 |  | 
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. | |
| | | 
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| Re: Bandwith throttling poor way to deal with P2P 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. | |
| | | | 
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Bandwith throttling poor way to deal with P2P 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
| Re: Bandwith throttling poor way to deal with P2P 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?  | |
| | | | | jp10558
Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY
| 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... | |
| | | |
microserf
@cgocable.net
| 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. | |
| | | 
maartena
Nice'n Round.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| 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.... | |
| | | |
microserf
@cgocable.net
| Re: Bandwith throttling poor way to deal with P2P 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. | |
| | | | | gg5
join:2005-10-09
| Re: Bandwith throttling poor way to deal with P2P 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 | Re: Bandwith throttling poor way to deal with P2P 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
| Re: Bandwith throttling poor way to deal with P2P 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. | |
| | | | | |
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs: | Re: Bandwith throttling poor way to deal with P2P It's common sense for me.. | |
| | | | | | |
Random Radical
@151.143.x.x | Re: Bandwith throttling poor way to deal with P2P Common sense is remarkably uncommon in these litigious times. | |
| | | | | | | 
TheMadSwede
Premium
join:2001-01-30
Holland, MI
·Charter Pipeline
| 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
| Re: Bandwith throttling poor way to deal with P2P 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 | Re: Bandwith throttling poor way to deal with P2P 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | 
envoid
join:2002-12-21
Duluth, GA
1 edit | 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 | Re: Bandwith throttling poor way to deal with P2P people keep telling me that:
"Support your statements"
Why not try to prove me wrong?
Because you can not.
Damn Trolls. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
TheMadSwede
Premium
join:2001-01-30
Holland, MI | Re: Bandwith throttling poor way to deal with P2P said by packetscan :Damn Trolls. Common tactic. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
envoid
join:2002-12-21
Duluth, GA
1 edit | said by packetscan :people keep telling me that: "Support your statements" Why not try to prove me wrong? Because you can not. Damn Trolls. So, are you liable if you created a service that technically allowed copyrighted materials to be shared despite you doing everything possible to keep it from happening? This can't be too hard of a question.
Ok, to prove your mental incompetence, using your logic of making the devs liable for what others do, I hold you liable for posting on here and making me (and possibly others) irate and causing emotional distress. I'll have my attorney write up the papers and present them to you Monday so you can sign your assets over. Also, holding car mfrs liable for reckless drivers works to disprove you as well.
And before calling people Trolls you should check how long they've actually been around. I've been on DSLR 2yrs before you (2002), you only joined last year. And I'm only asking valid questions. You not wanting to answer them and making snide remarks makes you the troll. I guess you only know what you are, huh?
PS, if you really want to know what an "attack" is here's a good example: "I would love for you to come down here and proceed to tell me that to me face so I can put a bullet between your eyes as you "force" your way into my home." (**This is only an example of an "attack" (aka personal attack) and is in no way meant nor provided as a threat or otherwise.) Now, the person you accused of attacking you came nowhere close to this. Are you really that paranoid? | |
| | | | | | | | | |
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs: | Re: Bandwith throttling poor way to deal with P2P blah blah blah | |
| | | | | | | | | |
envoid
join:2002-12-21
Duluth, GA | Re: Bandwith throttling poor way to deal with P2P lol | |
| | | | | 
TOPDAWG
Premium
join:2005-04-27
Midland, ON
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| The same could be said for a car too. Without the car I could never have done that drive by last week. Not the program markers doing what people use the software for.
You may as well blame high speed internet. BT and the like can be used for many legel things. | |
| | |
TOPDAWG
Premium
join:2005-04-27
Midland, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| So by what your saying M$ should be in jail being as I use IE to surf the net and without surfing the net I could never find the torrent downloads I need to get a file.
Also rogers needs to sue themselves cause without the internet I get from them I could never download music and movies.
Hell I blame computer makers damn it without PC's this would never even be an issue. Them bastards down with them I say. | |
| 
Derch
Premium
join:2004-10-16
Tulsa, OK | Sword and the ISP This is a doubled edged sword, damned if you do or don't. I feel sorry for any ISP that comes to this decision. | |
| 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| I like this idea They are not limiting the amount of bytes you can transfer, they are just increasing the amount of time it takes to transfer those bytes. P2P has always been a bandwidth hog and it's not fair to the non-P2P users who want to be able to use VoIP, look at porn, and do other things online to have the bandwidth choked off by people keep using P2P all the time.
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! | |
| | 
toadlife
Premium
join:2004-05-03
Coalinga, CA
·AT&T Yahoo
| Re: I like this idea said by pnh102 :They are not limiting the amount of bytes you can transfer, they are just increasing the amount of time it takes to transfer those bytes. Increasing the amount of time it takes to transfer bytes limits the amount of bytes you can transfer.
--
Security is a process, not a Penquin. | |
| | Sheepish
join:2006-01-05
N2G 4 W1
| said by pnh102 :They are not limiting the amount of bytes you can transfer, they are just increasing the amount of time it takes to transfer those bytes. P2P has always been a bandwidth hog and it's not fair to the non-P2P users who want to be able to use VoIP, look at porn, and do other things online to have the bandwidth choked off by people keep using P2P all the time. hmmmm, there is a point here, but something is being badly ignored.
The simple fact that one pays for an advertised high speed, means that ones should get the advertised high speed.
If all that high speed is only useful for emailing and web surfing, then why the hell are we paying for it when basic or light cable would suffice.
Sympatico here I come. | |
| | |
RAE2
@shawcable.net
| Re: I like this idea The point, for me, is this:
I consider my ISP (Shaw) as my EMPLOYEE. I hire them and PAY them to connect me, with a PRIVATE LINE to the internet... nothing more, nothing less. I consider all the household utilities I PURCHASE as mine to do with as I please. Can you imagine the uproar if the electric company came around to make sure I didn't have anything they didn't approve of plugged in? Or the water company from monitoring what you use your water for in your house? (I remember as a kid some uproar at the front door of our house. I found out someone was collecting the fee for our BROADCAST RECEIVER'S LICENSE. My father nearly threw him down the stairs. That was the last we heard of that nonsense.)
I do NOT authorize ISPs to monitor what I do with that connection nor in any other way interfere with what I transmit or download. I do not accept they have a "right" and "obligation" to do so. If, for technical reasons, I must be limited in the AMOUNT I upload or download, then I accept those limitations as being reasonable and necessary.
That's the theory. In practice, in 2006, the "authorities" can and will do whatever they bloody well please. I just read through the several pages of psychobable legalspeak that is Shaw's Terms of Service, and in a nutshell, THEY and they alone determine what is acceptable use of their services. They flip a switch and the "offender" is disconnected. End of story. What're you going to do... switch to Sympatico? I'd bet a year's salary their Terms of Service will be no different. It's all about CONTROL of the "little people."
Anyone who thinks and feels as I do, that MY communications are MY business only, has two choices. Learn to live with the frustration that invasion of privacy is sure to generate, or, DISCONNECT from the internet and get a life.
Fighting the invasion of privacy and creeping censorship that is fact in our lives will effect NO CHANGE in this state of affairs, any more than complaining to large corporations or manufacturers about faults, flaws and non-performance of their services and products will influence them to fix the problems, provide a satisfactory remedy or even give a damn that you've been royally screwed over.
With each passing day the internet becomes less of a pleasure to encounter. Many, if not most REALLY USEFUL information sites are accessible by subscription only, or available only after you run a gamut of invasive advertising ploys to get at the tidbit you want.
The internet could be the great equalizer amongst all peoples on the planet. But this will simply not be allowed to happen. Those now in control intend to remain in control. And they have the power, money and expertise to make sure they do.
So enjoy whatever freedom you still have on the internet. It won't last much longer. | |
| 
asdjf
join:2005-01-01 | Clueless tactics They should take a step back and ask themselves if this is really what they want to do. Making your services less valuable is not a good way to do business.
--
144 145 145 172 040 156 165 164 163 | |
| | radarman
join:2005-06-01
Odenton, MD
| Re: Clueless tactics True, but if P2P downloaders are making your service less attractive to other, more moderate, users - then what do you do?
Remember, only a minority of users do more with their high speed links than check email and surf for porn - but they pay extra to do those things FAST. Probably only about 1-5% actually use their high speed links enough to be noticeable - but that minority can slow the entire network down for everyone.
Besides, I suspect most cable ISP's would love to "lose" the minority of customers who consume the most bandwidth. Traffic shaping that targets them is even better, because they still get revenue from them, while ostensibly solving the problem they pose. | |
| | |
asdjf
join:2005-01-01
·Cox HSI
·Insight Communicat..
| Re: Clueless tactics Maybe so, but the guys who use their connections the most won't just stop maxing out their connections or allow themselves to be throttled. If the network no longer works for them, they'll go elsewhere. These people are the trailblazers and the most vocal broadband users of all. Single them out and you'll see a large push for other companies to fill the gap and eventually Rogers will lose out as others follow suit to the next best service. Might be Muni Fiber/Wifi, might be BPL, or new cellular or wimax providers who move in, or maybe some kind of mesh networking set up by a few folks who have fiber. Either way, if you lower the service for your happiest and most vocal customers, you're shooting yourself in the foot.
--
144 145 145 172 040 156 165 164 163 | |
| | | yabos
join:2003-02-16
Ingersoll, ON | They're not even targeting just heavy users with this. You can use Bittorrent for anything and even if you only wanted to use it once a month you're going to find that it's junk because they're throttling it. | |
| 
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
2 edits | There's a lot of misunderstanding possible P2P Traffic shaping only affects those who blatantly trade large volumes 24/7/365.
Many P2P file traders are relatively young (college/high school) and inexperienced in regards to Network Infrastructure. They don't undertsand that Bit Torrent and E Donkey, by default, allow UNLIMITED download requests from their machine.
This unlimited download requests causes thousands and thousands of simultaneous TCP connections attempts to make it's way through the Providers backbone to the relatively small devices the user connects through. Chewing up memory and CPU of even a Big Honking Router like a Cisco 6500.
What traffic shaping does, is, if the user won't limit their incoming download requests themselves, then the traffic shaping will do it for them. Thus saving CPU and memory of their connecting router for the rest of the users that connect through it. Saving resources for all that Pr0n and gaming and VoIP and streaming audio that everyone else likes to do.
If done correctly, the ONLY ones who would notice, would be the HEAVIEST of file traders.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! | |
| |
See 11 replies to this post | |
kdwycha
join:2003-01-30
Riverview, FL | This is just..... Excess Lameness. | |
| 
justmesqui
Just-
Premium
join:2004-05-14
BH9 2RJ
| Traffic Shaping is done in the UK but its OPEN Hi there guys
my isp in the uk plustnet is a pilot i think in the uk in terms of Traffic Shaping.
they have packages for every one if you are a heavy user and want p2p and all that stuff without any Traffic Shaping you pay for that service wish the prices are the same as other isp, but you have the cheap options which only get around 20kb/s on bit torrent stuff and 2MB on http stuff.
i have no problems playing online games like counter strike source or with voip programs such as skype and voipbuster
i am in the cheap package 17.99pounds a month for 2mb Adsl.
but i signed a contract knowing it was going to suffer Traffic Shaping, they are open about it they don't try to hide it its my point and they are one of the most successfully isp in the UK at the moment, i think even more then bulldog. | |
| amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| so what quote:
"What traffic shaping does, is, if the user won't limit their incoming download requests themselves, then the traffic shaping will do it for them. Thus saving CPU and memory of their connecting router for the rest of the users that connect through it."
gheezer hit it right. sharing is one thing, but leaving your program at default of unlimited connections can really mess some things up. I can't understand leaving max everything on by default, and I do think an ISP has the obligation to their customers to help 'shape' things for them if a few connections are hogging everything. There used to be (way back...) a kind of unspoken code by which people shared connectivity 'nicely' by only allowing so many connections at a time (about 3-5 if I remember)... those days have gone it seems...
Don't get me wrong, in a perfect world, connection sold at xMbps should be able to use that 24/7 if they so choose, much like a telephone w/unlimited long distance, with zero forms of restriction.
Can't happen the way things are set up today. Dsl might work a little better since it's more 'switched' than a bus type cable setup, but the overall infrastructure isn't there yet.
Controlling the available bandwidth is one of the 'nicer' ways of doing things for now, and it'll probably get "worse" before it gets 'better' for anyone.
For now, all those mega sharers should just shut their traps and play a little more carefully.
There are still 'nice' ways of getting a good speeds out of things, you don't have to leave all those settings 'wide open' on whatever software you use. ..Then again, someone will probably find another way around all of it to use their speed at max potential again.. cat and mouse, cat and mouse, cat and mouse, cat and... packet 'shaping' - can I get a hexagon shaped packet over here please? I think that last one was an octagon, this guy needs only triangles! Quick, somebody fire up the polygonal packet shaper 2007 before this guy starts sending out tetrahedrons again! | |
| p200002
join:2001-12-26
00000 | re My question is how can I tell whether my ISP is doing traffic shaping? | |
| obladi6703
join:2002-06-25
Pearl, MS
| Suscom Does It A couple of months ago I signed up with Suscom only to discover that they slow Bit Torrent and all other p2p apps down to basically zero. I called their tech support and asked about this and they said they had "never heard of traffic shaping." I later emailed them and they told me that they block all p2p traffic (be it legit or not) and refered to an ambiguous section of their TOS.
I cancelled and switched back to Bellsouth. | |
|
TOPDAWG
Premium
join:2005-04-27
Midland, ON | It won't work forever. SO what is rogers going to do with movies are up for download on the internet and it's legal and the movie studios are doing it?
I'm on rogers now in canada and my BT works fine. | |
|
gurn4444
@cable.rogers
| rogers shaping so lets do what p2p users do best. when clients or
avenues are nuked. we find another way.
What is a way to get around this? encrypt the packets somehow? use p2p programs that aren't on the radar?
Someone smart *not me* find a way pls
Gurn | |
| | | |
|
|
From Caps to Traffic Shaping
Bandwidth throttling poor way to deal with P2P