how-to block ads
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
2 edits | Baloney!
I wrote this the last time this was posted to DSLR -- »Friday Morning Links --, and I suppose it bears repeating. The Register author is lying.
The Register article seems to be based, entirely, on a completely false premise and assertion -- that the EFF "agrees" that some sort of bandwidth restrictions (over and above the contracted bandwidth) are acceptable and/or necessary.
"It is true that some broadband users send and receive a lot more traffic than others, and that interfering with their traffic can reduce congestion for an ISP," they write. Which leaves them, ultimately, only quibbling over the methods the cable giant uses. "Interfering with their traffic can reduce congestion" is similar to saying "shooting bullets at your neighbors' heads reduces wait times at the local supermarket".
It's simply an observation -- it doesn't mean the writer agrees with it! What a stupid, stupid false premise for the article.
Yeah, so today's "top talker" on the network is BitTorrent traffic; tomorrow it might be something you value. If ISP's don't want to provide the bandwidth they're selling at the price they're quoting, they should stop offering the service. Everything else is a load of crap.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
3 edits | They are saying that, since they have a flawed technology (docsis1.1), the rest of the internet should conform to thier corporate wishes and desires on thier crippled network.
Instead of them adhering to US network neutrality standards.
History
In 1860, a US federal law subsidizing a coast-to-coast telegraph line stated that
“ ...messages received from any individual, company, or corporation, or from any telegraph lines connecting with this line at either of its termini, shall be impartially transmitted in the order of their reception, excepting that the dispatches of the government shall have priority. ”
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_ne···#History | |
moresuo
join:2001-08-26
Stewartsville, NJ
| reply to B
The Register article if flawed on its face as the premise it draws its conclusions on is flawed.
All one has to go on is the technology, as it is currently understood, and the history of the players involved.
The technology, as understood, allows the backbones enough bandwidth at this time as there is no need to play favorites among those sending and receiving. All the bit bucketing and pipe narrowing takes place below the backbone near the end user. Such throttle backs aren't necessary and when compared against the history of the AT&T, Comcast, etc, etc, players seen for what they are: attempts at revenue generation.
Not that I wouldn't put a little editorializing past them when targeting bit torrent traffic to throttle back on. That's just gravy though.
If you accept the ability to truncate traffic due to what it carries, it can be bit torrent today and anything else tomorrow. It becomes too late, you see, as you've already bought into the premise.
Traffic must be traffic, must be traffic. All the same. Only in this way can we assure that everyone gets a far shake and the "internets' aren't treated as the private property of several large corporations operating its backbone. | |
|
