how-to block ads
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| 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
| Re: This is terrible! 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: | Re: This is terrible! I tried downloading a Fedora ISO using BT and it was slower than downloading from the Redhat site. | |
| | | Necronomikro
join:2005-09-01 | Re: This is terrible! Ubuntu linux was faster off of BT. *shrug* | |
| | | | 
jjsk8r85
join:2005-02-17
Belleville, MI
| Re: This is terrible! 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. | |
| | | | | 
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace
1 edit | Re: This is terrible! 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? | |
| 
phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| 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. | |
| |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: This is terrible! 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! | |
| | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | Re: This is terrible! Up to X MB/s | |
| | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: This is terrible! 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! | |
| | | 
Sexyman
@66.145.x.x
| Your not getting because your rated speed from the carrier because of other issues probably. Your internal network, your OS is restricted it, the server your going to is slow.
I've always got what my ISP advertised so if your not then switch or fix issues that aren't there fault.
As far as them snooping, snoop on them. Do to them what they are doing to you. | |
| | | | | 
superdog
I Need A Drink
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-13
Lebanon, PA
| Re: This is terrible! 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/ | |
| | | | 
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| Re: This is terrible! 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. | |
| | | | | 
mikef1
Mike
join:2004-10-28
Littlestown, PA | Re: This is terrible! Exactly how fast is this oc128?
I'm not familiar with that beast.
--
mike
HouseOfMike | |
| | | | | | 
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
| Re: This is terrible! an't find OC128, but Wikipedia knows about the one above and below 128:
quote:
OC-96
OC-96 is a network line with transmission speeds of up to 4976.64 Mbit/s (payload: 4810.752 Mbit/s; overhead: 165.888 Mbit/s). Implementations of OC-96 in commercial deployments are rare, if ever used at all.
[edit]
OC-192
OC-192 is a network line with transmission speeds of up to 9953.28 Mbit/s (payload: 9621.504 Mbit/s; overhead: 331.776 Mbit/s). This is the fastest connection commonly available to the Internet.
--
"the two most abundant things in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity." (Harlan Ellison) | |
| | | | | | |
mikef1
Mike
join:2004-10-28
Littlestown, PA
| Re: This is terrible! said by LilYoda :an't find OC128, but Wikipedia knows about the one above and below 128: Which was my point.
$100 for 100Mb doesn't work, at least not yet.
--
mike
HouseOfMike | |
| | | | | | | |
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN | Re: This is terrible! it probably was oc192, I couldn't remember all I remember was that when dividing the cost up so each person has 100mbit, the cost is 100 a month. I did this like 5 years ago. So prices are definitely cheaper now. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
mikef1
Mike
join:2004-10-28
Littlestown, PA
| Re: This is terrible! said by Ignite :said by insomniac84 :it probably was oc192, I couldn't remember all I remember was that when dividing the cost up so each person has 100mbit, the cost is 100 a month. I did this like 5 years ago. So prices are definitely cheaper now. So how do we deliver this bandwidth to each user, magic? Oh wait, unless all these 100 people live in a datacentre someone has to pay for an access network. There's a lot more to it than just bandwidth.  OC192 gives you 9621.504 Mb of usable bandwith.
If each customer is getting 100Mb of speed this works out to about 96 customers. Heck lets oversell just a little and make it an even 100 customers. If they each pay $100 a month then the oc192 can’t cost anymore than $10,000 a month. What does an oc192 line go for these days? Broadband.com advertises oc3 (155 Mb) starting at $7,500 a month, I’m sure an oc192 would be much higher.
For argument sake lets say these customers are in an apartment complex. Technically it can be done with fiber runs to each apartment from where the oc192 comes into the building. But it would just be too expensive at least here in the US. What about the cost of the ISPs internet connection itself. If every customer has 100Mb, with thousands of customers the ISP will need multiple oc192s to multiple peers, who is going to pay for that? You also have to consider other businesses expenses and yeah they want to make a profit too.
--
mike
HouseOfMike | |
| | | | | jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·surpasshosting
 ·ViaTalk
| 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... | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
| On top of the circuit itself, you have to pay for your actual bandwidth with your internet backbone connection provider. That ain't cheap.
If you don't oversubscribe, you also have to pay for the same amount of circuit and bandwidth on the other side, to go to your subscribers (via lots of DSL circuits, cable distributions, etc...)
That ain't cheap either
As other said, to run such a distribution layer, you'd probably have to invest a lot in hardware (you don't run those speeds on a linksys. It's Cisco or *maybe* Juniper hardware, mandatory)
That ain't cheap either
Then you have to pay your employees, the lease of the white room where all this equipment is stored, maintenance, fancy offices, call center in Cairo or Bangalore for angry users, CEO's golden parachutes, etc...
That ain't cheap either.
All but the last one are mandatory 
--
"the two most abundant things in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity." (Harlan Ellison) | |
| | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| 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! | |
| | | | 
Zaber
When all are gone, there shall be none
join:2000-06-08
Cleveland, OH
clubs:
 ·Expedient
·XO COMMUNICATIONS
·AT&T Midwest
| said by superdog :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?. Actually I would. Just for the record 12 bonded T1s would yield 18M not 6M. While the $725 for 5M quote we just received is a little high for my home use, it is nowhere near the $4800 you mentioned. Consumer ISPs are using the fact that it is a "best effort" service with no SLA as an excuse to avoid the costs of upgrading their networks. While I understand that there will be slowdowns on their networks, the ISPs need to upgrade them instead of just telling people that they are not allowed to use the connection they are paying for only part of the time.
--
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he will feed himself for a lifetime | |
| | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| 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. | |
| | | 
CableConvert
Premium
join:2003-12-05
Atlanta, GA
| Re: This is terrible! said by rradina :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. It all comes down to what this poster has written. Its very simple yet nobody seems to get it. This is not the free market at work as there is no competition. Free market principles cannot be applied. Most people do not have the choice to drop ISP 'A' and sign up with ISP 'B' because they dont like the product they are receiving. This could be lack of choice or unaffordable price points. The free market does work...but you have to have one first | |
| 
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
1 edit | 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. | |
| Diddy1
join:2003-07-19
Sidney, NE
| 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. | |
| | | |
|
·