Raz3000
join:2006-05-07
Chicago, IL | Net Neutrality advocate.
Seems like a good choice. Good luck Jon! |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | I agree, +1. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC | said by me1212  :I agree, +1. +2. This is a good choice. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | and Net Neutrality means higher HSI prices and caps in the end. Be careful what you wish for. Your providers will make it come true. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| said by hottboiinnc :and Net Neutrality means higher HSI prices and caps in the end. Be careful what you wish for. Your providers will make it come true. Only the convoluted definition does. Treating all traffic fairly and equally or applying non-discriminatory shaping (ala Comcast) is a perfectly valid way to manage a network. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | and capping will become the way. and higher bills will go along with it.
Also the FTC for years has never done anything. Especially as far as Can Spam Act. HA! i get more spam since that damn thing. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| hottboiinnc
If you have not noticed most of the ISPs are either capping now or have already been running test markets to see how to actually do it.
The reality is that monthly caps do nothing to address congestion issues, for pure HSI systems they do nothing(vs video concerns). As has been pointed out already, a true proticol agnostic QOS system used during peak time only, does address the congestion problem. The throttling should only be used in the short term (until network upgrades can be done). |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
 ·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| so you think you should have full run of your ISPs network and little Johnny next door should be able to run P2P full speed all day all night and make your internet suffer? or how about the server farm down the street using a residential connection instead of paying for a business connection? |
|
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
 ·Skype
| reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc :and capping will become the way. and higher bills will go along with it. Yes because that's not happening at all NOW. . . 
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | If we don't want caps we can get the business conection, just sayin'. I would, and then I would cancle TV and get a nextfilx sub and then put hulu and netflix(are there anyother legal IPTV sites>) on my start up bar. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to hottboiinnc
hottboiinnc
That is not even close to what I said. What I said was that as long as a user is not causing congestion (downloading during peak hours) they should be able to download as much as they want. Since most commercial bandwidth is sold by the 95th percentile method(basically by peak Mbps) it costs the ISP nothing extra. No, the ISP's TOS already covers the server farm(reselling your connection). On top of that, the server's peak times would likely be the same as the ISPs peak times, so they would still be hit by the throttle. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to Lazlow
said by Lazlow :hottboiinnc The throttling should only be used in the short term (until network upgrades can be done). If they get done since once throttling gets introduced, the need to do anything such as make network upgrades becomes a non-issue because there is no preceived need on the ISP's part to do it (ie: Throttling has "fixed" the problem). They can keep ripping off the customer without delivering what they are being paid for. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
1 edit | RARPSL
I agree that it is a slippery slope that will have to be watched closely, that is why I added the short term part.
You are aware that they are already throttling? |
|
ashworth
join:2001-10-06
Pittsburgh, PA | reply to Raz3000
A touch of sarcasm, I hope, any MPAA lobbyist is no friend here. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to RARPSL
I call BS on the "ISPs won't upgrade their networks, they'll implement caps instead" argument? What has been the ISPs' motivation to date for upgrading their infrastructure? |
|
DJMASACRE
join:2008-05-27
Nepean, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc :so you think you should have full run of your ISPs network and little Johnny next door should be able to run P2P full speed all day all night and make your internet suffer? or how about the server farm down the street using a residential connection instead of paying for a business connection? Yes because that is bullshit . p2p users dont make your "internet suffer" get it through your head. This is just what the ISPs want you to think to make it seem ok . Do your research . |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to Lazlow
said by Lazlow :RARPSL I agree that it is a slippery slope that will have to be watched closely, that is why I added the short term part. You are aware that they are already throttling? Throttling is a Bandaid not a Fix. So long as they go the route of Throttling, they reduce (or eliminate) the pressure to actually fix the problem (ie: By doing needed network upgrades). Since Throttling is a minimal cost option (and they have a captive set of customers due to being the exclusive cable provider in the area) they have no incentive to actually spend money to do network upgrades - Which is not to say that they will not use some petty cash to SEEM to be doing something, but only pointing out that without the Throttling Option, there would be a more urgent need to actually do something to fix the problem. |
|
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc :and capping will become the way. and higher bills will go along with it. You mean things are not going to change from the way they are now? It seems that every week there is another story about a carrier imposing caps and raising fees. They are doing already without any prodding from the FTC.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to Lazlow
how do you figure it would cost them nothing more to give you full non-peak bandwidth? everyone would save everything to that point and max the connection out. By giving a full hard cap it actually reduces their cost in bandwidth and allows them to put that extra money back in to the network.
If they were really smart though all of the cable companies would peer together and reduce their costs that way. Especially since ATDN is peered with several companies including media. Comcast would save $$$$ by sending that traffic to RR's network. and RR would save $$ on their backend by sending email directed to Comcast customers direct to them. Wouldn't have to offload anything to L3 or anyone else.
And by the way i know how most bandwidth is purchased. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to DJMASACRE
No P2P can slow your connection down. It sucks bandwidth from your actual pipe to the backbone.
It does show on cable and it would show on DSL back at the DSLAM. Since BOTH connections ARE SHARED you would see it. Maybe on DSL not on the speed test between you and the DSLAM/CO/RT you would see it once it hits the net as the actual ATM line would be filling up. |
|
