calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to tsu9
Re: This is terrible!
But do we want our ISPs/carriers "listening in" to the files we're downloading to determine "legality"? I think not. There are legal reasons to use BT, to use encryption, and to transfer very large files.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
Necronomikro
join:2005-09-01
| said by calvoiper  :There are legal reasons to use BT, to use encryption, and to transfer very large files. Indeed, transfer a large linux iso and don't want it throttled. Legal reason to use linux, encrypt the transfer and it be a large file. |
|
dervari
join:2000-01-17
Atlanta, GA
clubs: | I tried downloading a Fedora ISO using BT and it was slower than downloading from the Redhat site. |
|
Necronomikro
join:2005-09-01 | Ubuntu linux was faster off of BT. *shrug* |
|
phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to calvoiper
said by calvoiper :But do we want our ISPs/carriers "listening in" to the files we're downloading to determine "legality"? I think not. There are legal reasons to use BT, to use encryption, and to transfer very large files. calvoiper It's not the files they are after, it's the packet headers, and consistencies in the payload. No ISP is going to monitor your traffic like that. The ISP has the right to keep their costs down by throttling bandwidth to users who are using it for services they pay for, and according to many TOS's, they don't have to allow everything, it's all based off of fair use. It's not fair if I need a virus update, but because everyone in my node is using P2P, I can't get it as fast. Whereas on the flip side, if you are sharing files, and it has been known that the majority of the files on P2P is illegal, I would throttle you in a heartbeat, simply because it makes since, you're trashing my network with all this traffic, while legitimate normal applications usually don't hog as much.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
1 edit | reply to calvoiper
I don't disagree, Cal. The determination isn't something that can really be done by the ISP. So, instead, they punish legitimate uses for the burden on their network (regardless of legality).
They aren't throttling it for the legal/illegal reasons; it's all about the popularity. And, honestly, this just showcases the shortfalls of the system. There is a huge demand out there, and BT is one of the applications that has sprung up that can bring that desire to fruition.
The ISPs really should be stepping up to the plate, rather than swatting it back down.
--
"You do not secure the liberty of our country and value of our democracy by undermining them, that's the road to hell." - Lord Phillips of Sudbury. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to phattieg
If my ISP is marketing my download capability as X Mb/s, then I deserve X Mb/s -- and I don't really care what weaselly bait and switch scheme they try to justify by putting fine print in the TOS.
Phatteig, if your ISP can't download your anti-virus update at the speeds they've claimed to provide you, that is THEIR problem, not the fault of some other user who is just trying to use the bandwidth they've sold him. If the ISP can't support you both, it shouldn't sell both of you the capacity.
BT only exists because ISPs continue to "throttle" upstream traffic. If upstream speeds matched downstream speeds, the advantage of BT (downloading one file from many sources) would disappear.
What really has the gutless, cheap ISPs worried is that they see more applications which use the bandwidth they claim to be providing. What's next? Are ISPs going to "throttle" live video because it harms their (horribly oversubscribed and underbuilt) network?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
Zaber
When all are gone, there shall be none
join:2000-06-08
Cleveland, OH
clubs:
 ·Expedient
·XO COMMUNICATIONS
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to phattieg
said by phattieg : The ISP has the right to keep their costs down by throttling bandwidth to users who are using it for services they pay for, Does the store have a right to charge me for a gallon of milk, then have issues with with me drinking more than a quart?
It is very simple if they advertise X, and I buy X I expect to get X not X-Y. If the ISPs are incurring too many losses that is their fault for selling it below costs
--
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he will feed himself for a lifetime |
|
jjsk8r85
join:2005-02-17
Belleville, MI
| reply to Necronomikro
I don't care if you're using the service to do something illegal or not. The service is there for you to do with what you please. You can do legal or illegal things with your car, your phone, your electric supply, and gas supply, the internet shouldn't be any different. |
|
superdog
I Need A Drink
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-13
Lebanon, PA
| reply to Zaber
said by Zaber :If the ISPs are incurring too many losses that is their fault for selling it below costs Hmmmm..........Then I guess You would rather pay the actual cost for 6Mb down and 1Mb up?. If You do that?, You would need 12 bonded T1's just to get the 6Mb down part(A fractional DS3 would be a little cheaper). The bonded T1's would give You that bandwidth You paid for, AND they wouldn't throttle Your bit torrent traffic. So lets see, If it is the ISP's fault for not charging enough, than I guess You would be really happy if they stopped throttling Your bandwidth and sent You a bill in the mail for the actual cost of the bandwidth?. Hey, what the hell?, my bill is $4800 a month, but they're not choking any traffic?. 
--
»www.wavecrazy.net Join WISPA today! »www.wispa.org/ |
|
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace
1 edit | reply to jjsk8r85
According to the TV ad I saw last night that the cable companies ran, this network neutrality stuff is all just a bunch of "MUMBO JUMBO!!!" (exact words of the ad)
What killed me even more was the ridiculous claim they made at the end: if network neutrality laws are passed, then we the consumers will end up paying more for the products and services offered by the "Silicon Valley giants." I'm sorry, but can anybody remember the last time you had to pay Google, Microsoft or Yahoo to use their search engines? |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| reply to superdog
I think I looked up the price of a oc128 before and if you divide the bandwidth up so all users have a full 100mbit up and down it's only $100 a month. So a 10mbit up and down line should only be $10 a month. And that's guaranteed, no sharing involved. Since the cable and dsl companies don't have enough bandwidth for every line they are basically stealing from us. Not to mention all bandwidth is symmetrical at some point, so all the upload your paying for and aren't getting is being sold off for hosting. So the ISPs are making a crap load of money on something they shouldn't be able to. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to superdog
said by superdog :....Then I guess You would rather pay the actual cost for 6Mb down and 1Mb up?. ... Well, I'd rather at least KNOW what the cost is, so that I could make a rational decision, rather than having to guess because the ISP is playing some sort of deceptive bait-n-switch game on what they "offer" and what they "provide".
If the ISPs can't provision their "all you can consume" pricing strategies, they should admit it and start charging more for people who use huge amounts of the data capacity they buy. Pretending that there are no usage fees and then throttling certain types of traffic is like advertising an "all you can eat" buffet and then deliberately running out of food.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
mikef1
Mike
join:2004-10-28
Littlestown, PA | reply to insomniac84
Exactly how fast is this oc128?
I'm not familiar with that beast.
--
mike
HouseOfMike |
|
jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·surpasshosting
 ·ViaTalk
| reply to insomniac84
A new take on the spurious arguments about "fair" bandwidth practices.
Did your calculations cover the cost of hardware to hook that circuit to? Don't forget maintenance on the hardware, plus UPSes, plus customer-side equipment, plus a few qualified people to manage all that stuff.
Of course they didn't... |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | reply to calvoiper
Up to X MB/s |
|
Diddy1
join:2003-07-19
Sidney, NE
| reply to calvoiper
said by calvoiper :But do we want our ISPs/carriers "listening in" to the files we're downloading to determine "legality"? I think not. There are legal reasons to use BT, to use encryption, and to transfer very large files. calvoiper They won't be 'listening in' on the actual files. It could be porn, illegal/legal MP3, or Mary Poppins Greatis Hits. Just controlling it. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to Skippy25
Well, the government prevents car manufacturers from saying that you can get "up to 50 miles per gallon" when you'd have to drive 17.356 mph exactly, with only a 60 pound driver and nobody else in the car, to get that.
If the ISPs are going to play stupid games like "Up to X" without ever intending to deliver X, then they are going to see more government regulation, the way government mileage tests are regulated.
It's BS cr@p like this, and the shills who defend it, that bring on the regulation the ISPs hate so much.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
 ·Charter Pipeline
| reply to phattieg
Re: This is terrible!
What if the ISPs returned us all to the 1.5Mbps packages? Then they probably wouldn't care if folks used BT.
From where I sit, ISPs are no different than CPU, WiFi, video and hard disk companies. Each is trying to make something faster/bigger to keep their price point stable. If they don't, the empirical laws of technology require falling prices.
What makes this different, however, is unlike the hardware manufacturers who almost always deliver a faster/bigger product, ISPs increase speeds and turn to shaping/capping to ensure that they don't have to invest in their infrastructure. This is what we get while the stable revenue stream from subscribers reduces debt load and increases profits -- not that there's ANYTHING wrong with this. This is fundamental capitalism. The problem is the product isn't being provided in a truly competitive environment. If it was, I totally agree that there would be no need for government oversight. Competitive forces would take care of the issue because the majority would get what they want. If that turned out to be shaped traffic, so be it. If that turned out to be a fat, dumb pipe, so be it. However, until something steps in to provide true competitive forces against the oligopoly and in many cases, monopoly of the incumbent cable and telco carriers, regulation is required to keep them honest.
Imagine if Intel provided a 10Ghz chip that only worked at 10Ghz for three seconds. After 3 seconds the chip overheats. To compensate, Intel reduces the speed of the chip to 3Ghz. As soon as you quit using it and it cools, you can get another 3 second burst. |
|
