how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
1187 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to asdfdfdf
Re: amazing said by asdfdfdf:
You preach to me about logic after drawing a conclusion that I am arguing that customers should be able to do whatever they want to a company?
What I said was that they should be brought under common carrier rules.
Since you did not define what you are arguing for, I have to draw that conclusion for you. If you state "common carrier rules" I suggest you explicitly DEFINE them so people know what you are talking about. Allow me to ask; what would these common carrier rules be and how would they protect BOTH the company's and customer's interests without violation of laws on copyright infringement?
said by asdfdfdf:
The problem with logic is that you can begin with unreasonable premises and reach absurd conclusions. There is a distinction between what is logical and what is reasonable.
Wrong. What is logical is practical and what is practical is reasonable. Have you never heard of Occam's Razor? All things being equal, the most practical solution is the best solution.
To boot, if you say that what is reasonable is NOT logical, then what is reasonable based on? Feelings? Religion? I'd rather base my actions in hard numbers and facts, thanks much.
said by asdfdfdf:
A company says that they discourage p2p applications, they make clear that they would prefer they not be used(though they can be, provided that people only download content and not provide content), they say that they are going to implement filters which limit certain types of traffic and you claim they are not controlling content but only bandwidth? No, they are controlling bandwidth when they place a content neutral cap on upload speed or when they say that you have a limited number of bytes you can transfer in a given span of time. Once you begin to dictate what applications can be used and how they can be used you are involved in content decisions.
Uh, no. That's not correct. If I publish books and I deicde that all science fiction will be sold to one chain of bookstores while all fantasy will be sold to every one of my clients, then I am not touching content at all. I am touching ACCESS which is an entirely different area. This company would be involved in content decisions if they said "THERE SHALL BE NO PORN DOWNLOADED BY OUR USERS!" or "THOU SHALT BE BLOCKED FROM REPUBLICAN WEBSITES!" That's content.
Saying, "Thou shalt only be able to upload so much to P2P, be it MP3s, porn, texts, revolutionary articles, medical texts, cures for AIDs, or illuminatory documents on the world conspiracy." is not content. They are capping -everything- to P2P, not just MP3s. If it were JUST MP3s that were being capped, that's a content issue.
said by asdfdfdf:
Your insistence that these things are in the AUP isn't the issue. I'm not arguing that it isn't against the AUP. The issue is that it shouldn't be against the AUP. I'm arguing about how things should be, not how they are presently. There is nothing inevitable about the way things are.
Provide evidence as to why things should be so that 1) P2P may not be restricted according to a company's personal beliefs on the use of P2P and 2) why a company should not have the right to limit its service as it sees fit, when it is not in regard to content but to access. Please use examples from previous court cases and historical entries.
said by asdfdfdf:
The internet is global. However, this is an american company serving american citizens and operating on american soil. As such it exists under american laws which embody concepts such as free speech, open communication, etc.
1) The amendments for open communication and free speech are merely that - amendments in the Constitution. If voted on, they have the ability to be overwritten repealed. For an example, see Amendment XVIII which enacted Prohibition and then Amendment XXI which repeals Prohibition. Amendment I, which covers free speech, may be repealed if voted on. the Amendments to the Constitution are privileges that can be revoked, not rights.
2) The American laws on communication do not embody the concepts of open communication and free speech. Instead, they regulate the usage of communications in America, especially telecommunications. See the FCC for details. | |
| To give the general idea of what I would seek.
Require interconnection, no ability to wall off the network from competing networks.
Non-discriminatory access. Requirement to provide carriage to all willing to pay for it and to carry all traffic, without regard to the content of that traffic, subject to content neutral bandwidth limitations as contracted for.
There could, of course, be exceptions for traffic intended SOLELY to cripple the network, such as DOS attacks.
How would this protect interests "without violation of laws on copyright infringement"? It wouldn't, nor is it intended to. It is not the job of the isp to monitor and police traffic, nor is it their job to protect the intellectual property of others by controlling what customers do with their pipes.
How would it protect the interests of the company. Again, that isn't the purpose. The power dynamic between a company, especially a monopoly that controls cable or phone lines(and the broadband future will be dominated by cable and the ilecs) and the average customer is not one of equal power. The danger of abuse of power by the company is much greater than abuse of the company by a customer. This doesn't mean customers never engage in abuse, but it does mean that such abuse is less dangerous. You have already asserted broad discretion for a company to do as it chooses and if the customer doesn't like it they can piss off, which I think is ample reason why there need to be protections against abusive behavior by such a company. The interests of companies are generally well looked after.
You keep insisting that this is not a content issue, but your question about copyright betrays the fact that it is very much a content issue. You seem to be admitting that much of this is about protecting intellectual property. If it's about limiting traffic with regard to intellectual property concerns then it is about limiting traffic with regard to content. I don't see how you can talk about protecting certain content that is copyrighted without it being a content issue. This is not the concern nor the responsibility of the telecommunications provider.
I believe using examples from book publishers is misguided. Book publishers are content providers and are free to publish the content they choose to. Communications providers are providing a pipe for customers to communicate through, they are not, nor should they be, content providers and are not comparable to a book publisher. They carry traffic, they do not create it, nor should they be interpreted as being "publishers" of that traffic, nor should they be able to control it, except once again in terms of content neutral bandwidth considerations.
I don't understand what you mean by "provide evidence as to why things should be so...". It isn't a question of evidence. Clearly companies MAY do this and do.
My point is one of what should be. It is dangerous to open communication, especially when pipes such as the local loop are under monopoly control, to allow companies to decide that they only have to carry traffic that they choose to carry, that they only have to allow access to those they choose to allow access to(rather than to anyone willing to pay for service), or that they only have to pass traffic to those that they choose to pass traffic to. I continue to disagree on your insistence that this is not a content issue(your remark about intellectual property protection comes to mind again).
I don't want to get into a constitutional debate but I find it appalling that you interpret the bill of rights as the bill of privileges. Obviously there is a procedure to amend the constitution and if you wish to interpret this as proof that there are no rights, only revocable privileges then so be it, but I think most americans would consider your view far removed from the mainstream. | |
| reply to borborpa
said by borborpa:
Just as they are not responsible for what someone does with their product, neither should an ISP. They merely provide a service. If someone is doing illegal activity on it, they are not responsible for that.
Yet I have personally seen many bars/bartenders being sued by people that used their services and then wrapped their vehicles around poles or other people on the drive home. Not something I agree with, but it is a case of the service provider being responsible (almost ultimately) for their customers.
Again, the action currently taken by PTD is to inform their customers so as to not have to take measures which ends-up disabling an aspect of their service. They did not just come out and say "Thats it! You're cut off" without any warning. | |
| reply to tsu9
Yes, because p2p goes into my local music store, pockets a cd, and walks out.
Get real please. | |
| reply to tsu9
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the DOJ find the music industry guilty of Price fixing on CD prices? Why is it legal for the Industry to gouge the consumer, but when something comes along that allows the consumer some power, it must be quashed? You need to understand that the consumer is in charge here...just like the entertainment industry needs to understand this concept. And, it is not THEIR network... My tax dollars paid for the infrastructure that THEY operate on. THEY got tax breaks to come into my community, and when THEY lose their franchise, the infrastructure will remain. So, whose network is it, really? | |
| reply to asdfdfdf
asdfdfdf, I don't know where you get the patience to argue with this guy. He's obviously way wrong about so many of these issues, yet he seems intelligent enough to realize the truth. People like him are beyond hope, because they're obviously too closed minded to consider all the facts. If he didn't seem so intelligent, I'd think he was just misinterpreting the facts, but no, in his case he is obviously just seeing things the way he wants to see it. A closed mind can very easily twist one's interpretation of reality, even for the most intelligent of people. | |
bagojunk
join:2002-01-05
West Palm Beach, FL | reply to tsu9
You missed the point. The only point is that in america, we can make or break companies based on how they treat us (us-the customer-their reason for doing business)
Sure file-sharing is wrong, but stay away from what I pay for each and every month:
1472k/down and 256k/up
How I use it is not only up to me, but should it be found illegal, I would suffer, not this silly company, right?
corporate america | |
| reply to rit56
Can't stand the heat, Prolog? Prolog -
If you're selling Internet connectivity to consumers, deliver unfettered service. Any filtering or throttling that would reduce the capacity or prevent services beyond the paid-for amount is unethical. It is not Prolog's responsibility to police the Internet or aid another in the pursuit or prevention of illegal activity, excepting the Government under a court order to release a customer's identity. If you choose to sell fettered access to the Internet, sell it as such. Clearly and prominently marked in the service offering field. "High Speed Access, but only in short sessions."
As far as Peer to Peer activity goes, it is no one's business but my own what I do with my computer and network connection. If I choose to distribute copyrighted material via a popular Peer to Peer client, then I, and those that choose to download data from me take the risk of being prosecuted by the copyright holder. The copyright holder has no right to tell me what software I can run on my computer, and neither do you.
Happily, I'm not a Prolog customer, but I may be subject to similar actions by my own ISP as they decide profit over professional service. Really, Prolog can sell their services however they want. I am free to choose another provider. My real gripe comes from restrictions placed on us by the incumbent telephone and cable companies, who have had taxpayer provided advantages and thus should offer common carrier services. If you have a monopoly on an area, you have a responsibility to provide unfettered access to all consumers who can pay the bill or get out of the way of other competitors.
Just give me the data pipe and leave me the be. And the rest of you self-righteous individuals are free to hold your opinions, but you best keep your hands off our freedom. As for the WiFi service provider, best advertise your limitations to your customers for the same reasons. I applaud your choice of using technical management tools to manage the flow rather than outright cut the customer off - but the customer has a right to use the capacity he pays for. If you're not forthcoming about the limitations of that capacity, you're not entitled to penalize the customer over his use of it.
Bill | |
| reply to hjmgsdd
Re: amazing said by hjmgsdd:
asdfdfdf, I don't know where you get the patience to argue with this guy. He's obviously way wrong about so many of these issues, yet he seems intelligent enough to realize the truth. People like him are beyond hope, because they're obviously too closed minded to consider all the facts. If he didn't seem so intelligent, I'd think he was just misinterpreting the facts, but no, in his case he is obviously just seeing things the way he wants to see it. A closed mind can very easily twist one's interpretation of reality, even for the most intelligent of people.
Actually, I see things the only way that one can do so objectively - in a literal fashion.
If I own a company I may run that company as I see fit - so long as it is within the legal constraints and regulations governing the product/service I am offering. I can, and may, refuse service to someone, as long as it is not in violation of anti-prejudice acts. I can, and may, regulate what a person may or may not do with my product/service - after all, they can always go elsewhere and get that product/service.
What asdfdfdf is stating is that I should be forced to pander to customers and what they want, instead of offering my version of the product/service and letting the customers decide if they want it or not. An equivalent example is the government forcing a Spanish-speaking television station to show English-speaking programs.
Of course, if a law was created to make Spanish-speaking television stations show English-speaking programs, then the television station should comply or suffer the consequences of disobeying the law.
What ProLog is doing is not against the law, does not impact free speech in the least, and so therefore should not be protested against by people unless they wish to initiate appropriate legal action to make what they are doing illegal. There is no law stating that you cannot regulate the upload speed of P2P programs on your network. Heck, there's no law stating that they have to provide anything they don't want to.
Quite frankly, what asdfdfdf proposes reminds me of Communist Russia - "You, Prolog, will provide bandwidth for all P2P services, depsite what you may want to provide. If you don't, it's to the gulag for you. You WILL follow the will of the proletariat." My response to that has always been, no, if it's legal for me to do it, then I'll damn well do what I wish to do.
That's all there is to it. | |
 Mr Pink
join:2002-08-21
Gainesville, FL
| reply to rit56
While I will not comment on this topic here, I will say this is one of the most "adult" threads I've seen on DSLR in quite a while. Share the knowledge.
[text was edited by author 2002-11-12 10:36:25] | |
| reply to npyoung
um, 1 person going apeshit on kazaa doesnt hit anywhere close to the bandwidth used by big companies that also host their site on their server.
Your hypothetical company would go bankrupt because you made stupid decisions, which is why you are at home on a computer and not running a succesful isp, or anything for that matter, you see, your parents did a horrible job in raising you and I think your dog educated you. | |
| reply to 8ball___
i dont agree on the consumer part, i dont buy cds, never did, tapes are just way too cheap. but anywho, the internet is ours, you are right our taxes paid for its design and implementation, kudos to you, excellent point (albeit moot in this thread) | | |
|
|
