amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
 ·EarthLink
| Contradiction?
I don't understand the part about throttling being inconsistent with constant speed guarantees. If my ISP guaranteed constant speed, to me that would mean making sure some users don't consume all the bandwidth. It would imply throttling to me. Not unlimited bandwidth.
Mark |
|
Roop
join:2003-11-15
Ottawa, ON
·Internet Telephone..
| what is of significant importance is bell is deciding that bittorrent traffic is not as high a priority as other traffic. what's being fought for is to keep telecom companies from prioritizing traffic based on it's content.
they also have bandwidth caps ontop of this.
said by amigo_boy  :I don't understand the part about throttling being inconsistent with constant speed guarantees. If my ISP guaranteed constant speed, to me that would mean making sure some users don't consume all the bandwidth. It would imply throttling to me. Not unlimited bandwidth. Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
edit:
June 1st, @12:07PM
| said by Roop :what is of significant importance is bell is deciding that bittorrent traffic is not as high a priority as other traffic. It still seems like a stretch to say throttling is inconsistent with guaranteed constant speed. If my ISP made that promise, I would assume this means they are going to throttle things so everyone can have constant speeds.
Also, throttling BT doesn't seem earth shattering to me. If a bunch of people were using http to download files in a batch-like manner, I'd expect it to be lower priority. If they're serving packets they received, I could see even greater reason to throttle it.
If people oppose this, that's ok. But, using "constant speed" as the argument doesn't seem to be the issue. It looks more like they want batch, non-interactive services to be as fast as interactive. And, they want to perform server operations.
Mark |
|
