DjEclipse
join:2007-11-20
Niagara Falls, ON
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
2 edits | Net Nutrality, Bell and Rodgers are trying to stop it.
An interesting quote a form this website.
»www.movielol.org/netneutrality/
quote:
"...technologies such as BitTorrent allow small low-budget start-ups to do great things online such as the distribution of a full feature-length movie (in high definition if they want to) with almost zero costs. These technologies are only still in their infancy right now, but what guarantee do we have that the internet will actually evolve further into a fantastic high-tech freedom-for-all medium if ISP's are already surpressing it without strong legal opposition?
|
|
R0CKY
TSI Rocky
Premium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON
| It's an interesting quote but what it doesn't consider is we're all paying for this indirectly.... In the cost of transit, freedom of downloads and in many cases the removal of unlimited programs.... ISPs are reacting as, aside from possible ethical debates, from a financial side, there's a direct impact to the bottom-line of ISPs and as a result to the end users in general, as the ISPs are raising their overall rates to compensate for such activities/expenses. The general fear is the unknown costs that are just now really starting to hit us (ie: streaming, music, etc...), so Net Neutrality, however good the intention will totally rely on individuals being respectful of one another and having a great deal of self control... Not something very realistic when you look around.
Rocky
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc. |
|
DjEclipse
join:2007-11-20
Niagara Falls, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| said by R0CKY  :It's an interesting quote but what it doesn't consider is we're all paying for this indirectly.... In the cost of transit, freedom of downloads and in many cases the removal of unlimited programs.... ISPs are reacting as, aside from possible ethical debates, from a financial side, there's a direct impact to the bottom-line of ISPs and as a result to the end users in general, as the ISPs are raising their overall rates to compensate for such activities/expenses. The general fear is the unknown costs that are just now really starting to hit us (ie: streaming, music, etc...), so Net Neutrality, however good the intention will totally rely on individuals being respectful of one another and having a great deal of self control... Not something very realistic when you look around. Rocky But you are able to still provide us with internet access without any limits or any kind of control to what we do with this access.
You put a price on bandwidth on itself, not specific types of bandwidth or specific ways of accessing this bandwidth.
If you can do this, why is it that bigger coroperations (sp?) can't do the same. They have other reasons for controlling what we access on the internet and how we access it. And this is anti net nutrality.
ISP's like teksavvy have shown that it can be done. |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
| There was a study a while back (a few years now, I think) that showed (with hard figures, although one could argue that their sample size wasn't sufficiently large). It showed that BitTorrent traffic alone (not all P2P, just BitTorrent) made up 35% of ALL traffic on the internet. There is nothing to indicate that the bandwidth usage of BitTorrent has done anything but grow substantially since then. The percentage might have dropped, but only because the usage increase of other things (youtube, for example) have increased faster.
Bell, and the other large ISPs, have taken the hit from this harder than smaller ISPs like TekSavvy. In fact, we ourselves had hard evidence of this. When Bell started capping, there was a huge surge in bandwidth usage for TekSavvy as Bell's highest usage users swarmed the smaller ISPs. This really goes to show that the bigger ISPs get a disproportionate share of the super-high-usage users.
One thing to keep in mind is that Bell's throttling is not applied to every customer. It's applied to those in high-usage areas. While one could be suspicious about how congested it needs to get before they fit that classification, it's easily demonstrable that Bell is NOT throttling network-wide, but only in certain areas. This would seem to immediately disprove your claims that this is part of a conspiracy to deprive us of free speech... |
|
DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
clubs:
·Bell Sympatico
| said by Guspaz :One thing to keep in mind is that Bell's throttling is not applied to every customer. It's applied to those in high-usage areas. While one could be suspicious about how congested it needs to get before they fit that classification, it's easily demonstrable that Bell is NOT throttling network-wide, but only in certain areas. This would seem to immediately disprove your claims that this is part of a conspiracy to deprive us of free speech... I have been a Bell client since Day 1 and have never been throttled.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care. |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC | How far back, exactly? Users still on Bell's RADSL platform (which predates the Nortel platform) are not being throttled. Nor are they subject to the port blocks that everyone else is. And they get more upstream than the rest of us :P |
|
DjEclipse
join:2007-11-20
Niagara Falls, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to DjEclipse
Re: Net Nutrality, Bell and Rodgers are trying to stop it.
Also, if bell is doing it for bandwith cost reasons, and is not Anti - Net Nutrality as you claim.
Then why is it that even if I pay $1000, $2000, $5000/ month (more then enough to cover any costs) for my internet access that my torrents will still be throttled?
Please answer me this and try and tell me that the throteling of torrents is anything but Anti- Net Nutrality.
Any type of control any ISP puts on your internet access is Against net Nutrality. This certainly includes torrents. |
|
Deadpool
Go Sens Go
Premium,VIP
join:2001-03-29
Canada
·Bell Sympatico
| If you're willing to pay those dollars, go for it. Bell won't subject you to traffic management if you're willing to pay the bucks.
Go to a business DSL service, there's no traffic management there and it costs a lot less then the amounts you quoted.
How does that fit in to your theory?
--
Sens up 3-1 vs Leafs...GO SENS GO  |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
| reply to DjEclipse
They WON'T still be throttled. Buy a business-class line from Bell, no throttling. There, that argument is dead.
Throttling torrents is anti net-neutrality, but both throttling torrents and net neutrality have nothign to do with free speech or controlling the media.
As for me blindly trusting everything I hear? Huh? I KNOW people who are still on Sympatico and are not being throttled. And we've had fellow users here post graphs clearly indicating WHEN they throttle. Yes, they HAVE defined an enormous swath of the day to be "peak" time, but the fact is that it isn't 24/7.
In addition, the friends who ARE being throttled by Sympatico report (and I've seen this for myself) that it happens at certain times of day.
So, no, sorry, you're wrong. They're NOT doing it to everyone all the time, and I have conclusive proof to the contrary. I don't care what kind of conspiracies you follow, I've got confirmation myself with my own freakin' eyes in the real world. |
|
DjEclipse
join:2007-11-20
Niagara Falls, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
2 edits | reply to Deadpool
said by Deadpool :If you're willing to pay those dollars, go for it. Bell won't subject you to traffic management if you're willing to pay the bucks. Go to a business DSL service, there's no traffic management there and it costs a lot less then the amounts you quoted. How does that fit in to your theory? Obviously the prices I posted were outrageous to prove a point.
But the question is, Bell like any other ISP has set prices for bandwidth, and overages. But bell dictates what type of bandwidth you are using. This is Anti net Nutrality.
Is torrent Bandwidth any different then any other type of bandwidth? No, 100gig bandwidth is 100Gig bandwidth, no matter how it was being accessed.
Bell feeds you lies about torrents taking up bandwidth which is a load of crap. I could use more bandwidth if I were to view youtube videos all day in many windows, refreshing every 2 minutes.
Bell, Rodgers, Cogeco and many other ISP's are trying to control what kind of Bandwidth you use, if they weren't they would simply set a limit, nor restrictions, put a price for overages and be done with it.
Anti Net Nutrality is torrent throtteling.
If bell was not anti net Nutrality, they would not try and deter people from using certain ways of using Bandwidth that go against big money corporations. |
|
Deadpool
Go Sens Go
Premium,VIP
join:2001-03-29
Canada
·Bell Sympatico
| So I guess every other ISP in the world is lying as well when they say that BT traffic generates the most on their networks as well?
I can post link to articles if you wish that prove that other ISP's in the world are experiencing this as well. Let me know and I'll Google them for ya.
--
Sens up 3-1 vs Leafs...GO SENS GO |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC | Not only that, but Deadpool has already admitted that throttling violates net neutrality... that isn't what the article is about. The article is about free speech and controlling the media and other stuff that has nothing to do with net neutrality. |
|
DjEclipse
join:2007-11-20
Niagara Falls, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to DjEclipse
torrents are the movie and music industry's nightmare.
Not because of the reasons they tell you, but becasue it allows the every day Joe to make a movie, song, Dj mix, and distribute it to millions of people without having to pay a fortune to these big companies.
It allows the public to choose what they want to watch and listen to, instead of the crap record companies sell to you. it's all about money and this is the reason big corporations want to see torrents go away. They throttle torrents, tell you it's because of BS cost, give you some BS stats they made up.
But what they are really doing is trying to phase out any means for people to interact with the public without them making money form it. |
|
DjEclipse
join:2007-11-20
Niagara Falls, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
2 edits | reply to Deadpool
said by Deadpool :So I guess every other ISP in the world is lying as well when they say that BT traffic generates the most on their networks as well? So what if it does? Traffic is traffic, if it was only about the cost of traffic then it would be done the way Teksavvy does it.
Here is the price you pay
Here is your alloted bandwidth usage
Here is the price for overages.
Away you go, free to do with it what you want, the internet is yours to discover.
If you go over your alloted bandwidth torrent traffic or other in 2 days you know the price. This is net Nutrality
Taking away certain medium's for accessing information on the net (throtteling of torrents) is the way the other ISP's are doing it and that is Anti Net Nutrality.
quote:
I can post link to articles if you wish that prove that other ISP's in the world are experiencing this as well. Let me know and I'll Google them for ya.
-
-
Again, this is not the point. Traffic is traffic regardless if it's via torrents or other. The more bandwidth you use the more you pay. There is no reason )other then a hidden adgenda (sp?)) to restrict any internet access. |
|
Deadpool
Go Sens Go
Premium,VIP
join:2001-03-29
Canada
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to DjEclipse
Um, how do you think those "every day Joe's" get access to the Internet in the first place? 
And again, they're not affected during the day, nor are they being stopped altogether either. To take it even further, you're also assuming that every single person who's potentially sharing that torrent is subscribed to an ISP that has some form of traffic management.
You're making it sound like these "every day Joe's" can't continue to do what they were always doing. Whether it takes 30 mins or 3 hours to download some independant film, the consumer is going to wait for it to complete because (a) it's free, and (b) they wanted it in the first place.
People wait in line for days to see a movie like Star Wars and nothing could deter them from that.
If the content consumer really wants what the content provider has to offer, they'll wait for it, no matter how long it takes.
--
Sens up 3-1 vs Leafs...GO SENS GO |
|
DjEclipse
join:2007-11-20
Niagara Falls, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
1 edit | reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz :Not only that, but Deadpool has already admitted that throttling violates net neutrality... At least someone admits to it. Everyone on the Bell forum (employees) try to tell you otherwise, and feed you BS.
quote:
that isn't what the article is about. The article is about free speech and controlling the media and other stuff that has nothing to do with net neutrality.
Free speach, controlling the media, controlling our access to any kind of content on the internet is all about Net Nutrailty.
Net Nutrality simply you have control to what you access on the internet, how you decide to access it. As soon as anyone tries to dictate what you are able to access that information, or how you access it, it is against net Nutrality.
Big corporations want to have complete control over the internet, what you are able to access. They want it to be like TV is today. They have 100% control over what you watch, when you watch it. There are a lot of creative ideas/ people, shows etc. that we don't get to see because someone else decides for us that it is not what we should be seeing.
Even Youtube has fallen to anti net nutrality giving advertisers on theri site more leeway with the rules then regular users. And luckily has been forced to change their polocied becasue of the outrages users. |
|
DjEclipse
join:2007-11-20
Niagara Falls, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to Deadpool
said by Deadpool :Um, how do you think those "every day Joe's" get access to the Internet in the first place? And again, they're not affected during the day, nor are they being stopped altogether either. To take it even further, you're also assuming that every single person who's potentially sharing that torrent is subscribed to an ISP that has some form of traffic management. You're making it sound like these "every day Joe's" can't continue to do what they were always doing. Whether it takes 30 mins or 3 hours to download some independant film, the consumer is going to wait for it to complete because (a) it's free, and (b) they wanted it in the first place. People wait in line for days to see a movie like Star Wars and nothing could deter them from that. If the content consumer really wants what the content provider has to offer, they'll wait for it, no matter how long it takes. You still avoided the question completly.
bandwidth is bandwidth, why do certain ISP's try and limit certain ways of accessing the internet?
Based on their reasons for throtteling torrents there is absloutely no reason for them to do so as I have explained above and you have chosen to ignore...? |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
| reply to Deadpool
Deadpool: I think he's trying to make a really obtuse argument that Bell shouldn't be simultaneously capping and throttling, as either one alone solves the cost-of-bandwidth issue. I'd agree with that part, I suppose, if that really is the point he's trying to make.
From my perspective, if you cap usage and charge overage, you've removed heavy bandwidth use from the profit equation, and throttling becomes unnecessary. Bell only has to do that because of the $30 cap on bandwidth overages, but he doesn't seem to acknowledge that. |
|
Deadpool
Go Sens Go
Premium,VIP
join:2001-03-29
Canada
·Bell Sympatico
| That would make more sense.
I don't many users are left on Sympatico who would be affected by both of those however since, to your point, the heavy bandwidth users have moved to other ISP's, such as Teksavvy, and those leftover are probably the "under 60 GB" crowd who do use BT, but not enough to go over that cap (which results in the confusion of "why am I being targeted with traffic management if I'm not a heavy user").
--
Sens up 3-1 vs Leafs...GO SENS GO |
|
