50 gig a month, now why can't I use it?
I have talked with the creator of RODI and he says that they are close to a solution, but there is no guarantee that Ellacoya won't just release a new firmware for BT2 and RODI. The only thing he recommends is "meanwhile you can try PROXI servers like anonymizer.com. google "proxy servers list". sorry. - Arkday
So all we can do is make a huge deal out of it, tell your friends and co-workers, tell the tech's you deal with on the phone. They are trying to hide this from even their own staff, make sure everyone knows. Meanwhile, I'm putting together a story for the local paper.
Bandwidth, Data Storage and Other Limitation
You must comply with the current bandwidth, data storage and other limitations on the Services.
Users must ensure that their activity does not improperly restrict, inhibit or degrade any other customer’s use of the Services, nor represent (in the sole judgment of Shaw) an unusually large burden on the network itself, such as, but not limited to, peer to peer file sharing programs, serving streaming video or audio, mail, http, ftp, irc, dhcp servers, and multi-user interactive forums. The guidelines for Bandwidth Usage/month for each service package are the following: Shaw High-Speed (with Xtreme-I) - 50 GigaByte; SOHO - 50 GigaByte; Professional - 70 GigaByte; Business - 100 GigaByte (combined download and upload). Business services which are combined with the Xtreme-I upgrade retain the stated Bandwidth Usage/month guidelines. The guidelines for acceptable web site traffic include 2 GigaByte/month for SOHO, Professional, and Business hosting packages. Residential Shaw High Speed and High Speed Lite services do not have specific guidelines of this nature as the Service is not intended for business applications. Shaw reserves the right to set specific limits for Bandwidth Usage and charge for excessive Bandwidth Usage for residential Services at any time. In addition, users must ensure that their activity does not improperly restrict, disrupt, inhibit, degrade or impede Shaw’s ability to deliver the Services and monitor the Services, backbone, network nodes, and/or other network services. |
|
 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
1 edit | I need to be perfectly honest with everyone. I have been using cable based, home broadband for over 10 years and have never once had any issues other than the connection occasionally dropping or a modem needing to be reset. What exactly is it that all of you must be doing to cause so much grief??
EDIT: After seeing how terible and virus ridden Kazaa and Napster were a couple of years ago I have not used any P2P network since then, for ANY reason whatsoever. What are you all using them for?
--
I like dogs, guns, and cheeseburgers. Whats your malfunction? |
|
2 edits | reply to Shaze
said by Shaze:
People are using the P2P protocols for more than just BT, this new censorship affects programs like Skype, Shoutcast and more. Totally legal programs and totally legal usage, I pay for the 50 gig a month, now why can't I use it? If you are assanine enough to refer to what is going on as "censorship" -- which connotes the suppression of First Amendment rights -- you need to read the US Constitution. There ain't Jack shit about you having a right to P2P or broadband or a particular level of quality of service from an ISP.
They're not censoring anything except what YOU want. And that's not censorship -- that's cutting you off at your balls for violating terms 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 |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
 ·Verizon Wireless..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
| reply to wifi4milez
quote:
EDIT: After seeing how terible and virus ridden Kazaa and Napster were a couple of years ago I have not used any P2P network since then, for ANY reason whatsoever. What are you all using them for?
That's what I was wondering. The article says 35% of the web is Torrent traffic. People are saying "It's not all illegal!" But what on earth is taking up over a third of the internet's resources? I know some companies like Valve are using BT for software distribution, but I have a hard time accepting that they would be using anywhere close to consuming 35% of net traffic.
I'm not really a fan of this whole software distribution through BT anyway. Easynews charges $9.99 per month and gives me 10 gigabytes of download. They are more or less in the busines of providing raw bandwidth. So, software companies should be able to allocate $1 of my software purchase and host 1 GB worth of the bandwidth themselves. Stop moonching off of your customer's connections.
--
\\ROB - a part of the SCB local network |
|
| reply to IronChefMoto
They're blocking and hampering communication. How is that not censorship? |
|
 Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | said by netscape 6:They're blocking and hampering communication. How is that not censorship? Help, help! we're being oppressed!
Seriously; if you're going down that route then the cable company is censoring you for not giving you free cable service in the first place.
--
Attention all decks! Brace for whining! |
|
|
|
| said by Combat Chuck: said by netscape 6:They're blocking and hampering communication. How is that not censorship? Help, help! we're being oppressed! Seriously; if you're going down that route then the cable company is censoring you for not giving you free cable service in the first place. They would be if they were selectivly blocking channels only when they showed certain programs. |
|
Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | Well, by your definition of censorship, they are "blocking and hampering communication" by imposing a monetary hurdle in the form of a monthly fee for data and television service; so by your definition the cable company is built on censorship forced on those who refuse to submit money.
I guess my point (that over the faceless medium that is the internet seem to be lost on people) is that the suggestion that throttling ports is a form of unjust censorship, in an attempt to appeal to the first amendment; is stupid.
The fact of the matter is, at least for now, if you want relatively cheap broadband, you're going to have to put up with some of these restrictions. If you want to saturate your bandwidth 24/7 (particularly that precious upstream bandwidth on cable) you're gonna need to go elsewhere (and probably pay a heck of a lot more). Reality's a bitch aint it.
--
Attention all decks! Brace for whining! |
|
| reply to netscape 6
Private businesses are not held to the first ammendment of the U.S. constitution.
The government is held to it.
You really need to read the constitution before saying anything again.
Why do so many people think that the 1st ammendment applies to things that are not the government? |
|
| reply to Combat Chuck
said by Combat Chuck:I guess my point (that over the faceless medium that is the internet seem to be lost on people) is that the suggestion that throttling ports is a form of unjust censorship, in an attempt to appeal to the first amendment; is stupid.
What about in the areas where all the BB ISPs do this? From the government or collective fat greedy executives a gag is still a gag, and should be fought. Supporting censorship; is wrong. |
|
1 edit | reply to netscape 6
said by netscape 6:They're blocking and hampering communication. How is that not censorship? Actually, it's not censorship.
It's monopolistic anti-competitive practices, in the case of some ISPs blocking outbound TCP port 25, because it prevents their users from accessing a competitor's SMTP servers, ones which the user in question may actually be paying extra for.
In other cases, in the case of an outbound TCP port 80 HTTP transparent proxy, especially with LE listening in, it may well be a form of censorship, especially if it could have a "chilling effect on speech", even if they aren't outright banning or blocking. It's up to a court to decide that, of course.
"Censorship" is far from a black or white thing.
Edit: Oh, and some ISPs do censor certain domains/IPs, by "blackholing" them at their routers or proxies. |
|
