meh37
@verizon.net
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to
There isn't a network engineer in the world worth his/her salt who would describe Comcast's method of forging [p2p] packets on a 24/7 basis as "network management". Network neutrality also means not unilaterally deciding that some protocol is not "acceptable" on your network, a network by the way that is paid for by all of its customers, including those who use p2p for all too legal purposes. |
|
DMMJ
@wa.gov
| reply to Alcohol
said by Alcohol  :However don't you think this is a step in the wrong direction? Everyone knows American broadband is no way as advanced as the worlds, and instead of changing that we're putting limits on our outdated technology so we don't have to upgrade. Way to go Comcast. Correct. China, for example, has a 25Gig/day limit. If ComCast set those kinds of limits, I'd be happy! |
|
BenAthar
@comcast.net
 from:
StreetSpirit
|  reply to funchords
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to
That is the problem with Comcast. They have no intention of slowing down adding new customers, nor upgrading their bandwidth. Mostly due to the money not being there. Budget woes are plaguing Comcast. With all of the tech's out there and the DOCSIS 3.0 coming out, the network cannot handle the usage due to physical limitations for repairing and replacing outside cabling. Also since Comcast is trying (on paper and in the press) about the 5 9's (99.999%) of Quality of Service. It just don't seem to be that way. That is the problem with large companies and shrinking budgets, not to mention techs starting to become unhappy about not getting plant replaced.
I would use another ISP, but since Comcast is the only franchise in this town, I would rather use dial-up or DSL instead.
I don't believe that there should be limits. Isn't this what Cable companies want to do in the first place, to advance the telecommunications industry and all of the players in it? Time Warner and Charter are trying to, but Comcast wants to be a holdout and direct everything else and not adhere to the same standards as everyone else. |
|
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal | reply to ieolus
The Supreme Court ruled that cable internet is not a common carrier. |
|
MadMANN
Premium
join:2005-08-19
 ·Comcast
| reply to BenAthar
said by BenAthar :
I would use another ISP, but since Comcast is the only franchise in this town, I would rather use dial-up or DSL instead.
You can get dial-up ANYWHERE you have a phone connection. What you are really saying is "Comcast is the only provider here that fits my needs/wants." If you really meant that statement, you would not be a customer of Comcast. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
1 edit | reply to ieolus
said by ieolus (modified slightly):Are you saying that Comcast is making business decisions on their common carrier internet business to help out their cable business? Yes, that's what he is saying.
Note to MacLeech: Sort of. If I'm reading the case right, it was actually the FCC that made cable an "information service" and the Supreme Court recognized that fact in reaching its decision. While that might seem to some like a distinction without a difference, it seems to me that the FCC would be permitted to reclassify it without going to the Supreme Court. (I'm not a lawyer, so there's a good chance I'm wrong.)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
StreetSpirit
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Roslyn, NY
·Optimum Online
·Verizon Online DSL
2 edits | reply to baineschile
said by baineschile :Maybe when people stop downloading pirated movies and software at a staggering rate, ISPs wouldnt have to do it for everyone. Thanks a lot, piraters, for making the experience rough for everyone You're giving credit to the wrong group of cretins. Thank a) The Bozo's in Wishington for not having anything resembling a national broadband policy. Thank b) The appointed Bozo heading up the FCC, for letting ISPs do this sort of thing without even a challenge. Than c) The Wize Guys, aka the Management Team. You can bet they'll all get six to seven figure bonuses for pushing through THROTTLING and OVERAGE at the same time! Imagine the money they'll save by fapping, and the money they'll earn by overaging. And they get to dump their most expensive users onto their competitors (ha! what competitors.. co-conspirators...) and lastly, and most importantly, you forgot to thank yourself, for if people didn't buy stock lock and barrel the propaganda put out by biased sources for charging people more and more for less and less (those darn pyrates again, aaaaargh!) and questioned their corporate bosses a little more often, we'd all be better off.
I used to tease Aussie friends on IRC about their metered Internet. Soon they might be laughing at me - however I am hoping that my ISP, already once capped and saw the futility of it, will keep it's independence from the Comcasts of the world. I'd rather pay money to the Dolans than to "Prepare to be assimilated".  |
|
freezingsatan
@comcast.net
| reply to baineschile
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to
said by baineschile :Maybe when people stop downloading pirated movies and software at a staggering rate, ISPs wouldnt have to do it for everyone. Thanks a lot, piraters, for making the experience rough for everyone i agree, in the sense that we're starting to be given a lot more power on the internet bandwidth-wise... we have the power to do more and more illegal activities on the internet, in which i dont think our economy will be blind to (or anyone else in the world)...
however, it will be more and more important to eventually be able to distinguish between the attempt to dissuade this piracy and the idea of the ISP's and software companies' breach of the individual's freedom and privacy...
i do not see anything wrong with a reasonable limit, as long as you get a warning and that this limit is, in fact, reasonable... and maybe if the user passed the limit but didn't do anything illegal, could give proof (for example, what if 10 people lived in the house, or the user has a subscription to an online movie service and watches a lot of movies)... besides, you get a warning at first, and i do believe that 250 GB is reasonable, even for minor pirates... which i blame no one for being prone to some sort of malice in one form or another, as long as its intents was not to profit off other people or depend on it...
forgive me if the writing sounds despotic, this is just an opinion and i dont believe this is the "right way," but i would prefer it |
|
freezingsatan
@comcast.net | reply to baineschile1
haha thats an awesome analogy |
|
