how-to block ads
|
rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY | amazing
time to switch ISP's. even if you never use p2p's get rid of this company. they deserve bankruptcy. on your knees and kiss Corporate American ass. boycott this damn company. I pay you money for a service and you provide , you don't dictate to me. | |
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
 ·VOIPo
| As long as a customer is not substantially hurting the ISP's network (by hacking, using excessive bandwidth by uncapping a modem or using another similar hack), the ISP should not dictate what users can and cannot do. They are providing a service-- just like cell phone companies and local telephone companies do. I can't recall the last time Verizon told me that I could not call someone on my cell phone ("upload data")-- and they won't, so long as the bill gets paid on time. Why should ISPs be any different?
Restricting uploads and/or downloads on the ISP's network in any manner is a form of censorship. If such uploads and downloads are "killing" the ISP's network (via bandwidth consumption), then the ISP should upgrade the network and purchase the necessary bandwidth to the extent possible. Now, if this means modest price increases to users (to cover the cost of such upgrades), then fine. At that point the users are paying for faster connections-- they're getting something extra for the money.
But to create a policy that prohibits all users from sharing files in a P2P network is wrong-- especially when there are so many legitimate uses of these networks.
It seems as though more and more businesses these days have long forgotten the motto "The customer is always right". As long as someone is paying for a connection and not harming the ISP's network, the ISP shouldn't care what they do.
--
Live in Northern Virginia? Take a stand and fight for good service-- don't be a Cox Sucker! | |
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| "The customer is always right"
Except when the customer is walking out of the store without paying for, or in possession of, illicit goods. Majority of p2p traffic is indeed such, so I think that blows your argument out of the water.
Legitimate uses? Sure. Realistic daily use? Theft (tantamount, at least.)
While I don't agree that things like this should technically be happening, I do agree that the ISP can and rightfully should limit traffic on their network if such applications consume the large majority of the service. Making the argument that they should 'upgrade/buy more bandwidth' is moot--they're just aiding and abetting at that point.
Fact of the matter is that we're using THEIR networks. Yes, we pay them, but yes, we also agree (when we sign up/use) to follow their rules. Make no mistake, they can and do change rules in their AUP, but running upload streams via those clients is exactly as running a server which is strictly against TOS in most broadband connections.
Justifying it with the 'everyone does it' argument makes it no less wrong.
Now, the ISPs that quietly advertise these clients have admittedly less to say against their use, but they still own the links. Like it or not, they can take their ball and go home if you don't play by their rules.
I really would love to see the statistics of legitimate p2p usage that everyone touts. Loving made-up statistics as much as the next person, I'd say that is likely less than 1% of the actual traffic conducted over them.
Looks, acts, quacks; duck. | |
roamer1
sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
| reply to NOVA_Guy
They're a cable ISP, so this isn't surprising; cable ISPs have severely limited upstream bandwidth by the nature of cable return paths, and tend to take the hardest line against servers of any type for that reason.
(If PTD were a DSL ISP, I'd be all over their case, as there is NO legitimate reason whatsoever for ANY DSL ISP to ban servers; upstream bandwidth is limited on a per-customer basis and there's much upstream bandwidth as downstream within the ATM cloud from DSLAMs to ISP and from the ISP out to the rest of the world. In fact, the only DSL ISPs that care are ILEC-owned ".net" ISPs, who are, as always, afraid of losing their T1 and frame customers...)
-SC
--
Atlanta Apt/Condo Cable & Broadband Info: »www.atlaptcable.info/ | |
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
| reply to tsu9
...And nike should not let X people wear their gym shoes since they might committ a crime while wearing them. And its nike's responsibility to ensure that no crimes are committed by anyone wearing their shoes.
...And Ford should not let X people drive their cars since they might committ a crime while driving one. And its Ford's responsibility to ensure that no crimes are committed by anyone driving their cars.
...And Smith & Wesson...No wait, that actually went to court and lost. Precident?
Your legitimate usage arguement holds no water. WiFi came out of milirary applications. How many other technologoes in US came out of the military. P2P is developing. Just because people use it for illegal things now does not mean thats all its good for, nor does it mean that is all it will ever be used for.
[text was edited by author 2002-11-07 12:30:22] | |
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
·VOIPo
| reply to tsu9
said by tsu9  :
While I don't agree that things like this should technically be happening, I do agree that the ISP can and rightfully should limit traffic on their network if such applications consume the large majority of the service. Making the argument that they should 'upgrade/buy more bandwidth' is moot--they're just aiding and abetting at that point.
If all of the traffic on P2P networks was pirated software and copyrighted music, I would agree that an ISP upgrading their connection just for P2P would be aiding and abetting. However, no ISP has gone so far as to prove this, and I would argue that none reasonably could without substantial privacy violations.
quote:
Fact of the matter is that we're using THEIR networks. Yes, we pay them, but yes, we also agree (when we sign up/use) to follow their rules.
And I'm using Verizon's network when I make a cellular telephone call. Does that give them the right to dictate that I may not make calls ("upload") using their network, or that I may not discuss certain things while talking on the phone? No. It's the same thing here-- an ISP provides the service, and has no business dictating the content or activity that takes place as a result of such service.
I really have to wonder how far the enforcement of AUPs could really go in some certain circumstances-- given the lack of due consideration to the user in exchange for being governed by such restrictive documents.
The user has already given money in exchange for the connection-- due consideration exists there. IMHO, the ISP should not be allowed to get away with tacking an AUP onto their service and enforcing it without giving further "consideration" to the customer.
As some of you may know, contracts are unenforcable without due consideration being given from each party. In other words, a "contract" in which the customer "agrees" to abide by an AUP is, IMHO, unenforcable without the ISP giving something to the customer in exchange. The connection/service should not be thought of as "due consideration" at this point, because a transaction has already taken place which gave the user the connection already (when the user gave the ISP money for it). Perhaps if courts and others would start looking at the agreement and enforcement of AUPs as a matter separate from the exchange of money for a service, ISPs wouldn't be able to get away with as much as they can. But we're getting a little off-topic here.
quote:
Justifying it with the 'everyone does it' argument makes it no less wrong.
I agree. The fact that everybody uses P2P apps doesn't make trading copyrighted files over them any lesser of a violation of the law. I, however, would still like to restate that not all P2P users are pirating copyrighted material. There are legitimate uses of P2P applications, and I would venture to guess that the amount of legitimate use is much greater than 1%. (what can be asserted without fact can be argued against without fact equally well)
The RIAA likes to make a big deal out of the illegal use, and I don't blame them. It is, after all, money out of their big, greedy pockets. Of course, the RIAA will never tell you that there are some artists who are using P2P networks in an attempt to make a name for themselves by freely distributing their own music over them. The RIAA doesn't want people to hear about this. Ultimately, IMHO, the main reason the RIAA is opposed to P2P networks is not because their music is distributed without profit over them. It is because they cannot control the P2P networks. They do not have total control over the distribution channel, and because of that P2P networks present a viable threat and substantial competition to them. The RIAA, not liking these things, has chosen to attack P2P networks by ignoring the truth in many cases.
For an ISP to buy in to the "P2P networks are for pirates" mantra that the RIAA has been chanting is a disappointment and a shame. We would all be much better off if they did the reasonable thing and just told the RIAA where to stuff it.
--
Live in Northern Virginia? Take a stand and fight for good service-- don't be a Cox Sucker! | |
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to NOVA_Guy
quote:
They are providing a service-- just like cell phone companies and local telephone companies do. I can't recall the last time Verizon told me that I could not call someone on my cell phone ("upload data")-- and they won't, so long as the bill gets paid on time. Why should ISPs be any different?
Cell phones are a metered service. If you call Russia or use the phone for 20 hours, you'll get charged accordingly. ISPs get a tiny portion of your monthly fee, and they have to pay for the internet backbone bandwidth. Cutting off P2P uploading is the friendliest way to stop rampant bandwidth hogging and now possible legal liability, without having to pass the expense onto the customers. Would you prefer to pay-per-gigabyte?
It probably wouldn't be such a big deal, except a lot of people simply don't know how to use P2P applications responsibly. They think they're closing the program when it actually sits in the background pegging the upstream channel full boar 24/7.
You do, of course, have the choice of going with another provider that doesn't impose such restrictions. Speak with your wallet!
-- Rob | |
phxmark
What Country Are We Living In?
join:2000-12-27
Glendale, AZ
| reply to roamer1
said by roamer1 :
They're a cable ISP, so this isn't surprising; cable ISPs have severely limited upstream bandwidth by the nature of cable return paths, and tend to take the hardest line against servers of any type for that reason.
(If PTD were a DSL ISP, I'd be all over their case, as there is NO legitimate reason whatsoever for ANY DSL ISP to ban servers; upstream bandwidth is limited on a per-customer basis and there's much upstream bandwidth as downstream within the ATM cloud from DSLAMs to ISP and from the ISP out to the rest of the world. In fact, the only DSL ISPs that care are ILEC-owned ".net" ISPs, who are, as always, afraid of losing their T1 and frame customers...)
-SC
Please note that it is EXPRESS customers which I understand they have high speed down, but dial-up supplies the upload path to the ISP.
--
Where am I? | |
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| reply to dnoyeB
Interesting analogies, but they aren't particularly sound. If the percentage of the users who commit crimes in Nikes was anywhere near what users perform on p2p networks (read: virtual majority of the upstream traffic in home computers), then yes, Nike could dictate things like they did with guns--background checks, for example! Gun makers aren't the ones performing the checks, but rather the sellers. Likewise, Backbone providers aren't responsible for the traffic--the ISPs are (to an extent, at least).
I also believe that it is REQUIRED of people to have insurance on cars. You know, just in case something happens while they're at the wheel (purposeful or not; reckless vehicular manslaughter, perhaps?) Again, it isn't the manufacturer, but rather the pass-through that requires insurance.
Your last two examples have fail-safes (which aren't terribly fail-SAFE, but still.) to prevent wanton abuse of the system. Your first is just silly! =)
I asked for legitimate usage of p2p statistics because, quite frankly, I do not feel that there is much 'legitimate' file swapping going on.
I never said they should deign that p2p applications are 99% or 100% illegal traffic. I merely assert the blatantly obvious that currently, without checks & balances, that IS what they are primarily used for.
Good intentions or not, but if a device is primarily used for illegal transactions, more than likely there will be regulation to minimize said transactions and emphasize the legitimate use of the device. That is what I suggest =) | |
roamer1
sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
| reply to djrobx
said by djrobx :
Cell phones are a metered service. If you call Russia or use the phone for 20 hours, you'll get charged accordingly.
Not all of them...
Carriers that offer unlimited plans (namely Cricket and Metro PCS, and to a lesser extent ALLTEL and Nextel) still have to pay access charges to the local landline companies, and I've never heard of one of them complaining that a user is using their "unlimited" service too much...
-SC
--
Atlanta Apt/Condo Cable & Broadband Info: »www.atlaptcable.info/ | |
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| reply to NOVA_Guy
I don't know how to quote, so I will address your rebuttal in order which your response was dictated.
"If all of the traffic on P2P networks was pirated software and copyrighted music, I would agree that an ISP upgrading their connection just for P2P would be aiding and abetting. "
I suggest you look at Morpheus et al for examples in which a (p2p) application has been (rightfully) deemed primarily used for illicit transactions. Now add in common filetypes such as .zip, .rar, .iso, .mpg, .avi, and .bin, and you have plenty more to look at. I suggest you view those filetypes in any popular (or unpopular) p2p application for the sheer volume of information being swapped which, in all likelyhood (yes, there are legitimate files of those types--rare that they are) to see how many queues, sends, heaping mounds of information is being swapped. I offer that as base evidence. I suggest that legitimate files are swapped in far less quantities, statistically.
"Does that give them the right to dictate that I may not make calls ("upload") using their network..."
Yes. I beleive they can also charge you for the usage, too. Upload, in this case, is dissimilar to the data stream upload, unless you are using WiFi or such. Voice data is generally not copywritten =) Though, there is something to be said for being able to convict soeone on evidence of wiretaps. So yes.
"IMHO, the ISP should not be allowed to get away with tacking an AUP onto their service and enforcing it without giving further "consideration" to the customer."
Well, techinically we all lease our data streams. The Lessor can, and will change the contract from time to time. The Lessee (us), can dispute this by cancellig their service in favor of another. Can't dispute things in a leased situation too effectively when the contract dictates that it can be rewritten at any time. Questionable usage? Sure, but it happens.
"...IMHO, unenforcable without the ISP giving something to the customer in exchange..."
They give the customer their data stream and reasonable privacy. What more do you technically need?
I do agree that the courts should examine AUP/TOS and EULA law more closely; but as it stands, it really is as good as a contractually binding situation when you use the service. You, in effect, agree, each time you use the service, that you will abide by the rules and regulations placed thereupon by the carrier. Not to say they're 100% fair, however =)
"There are legitimate uses of P2P applications, and I would venture to guess that the amount of legitimate use is much greater than 1%. (what can be asserted without fact can be argued against without fact equally well)"
Indeed. It also depends on the parameters, such as volume by bytes, type, or number. However, just looking at one facet, mp3s, would certainly show that illegitimate use far outpaces legitimate artists hocking their wares. (do not confuse with warez  ) I do not, as you state, have evidence to this effect, but it really is plainly obvious. Conversely, neither you do have assertions to back up your legitimate usage. I'll simply state that illegitimate use would appear to be greater than legitimate statistics at first glance. It would, of course, warrant a more in-depth study, but with p2p applications, nothing is static =)
"For an ISP to buy in to the "P2P networks are for pirates" mantra that the RIAA has been chanting is a disappointment and a shame."
Well, technically as they stand, p2p applications are primarily used for such things the RIAA is campaigning against. Not to say that there is no legitimate use, but the unfortunate outlook as of this moment is that illegitimate use outpaces the legit.
I don't like the RIAA as much as the next person, but hey, they do TECHNICALLY have a valid point. Two wrongs do not a right make. =) | |
DSL Oberst
join:2001-11-29
| reply to NOVA_Guy
"As long as a customer is not substantially hurting the ISP's network (by hacking, using excessive bandwidth by uncapping a modem or using another similar hack), the ISP should not dictate what users can and cannot do. They are providing a service-- just like cell phone companies and local telephone companies do. I can't recall the last time Verizon told me that I could not call someone on my cell phone ("upload data")-- and they won't, so long as the bill gets paid on time. Why should ISPs be any different?"
Because those who own the business in question have the right to run their business howsoever they see fit - as long as it does not violate any laws. If I run and own Earthlink entirely, for instance, and I decide that I am not going to provide any service in California, then I can do so. Boom. Down goes the accounts in California. After all, the AUP for Earthlink says I can cancel any customer at any time for any reason at my discretion.......why would I do that?
Oh, simple, I feel like it. That's all the reason you need in America for everything. I want to. The simple driving force of capitalism.....
"It seems as though more and more businesses these days have long forgotten the motto "The customer is always right". As long as someone is paying for a connection and not harming the ISP's network, the ISP shouldn't care what they do."
I'm sorry, but I have always disagreed with this opinion - and that's what "The customer is always right." saying is. It's an opinion, no more, no less.
A customer walks into a diner and because the waitress is two seconds too slow getting to him he pitches a salt shaker at her head. But hey, this is ok - the customer is always right.
In a bookstore a customer pins a clerk against a wall and screams obscenities at him two inches from his face. Why? The customer's credit card declined. But hey, the customer is always right.
In a Kroger parking lot a car is bumped by a Kroger employee bringing carts in. The bump is minor, there is not even a scratch on the car, and the employee immediately begins apologising profusely. The guy in the car comes raging out of the car and begins to beat the Kroger employee with a tire iron. But that's fine and dandy - the CUSTOMER is ALWAYS RIGHT!
Extreme examples, you say? Perhaps - but I've seen them all with my own eyes. In the last one, I was one of the guys who tackled the car driver and held him down till the police came. So this crap of "The customer is always right" is a bunch of bull; the customer is right insofar as it is within the leeway as determined by the business.
My father was a property tax consultant and retired in an extremely comfortable fashion. His method of doing business was far from "The customer is always right." Instead, his style of doing business was "Here's how I do things. If you don't like how I do things, there are other people you can take your business to." Since he had expertise in his job and he always treated people in a manner that he deemed fair, he had repeat business and continual new customers. His philosophy makes a lot more sense then yours. | |
mondoz
join:2000-08-26
Houston, TX
| reply to djrobx
said by djrobx :
Cell phones are a metered service. If you call Russia or use the phone for 20 hours, you'll get charged accordingly. ISPs get a tiny portion of your monthly fee, and they have to pay for the internet backbone bandwidth. Cutting off P2P uploading is the friendliest way to stop rampant bandwidth hogging and now possible legal liability, without having to pass the expense onto the customers. Would you prefer to pay-per-gigabyte?
...
-- Rob
Cell phones are usually paid for in blocks of minutes for fixed prices. It's not a very good analogy - overages must be paid for.
The local phone company one is a very good comparison,and you overlooked it. I pay a monthly fee to my local phone company - I talk as much as I want.
Have you ever heard of local telephone companies writing letters to people saying they talk too much to other local customers? | |
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| reply to DSL Oberst
That attitude is exactly why these companies should be brought under common carrier rules. This is why western societies have passed a series of laws and regulations which limit corporations and seek to protect from abuse.
We do NOT live in a society where corporations are free to do anything they want.
Those who control the communications infrastructure should not be able to control content. The consequences for the free open nature of the internet are too severe. | |
beerbum
Premium
join:2000-05-06
Reading, PA
clubs:
| reply to roamer1
said by roamer1 :
They're a cable ISP, so this isn't surprising; cable ISPs have severely limited upstream bandwidth by the nature of cable return paths, and tend to take the hardest line against servers of any type for that reason.
-SC
actually...
»www.ptd.net/prolog_home.html
they are primarily a dialup ISP with a fairly good amount of leased line (T1) business.. the cable side is rather small as they have agreements with a few smaller "mom and pop" type of cable companies to provide IP over coax.
Even their largest cable partner CircusService Electric is a rather small company. | |
DSL Oberst
join:2001-11-29
| reply to asdfdfdf
"That attitude is exactly why these companies should be brought under common carrier rules. This is why western societies have passed a series of laws and regulations which limit corporations and seek to protect from abuse.
We do NOT live in a society where corporations are free to do anything they want."
Mmmm. So instead, we should have a society in which the customers are free to do anything they wish to a company without regard to anything the company wants. Or at least, that is what you are inferring.
Here's the problem I have with your philosophy; you are stating that if I run a business I have to cater to you and to your philosophy no matter what my personal feelings on the subject are. Mmm, no. Hate to tell you, but in the state of Georgia companies can still refuse to service you, and will if you harass them.
This ISP is not limiting the content. They are not interfering with the content at all. What they are doing, is adhering to Contract created by their AUP in regard to servers. Nothing they are doing is illegal. Nothing they are doing is actually unethical. They're telling you that sure, you can get as much content as you like. If it's on a P2P network, you're free to download. Since the uploading for P2P violates their server policy on the AUP, they are free to stop that. After all, you knew they could when they got the service.
Welcome to logic. It is a fun and useful thing.
"Those who control the communications infrastructure should not be able to control content. The consequences for the free open nature of the internet are too severe"
1) The internet is a world-wide communications system and as such is not subject to American ideas of free speech. See China for an example.
2) The ISP in questions is not controlling content. They are controlling upload speeds. Very different.
Again, logic. Use it. | |
npyoung
join:2002-09-23
Jacksonville, OR
| reply to NOVA_Guy
I'm a wireless ISP, faced with my first client running P2P. So far, this guy has been pretty cool, keeping his stream low enough that I don't freak. I support P2P in general, dispise the RIAA and all that would enforce an outdated and dangerous one-to-many media distribution concept in a many-to-many world. However, that said, if just a few of my customers started doing this...it would be the end of my network. The entire backbone would be saturated, leaving no bandwidth for my other non-P2P customers. So, what have I done? I've gone out and installed a router/bandwidth shaper to deal with this problem. I won't shut it down, but I sure as heck will put a fence around it so it can't tear the place up anytime it feels like it. | |
Maleko
join:2002-08-29
East Stroudsburg, PA | reply to phxmark
ProLog Express, means that you are a non-commercial cable customer. It does not mean that you are "one-way" with telco return. ProLog Express is just the marketing term for their residential cable internet service. | |
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| reply to DSL Oberst
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.
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.
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.
If the phone company had the power in the first place to say "no you can't use your voice line to connect a modem or make an hour long voice call to transfer data" then we may never have had this communications revolution in the first place. Thankfully the phone company didn't and couldn't. They couldn't dictate how you used your voice line. You were a paying customer and they were obligated to carry the traffic, whether you were talking dirty to your wife, connecting to a bulletin board system, or dialing your isp. Drastic technological change happened because they weren't allowed to tell people how they could use the lines that they paid for.
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.
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. | |
borborpa
Slipping Slowly Into Oblivion
Premium
join:2002-02-20
New Cumberland, PA
clubs:
 ·Speakeasy
| reply to tsu9
If you want a precedent, look at "Cigarette Rolling Papers". I would venture to guess at least 75% of the papers purchased are for illegal activity. Joker (one of the largest paper manufacturers) just came out with "Hemp" rolling papers. Really, how many of those people are rolling tobacco in their hemp papers...?
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.
I do however, believe that if there is sufficient evidence of illegal activity happening, the ISP should be required to turn over the customer's information TO A LEGAL POLICING ORGANIZATION. That would exclude the RIAA and those folks. If they get a warrant, then I approve...
--
"Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something." - Princess Bride [AIM - BoyBandsMakeUGay] | |
|
