 newviewEx .. Ex .. ExactlyPremium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1
 ·Vonage
 ·DIRECTV
| The question is . . . quote:
Can we trust Comcast to protect our online freedoms without enforceable, independent consumer safeguards?
I think we've all seen where Comcast's interests lie . . . and it's NOT with with it's subscribers, except if you count extracting as much money as possible for all it's customers.
We cannot trust Comcast, period.
--
Ö¿Ö
The Rules of Spam | Maryland's Newest Anti-Spam Law
Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket? |
|
 ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 | Agreed, this is yet another PR stunt from Comcast. |
|
 halfbandPremium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
 ·Comcast
| reply to newview
How this is implemented will determine if this is good or bad. As much as we would all like it, comcast is not going to keep adding bandwidth to support more use of p2p apps, unless they also raise the rates. Cables limited upload capacity is a bottleneck, and heavy p2p use on a node can cause congestion. "Just upgrading" does not solve the issue since p2p apps by design will generally consume whatever upload is available. Something as simple getting users to configure their p2p apps to;
1)Slow down a bit during peak hours.
2)Cap the upload used to something less than the entire available upload of the user.
would go a long way to solving the issue. Is this beyond reason?
Sure we can all take the stance that "hey I paid for my upload, I am going to use it 24x7". but your connection will be useless once more than about 10% of the users on your node do the same thing.
So comcast should just upgrade all the nodes right? Sure they will, with the corresponding doubling of rates.
The upload demands of p2p are a problem for the ISPs, but they do not have to be. A little education and responsibility on the part of the users would go a long way to getting p2p apps to play nice on the network.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 |
|
approval from:
root9 
| reply to newview
Consumers, should in turn lay down their policy and rights to be given what they pay for, Comcast and other ISPs where are the advertised speeds that subscribers have been paying for years but many have never gotten? Since when do thieves dictate how thivery should be run? |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to ptrowski
said by ptrowski:Agreed, this is yet another PR stunt from Comcast. unfortunately, I don't think it's a PR stunt - it's the beginning of the battle to define what ISPs can do with "their" network.
if comcast is successful in setting the terms of the debate, consumers and the nation LOSE. |
|
ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 Reviews:
·VOIPo
| said by nasadude:said by ptrowski:Agreed, this is yet another PR stunt from Comcast. unfortunately, I don't think it's a PR stunt - it's the beginning of the battle to define what ISPs can do with "their" network. if comcast is successful in setting the terms of the debate, consumers and the nation LOSE. It is a stiunt as they are trying to look like they now have a heart in trying to work with the p2p companies. I personally feel that they of course want what is in their best interest.
I see nothing "pro-consumer" or "progressive" in this. |
|
 jonnyb
join:2008-03-15
Haverhill, NH | reply to newview
said by newview: quote:
Can we trust Comcast to protect our online freedoms without enforceable, independent consumer safeguards?
I think we've all seen where Comcast's interests lie . . . and it's NOT with with it's subscribers, except if you count extracting as much money as possible for all it's customers. We cannot trust Comcast, period. you make horrible points, can you trust any big company they all have to make money and you bash them for it>? |
|
jonnyb
join:2008-03-15
Haverhill, NH | reply to ptrowski
said by ptrowski:said by nasadude:said by ptrowski:Agreed, this is yet another PR stunt from Comcast. unfortunately, I don't think it's a PR stunt - it's the beginning of the battle to define what ISPs can do with "their" network. if comcast is successful in setting the terms of the debate, consumers and the nation LOSE. It is a stiunt as they are trying to look like they now have a heart in trying to work with the p2p companies. I personally feel that they of course want what is in their best interest. I see nothing "pro-consumer" or "progressive" in this. really you dont see anything "pro-consumer" " we will help P2P companies, ISPs and content owners find common ground to support consumers who want to use P2P applications to deliver legal content" that is "pro-consumer" if i have ever seen it unless you are useing p2p for illegal purposes which it seems most of you are and if you are using it legally then you should be very happy about this. |
|
ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 Reviews:
·VOIPo
| said by jonnyb:really you dont see anything "pro-consumer" " we will help P2P companies, ISPs and content owners find common ground to support consumers who want to use P2P applications to deliver legal content" that is "pro-consumer" if i have ever seen it unless you are useing p2p for illegal purposes which it seems most of you are and if you are using it legally then you should be very happy about this. You can't distinguish what is being transferred in the p2p apps. It will affect both "legal" and "illegal" transfers as you put it. There are more and more companies using p2p for patches, distro's etc.
They are only trying to do this to regain some positive PR. |
|
jonnyb
join:2008-03-15
Haverhill, NH | If that is the case ptrowski, how will they go about distinguishing if what the consumer is doing is legal or illegal? |
|
ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 Reviews:
·VOIPo
| said by jonnyb:If that is the case ptrowski, how will they go about distinguishing if what the consumer is doing is legal or illegal? It's not their worries to be the cops. We are talking about p2p, not what is legal and illegal. That's a whole nother can of worms. |
|
 NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| reply to newview
said by newview: quote:
Can we trust Comcast to protect our online freedoms without enforceable, independent consumer safeguards?
I think we've all seen where Comcast's interests lie . . . and it's NOT with with it's subscribers, except if you count extracting as much money as possible for all it's customers. We cannot trust Comcast, period. Unfortunately, we can't trust any business in that regard. Welcome to capitalism. |
|
jonnyb
join:2008-03-15
Haverhill, NH | reply to ptrowski
I guess i see where you are going with this, but they have to maintain there network and p2p seems to being reeking havoc on it and it seems that a lot of p2p transfers are pirated content why not start there? |
|
|
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| reply to halfband
said by halfband:How this is implemented will determine if this is good or bad. As much as we would all like it, comcast is not going to keep adding bandwidth to support more use of p2p apps, unless they also raise the rates. Cables limited upload capacity is a bottleneck, and heavy p2p use on a node can cause congestion. "Just upgrading" does not solve the issue since p2p apps by design will generally consume whatever upload is available. Something as simple getting users to configure their p2p apps to; 1)Slow down a bit during peak hours. 2)Cap the upload used to something less than the entire available upload of the user. would go a long way to solving the issue. Is this beyond reason? Sure we can all take the stance that "hey I paid for my upload, I am going to use it 24x7". but your connection will be useless once more than about 10% of the users on your node do the same thing. So comcast should just upgrade all the nodes right? Sure they will, with the corresponding doubling of rates. The upload demands of p2p are a problem for the ISPs, but they do not have to be. A little education and responsibility on the part of the users would go a long way to getting p2p apps to play nice on the network. I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. |
|
ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 Reviews:
·VOIPo
| reply to jonnyb
said by jonnyb:I guess i see where you are going with this, but they have to maintain there network and p2p seems to being reeking havoc on it and it seems that a lot of p2p transfers are pirated content why not start there? You can't blanket throttle certain protocols. If you do that you end up in the mess that they are in now. |
|
jonnyb
join:2008-03-15
Haverhill, NH | Unfortunately this is something that is practiced by a lot of isp's as a way for them to shape traffic and better manage there networks so i dont see why it is such a big issue, i understand you are paying for a service and all but they also have a duty to provide a adequate service for the rest of the people on there network. |
|
ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 Reviews:
·VOIPo
| said by jonnyb:Unfortunately this is something that is practiced by a lot of isp's as a way for them to shape traffic and better manage there networks so i dont see why it is such a big issue, i understand you are paying for a service and all but they also have a duty to provide a adequate service for the rest of the people on there network. Then increase capacity. If capacity is an issue that is their issue. |
|
| reply to jonnyb
But you already answered your own comment. "They also have a duty to provide adequate service for the rest of the people". That means, that either A) they are NOT providing adequate service, and they need to either CHANGE WHAT THEY ARE SELLING, or B) the ARE providing adequate service, and since some customers are P2P customers, they should be happy too.
Can't have it both ways. Either they PROVIDE what they are selling, or they upgrade their networks to provide what they are selling, OR they slow down what they advertise they sell. I would be perfectly happy with a 4mb/sec connection, as long as I could use it 7x24.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
jonnyb
join:2008-03-15
Haverhill, NH | reply to ptrowski
I knew that it was going to come down to that argument, and they are from what i hear they are going to docsis 3.0 but regardless if they increase capacity this is someting that is down on most isp networks. It is very easy to say just increase capacity which i am sure most ips could do but then our bill goes up and so on and so forth it is a sticky situation. |
|
jonnyb
join:2008-03-15
Haverhill, NH | reply to karlmarx
I hear ya barken big dog, so you are saying that they should have a disclaimer stating that there service is not unlimited or maybe they should put a cap on the service and if this cap is exceeded then charge the consumer for additional use of bandwidth? |
|
