supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
 ·Cox VOIP
·Skype
 ·Cox HSI
 ·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Civil rights groups say bandwidth hogs need managing
Have to disagree.
What's next if we eliminate Net Neutrality? Comcast blocking YouTube videos critical of its employees sleeping on your couch? Or politicians NOT supporting Corporation, Inc.?
Now, instead, Comcast should build out its network to make use of those 16/1 speeds. Why offer megaspeeds when you can't use them? Maybe Comcast should stop overselling nodes instead?
How do you measure usage? D/U happens even when the computer is idle. Why should ppl pay for the modem just telling Comcast the modem is on?
Does VZ FIOS have caps? Not that I've heard.
Also, are you agreeing that Google, et al. pay the dumb pipes get access? Are we becoming China? "You, can't go to 911conspiracy.org since Comcast has deemed it inappropriate" Or "Accessing Gmail will cost you an extra $5 a month. Call 1-800-xxx-xxxx to sign up with our friendly Comcast ppl."
By the way, Net Neutrality is still the law NOT an option.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl |
|
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
| reply to TKJunkMail
Yeah have you seen what they consider acceptable usage.
Some companies think 2 dollars a meg over a few hundred gigs passed is a reasonable amount.
Billing by the byte is exactly what telco's wanted to do. Instead of charging the content providers they'll just make it where you accept their walled garden approach to the internet IE their AOL or pay up the nose to access something like google, iTunes, etc.
Unlimited means you access what you want. The minute they begin billing by the byte is the minute you cede any reasonable expectation to access what you want.
Like it or not those same music thieves are the reason any of these companies have upgraded any of their facilities. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to TKJunkMail
while controling P2P traffic might be good for profits the problem is without some form of Net Neutrality laws there is nothing to stop an ISP from say throttling back any Multimedia site that doesnt pay them down to 512k.
P2P isnt why ISPs fight over Net Neutrality and traffic shaping, they want ad dollars to be more directed to their own portals and not Google. even though google has the better search page then any portal.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
powerhog
Stinkin' up the joint
Premium
join:2000-12-14
Owasso, OK | reply to TKJunkMail
So why are you agreeing with these idiots who say that bandwith hogs create a need for P2P (or any traffic) to be throttled? |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to powerhog
said by powerhog  :I'm sure that I'd be considered a bandwith hog by most standards. Yet I've never had any kind of P2P (or similar) client installed on any of my machines. So where does the "shaping" stop? You going to block my VPN connections, my ssh and sftp traffic, my http/s and my e-mail? Packet shaping and/or secret caps would not be MY way to combat bandwidth hogs, but Comcast should do what they feels is the best way for their business.
If it was me, I'd charge by the byte after passing some threshold. That is, sell service by "bytes transferred" tiers instead of "speed tiers". Bandwidth hogs would need to be very rich to pay for ridiculous transfer amounts. The size of the tiers would be based on well known methods of optimizing income collected.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
powerhog
Stinkin' up the joint
Premium
join:2000-12-14
Owasso, OK
·AtlasOK
| reply to TKJunkMail
Afraid I don't understand what bandwith hogs and traffic-shaping have in common.
All traffic should be equal. If the ISP doesn't like the quantity of traffic a customer generates, then that is a customer-specific issue. If it's an un-profitable relationship, then that customer should be denied service. Why penalize everyone or a specific group if they really aren't doing anything wrong?
I'm sure that I'd be considered a bandwith hog by most standards. Yet I've never had any kind of P2P (or similar) client installed on any of my machines. So where does the "shaping" stop? You going to block my VPN connections, my ssh and sftp traffic, my http/s and my e-mail?
|
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs:
·Optimum Online
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
Yea thats the only thing the tubes are good for TK, stealing music? That's naive even for you.
People simply want what they paid for.
Network management (the way comcast has implemented) is just another way to falsey advertise a service and scam the customer.
Second Standing in as client and spoofing data is not network management, it's hacking. If something/someone is becoming a hog modems allow for QOS, that user can then be limited to help the network manage.
Hopefully ISP over selling will finally come to a end and people will be told ON paper exactly what to expect for the dollar paid..
--
Reach out and Tap someone! |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
|  It is hard to disagree with them. That bandwidth hogs would be the WORST abusers of any net neutrality regulations is beyond dispute - except by those left wing groups that think profit is meaningless and corporations should underwrite the activities of music thieves.
»www.infoworld.com/article/08/02/···t_1.html
Net neutrality rules for broadband providers would protect bandwidth hogs at the expense of other customers and civic organizations, said the coalition, which includes the National Black Chamber of Commerce, Latinos in Information Sciences and Technology Association, League of Rural Voters, and National Council of Women's Organizations.
"Regulations prohibiting network management risk undermining free speech on the Internet by allowing P2P traffic to overwhelm the network and prevent non-P2P traffic from reaching its destination," the coalition said in its filing. "The effective prioritization of P2P traffic would represent an altogether new type of 'back of the bus' second-class status for our speech on broadband networks -- and ought to be resoundingly rejected."
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
