Re: This is terrible! in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r16810146 en Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:03:43 EDT Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:03:43 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16943193 farbelow : this is bull...the MPAA rapes people for millions per year & has virtually given up on the box office due to dvd sales...it doesnt cost them that much to make a damn movie & actors dont need to make millions per year for what they call a "job". if there's anything that can be done to hurt this business along with the music industry we should all do it!!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16943193 Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:50:15 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16863910 anon : Your not getting because your rated speed from the carrier because of other issues probably. Your internal network, your OS is restricted it, the server your going to is slow.

I've always got what my ISP advertised so if your not then switch or fix issues that aren't there fault.

As far as them snooping, snoop on them. Do to them what they are doing to you.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16863910 Fri, 08 Sep 2006 12:34:50 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16828596 calvoiper : If the ISP is so worried about overall consumption, then they should charge for it. If heavy BT use does, in fact, heavily load part of the ISP network, then I have no problem with the ISP charging for that.

What I have a problem with is the ISP claiming high broadband speeds and then throttling it back because they are too cheap and too dishonest to deliver the product they've promised.

It's not about "If they don't do this, they'll have to do that," it's about them lying about what they ARE doing, RIGHT NOW. (And yes, I consider advertising one thing and putting something different in the fine print TOS to be lying--and so does the Federal Trade Commission.)

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16828596 Sat, 02 Sep 2006 15:12:18 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16828433 mikef1 :
said by Ignite See Profile :

said by insomniac84 See Profile :

it probably was oc192, I couldn't remember all I remember was that when dividing the cost up so each person has 100mbit, the cost is 100 a month. I did this like 5 years ago. So prices are definitely cheaper now.
So how do we deliver this bandwidth to each user, magic?

Oh wait, unless all these 100 people live in a datacentre someone has to pay for an access network.

There's a lot more to it than just bandwidth. :uhh:
OC192 gives you 9621.504 Mb of usable bandwith.
If each customer is getting 100Mb of speed this works out to about 96 customers. Heck lets oversell just a little and make it an even 100 customers. If they each pay $100 a month then the oc192 can’t cost anymore than $10,000 a month. What does an oc192 line go for these days? Broadband.com advertises oc3 (155 Mb) starting at $7,500 a month, I’m sure an oc192 would be much higher.

For argument sake lets say these customers are in an apartment complex. Technically it can be done with fiber runs to each apartment from where the oc192 comes into the building. But it would just be too expensive at least here in the US. What about the cost of the ISPs internet connection itself. If every customer has 100Mb, with thousands of customers the ISP will need multiple oc192s to multiple peers, who is going to pay for that? You also have to consider other businesses expenses and yeah they want to make a profit too.
--
mike
HouseOfMike]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16828433 Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:42:24 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16826630 Ignite :
said by insomniac84 See Profile :

it probably was oc192, I couldn't remember all I remember was that when dividing the cost up so each person has 100mbit, the cost is 100 a month. I did this like 5 years ago. So prices are definitely cheaper now.
So how do we deliver this bandwidth to each user, magic?

Oh wait, unless all these 100 people live in a datacentre someone has to pay for an access network.

There's a lot more to it than just bandwidth. :uhh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16826630 Sat, 02 Sep 2006 05:03:14 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16824013 insomniac84 : it probably was oc192, I couldn't remember all I remember was that when dividing the cost up so each person has 100mbit, the cost is 100 a month. I did this like 5 years ago. So prices are definitely cheaper now.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16824013 Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:41:07 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16821569 mikef1 :
said by LilYoda See Profile :

an't find OC128, but Wikipedia knows about the one above and below 128:
Which was my point.
$100 for 100Mb doesn't work, at least not yet.
--
mike
HouseOfMike]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16821569 Fri, 01 Sep 2006 11:55:29 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16820055 LilYoda : On top of the circuit itself, you have to pay for your actual bandwidth with your internet backbone connection provider. That ain't cheap.

If you don't oversubscribe, you also have to pay for the same amount of circuit and bandwidth on the other side, to go to your subscribers (via lots of DSL circuits, cable distributions, etc...)
That ain't cheap either

As other said, to run such a distribution layer, you'd probably have to invest a lot in hardware (you don't run those speeds on a linksys. It's Cisco or *maybe* Juniper hardware, mandatory)
That ain't cheap either

Then you have to pay your employees, the lease of the white room where all this equipment is stored, maintenance, fancy offices, call center in Cairo or Bangalore for angry users, CEO's golden parachutes, etc...
That ain't cheap either.

All but the last one are mandatory :D
--
"the two most abundant things in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity." (Harlan Ellison)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16820055 Fri, 01 Sep 2006 03:46:22 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16820045 LilYoda : an't find OC128, but Wikipedia knows about the one above and below 128:
quote:
OC-96

OC-96 is a network line with transmission speeds of up to 4976.64 Mbit/s (payload: 4810.752 Mbit/s; overhead: 165.888 Mbit/s). Implementations of OC-96 in commercial deployments are rare, if ever used at all.
[edit]

OC-192

OC-192 is a network line with transmission speeds of up to 9953.28 Mbit/s (payload: 9621.504 Mbit/s; overhead: 331.776 Mbit/s). This is the fastest connection commonly available to the Internet.


--
"the two most abundant things in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity." (Harlan Ellison)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16820045 Fri, 01 Sep 2006 03:40:58 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16818816 bohn : The internet has gone in reverse in canada. We get throttled bandwidth caps slow speed no newsgroups pay triple what americans pay when we used to pay half and now they are going to block sites thanks to people like richard warman. Thank god we can still get directway dsl or dialup from america. I guess soon canada will pass laws so you we can't get the internet from an american company just like with satellite television in canada.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16818816 Thu, 31 Aug 2006 22:36:32 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16815132 cdru :
said by r81984 See Profile :

We need network neutrality now. If I am paying for my connection I should not be block or impeaded from using it how I see fit.
Playing Devil's Advocate here....

You aren't paying for just any connection. You are paying for a residential connection. Your $29.95 or whatever you pay doesn't even come close to paying for the amount of bandwidth you consume with heavy bittorrent (or any other P2P) application.

If you want a unencumbered network connection, your welcome to pay for a business level connection with guaranteed bandwidth.
--
Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16815132 Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:43:59 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16814642 CableConvert :
said by rradina See Profile :

What if the ISPs returned us all to the 1.5Mbps packages? Then they probably wouldn't care if folks used BT.

From where I sit, ISPs are no different than CPU, WiFi, video and hard disk companies. Each is trying to make something faster/bigger to keep their price point stable. If they don't, the empirical laws of technology require falling prices.

What makes this different, however, is unlike the hardware manufacturers who almost always deliver a faster/bigger product, ISPs increase speeds and turn to shaping/capping to ensure that they don't have to invest in their infrastructure. This is what we get while the stable revenue stream from subscribers reduces debt load and increases profits -- not that there's ANYTHING wrong with this. This is fundamental capitalism. The problem is the product isn't being provided in a truly competitive environment. If it was, I totally agree that there would be no need for government oversight. Competitive forces would take care of the issue because the majority would get what they want. If that turned out to be shaped traffic, so be it. If that turned out to be a fat, dumb pipe, so be it. However, until something steps in to provide true competitive forces against the oligopoly and in many cases, monopoly of the incumbent cable and telco carriers, regulation is required to keep them honest.

Imagine if Intel provided a 10Ghz chip that only worked at 10Ghz for three seconds. After 3 seconds the chip overheats. To compensate, Intel reduces the speed of the chip to 3Ghz. As soon as you quit using it and it cools, you can get another 3 second burst.
It all comes down to what this poster has written. Its very simple yet nobody seems to get it. This is not the free market at work as there is no competition. Free market principles cannot be applied. Most people do not have the choice to drop ISP 'A' and sign up with ISP 'B' because they dont like the product they are receiving. This could be lack of choice or unaffordable price points. The free market does work...but you have to have one first]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16814642 Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:32:05 EDT Re: This is terrible!se http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16813945 Zaber :
said by superdog See Profile :

Hmmmm..........Then I guess You would rather pay the actual cost for 6Mb down and 1Mb up?. If You do that?, You would need 12 bonded T1's just to get the 6Mb down part(A fractional DS3 would be a little cheaper). The bonded T1's would give You that bandwidth You paid for, AND they wouldn't throttle Your bit torrent traffic. So lets see, If it is the ISP's fault for not charging enough, than I guess You would be really happy if they stopped throttling Your bandwidth and sent You a bill in the mail for the actual cost of the bandwidth?. Hey, what the hell?, my bill is $4800 a month, but they're not choking any traffic?. :o
Actually I would. Just for the record 12 bonded T1s would yield 18M not 6M. While the $725 for 5M quote we just received is a little high for my home use, it is nowhere near the $4800 you mentioned. Consumer ISPs are using the fact that it is a "best effort" service with no SLA as an excuse to avoid the costs of upgrading their networks. While I understand that there will be slowdowns on their networks, the ISPs need to upgrade them instead of just telling people that they are not allowed to use the connection they are paying for only part of the time.
--
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he will feed himself for a lifetime]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16813945 Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:26:18 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16813617 rradina : What if the ISPs returned us all to the 1.5Mbps packages? Then they probably wouldn't care if folks used BT.

From where I sit, ISPs are no different than CPU, WiFi, video and hard disk companies. Each is trying to make something faster/bigger to keep their price point stable. If they don't, the empirical laws of technology require falling prices.

What makes this different, however, is unlike the hardware manufacturers who almost always deliver a faster/bigger product, ISPs increase speeds and turn to shaping/capping to ensure that they don't have to invest in their infrastructure. This is what we get while the stable revenue stream from subscribers reduces debt load and increases profits -- not that there's ANYTHING wrong with this. This is fundamental capitalism. The problem is the product isn't being provided in a truly competitive environment. If it was, I totally agree that there would be no need for government oversight. Competitive forces would take care of the issue because the majority would get what they want. If that turned out to be shaped traffic, so be it. If that turned out to be a fat, dumb pipe, so be it. However, until something steps in to provide true competitive forces against the oligopoly and in many cases, monopoly of the incumbent cable and telco carriers, regulation is required to keep them honest.

Imagine if Intel provided a 10Ghz chip that only worked at 10Ghz for three seconds. After 3 seconds the chip overheats. To compensate, Intel reduces the speed of the chip to 3Ghz. As soon as you quit using it and it cools, you can get another 3 second burst.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16813617 Thu, 31 Aug 2006 08:03:30 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16812932 calvoiper : Well, the government prevents car manufacturers from saying that you can get "up to 50 miles per gallon" when you'd have to drive 17.356 mph exactly, with only a 60 pound driver and nobody else in the car, to get that.

If the ISPs are going to play stupid games like "Up to X" without ever intending to deliver X, then they are going to see more government regulation, the way government mileage tests are regulated.

It's BS cr@p like this, and the shills who defend it, that bring on the regulation the ISPs hate so much.

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16812932 Thu, 31 Aug 2006 01:24:11 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16812883 Diddy1 :
said by calvoiper See Profile :

But do we want our ISPs/carriers "listening in" to the files we're downloading to determine "legality"? I think not. There are legal reasons to use BT, to use encryption, and to transfer very large files.

calvoiper
They won't be 'listening in' on the actual files. It could be porn, illegal/legal MP3, or Mary Poppins Greatis Hits. Just controlling it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16812883 Thu, 31 Aug 2006 01:13:25 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16812539 Skippy25 : Up to X MB/s]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16812539 Thu, 31 Aug 2006 00:00:11 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16812465 jester121 : A new take on the spurious arguments about "fair" bandwidth practices.

Did your calculations cover the cost of hardware to hook that circuit to? Don't forget maintenance on the hardware, plus UPSes, plus customer-side equipment, plus a few qualified people to manage all that stuff.

Of course they didn't...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16812465 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:44:52 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16811982 mikef1 : Exactly how fast is this oc128?

I'm not familiar with that beast.
--
mike
HouseOfMike]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16811982 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:28:52 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16811053 calvoiper :
said by superdog See Profile :

....Then I guess You would rather pay the actual cost for 6Mb down and 1Mb up?. ...
Well, I'd rather at least KNOW what the cost is, so that I could make a rational decision, rather than having to guess because the ISP is playing some sort of deceptive bait-n-switch game on what they "offer" and what they "provide".

If the ISPs can't provision their "all you can consume" pricing strategies, they should admit it and start charging more for people who use huge amounts of the data capacity they buy. Pretending that there are no usage fees and then throttling certain types of traffic is like advertising an "all you can eat" buffet and then deliberately running out of food.

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16811053 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:11:59 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16810852 insomniac84 : I think I looked up the price of a oc128 before and if you divide the bandwidth up so all users have a full 100mbit up and down it's only $100 a month. So a 10mbit up and down line should only be $10 a month. And that's guaranteed, no sharing involved. Since the cable and dsl companies don't have enough bandwidth for every line they are basically stealing from us. Not to mention all bandwidth is symmetrical at some point, so all the upload your paying for and aren't getting is being sold off for hosting. So the ISPs are making a crap load of money on something they shouldn't be able to.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16810852 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:43:12 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16810742 karl_6y : I had thought that the law's basic assumption is "innocent until proven guilty" but now any download that's using p2p are all being "judged guilty?" ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16810742 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:27:56 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16810511 LinuxJunkie : According to the TV ad I saw last night that the cable companies ran, this network neutrality stuff is all just a bunch of "MUMBO JUMBO!!!" (exact words of the ad)

What killed me even more was the ridiculous claim they made at the end: if network neutrality laws are passed, then we the consumers will end up paying more for the products and services offered by the "Silicon Valley giants." I'm sorry, but can anybody remember the last time you had to pay Google, Microsoft or Yahoo to use their search engines?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16810511 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:51:05 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16810175 superdog :
said by Zaber See Profile :

If the ISPs are incurring too many losses that is their fault for selling it below costs
Hmmmm..........Then I guess You would rather pay the actual cost for 6Mb down and 1Mb up?. If You do that?, You would need 12 bonded T1's just to get the 6Mb down part(A fractional DS3 would be a little cheaper). The bonded T1's would give You that bandwidth You paid for, AND they wouldn't throttle Your bit torrent traffic. So lets see, If it is the ISP's fault for not charging enough, than I guess You would be really happy if they stopped throttling Your bandwidth and sent You a bill in the mail for the actual cost of the bandwidth?. Hey, what the hell?, my bill is $4800 a month, but they're not choking any traffic?. :o
--
»www.wavecrazy.net Join WISPA today! »www.wispa.org/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16810175 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:58:10 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16810146 jjsk8r85 : I don't care if you're using the service to do something illegal or not. The service is there for you to do with what you please. You can do legal or illegal things with your car, your phone, your electric supply, and gas supply, the internet shouldn't be any different.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16810146 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:54:27 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16810039 peter_m :
said by tsu9 See Profile :

Just don't use it illegally.
LOL, legality has nothing to do with it:

1) I pay for connectivity and expect to have the same speed what ever software I use.

2) The ISP is not a legal entity that can decide what is legal and what is not.

3) What if I am not using illegal file sharing and I download tones or linux distributions? Why should I be slowed down?

4) Unless the ISP has spoken to a judge and the judge granted them permission to spy on me, the ISP has no business looking at my internet use.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16810039 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:36:30 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16809646 stufried : They are contracts of adhesion. Often there is only one high speed ISP covering an area. Call them up and say, I am interested in purchasing your service. You are asking X for your service with the following TOS. HOw much more would you ask to provide me your service dropping that provision?

Don't think about Torrents. Let's talk about VOIP which is contrary to many of the TOSs out there. I work at home a great deal and simply getting work e-mail on my home cable connection violates a number of Terms of Service.

What happens when the advertising gives and the TOS takes. Should that count for something? What happens if the sales person calls and offers me unlimited bandwith for $50 a month. I record the call and say -- does this include torrents and he says aboslutely and I say "in that case I agree." What should control the TOS that I don't see until later or what they agreed to on a recorded phone call.

Stu]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16809646 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:32:06 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16809411 JamesPC : Ever heard of your "Terms of Service"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16809411 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:51:17 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16809393 Zaber :
said by phattieg See Profile :

The ISP has the right to keep their costs down by throttling bandwidth to users who are using it for services they pay for,
Does the store have a right to charge me for a gallon of milk, then have issues with with me drinking more than a quart?

It is very simple if they advertise X, and I buy X I expect to get X not X-Y. If the ISPs are incurring too many losses that is their fault for selling it below costs
--
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he will feed himself for a lifetime]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16809393 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:48:49 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16809060 calvoiper : If my ISP is marketing my download capability as X Mb/s, then I deserve X Mb/s -- and I don't really care what weaselly bait and switch scheme they try to justify by putting fine print in the TOS.

Phatteig, if your ISP can't download your anti-virus update at the speeds they've claimed to provide you, that is THEIR problem, not the fault of some other user who is just trying to use the bandwidth they've sold him. If the ISP can't support you both, it shouldn't sell both of you the capacity.

BT only exists because ISPs continue to "throttle" upstream traffic. If upstream speeds matched downstream speeds, the advantage of BT (downloading one file from many sources) would disappear.

What really has the gutless, cheap ISPs worried is that they see more applications which use the bandwidth they claim to be providing. What's next? Are ISPs going to "throttle" live video because it harms their (horribly oversubscribed and underbuilt) network?

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16809060 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:58:22 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16808881 tsu9 : I don't disagree, Cal. The determination isn't something that can really be done by the ISP. So, instead, they punish legitimate uses for the burden on their network (regardless of legality).

They aren't throttling it for the legal/illegal reasons; it's all about the popularity. And, honestly, this just showcases the shortfalls of the system. There is a huge demand out there, and BT is one of the applications that has sprung up that can bring that desire to fruition.

The ISPs really should be stepping up to the plate, rather than swatting it back down.
--
"You do not secure the liberty of our country and value of our democracy by undermining them, that's the road to hell." - Lord Phillips of Sudbury.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16808881 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:33:30 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16808860 phattieg :
said by calvoiper See Profile :

But do we want our ISPs/carriers "listening in" to the files we're downloading to determine "legality"? I think not. There are legal reasons to use BT, to use encryption, and to transfer very large files.

calvoiper
It's not the files they are after, it's the packet headers, and consistencies in the payload. No ISP is going to monitor your traffic like that. The ISP has the right to keep their costs down by throttling bandwidth to users who are using it for services they pay for, and according to many TOS's, they don't have to allow everything, it's all based off of fair use. It's not fair if I need a virus update, but because everyone in my node is using P2P, I can't get it as fast. Whereas on the flip side, if you are sharing files, and it has been known that the majority of the files on P2P is illegal, I would throttle you in a heartbeat, simply because it makes since, you're trashing my network with all this traffic, while legitimate normal applications usually don't hog as much.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16808860 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:29:53 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16808717 Techman21 : Its still my choice whether its illegal or not. Now if I have to deal with the consequences of said choice then that is something I have to deal with. My choices are none of the ISPs business, unless they break the TOS and last I checked using my connection to file share to whom I see fit is not breaking the TOS.

Even if it was the TOS I'm apt to believe it would be something on the books but something that isn't really notice or is swept under the rug so customers continue to feed the telco/cable industry.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16808717 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:09:37 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16808702 Necronomikro : Ubuntu linux was faster off of BT. *shrug*]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16808702 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:08:04 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16808611 dervari : I tried downloading a Fedora ISO using BT and it was slower than downloading from the Redhat site.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16808611 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:56:55 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16808465 Necronomikro :
said by calvoiper See Profile :

There are legal reasons to use BT, to use encryption, and to transfer very large files.
Indeed, transfer a large linux iso and don't want it throttled. Legal reason to use linux, encrypt the transfer and it be a large file.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16808465 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:32:03 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16808420 calvoiper : But do we want our ISPs/carriers "listening in" to the files we're downloading to determine "legality"? I think not. There are legal reasons to use BT, to use encryption, and to transfer very large files.

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16808420 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:24:55 EDT Re: This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16808403 tsu9 : Just don't use it illegally.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16808403 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:21:58 EDT This is terrible! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16808381 r81984 : We need network neutrality now. If I am paying for my connection I should not be block or impeaded from using it how I see fit.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16808381 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:18:04 EDT