GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
4 edits |  Bandwidth throttling poor way to deal with P2P
While Rogers has the right and duty to block illegal P2P activity on its system, throttling ports or protocols is not the way to go about it. It is using a shotgun when a sniper rifle is what is needed. They should be using monitoring tools to identify those breaking the TOS rules and then using their unchallenged rights to disconnect any user breaking the Terms of Service(TOS). That way they can use contract law to achieve their ends and won't have to get all wrapped up in copyright issues.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page |
|
microserf
@cgocable.net
 from:
Vvian Kalyss 
| Re: Bandwith throttling poor way to deal with P2P
said by tkjunkmail :
While Rogers has the right and duty to block illegal P2P activity on its system... Bullshit.
They're trying to do an end run around the industry classification they've fought tooth and nail to attain. They're using network quality as a mantra for anything they disagree with. Check out C-60, section 31 for clarification of the legal protections they bought on their shopping trip to Ottawa (it isn't law just yet).
Common carrier = don't touch my shit, just transport it. |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs:
·Optimum Online
1 edit | reply to GOLFnSUN
Sorry but I don't agree with that. The ISP shouldn't be Blocking or Throttling anything their customer does.
However
Someone creates a software product that facilitates the Theft of digital media they should be held accountable!
ISP Certainly Should NOT be snooping on their customers.
They have a Right to monitor Traffic congestion. However going any further to see what th customer is actually doing is CRAZY talk.
--
Who do you want to pay off today? |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| reply to microserf
I think you'll find that Canada does NOT have "common carrier" status, but the courts have in general granted the general concept that they are just a carrier.
Rogers has the duty and right to deal with users who are reported to them as having broken their terms of service which include using it for illegal activity. Rogers does not, even under their terms of service have the right to be the police, judge, jury and executioner.
Now, remember too that downloading copyright music has not been found to be illegal under Canadian copyright law.
Caps didn't work because their measuring tool is basically flawed, routinely contributing consumption to people whose computers have been off, and not charging bandwidth to people who've gone way over the preset hard caps.
Softcaps didn't work because they took the "you're downloading too much" "How much can I download" "Less" stance and adding 3 strikes and you're out when they can't even define the strike zone!
The reason for throttling is simple ... Rogers Digital Phone ... which is not VoIP, but in fact a Packet Data system sharing the last mile through the HFE nodes. P2P and gaming clog up the nodes which has produced horrible outbound voice quality issues. Rogers has too much invested in Digital Phone to back away from it and Throttling is how they're trying to keep things passable for DPS subscribers. Not that I can understand why anyone would use a company notorious for its service like negative optioning and cable outages for phone service. Moreover, it doesn't save most Bell subscribers much money at all. For me, it would be under $1 per month. |
|
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | But every ISP has the right to enforce TOS. And almost every ISP(certainly every cable company) prohibits running servers. And P2P apps are almost always acting as servers in their default config. Therefore an ISP can disconnect P2P users at will. Of course they don't because they don't want to lose paying customers in large numbers. But if they disconnected a few thousand and advertised the fact, the rest would fall in line quickly.
That way they don't have to get involved in proving copyright issues and what users are downloading. The mere use of P2P is grounds for disconnection.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page |
|
microserf
@cgocable.net
| reply to sbrook
said by sbrook :I think you'll find that Canada does NOT have "common carrier" status, but the courts have in general granted the general concept that they are just a carrier. Same thing. Read C-60 to see how the concept has been enshrined.
said by sbrook :Rogers has the duty and right to deal with users who are reported to them as having broken their terms of service which include using it for illegal activity. I absolutely agree. This has nothing to do with with the verbal diarrhea above and dovetails nicely with how Canadian courts have ruled on the issue. Again, C-60 codifies this concept: notice-and-notice.
said by sbrook :... Rogers Digital Phone ... Good call. Might very well be. |
|
microserf
@cgocable.net
| reply to GOLFnSUN
said by tkjunkmail :
That way they don't have to get involved in proving copyright issues and what users are downloading. They're not involved now, nor will they be in the future (if their lobby groups and current legal position are maintained).
Do you really want to start splitting hairs on what constitutes a server?  |
|
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to microserf
said by microserf :said by tkjunkmail :
While Rogers has the right and duty to block illegal P2P activity on its system... Bullshit. An ISP has the right to set the terms of the service as they see fit. Whether they have the "duty" is whole other discussion, I believe that if you give internet accesss, you should give full access and not just partial.
Nevertheless, an ISP has the right to do whatever they please with their service, and if you don't agree with their terms, they probably won't mind at all if you move to a different ISP.
--
George W. Bush on Clinton going into Kosovo, 1999: “I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”
Right. We're still waiting for that Mr. Bush.... |
|
gg5
join:2005-10-09
| reply to packetscan
said by packetscan :Someone creates a software product that facilitates the Theft of digital media they should be held accountable!
First, I assume that by "theft" you mean copyright infringement.
So, according to you, makers of FTP clients and servers, web browsers and servers, even email and message applications should be "held accountable"? All of this software "facilitates the Theft [sic.] of digital media", in addition to facilitating huge volumes of legitimate activity.
Of course the same is true of all p2p software. Are you proposing that action should be taken if a certain percentage of use is for illegal activity? If so, what percentage? And is there any way the software developers can verify, at the time of writing, that it will never reach that percentage? And if not, how could anyone ever create any network software for any purpose without being subject to liability?
Clearly the common-sense rule is that the software and its developers are innocent and only the illegal activity should be subject to legal action.
And it is not the ISP's role to consider whether any particular transmission is legal or infringing. They should only respond to complaints about particular actions. |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs:
1 edit | Your going out of the scope..
Your assumptions are Completely wrong.
Please re-read what i wrote.
edit:
What would be a program that would facilitate theft?
Kazaa, morpheus, etc... |
|
gg5
join:2005-10-09
| You seem to think there is a bright-line division between software that "facilitates theft" and software that doesn't. My answer - to restate it in different terms - was that in regard to copyright infringement, there is no difference in principle between the various network programs that enable copyright infringement.
In regard to copyright infringement, the difference between Kazaa, bittorrent and FTP, for example, is only a matter or degree, not of prinicple. One happens to be used more for infringement, and another is used less for infringement. But the uses that are made of it once it leaves the author's computer are beyond his control. If legal liability were to be decided by a quantitative analysis of user behavior, then it is completely arbitrary in its effects on the authors, and no one would be safe writing any network-enabled software.
Your position is like saying that gun makers should be liable for illegal shootings, car makers for car homicides, etc.. Obviously only the actual actor should be held responsible, unless the item has no legal purpose at all. |
|
microserf
@cgocable.net
| reply to maartena
said by maartena :An ISP has the right to set the terms of the service as they see fit. To a point. You can't have your blanket legal indemnity and OCD too.
said by maartena :...an ISP has the right to do whatever they please with their service... Within the law. Privacy is onerous and regulation an unforgiving matron. |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs: | reply to gg5
It's common sense for me.. |
|
Random Radical
@151.143.x.x | Common sense is remarkably uncommon in these litigious times. |
|
TheMadSwede
Premium
join:2001-01-30
Holland, MI
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to packetscan
said by packetscan :It's common sense for me.. And that's the problem.
First of all, it could be argued that based on the content of your posts, you lack common sense. I say this not because I think you're a bad person or anything, but because you've failed to address gg5's points, and ended the argument with a point that says, for all practical purposes, "I'm right, but I cannot or don't need to explain why I'm right".
Secondly, common sense is knowing something without requiring any specialized knowledge to know it. This in turn reduces every decision made in the world to extreme opposites. But (good) decisions need to be based on very specialized knowledge.
For example, you could, using common sense, scoff at large truck owners and curse their evil machines for drinking up too much fuel and destroying the environment and praise the sweet, pleasant Ford Escape Hybrid owner for selecting a hybrid vehicle that is good for the environment. But if you had specialized knowledge, you may realize that the larger truck has a diesel engine, which in general, offers around 30% better fuel economy than a gasoline engine. You could then, further using specialized knowledge, point out that although the diesel engine has better fuel economy, the hybrid and the diesel are being used for completely different applications, making it an apples to oranges comparison. Suddenly, a simple, black and white, common sense situation is far from simple.
For every 2-bit reporter or [disgust]blogger[/disgust] that says we need to make more of our decisions based on common sense, I say, "Get real". I say we need to make our decisions LESS on common sense and MORE on specialized knowledge.
The reason we have problems, whether they be at a national level or a commercial enterprise level, is that ignorant people are using common sense to make decisions that require specialized knowledge. Although their results are sometimes wacky and clunky, I still prefer the smartest people making them. |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs:
·Optimum Online
| What's the problem i have more common sense than others?
Well that's obvious isn't it..
Would i address gg5's questions? No
His questions are Baseless assumptions in an attack format.
--
Who do you want to pay off today? |
|
gg5
join:2005-10-09
1 edit | Nothing personal intended! I was addressing the argument, not the person. I would not say you lack common sense or any other quality, only that your analysis of one issue was mistaken. I have been wrong on many occasions too.
Even in Grokster v. MGM, the Supreme Court decision was based on the conduct of the network operators, not merely the nature of the software. |
|
jp10558
Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY
| reply to GOLFnSUN
I wonder how this will work WRT BT though. BT is one of the more legitimate P2P apps, in fact it is used or will be used by several large commercial entities - Blizzard is one for it's WoW patches.
Being known for degrading the performance of parts of one of the most popular MMORPG's is not really a good selling point for an ISP.
Not to mention, more software distributors are following the Linux distros, Opera for instance is working on going Bittorrent for updates from v9 IIRC.
And we've seen various DRMed Movie rental services planning on using Bittorrent for their services.
Overall, I think you can shape Guntella, Edonky, Fasttrack, whatever, but trying to shape Bittorrent is getting near shapeing FTP or HTTP file transfers which will be pretty sticky soon if not already for even the most legit users.
Not to mention, there is already filesharing that uses SSL HTTP file transfers - shaping that would likely impact *LOTS* of legitimate uses... |
|
envoid
join:2002-12-21
Duluth, GA
1 edit | reply to packetscan
said by packetscan :What's the problem i have more common sense than others? Well that's obvious isn't it.. Not really. You don't support your statements with anything at all and refuse to elaborate on them. Honestly, you sound like a bigot with what you wrote.
But let me see if I can understand you... If you created some software that had all these bells and whistles to share anything and everything except copyrighted works AND later was found to be able to transfer copyrighted works, even after doing everything possible to keep it from happening, you should be held liable?? NOT the people illegally sharing and copying the copyrighted works?? |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs:
1 edit | people keep telling me that:
"Support your statements"
Why not try to prove me wrong?
Because you can not.
Damn Trolls. |
|
