 thender2Glamour ProfessionPremium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: Go figure... 
Another TCH anti-fair post.  |
|
RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | said by thender2:Another TCH anti-fair post. Yeah, but for once he is totally right in what he stated. (unless you posted on the wrong post of his)
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
| said by RayW:said by thender2:Another TCH anti-fair post. Yeah, but for once he is totally right in what he stated. (unless you posted on the wrong post of his) For once? I am almost always right. It is just that most here don't like the answers, even when they are correct. 
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
| Right? Hardly... If you READ the net neutrality laws, they specifically PREVENT the ISP from blocking any LEGAL APPLICATION. That could be web browsing, that could be ftp, that could be bittorrent.
"Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online."
If THAT's the definition of net neutrality, then it most certainly means the ISP CANNOT block bittorrent, any more than the ISP can block HTTP.
»www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
|
|
 SnickerdoPremium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON | said by karlmarx:If THAT's the definition of net neutrality, then it most certainly means the ISP CANNOT block bittorrent, any more than the ISP can block HTTP. They're shaping, not blocking. Big difference legally.
--
Bigot - Someone that has won an argument with a Liberal.
Yes, I CanChat. Can You? www.fiberal.ca |
|
 John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3 | reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:If THAT's the definition of net neutrality, then it most certainly means the ISP CANNOT block bittorrent, any more than the ISP can block HTTP. Most providers have provisions that DO allow them to take measures to prevent "damage" to their networks.
As biobob  states, BT is a nasty creature when it runs uncontrolled. That is what providers bitch about...they could care less that it is "BT".
--
A is A |
|
| reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:Right? Hardly... If you READ the net neutrality laws, they specifically PREVENT the ISP from blocking any LEGAL APPLICATION. That could be web browsing, that could be ftp, that could be bittorrent. Please provide a link to the "net neutrality laws". All I saw on the google link was speculation of what might happen.
said by karlmarx:If THAT's the definition of net neutrality, then it most certainly means the ISP CANNOT block bittorrent, any more than the ISP can block HTTP. ISPs are not common carriers in the sense that telephone companies are. ISPs can do pretty much whatever they want to within the bounds of the contract that you agreed to.
I like your thinking to the extent that I should be able to run my own web server and email server...but both are blocked on the ATT network. Then again, my terms of service state I can't run a server..grrr. |
|
| Unless something has changed recently, ATT (former SBC) allows customers to set up servers on DSL connections. The TOS restriction for running servers was dropped years ago. |
|
