ds7 join:2012-11-07 Montpelier, VT |
ds7
Member
2013-Jul-31 10:24 am
Correcting this abuse is long overduePreventing 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. |
|
|
1 recommendation |
Alex J
Anon
2013-Jul-31 11:33 am
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. |
|
1 recommendation |
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. |
|
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. |
|
|
Then put no commercial servers in the residential TOS. But don't put "no servers allowed" |
|
BonezXBasement Dweller Premium Member join:2004-04-13 Canada |
BonezX
Premium Member
2013-Jul-31 7:13 pm
then you would need to define "commercial server" |
|
skeechanAi Otsukaholic Premium Member join:2012-01-26 AA169|170 |
skeechan
Premium Member
2013-Jul-31 8:23 pm
For profit. |
|
openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2013-Aug-1 12:24 am
What about not-for-profits? |
|
batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ |
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 San Antonio, TX |
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 Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2013-Aug-2 7:05 pm
I understand that. My point was more to be careful with arbitrarily trying to fine something. |
|
|
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. |
|
batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ |
batterup
Premium Member
2013-Aug-9 5:02 am
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. |
|