openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to FLengineer
Re: I am with the Consumer Advocates said by FLengineer:If the ISP is allowed to block your traffic because they suspect that it is illegal files You assume ISPs are blocking P2P because of illegal content. Unless they're getting kickbacks from the content owning trade groups, my guess is that ISPs are minimizing the impact to their networks. |
|
 FLengineerCCNA, CEH, MCSAPremium
join:2007-06-26
Leesburg, FL | Throttling legal content would be a clear violation of Net Neutrality. The real reason they are throttling is what you have suggested but Comcast claims "illegal traffic" knowing they have a stronger case and users effected won't come forward with complaints. Avoiding those complaints is also the reason they are throttling upstream and not downstream, I'm sure Joe Smoe isn't complaining that he can't give other people files fast enough. |
|
|
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | said by FLengineer:Throttling legal content would be a clear violation of Net Neutrality. It's only a net neutrality issue if the ISPs are throttling competing services on their networks while favoring their own, i.e. VoIP, video, etc. As long as ISPs throttle content across the board and not explicitly discriminating against certain providers, net neutrality isn't an issue. |
|
FLengineerCCNA, CEH, MCSAPremium
join:2007-06-26
Leesburg, FL
1 edit | competing or not competing is a moot point. The LAW simply states....
(3)(A) to block, to impair, to discriminate against, or to interfere with the ability of any person to use a broadband network service to access, to use, to send, to receive, or to offer lawful content, applications or services over the Internet; or
(B) to impose an additional charge to avoid any conduct that is prohibited by this subsection;
Which puts us back to "Block the illegal content but don't touch the legal content". Good luck with that because it's next to impossible.
»thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c···.R.5417: |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by FLengineer: The LAW simply states.... (3)(A) to block, to impair, to discriminate against, or to interfere with the ability of any person to use a broadband network service to access, to use, to send, to receive, or to offer lawful content, applications or services over the Internet; or (B) to impose an additional charge to avoid any conduct that is prohibited by this subsection; » thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c···.R.5417: Well the LAW you site isn't a law because it was never passed. It was ONLY considered.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to openbox9
Yep, if ISPs cared about illegal content, then there would be no such thing as a spam relay or a botnet node. |
|
 ReformCRTCSupport Your Independent ISP
join:2004-03-07
Canada | reply to FLengineer
Right. They should let all traffic alone, stop snooping, and let law enforcement officials handle law enforcement.
Net Neutral. |
|
