dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2800
share rss forum feed


FLengineer
CCNA, CEH, MCSA
Premium
join:2007-06-26
Leesburg, FL

2 edits

I am with the Consumer Advocates

I don't download illegal P2P files so don't for a second claim I am bias. I posted this a long time ago... If the ISP is allowed to block your traffic because they suspect that it is illegal files, then I expect to see toll both operators armed and ready to stop someone if they see a joint in the passenger's seat. There is absolutely no difference there.

If comcast is having trouble providing users with a 2Mb upstream speed, then stop selling a 2Mb upstream speed. OH WAIT, it has nothing to do with upstream speeds does it? They are slowing upstream speed because they know 99% of their customers won't complain about it as apposed to downstream speed throttling and by throttling upstream speed it reduces the same about of backbone traffic.



wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace

join:2004-08-07
New York, NY

1 edit

said by FLengineer:

I don't download illegal P2P files so don't for a second claim I am bias. I posted this a long time ago... If the ISP is allowed to block your traffic because they suspect that it is illegal files, then I expect to see toll both operators armed and ready to stop someone if they see a joint in the passenger's seat. There is absolutely no difference there.
I dont know how it is in Florida, but coming into and out of NYC (specifically the MTA managed facilities) the toll booth operators are police officers with guns and handcuffs. They WILL arrest you if the see drugs on your seat!
--


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
reply to FLengineer

said by FLengineer:

If comcast is having trouble providing users with a 2Mb upstream speed, then stop selling a 2Mb upstream speed.
Shared bandwidth is an actuarial science like insurance. When claims are higher than predicted the insurance companies raise rates. If the insurance companies feels you are filing excessive claims they can cancel your policy. Broadband providers are just following a very similar strategy.

Everybody should be able to hit their max provisioned speeds at some point, but there's no way for everyone to max out their connection at the same time.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to FLengineer

said by FLengineer:

If the ISP is allowed to block your traffic because they suspect that it is illegal files
You assume ISPs are blocking P2P because of illegal content. Unless they're getting kickbacks from the content owning trade groups, my guess is that ISPs are minimizing the impact to their networks.


FLengineer
CCNA, CEH, MCSA
Premium
join:2007-06-26
Leesburg, FL
reply to wifi4milez

HAHA, gotta love NYC. The point is still valid, that toll booth operator is a law enforcement officer and should arrest you. Comcast is not a law enforcement agency.



FLengineer
CCNA, CEH, MCSA
Premium
join:2007-06-26
Leesburg, FL
reply to espaeth

I realize that. Believe it or not your POTS line is the same way. Your ILEC will server a community of 1500 people with say 672 availible lines. They are counting on not everyone using the phone at the same time. However, if those trunk lines are at 75% load for a long period of time they will add more to accomodate the traffic load.



N3OGH
Yo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:2

"We're sorry, all circuits are busy now. Please hang up and try your call again later."
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power…



FLengineer
CCNA, CEH, MCSA
Premium
join:2007-06-26
Leesburg, FL
reply to openbox9

Throttling legal content would be a clear violation of Net Neutrality. The real reason they are throttling is what you have suggested but Comcast claims "illegal traffic" knowing they have a stronger case and users effected won't come forward with complaints. Avoiding those complaints is also the reason they are throttling upstream and not downstream, I'm sure Joe Smoe isn't complaining that he can't give other people files fast enough.



FLengineer
CCNA, CEH, MCSA
Premium
join:2007-06-26
Leesburg, FL

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to N3OGH

Yes, exactly. But the point is the backbone of the network is upgraded to support the increased traffic load. Have you ever had a Telco tell you that they are going to start blocking calls to pagers to reduce traffic because more than half of the population that still own pagers are drug dealers?



jt45

@comcast.net
reply to FLengineer

you are right they are not a law enforcement agency but they do have the right to stop people from using their network for illegal content. it would be like me renting your home to sell drugs out of it. i am sure if you found out you would want to kick me out. should i throw a fit because you are not a law enforcement agency and you dont have the right? i think not. you own the home so you have the right.



FLengineer
CCNA, CEH, MCSA
Premium
join:2007-06-26
Leesburg, FL

1 edit

You would win a lawsuit against me if my reason was "I THINK he is dealing drugs". If I went in your rental and snooped around to prove it, that would be illegal as well unless I had a legal reason to go looking in your home.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to FLengineer

said by FLengineer:

Throttling legal content would be a clear violation of Net Neutrality.
It's only a net neutrality issue if the ISPs are throttling competing services on their networks while favoring their own, i.e. VoIP, video, etc. As long as ISPs throttle content across the board and not explicitly discriminating against certain providers, net neutrality isn't an issue.


FLengineer
CCNA, CEH, MCSA
Premium
join:2007-06-26
Leesburg, FL

1 edit

competing or not competing is a moot point. The LAW simply states....

(3)(A) to block, to impair, to discriminate against, or to interfere with the ability of any person to use a broadband network service to access, to use, to send, to receive, or to offer lawful content, applications or services over the Internet; or
(B) to impose an additional charge to avoid any conduct that is prohibited by this subsection;

Which puts us back to "Block the illegal content but don't touch the legal content". Good luck with that because it's next to impossible.

»thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c···.R.5417:



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

said by FLengineer:

The LAW simply states....

(3)(A) to block, to impair, to discriminate against, or to interfere with the ability of any person to use a broadband network service to access, to use, to send, to receive, or to offer lawful content, applications or services over the Internet; or
(B) to impose an additional charge to avoid any conduct that is prohibited by this subsection;

»thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c···.R.5417:
Well the LAW you site isn't a law because it was never passed. It was ONLY considered.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to FLengineer

Legal reason to look in your home, are you subletting and violating occupancy rules since there is too much foot traffic to the apt?

Even if the initial look was illegal, the person who saw it illegally can tell the cops they saw it, then cops get a warrant and search the place legally (and launch an investigation into you and wiretap you), and then you goto jail. Only if you get rid of the drugs between the 1st (illegal) look and legal investigation/search warrants will you get away with it.

Even without a search warrant, cops can still search anything with probable cause since its an emergency and the opportunity will be lost if they have to get a warrant, even over your protests (you can't stop a cop from searching you, only protest it, only useful in a civil rights lawsuit later).


patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to N3OGH

Yeah, when was the last time you heard that when calling another residential number in the USA (meaning you didn't reach the PBX of some business)?


patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to FLengineer

To upgrade a trunk line is a 15 minute line card swap. Effortless. The bigger question is, what if at a neighborhood distribution panel, there aren't enough pairs on the trunk line going back to the CO from the panel and too many people have 2-3 lines?


patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to openbox9

Yep, if ISPs cared about illegal content, then there would be no such thing as a spam relay or a botnet node.



funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
reply to FLengineer

Is there a formula for that?

I've been trying to find a concise way to express this concept. Something like -- the system is customarily sold beyond capacity, owing to the experience that customers do not the service simultaneously.

I want to say something like:

The system should be managed in a way that allows a person to access the subscribed speed, with only rare and brief exceptions.

... and then point to examples of a familiar formula or process that explains this concept -- overselling is okay and normal, expectations are okay to make and set as long as they're in good faith and maintained.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...



funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
reply to N3OGH

said by N3OGH:

"We're sorry, all circuits are busy now. Please hang up and try your call again later."
RST


ReformCRTC
Support Your Independent ISP

join:2004-03-07
Canada
reply to FLengineer

Right. They should let all traffic alone, stop snooping, and let law enforcement officials handle law enforcement.

Net Neutral.



ipickedaname

@teksavvy.com
reply to patcat88

Yes, but where is your probable cause to snoop on my connection to determine whether my P2P is legal or not?

Try: FISHING EXPEDITION!



FLengineer
CCNA, CEH, MCSA
Premium
join:2007-06-26
Leesburg, FL
reply to patcat88

Then a telco would lay fiber if it isn't already in the ground. There is no neighborhood that can max out 2 pairs of fiber.



FLengineer
CCNA, CEH, MCSA
Premium
join:2007-06-26
Leesburg, FL
reply to funchords

Well, there is no set formula for over-provisioning. but the trunks to the central office are pretty standard. A DS1 is 24 voice channels, a DS3 is 28xDS1, beyond that is fiber using OC3, OC12, OC48, OC192, DWDM. The fiber standards aren't used to carry traditional 64Kb/s voice channels, instead they are usually used to carry ToA traffic which has your voice call on a data network. Those speeds go upto 100Gb/s using DWDM.

Most telcos have their own ratio of subscribers to availible trunk lines. I believe Embarq uses 4:1 in most cases but not positive about that.



funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

Thanks!