dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
171
share rss forum feed

ds7

join:2012-11-07
Montpelier, VT

Correcting this abuse is long overdue

Preventing users from running legal software of their own choice on the connection they pay for has always been a network neutrality violation. The fact that the industry has gotten away with this abuse for so long does not make it right.

Network neutrality means not discriminating by the origin/destination or content of packets. No one objects to ISPs limiting bandwidth according to the contract with the customer; and no one objects to rules that customers may not adversely affect others (spam, malware). There is no reason a server can't be run within these rules. The ISPs know this perfectly well, and therefore their pretence that servers must somehow cause bad effects are dishonest. The sole real reason for the prohibition is to extract more money by artificially crippling the "residential" service.

The inherent and historic nature of the internet is "peer to peer". It should be illegal to call a service "internet access" if customers are limited to a consumption-only role - or subjected to content filters, falsification of DNS or other hobbles. When one or a few companies hold a monopoly on the cable lines, phone lines or other basic infrastructure in an area, they must be regulated to protect the public interest in equal rights of communication for everyone - including citizens as well as commercial actors.


Alex J

@184.105.146.x

1 recommendation

Preventing users from running legal software of their own choice on the connection they pay for has always been a network neutrality violation. The fact that the industry has gotten away with this abuse for so long does not make it right.

I don't like overly broad TOS, but I think the ISPs have a right to differentiate between residential and business class servers. The language sits there as a tool to handle only the most egregious of offenses (running a full grade commercial server on AT&T U-Verse). Conflating it with network neutrality does the network neutrality movement a disservice. Slamming Google Fiber, who is bringing more competition to the market, for legal language differentiating residential and commercial lines, also kicks the movement in the ass.

Not that there's much of a movement left, the attempt to get real rules passed is all but dead.

Automate

join:2001-06-26
Atlanta, GA

1 recommendation

reply to ds7
said by ds7:

Network neutrality means not discriminating by the origin/destination or content of packets.

Agreed. I think Karl is the one trying to redefine what network neutrality means.


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:42

2 recommendations

said by Automate:

said by ds7:

Network neutrality means not discriminating by the origin/destination or content of packets.

Agreed. I think Karl is the one trying to redefine what network neutrality means.

Except I'm not. Network neutrality does not automatically mean you have the right to run commercial grade services on a residential line. There has to be some common sense for the definition of neutrality. Defining it as "I can run my poker and porn empire off of my $70 residential line and anyone who says otherwise is violating neutrality" is not particularly logical, and it's an untenable position that weakens neutrality as a concept by making it impossible to achieve.

Automate

join:2001-06-26
Atlanta, GA
Then put no commercial servers in the residential TOS. But don't put "no servers allowed"


BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
kudos:1
then you would need to define "commercial server"


skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
For profit.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
What about not-for-profits?


batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
reply to Karl Bode
But I have read over and over again on this supposed forum that bandwidth costs ISPs nothing.


fg8578

join:2009-04-26
Salem, OR
reply to openbox9
In the telco world, a non-profit entity (government agencies, for example) were always required to buy business class phone service, as opposed to residential service. (Some states and telcos provide a third class of service for government or non-profit entities but I'm not talking about those.)

This made sense to me in the telco world and I see no reason the distinction shouldn't apply in the Internet world. Can someone explain why it shouldn't?

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
I understand that. My point was more to be careful with arbitrarily trying to fine something.


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:42
reply to batterup
said by batterup:

But I have read over and over again on this supposed forum that bandwidth costs ISPs nothing.

Surely you can show me where I've EVER said that.


batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
said by Karl Bode:

said by batterup:

But I have read over and over again on this supposed forum that bandwidth costs ISPs nothing.

Surely you can show me where I've EVER said that.

My bad; I forgot I was commenting in a thread with an OP. My comment was directed at the forum in general; the "supposed" also was not directed at any person, living or dead and any similarity is purely coincidental.