how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
304 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Critically botched such "critical decisions should not be based on the demands of the vocal minority who make the most noise in public forums." That little quote above makes me curious about their stance on what defines the internet...
Critical decisions pertaining to the nature of the internet are usually discussed, defined, by many standards organizations, not ISPs. Sure, ISP's implement their portions of what becomes assimilated to the rest of the internet, but they should have no place in changing how it works without consent and approval from the rest of the world.
I understand that BT can get out of hand very quickly with lots of little connections, but overall, there are better solutions. First, if people were "nicer" and limited their clients to a reasonable number instead of unlimited, they'd greatly reduce the needless traffic that pisses off ISPs. Second, the ISP could probably figure out a way to do this for their customers anyway instead of "shaping" such traffic into a state that mostly kills it.
Really, how hard would it be to limit customer A to, for instance, 20 simultaneous connections instead of allowing unlimited numbers of things bounce up and down from 100's to 10's and back and forth? Customer B, who's simply surfing or downloading from one or two sources at a time would never know anything was different. "A" would likely notice a limit, but everything would still work, and it'd probably still work with relatively good speed.
Changing how the internet works in the ways that this ISP seems to be doing just seems downright wrong. Surely there is a better way to handle this instead of the approach they've taken.
Debating the legality of a protocol is not what I'm even going to touch on here. In my opinion, it's a great idea that deserves to be out there just as much as any other method of exchanging information. Granted, unlimited numbers of connections up/down can be a problem for ISPs, but why knock the whole system out instead of handling it responsibly? Users should too. You shouldn't set your clients to spew out connections at full blast, it's considered bad netiquete. It's been this way for a long time, and having more speed shouldn't change that. ISPs should also realize this, and if they must, I think they do have some say in controlling simultaneous connections to/from IP addresses which are going nuts. "Shaping" a protocol into near oblivion, however, isn't the answer. | | |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by amungus:such "critical decisions should not be based on the demands of the vocal minority who make the most noise in public forums." Question.... Isn't the Halls of Congress really just a form of public forum?
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America | Nice  | |
|
